"i've Come To The Conclusion That The Church Is Not True!"

[mms]

If it is for the best interest possible of the person receiving the revelation? God knows what's up.

I admit that I have not read the entire thread, so forgive me if I am restating.

The OP seems to be suggesting that when one faces troublesome issues that damage his/her testimony, he/she should find a way to rationalize the troublesome issues into non-issues, by changing belief.

For example, if one believes that "by their fruits ye shall know them," and believes that this means that local ward members should produce good fruit, and then has nothing but terrible experiences with the local ward members--encountering spoiled, nasty, rotten, infested fruit--then one should change his or her belief to a broader standard--one that looks at the church as a whole and not a single congregation. With this new belief about "fruits", one can encounter the local nasty fruit without consequence to his/her testimony.

To bring the example very close to home, one of the greatest challenges to my testimony in my recent struggle is the BoA. I believed that Joseph meant that he was actually translating as we understand the term today (and, to be frank, as it was understood in his time), and that he would not have said that it was by the hand of Abraham if he did not mean Abraham had written on the papyrus itself. I have concluded from the evidence available that we do indeed have the papyrus from which Joseph claimed to have obtained the BoA (I cannot subscribe to the missing papyrus theory; it seems like such an unjustified stretch) and that it does not contain the BoA that we have in the PoGP. Since I believed JS meant what he said in the way I understood it, and since the evidence appears to contradict this, I have a problem.

So what to do? David appears to be suggesting that I change my belief a bit to rationalize the issues away. instead of believing as I did, believe that by claiming to "translate", JS may not have meant translate as we understand the term and the papyrus simply may have been a catalyst to obtaining the BoA. Believe that JS may have not understood, himself, what was transpiring. Believe that he did not mean that the words of the papyrus were literally written by Abraham, but that the original, which he did not have, was written by Abraham. By changing these beliefs, the BoA issues become non-issues.

In essence, it seems that the suggestion is to do whatever is necessary to rationalize your earlier conclusion that the church is true. In other words, choose to believe instead of choosing not to believe, as you are better off believing.

Possibly. But because I was taught over and over again not to rationalize my sins away (by a "paradigm shift" that, for example, viewed certain sins as less egregious than I had once viewed them) and that rationalization simply leads to greater sin, the kind of rationalization suggested in the OP does not come easy for me (and probably does not come easy for many). (I think we can agree that this is what the OP calls for, can we not? Rationalization.)

Oh yes, and lest I forget why I quoted LOAP above. This seems to epitomize the rationalization necessary to a belief that the LDS Church is the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth. Someone who claims a direct witness to a faith that is not LDS, is simply getting the answer that is best for him/her at that moment. Maybe he/she is not ready for the full truth, etc. I understand the need to come up with these ratioanlizations, it is just hard to make them fit (my paradigm--but maybe a "shift" (read: rationalization) is in order), but I am trying.

(Sidenote: I understand that many would argue with my conclusions re the BoA, but, of course, that is not the point of this post or the thread, so no need to go there--it was just one example.)

[wenglund]

How do members reconcile the fact that non LDS can and do have these same, similar and equal spiritual witnesses...

We don't reconcile that "fact"--or at least I don't, because I see no need to reconcile it. Rationally, I am only responsible for giving an accounting of my own faith, not the faith and spiritual experiences of others. They are responsible for accounting for themselves.

This same principle applies in secular matters. One might ask how one reconciles the fact that, in light of the warning label on cigarettes, some people chose to smoke and one doesn't.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[USU78]

It goes without saying that I hold Juliann in high esteem. She's one of my good friends.

I appreciate where she's coming from, but as I suggested in one of my earlier posts, an historical Book of Mormon is not necessary for my own beliefs.

If the Book of Mormon could be proven a fraud, I would still believe.

It would make it no different than the way I see the book of Deuteronomy, i.e. inspired pseudopigraphy.

Our esteemed Unka Dale has, at various times and in several threads, expressed a similar viewpoint. He has also linked to an online testimony giving his history from the point of his conversion to the Restoration and the BoM, but his paradigm which includes acute scepticism of Hulda's masterpiece, the Johannine works, the Petrine works, and the BoM at about the same levels. Daniel etc. don't merit much deference at all from him.

I don't find this viewpoint objectionable at all, though I don't share it in toto. My own view begins from the BoM and JSJr and works outward from there, giving less and lesser reliability to those works whose provenance lies either in councils or traditions.

Thanks for sharing this thread with us.

[BishopRic]

We don't reconcile that "fact"--or at least I don't, because I see no need to reconcile it. Rationally, I am only responsible for giving an accounting of my own faith, not the faith and spiritual experiences of others. They are responsible for accounting for themselves.

