Jump to content

Theories Of Faith Development : A Model To Assist Those In Faith Crisis


Recommended Posts

Mormonism, of course. I said that in my last post. But I don't think it's evil.

Please read what I have posted.

 

I AGREE WITH BOTH MORMONISM AND THE DIDACHE THAT THERE ARE ABSOLUTE MORAL PRINCIPLES.  We define morality according to the golden rule, which is the meme which always works for morality.  Our survival requires that we live it. These principles are also called the two great commandments.

 

Break that commandment and we die.  Is that absolute enough?  Break a commandment and "thou shalt surely die".  Does that sound Mormon enough for you?

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post

Please read what I have posted.

 

I AGREE WITH BOTH MORMONISM AND THE DIDACHE THAT THERE ARE ABSOLUTE MORAL PRINCIPLES.

We've had this discussion before, I think. Where we differ is that I believe Mormonism has only one absolute.

We define morality according to the golden rule, which is the meme which always works for morality.  Our survival requires that we live it. These principles are also called the two great commandments.

 

Break that commandment and we die.  Is that absolute enough?  Break a commandment and "thou shalt surely die".  Does that sound Mormon enough for you?

For me, the absolute in Mormonism is obedience, no matter what. If obedience means breaking the golden rule, you break the golden rule. If obedience means violating your conscience, you violate your conscience. A poster here once told me that the great test of this life was to overcome our moral objections and obey anyway. I found that rather horrifying, but the more I have thought about it, the more I realize he was right.

From what I can see, mainstream Christianity believes in a situational morality, so to speak. For example, when God commands men, women, and children to be slaughtered in the Old Testament, that's totally cool, and questioning it is wrong. Joseph Smith was just more explicit about it.

I don't know how to explain myself any better than this.

Link to post

If words are all there is, that's kind of impossible. :)

 

 

 Nope, being that words are all there is one has to be extra careful not to let them get in the way.

Link to post

Sure. For most people, certain moral choices are inherently moral because they are good. For example, it is inherently good for us to try to help others to improve their lives (we are our brothers' keepers, after all). Does this mean we force others to do what we wish? No. Does it mean that our efforts are always successful? No. But it does mean that the desire and effort themselves are of moral value.

 

So, moral value, for most people, is viewed as inherently residing in good intents and efforts and not good results?

 

Given our human (and I would suggest eternal) inclination to progress, I would think moral values inherently reside more in results than in intents and/or efforts.

 

Take for example, if one's intent is to improve the lives of others, but one never acts on that intent (makes no effort), then is one still moral in that regard? I think not.

 

And, if one has no intent to improve the lives of others, but through one's efforts the lives of others are inadvertently improved, then is one made moral thereby? Again, I think not.

 

And, if the results in acting on one's intents are invariably or usually the opposite (people's lives are made worse), then I would think morality would advise against acting on one's intent, at least until one can find a way where one's efforts will produce the intended results. Agreed?

 

As for improving the lives of others being an inherent morality, or a morality that is inherent within mankind, I get the sense from observing children that it isn't necessarily the case. In fact, it seems more inherent for children to be self-centered, often at the expense of others (put a single toy in a room with a couple of preschoolers and see what I mean). As such, it necessitates adults shaping the children's moral system (conscience) through instruction (like having them sing "Give Said the Little Stream," and read scriptures like "brothers keeper," etc.)

 

Now, if by "inherently moral" you mean that helping others is good irrespective and regardless, then doesn't this beg the question? (See my next post)

 

 

 

In the system I've been hearing from some people, nothing is inherently moral. God can and does change His mind about what is right and expects us to go along. Thus, helping others to improve their lives is only good/moral when God commands us. If God commands us to ruin someone's life, that is equally as moral/good, though we may not understand why He wants us to do that. What we end up with in that system is not only amoral humanity, but also an amoral God.

 

I think that, by omitting the nuances and simplifying things down to black and white, you may have lost important meaning in what has been said. What may be viewed in "great thinker" terms as universal and absolute, may actually be a general rule with exceptions. And, what may appear in "great thinker" respect as God changing his mind, may in more nuanced terms appear to underscore God's consistency.

 

Take, for example, a father who has two children, who knows his children far better than they know themselves, and who recognizes that one of the children best improves in her behavior through a system of rewards, whereas the other child best improves in his behavior through a system of punishments, and so the father rewards the one and punishes the other.

