All or nothing thinking regarding the Church

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, mnn727 said:

It makes no difference if Nephi was a fraud or not if God gave the BoM to Joseph as scripture. Nephi doesn't even need to be real as long as God said that the BoM is scripture.

Yes I know - that is the point I was making.

But it appears that Elder Callister took it differently - that if there was no Nephi, there was no gospel- whatever he said from the OP.  Too lazy to look it up and in a hurry

[Thumper300zx]

The church is not all or nothing. There are millions of words, talks, articles. The BOM is not 'true' or 'false', unless you're narrowing it down to an extremely specific aspect. "The BOM is a book? T or F?" True. It's a book. "God gave it to Joseph. T or F?" Impossible to determine. It is T or F, but nobody knows without doubt. We do not have proof. Even so, is every word in it important? Does it all 'matter'? No way. I wouldn't call a Harry Potter book true. But I has some good stuff in it. 

The church today, for me, only had One important question to answer. Is it Good? I don't even care is it's true. It has to be good. Does it strive for good? Do I see efforts to improve? Or just to assimilate? In this mission, the church is imo great in many ways, but flawed in many as well. Is it a net positive? Tough to say. Could an alternative yield better or equal results without what makes the church unique? 

The reach is not great enough to affect everyone... Not even close. I think we rely on many different organizations to improve. The church is just one. My only hope is that the church does not alienate people that need help and improvement, and right now I feel like you have to follow too many protocols to feel welcome. It's more of a club than I would expect from an organization seeking to be good. There are too many other motives, many of them just made up, by men. The church doesn't have to be true... But I want it to be good. To me that means no manipulation. No coercion. No unrighteous dominion. No shaming. No withholding blessings based on a made up set of standards that barely address Christ-like attributes, but rather loyalty to the church organization. I expect meekness in it's approach to worldly affairs. Amongst many others, I expect the church to LEAD, to be the cutting edge in human kindness and peace and in protecting the world we claim God gifted to us.

I really appreciate the role the BOM has played in my life. I love so many teachings in it. The tradition and history it has in my life will always be part of me. But now, like other books, I will be critical of the content, and assess what is good, what is bad, and deal with I accordingly. Whether it is from God, JS, or whoever, it doesn't matter. Authority does not make things true.

[Maestrophil]

On 11/4/2016 at 0:33 PM, Jeanne said:

I respect your thoughts and honor your reply.  Thank you for your comments.  I remember one time (my Dad was very  strict) that my mother said..."if your Dad would just leave me alone...I could really get involved in the church"...I believe this comment speaks as if though we need to do our own travels in this church.  Some use the church to beat us to death and that never works.  Glad that you are happy and accepting.  I could not.  I think God loves us both.

I am quite certain that you are correct, and He does.  :-)

 

 

[James Tunney]

I think there is a spirit of all or nothing thinking that is in the church and it comes from the leaders.  Here is a quote from a PBS interview where Pres. Hinckley spoke about the all or nothingness when it comes to Joseph Smith: 

PBS Q: Our film [features] a very strong statement you made. You are talking about the foundational story of Mormonism and why it must be taken literally, that Joseph Smith had the vision he described and obtained the plates the way he did. You said there is no middle ground. Other churches are approaching their foundational stories and turning them into metaphor at times and going perhaps for the essence of the meaning. But that isn't true for you or for this church. I'm wondering if you can develop that idea: Why can't there be a middle ground in the way those foundational stories are understood?

Pres. Hinckley: Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith.

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/hinckley.html

President Uchtdorf fashions "truth" in the same vein here:  https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng

He states," The thing about truth is that it exists beyond belief. It is true even if nobody believes it."  

 

I don't find it surprising that the leaders like the black and white view of truth v. falsehood.  They claim to speak for God (truth) so of course they will side with the objective view of truth, even when reality is more nuanced.  It is easy to understand and sell to people a black and white, us v. them, God v. Satan view.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Thumper300zx said:

But I want it to be good. To me that means no manipulation. No coercion. No unrighteous dominion. No shaming. No withholding blessings based on a made up set of standards that barely address Christ-like attributes, but rather loyalty to the church organization. ..... Amongst many others, I expect the church to LEAD, to be the cutting edge in human kindness and peace and in protecting the world we claim God gifted to us.