This same principle applies in secular matters. One might ask how one reconciles the fact that, in light of the warning label on cigarettes, some people chose to smoke and one doesn't.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

With all due respect Wade, I don't think that's a very good analogy. Yes, smoking is not good for one's health, and some choose to do it anyway. I think you are imputing that those of us who choose another spiritual path are doing it against what is "good" for us...and although you might believe that, we certainly do not.

Another perhaps better analogy might be (an maybe not ) how a staunch republican or democrat might view those of the opposite party. I'm quite certain each feels the other is quite mistaken to believe the principles of theiparty platform, but we must respect that there is the possibility they may be okay with the way they believe.

Okay, I'm sure there a better comparison....

[LifeOnaPlate]

The OP seems to be suggesting that when one faces troublesome issues that damage his/her testimony, he/she should find a way to rationalize the troublesome issues into non-issues, by changing belief.

Rationalizing as I usually understand it is seen as a form of self-deception. I see the OP encouraging people to re-evaluate their preconceived notions or traditions about doctrine, etc.

For example, if one believes that "by their fruits ye shall know them," and believes that this means that local ward members should produce good fruit, and then has nothing but terrible experiences with the local ward members--encountering spoiled, nasty, rotten, infested fruit--then one should change his or her belief to a broader standard--one that looks at the church as a whole and not a single congregation. With this new belief about "fruits", one can encounter the local nasty fruit without consequence to his/her testimony.

Yes, indeed.

To bring the example very close to home, one of the greatest challenges to my testimony in my recent struggle is the BoA. I believed that Joseph meant that he was actually translating as we understand the term today (and, to be frank, as it was understood in his time), and that he would not have said that it was by the hand of Abraham if he did not mean Abraham had written on the papyrus itself. I have concluded from the evidence available that we do indeed have the papyrus from which Joseph claimed to have obtained the BoA (I cannot subscribe to the missing papyrus theory; it seems like such an unjustified stretch) and that it does not contain the BoA that we have in the PoGP. Since I believed JS meant what he said in the way I understood it, and since the evidence appears to contradict this, I have a problem.

Personally, I have thought about this issue as well. Nibley believed "by his own hand" was a part of the original title, even if later translators or editors thought it literally meant it was the sig of Abraham.

So what to do? David appears to be suggesting that I change my belief a bit to rationalize the issues away. instead of believing as I did, believe that by claiming to "translate", JS may not have meant translate as we understand the term and the papyrus simply may have been a catalyst to obtaining the BoA. Believe that JS may have not understood, himself, what was transpiring. Believe that he did not mean that the words of the papyrus were literally written by Abraham, but that the original, which he did not have, was written by Abraham. By changing these beliefs, the BoA issues become non-issues.

Still issues, as the jury is still out, but perhaps more understandable, for me.

In essence, it seems that the suggestion is to do whatever is necessary to rationalize your earlier conclusion that the church is true. In other words, choose to believe instead of choosing not to believe, as you are better off believing.

Witness of the Spirit would be paramount, here.

Possibly. But because I was taught over and over again not to rationalize my sins away (by a "paradigm shift" that, for example, viewed certain sins as less egregious than I had once viewed them) and that rationalization simply leads to greater sin, the kind of rationalization suggested in the OP does not come easy for me (and probably does not come easy for many). (I think we can agree that this is what the OP calls for, can we not? Rationalization.)

I'd say re-evaluation. That is an interesting aspect I hadn't considered. Interesting footnote: sometimes personal guilt isn't of God at all, or is based on our own beliefs, prejudices, etc. For example, Nephi felt some cognitive dissonance over the killing of Laban.

Oh yes, and lest I forget why I quoted LOAP above. This seems to epitomize the rationalization necessary to a belief that the LDS Church is the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth. Someone who claims a direct witness to a faith that is not LDS, is simply getting the answer that is best for him/her at that moment. Maybe he/she is not ready for the full truth, etc. I understand the need to come up with these ratioanlizations, it is just hard to make them fit (my paradigm--but maybe a "shift" (read: rationalization) is in order), but I am trying.

One way I arrived at this conclusion is by further study in the scriptures, one of my blog posts discusses the issue. I first came to grasp the possibility most acutely on my mission when I encountered honest and religious people of other faiths. I saw goodness there, love, wisdom, etc. It hit home to me that the Spirit will testify of truth almost regardless of who is speaking it. Truth is truth. I also came to realize God has "lesser" and "greater" laws, and that as He loves all His children, He will do His utmost to save all according to that which they are willing to receive. Still, they won't receive all they could have, but at least, in part.

[wenglund]

I admit that I have not read the entire thread, so forgive me if I am restating.

