Quotes on Faith, Reason, Evidence, etc.

[Ryan Dahle]

I am compiling a supplemental resource for Evidence Central which will supply a range of quotes from Latter-day Saint leaders and scholars on the topics of faith, reason, evidence, etc. I know that some who frequent this discussion board likely have lists of such quotes already created, or perhaps know right where to find ones that are particularly memorable or important to them. If anyone has anything that they feel would be helpful in this regard, it would be very welcome. And of course, discussion of such quotes would be welcome as well, if any feel so inclined. This is a discussion board, after all. 

Below is what we have so far (in draft form and surely containing some errors). Some sources have quotes below them, but others are so full of relevant quotes that only the source is given.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 14:116 (May 14, 1871)

Says the scientific man, "I do not see your religion to be true; I do not understand the law, light, rules, religion, or whatever you call it, which you say God has revealed; it is confusion to me, and if I submit to and embrace your views and theories I must reject the facts which science demonstrates to me." This is the position, and the line of demarcation has been plainly drawn, by those who profess Christianity, between the sciences and revealed religion. You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has; and they say, "If the Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in six days, six thousand years ago, our studies are all vain; but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your religions as false and vain; we must be what you call infidels, with the demonstrated truths of science in our possession; or, rejecting those truths, become enthusiasts in, what you call, Christianity."

In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular.

B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints vol 1 (Deseret News, 1907), 527.

It is well nigh as dangerous to claim too much for the inspiration of God, in the affairs of men, as it is to claim too little.

John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 3^rd ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1943), 28, 29.

“After proper inquiries, using all powers at our command, the weight of evidence is on one side or the other. Doubt is removed. Doubt of the right kind—that is, honest questioning—leads to faith [and]…opens the door to truth.”

Austin Farrer, “Grete Clerk,” in Light on C.S. Lewis, comp. Jocelyn Gibb (San Diego: Harcourt and Brace, 1965).

Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.  

Lowell L. Bennion, “The Uses of the Mind in Religion,” BYU Studies 14/1 (1973): 47-55.

both the religious and rational footings of our civilization are beyond price. For me nothing in all the ethical thinking of mankind quite equals the combined ethic and morality of the Hebrew prophets and Jesus. The prophets taught justice and mercy in human relations and tied these principles to the ethical character of a living god. Scholars call this ethical monotheism. Jesus, respecting his prophetic forbears, stressed the worth of the individual and taught men to walk with humility to act with love and to trust in the father. Both Jesus and the prophets exemplified moral courage as they attacked the superficialities and hypocrisies of their day. Greek philosophy delighted in man’s capacity to create order out of mystery and chaos. They began to think about nature, how men think, and the rules of logical thought. They inquired into aesthetics and ethics and the nature of society. They were not afraid as were the Jews to create works of art in sculpture and architecture in addition to drama and literature. They laid the foundations not only for philosophy but also for history, the natural and social sciences, medicine, and the arts. Most of all, they discovered and nurtured faith in man’s capacity to think and to create. I do not understand how a person who has come to know these two traditions in any substantial manner can turn his back on either one. I confess my profound respect for each of them and try in my own life to effect a marriage between them-- a marriage that has all the tension, adjustments, frustration, tradition, joys, and ecstasy one finds in a marriage between man and woman. Even as I prefer marriage to living alone so do I prefer to live in a world of both faith and rationality rather than in a world of either alone.

Spencer W. Kimball, “The Second Century of Brigham Young University,” 1975

First among these unique features is the fact that education on this campus deliberately and persistently concerns itself with “education for eternity,” not just for time. The faculty has a double heritage that they must pass along: the secular knowledge that history has washed to the feet of mankind along with the new knowledge brought by scholarly research, and also the vital and revealed truths that have been sent to us from heaven.

This university shares with other universities the hope and the labor involved in rolling back the frontiers of knowledge even further, but we also know that through the process of revelation there are yet “many great and important things” to be given to mankind that will have an intellectual and spiritual impact far beyond what mere men can imagine. Thus, at this university, among faculty, students, and administration, there is and must be an excitement and an expectation about the very nature and future of knowledge that underwrites the uniqueness of BYU.

Your double heritage and dual concerns with the secular and the spiritual require you to be “bilingual.” As scholars you must speak with authority and excellence to your professional colleagues in the language of scholarship, and you must also be literate in the language of spiritual things. We must be more bilingual, in that sense, to fulfill our promise in the second century of BYU.