 

From a "great thinker" perspective, this may appear as though there is no inherent morality, and that the father keeps changing his mind, and that the child who received the punishment had his life ruined. Whereas, when the nuances and complexities are taken into consideration, and when results are factored into the equation, it may appear that the father is consistent in his morality in improving the lives of his children, and hasn't changed his mind, but adapted his parenting to best meet the respective needs of his children.

 

I believe this principle applies not just to individuals, but groups and peoples as well.

 

Now, bringing this back to the topic of this thread, if a person (present company not necessarily included) views God in "great thinker" terms (i.e. as though God seems to have no inherent morality, and changes his mind, and ruins the lives of people), and it conflicts with this person's "great thinker" beliefs about inherent morality (i.e. universal and absolute morals), then this person may be at risk of losing faith in God.

 

Whereas, if a person views God in more nuanced terms (i.e. where God appears to have inherent morals, the results of which are achieved through various means best suited to each individual and peoples as a whole), and it comports with this person's more nuanced view of inherent morality (i.e. it consists of general rules with exceptions, and specific rules for specific circumstances), then this person may be less at risk of losing faith in God,

 

Makes sense?

 

[Edited out unintended pejoratives]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

For me, the absolute in Mormonism is obedience, no matter what.

 

Yes and no (as I see it).

 

Some "great thinker" Mormons believe in obedience to God no matter what, whereas some "great thinker" non-Mormons and some "great thinker" Mormons believe in obedience to their own conscience no matter what. For "great thinkers" of all stripes, obedience is a moral absolute.

 

Some non-"great thinker" Mormons and non-Mormons, on the other hand, may view privileging obedience to God as a general rule that allows for exceptional privileging of obedience to their own conscience, or vice versa. For non-"great thinkers" of all stripes, obedience isn't a moral absolute, but a general rule.

 

Bringing this back again to the topic at hand, those "great thinkers" who absolutely privilege their own conscience over God, are at risk of losing faith in God because of their absolute subordination of their faith in God to their greater faith in their own conscience--making themselves greater than God.

 

[Edited out unintended pejoratives]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I think that, by omitting the nuances and simplifying things down to black and white, you may have lost important meaning in what has been said. What may be viewed in fundamentalist terms as universal and absolute, may actually be a general rule with exceptions. And, what may appear in a fundamentalist respect as God changing his mind, may in more nuanced terms appear to underscore God's consistency.

 

Take, for example, a father who has two children, who knows his children far better than they know themselves, and who recognizes that one of the children best improves in her behavior through a system of rewards, whereas the other child best improves in his behavior through a system of punishments, and so the father rewards the one and punishes the other.

 

From a fundamentalist perspective, this may appear as though there is no inherent morality, and that the father keeps changing his mind, and that the child who received the punishment had his life ruined. Whereas, when the nuances and complexities are taken into consideration, and when results are factored into the equation, it may appear that the father is consistent in his morality in improving the lives of his children, and hasn't changed his mind, but adapted his parenting to best meet the respective needs of his children.

 

I believe this principle applies not just to individuals, but groups and peoples as well.

 

Now, bringing this back to the topic of this thread, if a person (present company not necessarily included) views God in fundamentalist terms (i.e. as though God seems to have no inherent morality, and changes his mind, and ruins the lives of people), and it conflicts with this person's fundamentalist beliefs about inherent morality (i.e. universal and absolute morals), then this person may be at risk of losing faith in God.

 

Whereas, if a person views God in more nuanced terms (i.e. where God appears to have inherent morals, the results of which are achieved through various means best suited to each individual and peoples as a whole), and it comports with this person's more nuanced view of inherent morality (i.e. it consists of general rules with exceptions, and specific rules for specific circumstances), then this person may be less at risk of losing faith in God,

 

Makes sense?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

In the interest of good will, I'm just not going to respond to your continued use of pejoratives. It's just not worth it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
For me, the absolute in Mormonism is obedience, no matter what.

 

I could not disagree more- were that the Mormon position the entire schema would be self-contradictory, because Mormonism is based entirely on following one's conscience, not blind obedience.

