- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have been intrigued by this term since I heard Todd Compton use it to describe his faith in the Mormonstories podcast. Recently someone pointed out in Compton’s book he references a quote from Richard Bushman about a “non-absolutist” form of belief (ISL p.629) which points me to Bushman as the earliest source (as far as I can tell) dated 1984. The origins don’t really matter, it’s the definition that has my interest. I’m curious of other thoughts (looking for your comments) but to me the term speaks of the level of man’s influence in scripture or revelation. In my mind an “absolutist” belief in the extreme would say scripture and prophetic words are 100% inspired of God and are not tainted by the imperfect knowledge of man (thus any misunderstandings are due to our inability to understand or interpret God’s perfect words). Obviously the other end of the spectrum, at 0% rests the atheistic view that there is no God thus no revelation or inspiration so obviously all words come from naturalistic or human sources. I’m not sure where I fall on the spectrum, I think humans in their natural state can be inspired even though I have no clue to the nature of that source. The part I’m intrigued about is how this spectrum of belief exists in the church. Some members may be down in the “small” percentages, thinking the source of most of the direction we hear is human wisdom. What is interesting to me is how the “greater than human” source, however small, becomes golden or immensely valuable. It may only be 1 or 2 percent, but that it does exist to any degree is what defines “faith” – at least to me. I have had discussions with members that are much more absolutist in their views and I’ve tried to illustrate this point by saying “the only difference between us is where we draw the line between what originates with God and what originates with man.” I believe almost everyone draws that line somewhere, meaning they do see evidence of “man” in the church.
What do you think? How would you define “absolutist” vs. “non-absolutist” belief or faith?
I draw the distinction as a combination of two things. I will try to be succinct, but knowing me . . . There are those who believe that everyone can “know” everything completely. There are others who believe that nobody can “know” anything at all. The range, therefore, involves two variables: the percentage of people who can know and the number of things they can know.
My own take is that all of us “see through a glass, darkly”, so the default is not to be able to know most complex things (hence, the need for faith), but also that some people are blessed with the gift to know certain things and others are not.
I don’t remember where I’ve shared this previously, but I use Laman and Lemuel as an example of this concept. Nephi was one to whom was given the gift to know, while, if we take them at their word, the other three brothers (including Sam) were not. Sam had to rely on believing Nephi, so we might say he was given the gift to believe on those who know. Laman and Lemuel, otoh, said, “God maketh no such things known unto us.” Nephi saw that as a result of their hard-heartedness and wickedness, but perhaps they (like Sam) simply were not given the gift to know. Maybe God really didn’t make such things known unto them. Maybe if Nephi hadn’t been his father’s favorite and, perhaps, an obnoxious, buttheaded, preachy little brother (and Lehi an overbearing, preachy father) they might have been able to react like Sam – and believe on those who know. As was, perhaps it wasn’t wickedness that kept them from hearing God’s voice; perhaps they simply weren’t wired that way. Perhaps Nephi’s apparent insistence that they could “know” kept them from being able to exercise the “faith” they might have been able to exercise otherwise.
That’s all speculation, but I think it’s interesting to consider how Lehi’s family might be an excellent morality play regarding expectations and dissonance – and the question about absolutism.
I think absolutist faith is when people get wrapped up in polemic arguments like this: either it’s all true or it’s all a fraud. Either you’re for the church or you’re against it. Here’s a BOM source that I always think seems very absolutist (2 Ne 2:11-16): 11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.
15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.
16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.
The layout of the logic here is very black and white. Either you’re enticed to action by God or by Satan. Either people are angels or devils. It also implies (but doesn’t state) that if you are righteous, you’ll be holy, good, happy and have sense, but if you’re wicked you’ll be in misery, be bad, incorrupt, miserable (again) and insensible. The logic is pretty circuitous that takes it from these concepts to proof of God. But this is an example of that kind of polemic logic.
I just see life as having more shades of gray. The righteous are not always happy (right now). The wicked are sometimes happy. And being righteous doesn’t mean you have more sense than others.
Thanks Ray & Hawkgrrrl. I agree with the all-or-nothing or black/white thinking as absolutist. Thanks for that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.