David Bokovoy on Mormon Stories

[Calm]

Quote

Anyway, my point is that Bokovoy shouldn't be dismissed as yet another malcontent. He is unique.

I very much agree, both in his background and his approach to his relationship to the Church.

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I disregard that attack in general, but find it especially inapplicable to Bokovoy. That's my point.

Ah. OK. Sorry I misunderstood you. Fowler's just a pet peeve of mine. I hear it and it gets my goat every time.

I agree it doesn't apply to Bokovoy though. I think the LGBT issue was just particularly pertinent to him and that he had difficulty with the history - much as many people who leave do. Some people who leave maintain a good attitude towards Mormons others get caught up in the more traditional (but I suspect less common) exmo bitterness. Bokovoy, from everything I can tell maintains a positive view even if he disagrees with us.

Edited November 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Of course this isn't a phenomenon unique to the Mormon traditions either.  Its happening everywhere in the western world.  Younger generations are eschewing organized religion, I think largely because these traditions aren't adjusting to the times as quickly as necessary to become relevant to contemporary concerns.  

Younger generations aren't just eschewing organized religion they're becoming distrustful of organizations period. Most studies show this time and time again, particularly among the Nones. While some of these elements, particular in conservative religions like ours, are tied to politics and social change, it seems like they've been pulling out of most organizations. Some suggest government is taking the role religion once had, but I don't think even that's true. They're becoming more politically liberal in some ways (particularly with respect to safety nets) but also more disengaged to all organizations even sports.

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If God actually existed and interacted with observable reality, of course the tools of scholarship could tell us if God exists.

I disagree with your premise.  I think you are vastly overstating the utility of "the tools of scholarship."  This is evidenced by the fact that we, in 2018, have access to all sorts of "scholarship," none of which has established that "God exists," or that He does not.

Quote

As it is, scholarship can't tell us if God exists for the same reason it can't tell us that leprechauns exist. Maybe He does (and they do), but as it is, there just isn't evidence. But in principle, God (and leprechauns) could manifest themselves.

Meh.  I'm not buying this at all.  Scholarship consists of the best efforts by flawed and finite and blinkered men and women to understand the world around them.  Of course there is evidence for the existence of God.  And evidence against it.  Scholarship cannot break the impasse.  We lack sufficient information and means of gathering more.

Quote

You missed the point. When Bokovoy says "it doesn't work" in this context he isn't saying that you aren't allowed to use the tools of scholarship to defend religious belief. He is saying if you apply the tools of scholarship to this specific question, it isn't going to help the apologists because the evidence points in the other direction.

I disagree with him.  

Anyone who makes such sweeping pronouncements about "the evidence" pertaining to a question so vast and also limited in data is arguing more from ideology than from "the evidence."

Quote

Picking and choosing bits of evidence to submit to academic scrutiny because they help support your position isn't good scholarship and isn't honest.

And yet someone who asserts that "the evidence" is against the existence of God has done precisely that.

"The evidence" is very much a mixed bag.  And there are huge gaps in "the evidence."  

Quote

And yes, he does accuse specific apologists of being dishonest in this regard.

A pity.  

Quote

That's my take, at least. I've also heard him say that scholarship is designed to find the most likely explanation of things, and thus necessarily rules out miracles because by definition, miracles are the least likely explanation of something--that is what makes them miraculous.

Subjective and facile.  My smartphone would be labeled "miraculous" to someone living in the 18th century.  Simply because that someone lacks an appropriate and sufficient frame of reference.  The same, I think, can and should be said about David Bokovoy and his perspective on "miracles" (does he even define the term?).

Quote

If the evidence indicates that the faithful explanation of any phenomenon really was plausible, then by definition it wouldn't be miraculous and hence would be within the purview of scholarship.

This doesn't really work.  "Plausible" presupposes a frame of reference that is not available here.  Way too subjective.  

Moreover, "miraculous" has a rather ephemeral popular definition that does not apply in this context: "occurring through divine or supernatural intervention, or manifesting such power."  I've never thought of miracles as "the suspension of natural law," but rather as a higher manifestation of it.  I think this reflects the Church's perspective (see here).

Quote

No. A common tactic to avoid the arguments of apostates is to say they aren't made in good faith, that the person didn't study apologetic arguments enough, that the apostate lacks good will, etc.

I have seen that tactic utilized improperly by both sides.