Neal A. Maxwell, Deposition of a Disciple (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 15.

If there is sometimes too little respect for the life of the mind, it is a localized condition and is not institutional in character.

Noel B. Reynolds, “Reason and Revelation,” (BYU Speeches, Provo, UT, 30 June 1981).

I stand before you today as one who has accepted the responsibility to try to guide and inspire the students of Brigham Young University to make the most of their educational opportunities and to prepare themselves to be the strongest possible members of the kingdom of God, to be people who can provide special leadership in the great work of the kingdom in these last days. But I have not been given that kind of responsibility for anyone else. I therefore direct my remarks to the students of BYU and hope that, if others choose to listen in, they may find something of value to them as well. …

Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), 2.

Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men.

Neal A. Maxwell, Plain and Precious Things (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), 4.

“It is the author’s opinion that all the scriptures, including the Book of Mormon, will remain in the realm of faith. Science will not be able to prove or disprove holy writ. However, enough plausible evidence will come forth to prevent scoffers from having a field day, but not enough to remove the requirement of faith. Believers must be patient during such unfolding.”

Gordon B. Hinckley, Faith: The Essence of True Religion (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989), 73.

There is incumbent upon each of us . . . the responsibility to observe the commandment to study and to learn. . . None of us can assume that we have learned enough.

Neal A. Maxwell, “Lest Ye Be Wearied and Faint in Your Minds,” 1991.

Faith brings with it the expanding “evidence of things not seen.” (Heb. 11:1.) Some mortals dismiss this real, spiritual evidence because “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him … because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor. 2:14.) But this provincialism on the part of others should not deprive the rest of us of energizing evidence.

Boyd K. Packer, “’I Say unto You, Be One’ (D&C 38:27),” Brigham Young University 1990-91 Devotionals and Fireside Speeches (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1991), 89.

Each of us must accommodate the mixture of reason and revelation in our lives. The gospel not only permits it but requires it.

Truman G. Madsen, “Philosophy,” quoting B.H. Roberts in B.H. Roberts, The Truth, The Way, the Life, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 1994), lxxiii.

Let us not have the heart breathing defiance to the intellect!

Neal A. Maxwell, “The Disciple-Scholar,” in On Being a Disciple-Scholar, ed. Henry B. Eyring (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1995).

The Lord sees no conflict between faith and learning in a broad curriculum. … The scriptures see faith and learning as mutually facilitating, not separate processes.

John W. Welch, “The Power of Evidence in the Nurturing of Faith,” in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, ed. Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002), 17—53.

Davis Bitten, “I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church,” Fairmormon presentation, 2004.

What’s potentially damaging or challenging to faith depends entirely, I think, on one’s expectations, and not necessarily history. Any kind of experience can be shattering to faith if the expectation is such that one is not prepared for the experience. … A person can be converted to the Church in a distant part of the globe and have great pictures of Salt Lake City, the temple looming large in the center of the city. Here we have our home teaching in nice little blocks and we all go to church on Sunday, they believe. It won’t take very many hours or days before the reality of experiencing Salt Lake City can be devastating to a person with those expectations. The problem is not the religion; the problem is the incongruity between the expectation and the reality.

Neal A. Maxwell, “Blending Research and Revelation,” (Brigham Young University President’s Leadership Council, Provo, UT, March 19, 2004).

At a time around 30 years ago when our enemies were after us over something, I or someone with me said in a moment of frustration—“No more slam dunks!” meaning that our enemies’ easy, even sloppy criticisms had seen their day—it was time to move to a new level of spiritual and academic scholarship. Since then there has been a gathering of capacity and competency. Our scholarship has moved to a new level. Our enemies, likewise, are more clever, but our message is so unique and hopeful that it deserves to be articulated in the best possible and most responsible way. It is happening, and I remain a cheerleader for it. I quote from Austin Farrer, who wrote: For though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish. [“The Christian Apologist,” in Light on C. S. Lewis, ed. Jocelyn Gibb (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1965), 26] At BYU we unashamedly blend research and revelation, and that is why this whole undertaking—apart from any particular project—is so special. The blending of revelation here, the Spirit, and scholarship has never been better! Otherwise it is interesting to note that the smaller the revealed database, the greater our reliance is upon supposition, extrapolation, and speculation. But by combining scholarship with a revealed database, we can be in full friendship with logic and reason. Logic does not solo very well. It performs many tasks, but logic can be morally weightless. It is a blend of revelation, reason, and research that serves the Kingdom well. Again and again, the men and women involved prove that the Spirit and scholarship can enhance each other. I have great respect for the scientific method insofar as I understand it. It has guided President Cecil O. Samuelson in his medical work, as it has many of you in your specialties. But we can also go to Alma 32 and its formula for the spiritual verification method. Both the scientific method and the process of spiritual verification are open to us! Both are needed. Combining scholarship and the Spirit sometimes pushes us outside the envelope. There are a lot of things that are understood only with the Spirit. The doctrine of resurrection, for instance, is outside what logic alone can verify. It was so for the early disciples. I read from Mark: “But they [the disciples] understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him” (Mark 9:32).

