An Atheist Walks into a Temple

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

But surely even a person who is agnostic towards its dogmas,

I think some measure of precision is warranted here.  This discussion is not about being "agnostic toward [] dogmas," but agnostic toward God.

The first question in the TR interview is "Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?"  I struggle to see how a self-identified atheist or agnostic could, in good faith, answer "yes" to this question.  

The irony here is that some critics and opponents of the LDS Church love to use phrases like "mental gymnastics" or "cognitive dissonance" to describe the purported irrationality of LDS faith.  That is to say, the tenets of the LDS Church are so palpably absurd and incoherent that Mormons can only profess faith in them by resorting to "mental gymnastics" or "cognitive dissonance."  

I find this characterization to be unreasoned and unreasonable.  It's simply schoolyard ridicule dressed up in fancy words, a polysyllabic putdown.  There are many, many systems of faith in the world that can and are professed and adhered to by otherwise intelligent and decent people.  Mormonism is readily one of them.

But then comes along John Dehlin, who is advocating genuine "mental gymnastics" by encouraging Latter-day Saints to resort to - in Kiwi's apt phraseology - "lexical duplicity" in order to circumvent the TR questions, to rationalize dishonest, bad-faith responses to them.

Quote

or takes a non-literal view, can still exercise faith in Mormonism by following the commandments.

Yes, I can accept that.  And I hope such people do so.  Truly.

Quote

Why is literal belief in the dogmas considered so universally important?

First, I reject the apparently pejorative use of the word "dogmas."  That's not a term used or readily recognized in the LDS Church.  We reference things like "doctrines" or "principles" or "precepts."

Second, I would think that the answer to your question is self evident.  Ours is a community of faith.  We cohere around faith.  Yet you seem to be suggesting that faith is not important.

Third, the LDS Church recognizes and allows for a spectrum of beliefs (and even application of those beliefs) as to many things.  In matters of orthodoxy ("of, relating to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc."), I have seen diversity of opinion on all sorts of matters.  Where did the Book of Mormon take place?  Was Job a real person?  Was the Flood global or local?  Did Adam have a belly button?  Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Restored Gospel?  Was the Priesthood Ban instituted by God?  Will the Holy Ghost ever receive a physical body?  How much consumption of meat falls within the meaning of "sparingly" in the Word of Wisdom?  And on and on.  Plenty of room for reasoned, principled disagreement on these and many other points of doctrine. 

That said, however, the spectrum of belief as pertaining to admission to the temple is not infinite.  There are some core precepts of faith, of belief, that are preconditions for entry.  These are found in the first three or four questions of the TR interview:

1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?
4. Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

And, probably, in the last question: "Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?"

For me, I cannot reconcile professed atheism or agnosticism with the foregoing questions.  This does not seem, to me, to be an extreme or unreasonable position.  To the contrary, the "extreme or unreasonable position" would be to suggest that professed atheism or agnosticism is reconcilable with the foregoing questions.

I should also note here that, in matters of orthopraxy ("correctness or orthodoxy of action or practice"), the Church likewise accommodates a spectrum of interpretation and practice.  Some of the precise parameters of things like the Word of Wisdom, the Law of Tithing, Sabbath observance, and many other facets of our faith are left to the discretion of the individual members of the Church.  But again, this spectrum is not infinite.

Finally, I submit that actual belief in the core doctrines of the Church is necessary because God has said so.  Over and over and over again.

The Book of Mormon was written "to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations."

Mormon tells us that "ye must come to the knowledge of your fathers, and repent of all your sins and iniquities, and believe in Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God, and that he was slain by the Jews, and by the power of the Father he hath risen again, whereby he hath gained the victory over the grave; and also in him is the sting of death swallowed up."

Nephi tells us that "they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God."  He also tells us that "the Lord covenanteth with none save it be with them that repent and believe in his Son, who is the Holy One of Israel."

Moroni speaks specifically "concerning those who do not believe in Christ":

Quote

2 Behold, will ye believe in the day of your visitation—behold, when the Lord shall come, yea, even that great day when the earth shall be rolled together as a scroll, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, yea, in that great day when ye shall be brought to stand before the Lamb of God—then will ye say that there is no God?

Samuel the Lamanite prophesied to the Nephites that "five years more cometh, and behold, then cometh the Son of God to redeem all those who shall believe on his name."

We could go on for hours like this.  Faith is central to discipleship in Jesus Christ.  It is at the center of Nephi's inquiry:

Quote

And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.

I recognize that few of us have a perfect, completed "faith."  We are all a work in progress to varying degrees.  So the TR questions are not about perfect faith, but nevertheless require a profession of some faith as to the central doctrines of the Church (see above).  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 27, 2018 by smac97

[Brother Bear]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think some measure of precision is warranted here.  This discussion is not about being "agnostic toward [] dogmas," but agnostic toward God.

