For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. Had Newton been more of a philosopher than mathematician and physicist, he might have said “For every rule, change, or requirement, there is an opposite unintended consequence”
President Nelson has asked us to not use the word Mormon or Latter-Day Saint when referring to ourselves or the church. For the church organization, he has done more than asked, he has mandated that the name Mormon/LDS be stricken from the roles. Mormon Tabernacle is gone, and so has LDS recently from the LDS.org web site. It is now churchofjesuschrist.org. What is the untended consequence?
This post is NOT to argue the merits of emphasizing the name of Jesus in our name, as I think that is a noble goal. It is NOT to discuss if this is revelation from the Lord to our Prophet, or just his personal preference. It is only to look at one possible consequence.
2 Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.
3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.
4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.
D&C 107
Here we have an example where merely saying “Son of God” too often would show disrespect and irreverence, so the church called the priesthood after Melchizedek.
Today with the change in the URL for the church web site, churchofjesuschrist is literally going be pasted across tens of thousands of computer screens at any give moment, and used in thousands of e-mail addresses. Will this diminish the name Jesus Christ to be a mundane cyber moniker? Does this show disrespect any more so than the church saying “Son of God” when referring to the higher priesthood? What is the long term consequences? Will Jesus Christ become more important by using his name, or could the “too frequent repetition of his name” show a lack of reverence and respect and lead to a devaluation of its meaning and sanctity? Your thoughts?
Wheat & Tares 
Water, despite our best efforts to counteract, trends towards its own course of flow. Will the general public suddenly, or even eventually, start using our nomenclature? Doubtful. I suspect the issues you have addressed are true. And, Mormons will still be members of the Mormon Church…
I have had that same thought. I know that among LDS there is a dislike of other Christian sects that use the word “Jesus” frequently, but now the LDS church will be using it much more often. It will be interesting to watch over the years.
Happy Hubby got to my comment first. Other denominations are much more accustomed to using the words “God” and “Jesus”. Members of even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints can sometimes be uncomfortable with the frequent use of God by other churches. Perhaps this is a move to the mainstream.
Okay, the name of the Church is not biblically “correct.” Talk about mistranslations…
In the Hebrew, “His” name was Yeshua. In essence “Joshua.” It was a common Hebrew name. How we in English pronounce Jesus’ name He never heard spoken. The Greek translation from the Hebrew was then translated in English and behold we have “Jesus.”
So, maybe to be truly authentic we need to make more modifications. Or admit this is much angst about nothing.
Bishop Bill,
I do think that this is a serious consideration, as the too-frequent repetition of anything has a tendency to deprecate its meaning. But at the other extreme, holding a name too sacred makes it taboo, and in the case of our Savior, might distance ourselves from Him. I don’t know what the answer is to that issue, except to re-evaluate and recalibrate at some point down the road.
Garee,
I think if you look at news articles from the last year and compare them to the year before, you’ll notice a distinct difference in how serious journalists talk about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members. I’ve noticed a significant shift in how other Latter-day Saints refers to the Church and themselves. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that this also translates into a shift in how members of the Church see the relationship between themselves, others, and Christ.
I also don’t think that a pedantic argument regarding how we transliterate the name of Jesus contributes much to the discussion. If I’m talking about Simon, Peter, or Cephas, the letters I use and the syllables I form are hardly relevant if the listener understands that I’m talking about the first chief Apostle. President Nelson’s message is not about making proper incantations, but about shifting our focus.
(As a side note, what is the value of angst about angst about nothing? [And I fully understand that this comment adds yet another layer of angst upon angst.])
Dsc, loved your brackets within parentheses as you talked about adding a layer of angst! I believe there may be some chiasmus in your comment!
Dsc, can you post some examples? I’m very skeptical of such a claim.
A member of my ward (a relatively high-ranking CES type) passed along a rumor that when your concern was brought to the attention of the brethren, they dismissed it on the grounds that in today’s environment there is little risk of “too frequent repetition,” but a significant risk of too infrequent repetition.
I don’t buy the explanation, because so many fixes don’t actually incorporate “Jesus”. But, whatever. As long as we don’t have to refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood by its proper name on the same grounds.
True, with the caveat that I doubt if the church of Peter’s day cared much whether he was called Cephas, Simon, the Rock, member of The Way, or “hey, you.”