Robert L. Millet, The Evidence of Things Not Seen (2004)

Daniel C. Peterson, “The Obligation to Do Apologetics,” (FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, August 2010).

Dallin H. Oaks, Life’s Lessons Learned: Personal Reflections (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Co., 2011), 55-60.

Religious persons who pursue scientific disciplines sometimes encounter what seem to be conflicts between the respective teachings of science and religion and must work through how to handle these apparent conflicts. Others, such as I in my pursuit of business and law, can be less troubled. For me, that detachment ended when I was appointed president of Brigham Young University. This new position required me to search out, learn, and articulate answers to questions I had previously been privileged to ignore....

Colleges and universities must of course teach science--facts and theories--but Church educators, like the BYU faculty, refrain from substituting science for God and continue to rely on the truths of religion. In the study of science, teachers and students with religious faith have the challenge to define the relationship of science and religion in their thinking. They have the special advantage of seeing countless scientific evidences of the Divine Creator. In those exceptional circumstances where science and religion seem to conflict, they have the wisdom to wait patiently in the assurance that truth will eventually prevail. In doing so, most conclude that religion does not have the answers to all questions and that some of what science "knows" is tentative and theoretical and will be replaced in time by new discoveries and new theories.

Some try to deal with apparent conflicts by compartmentalizing science and religion--one in one category, such as Monday through Saturday, and the other in another category, such as Sunday. That was my initial approach, but I came to learn its inadequacy. We are supposed to learn by both reason and revelation, and that does not happen when we compartmentalize science and religion. Our searchings should be disciplined by human reason and also enlightened by divine revelation. IN the end, truth has only one content and one source, and it encompasses both science and religion....

Latter-day Saints should strive to use both science and religion to extend knowledge and to build faith. But those who do so must guard against the significant risk that efforts to end the separation between scientific scholarship and religious faith will only promote a substandard level of performance, where religion and science dilute one another instead of strengthening both.

For some, an attempt to mingle reason and faith can result in irrational scholarship or phony religion, either condition demonstrably worse than the described separation. This danger is illustrated by the case of an international scholar who was known as an expert in English law when he was in America and as an expert in American law when he was in England. Not fully distinguished in either field, he nevertheless managed to slip back and forth between the two so that his expertise was never properly subjected to qualified review in either. As a result, he provided a poor imitation in both. A genuine mingling of the insights of reason and revelation is infinitely more difficult....

Each of us should pursue...truth by reason and by faith. And each of us should increase our ability to communicate that truth by an inspired combination of the language of scholarship and the language of faith.

I am confident that when we progress to the point where we know all things, we will find a harmony of all truth. Until that time, it is wise for us to admit that our understanding--in religion and in science--is incomplete and that the resolution of most seeming conflicts is best postponed. In the meantime, we do the best we can to act upon our scientific knowledge, where that is required, and always upon our religious faith, placing our ultimate reliance for the big questions and expectations of life on the eternal truths revealed by our Creator, which transcend human reason, "for with God nothing shall be impossible" (Luke 1:37).

Daniel C. Peterson, “Of ‘Mormon Studies’ and Apologetics,” (FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, August 2012).

Daniel C. Peterson, “Toward a More Effective Apologetics,” (FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, 2013).

Daniel C. Peterson, “Some Notes on Faith and Reason,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 10 (2014): vii-xix.

Daniel C. Peterson, “Reason, Experience, and the Existence of God,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 12 (2014): vii-xix.

Daniel C. Peterson, “An Exhortation to Study God’s Two ‘Books’,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 13 (2015): vii-xv.

Daniel C. Peterson, “Questioning: The Divine Plan,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 15 (2015): vii-xv.

Alison L. Maeser, “RSC Turns Forty,” BYU Religious Education Review 8, no. 1 (Winter 2015): 21.

Elder Holland now says he envisions the scholarly products coming out of the RSC symbolizing and exhibiting a combination of “the head and the heart, the spirit and the faith, the reason and the revelation” and becoming the definitive scholarly resource for the LDS Church.

Jared Halverson in Alison L. Maeser, “RSC Turns Forty,” BYU Religious Education Review 8, no. 1 (Winter 2015): 20.

I came to understand then, and have had it repeatedly confirmed since, that the gospel deserves—and can hold up under—careful examination and critical thought, that it is as captivating to the head as it is to the heart, and that scholarship and discipleship were never meant to be mutually exclusive.

Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Greatness of the Evidence,” (Chiasmus Jubilee, Provo, UT, August 16, 2017)

Ian S. Ardern, “Seek Ye Out of the Best of Books,” 2017

Asking of God is to be preceded by careful study, for we are under scriptural mandate to seek “out of the best books words of wisdom” and to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith”  D&C 88:118 There is a rich abundance of these books, written by heaven-inspired Church leaders and recognized, safe, and reliable Church history and doctrine scholars. With that said, none surpass the majesty of the revealed word of God in canonized scripture. From those thin pages thick with spiritual insights, we learn truth through the Holy Ghost and thereby increase in light.

Sharon Eubank, “Turn On Your Light” Ensign, November 2017.

Each of us needs to be better at articulating the reasons for our faith. How do you feel about Jesus Christ? Why do you stay in the Church? Why do you believe the Book of Mormon is scripture? Where do you get your peace? Why does it matter that the prophet has something to say in 2017? How do you know he is a real prophet? Use your voice and your power to articulate what you know and feel—on social media, in quiet conversations with your friends, when you’re chatting with your grandchildren. Tell them why you believe, what it feels like, if you ever doubted, how you got through it, and what Jesus Christ means to you. As the Apostle Peter said, “Be not afraid … ; but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.”

Daniel C. Peterson, “Apologetics: What, Why, and How?” (FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, August 2018).

Daniel C. Peterson, “Is Faith Compatible with Reason?” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 29 (2018): vii-xvi.

Matthias Held, “Seeking Knowledge By the Spirit,” (General Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, April 2019.

Dear brothers and sisters, the Lord has repeatedly told us to “seek learning even by study and also by faith.” We can receive light and understanding not only through the logical reasoning of our minds but also through the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Edited February 19, 2021 by Ryan Dahle

[Kevin Christensen]

This is from Ian Barbour, a non-LDS scholar that I quote often.

Quote

Participation in a religious tradition also demands a more total personal involvement than occurs in science. Religious questions are of ultimate concern, since the meaning of one’s existence is at stake. Religion asks about the final objects of a person’s devotion and loyalty, for which he will sacrifice other interests if necessary. Too detached an attitude may cut a person off from the very kinds of experience which are religiously most significant. Reorientation and reconciliation are transformations of life-pattern affecting all aspects of personality, not intellect alone. Religious writings use the language of actors, not the language of spectators. Religious commitment, then, is a self-involving personal response, a serious decision implicating one’s whole life, a willingness to act and suffer for what one believes in. ((Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion, 135–136.))

And this is from Thomas Kuhn:

Quote

[T]he issue is which paradigm should in the future guide research on problems many of whihc neither competitor can yet claim to resolve completely.  A decision between alternate ways of practicing science is called for, and in the circumstances that decision must be based less on past achievement than on future promise. The man who embraces a new paradigm at an early state must often do so in defiance of the evidene provided by problem solving. He must, that is, have faith that thenew paradigm will succeed with the many large problems that confront it, knowing only that the older paradigm has failed with a few. A decision of that kind can only be made on faith."  Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed, 157-158.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Nevo]

Here are some that are important to me.

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

"Skepticism should keep us from accepting inadequate answers and merely wishful hope—but also from accepting inadequate refutations and self-indulgent or cowardly despair. And if anything, as Pascal taught, the possibility that God exists, the mere chance that he guarantees human immortality and joyful eternal purposes, is so stupendous a possibility that we ought to risk all for it, gamble everything, certainly time and intellectual persistence and 'working out our salvation in fear and trembling' rather than getting lost in some absurdly fair or 'objective' game of letting all the negative evidence overbalance the little, but sufficient, positive evidence. If I am marooned on a desert island, absolutely dependent on finding another human being to comfort and perhaps save me, the one little swale where I find a single footprint is more important, more true, than the other hundreds of square miles where I find nothing. . . . 

