"on Bracketing The Truth" And "checking Your Religion At The Door"

[Scott Lloyd]

In another thread, I made this comment:

 

As a non-subscriber, I've only now been able to access most of the content of last year's issue of Mormon Studies Review and, hence, have only now seen Daniel Peterson's article. He makes a persuasive case that apologetics is a useful and necessary part of scholarly dialogue and, hence, ought to be regarded as a branch of religious studies in general and Mormon Studies in particular.

Also, he quite rightly asserts that the term "Mormon studies" inherently implies a big-tent definition, and thus, those who approach the study of Mormonism from a faithful perspective are entitled to a place at the table and need not "bracket" their religious beliefs.

 

Now, via Dr. Peterson's blog, a post on Greg Smith's blog has come to my attention. In it, Dr. Smith discusses the matter of "bracketing" one's religious faith or belief when studying religion in general and Mormonism in particular. He compares it to "checking one's religion at the door." He quotes Jeffrey R. Holland relative to that notion.

 

To give some context, Elder Holland was speaking of an incident in which a local basketball player left the community and made good elsewhere. He subsequently returned to play against the home team. The hometown fans were so abusive toward the former member of their team that the bewildered coach asked him if this wasn't his hometown and if, in fact, many of these fans weren't members of his own church.

 

When called on their behavior, one of the fans rationalized it, saying that this, after all, was basketball, that they pay money to see the game, and "we check our religion at the door."

 

Elder Holland commented:

 

 

“ We check our religion at the door ”? Lesson number one for the establishment of Zion in the 21st century: You never “check your religion at the door.” Not ever.

My young friends, that kind of discipleship cannot be—it is not discipleship at all. As the prophet Alma has taught the young women of the Church to declare every week in their Young Women theme, we are “to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in,”¹³ not just some of the time, in a few places, or when our team has a big lead.

“Check your religion at the door”! I was furious.

 

Dr. Smith also quoted Russell M. Nelson relative to the same subject.

 

 

Clinicians, academicians, and politicians are often put to a test of faith. In pursuit of their goals, will their religion show or will it be hidden? Are they tied back to God or to man?

I had such a test decades ago when one of my medical faculty colleagues chastised me for failing to separate my professional knowledge from my religious convictions. He demanded that I not combine the two. How could I do that? Truth is truth! It is not divisible, and any part of it cannot be set aside.

Whether truth emerges from a scientific laboratory or through revelation, all truth emanates from God. All truth is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.⁴ Yet I was being asked to hide my faith. I did not comply with my colleague’s request. I let my faith show!

 

Dr. Smith remarked:

 

Sadly, too many are so worried that their faith might show, that they end up looking like that which they do not really believe, and do not really think.

This impression is only strengthened when they attack, ridicule, or with a sneer dismiss others who do let their faith show more overtly in their academic work. One wonders if this is to avoid feeling guilty for their own lapses, or if it is part and parcel of assuring others that they really are on the academic, secularized “team.”

“Satan need not get everyone to be like Cain or Judas….He needs only to get able men … to see themselves as sophisticated neutrals.”

[4]

Such decisions cannot but have spiritual consequences—what one starts doing merely to avoid making academic waves soon shapes one’s views. That which we defend and advocate—or which we refuse to defend or advocate—affects what we end up believing. This should not surprise us, if we consistently exclude (or actively avoid) spiritual evidence, since such evidence cannot but bear on many questions of ultimate importance:

 

The blog post is relatively short but worth a look. Here's a link.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

I pretty much agree. The practice and attitude of dismissing people's work because it can be technically categorized into a field that is unappreciated by some is a problem. But we all do it. We, LDS, often, categorize people or works as anti-Mormon and thereby dismiss it. These days that practice is biting us on the bums. Accept and reject work on their own merits.

[thesometimesaint]

If you are looking for an excuse any will do.

[Scott Lloyd]

I pretty much agree. The practice and attitude of dismissing people's work because it can be technically categorized into a field that is unappreciated by some is a problem. But we all do it. We, LDS, often, categorize people or works as anti-Mormon and thereby dismiss it. These days that practice is biting us on the bums. Accept and reject work on their own merits.

Doesn't strike me as the same thing.

 

And what is classified as anti-Mormon often is indeed anti-Mormon. Without a more specific idea of what you are talking about, it's hard to evaluate it.

 

At any rate, your response doesn't seem on point. I invite you to read the Greg Smith blog post to get a better idea of what I mean with this thread topic.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

When we teach in another language, we leave our other language at the door, so we can be understood in a different way. That does not mean we abandon our beliefs, we just express them in a different way.

Expressing "the truth" is a linguistic exercise, and must be understood that way.

Remember Paul preached in Greek about the "unknown God",without abandoning his beliefs in the same God he called "unknown".