 

Before one can join the church, before one can get a temple recommend one must have a "testimony" - a personal religious experience which "verifies" the veracity of Mormonism.  This is a requirement both in the temple recommend and baptismal interviews. This is prominently taught in the missionary lessons when talking about Moroni 10:4-5, where it is said that by the Holy Spirit, one can know the truth of "ALL things".  That would include whether or not a given pronouncement by a given authority figure is "of God" or not.

Alma 32 teaches us to find principles which we live and which will become "sweet" to US- not to a leader who is commanding us- so that we can know the truth for ourselves.

Clearly it is sometimes necessary to make sacrifices in warfare, one such example was in WWII when, I believe, it was necessary to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Quite probably had someone assassinated the leader of the Germans in that war, before he was killed by the allies, a great good probably would have resulted.  Sometimes it is necessary to kill, as the story of Nephi and Laban illustrate, for a greater good.

But that has nothing to do with "blind obedience".

If you want to call that "situational ethics" then so be it.  For me, "relativism" is not a dirty word.

What I find curious is that you seem to defend both contingency of language and "absolutes", and your apparent belief that there is ANY "reality" beyond contingent verbal descriptions.  You continually speak of the "real" while saying that all that is real are descriptions in language.

I really don't get that at all.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

And what if your feelings are wrong? The Laffertys thought God was communicating with them through the Holy Spirit. How do you know they weren't actually following God's will?

 

EDIT:  This is a long post, so feel free to not respond to any of it you don't feel needs a response, or want to skip.

 

Definitely possible.  But again, what do you have other than your own feelings?  Absolutely nothing.  What you feel is what you consider reality, because it's what you experience.  So we choose to trust some feelings on faith, and others we choose not to trust.

 

 

 

 Damn straight I am happy to take away someone else's "right" to kill another person just because they feel like it. I can't believe you think they should have that right. Yikes.

 

Mmm... what I said in earlier posts never mentioned a right to kill someone else.  I said someone had a right to believe God told them to kill someone else.  Again, a dichotomy between thoughts and actions.  I leave them the right to believe.  I don't necessarily reserve for them the right to act upon those though.  There's a difference, in my opinion, between thought and action.

 

 

 

We do not exist in a vacuum. What we do affects other people. That's why.

 

I never questioned that what we do affects other people.  I never even said that it was justified not to stop other people.  What I said is they are justififed to belive what they want, if we want to believe what we want.  That's the basic idea of not being hypocritical, in essence.  In order to believe what we do (our senses, the spirit, anything), we have to realize others may not make the same assumptions we do.  This, again, does not stop us from preventing them from acting upon their beliefs, because it conflicts with ours.

 

 

 

How is this different from "whatever God commands is right, no matter what it is"? The difference is that you're claiming God is a moral positivist.

 

It is and it isn't.  I think God is the moral positivist because in my opinion, he is better than the rest of us.  But I don't think we can be authoritative moral positivists, except for ourselves.  What use is it to say to someone else 'This is right because it is so'.  They have no reason to believe you.  They have no reason to listen to you beyond their own curiosity.

 

 

 

If I had to choose between what societies have decided is moral after thousands of years of social evolution and someone's arbitrary statement that "God wants you to do this" I'll take society's conclusion as being more grounded in morality.

 

That's your choice, of course.  I leave you the right to choose.  Though I don't reserve your right to act, again, lol.

 

But if there is anything I have learned from my early life, as a child who used to not understand body language, it is that society is not a good measure of what I think is right, or what I think should be done, or how I think people should act.  Much of the good in life comes from society, yes, but much of the bad does as well.  And someday, you will come to a point where society contradicts what you believe is right.  And you will realize you don't trust their opinion of morality completely after all.  After all, society is a changing thing, and what is moral one century flips the next.  And it may flip back.  It's not super consistent.  Even more than that though, society is fragmented.  Different parts say different things.  In lots of circumstances, different parts of society are against each other.  Yet, they make up the whole, conflict and all.  That's just the consequence of basing your morality off of society.  You may find that more preferable than the consequence of my view of morality.  Of course, as I don't base my morality on society, I find my consequence more preferable.  I hope you can understand our differing perspectives on which is better.

 

 

 

I've said nothing about whether or not we should believe in anything. What I am trying to make sense of is mfbukowski's assertion that Mormonism promotes some ideal good, which seems incompatible with Mormonism's caveats about the definition of right and wrong.

