Thoughts On Church History, Theology, And Faith Crisis

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin,

Hopefully I haven't contradicted you in my (simplistic) rendering of paradigm choosing.

Not contradicted, but over simplified. To say that paradigm choice reduces completely to a personal decision regarding which problems are more significant to have solved reduces everything to personal subjectivity. Kuhn insists on the presence of personal subjectivity but does not reduce everything there. The most objective constraining factors for personal choice include a paradigm's performance with respect to puzzle generation and solution, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence with respect to other knowledge and experience, simplicity and aesthetics, fruitfulness (what do you discover as a result of simply assuming that the paradigm is correct and exploring), and future promise. The least objective constraining factors have to do with biographical and personal issues.

But I have to say again, there are true contradictions - mutually exclusive, jointly exhaustive claims about reality, history, events, and such - and, when confronted with them, you have genuine problems the power of which can only be known by them who experience them. I agree MOST problems in the OP do not fall into this category, but at least one does.

But which of the problems in the OP represent creedal statements to which every aspiring LDS member or leader or scholar must publically and permanently submit to, and for which we can demonstrate a perfect historical consistency and unanimity?

Kuhn:

"There are, I think, only two alternatives: either no scientific theory ever confronts a counterinstance, or all such theories confront counterinstances at all times." (Kuhn, Structure, 80)

"To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted." (Kuhn, 17-18)

"If any and every failure to fit were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times."(Kuhn, 146)

"Most anomalies are resolved by normal means; most proposals for new theories do prove to be wrong. If all members of a community responded to each anomaly as a source of crisis or embraced each new theory advanced by a colleague, science would cease. If, on the other hand, no one reacted to anomalies or to brand-new theories in high-risk ways, there would be few or no revolutions. In matters like these the resort to shared values rather than shared rules governing individual choice may be the community's way of distributing risk and assuring the long-term success of its enterprise." (Kuhn, 186)

Have you truly not experienced the full power of a fundamental contradiction?

Since my faith has never shattered, I have to say no. The one serious challenge lasted just a few days and led to my first published essay, "New Wine and New Bottles: Scriptural Scholarship as Sacrament" in Dialogue, Fall 1991.

One of the things I learned is neatly expressed by Ian Barbour:

"a network of theories and observations is always tested together. Any particular hypothesis can be maintained by rejecting or adjusting other auxiliary hypotheses." (Ian Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion, 99).

The age of the earth, according to the Bible, as interpreted by readers of a fundamentalist mindset, does not represent an existential, objective fact, but is consequence of reading based on a network of interrelated assumptions, most of which do not represent the cultural assumptions of the authors of the texts being interpreted. Genesis was originally a temple liturgy, based on the ritual erection of the desert tabernacle. The tabernacle, a portable temple, represented a model of the cosmos. That temple could be erected via a seven day ritual. That Heavens and Earth could be created in seven days and leave not a trace for modern geology and cosmology to touch.

And as I keep pointing out, D&C 1:24-28 expressly declares that LDS leaders are neither omniscient nor perfect. If you read as far as D&C 3, you find that the assumption that God would never allow his prophet to make a mistake is completely unfounded. Loosing a 116 pages of the translation? How could God let that happen? And Why? (And no quoting Isaiah 55:11 as that immediately calls into question the essential assumption that if there is a God, he will behave as I would if I were God.)

If I'm looking for evidence of Real inspiration from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or President Monsen, I adopt a completely different set of methods and look in different places than if I'm looking for evidence of ANY contradiction. It is the assumption that ANY contradiction represents an objective ground for existential crisis that provides the interpretive basis that makes the crisis.

Kuhn: the "more precise and far-reaching a paradigm is, the more sensitive an indicator it provides of anomaly and hence an occasion for paradigm change." Kuhn, 65.

One of the consistencies in LDS debates is that those who shatter are those who have the most rigid expectations, those who don't stop to consider, reflect upon and remove the eye motes that determine the quality of their vision.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Damien the Leper]

What shall one say of Abraham, commanded to sacrifice his only son?