Quote

He says in his Mormon Stories interview, "I think the Book of Mormon is one of the most inspired books ever written. I think it has an inspired, apocalyptic message that is essential for Americans, specifically, to embrace. When the Book of Mormon is read critically and carefully, and against the grain, some really important themes start to emerge....ultimately this idea of creating a society like the one Jesus helps to create where we eliminate -isms and people start to work together to eradicate poverty and create heaven on earth--that is literally what the Nephite society does. So its a blueprint in many ways to accomplish those things. I love the Book of Mormon. There is a deep power in that text."

The Journal of Biblical Literature is by far the most prestigious academic journal on the Bible, and exactly one Mormon has ever been published there.

Um, it still sounds like you are presenting an Argument from Authority.

Quote

Anyway, my point is that Bokovoy shouldn't be dismissed as yet another malcontent. He is unique.

I'm not dismissing him.  I wish him the best, actually.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 27, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Younger generations aren't just eschewing organized religion they're becoming distrustful of organizations period. Most studies show this time and time again, particularly among the Nones. While some of these elements, particular in conservative religions like ours, are tied to politics and social change, it seems like they've been pulling out of most organizations. Some suggest government is taking the role religion once had, but I don't think even that's true. They're becoming more politically liberal in some ways (particularly with respect to safety nets) but also more disengaged to all organizations even sports.

Yes, this is a really good point, and I completely agree.  We're seeing this even in Mormonism, and I wonder if there have been any survey questions that would help provide some additional support for this.  My anecdotal experience is that kids are less interested in many of these institutions all across the board.  However, people still have a need for connection, so I wonder what other kinds of communities will form to fill in the gaps.  It will be interesting to see.  I think Social Media might play a role in all of this.  

[smac97]

5 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Like when we rejected polygamy?  

When did "we" reject polygamy?  When did this happen?

5 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Mormons at the time rejected that core principle and value.

Some did (though I'm not sure polygamy is a "core principle and value").  Most accepted it.

5 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

John Taylor famously quoted that the church would never abandon “the principle.”  

In a sense, he was correct.  We have stopped the practice, and we did so in obedience to a revelation from God (OD-1).  But D&C 132 is still there.

I don't think Pres. Taylor intended to suggest that the Church would never "abandon" polygamy even if that meant God telling us to stop it.  That seems a bit farfetched.

5 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

“The Kingdom of God or Nothing!” he famously said in defense of polygamy in 1857 when it was commonly taught that practicing polygamy was essential to exhalation to the highest degree of the celestial kingdom.

Did John Taylor say as much?

5 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

33 years later that all changed when his successor Wilford Woodruff revealed what would become OD 2.

I'm not sure it "changed."  Obedience to God is the key issue here.  He commanded it, then forbade it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, this is a really good point, and I completely agree.  We're seeing this even in Mormonism, and I wonder if there have been any survey questions that would help provide some additional support for this.  My anecdotal experience is that kids are less interested in many of these institutions all across the board.  However, people still have a need for connection, so I wonder what other kinds of communities will form to fill in the gaps.  It will be interesting to see.  I think Social Media might play a role in all of this.  

I wonder if being loaded up with organized after school activities has made any difference. Young adults perhaps are tired of being organized by others and want a less structured life. 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Calm

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure it "changed."  Obedience to God is the key issue here.  He commanded it, then forbade it.

This is the key. I reject the idea that god can not change his commandments and doctrine. He has, and he will continue to do so.

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

If? What is this "if" Glenn?

There is no doubt in my mind, just trying not to be argumentative. 

Glenn

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

The Church is fairly dependent on the strength of its membership in North America.  

It need not be. As the Saviour pointed out to another group of people who had decided that His work would fail without them, 'God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham'. I'm confident that He is now and will continue in future to raise up children of the covenant wherever He can find broken hearts and contrite spirits. The world at large is still full of such people.

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

So you aren’t even accepting that there are active non-believers in our wards and stakes?

Is that an inclusive 'our' or an exclusive one? As I stated above, no doubt that are certain pockets of the Church where some kind of social benefit arises from church participation sans belief. I don't live in one of those pockets. From a global perspective, I doubt most Saints do. We have, as I've mentioned before, a non-believing brother in our ward (and former president of our ward's predecessor branch) who attends with his wife because, as he explains it, he likes being with her on Sundays. But he's completely open about his disbelief. We may have a few more like him scattered across our stake.