The first question in the TR interview is "Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?"  I struggle to see how a self-identified atheist or agnostic could, in good faith, answer "yes" to this question.  

The irony here is that some critics and opponents of the LDS Church love to use phrases like "mental gymnastics" or "cognitive dissonance" to describe the purported irrationality of LDS faith.  That is to say, the tenets of the LDS Church are so palpably absurd and incoherent that Mormons can only profess faith in them by resorting to "mental gymnastics" or "cognitive dissonance."  

I find this characterization to be unreasoned and unreasonable.  It's simply schoolyard ridicule dressed up in fancy words, a polysyllabic putdown.  There are many, many systems of faith in the world that can and are professed and adhered to by otherwise intelligent and decent people.  Mormonism is readily one of them.

But then comes along John Dehlin, who is advocating genuine "mental gymnastics" by encouraging Latter-day Saints to resort to - in Kiwi's apt phraseology - "lexical duplicity" in order to circumvent the TR questions, to rationalize dishonest, bad-faith responses to them.

Yes, I can accept that.  And I hope such people do so.  Truly.

First, I reject the apparently pejorative use of the word "dogmas."  That's not a term used or readily recognized in the LDS Church.  We reference things like "doctrines" or "principles" or "precepts."

Second, I would think that the answer to your question is self evidence.  Ours is a community of faith.  We cohere around faith.  Yet you seem to be suggesting that faith is not important.

Third, the LDS Church recognizes and allows for a spectrum of beliefs (and even application of those beliefs) as to many things.  In matters of orthodoxy ("of, relating to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc."), I have seen diversity of opinion on all sorts of matters.  Where did the Book of Mormon take place?  Was Job a real person?  Was the Flood global or local?  Did Adam have a belly button?  Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Restored Gospel?  Was the Priesthood Ban instituted by God?  Will the Holy Ghost ever receive a physical body?  How much consumption of meat falls within the meaning of "sparingly" in the Word of Wisdom?  And on and on.  Plenty of room for reasoned, principled disagreement on these and many other points of doctrine. 

That said, however, the spectrum of belief as pertaining to admission to the temple is not infinite.  There are some core precepts of faith, of belief, that are preconditions for entry.  These are found in the first three or four questions of the TR interview:

1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?
4. Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

And, probably, in the last question: "Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?"

For me, I cannot reconcile professed atheism or agnosticism with the foregoing questions.  This does not seem, to me, to be an extreme or unreasonable position.  To the contrary, the "extreme or unreasonable position" would be to suggest that professed atheism or agnosticism is reconcilable with the foregoing questions.

I should also note here that, in matters of orthopraxy ("correctness or orthodoxy of action or practice"), the Church likewise accommodates a spectrum of interpretation and practice.  Some of the precise parameters of things like the Word of Wisdom, the Law of Tithing, Sabbath observance, and many other facets of our faith are left to the discretion of the individual members of the Church.  But again, this spectrum is not infinite.

Finally, I submit that actual belief in the core doctrines of the Church is necessary because God has said so.  Over and over and over again.

The Book of Mormon was written "to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations."

Mormon tells us that "ye must come to the knowledge of your fathers, and repent of all your sins and iniquities, and believe in Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God, and that he was slain by the Jews, and by the power of the Father he hath risen again, whereby he hath gained the victory over the grave; and also in him is the sting of death swallowed up."

Nephi tells us that "they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God."  He also tells us that "the Lord covenanteth with none save it be with them that repent and believe in his Son, who is the Holy One of Israel."

Moroni speaks specifically "concerning those who do not believe in Christ":

Samuel the Lamanite prophesied to the Nephites that "five years more cometh, and behold, then cometh the Son of God to redeem all those who shall believe on his name."

We could go on for hours like this.  Faith is central to discipleship in Jesus Christ.  It is at the center of Nephi's inquiry:

I recognize that few of us have a perfect, completed "faith."  We are all a work in progress to varying degrees.  So the TR questions are not about perfect faith, but nevertheless require a profession of some faith as to the central doctrines of the Church (see above).  

Thanks,

-Smac

Regarding your first point, I wasn’t using the word “dogma” in a pejorative manner. I use it to describe any belief about the way things really are. I readily describe many of my own beliefs as dogmas. The literal belief in the statement “God has a body of flesh and bones” is unavoidably dogmatic. That doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with having that belief.