I'm not entirely sure that the lesson that is 'emphasized' in that narrative is one of obedience. I still ponder on it at times but I think there is much more to it than simply doing as God asked or commanded.

[Log]

One of the consistencies in LDS debates is that those who shatter are those who have the most rigid expectations, those who don't stop to consider, reflect upon and remove the eye motes that determine the quality of their vision.

I'm going to have to disagree with this statement; not all instances of faith shattering can be fairly characterized in this manner; telling people their expectations are rigid and they're insufficiently insightful seems unhelpful to such individuals. I again point up the case of Abraham - except, of course, he didn't shatter.

I'm no Abraham.

I've sent you a PM to avoid my further derailing the thread.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Log

[Log]

I'm not entirely sure that the lesson that is 'emphasized' in that narrative is one of obedience. I still ponder on it at times but I think there is much more to it than simply doing as God asked or commanded.

There is much more to it, but obedience - faith - is the lesson being emphasized. It is a test of the quality of your character when you are confronted with the demand of the sacrifice of that which you want most in the world, that which your heart is set upon, that thing you cannot live without.

It hurts.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Log

[Log]

Thank you for saying that. Writing this topic I had hoped to have help from others who had experienced this, rather 98% of people shrug it off, think that I am not looking at this the right way, and the problem is with me. Not much help at all. I am not alone, yet here I have felt I was in seeing these difficulties. I am trying really hard to take each of these issues and try to find a way to reconcile them. I am not an anti mormon. I am an active faithful latter-day saint. who while having had spiritual experiences can not put my heart into something where the facts (as I see them) lead me to think that there are way too many mental hurdles to leap to make it fit. Yet I want nothing more then for the pegs to all fit in their holes.... at least enough to move forward. IT is not as simple to me as I have had spiritual experiences withing the realm of mormonism therefore the conclusion is that Mormonism is true I Know God loves me and that is enough for him to draw me closer to him in any realm or context.

You're not the only one who has faced this issue.

The specifics of your particular concerns, however, may not be entirely shared. Different things have holds upon different hearts, but (I presume) the emotional turmoil is the same. As I mentioned, I have passed some of these tests, and have failed others. But will you pass your personal Gom Jabbar? Will you be faithful even when you stand on the knife's edge over a yawning abyss revealing only the blackness of despair?

Do you want to?

[Calm]

I again point up the case of Abraham - except, of course, he didn't shatter.

In what way can you tell that Abraham is one of "those who have the most rigid expectations, those who don't stop to consider, reflect upon and remove the eye motes that determine the quality of their vision"?

[Log]

In what way can you tell that Abraham is one of "those who have the most rigid expectations, those who don't stop to consider, reflect upon and remove the eye motes that determine the quality of their vision"?

Have you never made a similar sacrifice, to know how it feels? Do you believe those who shatter when confronted by that are insufficiently insightful?

[Calm]

Have you never made a similar sacrifice, to know how it feels? Do you believe those who shatter when confronted by that are insufficiently insightful?

This is irrelevant to my question. What evidence do you have that Abraham was one of those who had the most rigid expectations, etc.?

I am assuming you have some scripture verses in mind that you interpret that he was of this personality/attribute type. I would like to see them and any commentary you believe needed to demonstrate your claim.

Edited April 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Log]

This is irrelevant to my question. What evidence do you have that Abraham was one of those who had the most rigid expectations, etc.?

Do you think I agree, or disagree, with Kevin's assessment of people whose faith shatters? You know I do not.

Nevertheless, you don't suppose Abraham had some expectations, among which that his son would outlive him?

Since you don't see the relevance of my question, and appear poised for conflict, it appears we can't fruitfully discuss this issue.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

Since you don't see the relevance of my question, and appear poised for conflict, it appears we can't fruitfully discuss this issue.