I believe that the struggle to find truth is only really successful when united with the struggle to find God and that the struggle is worth the pain and the setbacks, worth enduring to the end. I believe the evidences God has provided in history and in the scriptures are adequate to show what great things he has done for our ancestors and can do for us if we will persist in the hope that such evidence provides. I believe his grace is sufficient, that he will visit us with assurance and spiritual confirmation from time to time—not as we demand it but as he knows we need it. And I believe the Church of Jesus Christ is the best context on earth in which to carry on the struggle—because it provides ways to know and serve Christ that can direct and discipline our desires and thus help us to hope genuinely in things that are real but not seen. And through the sacrificial service it requires and unconditional love it thus helps us learn, the Church can teach us to persist in humility, not to be consumers of truth but rather servants of truth . . . . I believe that, together with the scriptures which it plays a major role in preserving and teaching, the Church is one of the major gifts of grace God provides in His promise not to leave us comfortless in a difficult world. It is the most tangible, day-to-day reminder of 'what great things the Lord hath done for [our] fathers,' the chief way we 'may know the covenants of the Lord, that [we] are not cast off forever.'

The claims of the restored gospel, beginning with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, are simply on the face of it the most intellectually and morally and spiritually exciting available on the earth. If it is true that we are eternal intelligences, gods in embryo who can fulfill our infinite potential only in an ever-ongoing process of perfecting the very best of what we know and find joy in—love, marriage, friendship, service, integrity, learning, pursuing beauty, creating—then it is worth every effort, every sacrifice, to engage in the process sufficiently to find out."

— Eugene England, "On Finding Truth and God: From Hope to Knowledge to Skepticism to Faith," in A Thoughtful Faith: Essays on Belief by Mormon Scholars, ed. Philip L. Barlow (Centerville, UT: Canon Press, 1986), 78–82.

 

"Even when science has done its work to perfection, it fails to tell us how to live a life. The Mormon truth, above all, tells us how to be good and helps us to get there. Faith and repentance are wrapped up together. The goodness that I see in the Mormon lives about me, and day after day in my own life when I construct myself as the scriptures direct, is every bit as real as the abstractions of scientific scholarship. I can, if I wish, cast an aura of rationality over this belief in an effort to explain and justify myself to my academic colleagues. Our valiant apologists will go on defending the faith with scholarly evidence, to keep up our connection with the academic establishment. But I hold to my beliefs not because of the evidence or the arguments but because I find our Mormon truth good and yearn to install it at the center of my life."

— Richard Lyman Bushman, "The Social Dimensions of Rationality," in Expressions of Faith: Testimonies of Latter-day Saint Scholars, ed. Susan Easton Black (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT FARMS, 1996), 77.

 

“For me, Christianity without hope beyond death is of reduced relevance and of diminished interest. . . . If the brooding grave is everyone’s finale, if existence runs out into pitiless nothing, if nihility is everyone’s telos, then the forgotten and marginalized will remain marginalized and forgotten for all time. . . . I, at least, need a God whose love and rule don’t leave us alone with our greatest existential evil, who descends into hell to rescue the dead. I need a God who places heavenly crowns on the heads of the slaughtered infants of Bethlehem. I need the God of the old Roman catacombs, which are full of scenes representing delivery from death—Noah’s ark, the sacrifice of Isaac, Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones, the three youths in the furnace, the raising of Lazarus.

Maybe some, for whom life hasn't been solitary, nasty, brutish, and short but rather enjoyable, happy, wonderful, and long, don't need such a God. Maybe they've reached their goals and can rest content. But the fortunate few don't represent the less fortunate many; and that some of us, like the Sadducees of old, are happy to live and die, doesn't entail that everyone else should buck up and feel the same way. Shouldn't it distress us, if we're not self-contained, that most haven't been as lucky as Hume, while countless others haven't even had the chance to set goals, or have seemingly done little more than suffer a thousand plagues of pain, with death their only escape? Do their circumstances make any difference to God, and will God make any difference to them? Is God the everlasting bystander, so that deism is forever true? Are we all like the prophets of Baal, who called on the name of their god again and again, but there was no answer?