The OP seems to be suggesting that when one faces troublesome issues that damage his/her testimony, he/she should find a way to rationalize the troublesome issues into non-issues, by changing belief.

For example, if one believes that "by their fruits ye shall know them," and believes that this means that local ward members should produce good fruit, and then has nothing but terrible experiences with the local ward members--encountering spoiled, nasty, rotten, infested fruit--then one should change his or her belief to a broader standard--one that looks at the church as a whole and not a single congregation. With this new belief about "fruits", one can encounter the local nasty fruit without consequence to his/her testimony.

To bring the example very close to home, one of the greatest challenges to my testimony in my recent struggle is the BoA. I believed that Joseph meant that he was actually translating as we understand the term today (and, to be frank, as it was understood in his time), and that he would not have said that it was by the hand of Abraham if he did not mean Abraham had written on the papyrus itself. I have concluded from the evidence available that we do indeed have the papyrus from which Joseph claimed to have obtained the BoA (I cannot subscribe to the missing papyrus theory; it seems like such an unjustified stretch) and that it does not contain the BoA that we have in the PoGP. Since I believed JS meant what he said in the way I understood it, and since the evidence appears to contradict this, I have a problem.

So what to do? David appears to be suggesting that I change my belief a bit to rationalize the issues away. instead of believing as I did, believe that by claiming to "translate", JS may not have meant translate as we understand the term and the papyrus simply may have been a catalyst to obtaining the BoA. Believe that JS may have not understood, himself, what was transpiring. Believe that he did not mean that the words of the papyrus were literally written by Abraham, but that the original, which he did not have, was written by Abraham. By changing these beliefs, the BoA issues become non-issues.

In essence, it seems that the suggestion is to do whatever is necessary to rationalize your earlier conclusion that the church is true. In other words, choose to believe instead of choosing not to believe, as you are better off believing.

Possibly. But because I was taught over and over again not to rationalize my sins away (by a "paradigm shift" that, for example, viewed certain sins as less egregious than I had once viewed them) and that rationalization simply leads to greater sin, the kind of rationalization suggested in the OP does not come easy for me (and probably does not come easy for many). (I think we can agree that this is what the OP calls for, can we not? Rationalization.)

Oh yes, and lest I forget why I quoted LOAP above. This seems to epitomize the rationalization necessary to a belief that the LDS Church is the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth. Someone who claims a direct witness to a faith that is not LDS, is simply getting the answer that is best for him/her at that moment. Maybe he/she is not ready for the full truth, etc. I understand the need to come up with these ratioanlizations, it is just hard to make them fit (my paradigm--but maybe a "shift" (read: rationalization) is in order), but I am trying.

(Sidenote: I understand that many would argue with my conclusions re the BoA, but, of course, that is not the point of this post or the thread, so no need to go there--it was just one example.)

I don't know that David equates "paradigm shift" with "rationalize". I don't. And, I don't know that I would consider "looking at the bigger picture" or "broadening the horizons of understanding" to be "rationalizations".

Either way, the point to me is, if one finds great value in one's spiritual paradigm, that value need not be lost when faced with specific notions that don't seem to comport with one's paradigm. One can make paradigm adjustments and shifts (which enable the notions to comport with one's paradigm) so as to retain the value, or one can alter how one views the notions so as to do the same. The adjustment or shifts or alterations, need not consist of rationalizations, but rather changes in perspective and understanding.

Of course, this is also somewhat dependant upon how rigid or flexible one needs one's paradigms to be. The more rigid one's need, the more vulnerable it is to snapping or breaking rather than bending to accomodate paradigmic challenges.

If it helps, think of it in terms of the paradigm of marriage. Given the natural changes associated with age and maturaty, as well as inherent differences between women and men, the more rigid one's paradigm of marriage, the less likely the marriage will last. Those marriages that do last, are because the marriages, themselves, are highly valued, and because one or both parties in the marriages accomodate the changes and address the marital challenges, not so much by "rationalization", but through modifying perspectives, broadening one's understanding, altering how one view of the other party, etc.

I say this by way of description, not prescription. We each have the right to determine for ourselves what value we each may place on our spiritual convictions, and how rigid or flexible we may want to be in those convictions. One is free to place greater value on, and hold firm and unflinching to, one's perception of certain aspects of the BoA, than they value and hold firm to the rest of their spiritual convictions, and thus find cause to abandon their faith; just as one is free to do just the opposite, and find non-rationizing ways to accomodate the aspects of the BoA in such a way as to retain, and perhaps even enhance the value of one's spiritual convictions.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[John D the First]

I admit that I have not read the entire thread, so forgive me if I am restating.

The OP seems to be suggesting that when one faces troublesome issues that damage his/her testimony, he/she should find a way to rationalize the troublesome issues into non-issues, by changing belief.