.... Authority does not make things true.

Lead without loyalty of the members and without truth? 

Confusing.

Edited November 7, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Oliver_Cowdery]

On 11/3/2016 at 11:40 AM, Marmonboy said:

This "all or nothing" thinking is what drives some out of the Church

Yes, but it also drives people further into the church.  That is probably why the church leadership continually pushes for a black and white view of the church's foundational claims. 

Bruce McConkie always put things so plainly:

Quote

"Now, if the Book of Mormon is true, our acceptance of it will lead to salvation in the highest heaven. On the other hand, if we say it is true when in fact it is not, we are thereby leading men astray and surely deserve to drop down to the deepest hell."

...

"Either the Book of Mormon is true, or it is false; either it came from God, or it was spawned in the infernal realms." (Bruce McConkie - What Think Ye of the Book of Mormon)

I think C.S. Lewis is now practically required reading for general authorities.  Before Hinckley and McConkie, C.S. Lewis made the same argument for the divinity of Christ.  Ever since C.S. Lewis became a thing, LDS leaders have been attempting to copy and adapt that all-or-nothing argument for Mormon truth claims.

Quote

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

C.S. Lewis is artificially limiting the options. Christian apologists often demand that people choose whether Christ was a demon, a liar, a lunatic, or son of God.  But there are actually many other options.  (Just to name a few: myth, legend, reformer, or regular old guy)

Hinckley, McConkie, C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, and many LDS leader are all committing a logical fallacy by arguing for an all-or-nothing proposition to truth claims.  The more people accept the all or nothing thing the more they become fundamentalists.

If the Book of Mormon was written without God's inspiration that in no wise means that it must have came from Satan's desk of infernal realms.  

I often find myself wondering why so many LDS leaders are attracted to fundamentalism and so many self described apologists are not.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Yes, but it also drives people further into the church.  That is probably why the church leadership continually push for a black and white view of the churches foundational claims. 

Bruce McConkie always put things so plainly:

 

I agree with this assessment...

For some, the "Hinckley dichotomy" is comforting:  They have their testimony of the JS and the BoM so they know that they can believe all the the prophet says and dismiss anything the raises doubt.

For others, when they realize that the foundational claims aren't what they thought, they go ahead and follow the all-or-nothing logic right out of the Church.

For me, it's just far too simplistic.  I reject the dichotomy and stay in the church while I continue a search for truth.

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Yes, but it also drives people further into the church.  That is probably why the church leadership continually pushes for a black and white view of the church's foundational claims. 

Bruce McConkie always put things so plainly:

I think C.S. Lewis is now practically required reading for general authorities.  Before Hinckley and McConkie, C.S. Lewis made the same argument for the divinity of Christ.  Ever since that book LDS leaders have been attempting to copy and adapt that all-or-nothing argument for Mormon truth claims.

C.S. Lewis is artificially limiting the options. Christian apologists often demand that people choose whether Christ was a demon, a liar, a lunatic, or son of God.  But there are actually many other options.  (Just to name a few: myth, legend, reformer, or regular old guy)

Hinckley, McConkie, C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, and many LDS leader are all committing a logical fallacy by arguing for an all-or-nothing proposition to truth claims. 

 

What is the fallacy? Can you articulate it? I see it as a difference of opinion with those who see truth as contextual, not a "fallacy". Logic is as simple as math, either there is an error in calculation or not. Logic itself is black and white, and like math can be used perfectly to justify anything. Ask any economist.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What is the fallacy? Can you articulate it? I see it as a difference of opinion with those who see truth as contextual, not a "fallacy". Logic is as simple as math, either there is an error in calculation or not. Logic itself is black and white, and like math can be used perfectly to justify anything. Ask any economist.