Not a Cougar,
Go through almost all of the Salt Lake Tribune coverage of the Church in the last few months. The AP also changed its own style guide, so AP stories largely have dropped the term “Mormon”. Here are just a few examples:
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/04/13/four-latter-day-saints/
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/03/20/mormon-missionaries/
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/04/709999383/lds-church-rolls-back-policy-that-restricted-baptizing-children-of-gay-parents
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/pope-meets-with-mormon-leadership-in-rome-to-dedicate-temple/%3famp=1
Garee,
That’s all we’ll and good, but all of those things still refer to Peter. The issue now isn’t whether we say Christ, Messiah, Savior, Son of God, or some other reference. The issue is a nickname that has left people incorrectly believing that Latter-day Saints don’t believe in Jesus.
Is there any point putting the Saviours name into the church’s name if we then do un christlike things such as discriminate against women and gays, and also referring to the vast majority of gods children as the wicked world. So many of the world are good people, at least as good as us, and yet so many references in conferences to them as wicked. Where is this coming from and who gave us the right? Would Christ refer to 7.5 billion of his children as wicked, because they are not LDS. Obviously there are some who are wicked but most are not.
Robert Lucas won the Nobel prize in economics partly because of the “Lucas Critique” which explains that many policies fail because they rely too much on historical data and not enough on complex, deep, behavioral parameters. Perhaps it’s an academic version of explaining “unintended consequences.
For my part, I think Mormons will be acceptable again a few years after Pres. Nelson passes away, much like the word “pride” was a bad word during Pres Benson’s tenure.
GEOFF -AUS asks “Is there any point putting the Saviours name into the church’s name…”
Presumably. You are free to remove it in your own usage if that is more to your liking. I may do likewise simply because “lds.org” is quick and easy and I’m not sure I would succeed to type in a long URL on my smartphone, or how often I would try.
The Internet stole our ability to control the narrative about Mormonism, taking off in the late 1990’s. We have a colorful history to put it nicely. We have been sugar-coating it pretty much from the beginning. We have squirreled away evidence in the archives. We have told a variety of lies when necessary. We have become expert in the slippery business of PR, President Hinckley being a remarkable and unmatched pinnacle.
The internet amplified the so-called faith crisis (really a truth crisis , depending on your faith).A tolerable trickle of apostates turned into a frightening hemorrhage. Conversion and retention of new converts plummeted.
What happens when you google Jesus Christ? Depends on your computer. In my case LDS friendly websites pop up because google knows I frequent LDS sites. When my non-LDS friend does the same, nothing pops up about us. Nothing..
What happens when you google Mormon? Well, its a mixed bag- but the most aggressively critical sites are on the first page on my computer and my friend’s computer. Eliminating an association with the word Mormon neutralizes much of the most critical websites. Can anyone think of an anti-Mormon website without the word Mormon in its title?
One huge advantage the LDS church has in this internet war of ideas is sustainability. Apostates are angry and motivated when they first pull off the rose tinged glasses of belief or rather put on their new dark-crystal glasses of disbelief. But after a few months or years, most move on with their post-Mormonism journey in life. Their websites are neglected. Rare are the Jerry and Sandra Tanner types who have been beating the anti-Mormon drums from their youth into now, her 9th decade of life.
The Internet appears to usher in a new age of hyper-access to information. But simultaneously, it is leading a descent into the digital dark ages when we will have the illusion of being informed but will actually be isolated into a complex matrix of small echo chambers. Even now, all I have to do to be tuned out 100% in a church meeting or moderated off a LDS church friendly website a is mention the forbidden word Mormon. Everyone immediately concludes I am not following the prophet and must be ignored.
Consideration of the strategy followed in very court case begins with the rules of evidence. Cases are won or lost by what is allowed to be presented to the jury and what is not. The Internet is the same. The elimination of Mormon from our lexicon is a clever 21st century effort to exclude from digital discourse most of the critical evidence against us. At the minimum it protects the faithful, tithe-payers in the bubble. This is a new variation of what we have always done. Parallel to what Brigham Young did in response to the Mountain Meadows massacre. Hide, obfuscate, lie and ignore our history, Control the narrative. Ask our questions and give our answers.
Same idea can be applied to the other thread on WT about Brother Turley and that authorless, adolescent, historical fiction masterpiece of propaganda,:Saints:.A Standard of Truth. A tedious story told on the 7th grade level and swamped in footnotes. Yet it distorts and ignores most major issues. Lies by omission. This is the new conception of truth in the yet again re-restored gospel of Jesus Christ, according to Joseph Smith and his modern day prophet successors.
