The Plan of Salvation: A Sufficient Theodicy

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

We absolutely should not cater to the lowest common "denominator"! 

That which is lowest and most common is......   low and common.   Seems pretty clear to me.  That's not "Be ye therefore perfect".

Yet we do need to resolve what seems to be some fairly obvious contradictions in a way which communicates to a large swath of humanity.

That is a major challenge to alter the narrative without altering the standards.  But I know from my personal life that it can be done.

Kevin speaks often of the Perry Scheme of Cognitive Development, and somehow we need to many people from step one to step nine.

This chart is of course radically fundamental and the wording etc should not be taken seriously- it is only a brief summary - to understand it fully requires a lot of study and growth.

To me, this sort of thing is the key to preserving the narrative and seeing it in a different way while maintaining standards of excellence.

Note that in the last 3 "levels" it requires a contextual understanding of truth- and a commitment to one's views.  That has nothing to do with "worthiness" or standards of behavior- these are "independent variables". 

 I think this is the direction we need to go either individually or as a church- or, please Father, both.

This way of seeing the issues means that we can conclude and consistently believe that:

• Prophets are inspired men, but not infallible.  This is a human organization runs by humans who are doing their best to follow God but of course imperfectly. 
• The very human Joseph Smith had a vision which changed in his memory over time. 
• The Book of Mormon was a directly inspired volume delivered into the brain of Joseph through inspiration from God, and the same with the Book of Abraham.  We have the catalyst for inspiration for the BOA but not the BOM, but both were generated by the process of inspiration. 
• science and religion operate in different "spheres" - both are "true" within their contexts as topics of human thought and have shown themselves to be good tools to advance the human race- within the range of their topics.
• The human Joseph was perfectly capable of serious mistakes including possibly sexual sins- or not.  The evidence is not clear either way- but ultimately irrelevant to the "truth" of his "revelations" any more than perhaps a philosopher's work or composer's work should be judged on his moral errors.  His personal sins are not relevant to his ability to receive inspiration any more than our sins prevent us from receiving inspiration and the desire to repent and return to favor with God.  This church is about the perfection of totally imperfect and fallen, carnal, humans and Joseph was no different in that regard than anyone else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Perry

Summary of Position	Basic Example
The authorities know	e.g. "the tutor knows what is right and wrong"
The true authorities are right, the others are frauds	e.g. "my tutor doesn't know what is right and wrong but others do"
There are some uncertainties and the authorities are working on them to find the truth	e.g. "my tutors don't know, but somebody out there is trying to find out"
(a) Everyone has right to their own opinion  (b) The authorities don't want the right answers. They want us to think in a certain way	e.g. "different tutors think different things"  e.g. "there is an answer that the tutors want and we have to find it"
Everything is relative but not equally valid	e.g. "there are no right and wrong answers, it depends on the situation, but some answers might be better than others"
You have to make your own decisions	e.g. "what is important is not what the tutor thinks but what I think"
First commitment	e.g. "for this particular topic I think that...."
Several Commitments	e.g. "for these topics I think that...."
Believe own values, respect others, be ready to learn	e.g. "I know what I believe in and what I think is valid, others may think differently and I'm prepared to reconsider my views"

[Ryan Dahle]

42 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Except, my argument isn't just about labeling an opposing viewpoint as highly emotional simply to discredit it. It is about the fact that the subject matter (unusual moral inconsistencies) isn't very testable in light of the Plan of Salvation's inherent starting assumptions. I'm only drawing attention to the fact that these are a highly emotional topics because I think the emotional responses provide pretty good evidence that there is a fundamental misunderstanding going on. And also because I think the emotional response makes it difficult for these people, in this specific situation, to reassess the issue. 

I'm not saying that emotions are inherently untrustworthy (sometimes they are and sometimes they're not). I'm just trying to figure out the process that leads people to make what I think are logical errors in specific situations. 

I'm confused by your claim that the "Plan of Salvation" has a set of morals and starting assumptions that are somehow testable?  By testable are you saying that the assumptions should be logically consistent? 

I'm NOT saying the Plan of Salvation's starting assumptions are very testable (at least not directly). I'm saying that the moral dilemmas in general are difficult to navigate and that certain assumptions built into the Plan of Salvation makes those moral dilemmas even less testable.

42 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm also not sure what you're asserting about how emotion can contribute to a fundamental misunderstanding.  My experience is that all religious decisions have an emotional component and that this emotional component is the essence of a person's orientation and fidelity to the relationship.  This goes back to my comparison of a religious relationship to a friendship and/or romantic relationship.

There are lot's of general conference talks and other GA devotionals addressing the question of emotion vs. revelation/inspiration. It is often difficult to discern between the two, because revelation and inspiration often have an emotional component, even though they are more than pure emotion. Whenever people confuse a strictly emotional experience with a emotional/spiritual experience they are likely going to have problems. 

