What if you want the church to be true,

[ave maria]

Reason has always been an enemy to faith. And faith always wins in the end.

It shouldn't be; they should not be mutually exclusive.

[dimbulb]

Reason has always been an enemy to faith. And faith always wins in the end.

May I quote John Locke:

Faith is nothing but a firm Assent of the Mind: which if it be regulated, as is our Duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good Reason; and so cannot be opposite to it. He that believes, without having any Reason for believing, may be in love with his own Fancies; but neither seeks Truth as he ought, nor pays the Obedience due his Maker, who would have him use those discerning Faculties he has given him, to keep him out of mistake and errour.

[charity]

John Locke may be been a smart man. But I don't accept his word as law or truth. He wrote what he thought was reasonable. Back to square one.

[dimbulb]

John Locke may be been a smart man. But I don't accept his word as law or truth. He wrote what he thought was reasonable. Back to square one.

His point is valid: one must have a reason to believe. If, as you suggest, faith is independent of reason, then you have no basis to believe in anything but are free to follow your own fancies.

[charity]

We have to be precise in the use of the word "reason" or we will end up talking about different things.

Is reason: the basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction or a declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction oran underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence, or the capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought, intelligence, good judgment, sound senseor a premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.

If we are using the term to mean the basis or motive for an action, etc. then there is legitimate discussion on that point. We are told in the scriptures we need only have a desire to believe. The attempt of men to deal with the world of religious experience breaks down in the attempt to move it into the cold world of logical thought. The arm of flesh.

The mortal test is if we are willing to trust in God. It didn't make sense for men who earned their living fishing to drop the nets and follow a man who taught nice ideas about how to treat their fellow man. It didn't make sense for a young man to bring the wrath of the Christian world down on him to the extent that died in the prime of his life, just to defend the Vision granted him by God. It didn't make sense for thousands of people to go away from civilization, braving the frontier, risking death for a religious ideal when they could have just renounced their beliefs and stayed comfortably in their homes.

This is the difference between reason and faith.

[dimbulb]

The mortal test is if we are willing to trust in God. It didn't make sense for men who earned their living fishing to drop the nets and follow a man who taught nice ideas about how to treat their fellow man. It didn't make sense for a young man to bring the wrath of the Christian world down on him to the extent that died in the prime of his life, just to defend the Vision granted him by God. It didn't make sense for thousands of people to go away from civilization, braving the frontier, risking death for a religious ideal when they could have just renounced their beliefs and stayed comfortably in their homes.

I think you underestimate the role of reason in making religious decisions. People don't just arbitrarily decide to have faith in God. It is their experience and their study and their prayer that inform their faith. If we take the description in the Book of Mormon, we are to try the word, to see if it produces. That is a reasoned decision, in part. If it doesn't produce good fruit, we would have no reason to believe. Once one has made a decision that their experience indeed confirms their faith, why wouldn't they risk their lives, etc., to uphold what they believe?

[ave maria]

We have to be precise in the use of the word "reason" or we will end up talking about different things.

Is reason: the basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction or a  declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction oran underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence, or the capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought, intelligence, good judgment, sound senseor a premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.

If we are using the term to mean the basis or motive for an action, etc. then there is legitimate discussion on that point. We are told in the scriptures we need only have a desire to believe. The attempt of men to deal with the world of religious experience breaks down in the attempt to move it into the cold world of logical thought. The arm of flesh. 

The mortal test is if we are willing to trust in God. It didn't make sense for men who earned their living fishing to drop the nets and follow a man who taught nice ideas about how to treat their fellow man.  It didn't make sense for a young man to bring the wrath of the Christian world down on him to the extent that died in the prime of his life, just to defend the Vision granted him by God.  It didn't make sense for thousands of people to go away from civilization, braving the frontier, risking death for a religious ideal when they could have just renounced their beliefs and stayed comfortably in their homes.

This is the difference between reason and faith.

As this is a topic that clearly interests you, charity, you might find the following encyclical letter addressing the relationship of faith and reason worth reading:

Fides et Ratio: On the Relationship Between Faith and Reason

Even if faith is superior to reason there can never be a true divergence between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals the mysteries and bestows the gift of faith has also placed in the human spirit the light of reason. This God could not deny himself, nor could the truth ever contradict the truth.

p.s. Generally, when people are speaking about "faith and reason," they are using definitions three and four for "reason" as you've listed them above.

