open mindedness - a vice or a virtue?

[katherine the great]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

I think that really depends on how you were raised and maybe where.  My parents never taught us science was problematic and .I don't remember ever being troubled by anything I heard taught in person at church.  I didn't feel any conflict if I didn't take the flood something set in stone.  My parents had Widtsoe's Evidences and Reconciliations which I read as allowing me to explore ideas and not having to be locked into one way of thinking about science or history. . I know this may be different for others, just saying there is likely a wide range of experience probably more dependent on local or family culture than church culture.

This doesn't surprise me about you. But I'm not sure if you quite realize what a rare combination of personality traits you have. You really are quite remarkable. 

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

This doesn't surprise me about you. But I'm not sure if you quite realize what a rare combination of personality traits you have. You really are quite remarkable. 

I don't think it too rare to have been brought up with being open minded towards scientific explanations as I keep running into people who see their experience at church in similar ways (not saying that creationist stuff isn't taught at church, those with biases towards more scientific theory probably filter/interpret what they hear as leaning/being open more towards that so that it is the more extreme creationist ideas that get registered as creationist).

Location probably had a lot to do with it as I grew up in Northern California with 6 years in the middle in the Chicago suburbs (where I have no significant memories of church teachers there), so the greater environment having few elements of creationism in it probably led to myself and friends whose families were from that area (neither of my parents were primarily raised in Utah) picking up the science at school without much resistance.  No one was being homeschooled at that time except a few from school who had chronic health issues, have no clue what religion they were.  I didn't encountered homeschoolers who were dissatisfied with what was taught in science and history until I came to BYU in mid70s (since then I have found it all over, though homeschooling was for a variety of reasons among members...I knew only one family doing it that I would describe as fringe, most either were wanting to give a broader, higher quality experience or at least one child has special needs and was falling behind in school).

I will have to ask my husband who grew up in Orem what his experience was.  I am assuming there would be less social risk to push creationist ideas in a highly religious community where your friends were friends at church as well as school and teachers would assume similar beliefs among parents and administrators.  However, his views about evolution, etc. were the same as mine, though he doesn't think that highly of sociobiology as he sees it as more speculation than evidence.

Edited December 27, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

They have maps for almost everything it seems.

Here is a map of schools that taught creationism in 2014 that received public funding...I would assume people brought up in these areas are likely more open to creationism or more closed to science depending on how one wants to phrase it.  Utah has a few, but the South and Iowa/Ohio put it to shame.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/a-map-showing-which-u-s-public-schools-teach-creationi-1515717148

 

I would also think those families who first reached towards Mormon Doctrine (first published 1958) rather than Evidences and Reconciliations (first published 1943) probably were more likely to reject evolution.  I would be interested to see if those who had families that were active in the early 1900s and then continued in activity tended to be more open then those who converted or became active during the JFS/McKonkie popularity decades.  IOW, perspective depended on the ideas one's family was first exposed to.

Perhaps the best measure would be what books were found on the shelves of parents and grandparents (my case both, but Widtsoe's book was well worn, Mormon Doctrine not so much).

Edited December 27, 2019 by Calm

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Here is a map of schools that taught creationism in 2014 that received public funding...I would assume people brought up in these areas are likely more open to creationism or more closed to science depending on how one wants to phrase it.

It sounds like you view open mindedness as something that is acquired through learning. Do you think there is any kind of a genetic component? Do you know any people who are raised in the same environment who differ in their openness to new ideas? Some who are more likely to question their own belief system once they are grown and/or come into contact with very different world views?

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

It sounds like you view open mindedness as something that is acquired through learning. Do you think there is any kind of a genetic component? Do you know any people who are raised in the same environment who differ in their openness to new ideas? Some who are more likely to question their own belief system once they are grown and/or come into contact with very different world views?

I think it is nurtured through learning.  I think there may be a genetic component to how flexible one is in one's thinking, but I think there is a very significant nurture/environmental exposure that counts as well including childhood experiences that lead to greater confidence in dealing with change or feeling less threatened in one's identity by new ideas among other things.

I see personality as having genetic and environmental components, all too intertwined with all these variations to really be able to untangled what is what.

[JLHPROF]

On 12/26/2019 at 6:37 PM, MustardSeed said:

 My point is, do you see our LDS culture/religion as being open minded or closed minded, and is that a good or problematic place to be in your opinion?

I see the LDS religion as very open minded, the culture less so.