In a more general, less uniquely Latter-day Saint, perspective, our emotions often come in response to our thought processes, and our natural impulse is often to justify our emotions rather than question our thought processes. I think we all have become angry or frustrated based on misunderstandings. I'm suggesting this is what is largely happening in cases where people get upset about unusual moral inconsistencies in the Church's doctrines, practices, history, or policies. They recognize what appears to be a moral inconsistency, but they don't have enough information, in the first place, to really make a good decision. 

42 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you asserting that religious experience should be a logical evaluation, like a Mr. Spock approach, and that you can somehow evaluate which religion has the most rational theology in a very objective and systematic way?  (This kind of paradigm might seem naive and strange to many of the philosophically oriented people on this message board.)  

I'm suggesting that all perceived emotional/spiritual experiences inherently must be interpreted using logic and reasoning. In my view, Alma clearly implies this in his prescribed experiment. He recognizes that just a few good feelings aren't enough to provide a convincing and robust faith. The feelings must be consistent, unique, discernible, and must grow and develop in the predicted ways. And of course, there are major assumptions in the experiment about the nature of the gospel as a whole that one must take into consideration. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Have you considered taking an elementary school level class in metaphor? I think that may help you grasp what I was communicating. Good luck.

I think you are just compensating for something; maybe it is frustration, insecurity, or your desire to project yourself online as keyboard warrior fulfilling his duty as a "public servant" to defend against such evil heathens as me. Are you this much bark with no bite in your daily interactions with real people?  Mormons trying to give politically correct insults (*metaphors) is hilarious and cringe-worthy at the same time. 😂

Either way, I find it comical that my initial post, which had nothing to do with you, annoyed or bothered you so much that you just had to chime in with a lame attempt to try and attack me personally. What's even more laughable is your "metaphor" wasn't even a true insult to me because it lacked flavor and spice (or the ingredients only foul language gives to a perfectly baked insult, IMO). It's as if you want to be a rebel but can't really cross the line or take the gloves off: similar to the Mormon who drinks non-alcholic beer to appear like he is being defiant, while at the same time not technically breaking any commandments or rules. 

[hope_for_things]

36 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I don't see that trend at all. The Church has always emphasized the preeminence of a personal spiritual witness of its fundamental truths, and yet it certainly isn't moving away from its acceptance of the Book of Mormon's historicity--which is where a lot of the testability in scientific disciplines comes in. I'm not sure what you are getting at.

The changes in wording of the title page on the Lamanites now being among the ancestors.  The changes on the BoA not being written by Abraham’s hand.  These along with deemphasis by church scholars    on historicity and the way the essays approach these topics show a very clear movement away from the literal fundamentalist orientation that former leaders like McKonkie and Joseph Fielding Smith held.  

44 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Late Edit: I would agree, however, that ultimately evaluating whether or not the spiritual sensations that the gospel predicts (unique peace, joy, and enlightenment) are ultimately satisfying is a personal choice. So on a very basic level, intuition and personal choice must come into play about the worth of the experiences. Someone could, in theory, have the experiences, experience them consistently in the way the gospel predicts, and choose to not want/desire them. It's also possible to come up with some other explanation to interpret them, considering that humans can come up with almost any explanation for anything. So how well it does against competing explanations is also a factor. 

I generally agree with this, but I don’t understand how you think this privileges Mormonism over any other religious paradigm?  It seems to me that this is essentially just confirmation bias at work.  

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

There are lot's of general conference talks and other GA devotionals addressing the question of emotion vs. revelation/inspiration. It is often difficult to discern between the two, because revelation and inspiration often have an emotional component, even though they are more than pure emotion. Whenever people confuse a strictly emotional experience with a emotional/spiritual experience they are likely going to have problems. 

I don’t see any objective criteria that could test where these differences in emotional experiences and spiritual experiences can actually be reliably differentiated.  I think that this conundrum, when critically evaluated shows that there is no difference at all, and that perceived differences are just an illusion.  

22 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

In a more general, less uniquely Latter-day Saint, perspective, our emotions often come in response to our thought processes, and our natural impulse is often to justify our emotions rather than question our thought processes. I think we all have become angry or frustrated based on misunderstandings. I'm suggesting this is what is largely happening in cases where people get upset about unusual moral inconsistencies in the Church's doctrines, practices, history, or policies. They recognize what appears to be a moral inconsistency, but they don't have enough information, in the first place, to really make a good decision. 

The problem I have with this characterization is it seems awfully judgmental and uncharitable.  To think that everyone who has problems with church doctrines is just lacking information and unable to make a good decision is quite arrogant.  

25 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm suggesting that all perceived emotional/spiritual experiences inherently must be interpreted using logic and reasoning. In my view, Alma clearly implies this in his prescribed experiment. He recognizes that just a few good feelings aren't enough to provide a convincing and robust faith. The feelings must be consistent, unique, discernible, and must grow and develop in the predicted ways. And of course, there are major assumptions in the experiment about the nature of the gospel as a whole that one must take into consideration. 

