- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
After listening to, yet another, secular knowledge diatribe by Dallin Oakes I have to speak my mind. The level of frustration I have over this topic is beyond explanation. Church leaders have repeatedly demonstrated that their knowledge isn’t necessarily “the truth,” and “Secular” knowledge has spread further light on the subject. As examples prohibition of the priesthood to people of African descent, and calling all Native Americans Lamanites has been a huge revelation to church leaders that their “inspiration” was not so inspired. I honestly have greater respect for people like Galileo, Copernicus, and Martin Luther.
I would love to send them a letter, but that is discouraged, so this is my sounding board. Guess what? The methodology to discover truth identified by “secular” methods is the actual way to find truth, because what is taught by our church leaders is rarely inspired, it’s “their belief,” and God unfortunately is rarely involved.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I share your frustration. I usually eye roll and think they are doing their thing where they say their thing from their point of view but you just take it with a grain of salt and say to yourself….”I simply disagree.”
I usually feel the same also when they talk about the evil world…when all I can think is how much better life is for us now that 100 years, 200 years, 2000 years…. simply…we have progressed. We should not pretend the evil outweighs the good.
But they are telling stories…they preach.
I would say science has it’s limitations too…and in the religious speakers are in their realm focusing in feelings and spiritual lessons, not literal truths. So, I get what they are saying and I have to ignore them at times, but sometimes it just a bit much to me also and I just can’t respect things they say with superlatives. They lose credibility to me when they talk about it in shallow ways.
Have you ever read Bennion’s book….”Religion and the Pursuit of Truth”?
I share your frustration as well, and tuned Oaks out fairly soon after he started because it was obvious where he was going. Actually I think the whole afternoon session except Uchtdorf beat the strict obedience and follow the prophet drum. I had to walk out of the room more than once. I’m currently reading Terryl Givens’ People of Paradox. This whole idea of the glory of God being intelligence yet there’s clear opposition to intellectuals is one of the major paradoxes. It’s been an interesting read (if you like to read intellectual stuff
I feel the same. Think of what life would be like, if everyone accepted everything that was taught as religious doctrine? We’d still blame evil spirits for disease, hold to the “divine right” of kings, believe that certain races and heritages are superior to others… What’s worse, are many of the truths taught us by secular knowledge are directly opposed by religious authority, and cause many people to error, like with the age of the earth or biological evolution. The difference between science and religion, is that science rejoices when they are proven wrong. Science seeks to be proven wrong, so that our light and knowledge can be expanded.
I will at some point formally introduce myself. For now I just wonder about Oaks and his preaching against worldly knowledge and alternate voices and whether his refrain in this direction is some kind of penance for being on the board of Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought (might have the name wrong) back in the 60’s. It seems to be a topic he comes back to often. .
Codependent wrote:
I will at some point formally introduce myself. For now I just wonder about Oaks and his preaching against worldly knowledge and alternate voices and whether his refrain in this direction is some kind of penance for being on the board of Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought (might have the name wrong) back in the 60’s. It seems to be a topic he comes back to often..
I don’t know. In his book
People of ParadoxGivens discusses this particular paradox at length and includes specific individuals on one side or the other. He does mention Oaks and his involvement with Dialogueand he mentions reforms Oaks made at BYU. At that point Oaks was one of the “good guys.” But that is an embodiment of the paradox itself – the president of a university and former lawyer and judge has something against intellectualism? How the heck can that even be? Hence, we are a people of paradox. I suppose I had never looked at his beating this drum as penance. It is possible. But he also came into the Q12 at a time when it was filled with ultra-conservatives (according to Givens as the result of J. Reuben Clark’s efforts). He and a few others (including Nelson and Ballard) are the remnants of that era.
I love secular knowledge and religious faith. Both/and, not either/or.
Old Timer wrote:
I love secular knowledge and religious faith.Both/and, not either/or.
And I think that’s the issue being discussed here Curt. You and I can comprehend and embrace the both/and – but it sounds like Elder Oaks was talking either/or. This is only my perception, but I think in the church, at least among the orthodox, there’s far more either/or than both/and. However, among our younger generations there are far more both/ands. Talks like this one by Oaks only seem to alienate those people more than they already seem to feel alienated.
Yep. I get that. Mine was a very shorthand attempt to say what you said. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
Heber13 wrote:I share your frustration.
I usually eye roll and think they are doing their thing where they say their thing from their point of view but you just take it with a grain of salt and say to yourself….”I simply disagree.”
I usually feel the same also when they talk about the evil world…when all I can think is how much better life is for us now that 100 years, 200 years, 2000 years…. simply…we have progressed. We should not pretend the evil outweighs the good.
But they are telling stories…they preach.
I would say science has it’s limitations too…and in the religious speakers are in their realm focusing in feelings and spiritual lessons, not literal truths. So, I get what they are saying and I have to ignore them at times, but sometimes it just a bit much to me also and I just can’t respect things they say with superlatives. They lose credibility to me when they talk about it in shallow ways.
Have you ever read Bennion’s book….”Religion and the Pursuit of Truth”?
Have you ever heard of the work of Robert Lifton? He was a psychologist who embarked on an amazing journey. He interviewed people who had been imprisoned by the communists in China after they took over. He interviewed them upon release, usually to Hong Kong.