The rule, however, is that loss of belief in a place like this, where I attend church each Sunday with the first person ever baptised in our city, results in inactivity or even formal separation from the community of the Saints. I remember one brother who assured us all that his renunciation of his membership would not stop him attending activities and such (since we were all still top blokes in his eyes ...), but we've literally never seen him since.

I have served in our ward's bishopric three times now, twice as a counsellor. In the midst of that, I spent six years as the Young Men president, and after that, I spent nearly five years as the ward mission leader. I'm now serving in the stake presidency for my second time. My sense of the stake is still poor, to be honest, but I know my ward. I've been in their homes, in good times and bad. I've interviewed them for temple recommends, for callings, and for other reasons. I've had them come to me to seek counsel and comfort in trial. We're all over the spectrum regarding what we believe and how we believe it, but beyond the one brother I mentioned, I'm confident in saying that we have no active non-believers in our ward.

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1127&index=8

Notice the line about how "Objectivity disguises a play for power", that is, it becomes a claim of immunity from criticism.  If one is objective, applying the tools of scholarship and science to follow the facts where ever they lead, then it follows that the objective scholar is beyond criticism, and that those who disagree are by definition, "not approaching the issue objectively" that is, in the grasp of some ideology of faith that is, again by definition, "not objective" and by definition, wrong.

I really like the Bushman quote, thanks for sharing.  However, I think you're misreading Bushman and the quote from that essay.  The section in the quote that says "Objectivity disguises a play for power" is a critique that Bushman says some Frenchmen and postmodern thinkers have about the principle of objectivity, saying that it is essentially impossible to have.  Bushman DISAGREES with how far they take their critique and he says "I, for one, am loath to go all the way with postmodernist thinkers. It is very hard to relinquish faith in some measure of objective scholarship." 

He then talks about how scholarship is connected to systems and communities and that certainly these elements have some level of influence on objectivity.  I personally don't think the goal of objectivity is somehow an immunity to criticism, quite the opposite, I think that scientific inquiry needs criticism and only the most rigorous of ideas that stand up to the winnowing process of criticism should be considered objective.  

58 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Do I take Bokovoy as paradigmatic on the Book of Abraham, or do I get to consider Gee and Tvedtnes and Robert Smith and Hugh Nibley and Michael Rhodes and others offer?  While I have some questions about the Book of Abraham, from what I have read, there are some very interesting and peculiar ties to the ancient world that to my knowledge, tend not to get mentioned, let alone explained by those who see it as Joseph's imaginative composition, rather than an inspired translation.  In deciding between Bokovoy and Gee, do I decide that Bokovoy is beyond criticism because he followed the facts objectively, and that Gee must be prejudiced and wrong because all he did was get a Ph.D. in Egyptology publish widely, and explore the issue in detail for several decades, which means that he'd only be worth listening to if he were not LDS? 

Its smart to evaluate as much as possible on any given subject.  Try to evaluate the arguments, rather than evaluating the person behind the arguments if possible.  We shouldn't be concerned with appeals to authority for either apologists or critics.  If you're interested in a critique on BoA scholarship that is very detailed and quite good, I would recommend Dan Vogel's recently released youtube videos on the subject.  So far there are 6 parts, and I haven't even listened to the most recent ones, but the first few were very good and very detailed.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtJT_xjIgdM

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

That is exactly where Alma 32 and Thomas Kuhn come it.  Paradigm choice always involves deciding which paradigm is better (which necessarily involves comparison of two or more approaches), always involves deciding "Which problems are more significant to have solved?" (and these days I cannot help but notice that one of the key diagnostic factors in addiction is an internal, subjective conviction that "sex is my most important need"), and that there is a natural tendency for proponents of different paradigms to employ their own paradigm in that paradigm's defense.  I consider what claims are being made, what is testable? which predictions are most accurate, whose explanations are the most comprehensive and coherent, which is the most fruitful, producing results that would be completely unexpected and unexplained by an opposed perspective, which is the most aesthetically pleasing, and which offers the most future promise in dealing with unresolved issues?So I think there is an urgency to be open about the effects of one's own ideology, not even pretend to "objectivity" and to make a conscious effort to invoke criteria that are not "paradigm dependent," not ideologically saturated.