This is surprising to me and maybe it’s not unique to you, but I honestly am not sure I’ve encountered this type of a position very often in my interactions in Mormon land.  It strikes me as an attempt to blend logic approaches with subjective experiences in a way that you expect to see a “predicted” and measurable outcome.  I can’t say that this approach makes sense to me.  

[Ryan Dahle]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The changes in wording of the title page on the Lamanites now being among the ancestors.  The changes on the BoA not being written by Abraham’s hand.  These along with deemphasis by church scholars    on historicity and the way the essays approach these topics show a very clear movement away from the literal fundamentalist orientation that former leaders like McKonkie and Joseph Fielding Smith held. 

What you are referring to is the willingness of the Church to adjust its understanding of historical details, not question its underlying assumption of general historicity. The fact that some scholars are demphasizing historicity really doesn't at all reflect what the Church and its leaders are advocating. And there are plenty of scholars who aren't backing away from questions of historicity. I suspect this recent article, for instance, will probably grate against your current agenda. Moreover, a scholar's choice to bracket historicity in an academic venue or publication, such as Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon, doesn't mean that the scholar thinks that the issue should be bracketed in all contexts, such as at Church. I think the major shift you think is happening is really non-existent. At best, it is a fringe movement within certain academic circles, but it has little affect on the vast majority of Latter-day Saints and virtually no affect on the Church's general leadership. 

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I generally agree with this, but I don’t understand how you think this privileges Mormonism over any other religious paradigm?  It seems to me that this is essentially just confirmation bias at work.  

Well, a lot goes into my personal equation that I obviously haven't had time or a reason to address. Like I said, the post has been mostly about exposing the limitations in specific arguments for disbelief, and not about presenting my personal comprehensive apology in favor of belief. 

[Ryan Dahle]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don’t see any objective criteria that could test where these differences in emotional experiences and spiritual experiences can actually be reliably differentiated.  I think that this conundrum, when critically evaluated shows that there is no difference at all, and that perceived differences are just an illusion.

You make a logical fallacy when you jump from the idea that something can't be "objectively" differentiated to the assertion that the lack of objective analysis "shows that there is no difference at all, and that perceived differences are just an illusion." I think the experience predicted by Alma is based on objective principles of logic, but that it can only be experienced and differentiated subjectively. It's more like a skill that requires differentiation based on practiced empirical experience, such as a doctor or surgeon who is able to discern certain things through physical examination that others with less skill and experience wouldn't be able to differentiate. But I think that you and I probably have different assumptions, in the first place, about what objective vs. subjective standards of criteria ultimately boil down to and how they should be utilized in different contexts. 

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The problem I have with this characterization is it seems awfully judgmental and uncharitable.  To think that everyone who has problems with church doctrines is just lacking information and unable to make a good decision is quite arrogant.

Perhaps you could explain in further detail the deplorable nature of my inner machinations. 

42 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is surprising to me and maybe it’s not unique to you, but I honestly am not sure I’ve encountered this type of a position very often in my interactions in Mormon land.  It strikes me as an attempt to blend logic approaches with subjective experiences in a way that you expect to see a “predicted” and measurable outcome.  I can’t say that this approach makes sense to me.  

Once again, I think you and I probably have different ideas about objectivity vs. subjectivity, what each entails, and how they should be understood.

[blueglass]

What are your thoughts on Kim Clark's talk at the CES training in 2018?   He talks about how when students draw out the diagram and think it is the plan they clearly don't understand.  "It is not the plan, but it is very easy for the students to think that if they have the circles right, they understand the plan."   https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/satellite-training-broadcast/2018/06/the-plan-of-salvation-and-the-rising-generation?lang=eng

From Kim clark the key features of the plan are the following:

Principle #1: Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life

Principle #2: The Sons and Daughters of God Have Eternal Identity and Purpose

Principle #3: All Things on Which Jesus Christ puts His Name Are Part of the Plan

"Jesus Christ is not only at the center of the Father’s plan, but His name, His power, His work, and His character are woven throughout."

Now trace the problems you have highlighted above and see how they fit into the plan unveiled by Kim Clark:

1)  black priesthood ban 

2)  LGBTQ 

3)  Polygamy, polyandry

4)  similar topics such as ?

Kim Clark in his testimony in the book "Why I believe" pg 106-107 quotes D&Cov130:18-19 that "Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.  And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in hits life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come."  He also quotes Brigham Young on intelligence aggregation:

"[The gospel] embraces all morality, all virtue, all light, all intelligence, all greatness, and all goodness. It introduces a system of laws and ordinances (DBY, 3).

Such a plan incorporates every system of true doctrine on the earth, whether it be ecclesiastical, moral, philosophical, or civil; it incorporates all good laws that have been made from the days of Adam until now; it swallows up the laws of nations, for it exceeds them all in knowledge and purity, it circumscribes the doctrines of the day, and takes from the right and the left, and brings all truth together in one system, and leaves the chaff to be scattered hither and thither (DBY, 3–4).

It is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel, to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders of this Church (Jesus, their Elder Brother, being at their head) to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we preach, to mechanisms of every kind, to the sciences, and to philosophy, wherever it may be found in every nation, kindred, tongue, and people and bring it to Zion (DBY, 248).