After Gollum and the great ring of power fall into the fires of Mount Doom, Frodo and Sam sit on a little ashen hill. As lava rises around them, Frodo speaks the obvious: 'An end comes. We have only a little time to wait now. We’re lost in ruin and downfall, and there is no escape.' The two friends then slip into unconsciousness. But that’s not the end. The eagles come, and the hobbits are borne away to safety. Later, when Sam awakens and sees Gandalf, he gasps: 'I thought you were dead! But then I thought I was dead myself. Is everything sad going to come untrue?' There must be some analogue to this scene in the universal human story. If not, then the cosmos is finally apathetic, and death can separate us from the love of God; and if that’s so, then love doesn’t endure all things but finally fails. Which cannot be."

— Dale C. Allison Jr., Night Comes: Death, Imagination, and the Last Things (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 16–18. 

 

“Some people feel that they’ve been thrown into this world. Although I don’t dispute their experience, mine is different. I feel that I was gently laid down here. Maybe that’s why so much of life has seemed to be a gift, including my body, which I didn’t design or build. As soon as I became aware, it was just there, going about its manifold business. Furthermore, I don’t really understand much about it. I don’t know how to break down food or how to distribute nutrients. I don’t know how to heal cuts or how to battle infections. I don’t know how to manufacture saliva or how to contract muscles. All these things, and a million more of which I’m the beneficiary, just happen. I do none of them. Science, to be sure, helps me to understand some of what goes on, but it was all going on long before my teachers and my books taught me anything. We’re all immersed in a great Wisdom that we didn’t invent and don’t control, a great Wisdom that’s been with us since birth. Hope in resurrection is the conviction that this Wisdom won’t abandon us as death approaches but will accompany us to whatever awaits us.”

— Dale C. Allison Jr., Night Comes: Death, Imagination, and the Last Things (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 43.

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Nevo

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

.......................Davis Bitten, ...................

Misspelled Bitton

I think that you are hurting yourself in seeking only comments from "Latter-day Saint leaders and scholars."

However, be sure to include

Dallin Oaks, "The three-fold sources of truth about man and the universe: science, the scriptures, and continuing revelation, and how we can know them."  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/fundamental-premises-of-our-faith-talk-given-by-elder-dallin-h-oaks-at-harvard-law-school  

Faulconer, James E.  "Room to Talk: Reason's Need for Faith."   (from the Festschrift for Truman Madsen)

Hafen, Bruce C.  "Reason, Faith, and the Things of Eternity."  (Maxwell Lecture in FARMS Review [20, 2] )

Midgely, Louis.  "The Utility of Faith Reconsidered".  (from the Festschrift for Truman Madsen).

Ostler, Blake.  "Spiritual Experiences as the Basis for Belief and Commitment."  (a FAIR conference paper)

Welch, John W.  "Loving God with All Thy Mind."  (BYU Devotional)

Riddle, Mark A., “Science, Zen and Mormonism: Social Ways of Knowing: A Personal Reminiscence,” Mormon Scholars Testify, June 2010, online at http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1277/mark-a-riddle .

Christensen, Kevin, “Determining What is Real,” Sunstone, #139 (Nov 2005):66-70, online at https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/139-66-70.pdf .

Christensen, Kevin, “Sophic Box and Mantic Vista: A Review of Deconstructing Mormonism ,” The Mormonist, and Interpreter, 7 (2013):113-179, online at  http://www.themormonist.com/2013/10/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism-kevin-christensen/ .

Christensen, Kevin, “Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest: Observations on the Inevitable Consequences of the Different Investigative Approaches of Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay,” Interpreter, 10 (2014):175-238.

[mfbukowski]

On 2/19/2021 at 2:23 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

This is from Ian Barbour, a non-LDS scholar that I quote often.

And this is from Thomas Kuhn:

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Yes I think the quotes from non-member philosophers will be far more persuasive than those even from prophets and apostles, because by definition the statements of prophets and apostles are only of authority to those who have testimonies!

Doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results which are unsatisfactory or insignificant to convince others of the truth of the gospel to non-believers when those wonderful men are already members, well advanced in intellect, and the spirit, seems to me to have been proven to be "barking up the wrong tree"

Atheists respect other atheists as much as we LDS folks trust LDS folks!