For example, if one believes that "by their fruits ye shall know them," and believes that this means that local ward members should produce good fruit, and then has nothing but terrible experiences with the local ward members--encountering spoiled, nasty, rotten, infested fruit--then one should change his or her belief to a broader standard--one that looks at the church as a whole and not a single congregation. With this new belief about "fruits", one can encounter the local nasty fruit without consequence to his/her testimony.

To bring the example very close to home, one of the greatest challenges to my testimony in my recent struggle is the BoA. I believed that Joseph meant that he was actually translating as we understand the term today (and, to be frank, as it was understood in his time), and that he would not have said that it was by the hand of Abraham if he did not mean Abraham had written on the papyrus itself. I have concluded from the evidence available that we do indeed have the papyrus from which Joseph claimed to have obtained the BoA (I cannot subscribe to the missing papyrus theory; it seems like such an unjustified stretch) and that it does not contain the BoA that we have in the PoGP. Since I believed JS meant what he said in the way I understood it, and since the evidence appears to contradict this, I have a problem.

So what to do? David appears to be suggesting that I change my belief a bit to rationalize the issues away. instead of believing as I did, believe that by claiming to "translate", JS may not have meant translate as we understand the term and the papyrus simply may have been a catalyst to obtaining the BoA. Believe that JS may have not understood, himself, what was transpiring. Believe that he did not mean that the words of the papyrus were literally written by Abraham, but that the original, which he did not have, was written by Abraham. By changing these beliefs, the BoA issues become non-issues.

In essence, it seems that the suggestion is to do whatever is necessary to rationalize your earlier conclusion that the church is true. In other words, choose to believe instead of choosing not to believe, as you are better off believing.

Possibly. But because I was taught over and over again not to rationalize my sins away (by a "paradigm shift" that, for example, viewed certain sins as less egregious than I had once viewed them) and that rationalization simply leads to greater sin, the kind of rationalization suggested in the OP does not come easy for me (and probably does not come easy for many). (I think we can agree that this is what the OP calls for, can we not? Rationalization.)

Oh yes, and lest I forget why I quoted LOAP above. This seems to epitomize the rationalization necessary to a belief that the LDS Church is the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth. Someone who claims a direct witness to a faith that is not LDS, is simply getting the answer that is best for him/her at that moment. Maybe he/she is not ready for the full truth, etc. I understand the need to come up with these ratioanlizations, it is just hard to make them fit (my paradigm--but maybe a "shift" (read: rationalization) is in order), but I am trying.

(Sidenote: I understand that many would argue with my conclusions re the BoA, but, of course, that is not the point of this post or the thread, so no need to go there--it was just one example.)

I wouldn't call this process rationalizing but rather re-evaluating one's assumptions--which everyone who confronts evidence which contradicts one's paradigm must do. I find that often times when I learn some unsettling information, the assumptions I adopt as a result are actually more reasonable than the old one's. That's not what I would call rationalizing, but learning. For example, like many members of the church, I had a quasi-omnipotent view of Joseph Smith. He had complete knowledge of everything that was happening to him at all times. This has been replaced with a Joseph Smith who, like all of us, has only a partial knowledge. I think the latter is actually more reasonable than the first.

Best,

Jd1

[Jaybear]

With all due respect Wade, I don't think that's a very good analogy. Yes, smoking is not good for one's health, and some choose to do it anyway. I think you are imputing that those of us who choose another spiritual path are doing it against what is "good" for us...and although you might believe that, we certainly do not.

Another perhaps better analogy might be (an maybe not ) how a staunch republican or democrat might view those of the opposite party. I'm quite certain each feels the other is quite mistaken to believe the principles of theiparty platform, but we must respect that there is the possibility they may be okay with the way they believe.

Okay, I'm sure there a better comparison....

Consider life as a multiple choice test, where you get to discuss your answer with your classmates.

Would you be satisfied picking an answer based on a voice in your head, when (1) the answer you have picked seems facially implausible, and most classmates reject out of hand, and some even mock, and (2) other people also claim to gotten the answer from a voice in their head but those answers are all over the board.

I would expect that a rationale person, who wants to pass the class, would attempt to reconcile and account for the diversity of answers this voice has given out, before relying on this disembodied voice.

[wenglund]

With all due respect Wade, I don't think that's a very good analogy. Yes, smoking is not good for one's health, and some choose to do it anyway. I think you are imputing that those of us who choose another spiritual path are doing it against what is "good" for us...and although you might believe that, we certainly do not.

I think the analogy is good in terms of the principle I intended to convey (i.e. people can come to different conclusions based on the same physical stimuli). I didn't intend it to speak to the issue of what is "good" or "healthy", though I can understand how you may reasonably read that into the analogy.