All knowledge and wisdom and every good that the heart of man can desire is within the circuit and circle of the faith we have embraced" DBY, 446).

Since the creed of Mormonism is "embrace all truth" we should carefully analyze our system of church government, councils, and leadership, and see if we have sufficient diversity to accomplish that mission.  How are we doing overcoming these problems (opportunities) 1 - 4)?  In the process we must accomplish the parallel mission to unify the human family and gather and establish Zion (4Nephi).  

Edited December 18, 2018 by blueglass

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I think you are just compensating for something; maybe it is frustration, insecurity, or your desire to project yourself online as keyboard warrior fulfilling his duty as a "public servant" to defend against such evil heathens as me. Are you this much bark with no bite in your daily interactions with real people?  Mormons trying to give politically correct insults (*metaphors) is hilarious and cringe-worthy at the same time. 😂

Either way, I find it comical that my initial post, which had nothing to do with you, annoyed or bothered you so much that you just had to chime in with a lame attempt to try and attack me personally. What's even more laughable is your "metaphor" wasn't even a true insult to me because it lacked flavor and spice (or the ingredients only foul language gives to a perfectly baked insult, IMO). It's as if you want to be a rebel but can't really cross the line or take the gloves off: similar to the Mormon who drinks non-alcholic beer to appear like he is being defiant, while at the same time not technically breaking any commandments or rules. 

Politically correct metaphor? What? Do you just throw out words at random?

Using foul language in an insult is the province of the weak-minded who have to fall back on cliches due to their lack of inventiveness.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

What are your thoughts on Kim Clark's talk at the CES training in 2018?   He talks about how when students draw out the diagram and think it is the plan they clearly don't understand.  "It is not the plan, but it is very easy for the students to think that if they have the circles right, they understand the plan."   https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/satellite-training-broadcast/2018/06/the-plan-of-salvation-and-the-rising-generation?lang=eng

From Kim clark the key features of the plan are the following:

Principle #1: Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life

Principle #2: The Sons and Daughters of God Have Eternal Identity and Purpose

Principle #3: All Things on Which Jesus Christ puts His Name Are Part of the Plan

"Jesus Christ is not only at the center of the Father’s plan, but His name, His power, His work, and His character are woven throughout."

Now trace the problems you have highlighted above and see how they fit into the plan unveiled by Kim Clark:

1)  black priesthood ban 

2)  LGBTQ 

3)  Polygamy, polyandry

4)  similar topics such as ?

Kim Clark in his testimony in the book "Why I believe" pg 106-107 quotes D&Cov130:18-19 that "Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.  And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in hits life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come."  He also quotes Brigham Young on intelligence aggregation:

"[The gospel] embraces all morality, all virtue, all light, all intelligence, all greatness, and all goodness. It introduces a system of laws and ordinances (DBY, 3).

Such a plan incorporates every system of true doctrine on the earth, whether it be ecclesiastical, moral, philosophical, or civil; it incorporates all good laws that have been made from the days of Adam until now; it swallows up the laws of nations, for it exceeds them all in knowledge and purity, it circumscribes the doctrines of the day, and takes from the right and the left, and brings all truth together in one system, and leaves the chaff to be scattered hither and thither (DBY, 3–4).

It is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel, to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders of this Church (Jesus, their Elder Brother, being at their head) to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we preach, to mechanisms of every kind, to the sciences, and to philosophy, wherever it may be found in every nation, kindred, tongue, and people and bring it to Zion (DBY, 248).

All knowledge and wisdom and every good that the heart of man can desire is within the circuit and circle of the faith we have embraced" DBY, 446).

Since the creed of Mormonism is "embrace all truth" we should carefully analyze our system of church government, councils, and leadership, and see if we have sufficient diversity to accomplish that mission.  How are we doing overcoming these problems (opportunities) 1 - 4)?  In the process we must accomplish the parallel mission to unify the human family and gather and establish Zion (4Nephi).  

4

BlueGlass, shut your mouth! My goodness, you mess up the whole argument when you focus on Christ. That is just not allowed. Dang, these poor chaps are on a roll with ever more sophistry. You just keep this to yourself. This is better than the price of a movie ticket. Now stop it. 

Edited December 18, 2018 by Storm Rider

[Ryan Dahle]

3 hours ago, blueglass said:

What are your thoughts on Kim Clark's talk at the CES training in 2018?   He talks about how when students draw out the diagram and think it is the plan they clearly don't understand.  "It is not the plan, but it is very easy for the students to think that if they have the circles right, they understand the plan."   https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/satellite-training-broadcast/2018/06/the-plan-of-salvation-and-the-rising-generation?lang=eng

From Kim clark the key features of the plan are the following:

Principle #1: Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life

Principle #2: The Sons and Daughters of God Have Eternal Identity and Purpose

Principle #3: All Things on Which Jesus Christ puts His Name Are Part of the Plan

"Jesus Christ is not only at the center of the Father’s plan, but His name, His power, His work, and His character are woven throughout."