 

Well that's all that my system of morality is based upon.  Should, or should we not, believe in things.  I don't consider actions, for those, people are just going to have to fight it out.  But I believe there should be a certain respect of thoughts, even ones we think are wrong, because it allows us to believe what we think is right.

 

I differ from mfb in the sense that I am less Kantian than he is.  So, I can't answer about his 'ideal good', truthfully.  It promotes that I see as good, and things, which I think I could reason to you are good, based on our common beliefs.

 

Keep in mind, that what me and mfb are talking about, each, is not actually 'Mormonism'.  It's our philosophies about epistemology, which we mix with our religious perspectives.  In a sense, you are getting what two people's moral philosophies.  'Mormonism' in and of itself is a set of common beliefs, doctrines, and actions.  But generally, those things aren't being covered in this thread.  With one exception of course, and that is the Holy Ghost.  The idea of 'how we come to a knowledge that God exists and what he says' is proving to be a pretty commonly discussed idea in this thread I think.  Now this is a very important thing, but even then, not all Mormons agree upon it.  I've met Mormons who are quite positivistic - and I don't mean that as an insult.  But they are very confident in their certainty about things.  I'm on the opposite side of the scale, obviously, doubting things, and then doubting my doubts (double consistency is awesome)!  So yeah, not sure if that answered the question, but I thought you ought to know.

 

 

 

If that's the only reason you can think of for the development of social mores, I don't think I can help.

 

Well tell me than, why do social mores develop?  And what makes them 'right'?  You imply that there is a suitable answer for those two questions.  I don't think there is, at least from my perspective.  If you have time, I'd love it if you showed me why you believe you are correct.  If you can do that, perhaps we can get down to the base issue we are disagreeing upon.

 

 

 

So, you don't believe the Light of Christ is a gift to humans from God to help them choose right from wrong? I thought I was the apostate.  :)

 

I definitely believe it is God's gift to human to help them choose right from wrong, but it doesn't mean I can prove it.  I can't even provide undeniable evidence.  All evidence I provide is based off of assumptions I have made, like my senses, logic, and other things.  In order to communicate with other people, I have to make sure they also make these same assumptions, or else we can't really communicate well and run into an impasse.

 

In fact, the way I am trying to convince you is even based off of any assumption - and that is the law of hypocriticality (aka, to do an action justifies similar actions).  I am guessing that you hold to this law.  Most people in the world do, it's probably one of the most universally accepted logic laws out there.  But it's still an assumption.  And I'm still taking a guess.

 

But just because I'm taking a guess doesn't mean I cannot believe I am right.  It doesn't mean I cannot believe in those things.  That is my choice to make.

 

 

 

Seriously, though, in my view, even if we take God out of the equation (which I generally don't), right and wrong are social constructs born of evolutionary processes. In short, they promote the survival of the species, so absent a good reason to ignore them, they're a pretty good standard.

 

Well let me ask you this.  You says 'right and wrong are social constructs... [that] promote the survival of the species.  What makes the species surviving good?  I know that sounds ridiculous.  But just think about it for a second.  Say you were a hypothetical intelligent animal whose habitat was being decimated by human kind.  The survival of humans might be not such a good thing.  'Eradication' is good or bad based on perspective.  I don't know if you've ever read 'Ender's Game', but what it teaches is that when it comes to life and death, humans act in their own interests.  And I'd expect most other species to do the same.  Humans surviving is certainly good to us.  But is it good to others?  That depends.

 

 

 

If we as humans can't agree that, absent a compelling reason not do so, we ought to do what we believe to be right (especially those things human history tells us are right), we're kind of screwed.

 

The problem is, humans don't always believe the same things are right.  And I doubt that humans will all ever universally agree on something until the Lord returns again.  We disagree.  Society disagree.  Even history disagrees (there are things that work once, that don't work a second time).  I don't think basing morality solely on society or history is a good idea.  Then again, that is my opinion.  And you should do what you feel is right.

Edited by TAO
Link to post

I could not disagree more- were that the Mormon position the entire schema would be self-contradictory, because Mormonism is based entirely on following one's conscience, not blind obedience.