I would argue that there are as many paradigms as there are humans on this earth, and no one paradigm is the same as another.  There have been quite a few posts about cafeteria or Middle way Mormonism in the bloggernacle in recent weeks and I think these are good conversations to have.  I think we're all uniquely operating according to what we think works best for us.  I also think if we want to be effective we need to be frequently evaluating the way we approach things and as context changes our approaches need to change as well.  Ongoing revelation and all that.  

 

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wonder if being loaded up with organized after school activities has made any difference. Young adults perhaps are tired of being organized by others and want a less structured life. 

Yes, I think this might be a trend as well.  It seems my kids lives are overly structured compared to when I was their age.   I wonder if the pendulum from very unstructured to incredibly protected and structured hasn't swung too far and needs to swing back again.  

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It need not be. As the Saviour pointed out to another group of people who had decided that His work would fail without them, 'God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham'. I'm confident that He is now and will continue in future to raise up children of the covenant wherever He can find broken hearts and contrite spirits. The world at large is still full of such people.

Is that an inclusive 'our' or an exclusive one? As I stated above, no doubt that are certain pockets of the Church where some kind of social benefit arises from church participation sans belief. I don't live in one of those pockets. From a global perspective, I doubt most Saints do. We have, as I've mentioned before, a non-believing brother in our ward (and former president of our ward's predecessor branch) who attends with his wife because, as he explains it, he likes being with her on Sundays. But he's completely open about his disbelief. We may have a few more like him scattered across our stake.

The rule, however, is that loss of belief in a place like this, where I attend church each Sunday with the first person ever baptised in our city, results in inactivity or even formal separation from the community of the Saints. I remember one brother who assured us all that his renunciation of his membership would not stop him attending activities and such (since we were all still top blokes in his eyes ...), but we've literally never seen him since.

I have served in our ward's bishopric three times now, twice as a counsellor. In the midst of that, I spent six years as the Young Men president, and after that, I spent nearly five years as the ward mission leader. I'm now serving in the stake presidency for my second time. My sense of the stake is still poor, to be honest, but I know my ward. I've been in their homes, in good times and bad. I've interviewed them for temple recommends, for callings, and for other reasons. I've had them come to me to seek counsel and comfort in trial. We're all over the spectrum regarding what we believe and how we believe it, but beyond the one brother I mentioned, I'm confident in saying that we have no active non-believers in our ward.

It was an inclusive "our".

I know there are active non-believers in my current ward.  There were in my previous ward as well.  And my ward before that had a couple.  They all hold or held temple recommends at the time and you likely wouldn't know that they were non-believers (referring to the primary truth claims of the church) unless they opened up to you.  And, given the culture of the church, people are hesitant to open up about such things.

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I live in Utah and I'm participating and lately feeling pretty good about my participation.  Would you care to elaboration on your comment that this doesn't make sense? 

Please see my post above. I can see how it might make sense in Utah and a few other parts of the world where the Church is important to many family members, friends, co-workers and even neighbours. It doesn't make sense, as a rule, to people who don't see another Church member most days of the week. What benefit arises from participating in a faith community that one completely doesn't believe in?

Quote

I feel good personally about the way I'm approaching my church activity, which is all that really matters to me.

Cool. I hope you keep attending! That's my personal preference ... in part because I harbour hope that over time, your faith in God and His Restored Church will be rekindled. (A hope I harbour, by the way, even for those who formally leave!) But even if it doesn't, the whole 'Visitors Welcome' thing on the outsides of our chapels is a sincere statement. Last year, one of my Muslim friends attended church with me every week for nearly three months. He didn't believe a word of it and wasn't interested in converting, but he said he enjoyed the community. That's good enough for me. But even he stopped coming after awhile. To each his own.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wonder if being loaded up with organized after school activities has made any difference. Young adults perhaps are tired of being organized by others and want a less structured life. 

I'm haven't done or really studied the surveys, but I am serving a YM president in my ward and I don't really see an eschewing of organizations.

What I am experiencing with my priests is consistent with what we see here on these threads:  they disagree with the church's teachings on homosexuality, they don't buy the apologetic explanations for multiple first vision accounts, they are suspect of the church not sharing its finances, etc.  These young men (not all of them, but a good number) are online and reading about this stuff.  And it is having an impact on them.

[Analytics]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I disagree with your premise.  I think you are vastly overstating the utility of "the tools of scholarship."  This is evidenced by the fact that we, in 2018, have access to all sorts of "scholarship," none of which has established that "God exists," or that He does not.