Regarding your second point, you use the term “self-evident” quite often and I find it to be a useless term in communication. There is nothing self-evident about ideas, or the language used to communicate them to other people. You use the term “community of faith” as if what you mean by using it is self-evident. It isn’t. You then say I don’t think faith is important. That depends on the type of idea in which one has faith. Faith as assenting to a dogma? I don’t know; might be important, maybe not. The problem is I can’t experiment with the idea that God “in reality” exists. My experience with that dogma is limited to holding it as a nice idea. Faith in God as a symbol for ideal attributes, regardless of whether the ideal pertains to a real being? That I can experiment upon. I can seek charity, patience, kindness, etc. and  taste the fruits. Is that not faith as described in the Mormon community’s keystone text?

As to your third point, I enjoy reading what you consider to be the spectrum of belief in Mormonism. 

Your final point is circular: believing God is real is necessary because God said so. If it works for you that’s all that matters, but I can’t do much with  that idea.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Brother Bear

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Brother Bear said:

Regarding your first point, I wasn’t using the word “dogma” in a pejorative manner.

Okay.  It easily comes across that way, though, particularly when used in an LDS context (since Latter-day Saints don't use it).

By the way, I am not alone in perceiving a pejorative use of the term.  Quoth Wikipedia:

Quote

The term Dogma is used in pejorative and non-pejorative senses. Dogma is transliterated in the 17th century from Latin (Latin dogma) meaning "philosophical tenet", derived from the Greek 'dogma' (Greek δόγμα) meaning literally "that which one thinks is true" and 'dokein' (Greek dokeo) "to seem good."^[1][2]

In the non-pejorative sense, dogma is an official system of principles or tenets of a church, such as Roman Catholicism,^[3] or the positions of a philosopher or of a philosophical school such as Stoicism.

In the pejorative sense, dogma refers to enforced decisions, such as those of aggressive political interests or authorities.^[4][5] More generally it is applied to some strong belief that the ones adhering to it are not willing to rationally discuss. This attitude is named as a dogmatic one, or as dogmatism, and is often used to refer to matters related to religion, but is not limited to theistic attitudes alone, and is often used with respect to political or philosophical dogmas.

So if you state that your intent was not pejorative, I believe you.  I hope, however, you recognize that its use can sure come across as pejorative.

Quote

I use it to describe any belief about the way things really are. I readily describe many of my own beliefs as dogmas. The literal belief in the statement “God has a body of flesh and bones” is unavoidably dogmatic.

Well, again, "dogmatic" has a strong pejorative whiff to it.  It's more or less baked into the definition:

Quote

dogmatic

adjective

1. relating to or of the nature of a dogma or dogmas or any strong set ofprinciples concerning faith, morals, etc., as those laid down by achurch; doctrinal:

We hear dogmatic arguments from both sides of the politicalspectrum.

 

2. asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated:

I refuse to argue with someone so dogmatic that he won't listen toreason.

Again, these terms sure come across as pejorative in discussions like this.

Quote

Regarding your second point, you use the term “self-evident” quite often and I find it to be a useless term in communication.

Odd, then, that it's used so frequently.

I find it eminently useful.  Two plus two equals four.  Water is one oxygen atom bonded to two different hydrogen atoms.  Donald Trump is the President of the United States.  Utah shares its northern border with Idaho and Wyoming.  

These are all self-evident statements, as in "not needing to be demonstrated or explained; obvious."

Now, if I were to state that "The Book of Mormon is self-evidently an ancient record," or "It is self-evident that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the World," then I would be using that term inappropriately, since these things are not self-evident.

In this discussion, I said, in essence, that it is self-evident that faith plays an important part in a community of faith.  That statement is, I think, something that is "not needing to be demonstrated or explained; obvious."  In other words, self-evident.  If you disagree, then please explain.

Quote

There is nothing self-evident about ideas, or the language used to communicate them to other people.

I was not speaking generally about "ideas, or the language used to communicate them to other people."

I was instead speaking of someting that I find to be obvious, to be self-evidently true.  Faith is an important aspect of a community of faith.

Quote

You use the term “community of faith” as if what you mean by using it is self-evident. It isn’t. 

First, didn't you just barely assert that "self-evident" is "a useless term?"

Second, "community of faith" seems rather easy to understand, so much so that I've never previously received an objection or concern about it.

Third, if you have some question as to what I mean by "community of faith," you can ask me.

Fourth, what I mean by "community of faith" is pretty much this: "a group of people who share a particular set of religious beliefs."

Fifth, members of the LDS Church, broadly speaking, constitute "a community of faith."

Quote

You then say I don’t think faith is important.

You asked "Why is literal belief in the dogmas considered so universally important?"

From this question, which I took to be posed in good faith, I understood that you think that, for Latter-day Saints, literal belief in the doctrines of their Church is not "universally important," or else that you are skeptical about it.

I am open to correction, though.  And I apologize for giving offense.