I am not seeking conflict. I am not disagreeing with you as there is nothing to disagree with yet. I am simply asking you to support a claim you made to understand it better. I do not understand why you made that claim, that Abraham perceived life and reacted to it in a certain way and I am wondering how you came to that conclusion.

If your process was simply relating Abraham to what you see around you and not anything scripturally based, all you need to do is say so. I don't have a problem with that, just curious about how you got to your conclusion is all.

You say that Abraham had an expectation that his son would outlive him, based I assume on the blessing Abraham had received. I would agree, but I don't see the evidence that this is a rigid expectation or that he was not the type to "stop to consider, reflect upon and remove the eye motes that determine the quality of their vision."

I am asking you to present this evidence of this rigid attribute of Abraham that I might have missed.

Edited April 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[mercyngrace]

There is much more to it, but obedience - faith - is the lesson being emphasized. It is a test of the quality of your character when you are confronted with the demand of the sacrifice of that which you want most in the world, that which your heart is set upon, that thing you cannot live without.

It hurts.

Adding to the derail... I disagree. The Abraham story isn't about Abraham's faith or obedience. It isn't even about Abraham or Isaac. Just sayin'.

[Log]

I am not seeking conflict. I am not disagreeing with you as there is nothing to disagree with yet. I am simply asking you to support a claim you made to understand it better. I do not understand why you made that claim, that Abraham perceived life and reacted to it in a certain way and I am wondering how you came to that conclusion.

Any expectation that is contradicted can lead to faith shattering. Slaying a son which, for the promises of God to be fulfilled, must live, is one such expectation and contradiction that places someone in a state wherein they must either press forward in extreme duress, or fail.

To say that those who fail when confronted with such contradictions are rigid is both unfair, and uninformative (if you shatter you were rigid, and if you are rigid you shatter), as well as unhelpful (stop being so rigid!).

If your process was simply relating Abraham to what you see around you and not anything scripturally based, all you need to do is say so. I don't have a problem with that, just curious about how you got to your conclusion is all.

As I said, I don't agree with Kevin's assessment.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Log

[Log]

Adding to the derail... I disagree. The Abraham story isn't about Abraham's faith or obedience. It isn't even about Abraham or Isaac. Just sayin'.

Well, say more - what do you think it's about?

[Calm]

This was the comment you disagreed with Kevin on (if I'm reading correctly):

One of the consistencies in LDS debates is that those who shatter are those who have the most rigid expectations, those who don't stop to consider, reflect upon and remove the eye motes that determine the quality of their vision.

Yes, any expectation can lead to faith shattering and again they may not....Kevin is exploring what type of expectations are most likely to lead to faith shattering and he identifies these as the "most rigid expectations" possessed by "those who don't stop to consider, reflect upon and remove the eye motes that determine the quality of their vision."

But you yourself said that Abraham didn't shatter, so first off how is he evidence that Kevin is wrong in the above unless you are simply rebutting his claim with the concept that "expectations don't always lead to faith shattering"? But that does not deal with Kevin's claim as he does not deal with all "expectations" but a limited class, his claim necessitates only "the most rigid expectations", he does not claim that all people with mild or even strong expectations shatter after all.

So logically speaking to use Abraham as a counter example to Kevin's claim, Abraham would be one of those who had "the most rigid expectations" so I am assuming that you believe that Abraham possessed such expectations and therefore I am asking you for evidence that the quality of Abraham's expectations were "most rigid", not that he had expectations which I take as a given.

If I am wrong in the assumption that you believe Abraham had most rigid expectations and you are more of the opinion that those expectations were very strong but still at some point included flexibility, then this is an interpretation of scripture that is easily demonstrated, imo, but then Abraham has nothing to do with the set of individuals that Kevin is talking about and thus does not substantiate why you might disagree with his claims here.

Edited April 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Adding to the derail... I disagree. The Abraham story isn't about Abraham's faith or obedience. It isn't even about Abraham or Isaac. Just sayin'.

Jacob 4: 5 Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son.

[Log]

Cal, we're talking at cross purposes.

