- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I loved this one. I read the write up a couple of days ago. Hardy continues to impress me. I loved his BYU-Hawaii address a couple of years ago and now this. I keep hoping the FAIR direction continues this way. I think we need some branch of our religion helping to heal the great divide that now stands. It looks like Hardy, Mason and Isom have all made a big impression at FAIR – and, unusually, outsideof FAIR – this year. I really liked Mason’s talk, but this one (at least the summary linked to) – not so much. Quote:the Bible is what it looks like when God lets his children tell the story.
It just feels like this is putting so much water to thin out scripture to the point where it is nothing more than fiction (and a good fiction can have truths in it and teach).
As one person commented on the blog something to the effect, “Is this re-framing going to work? We will see if people are willing to go on missions to preach this.” It is a lot less compelling. Should we go preach, “Chicken Soup for the soul”? I hope that does not sound blasphemous, but for me the apologetic response for many things seems to be, “decrease the meaning until the problems are no longer problems”, then I am left with something close to meaningless (or at least drastically less meaningful).
Or am I missing something?
I get your point. Hardy took me a while to find comfort with. The toughest part about any type of apologist explanation is that we know they have never fully gone down the rabbit hole. Hardy won’t, ever. What I do like is his academic approach to holy writ in general. His BYU-Hawaii piece was a call to embrace and love other people’s scripture just like we love ours. I can get behind that. I know he doesn’t answer everything, but in the past the voices of Eugene England and other broader thinkers got shut down, I am hoping that the voices of this FAIR conference open up those alternative voices, especially for believers. If that happens then there might be room for us misfits.
I enjoyed and agreed with his article up until the next to the last paragraph. Quote:For me, I expect to see the resurrected Nephi and Moroni at the judgment bar. It matters to me that they are real individuals. At the same time, I’m not sure that God will ask, “Did you believe the right things about the Trinity, Joseph Smith, the plan of salvation, and the nature of revelation,” let alone my opinions about polygamy, same-sex marriage, blacks and the priesthood, women’s ordination, politics, or Mormon history. Rather, I believe he will say, “Were you my disciple? Did you strive to know me better? Were you constantly trying to refine your ideas and actions in light of your growing understanding? Were you fully engaged in the Church? How did you treat those with different beliefs and values? And by the way, you were wrong on a number of things you felt strongly about.”
If the particulars of Mormonism may not matter to God come judgement, how then are we different than a Episcopalian, or Baptist, or whoever. It seems he’s suggesting that if you can’t make sense of something, just put it on the shelf and don’t worry about it since it’s not that important anyway. I’ve done that and it’s kept me looking like an active member to those around me but the effect is that I don’t see the Mormon version of the gospel as anything special much less “true”. Apologetics are for believers, not for someone that can’t anymore.
I would be OK if “Were you fully engaged in the Church?” were changed to “Were you fully engaged in in doing good?” I was about to say I would prefer to have “I expect to see the resurrected Nephi and Moroni at the judgment bar. It matters to me that they are real individuals.” but when I re-read that, I was OK as he was saying, “Here is what I believe” and I can respect that – especially given the whole paragraph (minus my objection mentioned above).
GBSmith wrote:If the particulars of Mormonism may not matter to God come judgement, how then are we different than a Episcopalian, or Baptist, or whoever.
We’re becoming less different, but if we hang onto positive, core beliefs (like no one being consigned to a hell simply for being born in the wrong place and time), then we bring something valuable to the world table. I’d like to think of us all swapping beliefs around until we get it right.
Quote:It seems he’s suggesting that if you can’t make sense of something, just put it on the shelf and don’t worry about it since it’s not that important anyway. I’ve done that and it’s kept me looking like an active member to those around me but the effect is that I don’t see the Mormon version of the gospel as anything special much less “true”.
Apologetics are for believers, not for someone that can’t anymore.
Thank you! I’m a little slow. Couldn’t figure out why my blood pressure goes up when I read them. That’s why I liked Thomas Withlin McConkie’s book so much . It didn’t read like apologetics.LookingHard wrote:…for me the apologetic response for many things seems to be, “decrease the meaning until the problems are no longer problems”, then I am left with something close to meaningless (or at least drastically less meaningful).
Or am I missing something?
My view is somewhat different. I don’t see the adjustments as “decreasing meaning”, I see them as aligning with truth. If my expectations are demonstrated to be out of harmony with what can be verified, then I need to adjust them to become more compatible with what is known.
I also see space being created for personal experience, the goal is to communicate with God directly, without setting the bounds of an acceptable response before we begin to listen. If scripture is seen as a little bit more human then maybe we we can be willing to receive personal revelation without first dictating to God what an acceptable message will be.
Yes people will receive different messages. I believe that is part of the mortal experience, learning to deal with people who live on the other side of the coin. It becomes essential that God tell people different things.
Thanks Orson – that actually does help a bit. What if the gospel is a living creature in search of a habitat or home. It will stay awhile in any location that tries to make itself hospitable to the creature’s survival. But it will move on if it can’t thrive there long term. And the people in the home may still be bickering and remodeling and talking about their guest…who has left. Ann wrote:What if the gospel is a living creature in search of a habitat or home. It will stay awhile in any location that tries to make itself hospitable to the creature’s survival. But it will move on if it can’t thrive there long term. And the people in the home may still be bickering and remodeling and talking about their guest…who has left.
Ann, you actually made me look a lot like my avatar when reading this (except I am not QUITE that hairy). I read it 3 times and it is still making me think. Hmm.There was a time when I found comfort in certainty. I remember telling a friend in HS that if all beliefs were equally valid then my own beliefs would not be compelling enough to motivate me to action. Now I have a hard time with people who are certain in their own belief because it seems like a security blanket – denying a broader reality in order to find comfort and stability.
Mason said that we have placed too many things in the truth basket.
How do we collectively remove things from the truth basket that were placed there in error?
I imagine that this is one small step towards starting that process.
Roy wrote:How do we collectively remove things from the truth basket that were placed there in error?
One way is to empty the basket and start adding things back in after some deliberation and study.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.