[cinepro]

Really, the only time I've been told that we need to bracket religion from science is on this board, when believing LDS want to explain why they don't believe some of the teachings of LDS Prophets, Apostles and scriptures that contradict scientific theories. 

[Kenngo1969]

Scott,

 

I agree with the opening post.  I believe that if one is a faithful Mormon, one ought to be a Mormon at all times and everywhere. That said, I do think that different paradigms are useful for searching out and evaluating truth in different arenas.  If I were a scientist, I couldn't very well posit that a scientific theory is true because the Holy Spirit manifested its truth unto me; or if I were a prosecutor, I couldn't very well say that a jury ought to find the defendant guilty because the Spirit manifested his guilt to me.  But if I were a scientist, and if the Spirit manifested to me that if I were to do [x], [y] would result, or if I were a prosecutor and the Spirit told me that a previously-unexamined avenue of inquiry would enable me to convict a defendant (or, for that matter, would result in his acquittal), I would do my very best to "sit up, and pay attention," spiritually speaking.

 

 My $0.02.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[stemelbow]

Doesn't strike me as the same thing.

 

And what is classified as anti-Mormon often is indeed anti-Mormon. Without a more specific idea of what you are talking about, it's hard to evaluate it.

 

At any rate, your response doesn't seem on point. I invite you to read the Greg Smith blog post to get a better idea of what I mean with this thread topic.

It seems to be right on point to me. But to each their own, I suppose.

[thesometimesaint]

Really, the only time I've been told that we need to bracket religion from science is on this board, when believing LDS want to explain why they don't believe some of the teachings of LDS Prophets, Apostles and scriptures that contradict scientific theories. 

 

I don't have a problem with God or his Prophets, Apostles, and/or the Scriptures. I do have a problem with what some of those Prophets, Apostles, and/or Scriptures have claimed about science, By definition God, Prophets, Apostles, and/or scriptures are non-falsifiable.

SEE http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/scientific-creationism-as-pseudoscience

 

Were not the Prophets of the Old Testament actual Prophets when they claimed putting a stick in the ground changes the color of animals?

How about when they claimed in the New Testament that the earth has four corners?

 

Let's face our beliefs squarely and fairly. We don't believe in the infallibility of any mortal or their works.

[ERayR]

I don't have a problem with God or his Prophets, Apostles, and/or the Scriptures. I do have a problem with what some of those Prophets, Apostles, and/or Scriptures have claimed about science, By definition God, Prophets, Apostles, and/or scriptures are non-falsifiable.

SEE http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/scientific-creationism-as-pseudoscience

 

Were not the Prophets of the Old Testament actual Prophets when they claimed putting a stick in the ground changes the color of animals?

How about when they claimed in the New Testament that the earth has four corners?

 

Let's face our beliefs squarely and fairly. We don't believe in the infallibility of any mortal or their works.

 

Any explanation is fine as long as we leave God out of it.  Gotcha.

[Scott Lloyd]

It seems to be right on point to me. But to each their own, I suppose.

Then I think you've misunderstood the gist of Smith's post.

 

But if you want to rail against the way people use the term anti-Mormon, start another thread for that purpose.

[Scott Lloyd]

When we teach in another language, we leave our other language at the door, so we can be understood in a different way. That does not mean we abandon our beliefs, we just express them in a different way.

Expressing "the truth" is a linguistic exercise, and must be understood that way.

Remember Paul preached in Greek about the "unknown God",without abandoning his beliefs in the same God he called "unknown".

I think Smith, in his blog post, made allowance for what you are saying here when he wrote:

 

Does this mean, then, that every written work need include a bearing of testimony? Hardly—the audience and venue may or may not make that appropriate.

 

To me, what he seems to object to -- and I agree with him -- is feigning neutrality or agnosticism on matters of religious faith or belief when one is a professing Mormon, or any kind of professing Christian, for that matter. Or worse, heaping ridicule or contempt on those who refuse to "check their religion at the door" while they endeavor to engage in academic discourse.

 

Smith goes on to say:

 

C.S. Lewis’ intellectual mentor, George MacDonald, gave a wise caution:

Is every Christian expected to bear witness? One who believes must bear witness. One who sees the truth must live witnessing to it. Is our life then a witnessing to the truth? When contempt is cast on the truth, do we smile? [When the truth is] wronged in our presence do we make no sign that we hold by it?… I do not say we are called upon to dispute and defend [against falsehood] with logic and argument, but we are called upon to show that we are on the other side… The soul that loves the truth and tries to be true will know when to speak and when to be silent. But the true man will never look as if he did not care. We are not bound to say all that we think, but we are bound not even to look [like] what we do not think.

[3]

Sadly, too many are so worried that their faith might show, that they end up looking like that which they do not really believe, and do not really think.

 

Edited December 15, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

Really, the only time I've been told that we need to bracket religion from science is on this board, when believing LDS want to explain why they don't believe some of the teachings of LDS Prophets, Apostles and scriptures that contradict scientific theories.