If it isn't a fallacy than how does one explain the several different religions who believe in the truth of the Joseph Smith story and the Book of Mormon but are not aligned with the mainstream LDS Church?

[James Tunney]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What is the fallacy? Can you articulate it? I see it as a difference of opinion with those who see truth as contextual, not a "fallacy". Logic is as simple as math, either there is an error in calculation or not. Logic itself is black and white, and like math can be used perfectly to justify anything. Ask any economist.

It's the false dilemma fallacy to claim an either or choice is the only way when there are third or fourth alternatives. The book of mormon could be God's word but not historical, as in inspired fiction. The church isn't there yet with this alternative. Hence the push to attach the historicity narrative to the truthfulness of the book itself.

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If it isn't a fallacy than how does one explain the several different religions who believe in the truth of the Joseph Smith story and the Book of Mormon but are not aligned with the mainstream LDS Church?

Make a complete thought. If precisely what is not a fallacy, and what does that have to do with the other churches? 

I am not seeing the fallacy. What is it?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Make a complete thought. If precisely what is not a fallacy, and what does that have to do with the other churches? 

I am not seeing the fallacy. What is it?

Here's the quote from the OP (emphasis added):
"As a result, if the Book of Mormon can be proved to be man-made, then the Church is man-made,” he said. “On the other hand, if its origin is God-given, then Joseph Smith was a prophet, and if he was a prophet then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. It is that simple."

If the Book of Mormon was God-given then JS was a prophet and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.

If JS being a prophet makes the mainstream LDS true, why does it not make the other churches that arose out of JS/BoM true?

For me, the fallacy is that the statement claims truth by linking to JS/BoM but ignores the thousands of events/issues in between.

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

It's the false dilemma fallacy to claim an either or choice is the only way when there are third or fourth alternatives. The book of mormon could be God's word but not historical, as in inspired fiction. The church isn't there yet with this alternative. Hence the push to attach the historicity narrative to the truthfulness of the book itself.

Ok, I agree that your argument is at last a coherent argument. Thanks.

But whether or not it IS a false dilemma still is debatable. There are no logical contradictions.  There are scenarios in which both views can be seen as compatible, and you have shown one right in your post.

If you take the idea of a logical fallacy in your way, you are right. In my book it takes a contradiction.

That's why I say there are no facts, just interpretations.

Are you ready to go that far?

 

[mfbukowski]

Maybe I am being overly pedantic for this forum.

I am against black and white thinking, but that position is not based on "logic" it is based on my view of the nature of truth

I see truth as contextual, and that it is based on paradigms which work for a given purpose. There is no truth that fits all occasions.

Some LDS affirm the black and white paradigm which I see as no better or no worse than the others.

If you are against black and white thinking, that is where the road ends logically.

I think many here still want THEIR TRUTH to be THE TRUTH, while affirming "no black and white thinking".

I think that position IS logically contradictory, but I think some don't see that.

To think that no BW thinking IS the truth is to still think black and white.

 

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Here's the quote from the OP (emphasis added):
"As a result, if the Book of Mormon can be proved to be man-made, then the Church is man-made,” he said. “On the other hand, if its origin is God-given, then Joseph Smith was a prophet, and if he was a prophet then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. It is that simple."

If the Book of Mormon was God-given then JS was a prophet and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.

If JS being a prophet makes the mainstream LDS true, why does it not make the other churches that arose out of JS/BoM true?

For me, the fallacy is that the statement claims truth by linking to JS/BoM but ignores the thousands of events/issues in between.

Fine if you also acknowledge that the other beliefs could be true for those who believe that including Bruce R.

I think there is a better way to show Mcconkie's position as logically compatible with yours, through Pragmatism.

 

 

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Fine if you also acknowledge that the other beliefs could be true for those who believe that including Bruce R.

I think there is a better way to show Mcconkie's position as logically compatible with yours, through Pragmatism.

 

 

I'm curious how you would answer the question I asked:  If JS being a prophet makes the mainstream LDS true, why does it not make the other churches that arose out of JS/BoM true?