Seeking truth and embracing revelation from heaven are benchmark principles.  Two of my sig quotes are on this subject.

However our culture has at times discouraged investigating viewpoints opposed to the gospel.  That's the fine line that these debates bring up.  It's both a correct and incorrect principle.

[smac97]

On 12/26/2019 at 6:37 PM, MustardSeed said:

My spouse and I were discussing this topic of open mindedness today.  

Perhaps you should define what you mean by "open mindedness."  It seems like a very vague term.

Broadly speaking, the term is defined as "willing to consider new ideas; unprejudiced."  That sounds wonderful.  But, like any other precept, it can be misconstrued.  Carried to an extreme.  Used as a pretext.

I think the Church has a pretty good philosophy about this.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Of course, our world is full of diverse individuals. Truth claims do and will continue to diverge, but they need not violently clash. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ founder Joseph Smith aspired to a better way: “If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in his own way if I cannot persuade him my way is better; and I will ask no man to believe as I do.”[4]

The Mormon view of truth is grounded in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, but that doesn’t mean truth is limited to the Mormon experience. As Elder D. Todd Christofferson said, “Truth is scattered liberally across the globe.”[5] And it was Joseph Smith who encouraged us to “get all the good in the world”[6] and to “receive truth, let it come from whence it may.”[7] Truth has many aspects — spiritual, physical, philosophical, historical — and in the end they all fit together into one great whole.

President Hugh B. Brown, then a member of the Church’s First Presidency, said in 1969 that even with the Church’s many important and unique truths, “there is an incomprehensibly greater part of truth which we must yet discover. Our revealed truth should leave us stricken with the knowledge of how little we really know. It should never lead to an emotional arrogance based upon a false assumption that we somehow have all the answers — that we in fact have a corner on truth. For we do not.”[8]

Indeed, as one Mormon scripture teaches, God “will yet reveal many great and important things.”[9]

The Mormon approach to truth trusts in the unchanging truths of the gospel while acknowledging the many unknowns. Mormon general authority B. H. Roberts (1857–1933) taught that this Church was established “for the instruction of men,” and God “is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place.”[10]

In that spirit, the First Presidency made the following statement in 1978: “The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.” [11]

So, according to Roberts, “God raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend.” Thus, he continues, “wherever God finds a soul sufficiently enlightened and pure; one with whom his Spirit can communicate, lo! he makes of him a teacher of men.”[12]

The learning of men is a wonderful tool.  For example, science is a wonderful thing.  But our grasp of it is incomplete.  And finite.  And blinkered by biases and motives.  

To some extent, the same can be said of revelation.  So we are walking by faith.  That faith should be as informed as possible, which is probably why Elder Oaks presented scientific perspectives on this issue.

I believe that, in the grand scheme of things, "truth is ever in harmony with itself."

So yes, open-mindedness is a virtue.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[InCognitus]

23 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I wish I could agree with you. Science is very broad. My observation is that in general, the church gives lip service to science but only embraces the evidence that supports their understanding of the universe. I still hear leaders espouse a literal reading of Noah's flood, anti evolution rhetoric and a basic rejection of gender/biological sex studies.

Be careful to distinguish between what members (or even leaders) say in church and what the church states in official statements.   It is noteworthy that officially the church takes no position on evolution, for example.  We have been given no direct revelation on it one way or another, leaving the topic completely wide open.  In addition, Joseph Smith taught that God created things from unformed matter, and Brigham Young taught that God follows natural laws, leaving a lot of room for open mindedness on that subject.  But you will always find people in the church who reject evolution, or a localized flood of Noah, because those ideas go against old traditions that existed prior to the restoration and some of those traditions have made their way into the beliefs of members of the church.

It doesn’t help that science and religions are often portrayed at odds with each other because they are misused as tools to attack opposing views.  Science doesn’t really address questions about God, and religion doesn’t really address questions about science, but we see atheists trying to use science to explain away God, and traditional theists trying to use God to explain away science.  So a member of the church holding to a traditional view of creation may have a hard time being open minded about evolution if they perceive it as removing God from the equation, since that is how it is portrayed in popular culture.  It really depends on how the new viewpoints are presented. 

This point is made clear in a study published recently having to do with students attending BYU, and their views on evolution: “A longitudinal study of attitudes toward evolution among undergraduates who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”  (found here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205798 ).  The study compares attitudes about evolution over a wide range of time.