Quote

That depends on the type of idea in which one has faith.

You are speaking in very broad, generic terms.  I am not.  I am speaking of the concept of of faith (belief) in an LDS context, and more specifically, in the context of the TR questions.

Quote

Faith as assenting to a dogma?

Again, this has rather a pejorative whiff to it.

And again, in an LDS context, we speak of professing faith/belief in doctrines.  We believe these doctrines are revealed to us through God's inspired prophets and confirmed to us individually through the influence of the Holy Spirit.

And in the even more specific context of the temple recommend interview questions, yes, the person is being asked if he/she assents to some core doctrinal precepts of our faith, which assent is a precondition for entry to the temple.  These doctrines are found in the first three or four questions of the TR interview:

1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?
4. Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

And, probably, in the last question: "Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?"

For me, I cannot reconcile professed atheism or agnosticism with the foregoing questions.  This does not seem, to me, to be an extreme or unreasonable position.  To the contrary, the "extreme or unreasonable position" would be to suggest that professed atheism or agnosticism is reconcilable with the foregoing questions.

Is that what you are suggesting?  I am genuinely curious.

Quote

I don’t know; might be important, maybe not.

Having been raised in the LDS Church, having invested many years of study and effort into understanding its teachings and precepts, I feel fairly confident in stating that, in an LDS context, yes, it is very important that Latter-day Saints have faith in the core revealed doctrines of the Church (or, if using your pejorative-sounding terms, "assenting to a dogma").

Quote

The problem is I can’t experiment with the idea that God “in reality” exists.

I think you can.  You can accept that idea on faith, and proceed in life as if it is true.

I assume you have heard of Pascal's Wager:

Quote

Pascal's Wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–62).  It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).

"A rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God."  That is an "experiment," is it not?  Granted, you won't be able to complete it until you get to the other side.  But still...

Alma 32 speaks of an "experiment" involving faith. 

Quote

My experience with that dogma is limited to holding it as a nice idea.

I respect that.  The LDS concept found in, for example, Alma 32 and Moroni 10, is quite a bit more robust.

Quote

Faith in God as a symbol for ideal attributes, regardless of whether the ideal pertains to a real being? That I can experiment upon. I can seek charity, patience, kindness, etc. and  taste the fruits. Is that not faith as described in the Mormon community’s keystone text?

Partly, yes.  These all presumptively follow from the core doctrinal precept: faith in Jesus Christ.  And there are others that follow as well.

Quote

As to your third point, I enjoy reading what you consider to be the spectrum of belief in Mormonism. 

I provided a very small sampling only.

Quote

Your final point is circular: believing God is real is necessary because God said so. 

I did not say "believing God is real is necessary because God said so."  No need to re-characterize (mischaracterize, actually) what I said.  Here it is again:

Quote

I submit that actual belief in the core doctrines of the Church is necessary because God has said so.  Over and over and over again.

Had you asked, I would have clarified that my statement presumed a belief in God.

I would have also clarified that that the LDS paradigm does not call for circular reasoning.  We believe God exists because we have felt what we understand and believe to be the influence of the Holy Spirit.  We then operate on that basis of faith and build on it, such as by accepting the core doctrines of the Church, receiving saving ordinances, obeying the commandments, and so on.

That's not circular, that's progressive.  Line upon line, precept upon precept.  "That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."  (D&C 50:24)

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 27, 2018 by smac97

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Brother Bear said:

Your final point is circular: believing God is real is necessary because God said so. If it works for you that’s all that matters, but I can’t do much with  that idea.

Then, to be honest, you don't qualify for the temple. You aren't ready. It's great that you adhere to the integrity of your views, and aren't lying or play-acting in order to go to the temple, but the temple isn't available to you with those beliefs.

I had a couple who sought a TR. They really wanted to go back. They loved and dearly missed the temple, but had lost their belief in God and in the reality of the atonement. Their honest answer to questions #1 and #2 were: "I would like to believe that God exists. I would like to believe that the atonement is real. But, I can't say that I do believe that. Maybe someday I will be able to develop this." My answer to them, which they accepted, was that a sincere answer in the affirmative is necessary to enter the temple, based on the questions, not an expression that they would like to someday believe that. 

We don't have very many doctrinal belief imperatives in the Church, but questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the TR interview are. 

[Brother Bear]

27 minutes ago, rongo said:

Then, to be honest, you don't qualify for the temple. You aren't ready. It's great that you adhere to the integrity of your views, and aren't lying or play-acting in order to go to the temple, but the temple isn't available to you with those beliefs.