Geoff,
First, I think your characterization of the Church referring to the majority of people in the world as wicked mischaracterizes Church teachings. Second, I should remind you of some things Jesus said or did:
“Woe unto the world because of offences!”
“And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word, And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.”
“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.”
[Weeping for the entire city of Jerusalem for its wickedness].
“there is little risk of “too frequent repetition,” but a significant risk of too infrequent repetition.”
Does this mean the occasional acknowledgment of Heavenly Mother by the church is in order?
Alice is hitting the point I was just thinking. We are talking out of both sides of our mouth. The fact is that they WANT to acknowledge Jesus, but they don’t want to acknowledge Heavenly Mother (which others might consider weird or heretical, except women who find Her comforting). They want to bolster their own authority, but not to undermine it by acknowledging that women can achieve godhood (which the temple changes still neatly skirt). They court the favor of Evangelicals because they are their political allies. That’s a cynical view of why HM is still hidden with the ridiculously weak justification that we are somehow protecting Her.
The Other Mike writes “… mention the forbidden word Mormon. Everyone immediately concludes I am not following the prophet and must be ignored.”
There may be a bit more to it. 😉
I am with Alice and Angela 100%. For a Church that puts eternal family, eternal marriage and the sacred roles of mothers and fathers at the core of it’s theology, how can there be no God couple role model for us? Where is the Mother? This is so inconsistent – if any church should be enlightened on this topic, it should be the CoJCoLDS. But alas, we remain a priesthoodly patriarchy.
All humankind is being raised on a single parent earth, according to to our theology. Not even that, since all of our scripture and revelation is from Jesus, our older brother, we mostly worship our Eternal Babysitter.
A lot of sense our theology makes.
Michael 2, Touche
It is hard to follow the prophet when he is following me.
Two examples:
1. I realized home teaching was deeply flawed the first time I was an EQP in the 1980’s. I repented of home teaching and have been trying to do something like ministering since then. I have been persecuted and ridiculed by ward leaders severely for decades, Suddenly I’m right. Still waiting breathlessly for an apology.
2. A member of the bishopric who imagines himself an expert on the apostasy of the first century invited my wife and I over for a discussion. He tried to set her straight on the trinity. But she pointed out there was stronger descriptions in the Book of Mormon of the trinity than in any first century writings. This wandered around to me convincing his wife that the then new policy on restriction of baptism of gay children was wrong and needed to change. (Thankfully it did).
I’m not right on every point but I am not dogmatic about it either and I don’t have anyone sustaining me as a prophet. Quite the contrary.
I expect the prophet to do better.
Dsc:
One thing I realize is that you and I start with different basic assumptions and this makes disagreement inevitable. For example, you probably never consider the idea that when Jesus points out flaws of the church leaders of his day (the Pharisees), that that has anything to do with our LDS church leaders of today. The quote you cited above: ” And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful” could never be descriptive of Joseph Smith in your mind. Never! Nothing to do with the Kirtland banking fraud, plural marriage, lying about the translation (cough) of the Book of Abraham, etc. Many evangelical ministers would see that quote as accurately describing Joseph Smith. And if being hated of the world is a marker of discipleship of Christ, we sure put a ton of money into keeping a squeaky clean image with our massive PR effort. I find your warning to apply to yourself more than to me. And you probably think the same about me.
Eugene:
Jesus our Eternal Babysitter! God infants forever. Brilliant.
Exactly what my evangelical wife and her friends at her church believe we think. And by the way Dsc,(4/14 at 11:21) the reason people think we are not Christian has nothing to do with our Mormon name. Nobody knows or cares about its origin. I’ve attended hundreds of their services in the last 20 years. Everyone knows Lutherans, Wesleyans, Mennonites, Baptists, Episcopalians, Catholics, Methodists, Quakers, Amish etc are all Christians because they center their worship and teachings on Christ, as they understand Him. The reason they think we are not is because too many of them have attended our meetings which were anything but Christ-centered. Which were prophet centered and “church is true” centered. Not to mention the haughty, self-righteous way too many of us act in public. Yet another false basic assumption we do not share.