Here is a portion of the Abstract:

Quote

We report here a significant shift toward acceptance, compared to attitudes 30 years earlier, by students at Brigham Young University, which is owned and operated by the LDS church. This change appears to have multiple explanations. Students currently entering the university have been exposed to a much-improved introduction to evolution during high school. More importantly, there has been a significant decrease in negative messaging from Church authorities and in its religious education system. There is also evidence that current students have been positively influenced toward evolution by their parents, a large percentage of whom were BYU students, who earlier were given a strong science education deemed compatible with the maintenance of religious belief. A pre-post comparison demonstrates that a majority of current students become knowledgeable and accepting following a course experience focused on evolutionary principles delivered in a faith-friendly atmosphere.

Here's one of the charts from the article showing the wide difference in responses between the 1987-1996 survey results compared to the 2014-2016 results:

 

I think the key point here is that the students received “science education in a faith-friendly manner”.  We tend to be more open minded and accepting of new ideas when we can discuss them in a non-threatening environment.

 

[Bernard Gui]

Is having an open mind the same as being objective?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is having an open mind the same as being objective?

No. Objectivity is having the ability to judge without being influenced by biases or emotions. Being open minded is being willing to explore new ideas, it says nothing about the ability to judge in a balanced way. 

Edited December 28, 2019 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't think it too rare to have been brought up with being open minded towards scientific explanations as I keep running into people who see their experience at church in similar ways (not saying that creationist stuff isn't taught at church, those with biases towards more scientific theory probably filter/interpret what they hear as leaning/being open more towards that so that it is the more extreme creationist ideas that get registered as creationist).

Location probably had a lot to do with it as I grew up in Northern California with 6 years in the middle in the Chicago suburbs (where I have no significant memories of church teachers there), so the greater environment having few elements of creationism in it probably led to myself and friends whose families were from that area (neither of my parents were primarily raised in Utah) picking up the science at school without much resistance.  No one was being homeschooled at that time except a few from school who had chronic health issues, have no clue what religion they were.  I didn't encountered homeschoolers who were dissatisfied with what was taught in science and history until I came to BYU in mid70s (since then I have found it all over, though homeschooling was for a variety of reasons among members...I knew only one family doing it that I would describe as fringe, most either were wanting to give a broader, higher quality experience or at least one child has special needs and was falling behind in school).

I will have to ask my husband who grew up in Orem what his experience was.  I am assuming there would be less social risk to push creationist ideas in a highly religious community where your friends were friends at church as well as school and teachers would assume similar beliefs among parents and administrators.  However, his views about evolution, etc. were the same as mine, though he doesn't think that highly of sociobiology as he sees it as more speculation than evidence.

I think those thought patterns are also impacted by other factors, not just educational. Oftentimes emotional attachment to a belief can short-circuit thinking in an otherwise very intelligent and informed mind. And so, not only is there education in a mind that can tolerate ideas other than creationism, but there is a sense of safety that is not dependent on it.

 

Edited December 28, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 12/26/2019 at 8:37 PM, MustardSeed said:

My spouse and I were discussing this topic of open mindedness today.  He was educating me about Ford motor company who has always been a loyalty first company - and yet they hired a new leader who admitted that he drives a Lexus.  This was a new type of open minded thinking that went against the grain of the culture of Ford.  Of course, Ford is now focusing on their trucks and SUV lines, and is moving away from sedans and small vehicles.  This sort of shift required some open mindedness - let's not do it the way we always have sort of thinking that gets companies in trouble - companies like Blackberry.  And Kodak - who shelved their original idea of digital photography.  
Anyway I'm rambling - this is the beauty of holiday vacation.  My point is, do you see our LDS culture/religion as being open minded or closed minded, and is that a good or problematic place to be in your opinion?  I'm interested in this topic.  Thank you. 