I had a couple who sought a TR. They really wanted to go back. They loved and dearly missed the temple, but had lost their belief in God and in the reality of the atonement. Their honest answer to questions #1 and #2 were: "I would like to believe that God exists. I would like to believe that the atonement is real. But, I can't say that I do believe that. Maybe someday I will be able to develop this." My answer to them, which they accepted, was that a sincere answer in the affirmative is necessary to enter the temple, based on the questions, not an expression that they would like to someday believe that. 

We don't have very many doctrinal belief imperatives in the Church, but questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the TR interview are. 

Just clarify, it’s the argument “we must believe in God because God said so,” that doesn’t work for me. I wasn’t commenting exclusively on a belief in God. I believe in God.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Brother Bear

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

Just clarify, it’s the argument “we must believe in God because God said so,” that doesn’t work for me. I wasn’t commenting exclusively on a belief in God. I believe in God.

People believe in God for reasons personal to them (hopefully their own experience with God), but the reasons aren't circular to them. I don't know very many (or any) people at all whose belief in God stems from "because God says so."

All I'm saying is that if and when one does not believe in God or is agnostic about him, then that person does not qualify for the temple based on the TR questions. 

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

Oh joy, kiwi’s here. Rather than turn this thread into another one of your ad hominem, axe-grinding sessions, please contribute by thoughtfully describing what beliefs you think matter for a person to be a “Believing Latter-day Saint.”

Good thing there's nothing remotely ad hominem about that pleasant, substantive response, is there?

I point you towards an obscure little document called "The Articles of Faith." It contains thirteen statements, twelve of which begin with the words "We believe." It was written by the first latter-day prophet on behalf of the Church.

[Brother Bear]

5 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Good thing there's nothing remotely ad hominem about that pleasant, substantive response, is there?

I point you towards an obscure little document called "The Articles of Faith." It contains thirteen statements, twelve of which begin with the words "We believe." It was written by the first latter-day prophet on behalf of the Church.

Ad hominem pertains to logical arguments. I wasn't arguing. I was asking you to contribute properly to the topic in a productive way. 

[Brother Bear]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I hope, however, you recognize that its use can sure come across as pejorative.

The problem I have with using "doctrine" is that I find it doesn't quite communicate the problem of knowing and requirement for faith that "dogma" does. I'm open to using a different and really don't mean any disrespect in using it.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, didn't you just barely assert that "self-evident" is "a useless term?"

Ya, that was confusing. Perhaps a better way to say it was, "you use the term “self-evident” quite often and I find it to be a useless term in communication. There is nothing self-evident about ideas, or the language used to communicate them to other people, like the idea of a community of faith." You said, "our's is a community of faith, we cohere around faith," and then accused me of not thinking that faith is important. Yes the idea of faith is part of a community of faith, I'm trying to understand specific beliefs people find key to Mormonism. That to me is not self-evident. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

For me, I cannot reconcile professed atheism or agnosticism with the foregoing questions.  This does not seem, to me, to be an extreme or unreasonable position.  To the contrary, the "extreme or unreasonable position" would be to suggest that professed atheism or agnosticism is reconcilable with the foregoing questions.

Is that what you are suggesting?  I am genuinely curious.

To me, the idea of God is a concept that we create based on our personal experience. This concept has, what may appear to be, an infinite set of properties with a specific values:

Idea: God

Properties: Male = true, physical body = True, spirit = True, Loving = True. Patient = True, etc.

I consider two of the keys to Mormonism's concept of God (and man) is that man can become like God, and that God has achieved a fulness of joy. These beliefs give immense practical value to the many of the properties included in the Mormon concept of God. God is not some unknowable being but a template for navigating our personal experience and obtain what we consider to be ideal states of being (happiness, joy, peace, love, etc). Without the belief that man can become like God, I find less practical value in the concept of God. Even with that belief I find there are properties included in the concept of God that I find to be of little practical value. One is God's gender. That doesn't mean much to me. Another is the idea that God has a physical body. Again, it provides only intellectual value as being a nice idea, but no practical value. The property of God that I am curious as to whether it provides practical value to people is "corresponds to real being." Sure the idea can provide intellectual value. But if the ultimate goal of Mormonism is to become like some ideal being, does it matter if that being is real or not? Do I need to assign the value "true" to the property "corresponds to a real being" in order to attain the ideal. Would it matter if I assigned no value to that property (agnosticism)? For me, I don't know. I think in some ways it is important for me to believe that our concept of God corresponds to a real being, but I don't know that I believe it is necessary to get the highest practical value from the concept of God. So the purpose of this thread (which I've done a poor job of directing in the proper direction) is to understand what properties of God people find most important. Does it really matter in the end (for the purpose of achieving the objectives of Mormonism) what values we assign to certain properties? What properties and specific values do people find most important? Does it matter if we think God has a body? Is male? Is distinct from Jesus? Corresponds to a real being? Can some properties of God be immaterial to some people in achieving Mormonism's highest objectives? 