Another perhaps better analogy might be (an maybe not ) how a staunch republican or democrat might view those of the opposite party. I'm quite certain each feels the other is quite mistaken to believe the principles of theiparty platform, but we must respect that there is the possibility they may be okay with the way they believe.

Okay, I'm sure there are better comparisons....

I am fine with that. The point being, we each have our respective perceptions of the same physical stimuli, and need only give an accounting of our own perceptions, and do not need to give an accounting of, nor reconcile, the perceptions of others. That is the burden they bear for themselves.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BishopRic]

The point being, we each have our respective perceptions of the same physical stimuli, and need only give an accounting of our own perceptions, and do not need to give an accounting of, nor reconcile, the perceptions of others. That is the burden they bear for themselves.

I can buy that...thanks!

[Son]

Well, what are you doing about it?

Repenting, selling all I have, detoxing from serving God and Mammon.......I gave it a good shot, but it turns out that scripture is true, you can't have two masters.

Going back to the roots of Love, contriteness, and seeking first.....

thanks for asking,

son

[wenglund]

Consider life as a multiple choice test, where you get to discuss your answer with your classmates.

Would you be satisfied picking an answer based on a voice in your head, when (1) the answer you have picked seems facially implausible, and most classmates reject out of hand, and some even mock, and (2) other people also claim to gotten the answer from a voice in their head but those answers are all over the board.

I would expect that a rationale person, who wants to pass the class, would attempt to reconcile and account for the diversity of answers this voice has given out, before relying on this disembodied voice.

Doesn't that depend upon the subject matter of the question? If the subjectmatter is: "what has the voice in your head told you", then isn't the supposed implausiblity, and majority rejection and mockery, and diversity of answers of one's fellow classmates, irrelevant?

Doesn't it also depend upon who is administering and grading the question? If the questioner is the voice in each of the students heads, then wouldn't a rational person want to rely on the voice in one's head?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mms]

Rationalizing as I usually understand it is seen as a form of self-deception. I see the OP encouraging people to re-evaluate their preconceived notions or traditions about doctrine, etc.

I see what you mean, as a common usage and definition of the term is consistent with what you are saying. A better definition of the term for purposes of this discussion, I suppose, is:

"to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable" (Merriam-Webster)

But I see that there is still a distinction, as the paradigm shift would not simply cause something to "seem reasonable" but cause it to "be reasonable." I think that such a shift is not an easy thing to do, as the line between rationalization (making something "seem" reasonable and a paradigm shift (making something actually reasonable) is a pretty thin one. I could see constantly wondering if one simply rationalized (in the "self-deception" sense) or was able to successfully shift a paradigm. So a paradigm shift may be the answer, but it might be tough to come by, and once shifted, one might continue to doubt whether the shift was anything more than a rationalization. Uggghhhh.

[Jaybear]

Doesn't that depend upon the subject matter of the question? If the subjectmatter is: "what has the voice in your head told you", then isn't the supposed implausiblity, and majority rejection and mockery, and diversity of answers of one's fellow classmates, irrelevant?

Doesn't it also depend upon who is administering and grading the question? If the questioner is the voice in each of the students heads, then wouldn't a rational person want to rely on the voice in one's head?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are correct. If the test is subjective, ie, the answer changes depending on who takes the test, then it is not necessary to reconcile the answer the others have chosen.

As to the latter point, in the analogly, the test taker believes or assumes that the voice is from the teacher, but has never met the teacher. The issue remains the same, as others in the class sincerely beleive they have also heard the voice of the teacher telling them to select what you were told was a wrong answer.

[wenglund]

I see what you mean, as a common usage and definition of the term is consistent with what you are saying. A better definition of the term for purposes of this discussion, I suppose, is:

"to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable" (Merriam-Webster)

But I see that there is still a distinction, as the paradigm shift would not simply cause something to "seem reasonable" but cause it to "be reasonable." I think that such a shift is not an easy thing to do, as the line between rationalization (making something "seem" reasonable and a paradigm shift (making something actually reasonable) is a pretty thin one. I could see constantly wondering if one simply rationalized (in the "self-deception" sense) or was able to successfully shift a paradigm. So a paradigm shift may be the answer, but it might be tough to come by, and once shifted, one might continue to doubt whether the shift was anything more than a rationalization. Uggghhhh.

I see what you mean, and I can understand how you feel about it.

I wonder, though, if your frustration (i.e. uggghhhh) may be relieved somewhat by concerning yourself less with how to precisely label what has happened ("paradigm shift" or "rationalization"), and instead focus more on assessing what has happened (in terms of value lossed, or maintained, or gained). To me, it doesn't matter so much what something is called, or how precise the terminology, but whether it works for me in my life or not. ;-)

What do you think?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Dan Vogel]

Is there ever a good reason to abandon Mormonism?