To your first point, I am and alway, and  will  be a “Ford Man”. To your second point, too often higher education, almost always seeks to guide students away from being, “true believers” when it comes to Faith, no matter the Faith. As scripture warns, “what does it profit a Man (or Woman) to gain the whole world, and loose his own soul” (too paraphrase)? As a Church, we, it, has always fostered members to seek the goal of education, or higher education, as they do not fear it. We do however live in an age, where most universities, seek to distance themselves from being believers in anything they cannot see, or quantify, as if believing is akin to mathematics. Their quest to be “open minded”, often leads them to be “closed minded”, on the issue of Faith. Also, on most campuses, those who believe, are openly belittled, or shouted down, and laughed to scorn. As the parable, or dream, in the Book of Mormon, of the “Great and Spacious Build”, and all the imagery surrounding it,  is a wonderful guide, and lesson to all. This applies to being too “open minded”, as it can often and does often, lead to “pluralism”, for some, the idea that there are many roads to salvation. But we should not be “closed minded” either, but we should temper that with the wisdom, wisdom that comes from the Holy Spirit. Also for our sakes, we should understand that that the road of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, is the only road, and narrow path that leads us to the throne of God. Also being too, “open minded”, can  lead many to the belief that many sins, are not sins at all, which leads many to tell others they don’t need the Church or Jesus Christ, to realize how to receive God’s greatest blessings, and rewards. Our minds have been given to us, to guide us to all truth, and that truth is that we all need Jesus Christ, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, least we all stubble in darkness. My mind is always open to ideas based in truth, but closed to those that may lead me away from a loving Heavenly Father, and the true and only Savior, Jesus Christ. Anyway, my take on the idea. 

[bluebell]

On 12/26/2019 at 9:02 PM, Fether said:

I engaged in a debate with a Catholic once and he said something that stick with me.

”The purpose of an open mind is to eventually close on something firm”

being consistently “open minded” sounds a lot like being a skeptic. Never laying a foundation in anything or holding to anything you find true.

I think it is important to be open minded in places where we have nurtured beliefs. If I was raised to believe that evolution was anti Christian, have an open mind about different arguments in that topic. But if you have come to find out for yourself that evolution is or is NOT anti Christian, then hold true to your beliefs. At which point, he closed minded, but engage in productive discussion that may lead you to an open mind later on topics.

Good point.  Being open minded is good but refusing to 'close on something firm' is not.  Refusing to find things to believe in, and things that you don't believe in, can be a weakness.  In those cases being forever and constantly open minded can become a scapegoat--justification for never doing the work or taking the chance to find and embrace truth while leaving being those things that aren't good or true.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

21 hours ago, katherine the great said:

This doesn't surprise me about you. But I'm not sure if you quite realize what a rare combination of personality traits you have. You really are quite remarkable. 

She is, “quite quite remarkable”, but not as rare as one might think, she is one of so many others in our beloved Faith. I doubt many see me this way, but every Sunday, I am surrounded by such people, and how I chose most of my friends at Church. 

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, katherine the great said:

It sounds like you view open mindedness as something that is acquired through learning. Do you think there is any kind of a genetic component? Do you know any people who are raised in the same environment who differ in their openness to new ideas? Some who are more likely to question their own belief system once they are grown and/or come into contact with very different world views?

I definitely think that there is a genetic component to this kind of thing.  I have friends who grew up in a very conservative (gospel-wise) loving home who are very liberal in the way they approach the gospel now as adults.  And I have friends who have experienced the opposite (growing up in a liberal home and now embracing a conservative interpretation of the gospel).  

I've noticed this especially with the way that I approach stuff compared to the way my good friend does.  We almost always have opposite reactions to gospel related things despite being raised in similar environments.  I am naturally more trusting of authority, for example, while she is naturally more distrusting, even though we both grew up in good homes with wonderful parents (who we are still very close to) and never had any bad experiences with people in authority.  

However, having said that, I do think that our environment does play a role.  I've noticed that people who are in an academic environment for example, tend to share similar ways of approaching the world.  I think that part of this is probably because people who naturally want to see the world that way self-select to go into a profession or be in an environment that supports their inclinations, but I also think that academic institutions are very good at teaching people how they have to be to succeed in that environment, and that smart people learn the language and adopt it as their own very quickly because that perspective and way of being in the world is what their mentors and teachers praise and value.

[Duncan]

21 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I just watched a documentary about the Hasidic Jews. The LDS people do not have a corner on tradition and closed mindedness !!! 

A friend once commented about his traditional father. He said his dad had a mind like concrete... all mixed up and set. 

There is the statement about avoiding being " blown about by every wind of doctrine. " so having your mind so open that your brains fall out isn't good either. 

you need balance. I know a member of the Church who operates a blog and writes Church books who thinks that whatever two long dead general authorities have said about the gospel and life is the pure diamond truth and you either believe it or you are apostate, and he decides who is on which side of the line

[Duncan]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I definitely think that there is a genetic component to this kind of thing.  I have friends who grew up in a very conservative (gospel-wise) loving home who are very liberal in the way they approach the gospel now as adults.  And I have friends who have experienced the opposite (growing up in a liberal home and now embracing a conservative interpretation of the gospel).  

I've noticed this especially with the way that I approach stuff compared to the way my good friend does.  We almost always have opposite reactions to gospel related things despite being raised in similar environments.  I am naturally more trusting of authority, for example, while she is naturally more distrusting, even though we both grew up in good homes with wonderful parents (who we are still very close to) and never had any bad experiences with people in authority.  

However, having said that, I do think that our environment does play a role.  I've noticed that people who are in an academic environment for example, tend to share similar ways of approaching the world.  I think that part of this is probably because people who naturally want to see the world that way self-select to go into a profession or be in an environment that supports their inclinations, but I also think that academic institutions are very good at teaching people how they have to be to succeed in that environment, and that smart people learn the language and adopt it as their own very quickly because that perspective and way of being in the world is what their mentors and teachers praise and value.

i've seen that too, it's a real life "Family Ties", it's almost a reaction to what they grow up with and they go the other way than what they grow up with.

[katherine the great]

11 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Be careful to distinguish between what members (or even leaders) say in church and what the church states in official statements.   It is noteworthy that officially the church takes no position on evolution, for example.  We have been given no direct revelation on it one way or another, leaving the topic completely wide open.  In addition, Joseph Smith taught that God created things from unformed matter, and Brigham Young taught that God follows natural laws, leaving a lot of room for open mindedness on that subject.  But you will always find people in the church who reject evolution, or a localized flood of Noah, because those ideas go against old traditions that existed prior to the restoration and some of those traditions have made their way into the beliefs of members of the church.

Oh I'm well aware of the official statement. But seriously, what is going to be written in people's hearts? A generic official statement that most members don't even know exists or an anti-evolution talk by a revered apostle in General Conference?

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

To your first point, I am and alway, and  will  be a “Ford Man”.

I'm a "Chevy Girl" but we can still be friends. 😄

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

To your first point, I am and alway, and  will  be a “Ford Man”. To your second point, too often higher education, almost always seeks to guide students away from being, “true believers” when it comes to Faith, no matter the Faith. As scripture warns, “what does it profit a Man (or Woman) to gain the whole world, and loose his own soul” (too paraphrase)? As a Church, we, it, has always fostered members to seek the goal of education, or higher education, as they do not fear it. We do however live in an age, where most universities, seek to distance themselves from being believers in anything they cannot see, or quantify, as if believing is akin to mathematics. Their quest to be “open minded”, often leads them to be “closed minded”, on the issue of Faith. Also, on most campuses, those who believe, are openly belittled, or shouted down, and laughed to scorn. As the parable, or dream, in the Book of Mormon, of the “Great and Spacious Build”, and all the imagery surrounding it,  is a wonderful guide, and lesson to all. This applies to being too “open minded”, as it can often and does often, lead to “pluralism”, for some, the idea that there are many roads to salvation. But we should not be “closed minded” either, but we should temper that with the wisdom, wisdom that comes from the Holy Spirit. Also for our sakes, we should understand that that the road of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, is the only road, and narrow path that leads us to the throne of God. Also being too, “open minded”, can  lead many to the belief that many sins, are not sins at all, which leads many to tell others they don’t need the Church or Jesus Christ, to realize how to receive God’s greatest blessings, and rewards. Our minds have been given to us, to guide us to all truth, and that truth is that we all need Jesus Christ, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, least we all stubble in darkness. My mind is always open to ideas based in truth, but closed to those that may lead me away from a loving Heavenly Father, and the true and only Savior, Jesus Christ. Anyway, my take on the idea. 

I imagine this is why the Jehovas Witnesses don’t (allow?) for any college education. 

 

I imagine God, being all knowing, is capable of vast knowledge AND faith, believes we are capable of both. 

Edited December 28, 2019 by MustardSeed

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Good point.  Being open minded is good but refusing to 'close on something firm' is not.  Refusing to find things to believe in, and things that you don't believe in, can be a weakness.  In those cases being forever and constantly open minded can become a scapegoat--justification for never doing the work or taking the chance to find and embrace truth while leaving being those things that aren't good or true.

Hi bluebell. Thanks for repeating the remarks by our new poster. Greetings fether. I found this topic interesting when it first opened. I don't know if what follows will be exactly right. I think open-mindedness and its opposite are kind of loose terms. If you have been open-minded before deciding on something, are you now guilty of closed-mindedness? I think that is what I am reading from you two. 