There are a few problems here we need to untangle. First, the concept of "God" is widely undefined. Is God the abstract force that holds the universe together? An unknowable first cause? A hominoid from a planet near the star Kolob? A guy who lives on Mount Olympus? The whole of humanity? The human emotion of love? Jesus? A round square? Science can't even begin to contemplate whether "God" exists until a coherent definition of the proposition is put forth.

Once a coherent definition of God is put forth, then we can discuss the evidence. Is God literally just love? Then yes, we can scientifically say that God exists. Is God a hominoid that occasionally visits the Salt Lake Temple? If so, then in principle, President Nelson could take out his cell phone and make a video recording of God. That would constitute scientific evidence. But if, as a practical matter God never visits President Nelson, then that avenue of evidence doesn't exist.

So the second issue is the actual state of the evidence. Depending upon how God is defined, there may or may not be evidence. But a God that is hiding is indistinguishable from a God that doesn't exist.

Quote

Meh.  I'm not buying this at all.  Scholarship consists of the best efforts by flawed and finite and blinkered men and women to understand the world around them.  Of course there is evidence for the existence of God.  And evidence against it. 

I disagree--"God" is ill-defined in a scientific context, and thus it is premature to talk about evidence for or against. That doesn't indicate that there is a flaw in science. What it means is that proponents of the God hypothesis haven't put forth a coherent definition for science to properly consider (other than versions of God that have been disproven and disregarded, such as the guy who was once believed to literally live on top of Mount Olympus).

 

Quote

[Regarding the historicity of the Book of Abraham] Anyone who makes such sweeping pronouncements about "the evidence" pertaining to a question so vast and also limited in data is arguing more from ideology than from "the evidence."

We'll have to just disagree on this one.

 

Quote

And yet someone who asserts that "the evidence" is against the existence of God has done precisely that.

Who are you talking about here? I certainly don't assert that "the evidence is against the existence of God." Yes, I lack belief in "God" in the same way I lack belief in everything else that isn't coherently defined and isn't positively supported by evidence. But that isn't the same thing as claiming the evidence is against this ill-defined entity's alleged existence.

 

Quote

"The evidence" is very much a mixed bag.  And there are huge gaps in "the evidence."  

No need to tell me you disagree with my position here, but I'll state it for the record--the evidence on the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham really isn't remotely as mixed as you make it out to be.

 

Quote

The same, I think, can and should be said about David Bokovoy and his perspective on "miracles" (does he even define the term?).

As I recall, he said that a miracle is by definition the least likely possibility--that's what makes it a miracle. In any case, this is a side issue. My contention is that to the extent that things can be directly or indirectly observed, they are within the purview of science, regardless of whether they are characterized as being miraculous, supernatural, or even God. But this is a side issue we can discuss in another thread if you'd like.

 

Quote

Um, it still sounds like you are presenting an Argument from Authority.

Then we clearly aren't communicating. And that is okay.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Analytics

[Hamba Tuhan]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

They all hold or held temple recommends at the time and you likely wouldn't know that they were non-believers (referring to the primary truth claims of the church) unless they opened up to you.

I most certainly would if they were honest in their temple recommend interviews! I trust my ward members to have enough integrity to be honest in such interviews. Despite their many and varied flaws, I've seen evidence of their integrity. For example, our primary president doesn't have a temple recommend and hasn't had one for years. Neither does the wife of our emeritus patriarch (and earliest convert). I interviewed both of them the last time I was in the bishopric; they are both women of integrity. They also both believe.

The whole 'pretend in order to get a recommend' thing doesn't sit well with me at all, and I'm glad that doesn't seem to be a toxin that has spread to this corner of the Lord's vineyard.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Gray]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Ah. OK. Sorry I misunderstood you. Fowler's just a pet peeve of mine. I hear it and it gets my goat every time.

I agree it doesn't apply to Bokovoy though. I think the LGBT issue was just particularly pertinent to him and that he had difficulty with the history - much as many people who leave do. Some people who leave maintain a good attitude towards Mormons others get caught up in the more traditional (but I suspect less common) exmo bitterness. Bokovoy, from everything I can tell maintains a positive view even if he disagrees with us.