Edited January 27, 2018 by Brother Bear

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

The problem I have with using "doctrine" is that I find it doesn't quite communicate the problem of knowing and requirement for faith that "dogma" does.

"Dogma" doesn't communicate that.  

And its pejorative overtones overshadow whatever utility it has in an LDS context.

Quote

Ya, that was confusing. Perhaps a better way to say it was, "you use the term “self-evident” quite often and I find it to be a useless term in communication. There is nothing self-evident about ideas, or the language used to communicate them to other people, like the idea of a community of faith." You said, "our's is a community of faith, we cohere around faith," and then accused me of not thinking that faith is important. 

I didn't "accuse."  I asked.  And I am open to correction.  And I apologized for having given offense.

Quote

Yes the idea of faith is part of a community of faith, I'm trying to understand specific beliefs people find key to Mormonism. That to me is not self-evident. 

Well, we have been speaking of conditions for entry to the temple.  Specifically, the temple recommend questions.  As I said previously:

Quote

There are some core precepts of faith, of belief, that are preconditions for entry.  These are found in the first three or four questions of the TR interview:

1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?
4. Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

And, probably, in the last question: "Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?"

These are some pretty fundamental points of doctrine.  The balance of the questions pertain to behaviors, but these pertain to principles which are professed as a matter of faith.

Quote

To me, the idea of God is a concept that we create based on our personal experience.

I can respect that perspective.

Quote

This concept has, what may appear to be, an infinite set of properties with a specific values:

Idea: God

Properties: Male = true, physical body = True, spirit = True, Loving = True. Patient = True, etc.

I consider two of the keys to Mormonism's concept of God (and man) is that man can become like God, and that God has achieved a fulness of joy. 

Yes, these are key.  I don't think they can be considered in isolation, however.  Professing "faith" in Jesus Christ as merely "a concept that we create," but not the literal Son of God born to Mary 2,000 years ago, would - for me and those within my stewardship - be problematic.

Quote

These beliefs give immense practical value to the many of the properties included in the Mormon concept of God. God is not some unknowable being but a template for navigating our personal experience and obtain what we consider to be ideal states of being (happiness, joy, peace, love, etc). Without the belief that man can become like God, I find less practical value in the concept of God. Even with that belief I find there are properties included in the concept of God that I find to be of little practical value. One is God's gender. That doesn't mean much to me. Another is the idea that God has a physical body. Again, it provides only intellectual value as being a nice idea, but no practical value. The property of God that I am curious as to whether it provides practical value to people is "corresponds to real being." Sure the idea can provide intellectual value. But if the ultimate goal of Mormonism is to become like some ideal being, does it matter if that being is real or not?

Well, yes, it matters.  Whether our existence survives death is dependent upon whether we have spirits.  

The LDS Church teaches that God is the father of our spirits, that He has a plan for us that this plan centers on atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the literal Son of God.

The LDS Church teaches that these things are "real."  So yes, it matters.

Quote

Do I need to assign the value "true" to the property "corresponds to a real being" in order to attain the ideal.

Apparently so.  That's the LDS paradigm, anyway.  YMMV.

Quote

Would it matter if I assigned no value to that property (agnosticism)?

Yes.

Quote

For me, I don't know. I think in some ways it is important for me to believe that our concept of God corresponds to a real being, but I don't know that I believe it is necessary to get the highest practical value from the concept of God.

I don't know what this means.  I'm not being obtuse.  I don't know what you mean by "the highest practical value from the concept of God."

Quote

So the purpose of this thread (which I've done a poor job of directing in the proper direction) is to understand what properties of God people find most important.

I think Joseph Smith put it well:

Quote

Let us here observe that three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation. First, the idea that he actually exists; Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes; Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will.

"The idea that he actually exists" is, as you can see, foundational.

As for His "character, perfections, and attributes," I would say say His knowledge, power, goodness, status as "Creator," and His relationship with us are the biggies.

Quote

Does it really matter in the end (for the purpose of achieving the objectives of Mormonism) what values we assign to certain properties? What properties and specific values do people find most important? Does it matter if we think God has a body? Is male? Is distinct from Jesus? Corresponds to a real being? Can some properties of God be immaterial to some people in achieving Mormonism's highest objectives? 

Again, I think Joseph Smith put it well: "First, the idea that he actually exists; Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes..."

So even if we do not now presently comprehend the full ambit of these things, I think the LDS paradigm calls upon us to accept those portions which have been revealed to us.  Namely, His knowledge, power, goodness, and relationship with us, but also His Corporeality, and also His relationship with Jesus Christ.