I am a sheep pretending to be a wolf that has a fetish for wearing a sheep costume.

[Scott Lloyd]

Really, the only time I've been told that we need to bracket religion from science is on this board, when believing LDS want to explain why they don't believe some of the teachings of LDS Prophets, Apostles and scriptures that contradict scientific theories. 

I've noticed some of the chatter about "Mormon Studies" has had to do with whether or not one ought to "bracket" (set aside) his belief in the divinity of the Church of Jesus Christ as he pursues his academic study in this arena, and whether or not it is unscholarly not to do so.

 

Edited to add:

 

See here, for example.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

Then I think you've misunderstood the gist of Smith's post.

 

But if you want to rail against the way people use the term anti-Mormon, start another thread for that purpose.

My point had nothing to do with the way people use the term anti-Mormon.

[diahman]

This post by Joe Spencer is also worth reading.

Edited December 15, 2014 by diahman

[mfbukowski]

Scott,

 

I agree with the opening post.  I believe that if one is a faithful Mormon, one ought to be a Mormon at all times and everywhere. That said, I do think that different paradigyms are useful for searching out and evaluating truth in different arenas.  If I were a scientist, I couldn't very well posit that a scientific theory is true because the Holy Spirit manifested its truth unto me; or if I were a prosecutor, I couldn't very well say that a jury ought to find the defendant guilty because the Spirit manifested his guilt to me.  But if I were a scientist, and if the Spirit manifested to me that if I were to do [x], [y] would result, or if I were a prosecutor and the Spirit told me that a previously-unexamined avenue of inquiry would enable me to convict a defendant (or, for that matter, would result in his acquittal), I would do my very best to "sit up, and pay attention," spiritually speaking.

 

 My $0.02.

Totally agree, great post.

[mfbukowski]

I think Smith, in his blog post, made allowance for what you are saying here when he wrote:

To me, what he seems to object to -- and I agree with him -- is feigning neutrality or agnosticism on matters of religious faith or belief when one is a professing Mormon, or any kind of professing Christian, for that matter. Or worse, heaping ridicule or contempt on those who refuse to "check their religion at the door" while they endeavor to engage in academic discourse.

Smith goes on to say:

So you would have no problem with a book about God written by a Mormon, deliberately written for agnostics, deliberately and openly exploring God from an agnostic paradigm, as long as it was disclosed that it was a point of view adopted as a "thought experiment"? A deliberate bracketing of faith, to see how far one could push "reason"? Edited December 15, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

This post by Joe Spencer is also worth reading.

Worth reading? A bit of an understatement.

It is the best I have read on the subject written by a guy who actually gets it. This guy is a rising star. Look out world, here he comes.

[Scott Lloyd]

So you would have no problem with a book about God written by a Mormon, deliberately written for agnostics, deliberately and openly exploring God from an agnostic paradigm, as long as it was disclosed that it was a point of view adopted as a "thought experiment"? A deliberate bracketing of faith, to see how far one could push "reason"?

I really can't improve on -- or rationalize away -- the test enunciated by Elder Nelson:

 

Clinicians, academicians, and politicians are often put to a test of faith. In pursuit of their goals, will their religion show or will it be hidden? Are they tied back to God or to man?

 

[Mars]

This is curious.

 

I felt 'bracketing,' as defined in diahman's url, was a courtesy.  It feels like a polite thing to do, when my audience doesn't share my views and I want to try to tell a Mormon story in their terms, without it being a testimony.  I never got the feeling I was hiding my faith.

[Mars]

from that link

 

If I’m looking for a good study of the Qur’an, I want one that isn’t trying to convince me of its absolute veracity, but I don’t therefore want one that brackets the volume’s veracity. I’d prefer to read one that assumes its veracity (or at least draws on the work of those who assume its veracity) so that I can see how a believer makes sense of the volume.

 

Emphasis mine.  That's really fair.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is curious.

 

I felt 'bracketing,' as defined in diahman's url, was a courtesy.  It feels like a polite thing to do, when my audience doesn't share my views and I want to try to tell a Mormon story in their terms, without it being a testimony.  I never got the feeling I was hiding my faith.

I don't see that politeness necessarily precludes steadfastness and candor in one's religious convictions. The apostles and prophets are good models for conduct in that respect: always kind and civil, yet never caving in on their convictions. Edited December 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Mars]

More to the point, I didn't feel that suspending my belief for an audience amounted to caving on my convictions.

[Scott Lloyd]

More to the point, I didn't feel that suspending my belief for an audience amounted to caving on my convictions.

Again, I appeal to Elder Nelson's measure:

"Clinicians, academicians, and politicians are often put to a test of faith. In pursuit of their goals, will their religion show or will it be hidden? Are they tied back to God or to man?"

One can be polite, considerate, scholarly, all the while being tied to God rather than man.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd