The Plan of Salvation: A Sufficient Theodicy

[hope_for_things]

On 12/14/2018 at 4:23 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

The role that social/ethical issues typically play in a person’s decision to leave or distances himself or herself from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is becoming increasingly clear to me. Whether the concern is with the priesthood ban, LGBTQ issues, polygamy/polyandry, or similar topics there is usually an underlying logic that leads to the loss of faith: if the doctrines, policies, or history of the Church don't agree with one's moral intuitions, then there is just cause for doubting or disbelieving its fundamental claims.

Thanks for the post, some interesting thoughts.  Just a couple comments from my perspective.  

Firstly, from my experiences going on a faith journey myself and interacting with many others, the concerns that bring people to questioning their more orthodox faith are very different for each individual and can be somewhat complicated.  I think this loss of faith is more accurately described as a loss of trust in the moral authority of Mormonism.  It can be related to the way the institution is run, its leaders, the theology, individual experiences, and/or a combination of these things.  Sometimes an acute event is the catalyst and other times its a gradual process.  

Another point I'd like to make is that humans generally make decisions and then use poc hoc constructions to explain the reasons for the decisions they make, after the fact.  The reasons that we use to explain our actions are frequently not an accurate description of the influencing factors that contributed to our original actions that led to decisions we make.  We have a hard time understanding and even accessing the complexity of the factors that go into our own decision making.  So we come up with a narrative to explain why we make decisions and this is the reasoning we do after the fact.  This is how people think and I believe it is important to recognize this as we examine the complex processes that go into these conversations about why people do what they do.  

On 12/14/2018 at 4:23 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

I often personally rely upon this type of analogy when I wrestle with the major moral issues that increasingly seem to be a stumbling block for so many people. I’m not concerned with priesthood ban, for instance, because (A) we still can’t be sure about its origins, (B) there is strong evidence that it was ended by revelation, which provides evidence that God is still leading and guiding the Church, (C) there was no divine rebuke or explanation given when the ban was ended, and (D) the Plan of Salvation assures us that those who, for whatever reason, were deprived of blessings in this life will be compensated in the eternities. There’s a lot we still don’t know about the priesthood ban, and it seems both illogical and arrogant to make a life-altering moral judgment on this or similar matters about which we are mostly ignorant.

Just curious if you've examined the assumptions you've founded this argument on.  By saying "there was not divine rebuke or explanation" you're assuming that you would know how to identify what a divine rebuke would look like for one, and that God always clearly communicates a divine rebuke for two.  Why do you make these assumptions?  

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by a "life-altering moral judgment", can you clarify this statement?  Is the life altering judgment essentially an appeal to a COJCOLDS exclusivity claim?  

On 12/14/2018 at 4:23 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

I think what often happens is that when people begin to discover that some of the Church’s teachings, policies, or history seem logically immoral, their knee-jerk negative emotions begin to compete with their ability to discern spiritual truths. Before they even know what has happened, they consistently magnify the newfound inconsistencies and find it harder and harder to remember or value the feelings of joy and peace that once helped them trust that the Church was true. With these new emotions dominating their perspective, they reinterpret all their previous spiritual experiences in a way that invalidates them, while at the same time they choose to validate their new victim narrative and its attendant feelings, despite the fact that this narrative is inherently based on speculative and ultimately unreliable moral analysis.

The longer they persist in this mindset, the harder it becomes to retry the gospel experiment with sincerity and real intent. They simply can’t get past what they now see as glaring moral inconsistencies. And they won’t admit to themselves (or simply don't recognize) that they are choosing to focus on exceptions to the rule, and that their human moral reasoning isn’t adequate to assess those exceptions—at least not when the exceptions are placed in the moral framework of the Plan of Salvation, which is essential to morally evaluating any aspect of the Church’s truth claims. 

I think this is all very natural and expected in a psychological sense, and I like to use the analogy of a relationship to explain how this happens.  If someone has reason to lose trust in a friend or an intimate partner, you will see cracks in the relationship start to form.  These cracks sometimes can be healed and reconciled and this largely has a lot to do with the actions of both sides.  But if these cracks continue to grow and new breaks of trust occur, there is a very good chance the relationship will fail or be significantly damaged.  

I think that new members join the church for similar reasons, its about trust and emotional connection and fidelity, but its unique to each individual and very complicated.

For example, I'm attending the church again, even though I'm fairly agnostic, don't believe in the supernatural, don't plan to pay tithing, disagree with multiple things that church leaders are doing, don't believe in any exclusivity claims, and currently have no interest in attending the temple.  However, I find value in my relationships with church members and different elements of the tradition.  I see everything through a very naturalistic lens, however, I find beauty in elements of the religion and emotional connections that are valuable to me, so for now, I attend and am trying to have a positive influence as part of the community.  

I recognize that for many others, attending church can feel toxic and hurtful, and it has for me at times in the recent past as well, but for whatever the reasons, that I can't exactly describe using my poc hoc reasoning, I feel more comfortable attending as of late.  And I recognize that I can't fully explain why, and I'm comfortable with that.  

 

[Ryan Dahle]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It does to me.  I've had to try and figure out why those who are close to me have pulled and pushed away and responded with anger at me.  I think reading your words helps me get where they are coming from a little more.  For instance, I haven't seen myself have any "knee-jerk negative emotions" that competed with spiritual impressions.  But, seeing it put that way, helps me understand that's likely how they feel--my mistake is not in my attempted measured evaluations, but is in my emotions competing and drowning out the spiritual.  You gave a number of comments that help me understand a little better where they may be coming from.

My comments were not meant to convey a universal assumption about why all people leave the Church. Notice the intentionally limiting language in what I wrote:

On 12/14/2018 at 4:23 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

I think what often happens is that when people begin to discover that some of the Church’s teachings, policies, or history seem logically immoral, their knee-jerk negative emotions begin to compete with their ability to discern spiritual truths.

I certainly leave room for people who leave primarily or completely for reasons other than their strong emotional responses to perceived moral inconsistencies in the Church's doctrines, practices, policies, and history. 

Moreover, nothing I said should give any indication about why people are allegedly angry at you. I'm certainly not angry at you or really at anyone who leaves for the reasons I outlined. I'm just trying to figure out the major reasons that people are leaving the Church and, if possible, to articulate the core underlying fallacies in those reasons. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I am saying I don't believe the dominate narrative can be sustained or is true...oh, and Bushman says the same thing as well.   

Which is not what you said before.

(sigh)

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I would say the main reasons why I don't fully participate in church as I once did are:

1.  Attitudes by members found in the above.  No offense, but I think the presumed privilege of elitism wore me out.  I didn't like it in the Church, fought it at every turn, and realized after many years, I was banging my head against the wall over and over.

2.  The lack of an ability to really discuss the welfare of individual's souls.  In my experience church has been far more about protecting itself and fear of the outside than it is about the people.  

3.  The exclusivity claim of holding absolute truth.  Pres Oak's recent comments in General Conference and since have outlined perfectly this problem as I see it.  It is insular, obtuse thinking that seems to keep people in.  If it works for them, have at it.  But it doesn't work for me.  

I knew all of or most of the many problematic issues of the Church and remained because it didn't matter if the Church was true or not.  I mattered if it worked, if it was a place that was helpful and useful.  I learned it was not.

 

Thanks for your piece above,  It further explains to me why so many in the Church, those who were once close to me, have pulled away.  I mean, they've tried to explain their anger at me, but this helps in my quest to understand.

Good comments.  Your thoughts sound very similar to mine.  If the culture could shift enough to accommodate a more humble and less dogmatic approach, I think the church would find it could retain more people within a larger tent.  The culture has to change to make it a more palatable space for everyone.  

It will require some adjustment on all sides for this to work.  We have to prioritize people over ideology.  

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good comments.  Your thoughts sound very similar to mine.  If the culture could shift enough to accommodate a more humble and less dogmatic approach, I think the church would find it could retain more people within a larger tent.  The culture has to change to make it a more palatable space for everyone.  

It will require some adjustment on all sides for this to work.  We have to prioritize people over ideology.  

No, we don’t. Nor should we.

We offer exaltation on divinely revealed terms. Adjusting them to be more palatable invalidates them and we lose the best we have to offer.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Which is not what you said before.

(sigh)

I think Bushman's statement is an important point that Ouagadougou wanted to use to illustrate something that resonates with him.  I agree with that general point as well, although I'm sure Bushman and I don't agree on everything.   Nobody agrees 100% with anybody else.  I'm not sure why you're frustrated by his use of this quote.  

[hope_for_things]

Just now, The Nehor said:

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good comments.  Your thoughts sound very similar to mine.  If the culture could shift enough to accommodate a more humble and less dogmatic approach, I think the church would find it could retain more people within a larger tent.  The culture has to change to make it a more palatable space for everyone.  

It will require some adjustment on all sides for this to work.  We have to prioritize people over ideology.  

No, we don’t. Nor should we.

We offer exaltation on divinely revealed terms. Adjusting them to be more palatable invalidates them and we lose the best we have to offer.

There will always be those who disagree, and many obstacles along the way.  I would hope that the good nature of people will overcome allegiances to ideology and dogma, but we see plenty of examples throughout history where this did not happen.  I'm an optimistic person though, and I like to think we can do better as a society and learn from the past.  

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think Bushman's statement is an important point that Ouagadougou wanted to use to illustrate something that resonates with him.  I agree with that general point as well, although I'm sure Bushman and I don't agree on everything.   Nobody agrees 100% with anybody else.  I'm not sure why you're frustrated by his use of this quote.  

Because he used it originally to support something else it did not support, I pointed out that it was an untenable position, and is now hiding behind it pretending he meant something else. He is just obnoxiously petty and incompetent in his discussion points.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There will always be those who disagree, and many obstacles along the way.  I would hope that the good nature of people will overcome allegiances to ideology and dogma, but we see plenty of examples throughout history where this did not happen.  I'm an optimistic person though, and I like to think we can do better as a society and learn from the past.  

We have also seen in history how people who believe in nothing or believe only casually waste away. People want truth. To throw it out to appeal to those who do not accept it is to strangle the goose that lays the golden eggs.

[Ouagadougou]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Which is not what you said before.

(sigh)

Wrong.  

Here is what I said in my original post:

"Finally, I compare my disbelief in the church's truth claims to other fairytales, myths, or stories I once believed as a child. At one time as a child, I believed in myths or imaginary characters (as most of us did), but as I grew older, logic and science began to play an even more important role in coming to my own conclusions. I agree with Richard Bushman when he said: "The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained." For me it wasn't just about "moral intuitions and stances," or that church issues were "logically immoral;" rather, it was about the narrative itself not being compatible with science and logic; it's more about applying logic, reason, and science to how I view the world and any religious institution's claims, teachings, or policies."

And here are my replies back to you:

"BTW, if my arguments are so "shoddy," why then does one of the leading scholars on American religious history (Richard Bushman) even say the following?"

 "The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained."

"I can't speak for him personally, but I agree with his statement that, "The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained."  I'm sure that (like all of us) there might be things we agree on and other things we that we disagree on."

"I am saying I don't believe the dominate narrative can be sustained or is true...oh, and Bushman says the same thing as well."

So, from the very beginning, I said I agree with what Bushman said and quoted him in my original post and agree with HIS statement.    

 

[stemelbow]

35 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

My comments were not meant to convey a universal assumption about why all people leave the Church. Notice the intentionally limiting language in what I wrote:

I certainly leave room for people who leave primarily or completely for reasons other than their strong emotional responses to perceived moral inconsistencies in the Church's doctrines, practices, policies, and history. 

Moreover, nothing I said should give any indication about why people are allegedly angry at you. I'm certainly not angry at you or really at anyone who leaves for the reasons I outlined. I'm just trying to figure out the major reasons that people are leaving the Church and, if possible, to articulate the core underlying fallacies in those reasons. 

You helped explain an item or two in a way that helped me.  I didn't mean to say any of what you it seems you took from me.  I don't feel an anger from you.  I readily acknowledge you said often, many and other such things, obviously suggesting you were not universally talking about those who leave, and I appreciate that.  

Whatever the case, thank you.  I think your explanation helps me understand a little better the possible mindset of others.  

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good comments.  Your thoughts sound very similar to mine.  If the culture could shift enough to accommodate a more humble and less dogmatic approach, I think the church would find it could retain more people within a larger tent.  The culture has to change to make it a more palatable space for everyone.  

It will require some adjustment on all sides for this to work.  We have to prioritize people over ideology.  

Thumbs up or rep point or whatever it is.  

[Ouagadougou]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think Bushman's statement is an important point that Ouagadougou wanted to use to illustrate something that resonates with him.  I agree with that general point as well, although I'm sure Bushman and I don't agree on everything.   Nobody agrees 100% with anybody else.  I'm not sure why you're frustrated by his use of this quote.  

I think he is frustrated because Bushman, who is LDS and one of the top scholars on American religion even said that:

 "The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained."

Those are not my words; rather, I was just highlighting that I agree with this statement in my original post.  

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We have also seen in history how people who believe in nothing or believe only casually waste away. People want truth. To throw it out to appeal to those who do not accept it is to strangle the goose that lays the golden eggs.

I think this view as expressed helps explain the attitudes of others as well.  As I struggled to stay involved in Church I could not understand very well why others would try to get me out.  I didn't realize that my presence was such a source of fear for them--if they make room for another they are strangling the goose that lays the golden eggs.  I suppose at some point I realized that, but it took quite a while.  I still hope, as hope_for does, a different more thoughtful place.  I guess we'll see how it turns out.  

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

"BTW, if my arguments are so "shoddy," why then does one of the leading scholars on American religious history (Richard Bushman) even say the following?"

 "The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained."

Then I asked if you thought Bushman agreed with your arguments. You never answered and just doubled down on the quote.

See if you can spot the flaw in your reasoning.

Helpful Hint: Appealing to Authority that does not agree with you in the first place to support your argument is a losing rhetorical strategy.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I think he is frustrated because Bushman, who is LDS and one of the top scholars on American religion even said that:

 "The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained."

Those are not my words; rather, I was just highlighting that I agree with this statement in my original post.  

Nope, you did not just do that.

[Ryan Dahle]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think this is all very natural and expected in a psychological sense, and I like to use the analogy of a relationship to explain how this happens.  If someone has reason to lose trust in a friend or an intimate partner, you will see cracks in the relationship start to form.  These cracks sometimes can be healed and reconciled and this largely has a lot to do with the actions of both sides.  But if these cracks continue to grow and new breaks of trust occur, there is a very good chance the relationship will fail or be significantly damaged.  

I think parent-child relationships work particularly well as an analogy because the child is naturally ignorant of many things that a parent understands. When we are young, we often don't understand the reasons for our parents' rules and behavior. Things often seem unjust and unfair to children, which to adults seem to be perfectly just and fair. Some children are able to patiently follow the rules and counsel of righteous parents until they are mature enough to better understand them. Other children get so caught up in their emotional responses to perceived injustices that they prematurely sever their relationship with their parents.

We all see this happen from time to time with children we know. But we sometimes forget that in comparison to God we are very much still adolescents. We are mostly in the dark, and yet we naively think that we can approach things with purely human rationality and intellect and divine the moral and metaphysical realities of the universe on our own. 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Then I asked if you thought Bushman agreed with your arguments. You never answered and just doubled down on the quote.

See if you can spot the flaw in your reasoning.

Helpful Hint: Appealing to Authority that does not agree with you in the first place to support your argument is a losing rhetorical strategy.

What arguments from him are you so upset about?  I can tell there's some history between the two of you I'm missing, but I don't get why the points raised in this thread are so objectionable.  

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think this view as expressed helps explain the attitudes of others as well.  As I struggled to stay involved in Church I could not understand very well why others would try to get me out.  I didn't realize that my presence was such a source of fear for them--if they make room for another they are strangling the goose that lays the golden eggs.  I suppose at some point I realized that, but it took quite a while.  I still hope, as hope_for does, a different more thoughtful place.  I guess we'll see how it turns out.  

While I am sure for some there is some fear I think it is more common for there to be a healthy concern. I have seen apostates clamor on about how a bishop I loved and respected was afraid of what he was saying. It was not true. He was rock solid. He was concerned and maybe even a little afraid as the apostate was talking extensively to investigators and those of less solid faith and trying to proselyting them into his “more nuanced” belief that denied the atonement.

The prophets were afraid of the teaching of Sherem, Nehor, and Korihor not because their faith was feeble and it was a threat to them personally but because it was a threat to the faith of others. The Lord’s “little ones” who are easy to harm or confuse.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What arguments from him are you so upset about?  I can tell there's some history between the two of you I'm missing, but I don't get why the points raised in this thread are so objectionable.  

I am not upset. I admit to annoyance at his continuous flawed reasoning and arrogance in his transparently flawed delusions of rationality. I recommend reading his first post in this thread. Particularly the last few paragraphs where he wallows in his status as a defender of reason and science. Then read his weaselly posts in this and other topics. It is a public service to point out the contrast. It is also great fun.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

It will require some adjustment on all sides for this to work.  We have to prioritize people over ideology.  

I think where push comes to shove is what that means. Often what some (not you) mean by "prioritize people" is "ignore moral teachings." But of course this is typically done selectively based upon what issues are most popular in society at the time. So those who cry "prioritize people" often are just as judgmental of other individuals outside of that area. Someone who yells about prioritizing someone struggling with say fornication might be aghast that a racist isn't shunned. That very same person might at the same time be saying, "don't judge me because I sin differently than you do."

Again, not making any general point with this. Just noting that "prioritize" people tends to often have a pretty strong political component. (My experience, I should add, is that most wards do a pretty good job at least trying to fellowship even those struggling with socially unacceptable practices - but that usually it's a few people within the ward who make things rough) 

My somewhat cynical view is that the sin most people can't abide is members who are overly judgmental. Understandably but they're struggling in their weaknesses just the same as the rest of us are.

Edited December 17, 2018 by clarkgoble

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think where push comes to shove is what that means. Often what some (not you) mean by "prioritize people" is "ignore moral teachings." But of course this is typically done selectively based upon what issues are most popular in society at the time. So those who cry "prioritize people" often are just as judgmental of other individuals outside of that area. So someone who yells about prioritizing someone struggling with say fornication might be aghast that a racist isn't shunned. That same person might at the same time be saying, "don't judge me because I sin differently than you do."

Again, not making any general point with this. Just noting that "prioritize" people tends to often have a pretty strong political component. (My experience, I should add, is that most wards do a pretty good job at least trying to fellowship even those struggling with socially unacceptable practices - but that usually it's a few people within the ward who make things rough) 

My somewhat cynical view is that the sin most people can't abide is members who are overly judgmental. Understandably but they're struggling in their weaknesses just the same as the rest of us are.

I think the key is that the penitent will almost always find a home in the Church. If they believe, even if that belief is weak, or even just have a desire to believe they will usually find strong fellowship and growth. This happens even if they have strange beliefs or even outright incorrect ones because they hope for something. They want their faith to deepen.

Those who want to pull the mote out of the church’s eye......not so much. Those who are content with a shallow faith....not so much.

Edited December 17, 2018 by The Nehor

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

While I am sure for some there is some fear I think it is more common for there to be a healthy concern. I have seen apostates clamor on about how a bishop I loved and respected was afraid of what he was saying. It was not true. He was rock solid. He was concerned and maybe even a little afraid as the apostate was talking extensively to investigators and those of less solid faith and trying to proselyting them into his “more nuanced” belief that denied the atonement.

The prophets were afraid of the teaching of Sherem, Nehor, and Korihor not because their faith was feeble and it was a threat to them personally but because it was a threat to the faith of others. The Lord’s “little ones” who are easy to harm or confuse.

Great.  I"m not sure where there's disagreement then.  The fear is that others who express themselves, ask questions, a push their ideas are going to harm other people, who are considered little.  

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because he used it originally to support something else it did not support, I pointed out that it was an untenable position, and is now hiding behind it pretending he meant something else. He is just obnoxiously petty and incompetent in his discussion points.

I've listened to his whole audio where the Bushman quote was given, and I don't think it was materially being misrepresented.  I think the essence of the quote works in the way it was being used.  

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Great.  I"m not sure where there's disagreement then.  The fear is that others who express themselves, ask questions, a push their ideas are going to harm other people, who are considered little.  

I kind of regret using that term and would specify that there is no shame or harm in being a “little one” and admit the phrase has obvious diminuitive connotations that could come across as insulting or patronizing but a lot of people go through “little one” stages in their faith and it is not limited to those who are new or who are conventionally struggling with their faith. But other then that, yeah.