Not if one has obtained a spiritual witness from God concerning the truthfulness of the Church. Still, throughout our lives, many of us encounter pieces of doctrinal and/or historical information that appears to indicate that we have been deceived, that in fact Mormonism is not true.

In these moments, perhaps before doubting our spiritual convictions, we should approach our concerns from the perspective of a paradigm shift, meaning a change in the basic assumptions concerning Mormonism that we hold to be true.

In other words, perhaps the only thing that we have encountered that is untrue is our basic assumption concerning the doctrine and/or historical information rather than the Church itself.

Rather than abandoning the Church of Jesus Christ, I believe that every issue that ever troubles our members may simply require a paradigm shift. I could provide many examples that support my view, but the one that comes immediately to mind is an experience that I had with a student who came to the conclusion that the Church cannot be true because of something portrayed in the temple ceremony.

I will not discuss the details of temple worship, but suffice it to say that the student felt troubled over the fact that in D&C 129, the Lord reveals that â??when a messenger comes saying he has a message from God,â? we should offer him our hand and â??request him to shake handsâ? (v. 4). The revelation states that if the messenger is a spirit of a just man that the angel will not move to shake hands with us, â??for it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his messageâ? (v. 7).

Without going into details, the student felt that this revelation contradicts part of the ritual portrayal featured in the endowment. The individual felt troubled enough by this â??contradictionâ? that he/or she had come to the conclusion that the Church is not true.

In this instance, I tied to explain that perhaps what is not true is not the Church itself, but rather the paradigm that the student used to interpret the endowment. The student assumed that the ritual presentation provided in the endowment was a literal portrayal of the events that actually occurred in the Garden of Eden.

I explained that since I do not hold that assumption that I have never found the contradiction troubling. Rather than a literal portrayal of actual events, I view the endowmentâ??and the story of Eden for that matterâ??as a ritual drama intended to covey important doctrine and principles concerning our spiritual journey into the presence of God.

Hence, according to my assumptions the contradiction that troubled the student was simply a symbolic portrayal that the student had misinterpreted.

Of course many other illustrations of paradigm shifts could be provided. I have had to employ a variety of such shifts when faced with new evidence that contradicted my assumptions. Rather than doubting the Church, however, I have always doubted the paradigms I have used to interpret Mormonism.

Speaking personally, I view paradigm shifts as a far superior course of action than abandoning oneâ??s spiritual convictions.

David,

Why do you assume spiritual experience--like any experience--can't be redefined or reinterpreted over time? Why do you assume reason must conform to testimony? Why can't testimony be reassessed with new information? For example, those who have a testimony of the BOM's truth and inspiration assume their testimony also pertains to historicity issues. Do you think it's possible to attach false assumptions to religious experience? In short, on what grounds do you privilege religious experience over reason, especially in matters where reason and evidence are more reliable? Are you not advocating the corruption of reason--the scientific method even--by the introduction of emotions and subjective states of mind? On what grounds could any interpretation or theory be rejected?

[LifeOnaPlate]

David,

Why do you assume spiritual experience--like any experience--can't be redefined or reinterpreted over time? Why do you assume reason must conform to testimony? Why can't testimony be reassessed with new information? For example, those who have a testimony of the BOM's truth and inspiration assume their testimony also pertains to historicity issues. Do you think it's possible to attach false assumptions to religious experience? In short, on what grounds do you privilege religious experience over reason, especially in matters where reason and evidence are more reliable? Are you not advocating the corruption of reason--the scientific method even--by the introduction of emotions and subjective states of mind? On what grounds could any interpretation or theory be rejected?

Interesting questions, Dan. Do you believe in the possibility of revelation from God?

[juliann]

Consider life as a multiple choice test, where you get to discuss your answer with your classmates.

Would you be satisfied picking an answer based on a voice in your head, when (1) the answer you have picked seems facially implausible, and most classmates reject out of hand, and some even mock, and (2) other people also claim to gotten the answer from a voice in their head but those answers are all over the board.

I would expect that a rationale person, who wants to pass the class, would attempt to reconcile and account for the diversity of answers this voice has given out, before relying on this disembodied voice.

And most people will succumb to the mockers and the implausible... as we have seen throughout history. Thank heavens that our greatest thinkers, inventers and heroes did not or what a mediocre and primitive life we would be living. But to each his own.

[juliann]

Why do you assume spiritual experience--like any experience--can't be redefined or reinterpreted over time? Why do you assume reason must conform to testimony? Why can't testimony be reassessed with new information?

It can.

For example, those who have a testimony of the BOM's truth and inspiration assume their testimony also pertains to historicity issues.