Even our temple ceremony has Christ as errand boy and the final sermon by the devil is illuminating. God commands Lucifer to depart. Does he go? No, he
defies the Almighty who lets him and powerfully delivers a false message we almost all believe. If you do not remain true and faithful to every one of these covenants, you will be in my power, he boasts. Yet not one of us keeps every one of these covenants contained in the scriptures. All sin and fall short and Lucifer claims us all as his own. Does God correct this false diabolical teaching? Nope.
Any thinking Christian who listens to that dialogue is going to see it as lacking in acceptance of our ongoing sinful state and the constant need for repentance and forgiveness through the Atonement, and a religious life centered on Christ above the law. We claim to believe all of this but we fail to see that is not the message taught in this portion of the temple ceremony. It is the message of not-even-once or else to-hell-with-you.
A lot of sense our theology makes.
Mike,
I’m not sure why you are responding to me as though I was talking directly to you. I generally don’t read what you write, as it is typically non-falsifiable opinion that mischaracterizes the Church and other commenters’ comments. I wouldn’t have noticed in this case had I not seen my handle in your post.
Hey, Mike,
As the devil/Satan “was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” John 8:44
As the writers of the temple script were more biblically literate than many LDS now are, it has seemed to me that the threat “If you do not remain true and faithful to every one of these covenants, you will be in my power” was simply another lie that should be recognized as such. Do “we almost all believe” it? It would seem from behaviors that we do not. I may have other issues with some words in the temple skit, but that message from Satan is not, to my mind, what is taught there. Perhaps there are too many who fail to consider the source; I haven’t done any surveys on the subject.
But, anyway, thanks for the entertainment.
Of course, we ought to recognize that “Melchizedek Priesthood” is an anachronism, a modern term that never existed before the 1830s. Priesthood as an abstract principle meaning “authority” did not exist in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. Priesthood was either the condition of being a priest (like parenthood is the condition of being a parent) or the body of priests (like a neighborhood is a body of neighbors). This calls into question the account in D&C 107, a document that was revised significantly in 1835 to bring two earlier revelations into line with 1835 concepts regarding priesthood. History is such a messy thing, and if we look at the history of the name of the Church, it is every bit as messy as the history of the meaning of “priesthood,”
JR
In my experience everyone believed it, including me. It was a real threat- like my mother gave me. If you are not home by midnight, I will tan your hide. Some moms- it was an idle threat, My Scottish mom kept a willow stick within easy reach and used it as often as occasion required. I was convinced if I broke my covenants the Lord would abandon me and I would be turned over to the buffetings of Satan, who was certainly more capable of punishing me than my sweet mother and her switch.
This turns into an opinion survey and depending upon how it was written, I suspect a large portion of temple patrons take Satan literally at his word and do not recognize this as a lie. I am pleased you do. It is the most memorable and least boring line in the whole drama. Maybe it is a generational thing and the snowflake generation doesn’t believe Satan is any more vicious than the tooth fairy or their kitty cat moms.
I find it hilarious how people who are incapable of accepting that there might be some aspects of the temple (or any other aspect of Mormonism) that are not good; in spite of numerous changes, omissions and additions, to suddenly change what the troubling aspect means to them when confronted with solid evidence. As if it was always so.
You do dodge the real question. Is the temple ceremony centered on Christ? Is the answer obvious to the majority of, not just Mormons , but practicing Christians across the ecclesiastical smorgasboard? Is the answer as clear as the answer to these questions: The Norte Dame cathedral in Paris, is it a Christian sanctuary of worship? Is this a sad day for Christians around the world? Or should we rejoice over the destruction by fire of this grand spiritual brothel with Bruce R Mckonkie who said and wrote that the Catholic church is the great and abominable whore of all the earth described in the Book of Revelations?
You give yourself away with “…as the writers of the temple script…” Wasn’t that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young? Or have we forgotten that most of us believe or believed it was the Lord himself who composed it? Is the Lord one of these authors more Biblically literate than many LDS now? No. That implies to me men familiar with the Bible wrote it, not God Himself. I have gotten into trouble in church meetings saying that Joseph Smith wrote part of the temple ceremony or the Book of Mormon.
Can’t have it both ways. Either it can’t be questioned because it is the very literal word of the Lord. Or it is the word of a Prophet who lied about a whole lot of things and should be questioned thoroughly.
Keep laughing with or at me. I’m not to be taken too seriously.
No, Mike, I am no artful dodger. I addressed what interested me in addressing in this forum.