"[N]ot all instances of faith shattering can be fairly characterized in this manner (rigidity + insufficient insight + contradiction = faith shattering); telling people their expectations are rigid and they're insufficiently insightful seems unhelpful to such individuals. I again point up the case of Abraham - except, of course, he didn't shatter."

If you were called upon to slay your son, who must live for the promises of God to be fulfilled, with your heart pained nigh unto death, for the contradiction is apparently absolute, would it alleviate that pain if someone came up to you and said "Oh, you're just rigid and lack insight"? Would that help you to be faithful? Would that help you to want to be faithful?

People want to alleviate their pain. It is unfair to minimize this experience - which, if you haven't had it, count your blessings - by labelling them who have it and fall away as "rigid and insufficiently insightful."

Again:

"To say that those who fail when confronted with such contradictions are rigid is both unfair, and uninformative (if you shatter you were rigid, and if you are rigid you shatter), as well as unhelpful (stop being so rigid!)."

Rigidity + insufficient insight + contradiction = faith shattering is a narrative; it was constructed to fulfill a need. Just not the person undergoing the trial's needs.

What is not addressed, credited, acknowledged, heard, is this: there is a severe pain involved. Pain. We're not talking about crystalline structures of arguments, or houses of theological / historical cards.

Some people fold when confronted with this pain. Others don't.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

You are, I believe, misrepresenting what Kevin has stated. He is not saying that only those with the most rigid of expectations have their faith shattered, he is saying that those who have the most rigid expectations, that do not examine them, etc. are the ones most likely to have their faith shattered.....he states that it is a consistency that those who shatter have rigid expectations, but consistencies are a general trend, not a rigid equivalency.

As such, his statement is useful in predicting behaviour of who in a situation is most likely to experience faith shattering (and thus perhaps useful in creating techniques to decrease the frequency of rigid expectations, thereby decreasing faith shattering experiences), but since he does not include all possibilities of causes of faith shattering....other consistent causes for example, his statement is not all that great at providing a general explanation of why faith was shattered....save in those cases where someone describes their expectations as most rigid or black and white w/o shades of grey, etc.

A ball is thrown against a flat surface which shatters, on examination the flat surface is made of brittle glass. Is anyone surprised that it shattered? If one was asked prior to the ball being thrown if he thought it would shattered and he said "yes because it is brittle", does this conclusion force all other cases of shattering to be assumed it was because they were also brittle?

"To say that those who fail when confronted with such contradictions are rigid is both unfair, and uninformative (if you shatter you were rigid, and if you are rigid you shatter), as well as unhelpful (stop being so rigid!)."

If this is what Kevin was saying, you would have a point. However, I don't see him saying anywhere "if you shatter, you were rigid", so it would appear you are having a different conversation than Kevin is.

And I still don't see how Abraham who didn't shatter and who may or may not have had rigid expectations fits in here as a rebuttal for Kevin's premise.

Edited April 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[mercyngrace]

Sacrificing children was commonplace in the ancient world. Abraham himself had been on the altar once. Dead gods all around the region and beyond were appealed to through the slaughter of innocents.

Abraham was asked to bring Isaac and sacrifice him. How unusual was this in Abraham's mind? Probably not unusual at all.

With heavy heart, Abraham must have realized that this God, the God who had spoken to him wanted the ultimate sacrifice.

He climbs the hill and God teaches him a lesson that shatters all the paradigms.

He isn't a God who has to be appeased with blood and fire. He is a God who provides.

The story is about the nature of God. That He provides a Lamb for us. That sacrifices aren't offered to appease Him.

Sacrifices were offered to appease our own consciences and satisfy our need for atonement, something hinted at by the writer of Hebrews.

The difference between the TRUE and LIVING GOD and His dead counterfeits is that He provides freedom through reconciliation while they require the captivity of increasingly demanding obeisance without any hope of atonement.

[Log]

Kevin... is saying that those who have the most rigid expectations, that do not examine them, etc. are the ones most likely to have their faith shattered.