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm curious how you would answer the question I asked:  If JS being a prophet makes the mainstream LDS true, why does it not make the other churches that arose out of JS/BoM true?

What is true? It is what God tells us individually in our hearts.

That means Bruce R's beliefs are as valid as yours 

THAT is where "no black or white thinking" goes.

On that logic they are all true. That's fine with me. No black and white is no black and white.

Some work better and answer more questions without contradiction in their paradigm. Intellectually that is why I am LDS.  Spiritually I am LDS because of my spiritual experiences.

I see no conflicts in any of that.

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm curious how you would answer the question I asked:  If JS being a prophet makes the mainstream LDS true, why does it not make the other churches that arose out of JS/BoM true?

If you are looking for specific beliefs I would say the King Follett discourse and the temple and exaltation in general.

I find all of those beliefs perfectly in line with a pragmatic view. To me that just makes sense. I do not see that in other churches which accept the BOM.

Edited November 7, 2016 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If you are looking for specific beliefs I would say the King Follett discourse and the temple and exaltation in general.

I find all of those beliefs perfectly in line with a pragmatic view. To me that just makes sense. I do not see that in other churches which accept the BOM.

So you are adding other requirements and just dismissing the dichotomy presented (Callister quote) in the OP.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What is true? It is what God tells us individually in our hearts.

That means Bruce R's beliefs are as valid as yours 

THAT is where "no black or white thinking" goes.

On that logic they are all true. That's fine with me. No black and white is no black and white.

Some work better and answer more questions without contradiction in their paradigm. Intellectually that is why I am LDS.  Spiritually I am LDS because of my spiritual experiences.

I see no conflicts in any of that.

I agree with your statements here, and if church leaders took this approach it would go a long way to helping build bridges with others who aren't orthodox believers. 

However, the problem with Callister's statements in this talk is that he not only wants to believe that the church is true contextually based on a personal spiritual witness, but he wants to believe that the church is objectively the only source for exaltation.  Exclusivity is exactly what makes the church so divisive.  

If only the approach were, join our church because it bears great fruit, it can help you develop a relationship with God, it has important truths that can enrich your life, God is working with this church to do great things, etc.  These are all excellent sales pitches for a church and could be convincing rational for members.  

Instead what we get is, my church is the best and not only is it the best, its the only church that can grant you entrance to God's highest kingdom.  Oh, and BTW, you'll not be with your family in the next life, and you'll never progress in the eternities, and you'll be a servant to members of the true church.  This kind of thinking is patronizing and offensive, and to me, is sinful.  I don't like the prideful position I used to hold in my orthodox believing days.  I'm glad to have shed these ideas.  

 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

So you are adding other requirements and just dismissing the dichotomy presented (Callister quote) in the OP.

I'm not dismissing anything, nor am I "adding requirements".  I don't know where you get that idea that I am adding requirements.  I thought your question was why I find my paradigm to be better than other sects who accept the BOM over the LDS church.  I think our church has a better explanation.  It explains more phenomena and answers more questions than other non-LDS sects which accept the Book of Mormon which do not accept the King Follette Discourse and our view of the temple.

 I am saying that Callister's paradigm is just as valid as yours, which is close to my paradigm as well, but I am saying that we have no basis for judging between the two paradigms other than our subjective experience.

I think that Elder C thinks it is necessary to adopt his view of truth.  That is valid for him- I cannot find fault with it except I have a different opinion for my own reasons.  But his reasons cannot be judged as "incorrect" and mine "correct" because we cannot get outside our perceptions of truth to judge which "truth" is "true"

In fact I think Elder Callister's paradigm is not consistent with D&C 93, or Alma 32 or Moroni 10 or President Kimball's view of truth as expressed here: 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng

But it is not up to me to decide if his views are consistent with those views or not.  He gets to create his own universe from matter unorganized, and I get to create mine.  What is true in one "sphere" may not be true in another.

Does that help at all?

Edited November 8, 2016 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 3:03 PM, mnn727 said:

We know men wrote the BoM, thats a given (Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, etc) so your position is incorrect.