It seems impossible to maintain a belief in Joseph (or Brigham) as God’s stenographer except in ignorance of history. Even Joseph didn’t seem to believe that; among other things, he made a good number of post-publication changes to written revelations. But I’m not getting into a discussion here of the nature of revelation and the extent of human perception, language, interpretation, or whatever in written or verbally repeated revelations. Your proposed dichotomy — God’s dictation or a liar’s fabrication — is a false dichotomy, but you knew that.
But note as to temple covenants — we teach and believe in repentance relative, e.g., to the law of chastity; the Church does not treat such sinners as simply turned over to the buffetings of Satan. And, heavens, President Hinckley is reported to have laughed loudly and probably not in fear of the buffetings of Satan for doing so. We don’t even suggest confession to the bishop for that one. At the very least, it never made any sense to think being in Satan’s power meant one was not at least also in Jesus’ power. I always thought the doctrine clear that Jesus’ power was the greater. I think maybe your mama scared you, but one doesn’t need to reduce Satan to the tooth fairy to think anything I’ve expressed in these comments.
BTW, while I’m repeating stuff second hand, one of BRM’s relatives reportedly likes saying “Uncle Bruce! Often wrong, but never in doubt!”
Keep laughing. It’s healthy.
JR notes of Lucifer’s pronouncement “If you do not remain true and faithful to every one of these covenants, you will be in my power” was simply another lie.”
I had noticed that as well. My response was basically to ignore anything said by Lucifer. It won’t ALWAYS be a lie because that itself can reveal truth. Lucifer is the deceiver and excels, presumably, by telling a truth when you expect a lie, and a lie when you expect the truth.
The Scandinavian equivalent is Loki, the Trickster. Christianity paints Lucifer as more evil than Loki but what they have in common is a power of deception and neither should ever be trusted (goes for narcissists as well).
He may tell 99 truths and once you trust that source, WHAM, along comes the big lie; the important one and in my opinion that big lie will be something like “you are worthless” and close by it is “there is no God” (yet there is me!)
I remind myself of the saying, “the worth of souls is great”.
(The Other) Mike suggests ” Or it is the word of a Prophet who lied about a whole lot of things and should be questioned thoroughly.”
I hope its not that! He’s dead and you cannot really question words.
“I find it hilarious how people who are incapable of accepting that there might be some aspects of the temple (or any other aspect of Mormonism) that are not good”
Things are never good or bad of themselves. It’s just a thing. You decide for yourself whether a thing is good or bad.
“Is the temple ceremony centered on Christ?”
It appears to be centered on God and appears to me to be a dramatization of the book of Genesis.
“I have gotten into trouble in church meetings saying that Joseph Smith wrote part of the temple ceremony or the Book of Mormon.”
Maybe, but I think he usually had assistance of a scribe.
“Can’t have it both ways.”
I can have it as many ways as I want. 🙂
Here’s how that works. Schroedinger’s Cat (look it up) was both alive and dead while being shipped in a box. On opening the box the uncertainty vanishes and you finally know which it is, but until you know which it is, it is BOTH (in that view of things).
Therefore, there is AND there is not a God, there is and there is not a redeemer, Joseph Smith was, and wasn’t, a prophet; the Book of Mormon is, and isn’t, (or contains) words of God; I am here and I am not here.
Pursue each path. When you die one of these paths will turn out to be a dead end. But at least you will have followed one of the paths with a future.
Since the “there isn’t a God” path is rather short I don’t give that one much attention. If I live a more-or-less Christian life, and it turns out there is no God (and no everything else that depends on there being a God), what have I lost? Nothing, for I am nothing; just chemicals that imagines its own significance.
But if there’s a God, and not just any God but the Mormon God, then the path is long and interesting or at least more interesting than the imagined purposes of life held by an atheist. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow pffft! Gone. For me it is eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow I’ll do it again, even if it is the next life. But I don’t want to do it alone so I share the eat drink and be merry.
JR:
It is a false dicotomy I did not create. But one that was taught to me by the believers in Mormon orthodoxy.
I agree with you that Christ is more powerful than Satan. Even as a missionary, once we were huddled in a church as a zone of 16 missionaries during a typhoon. The ZL’s claimed that the spirits of demons were swirling around the outside of the church like witches on brooms or something like that. He ws trying to scare some of us and succeeding. I went out into the storm and challenged the demons to attack me. The ZLs were astonished and then concluded that I must be one of the demons. I could remember a passage in scripture then where Christ was accused of the same thing and quoted it to them. Not helpful.