It looks like we may have a fairly fundamental divergence of belief as to the nature of God.  Please correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to treat Him as only a symbol, a representation or personification of an abstract "concept" or set of concepts, like Lady Justice or Prudentia.  I am open to correction on this point.

I believe that Heavenly Father is "real."  He actually exists, not merely as an abstract concept or personification thereof.  He has a physical body.  He has an actual, personal relationship with us.  He is the actual father of our spirits.  At some point, I believe we all will kneed before him.  Actually kneel, in a way that can never be done before, say, a personified-but-nevertheless-ephemeral Lady Justice or other merely personified concepts.

So perhaps His corporeality is helpful in that regard.  It helps us perceive God more correctly that we otherwise might.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited January 28, 2018 by smac97

[Brother Bear]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Dogma" doesn't communicat that.  

And its pejorative overtones overshadow whatever utility it has in an LDS context.

I didn't "accuse."  I asked.  And I am open to correction.  And I apologized for having given offense.

Well, we have been speaking of conditions for entry to the temple.  Specifically, the temple recommend questions.  As I said previously:

These are some pretty fundamental points of doctrine.  The balance of the questions pertain to behaviors, but these pertain to principles which are professed as a matter of faith.

I can respect that perspective.

Yes, these are key.  I don't think they can be considered in isolation, however.  Professing "faith" in Jesus Christ as merely "a concept that we create," but not the literal Son of God born to Mary 2,000 years ago, would - for me and those within my stewardship - be problematic.

Well, yes, it matters.  Whether our existence survives death is dependent upon whether we have spirits.  

The LDS Church teaches that God is the father of our spirits, that He has a plan for us that this plan centers on atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the literal Son of God.

The LDS Church teaches that these things are "real."  So yes, it matters.

Apparently so.  That's the LDS paradigm, anyway.  YMMV.

Yes.

I don't know what this means.  I'm not being obtuse.  I don't know what you mean by "the highest practical value from the concept of God."

I think Joseph Smith put it well:

"The idea that he actually exists" is, as you can see, foundational.

As for His "character, perfections, and attributes," I would say say His knowledge, power, goodness, status as "Creator," and His relationship with us are the biggies.

Again, I think Joseph Smith put it well: "First, the idea that he actually exists; Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes..."

So even if we do not now presently comprehend the full ambit of these things, I think the LDS paradigm calls upon us to accept those portions which have been revealed to us.  Namely, His knowledge, power, goodness, and relationship with us, but also His Corporeality, and also His relationship with Jesus Christ.

It looks like we may have a fairly fundamental divergence of belief as to the nature of God.  Please correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to treat Him as only a symbol, a representation or personification of an abstract "concept" or set of concepts, like Lady Justice or Prudentia.  I am open to correction on this point.

I believe that Heavenly Father is "real."  He actually exists, not merely as an abstract concept or personification thereof.  He has a physical body.  He has an actual, personal relationship with Him.  He is the actual father of our spirits.  At some point, I believe we all will kneed before him.  Actually kneel, in a way that can never be done before, say, a personified-but-nevertheless-ephemeral Lady Justice or other merely personified concepts.

So perhaps His corporeality is helpful in that regard.  It helps us perceive God more correctly that we otherwise might.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I appreciate your feedback. 

[kiwi57]

8 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

Ad hominem pertains to logical arguments. I wasn't arguing.

And you have examples of me using the ad hominem fallacy, do you?

Note that the fallacy applies to informal as well as formal arguments. An outburst similar to "[Don't listen to] kiwi [because he] has an axe to grind and only uses ad hominem arguments" is itself an example of the ad hominem fallacy at work.

8 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

I was asking you to contribute properly to the topic in a productive way. 

"Productive" meaning what, precisely? Agreeing with HFT, perhaps?

I hark back to the title of this thread. What business has an atheist got, walking into a temple? I haven't the slightest idea what you might or might not think it's about, but for believing Latter-day Saints, the temple is par excellence the House of the Lord; it is holy, and not profane; and it is our shared responsibility to keep it that way.

[Brother Bear]

18 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

And you have examples of me using the ad hominem fallacy, do you?

Note that the fallacy applies to informal as well as formal arguments. An outburst similar to "[Don't listen to] kiwi [because he] has an axe to grind and only uses ad hominem arguments" is itself an example of the ad hominem fallacy at work.

"Productive" meaning what, precisely? Agreeing with HFT, perhaps?

I hark back to the title of this thread. What business has an atheist got, walking into a temple? I haven't the slightest idea what you might or might not think it's about, but for believing Latter-day Saints, the temple is par excellence the House of the Lord; it is holy, and not profane; and it is our shared responsibility to keep it that way.