Not necessarily. Don't confuse historicity with authenticity. If it is authentic, I would expect to find about as many "historicity" issues in the BOM as there are in the Bible....minus the multiplied transmission errors.

Do you think it's possible to attach false assumptions to religious experience?

Of course. Reading spiritual experiences is trial and error, like anything else.

In short, on what grounds do you privilege religious experience over reason, especially in matters where reason and evidence are more reliable? Are you not advocating the corruption of reason--the scientific method even--by the introduction of emotions and subjective states of mind? On what grounds could any interpretation or theory be rejected?

On what basis do you privilege reason and science? You are creating a false dilemma.

[Thinking]

Is there ever a good reason to abandon Mormonism?

If it's not true, absolutely!

Not if one has obtained a spiritual witness from God concerning the truthfulness of the Church. Still, throughout our lives, many of us encounter pieces of doctrinal and/or historical information that appears to indicate that we have been deceived, that in fact Mormonism is not true.

We have been warned to beware of false prophets who "shall deceive the very elect." (Matt. 24:24) Could this deception include a perceived confirmation from God?

In these moments, perhaps before doubting our spiritual convictions, we should approach our concerns from the perspective of a paradigm shift, meaning a change in the basic assumptions concerning Mormonism that we hold to be true.

What happens to a structure when the foundation shifts?

In other words, perhaps the only thing that we have encountered that is untrue is our basic assumption concerning the doctrine and/or historical information rather than the Church itself.

If our basic assumptions are false, could we really have received a spiritual witness from God?

Rather than abandoning the Church of Jesus Christ, I believe that every issue that ever troubles our members may simply require a paradigm shift.

If your desired result requires shifting assumptions, perhaps your desired result is faulty.

This reminds me of some conversations I have had with my wife. She will come home from shopping and inform me how much she saved on the items she bought on sale. I then remind her that it's not how much she saved, but how much she spent. To her credit (no pun intended) she does a great job with the budget.

Rather than doubting the Church, however, I have always doubted the paradigms I have used to interpret Mormonism...I view paradigm shifts as a far superior course of action than abandoning oneâ??s spiritual convictions.

What paradigm shift is required for me to accept as OK that Joseph Smith was sealed to Zina instead of Henry (her husband of less than a year)? Why wasn't he given the opportunity to be sealed to his wife?

[spinner]

What about the value derived from "spiritual experiences"?

Thanks for the response, Wade. As a Mormon (and since leaving), I had many valuable spiritual experiences. This value does not, however, lead me to adopt David's hierarchy of paradigms.

I ask because I would think that "value" would be a good criteria, if not the best criteria, for determining paradigmic trust and deference, rather than subjectivity/objectivity and mutability/immutability.

I disagree; it seems fairly obvious to me that trust should be placed more firmly in just those paradigms that have proven reliable. You can value something immensely while still recognizing that it is of limited applicability.

I think it important to realize the interdependancies of the paradigms (or sub-paradigms). For religious people, their paradigm of honor and morality are based, in large part, on their spiritual paradigm. So, I am not sure it would make sense to privilege the former paradigm over the later paradigm upon which it is based. That would be, metaphorically, like privilaging the conceptual house over the foundation and infrastructure it is built on. Right?

To be clear, what David is advocating is that all other paradigms be subordinated to the supposed lessons gleaned from spiritual experiences. And while these paradigms might normally be perfectly compatible, you did not address the issue of what happens when they do clash. You might, for example, say that Nephi rightly followed the principle that David is advocating, with a spiritual experience leading to a paradigm shift that led him to kill Laban. If I believed that a spiritual impression were telling me to abandon a principle so basic as not taking others' lives, however, I would definitely question that impression. No single paradigm (be it religious, scientific or other) should be given absolute deference.

[Beowulf]

Dan Vogel is a naturalist, and therefore will privilege the scientific method over any other kind of method for acquiring information. In other words, he cannot understand what David Bokovoy is talking about. Hence the questions...

(And in case someone thinks I am putting him down, I hope not. I have the highest regard for Dan Vogel and for his excellent work in Mormon history.)

Thanks David, for this interesting thread. It has evoked much comment on what truth might consist of, and whether Mormons demand a monopoly on it (I would say No) and believe that their way is the only to Heaven (well, Yes and No).

To amplify, I surely believe that the Plan of Salvation, which nearly everyone on this board, both LDS and non-LDS, is familiar with, IS the way forward. As to its non-universality, as MC brought up, I do not agree. Surely even MC knows about our ambitious plan to do the salvation work for every member of the human race, in our temples...