Now trace the problems you have highlighted above and see how they fit into the plan unveiled by Kim Clark:

1)  black priesthood ban 

2)  LGBTQ 

3)  Polygamy, polyandry

4)  similar topics such as ?

Kim Clark in his testimony in the book "Why I believe" pg 106-107 quotes D&Cov130:18-19 that "Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.  And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in hits life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come."  He also quotes Brigham Young on intelligence aggregation:

"[The gospel] embraces all morality, all virtue, all light, all intelligence, all greatness, and all goodness. It introduces a system of laws and ordinances (DBY, 3).

Such a plan incorporates every system of true doctrine on the earth, whether it be ecclesiastical, moral, philosophical, or civil; it incorporates all good laws that have been made from the days of Adam until now; it swallows up the laws of nations, for it exceeds them all in knowledge and purity, it circumscribes the doctrines of the day, and takes from the right and the left, and brings all truth together in one system, and leaves the chaff to be scattered hither and thither (DBY, 3–4).

It is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel, to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders of this Church (Jesus, their Elder Brother, being at their head) to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we preach, to mechanisms of every kind, to the sciences, and to philosophy, wherever it may be found in every nation, kindred, tongue, and people and bring it to Zion (DBY, 248).

All knowledge and wisdom and every good that the heart of man can desire is within the circuit and circle of the faith we have embraced" DBY, 446).

Since the creed of Mormonism is "embrace all truth" we should carefully analyze our system of church government, councils, and leadership, and see if we have sufficient diversity to accomplish that mission.  How are we doing overcoming these problems (opportunities) 1 - 4)?  In the process we must accomplish the parallel mission to unify the human family and gather and establish Zion (4Nephi).  

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here exactly. Maybe you can explain your ideas more directly and that will help me know what you are looking for.

[FunOnlineMan]

 

4 hours ago, blueglass said:

Principle #1: Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life

Principle #2: The Sons and Daughters of God Have Eternal Identity and Purpose

Principle #3: All Things on Which Jesus Christ puts His Name Are Part of the Plan

"Jesus Christ is not only at the center of the Father’s plan, but His name, His power, His work, and His character are woven throughout."

Now trace the problems you have highlighted above and see how they fit into the plan unveiled by Kim Clark:

1)  black priesthood ban 

2)  LGBTQ 

3)  Polygamy, polyandry

4)  similar topics such as ?

Could you maybe demonstrate how you’re using your 3 principles to reconcile these problems? I didn’t pick that up from the rest of your post. 

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The changes in wording of the title page on the Lamanites now being among the ancestors.  The changes on the BoA not being written by Abraham’s hand.  These along with deemphasis by church scholars    on historicity and the way the essays approach these topics show a very clear movement away from the literal fundamentalist orientation that former leaders like McKonkie and Joseph Fielding Smith held.  

As I've often said I think "literal" is incredible misused. But certainly some assumptions, largely based upon naive readings, have been discarded. That's good. As we learn more we should dismiss errors. I don't think that entails they're fiction. (Not that you are saying that but I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "literal fundamentalist orientation.") 

I'd written a bit more but I see Ryan made the same points so I'll shutup. <grin> I'd second his request to Bluegrass to clarify his (her?) point. I'm not following it at all. I am a fallibilist so I assume we have errors in our beliefs. I expect, as we discover they are errors that we fix them. That seems the rational thing to do.

I do think the Church has the outlines of a very robust theodicy. It's not a full theodicy since, as I've noted, it can't explain why the level of evil we see in the world is there. The example I've brought up is why god allowed people to have the genetic propensity towards violence such that we have the level of abuse in the world we do. A somewhat different cognitive structure would reduce abuse by humans quite a bit. So an appeal to free will doesn't fit (since those without say psychopathy or other mental illness are free). It does however explain why there has to be at least a moderate level of evil in the world for our development. This developmental theodicy that's tied to the ontology of a God limited in power seems extremely strong. Again it doesn't explain everything, but it's interesting how much it does explain.

 

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think the key is that the penitent will almost always find a home in the Church.

I think this is right. My experience - which I fully admit isn't universal - is that those who are trying and humble are almost always given a lot of help in the Church. Sometimes perhaps too much - particularly when their actions end up hurting others. But the main perception is that if you're trying and showing you're trying people will be patient. But, as I said, not everyone. I'd never deny there are judgmental people. 

 

 

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

You make a logical fallacy when you jump from the idea that something can't be "objectively" differentiated to the assertion that the lack of objective analysis "shows that there is no difference at all, and that perceived differences are just an illusion." I think the experience predicted by Alma is based on objective principles of logic, but that it can only be experienced and differentiated subjectively. It's more like a skill that requires differentiation based on practiced empirical experience, such as a doctor or surgeon who is able to discern certain things through physical examination that others with less skill and experience wouldn't be able to differentiate. But I think that you and I probably have different assumptions, in the first place, about what objective vs. subjective standards of criteria ultimately boil down to and how they should be utilized in different contexts. 

Ok, thats fair to say.  I can't objectively prove with 100% certainty that there isn't any difference, but you can't objectively prove there is.  (Actually there is some neuroscience evidence around spiritual experiences that does give weight to my point here, but its still pretty new and there is much more to learn about the brain and how it works.)

My main point was how could an outside observer test the veracity of these claims that certain types of feelings are just natural emotions and other types of feelings are communication from a divine being?  Is there any way to test these claims for their accuracy?  

15 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The problem I have with this characterization is it seems awfully judgmental and uncharitable.  To think that everyone who has problems with church doctrines is just lacking information and unable to make a good decision is quite arrogant.

Perhaps you could explain in further detail the deplorable nature of my inner machinations. 

If you view that you're more enlightened than others and you think that their problems with the church aren't legitimate, but actually show that they are just not thinking things through correctly, i.e. they are too dumb, or they are being too emotional and not logical like you, this is a very arrogant position to take.  

 

[Ryan Dahle]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If you view that you're more enlightened than others and you think that their problems with the church aren't legitimate, but actually show that they are just not thinking things through correctly, i.e. they are too dumb, or they are being too emotional and not logical like you, this is a very arrogant position to take.  

Seriously? If the criteria for arrogance is simply thinking that others are making logical errors and that those errors are due in part to logical misunderstandings and emotional responses, then who isn't arrogant? Wouldn't you yourself, and just about everyone be arrogant? Don't we all, on some level, think others are wrong and emotionally biased? Go back through your posts and I think you'll realize that you make similar judgments about others' views at almost every turn. Disagreeing with others and exploring why you think they are wrong and you are right is part of life, and it is just a natural part of the dialogue on this board.

And for the record, you used the word "dumb," not me. I never resorted to name calling or rudeness. And my purpose is to explore the strength of my ideas, not to demonstrate intellectual superiority.  

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

52 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If you view that you're more enlightened than others and you think that their problems with the church aren't legitimate, but actually show that they are just not thinking things through correctly, i.e. they are too dumb, or they are being too emotional and not logical like you, this is a very arrogant position to take.  

Seriously? If the criteria for arrogance is simply thinking that others are making logical errors and that those errors are due in part to logical misunderstandings and emotional responses, then who isn't arrogant? Wouldn't you yourself, and just about everyone be arrogant? Don't we all, on some level, think others are wrong and emotionally biased? Go back through your posts and I think you'll realize that you make similar judgments about others' views at almost every turn. Disagreeing with others and exploring why you think they are wrong and you are right is part of life, and it is just a natural part of the dialogue on this board.

And for the record, you used the word "dumb," not me. I never resorted to name calling or rudeness. And my purpose is to explore the strength of my ideas, not to demonstrate intellectual superiority.  

I'm just giving you input on your thesis and how it comes across to others like myself.  I'm not personally offended by it.  I'm sure I fall short of my own standards for treating others with respect from time to time as well and that we all make mistakes.  That doesn't mean everyone is equally at fault, even if mistakes are common place. 

I see a difference between disagreement and the point I was making about taking a superior position which I believe shows arrogance.  I'm speaking about telling people that the concerns they have aren't legitimate concerns.  I fundamentally think this is a disrespectful starting point.  I think its very important to acknowledge concerns as legitimate right up front, for everyone, pretty universally across the spectrum.  Because I think concerns are subjective and essentially true from the vantage point of the person with the concern.  Then after establishing the legitimacy of the person's concerns, I think it can be productive to talk about the details of a situation, and or the logic of the scenario.  But if you start out labeling concerns as illegitimate then you are starting from a place of superiority and that kind of juxtaposition is fundamentally unequal.  If you are interested in engaging in productive exchanges with people who've had a crisis of faith, it would be wise to not put them on the defense from the very start.  Just my two cents.  

[Ryan Dahle]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm just giving you input on your thesis and how it comes across to others like myself.  I'm not personally offended by it.  I'm sure I fall short of my own standards for treating others with respect from time to time as well and that we all make mistakes.  That doesn't mean everyone is equally at fault, even if mistakes are common place. 

I see a difference between disagreement and the point I was making about taking a superior position which I believe shows arrogance.  I'm speaking about telling people that the concerns they have aren't legitimate concerns.  I fundamentally think this is a disrespectful starting point.  I think its very important to acknowledge concerns as legitimate right up front, for everyone, pretty universally across the spectrum.  Because I think concerns are subjective and essentially true from the vantage point of the person with the concern.  Then after establishing the legitimacy of the person's concerns, I think it can be productive to talk about the details of a situation, and or the logic of the scenario.  But if you start out labeling concerns as illegitimate then you are starting from a place of superiority and that kind of juxtaposition is fundamentally unequal.  If you are interested in engaging in productive exchanges with people who've had a crisis of faith, it would be wise to not put them on the defense from the very start.  Just my two cents.  