Obedience is a fundamental law of the gospel. It is not only the demonstration of our faith but also the foundation of our faith. But the philosophical standard of the world holds that unquestioning obedience equals blind obedience, and blind obedience is mindless obedience. This is simply not true. Unquestioning obedience to the Lord indicates that a person has developed faith and trust in Him to the point where he or she considers all inspired instruction—whether it be recorded scripture, the words of modern prophets, or direct inspiration through the Holy Ghost—to be worthy of obedience.

 

Before one can join the church, before one can get a temple recommend one must have a "testimony" - a personal religious experience which "verifies" the veracity of Mormonism.  This is a requirement both in the temple recommend and baptismal interviews. This is prominently taught in the missionary lessons when talking about Moroni 10:4-5, where it is said that by the Holy Spirit, one can know the truth of "ALL things".  That would include whether or not a given pronouncement by a given authority figure is "of God" or not.

Obviously, the church teaches that one "verifies" the truth through prayer and the manifestation of the spirit. Ultimately, however, that manifestation is a matter of interpretation, so even the "verification" is a matter of faith, not knowledge.

Alma 32 teaches us to find principles which we live and which will become "sweet" to US- not to a leader who is commanding us- so that we can know the truth for ourselves.

It also teaches that we should obey even when what we are told to do isn't "sweet" to us:

President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident which happened to him:

“I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’” (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78.) (Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, June 1981)

Clearly it is sometimes necessary to make sacrifices in warfare, one such example was in WWII when, I believe, it was necessary to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Quite probably had someone assassinated the leader of the Germans in that war, before he was killed by the allies, a great good probably would have resulted.  Sometimes it is necessary to kill, as the story of Nephi and Laban illustrate, for a greater good.

But that has nothing to do with "blind obedience".

What I'm talking about is "unquestioning obedience," as described above. And that is valued in the church.

If you want to call that "situational ethics" then so be it.  For me, "relativism" is not a dirty word.

As you said, I don't have a problem with making a moral choice that requires breaking one moral "rule" in favor of the greater good, such as the old example of hiding Jews from the Nazis and lying to protect them. Again, that's not what I'm talking about here.

What I find curious is that you seem to defend both contingency of language and "absolutes", and your apparent belief that there is ANY "reality" beyond contingent verbal descriptions.  You continually speak of the "real" while saying that all that is real are descriptions in language.

I have to assume that you genuinely haven't understood my point of view.

I really don't get that at all.

Again, time for me to bow out, as we seem to be talking past one another.

Link to post

It also means they (meaning folks like the Laffertys) can act against our interests if they believe what we are doing is wrong according to what God has revealed to them. That's exactly the rationale they used to kill Brenda Lafferty and her daughter. (And lest anyone mistake my intent, no, I am not suggesting that anyone would or could justify the Laffertys' crimes.) If all we have to judge by is what we think God wants us to do, then we are in no position to judge anyone else's behavior, ever.

You are treading really close to the line of extreme hyperbole and comparisons. We don't allow that, let this serve as a warning.

Nemesis

Link to post

I do apologize for an inapt and hyperbolic comparison. It won't happen again.

I will try to stick with my point, which is that, when we say that all that matters is doing what works for us, we have no right to judge any other person's behavior. In my view, we are obligated to make judgments about what we and others do.

Link to post

Perry's Scheme is great by the way.  I like it very much.  Kevin Christensen

http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22100469/Perry%20Scheme.pdf

 

I really like this as I see all 9 positions being the common development for those who find themselves in crisis over Historical issues and a general idea on the transitional paths to work out of it.  It helps the person see that rather then inspect the Church's claims because they do not fit their assumptions and expectations, that instead it is their assumptions and expectations that may need adjustment.

 

Anyway, anyone interested in the type of faith crisis I am speaking about would benefit from this outline of Perry's scheme.

Bill

Edited by DBMormon
Link to post

Well, perhaps those of us unable to maintain that lofty height should bow out.

 

Nah, I'm pretty sure he was talking about how we are bouncing around ideas, even if slightly different, that fall in the somewhat same category.  In any case, you shouldn't feel inclined to bow out simply because you don't agree with us.  We are happy to have discussions with people who feel differently than we do =).

Edited by TAO
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I will try to stick with my point, which is that, when we say that all that matters is doing what works for us, we have no right to judge any other person's behavior. In my view, we are obligated to make judgments about what we and others do.