[Kenngo1969]

Also, your translation of my statement in Spanish leaves a little something to be desired.

[redman]

Also, your translation of my statement in Spanish leaves a little something to be desired.

[Priestess]

John Locke may be been a smart man. But I don't accept his word as law or truth. He wrote what he thought was reasonable. Back to square one.

His point is valid: one must have a reason to believe. If, as you suggest, faith is independent of reason, then you have no basis to believe in anything but are free to follow your own fancies.

Right on! Locke was exactly right on when he said that quote. Oh, wait I forgot, Mormons don't like to have non-members quoted as they only want to hear from current and past leaders.

[charity]

dim and Ave, I certainly do not think anyone should be non-thinking. But the Light of Christ, which may be what Ave has referred to as the Light of Reason, does not depend on philosophical determinations of truth.

Men thinking, sifting through evidence, can very often come up with very wrong conclusions. The fruits of faith are never wrong. Maybe the apparent point of disagreement betwen us is that I think the balance tips toward faith, while I think you believe the balance tips toward reason.

and a note to priestess. You are perfectly welcome to express your opinions on the board. But many of us here, if not all, tend to have a lower opinion of the intelligence of those post-ers who pop off with silly and trite falsehoods. Not that it will change your mind, which seems pretty well set in stone, but we LDS don't just listen to our leaders. Let me call this to your attention:

D&C 88: 118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

But we are forgiving and do readily accept apologies, and hold no grudges.

[ave maria]

dim and Ave, I certainly do not think anyone should be non-thinking. But the Light of Christ, which may be what Ave has referred to as the Light of Reason, does not depend on philosophical determinations of truth.

It should not be contradicted by them either, as God should be the author of both faith and reason.

Did you read the encyclical letter I linked? I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts on it.

[Kenngo1969]

Also, your translation of my statement in Spanish leaves a little something to be desired.

[charity]

Ave, the Pope adds much to the discussion this thread has derailed on to. I particuarly liked the following:

"Yet the positive results achieved must not obscure the fact that reason, in its one-sided concern to investigate human subjectivity, seems to have forgotten that men and women are always called to direct their steps towards a truth which transcends them. Sundered from that truth, individuals are at the mercy of caprice, and their state as person ends up being judged by pragmatic criteria based essentially upon experimental data, in the mistaken belief that technology must dominate all. It has happened therefore that reason, rather than voicing the human orientation towards truth, has wilted under the weight of so much knowledge and little by little has lost the capacity to lift its gaze to the heights, not daring to rise to the truth of being."

Of course, I don't agree 100%. Because he speaks of the responsbility to testify as being soley the perogative of the bishops. At least, he makes no mention of anyone else having the responsibility.

[ave maria]

Of course, I don't agree 100%. Because he speaks of the responsbility to testify as being soley the perogative of the bishops. At least, he makes no mention of anyone else having the responsibility.

charity, I was so startled by your saying this, I had to go back and re-read the encyclical to see where you had gotten this.

I can only assume you've misunderstood.

When he says it is the responsibility of bishops to testify to the truth, he is not saying it isn't anyone else's responsibility.

It would be like President Hinckley addresing a gathering of LDS Priesthood holders, and saying it was their responsibility to testify to the truth. Would that mean it wasn't the responsibility of anyone else in the LDS Church, including the Relief Society? No. It simply means that he was addressing a particular audience, and reminding them of a particular obligation.

Does that clarify? If you think he meant it was no one else's role or responsibility, I believe you were mistaken.

[Hoppy123]

This comment bothered me though - I've been in the church my whole life (48 years now) and I was never taught that it was better to be dead than raped. The thing I was always taught was better to be dead than lose your virtue.

The teaching i've heard on multiple occassions is to "fight for your virtue with your life if needed." (something along those lines anyway)

hmmm. if you are fighting for your life to avoid losing "virtue," that sounds like a rape to me. thus the conclusion that rape leads to loss of virtue.

i know that nowadays, the church has been more careful about emphasizing that the victims are not at fault in cases of sexual abuse and rape, and i think that's great.

but let's apply the doctrine to a non-rape. let's say your (hypothetical) 17 year old daughter finds herself in a passionate situation and ends up having sex. according to the church she has lost her virtue and would have been better off dying than spending a half hour having sex. that strikes me as very sick and wrong. but i guess this would be a good topic for another thread, so i'll leave it at that.