Some would say that Catholics are closed-minded if they refuse to follow the current pope. He tries to overturn teachings that have been canonized by 2,000 years of acceptance as sacred and true by the Catholic Church. He endorses practices that have for the same length of time been considered immoral and sacrilegious. What should a Catholic do to be considered open-minded in a healthy way? If Francis is correct, the Catholic Church has been an unmitigated disaster until he arrived on the scene to blow everything up. There are many in the Church who are conservative like me, but who do all these mental gymnastics to try to say that the pope is misrepresented, misunderstood, and mistranslated. Are they the ones who are open-minded in a healthy way? Other Catholics embrace whole-heartedly the teachings of this papacy and don't have any patience with Catholics like me who perceive that if Francis were right, their Church has been apostate for a long time. Are they the ones who are open-minded in a healthy way? There is a fourth group of Catholics. Those who perceive that Francis is wrong, and that proves the Church was always wrong and who leave the Catholic Church. I suppose they are the ones who might be seen by you all as open-minded in a healthy way. Catholics are leaving, that is for sure. I do not know where they are going.

The "problem" for me is with how much I "love" the old Catholic faith. I started out 28 years ago with a journey of the intellect, that led me to be convinced that the Catholic Church could make good on her claims. Before this I think I was open-minded to a remarkable degree. I read the Koran once before I became Catholic, and again since, also reading literature by a persuasive Franciscan priest who seemed to believe that Mohammed was a true prophet and that the Koran was true. I read several books about the Bahai Faith, (a kind of hybrid between Christianity and Islam that incorporates more of the Christian Scriptures than does Islam) written by one of their prophets, a kind of Middle Eastern Joseph Smith. I did not read all of the Book of Mormon. But I read about a dozen books by LDS authors most of you would approve. All this time, I hadn't completely closed the book on going back to some form of Protestant Bible Christianity. The intellectual journey was not pleasant. I did not much enjoy my journey of doubt which lasted about three years.

After an eventual intellectual conversion to Catholicism, I had a second, and unexpected journey of faith which was delightful. My beliefs became more and more something not just to give an intellectual assent to, but something of the heart and the will. I began to love my faith even as I experienced minimal progress in what I believed intellectually. That has stayed the same, but now I seem bound by a double conversion involving the intellect and the will. Can one objectively re-examine intellectual beliefs while the heart is enchanted? The heart needs to be broken if you will. It needs some very hard facts that make it regretfully give in to a re-examination of the intellect. Francis and his predecessors, have been hard, in the face facts of my Catholic life. However, I have a safety net in that there have been multiple private revelations (I have shared them here), which warn ultimately of profound loss of faith and morals,  a diabolical disorientation within the Catholic Church at the highest levels, in this era. Without that, I think I could be forced to be open-minded to the idea that the Church was always apostate. I can't underestimate how shaken I might be if I lacked the foresight these prophecies bring, which make me stand firm even when the popes of my time seem to be denying the faith and breaking commandments of God and precepts of the Church.         

So...that is my apology if I ever should seem closed-minded about my religion. It has not always been so.

----------------------------

Now if you want to talk about on what side we should have fought in the American Civil War, or the American Revolution, I am all ears. I can flip-flop. I remain open-minded. My heart is not engaged. At 63 years old, I still weigh the options, and will probably die weighing the options. I do not feel pressed about history though like I did with Mormonism, Catholicism, and forms of Koranic religions. I feel less pressure to study evolution vs. creation. Unlike history or literature, the question is boring to me. Sorry to you science hounds. I don't want to spend precious leisure hours working at such a topic. I am satisfied to disbelieve in evolution because it seems crazy to me with very little study. I read one book back in the 80's (by an Aussie, non-Christian, some kind of bio-geneticist?). I have much hope that right or wrong, I will not be questioned at the Great Judgment about why I did not apply myself more to discover why creationism is wrong and evolution is right.

Rory

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I'm a "Chevy Girl" but we can still be friends. 😄

MOPAR FOREVER !! 😂

[3DOP]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

MOPAR FOREVER !! 😂

 I miss my '66 Valiant, not to mention the Reliants and Acclaims that followed.

[katherine the great]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

MOPAR FOREVER !! 😂

I could be open minded to that! (but never the F-word) 😃

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

 I miss my '66 Valiant, not to mention the Reliants and Acclaims that followed.

Those were some good years