 

What if we changed this to 'all that matters is believing what works for us'.  Would that be a bit better?  In other words, I'm not saying 'doing' is okay, but believing is something I think is okay.

Link to post

In the interest of good will, I'm just not going to respond to your continued use of pejoratives. It's just not worth it.

 

I am sorry that you see pejoratives where none were intended. Will it help, or make a difference if I replace the word "fundamentalist" with "great thinkers"?  It won't make a bit of difference to the intended meaning of comments--except that I won't be able to draw clear parallels between what I said and what is said in the OP or the Perry Scheme et. al.

 

In fact, I will go ahead and make the changes and see what you think.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Bernard Gui
      Something I wonder about...
      In 3 Nephi 12, Jesus says to the people at the temple,
      How are they more blessed if they believe the words of the eyewitnesses? Those who witnessed, believed, and were baptized also received forgiveness and the baptism of the Holy Ghost. I understand the implication that greater faith is required, but in what way are they “more blessed”? Is this a quantitative or qualitative increase? 
      Those who were at the temple already had their faith sorely tried. They survived persecution, threats of death because of their faith, cataclysmic destruction, and days of darkness. They were allowed to see and touch the risen Savior. That in itself is an incomparable blessing reserved for very few mortals. Their obligation then was to be His witnesses. Without them, we would not know of the Resurrection. 
      I understand that signs do not necessarily lead to faith. Many who see signs never believe or fall away, but none of these Nephites nor the disciples in Jerusalem who saw and touched the risen Lord fell away. Sister Gui suggested it means those who hear the testimony of the witnesses and believe are more blessed than those who hear the testimony and don’t believe. It seems to me, though, that the Savior is comparing two groups - the witnesses and those who believe the witnesses - and the latter are the more blessed. 
      On two other occasions, some people are declared more blessed. 
      1. Those who humble themselves without compulsion.
      2. The three Nephite disciples who desired to tarry.
      However, speaking to Thomas, the Lord said,
      In this instance, those who believe without seeing are not more blessed. 

      I understand how these people are more blessed because of their faith. What do you think the Savior meant in 3 Nephi 12?
    • By nuclearfuels
      Looking for some insight into Alma 29:3 -
      But behold, I am a man, and do sin in my wish; for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted unto me.
      Seems like if Alma's faith grew he would naturally pray for not only his people but the Lamanites, and then others (people in Jerusalem and Middle East, Lost Tribes, etc.).
      But then he chides himself for wanting to do that.
      What's the problem here?
      Should he trust God to have called Prophets to cry repentance to all those other people so Alma should just "stay in his lane?"
      When you pray and you're really feeling the Spirit, what would be incorrect about praying for your family, ward, stake, the whole church, the whole world - to be blessed with health, prosperity, a greater acceptance of the restored gospel?
      I guess we should focus on the jurisdiction of our own callings but honestly I pray for things I'm quite sure God laughs out loud at, not to mention when I pray for others outside of my stake, church, etc.
       
    • By Calm
      https://www.uvu.edu/religiousstudies/heavenandearth/


      Heaven & Earth
      Mormonism and the Challenges of Science, Revelation and Faith
      February 22nd - 23rd, 2018
      Classroom Building, Room 511
      Utah Valley University