From his work he defined what a cult is. His definition burrows deal into my soul.
1.) Cults control information.
2.) Cult Leaders are chosen by God and considered infallible.
3.) Cults demand purity
4.) Cults demand confession of imagined sins.
5.)Cult doctrines are inflexible.
6.) Cults Load the language
7.) Cult doctrine trumps experience
8.) Cult doctrine trumps existence
I listen to these talks and I try and qualify what I see, what I experience, and what is revealed to me through the exploration of truth and I feel ignored.
BTW his book is called “Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism.”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Old Timer wrote:Yep. I get that. Mine was a very shorthand attempt to say what you said.
Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
You’re good.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dkormond wrote:
After listening to, yet another, secular knowledge diatribe by Dallin Oakes I have to speak my mind. The level of frustration I have over this topic is beyond explanation.Church leaders have repeatedly demonstrated that their knowledge isn’t necessarily “the truth,” and “Secular” knowledge has spread further light on the subject. As examples prohibition of the priesthood to people of African descent, and calling all Native Americans Lamanites has been a huge revelation to church leaders that their “inspiration” was not so inspired. I honestly have greater respect for people like Galileo, Copernicus, and Martin Luther.
I would love to send them a letter, but that is discouraged, so this is my sounding board. Guess what? The methodology to discover truth identified by “secular” methods is the actual way to find truth, because what is taught by our church leaders is rarely inspired, it’s “their belief,” and God unfortunately is rarely involved.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is my take on it — when secular knowledge harmonizes with their opinions, or current doctrine, then it’s an example of how how study and faith complement each other. When secular knowledge conflicts with their opinions, we have to be concerned about relying on the teachings of men rather than the inspired word — using the term inspired loosely. As we have seen, it’s not always inspired!!
Heber13 wrote:
I usually feel the same also when they talk about the evil world…when all I can think is how much better life is for us now that 100 years, 200 years, 2000 years…. simply…we have progressed. We should not pretend the evil outweighs the good.
But it does in many ways. We could not wipe ourselves out a century ago – at least not so quickly. We can carry out atrocities on an industrial scale that the conquistadors would have marveled at. We also have insane pollution visible all over the place, even within the bays of the Antarctic and at the bottom of the oceanic trenches.
Our societies is rapidly degenerating into dictatorship and surveillance. You can’t go to most places now without being tracked or watched. Soon we won’t even be able to spend money or post on the internet unless we are pre-approved by the authorities who will cut that off as soon as they get the chance.
When I look at the future, I fear for our children. Depression and loneliness are going through the roof. They or their children may enter a future where there are no jobs because the machines do them and no safety net for the unemployed.
We’re still warring and massacring each other. Burma is one of the most recent examples. Within the recent past, Cambodia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Rwanda, the “disappeared” of Latin America…
Quote:Have you ever read Bennion’s book….”Religion and the Pursuit of Truth”?
I did! Lowell Bennion has a number of books with similar themes. I believe he was teaching institute classes at the time (60’s or 70’s) and his books seem geared towards young people leaving their parents homes and discovering in University information that contradicts their earlier religious understandings.
Bro. Bennion advises a degree of compartmentailisation and an effort to stay well rounded. Religion can be like music or art – he argues. Science has it’s truths and science can provide many useful methods for descirbing and deconstructing a masterpiece – but at the core, a masterpiece is a masterpiece because of how it is felt by the human heart. So learn and become successful in secular pursuits but do not allow that portion of your life to completely smother the more spiritual side of art, music, and religion. Those too are needed for a “balanced” and well rounded life.
Dkormond wrote:
From his work he defined what a cult is. His definition burrows deal into my soul.1.) Cults control information.
2.) Cult Leaders are chosen by God and considered infallible.
3.) Cults demand purity
4.) Cults demand confession of imagined sins.
5.)Cult doctrines are inflexible.
6.) Cults Load the language
7.) Cult doctrine trumps experience
8.) Cult doctrine trumps existence
I think that is an interesting list. I have not read Robert Lifton, but that sounds interesting. I may have to check that out and put it on my list.I read some chapters of People of Paradox but didn’t get all the way through it. I felt i got the gist of what he was saying and i liked it. I want to revisit and finish that book too.
Regarding cults…I wonder how many religions are described by that list, and perhaps there is a sliding scale on some definitions of those things. I can see shades of it in the LDS church, but also not necessarily to unhealthy extremes. Because I’m a member of the church and don’t feel manipulated beyond what I can control, it doesn’t feel like a cult from where I stand. I choose what I do and don’t do, what I believe and don’t believe.
Perhaps some is semantics.
Perhaps to the cult list…I would say…it can definitely FEEL like there are shades of those manipulative tactics, but the church does not necessarily fit those definitions to an extreme, IMO. They are trying to influence behavior, not control it…but again…semantics…sliding scales…leadership roulette…individual experiences vary.
However, that isn’t to dismiss those who feel it is too rigid in church, and too much emphasis placed on obeying leaders and too frustrating. It’s just a sliding scale, I think, and varies by experience of the individual…and therefore can be managed by the individual and stay in the church or leave. There are options in the church. Not always easy, but they are there.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.