And there are plenty out there to understand perfectly well how religious statements can be called "true".

Thomas Nagel , for instance understands how religion can be totally reasonable and in fact has said that he "hopes" it is not, because it does not fit portions of his world view.  He actually had "faith" in atheism as virtually a "religion"

Same for Wiliam James who defined the terms of how to make religion "logical" through experimental evidence- precisely like Alma 32's method of experimentation- but yet never converted.

It is the philosophy of William James which influenced Michael Polanyi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi upon whom Kuhn depended extensively for his ideas.  Kuhn comes straight out of Pragmatism.

Richard Rorty- atheist- permitted his children to be raised LDS after his wife, a woman trained deeply in philosophy, showed him how our positions did not clash with his and in fact enhanced both his views and LDS views

John Dewey is also in that tradition and wrote books calling for the reconstruction of philosophy in William James'  image, as it were.

All these philosophers have their own groups of student philosophers, following in their paths, and many of them are not religioius per se but understand the value of religion.

THAT is what we need more of , imo!!

[Kenngo1969]

On 2/19/2021 at 3:12 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

... Davis Bitten, [sic] “I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church,” Fairmormon presentation, 2004. ...

 

On 2/20/2021 at 1:52 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Misspelled Bitton ...

Well, you know what they say: Once Bitton, twice shy!

Sorry.

Couldn't resist! 

Carry on!

[Kenngo1969]

If I'm not trying to start a board war, I hope I can be forgiven for posting something from the great Dan Peterson's Blog.  If not, of course, nothing has ever stopped the Mods from shooting me down before.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2021/02/a-note-on-evidence-part-one.html

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2021/03/a-note-on-evidence-part-two.html

[Kenngo1969]

According to Alma 32, one plants a seed and nourishes it to determine if it is good.  It is good if, when nourished, it begins to grow and, eventually, to bear fruit.  It is not good if, when nourished, it fails to grow and, consequently, fails to bear fruit.  In that sense, faith is like a laboratory experiment.  In fact, Alma uses that very word to describe the process, calling it "an experiment upon the word."  Growth and, eventually, good fruit are evidence that the seed is good.  While others' mileage may vary, and while, certainly, both my life and I are far from perfect, I know that the "seeds" of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ are good because of the abundant good fruit they have borne and continue to bear in my life.  That, says Brother @mfbukowski, is pragmatism: The question is not, necessarily, is a belief "correct" or is it "right"; the question is, does it work: does it bear good fruit.  As @Kevin Christensen points out if one conducts the experiment but fails to achieve (or at least to perceive), the expected results, then perhaps it behooves one to determine if the failure is due to the experiment itself or due to one's expectations.

Because of my legal training (talk about being "ever learning, and never able to come to a knowledge of the 'truth'," but that's another story for another day! ) I have compared weighing the evidence relating to faith to being a trier of fact: We're all our own judges and juries when it comes to matters of faith.  Each of us individually must decide what the "rules of evidence" in his or her particular "case" is, what evidence s/he will admit, what evidence s/he will exclude, how much weight s/he will give to any particular piece of evidence, and so on, and then, each of us arrives at a verdict.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Come on, you guys!  I've posted four consecutive times in this thread, and I hate talking to myself!

Sorry I don't have any quotes for you yet, @Ryan Dahle.  (But you did upvote an earlier contribution of mine! )  I would be surprised if Dan Peterson doesn't have even more to say than what Robert Smith provides along those lines.  I'll have to dig out my copy of Life in the Law or maybe some books I have by Elder/President Oaks and see what, if anything, anyone has to say on it.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Davis Bitten, [sic]

I hope he gets well soon! Bites can be dangerous!

Edited March 3, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If I'm not trying to start a board war, I hope I can be forgiven for posting something from the great Dan Peterson's Blog.  If not, of course, nothing has ever stopped the Mods from shooting me down before.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2021/02/a-note-on-evidence-part-one.html

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2021/03/a-note-on-evidence-part-two.html

As many know I find looking for scientific or historical evidence for the meaning of life is just plain silly.

Neither history nor Science is in that business, both deliberately remain "objective" about morals or values. 

Why would anyone go to that kind of source for religious understanding?

 LDS folks of    Course.

I have learned more  about true religion from atheist philosophers than I have from scientists or historians.

 Heck , you can learn about what we call the  Light of Christ or God's Intelligence constantly flowing through the universe from Star Wars if you want to see it that way.