Doesn't it feel like we have had this conversation before: 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70848-bill-reel-announces-he-faces-impending-bishops-court/?page=21&amp;tab=comments#comment-1209840209

I stand by my previous position. There is no moral imperative to legitimize everyone's view. In some cases, it may work as a rhetorical strategy to butter people up a bit before disagreeing with them, but that isn't always morally requisite nor rhetorically prudent. I notice, for instance, that you often neglect to include the redundant and ultimately pointless caveat that you value others' subjective views before you present what you think are objectively legitimate reasons for deligitimizing their subjective views. In fact, if you look at our exchanges, I think you will notice that most of the time you simply jump right in with stating your (apparently arrogant) disagreements with me, without all the fanfare about how you value me as a person and how, even though you disagree with me, our subjective views are really equally valid in the first place. 

The truth is, I don't really expect you or others who share some of your fundamental assumptions to agree with me. I was looking for substantive push back against my ideas because I want to test them. Unfortunately, I don't find this redundant digression to really be all that helpful to testing my main ideas. I've seen you have this same conversation over and over with people. In each case, they try to explain the inherent and virtually inevitable hypocrisy of your position, but you never quite seem to get it. And it usually starts with you labeling them in a negative way, simply because they disagree with you. You may want to rethink this strategy. It isn't conducive to mature and healthy discourse. It takes the conversation away from the substance of an argument and focuses it on the moral integrity of the person you disagree with, for no other reason than the fact that they disagreed with you without first validating your right to subjectively view the world. 

Edited December 18, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[stemelbow]

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'm coming back to this because it didn't seem my first attempt to respond went anywhere, which I'm sure is entirely my fault.  With respect to the part above:  what if they continue to discern spiritual truths?  Are you saying only those who discern spiritual truths remain in the Church?  If so, then there's really no argument to make.  You are presenting your own confirmation as that which is best because you say so.  

 

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

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.

And yet assume they simply haven't retained feelings of joy and peace that one helped them.  When I told my family that me and mine were no longer engaged  with the church as we once were, we explained that it wasn't that we were leaving it all behind, per se, but were building on that which the Church helped to create in us.  Meaning, joy and peace continued.  "the Church was true" proposition was just a repeat of that which was told us was best to say and think.  The problem with your argument, it seems to me is inherent in the many assumptions you include in your premises.  You are merely assuming what you want other's situations to be and then saying, see? I'm right.  

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

With these new emotions dominating their perspective,

That's the thing.  There are no new emotions.  They are the same emotions we all have, all the time for many things.  We all feel, slighted, hurt, betrayed, confused, upset, sad, happy, peaceful, comfortable, agitated etc at various times in our lives.  None are new and they all are fleeting in each of us.  They come and go.  

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

they reinterpret all their previous spiritual experiences in a way that invalidates them,

No.  not really. You simply don't seem to want to listen to others.  

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

while at the same time they choose to validate their new victim narrative and its attendant feelings,

I don't think so.  And I'd say it's wholly unfair to categorize anything as a new victim narrative.    

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

 

despite the fact that this narrative is inherently based on speculative and ultimately unreliable moral analysis.

Well...that's the problem.  You've created a narrative for others that I haven't seen claimed.  

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

The longer they persist in this mindset, the harder it becomes to retry the gospel experiment with sincerity and real intent.

How would you know?  Do you know another's heart?  Are you guessing that if you were them it'd be hard to be sincere and have real intent?  If so, then it seems you really don't know.  You are assuming intent here.  

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

They simply can’t get past what they now see as glaring moral inconsistencies.

And what if they can?  well if so, then your whole assumed string of logic fails.  And sadly, you have no idea if anyone gets past glaring moral inconsistencies or not.  

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

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. 

Any thoughts?

  

Sure...thoughts.  You have decided exceptions should be made for things like the priesthood ban because in your view, it is possible that God was racist and instituted the ban for his own secret designs and purposes.  Some see it different--that if the ban, then it was man-made, for instance.  The added issue here is, of course, any person can feel peace and be joyful at deciding to exit the Church.  You simply think you know others when you don't.  This is less a thoughtful argument, in my mind, and more a practice in self-confirmation.  

[Ryan Dahle]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm coming back to this because it didn't seem my first attempt to respond went anywhere, which I'm sure is entirely my fault.

I'm not going to go through each point, because your disagreements are natural and expected and I don't think that the conversation on those points will get very far. The last couple paragraphs of the OP reflect my interpretation of not only what what I think has happened (the loss of faith due to specific moral concerns) but also why it happened. The majority of the OP, however, is setting up the argument that there are built-in assumptions in the Plan of Salvation that make certain types of moral speculations logically unreliable. I guess that is really the premise that I most want to test. I don't think we are going to agree on my final points, and my goal wasn't to debate them. I probably shouldn't have included them. They require too many assumptions that we don't share to have a meaningful conversation. 