      click here for a pdf version of the program 
       
      Description
      The relationship between science and religion has been among the most fiercely debated issues since the Copernican revolution displaced traditional wisdom regarding the nature of the cosmos. Some have argued  for a sharp division of labor while others have sought to harmonize spiritual and empirical truths. From its beginnings, Mormonism has wrestled with the implications of modern science and has produced a variety of  theological responses. This conference will explore the landscape of Mormon thought as it relates to the relationships between science, theology, scriptural narratives, and LDS authoritative discourse. It will also examine abiding questions of faith, reason, and doubt and the reactions against the intellectualizing forces that bear on the truth claims of Mormonism.  
        Keynote Speaker
      Molly Worthen
      Assistant Professor of History
      University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
      author of Apostles of Reason: The Crisis of Authority in American Evangelicalism Eugene England Lecture
      Steven L. Peck
      Associate Professor of Biology
      Brigham Young University
      author of Science the Key to Theology Conference Participants
      Philip L. Barlow
      Leonard J. Arrington Chair in Mormon Studies & Culture
      Utah State University
      author of Mormons and the Bible: The Place of Latter-day Saints in American Religion
        Brian D. Birch 
      Brian D. Birch, Director, Religious Studies Program
      Utah Valley University
      series co-editor, Perspectives on Mormon Theology
        David Bokovoy
      Online Professor of Bible and Jewish Studies
      Utah State University
      author of Reading the Old Testament: Genesis - Deuteronomy 
        Matthew Bowman
      Matthew Bowman, Assistant Professor of Philosophy
      Henderson State University
      author of The Mormon People: The Making of an American Faith
        Deidre Nicole Green
      Postdoctoral Fellow
      Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship
      author of "Becoming Equal Partners: Latter-day Saint Women as Theologians” 
        Jamie L. Jensen
      Associate Professor of Biology, Brigham Young University, author of “Influencing highly religious undergraduate perceptions of evolution:  Mormons as a case study” 
        Boyd Jay Petersen
      Program Coordinator for Mormon Studies
      Utah Valley University
      author of “One Soul Shall Not Be Lost': The War in Heaven in Mormon Thought" 
        Jana K. Riess
      Senior Columnist
      Religion News Service
      author of The Next Mormons
        David W. Scott
      Professor of Communication
      Utah Valley University
      author of “Dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?"  
      Ben Spackman
      History of Christianity & Religions of North America Program
      Claremont Graduate University
      author of “Truth, Scripture, and Interpretation: Some Precursors to Reading Genesis”  
      Co-Sponsors & Partners
      Religious Studies Program, Utah Valley University College of Humanities & Social Sciences, Utah Valley University
    • By hope_for_things
      As an orthodox Mormon, when I have questions and critiques on topics that I hear at church or read about, I'm frequently told that it all boils down to just having faith, especially when people don't have good answers to my questions.  Terryl Given and Fiona Given's even articulate this idea in their book, The Crucible of Doubt, about how when presented with information on both sides of an issue, that this is precisely the point of God's plan so that we are able to choose and exercise faith.  
      Here is my question, what are we supposed to have faith in exactly?  Should I have faith in the historicity of an event described in the BoM?  Should I have faith that a talk given in conference by a church leader is an inspired talk that accurately reflects the mind of God?  Should I have faith that the words written in the Sunday school manual are inspired by God?  Should I have faith that the interpretation of scripture espoused by my high council representative is the one true interpretation?  What exactly should I have faith in?  
      From my reading of scripture, particularly the Bible and the BoM there is a repeating theme that humans continue to mess things up. In the bible, some of the worst offenders are often the prophets.  They are constantly falling short of the divine will and making big mistakes and getting chastised by God.  Many passages warn against trusting in the arm of the flesh. 
      So this brings me back to the question of faith, and I wonder if all the times that my fellow Mormons encourage me to just have faith, if they aren't actually are giving me really bad advice.  I'm thinking from the experiences I've had and the examples throughout history, that the thing I need to put my faith in is God directly, and not in humans or scriptural interpretations.  Maybe having faith in a church leader is not the purpose of faith at all.  Maybe having faith in a traditional church truth claim is also not the point of faith.   Faith in God, directly is not the same thing as faith in the church or faith in scripture or faith in authorities.  Faith in God seems like the only kind of faith that really can work. 
      Thoughts? 
    • By nuclearfuels
      So if you were called over a period of 8 years in let us say a certain calling which you had reservations about but accepted anyway, at what point would you say no to future callings in the same certain calling area?  If you said no to such a calling and then received a similar calling a few months later, what would you think? Not enough adults to call or inspiration coming back again?  In all honesty when Auxiliary leaders make recommendations for certain callings in ward council/correlation mtg, is there further prayer/consideration/Spiritual guidance by Ward Leaders?  I believe so and I hope so; just seems strange to get a calling quite similar to one I said no to a few months earlier.
      I've heard that Sunbeams coteacher in a former ward I was in received seven no's in response to callings and I can't judge anyone who turned it down as I wasn't part of those callings' issuance.  A friend of mine in college turned down a Primary call since she was a homemaker with three boys and said she needed a break.
      The non-linear part makes sense; we all don't progress in the same order of callings...BUT it seems odd to me to have received such a similar calling in multiple wards over many years, in a chartered organization that I do not support.
       
×
×
  • Create New...