But as to other people having access to God, for capability of receiving revelation, this is surely the LDS viewpoint. We believe that ALL PEOPLE can receive revelation from God. To quote one of my favorite verses in scripture: For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the House of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall speak unto all nations of the Earth and they shall write it. 2Nephi29:12

There is no exclusiveness here...

To amplify further: I am a translator by profession. I work from Japanese to English. Ninety-five percent plus of this work is ordinary tedious translations of product manuals, press releases, software upgrades, etc. However, once in a while an amazing job comes along. An American adherent of Buddhism has asked me to translate the works of Nichiren, a 13th century Buddhist theologian whose ideas drastically altered the landscape of Japanese Buddhism and culture ever after. (Like all religious sects everywhere, his teachings have led to numerous splittings in future centuries, one of which is well-known in America, the Soka Gakkai... My client is adamant that he is NOT SG, and hopes my translations will reflect this non-SG-ness.) I hesitated, because premodern language is difficult, but agreed since my wife (a convert to LDS) comes from a Nichiren tradition herself. These past months, as I have worked on his essays, I have come to a fresh recognition that Nichiren was indeed a Man of God. Inspired. A prophet. (He lived during the time of the Mongol invasions, and very famously prophesied that Bad Things were about to happen, some dozen years before the Mongols arrived. Very Jeremiadic...) But he was from the Buddhist tradition, not Christian, so his inspiration perforce had to come through the Buddhist paradigm.

I see nothing wrong with that at all.

Does that make me a universalist? I suppose so, but not in the way that MC (for example) appears to understand the term. To understand what I mean by it, you need to look at 2Nephi29:12 again.

Respectfully,

Beowulf

[Cold Steel]

There are many paradigm shifts everyone makes through life. One shouldn't be criticized for applying this aspect to one's religious convictions when shifts are so much a part of life.

I recently found my astronomy book from college. It had been gathering dust on a bookshelf for years. I'd kept it because I'd found the course so intriguing. If one wants to really change his or her view of things, there's nothing like astronomy. The problem, of course, is that our understanding of the universe is continually changing, and there's the rub. I found that the book I had so cherished was hopelessly out of date. In fact, it was virtually worthless. By "virtually" I mean that if one wanted to go through the trouble, one could recycle the cover, binding and paper from which the book was made. But this book, which would have been incalculably valuable to someone like Galileo, was no longer of any worth to anyone.

A number of years ago, Stephen Hawking amazed me in a television interview by saying that black holes were theoretically possible, but that he doubted any existed and if they did, they were almost certainly a rarity. I had taken it for granted that they existed, but I didn't know. Almost immediately thereafter, within a year, they had discovered some black holes, but not many. And now we know they're all over the place. There are even some black holes that just wander through the galaxies sucking up everything that gets in their way. But we always knew there would be no cap on what we could learn and that it would be ever changing. So much more is known today about quantum physics, dark matter and anti-matter and how they relate to the creation of this universe and possibly others can, and will, fill volumes.

So why think there should be a cap on religion? What we still have to learn far outweighs the tiny amount that we know, and if we have a spiritual witness of the basics, and we're prepared to study, it will all be revealed at the pace we ourselves will set. That's why I think that man's knowledge is foolishness to God. The preeminent men of science who make headlines by denouncing God and religion are the true fools of this age. They just won't know it until they know much more.

[Beowulf]

Astronomy, now there's a subject constantly in flux. My 12-year-old (oops, 13, its her birthday today!) daughter was asking me about planets around other suns. I told her that they certainly do exist, because we have discovered a bunch of them. Then I added that when she was born in 1994 the number of extrasolar planets known was Zero... Along the same lines I recently read a great short story by Poul Anderson called Beyond Eternity (I recommend it highly!), about a spaceship that is unable to decelerate and eventually is going so fast that it crashes right through the end of the universe! This story was written in 1967, and included the latest known about the Big Bang and Big Crunch. It is now out of date, because around 1997 it was discovered that the universe will never go into reverse and hit a Big Crunch... Still it is better than James Blish's Cities in Flight (circa 1957) which featured a Steady State Universe. And on and on it goes...

The argument that atheist scientists like Dawkins make is that religious people have beliefs set in stone and CANNOT make paradigm shifts. This is a short-sighted view of religion (because they assume that religionists are ALL fundamentalists, hence my irritation at Carl Sagan's depiction of a Christian minister in First Contact) that people like David Bokovoy (and myself) completely refute with our broader views of what constitute religiosity and God's interactions with Man.

Beowulf

[Hammer]

Repenting, selling all I have, detoxing from serving God and Mammon.......I gave it a good shot, but it turns out that scripture is true, you can't have two masters.

Going back to the roots of Love, contriteness, and seeking first.....

thanks for asking,

son

That is a mighty good change. It will net you great blessings.