BRM-yes. Exactly. At least he has admitted to being wrong , once.
MIchael 2 (second post above)
Where do I begin.
The verb “question”.
One meaning is to engage in a discussion inquiring each other about the ideas which generally implies 2 or more people, who would have to alive. Except we have many special cases in our mythos of dead people speaking to us, the Angel Moroni comes to mind and even beyond discussion, we have John the Baptist conferring priesthood keys, something supposedly quite beyond talk. And golden plates. So I could summon the spirit of Joseph Smith from beyond the veil and question him. Not sure anyone is going to believe it even if it actually happened.
But the other meaning of question is to consider within your mind, the ideas of a person, either dead or alive, and question whether they seem valid or not. If you are not doing this on a regular basis, then I question your education or your critical thinking skills, which are neither alive or dead. Double fail on the snide crack about question. But funny.
My son, the theoretical physicist, knows people who knew Dr Schrodinger and it is widely known that Dr S. regrets ever mentioning “that damn cat.” It is a terrible metaphor that doesn’t work and is frequently quoted by lay nitwits (like myself) to support false arguments. Ask my son how many times I have been an ass in a discussion with him trotting out the cat, just to irritate him (because he knows I know better). You’re giving me my own bromide and I won’t swallow it. The idea this cat analogy attempts to describe is only observed at the micro-microscopic world at the quantum level. Physics most certainly doesn’t work that way in classical settings which would include about 99% of engineering, the practical application of physical principles to daily problems and projects.Why use it in religion and philosophy?
Temple is God centered as an answer to whether it is Christ centered? Is that all you can muster? You prove my point. This from a person whom I presume does not believe in the trinity. It is a rather important leap from believe in God and an understanding of the simple gospel message of Christ. We are sinners, we must repent, believe and accept his sacrifice for us, freely given. There are dozens of flavors of this message and many contradict each other. But just talking about God is not one of them. Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, or Yoruba are about God and clearly not Christ-centered.
I find it amazing how quickly you revert to moral relativism. I would submit there are many things that are clearly good, many more things that are clearly bad and that there are things in between for various reasons extending into other dimensions, not excluding my own ignorance. We don’t have to wait until death to figure out all of them. We should try, else usher in the dark ages again.
I am here and I am not here. WTH??? You ask me to believe a keyboard somewhere is typing your words and you are not typing them? If someone punches you in the nose while typing, are they immune from prosecution for assault and battery? Because there is plausible deniability that you were even here or there? Call the Innocence Project and let them begin clearing out our prisons. Are you joking?
What you spout is a bunch of post-modern nonsense to support orthodox but now questionable Mormon ideas.Part of me hopes you are just kidding and laughing because it cracks me up.
If not, since you want to give people reading assignments, I give you one. Easy read, shorter than my diatribe here.
https://quillette.com/2019/04/15/has-the-postmodern-revolution-come-full-circle/
*****
And another. Carl Sagan wrote many books with excellent descriptions of astronomy for lay people and some cracks hostile to religious ideas. His last book is worth a look. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. He rags on religion for many chapters. What I take from that is examples of how we have failed as religions and could do better, usually with not much additional effort.
But the most valuable chapter is called, the baloney detection kit. Originally said to be called among friends as the Bullshit detection kit. Herein is a short, powerful list of common, valid features of thinking scientifically and about 20 common logical flaws employed frequently, not just by religionists.
My son the physicist reached a point, about at the age of 20, where he refused to discuss anything with me until I read that chapter and now he frequently calls me out. I am making progress and have eliminated about 50% of the logical flaws in my thinking. I would like to teach a Sunday school course lasting about 3-6 months using that chapter as a spring board..
*****
Your last 2 paragraphs describe a paradox that is often discussed in philosophy of religion classes and has a name (Sorry, I can’t recall) describing that point of view. The analogy is flawed since belief usually requires some action and when you are doing one thing you often can’t be doing another logically contradictory thing simultaneously. For example, you can’t be true and faithful to your wife and at the same time be having affairs with every lovely who is nearby and willing. You reap a benefit and pay a cost with either choice. ( But then that doesn’t always work either if all the lovelies nearby are unwilling unless married to their partner, such as in my case). Belief has a cost.