I think, though, that there are pretty good principles in the scriptural/gospel framework which render moral speculation about the priesthood ban unreliable. We can talk about that, if you would like. 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm not going to go through each point, because your disagreements are natural and expected and I don't think that the conversation on those points will get very far. The last couple paragraphs of the OP reflect my interpretation of not only what what I think has happened (the loss of faith due to specific moral concerns) but also why it happened. The majority of the OP, however, is setting up the argument that there are built-in assumptions in the Plan of Salvation that make certain types of moral speculations logically unreliable. I guess that is really the premise that I most want to test. I don't think we are going to agree on my final points, and my goal wasn't to debate them. I probably shouldn't have included them. They require too many assumptions that we don't share to have a meaningful conversation. 

I think, though, that there are pretty good principles in the scriptural/gospel framework which render moral speculation about the priesthood ban unreliable. We can talk about that, if you would like. 

I'm game.  I read your OP as being concluded in the last couple of paragraphs.  I'm not sure what argument you think you made previous to those.  

When you say, "I think, though, that there are pretty good principles in the scriptural/gospel framework which render moral speculation about the priesthood ban unreliable", I'm curious what you mean.  It seems to me anything can be unreliable.  If we stick to answers to prayers, or feelings of confirmation, we get all sorts of divergent answers and confirmations.  If someone who thinks things like the priesthood ban were immoral and thus not of God has something unreliable about their conclusion then perhaps anyone who thinks otherwise is likewise concluding that which is unreliable.  

[Ryan Dahle]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm game.  I read your OP as being concluded in the last couple of paragraphs.  I'm not sure what argument you think you made previous to those.  

When you say, "I think, though, that there are pretty good principles in the scriptural/gospel framework which render moral speculation about the priesthood ban unreliable", I'm curious what you mean.  It seems to me anything can be unreliable.  If we stick to answers to prayers, or feelings of confirmation, we get all sorts of divergent answers and confirmations.  If someone who thinks things like the priesthood ban were immoral and thus not of God has something unreliable about their conclusion then perhaps anyone who thinks otherwise is likewise concluding that which is unreliable.  

Ok. So I guess I would like to do this as a series of questions--Socratic style. Just play along for a while, without trying to diverge to much from the specific issues I raise, and we will see how it goes. You keep trying to bring up the unreliability of spiritual experiences as a counter to my position but that is really a wholly separate topic. The point here isn't to test the validity of the gospel, but to test the whether or not something like the priesthood ban (whether allowed or commanded by God) could logically fit within the moral framework that the gospel already provides. 

However, I think first we should identify the apparent moral problem as understood by most who confront it. Here is my quick attempt to accurately summarize it:

The God that Latter-day Saints believes in is not a racist and will ultimately treat all of his children fairly. However, the priesthood ban is clearly a form of racism because it denied spiritual blessings to a group of people based solely on their race (specifically their assumed lineage based on their skin color). So either God seems like a racist (which contradicts the Latter-day Saint view of his character) or he allows his leaders to implement racist policies within his church (which casts doubt on their spiritual reliability and upon God's desire/ability to ensure that they accurately represent him). Is that a fair summary of the problem?

Edited December 18, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Ok. So I guess I would like to do this as a series of questions--Socratic style. Just play along for a while, without trying to diverge to much from the specific issues I raise, and we will see how it goes. You keep trying to bring up the unreliability of spiritual experiences as a counter to my position but that is really a wholly separate topic. The point here isn't to test the validity of the gospel, but to test the whether or not something like the priesthood ban (whether allowed or commanded by God) could logically fit within the moral framework that the gospel already provides. 

I'll play along, no problem.  But to be clear, I too think the priesthood ban fits well within the moral framework that the gospel already provides.  

1 minute ago, Ryan Dahle said:

However, I think first we should identify the apparent moral problem as understood by most who confront it. Here is my quick attempt to accurately summarize it:

The God that Latter-day Saints believes in is not a racist and will ultimately treat all of his children fairly. However, the priesthood ban is clearly a form of racism because it denied spiritual blessings to a group of people based solely on their race (specifically their assumed lineage based on their skin color). So either God seems like a racist or he allows his leaders to implement racist policies within his church, which casts doubt on their spiritual reliability and upon God's desire/ability to ensure that they accurately represent him. Is that a fair summary of the problem?

Sure.

[Ryan Dahle]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But to be clear, I too think the priesthood ban fits well within the moral framework that the gospel already provides.

I'm guessing, however, that you and I have very different ideas about the nature of that moral framework. My view is that the moral framework is essentially morally consistent, but that some of its fundamental assumptions allows for some apparent inconsistencies and that it gives people the tools they need to logically/spiritually deal with those apparent inconsistencies. 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm guessing, however, that you and I have very different ideas about the nature of that moral framework. My view is that the moral framework is essentially morally consistent, but that some of its fundamental assumptions allows for some apparent inconsistencies and that it gives people the tools they need to logically/spiritually deal with those apparent inconsistencies. 

That's fine.  I think the Church tries to remain morally consistent but has failed often.  I don't know that the framework is well formed, though either--its seems to shift in time as different ideals get adopted by the larger communities (usually in generation changes within the leadership) in which the church feeds off.