Hi Redman,

This is my first time posting to this site but there is something you said that really bothered me regarding this quote "fight for your virtue with your life if needed." First of all I have been a member my whole life and I have never heard this quote but regardless I am responding any ways. I believe that your interpretation is completely flawed. By choosing to interpret this statement the way you do you are implying that a woman who has been raped is a woman who is not

[dimbulb]

ell I have a news flash for you a woman who has been raped is a VICTIM, she is not a willing participant, she is not consenting to sex, she is fighting for her virtue. A woman who has been raped does not have control over the situation and is the victim of a horrible and heinous crime. The sole person responsible for the act of raped is the criminal that perpetrated this heinous crime. I don

[redman]

This is my first time posting to this site but there is something you said that really bothered me regarding this quote "fight for your virtue with your life if needed." First of all I have been a member my whole life and I have never heard this quote but regardless I am responding any ways. I believe that your interpretation is completely flawed. By choosing to interpret this statement the way you do you are implying that a woman who has been raped is a woman who is not

[dimbulb]

I remember that talk, too, redman. The last thing rape victims need to be told is that they bear some degree of responsibility. My cousin was raped at 16 and gave the resulting twins up for adoption. She went through a terrible ordeal, but it was not her fault, and she did not lose her virtue.

I would imagine that some rape victims probably wished they were dead after hearing that had now lost their virtue.

[catholic]

At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed

Looking in from the outside, the picture gets more and more clearer on LDS. I call this New LDS and Old LDS.

I think the problems with LDS is again because it is a 'new' religion. JS and all in the 1800s gives only 200 years of getting rid of ignorance and blatant control to blind the truth.

This comment may fly in 1982 but not in today's world. It this quote was sent to the public, the backlash to unfortunately LDS as a whole would be great.

It is just disgusting, rape is about Power/Control not sex. The rapist is not raping to 'get off' he is raping to gain control in the world he does not have control over....

[iknowthischurchistrue]

dim and Ave, I certainly do not think anyone should be non-thinking. But the Light of Christ,....

:::::::::::The fruits of faith are never wrong. ::::::::::::::

Maybe the apparent point of disagreement betwen us is that I think the balance tips toward faith, while I think you believe the balance tips toward reason.

.

Holy crap, you say the fruits of faith are never wrong?

But, but, but,,, billions of people have faith in their religion in this world and only 0.1% of them are LDS.

Use your mind luke, Use your mind.

Much like Grace with mormons

Feelings have a part to play in determining truth, after you have done all the studying you can. If you only study the pro side, you are not studying all you can.

[Mark Beesley]

dimbulb wrote:

The last thing rape victims need to be told is that they bear some degree of responsibility.

Agreed.

The problem I see with this discussion is the tendency to take a very general statement by Elder Scott and try to apply it to a specific situation. Elder's Scott's statement that the Lord may show a person that they may have been in some measure reponsible for what happened removes from us the burden of placing blame on someone who does not need to hear it from we mere mortals.

Could there be a specific situtation in which a rape victim bears some responsibility for putting herself/himself in a situation/environment that eventually led to the rape? I can conceive of things that people do that make them more vulnerable to abuse.

[catholic]

I can conceive of things that people do that make them more vulnerable to abuse.

I'll play devil's advocate...go ahead..conceive things that people will do to make then more vulnerable to rape...

[dimbulb]

I'll play devil's advocate...go ahead..conceive things that people will do to make then more vulnerable to rape...

I can see it now. "But officer, I had no choice. She was wearing more than one earring. It's not like she wasn't asking for it."

sheesh

[Beowulf]

Like walking into a bar full of Hell's Angels wearing something less than a Muslim head-to-toe veil?

Nevertheless:

Elder Scott was NOT saying that victims are responsible for the crime. He was telling people to take charge of their lives and pro-actively do something about the abuse being done to them, instead of taking it passively forever more.

Where in that advice is there something that feminists (for example) would disapprove of?

Beowulf