I was listening to part 2 today. Bokovoy's views on a historical /ancient BOM being totally incompatible with the conclusions of historical criticism (an issue you and I have discussed several times) are very much in line with what I've concluded as well.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Gray

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What I am experiencing with my priests is consistent with what we see here on these threads:  they disagree with the church's teachings on homosexuality, they don't buy the apologetic explanations for multiple first vision accounts, they are suspect of the church not sharing its finances, etc.

And as their spiritual adviser, you no doubt are helping them to resolve these confected concerns in ways that strengthen their individual conversion to Christ and His Restored Church ...

Edited November 27, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I most certainly would if they were honest in their temple recommend interviews! I trust my ward members to have enough integrity to be honest in such interviews. Despite their many and varied flaws, I've seen evidence of their integrity. For example, our primary president doesn't have a temple recommend and hasn't had one for years. Neither does the wife of our emeritus patriarch (and earliest convert). I interviewed both of them the last time I was in the bishopric; they are both women of integrity. They also both believe.

The whole 'pretend in order to get a recommend' thing doesn't sit well with me at all, and I'm glad that doesn't seem to be a toxin that has spread to this corner of the Lord's vineyard.

Belief isn't one of the questions.

[Glenn101]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I know there are active non-believers in my current ward.  There were in my previous ward as well.  And my ward before that had a couple.  They all hold or held temple recommends at the time and you likely wouldn't know that they were non-believers (referring to the primary truth claims of the church) unless they opened up to you.  And, given the culture of the church, people are hesitant to open up about such things.

This is something that disturbs me, j.e. an "active non-believer" holding a temple recommend. I do not know how such an one can honestly answer all of the questions requiring belief, actual faith in the truth claims of the church. If I did not believe I could not and would not even seek a temple recommend. Maybe this is a thought for another thread.

Glenn

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And as their spiritual adviser, you no doubt are helping them to resolve these confected concerns in ways that strengthen their individual conversion to Christ and His Restored Church ...

I do my best to help them resolve their concerns (I'm not sure what you mean by "confected" in this context).

Somehow for the roughly 17 of the 20 years I have been attending family wards (as a married adult), I've been in callings working directly with the youth.  My leaders seem to think I'm doing a good job.

[Hamba Tuhan]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Belief isn't one of the questions.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Please see my post above. I can see how it might make sense in Utah and a few other parts of the world where the Church is important to many family members, friends, co-workers and even neighbours. It doesn't make sense, as a rule, to people who don't see another Church member most days of the week. What benefit arises from participating in a faith community that one completely doesn't believe in?

I think thats a fair point, but I can see situations where it might make sense for someone out of the Utah area to also continue to attend.  Its an extremely personal and complicated thing, so I'd like to honor those who feel that its important even if it doesn't make sense to you or I.  

22 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Cool. I hope you keep attending! That's my personal preference ... in part because I harbour hope that over time, your faith in God and His Restored Church will be rekindled. (A hope I harbour, by the way, even for those who formally leave!) But even if it doesn't, the whole 'Visitors Welcome' thing on the outsides of our chapels is a sincere statement. Last year, one of my Muslim friends attended church with me every week for nearly three months. He didn't believe a word of it and wasn't interested in converting, but he said he enjoyed the community. That's good enough for me. But even he stopped coming after awhile. To each his own.

Its interesting that for more orthodox members, perhaps like yourself, they seem to harbor these kinds of hopes that a person like myself may over time have faith rekindled.  The converse of this would be for me to hope that orthodox participants would over time lose their faith and become more agnostic like myself.  I'm not sure that I wish for that to happen from my vantage point.  Of course I would like them to become more informed about the history of their religion, and become more thoughtful about the complicated issues out there.  But I don't have a desire that they lose faith in God, just that their faith becomes more informed. 

After thinking about your point, I imagine we shouldn't fault those who do wish that their religious counterparts lose their faith in God, because that is precisely the same kind of thing as hoping that people who lost faith in God rekindle their faith.  

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Glenn101 said:

This is something that disturbs me, j.e. an "active non-believer" holding a temple recommend. I do not know how such an one can honestly answer all of the questions requiring belief, actual faith in the truth claims of the church. If I did not believe I could not and would not even seek a temple recommend. Maybe this is a thought for another thread.

Glenn

The difficult truth claims of the church aren't really present in the TR questions.

As one good brother (who was an active non-believer) put it when I interviewed him for his recommend:  he hoped that it was true even though he lacked a spiritual witness and despite his mind telling him that it wasn't.