As such, his statement is useful in predicting behaviour of who in a situation is most likely to experience faith shattering, but since he does not include all possibilities of causes of faith shattering, his statement is not all that great at providing a general explanation of why faith was shattered....save in those cases where someone describes their expectations as most rigid or black and white w/o shades of grey, etc.

Does Kevin's statement actually predict who's most likely to experience faith shattering, or does it function only to categorize the themes of most of the exit narratives of those whose faith shatters? If the former, then it is potentially useful. If the latter, then it is not - and, it seems to me, it is the latter.

If this is what Kevin was saying, you would have a point. However, I don't see him saying anywhere "if you shatter, you were rigid", so it would appear you are having a different conversation than Kevin is.

The idea of shattering requiring rigidity seems implicit in his choice of that analogy. Kevin, undoubtedly, can clear that up.

[LDSToronto]

If anyone would truly like to give a logical answer to my questions rather then talk about the way the brain handles information, or Tell me I don't have a testimony, or that the internet is evil. Please feel free, otherwise I am getting frustrated.

1.) There are negative things in LDS history the leaders would prefer to discuss as little as possible. some not at all. it comes off as they have something to hide at times

2.) Leaders have claimed to be inspired and have given bad information.

3.) We can't teach follow the prophet regardless and then tell people they are human and they make mistakes and we can choose not to follow when they are wrong and there is no consequence

I understand your frustration. It's very difficult, if not impossible, it understand when an apostle/prophet is speaking as a man or as a prophet. John Larsen gives a great analogy - imagine you had to write a math test that required the use of a calculator. You are given a calculator and told that sometimes the calculator acts like a calculator and gives you the right answer, but other times, the calculator acts like an arts major and gives you the wrong answer. As the user of the calculator, you won't ever know when the answer is right and when it is wrong.

What do you do? Do you use the calculator and hope to pass the test? Or do you demand a new calculator that works? Or do you ask for a failsafe way to know when the calculator is giving the right answer?

You ask a difficult question - I haven't read all the answers in this thread. Your frustration probably comes from the lack of a good answer to the following question: Why should anyone base their life on a philosophy that is so prone to error?

H.

[Log]

MNG, I get an entirely different lesson from it, but I appreciate your perspective.

[Calm]

He isn't a God who has to be appeased with blood and fire. He is a God who provides.

The story is about the nature of God. That He provides a Lamb for us. That sacrifices aren't offered to appease Him.

Now that would have been a shattering of expectation.

[Calm]

Does Kevin's statement actually predict who's most likely to experience faith shattering, or does it function only to categorize the themes of most of the exit narratives of those whose faith shatters? If the former, then it is potentially useful. If the latter, then it is not - and, it seems to me, it is the latter.

Would you accept evidence of rigid expectations in someone whose faith has been shattered as evidence of the likelihood of the existence of rigid expectations prior to the faith shattering experience? IOW, would you see the current presence of rigid expectations as evidence of a pattern of behaviour that would result in the past presence of rigid expectations? Edited April 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Log]

Would you accept evidence of rigid expectations in someone whose faith has been shattered as evidence of the likelihood of the existence of rigid expectations prior to the faith shattering experience?

IOW, would you see the current presence of rigid expectations as evidence of a pattern of behaviour that would result in the past presence of rigid expectations?

If we considered the example of Kevin Graham... I would be tempted to say yes.

But again, could we have looked before it happened and said this or that person was likely to have their faith shattered because they were rigid? And what would we have meant by "rigid"? Narrow? Bigoted? Holding strong opinions? Believing some claims are actually true that we, in our infinite wisdom, pooh-pooh?

Edited April 14, 2012 by Log

[DBMormon]

LOG & Storm Rider - thank You. You seem to be the only two who don't try to turn this around on me. Also i keep telling people you are not talking to a person who has encountered this stuff for the first time.

my issues are specifically

ADAM GOD - How does one prophet recieve false revelation and we are told afterward that a prophet can not lead the church astray. (call it what you may but Brigham was confident in his writings that this was revealed to him.