The golden plates that Joseph received from Moroni - an angel of God, means they were given to him by God, even though men wrote them, God (through his agent Moroni) presented them to Joseph as Scripture.

If God declared them good enough to be presented to Joseph as Scripture, then it make no difference if Nephi or Mormon or one of the other writers got a few things incorrect.

And if God gave them to Joseph, then He made Joseph a Prophet. Thus the Church hangs on that instant in time - Did God give Joseph the BoM or not?

 

Sounds like you had helped explain my point, so I'm not sure what you mean.  I welcome any further explanation though.

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 I am saying that Callister's paradigm is just as valid as yours, which is close to my paradigm as well, but I am saying that we have no basis for judging between the two paradigms other than our subjective experience.

I think that Elder C thinks it is necessary to adopt his view of truth.  That is valid for him- I cannot find fault with it except I have a different opinion for my own reasons.  But his reasons cannot be judged as "incorrect" and mine "correct" because we cannot get outside our perceptions of truth to judge which "truth" is "true"

While there is no means by which we can objectively prove that Elder Callister's paradigm is incorrect or correct, as you point out.  I do think we can judge the societal merit of Callister's position by its fruits and by its implications about what kind of a God his perspective requires.  

Fruits - Strong commitment from the in-group Mormons that agree with his paradigm.  Followers devoted, committed to a fault.  Very little influence outside their in group, followers generally consider themselves superior to outsiders, God's chosen people.  

The God paradigm - God has a select group of favored creations.  God wants to bring others into this group, but is statistically ineffective over the history of the world, God has converted less than 1% of the living people to this exclusive club.  God's corrective mechanism is to convert people in the spirit world, but this makes us question the purpose of this life at all.  God is a God of literal reality, rules are most important, and allegiance to these beliefs.  God leaves out people on the margins if they aren't willing to prescribe to the right rules and rituals.  

Now, I'm summarizing and generalizing quite a bit. but I'm doing this for a purpose.  You say that Callister's paradigm is just as "valid", and I don't agree.  For something to be valid it must have a sound basis in logic and reasoning.  Callister's position does not meet that requirement equally.  Two opposing points of view are not equally valid.  There might not be a means by which we can prove that one is more correct than another, but we can judge validity, and by that measurement Callister's paradigm falls way short.  

[stemelbow]

I'm enjoying the discussion between MfBukowski and hope_for_things.  If nothing else comes from it I just wanted to say thanks to the two of you.  Interesting thoughts.  If it continues than I'm happy all the more. 

[rockpond]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I'm not dismissing anything, nor am I "adding requirements".  I don't know where you get that idea that I am adding requirements.  I thought your question was why I find my paradigm to be better than other sects who accept the BOM over the LDS church.  I think our church has a better explanation.  It explains more phenomena and answers more questions than other non-LDS sects which accept the Book of Mormon which do not accept the King Follette Discourse and our view of the temple.

 I am saying that Callister's paradigm is just as valid as yours, which is close to my paradigm as well, but I am saying that we have no basis for judging between the two paradigms other than our subjective experience.

I think that Elder C thinks it is necessary to adopt his view of truth.  That is valid for him- I cannot find fault with it except I have a different opinion for my own reasons.  But his reasons cannot be judged as "incorrect" and mine "correct" because we cannot get outside our perceptions of truth to judge which "truth" is "true"

In fact I think Elder Callister's paradigm is not consistent with D&C 93, or Alma 32 or Moroni 10 or President Kimball's view of truth as expressed here: 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng

But it is not up to me to decide if his views are consistent with those views or not.  He gets to create his own universe from matter unorganized, and I get to create mine.  What is true in one "sphere" may not be true in another.

Does that help at all?

I guess I misunderstood.  I thought we were just discussing the validity of the Callister/Hinckley "all or nothing" paradigm.  I'm not sure I agree that it is valid based on the question I've asked you a couple times (but which you haven't answered -- I guess because we were talking about different things).