Well, the thread is about what constitutes a believing Latter-day Saint. What beliefs, or lack there of, would cause someone to not be considered a believing Latter-day Saint?

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Brother Bear said:

Well, the thread is about what constitutes a believing Latter-day Saint. What beliefs, or lack there of, would cause someone to not be considered a believing Latter-day Saint?

And again: let's start with the Articles of Faith.

I confess that I can't see that this should or could be a particularly vexing or controversial question, were it not that there appears to exist a little coterie of people who reject most of the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ, but who demand to be considered "Mormon" in some sense or other.

[Marginal Gains]

On 28/01/2018 at 6:45 AM, kiwi57 said:

And again: let's start with the Articles of Faith.

I confess that I can't see that this should or could be a particularly vexing or controversial question, were it not that there appears to exist a little coterie of people who reject most of the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ, but who demand to be considered "Mormon" in some sense or other.

You believe that Israel and the 10 tribes will literally be gathered in America? Have you applied for a Visa? If not, why not?

Edited January 29, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Maestrophil]

At the risk of sounding dumb and/or obvious - I think the questions as they stand now are inspired.  If you can answer them honestly, you are in the camp of a temple worthy member.  If you can't you aren't.  Isn't the first question if you have a testimony of God, Jesus, and the HG?  

My memory says:

Testimony of the Godhead

Testimony of JS and the restoration

WOW observance

Tithing payment (gross, net, increase not specified)

Law of Chastity observance

Attend meetings and fulfill callings to the best of your ability

Testimony of and sustaining of global and local church leaders

Current in any child support payments or similar

No unresolved past sin

Don't support groups that are contrary to the Church

Honest in your dealings (at least striving to be - as I am sure we all fail this one sometimes)

and recently, wearing the garment as prescribed

 

Did I miss any?  Those are my questions I focus on as I analyze myself each Sunday during sacrament.  Questions outside of these are minor points to me, and carry much less weight - literal Adam and Eve, evolution, BOA translation methods, etc.  just trivial to worthiness IMO

 

 

That's all of them right

 

 

 

[nuclearfuels]

If one considers the Temple to be the House of the Lord, I imagine most people would feel uncomfortable entering.

That is to say, if each of us were to enter the Lord's presence, I imagine we'd mentally be saying an urgent prayer asking forgiveness of all the philosophies of men we've given home to and how they've led us astray.

[MiserereNobis]

On 1/27/2018 at 1:17 PM, kiwi57 said:

Good thing there's nothing remotely ad hominem about that pleasant, substantive response, is there?

I point you towards an obscure little document called "The Articles of Faith." It contains thirteen statements, twelve of which begin with the words "We believe." It was written by the first latter-day prophet on behalf of the Church.

It's the LDS creed (from the Latin "credo" = "I believe" which is the beginning of each part of the Catholic creeds).

[kiwi57]

11 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

You believe that Israel and the 10 tribes will literally be gathered in America? Have you applied for a Visa? If not, why not?

How is that relevant?

How is that even polite?

[Brother Bear]

12 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

You believe that Israel and the 10 tribes will literally be gathered in America? Have you applied for a Visa? If not, why not?

Well, to be fair, Independence, Missouri has nothing on as beautiful a place as New Zealand. I’m sure the Lord would understand...perhaps even change His mind as to the location of the New Jerusalem.

[Marginal Gains]

15 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

How is that relevant?

How is that even polite?

It was asked, politely, on the back you referring to the articles of faith as a source of what Mormon core beliefs are.

So, politely, do you actually believe that Israel and the 10 tribes will literally be gathered in America? Yes/No

Assuming Yes, Will you be moving there? Yes/No

If No, why not if that’s what you actually believe is going to happen?

Edited January 30, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

So, politely, do you actually believe that Israel and the 10 tribes will literally be gathered in America? Yes/No

If No, why not if that’s what you actually believe is going to happen?

Yes.

But the call to gather in has to be sent by those in authority.  Running before we are sent is never a good practice.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 3:45 PM, Gray said:

How many would it take?

 

42

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

42

Ironically, the same number of angels as can dance on the head of a pin...

[kiwi57]

12 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

It was asked, politely, on the back you referring to the articles of faith as a source of what Mormon core beliefs are.

So, politely, do you actually believe that Israel and the 10 tribes will literally be gathered in America? Yes/No

Assuming Yes, Will you be moving there? Yes/No

If No, why not if that’s what you actually believe is going to happen?

It is not polite, even if you say "please," to interrogate someone about their personal beliefs, unless or until they try to base an argument upon them; which I have not done. I don't know you from a bar of soap, and I certainly won't be baring my soul to you.

That is the only answer you are getting. Accept it and move on.