Age of the Earth and Evolution - why do we not have some discussion this to rid ourselves of fasle doctrine when we are to keep the doctrine pure. We should make sure each member is taught somewhere along the way that the earth can be more then 6,000 years old and you can still believe in the church. We should teach using these two examples how Prophets and apostles Error and how we don't have to follow their every word or be damned

PriestHood / Blacks - Apostles and Prophets told me they were fence sitters. Because they imparted this teaching I want someone to tell me in context of a Sunday Lesson Manual how they messed up and explain what we know and what we don't so that I others do not perpetuate this abominable teaching. I once told a black lady this when I was 18 becasue that is what I read my leaders said..... awful and ashamed is all I can say. We have to own up to mistakes better so thay can be clarified and done away with. we allow some to still believe this

Catholic Church / Great Abominable Church - same as Priesthood /Blacks

Polyandry - not spoken of at any level.... only way you know he married other men's wives is Apoligetic site or Critics. IT is time we talk about... in fact it was time 100 years ago.... and continuaosly till now. I have a right to know those things before I decide to join. Would I have... yep but I deserved to know

Book of Abraham - too many attepmts to explain this in some way that never exactly fits. Not an issue to me but to many others

14 Fundamentals of a prophet - again a prophet can lead you astray (ADAM GOD)... therefore at least one point of his talk is false

Lamianites - all indians - I know views here differ so not a point for me other then it never should have found it's way into scripture headings...no biggie here

Lamanite skin color = curse - We need to do a better job within the manuals to correct the false paradigm.. One no longer has to hold to this.

Book of Mormon - I love this book... no real complaint here. It is true. In fact I wish we stuck more to it's doctrine on Grace then we do. (church is begginning to..... no more After all we can do... that verse is so misunderstood we are saved by the merits, mercy, and grace of God and what he asks of us is that we are "WILLING" to do all we can

Treasure Seeking/Seer Stone - needs to be part of the story we tell in our history otherwise we are hiding something. I need to find seer stones on LDS.org more then just a few references. If we are going to be honest it needs to be part of the historicl account.

Masonry in the Temple ordinances - two sides have been presented here. 1.) Mansonry has no link to ancient Christianity and Joseph simply used the methods to get accross God's instruction. 2.) Masonry does have a direct connection to ancient Christianity and therefore Jospeh was instructed by God to put it back in it's proper context. Everyone tells me that #2 is not historical or factual other then a few experts. #1 is held by many but is too hard for me to reconcile with the early staements of a dozen leaders who said Joseph said that Masonry was a twisted form of Ancient ordinances and that God told him to correct it. We can't have it both ways

President Benson - was completly incapacitated years before his death. Yet the Rest of the brethren tried to make him look viable and vibrant and make it seem he was still at the helm. He was not. He was in the middle of major dementia. No one want to be forthright and honest with how bad it was... they wanted you and me to continue to think God's mouthpiece was just fine.

President Hinkley's answers on tv interviews regarding God is man mmay become ect.. - When I heard those interviews... I was let down. I saw it as a chance to state emphatically truth and it seemed he was very umcomfortable telling the world what we believe. just my take. I saw it as the opposite of the sermon on the unknown God

First Vision - We need to tell people through Sunday manuals that Jospeh may not have been 14 years old, there may not have a been a religious revival just before his vision, and that there are multiple accounts of this vision and what each contains so others can make up there minds with all the facts.

GRACE - mentioned earlier.... Grace up till the last decade or so was spoken of so little compared to it's prominence in the gospel. We need more Grace... enough of guilting people by telling them only after all they can do..... Bullcrap....none of us ever have done all we can do!!!!

lastly - I need Prophets who prophecy and Apostles who special witness is greater then my "non-specialwitness"

I await an honest forthright approach that doesn't involve psychology 309 or guilt trips on me

Thank You