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Sorry I don't have any quotes for you yet, @Ryan Dahle

No worries. I mean, in a way, I'm sort of cheating by crowdsourcing quotes. Maybe I will include this one on the list just to see if anyone even uses the resource:

"I hate talking to myself!" 

- Kenngo 1969

If no one writes in asking who Kenngo is, why he talks to himself, why he hates it, and what in the world it has to do with evidence, I will know that no one is reading this stuff anyway.

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by Ryan Dahle

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If I'm not trying to start a board war, I hope I can be forgiven for posting something from the great Dan Peterson's Blog.  If not, of course, nothing has ever stopped the Mods from shooting me down before.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2021/02/a-note-on-evidence-part-one.html

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2021/03/a-note-on-evidence-part-two.html

The problem with eyewitness testimony, even though it has pride of place in a court of law as "direct" evidence, is that it is the least reliable form of evidence.  It is precisely hard circumstantial evidence which is best, i.e., forensic evidence.  Juries are not told, and do not actually understand that disjuncture between good and bad evidence.  Instead, they see how well-dressed and well-spoken the witness is in order to determine probity.  Same applies to the accused:  Juries frequently decide guilt or innocence based on the attractiveness of the accused.

[Kenngo1969]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The problem with eyewitness testimony, even though it has pride of place in a court of law as "direct" evidence, is that it is the least reliable form of evidence.

I would say that it depends on the case, and it depends on what other evidence, if any, exists to support a particular charge.  For example, if an eyewitness (call him "Bob" ... no relation, of course! ) and an alleged perpetrator (call him "Tom") have a prior existing relationship, I would say that Bob's testimony that he saw Tom shoot a third man, Bill, is pretty solid, especially if additional physical evidence corroborates Bob's story.  If Bob, Tom, and Bill have no prior relationship, that's a different matter, but I don't think, reasonably, that it can be said that, automatically, eyewitness testimony is suspect.

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  It is precisely hard circumstantial evidence which is best, i.e., forensic evidence.  Juries are not told, and do not actually understand that disjuncture between good and bad evidence.  Instead, they see how well-dressed and well-spoken the witness is in order to determine probity.  Same applies to the accused:  Juries frequently decide guilt or innocence based on the attractiveness of the accused.

Juries have their quirks, and the jury system is neither perfect nor immune from error, and there are exceptions, of course, but, by and large, I think juries and the jurors who comprise them take their roles seriously and are earnest and conscientious in attempting to reach conclusions that accord with the evidence they are presented.  If you disagree, that's fine.  In any event, this is a tangent.  I wish you well.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I would say that it depends on the case, and it depends on what other evidence, if any, exists to support a particular charge.  For example, if an eyewitness (call him "Bob" ... no relation, of course! ) and an alleged perpetrator (call him "Tom") have a prior existing relationship, I would say that Bob's testimony that he saw Tom shoot a third man, Bill, is pretty solid, especially if additional physical evidence corroborates Bob's story.  If Bob, Tom, and Bill have no prior relationship, that's a different matter, but I don't think, reasonably, that it can be said that, automatically, eyewitness testimony is suspect.

Juries have their quirks, and the jury system is neither perfect nor immune from error, and there are exceptions, of course, but, by and large, I think juries and the jurors who comprise them take their roles seriously and are earnest and conscientious in attempting to reach conclusions that accord with the evidence they are presented.  If you disagree, that's fine.  In any event, this is a tangent.  I wish you well.

I was addressing the Peterson blog on this subject, which is continuing (so perhaps he will expand on the nature of evidence).  The FBI Academy has always had a predilection for demonstrating the likelihood of failure of witnesses to make accurate observations.  For trained observers (with a template in mind) it is another matter.  Juries may have once been more able to judge someone back in the day when they were in fact peers of the accused (knew him personally), back in the days of the Danelaw.  But times and the rules have changed, and it is easy to hornswoggle a jury -- with the right legal "dream team," which takes money, lots of it.

As you know, Mark Bukowski is quite comfortable with a personal, nontransferable testimony via the Holy Spirit.  But that is not objective evidence of anything for others, or for a court of law.  Thus, relying on the testimonies of the Three and the Eight is like carrying coals to Newcastle.  The same applies to the Gospels or to many of the fabulous stories in the OT.  Our personal belief or faith in those stories is ours alone and cannot be transferred to someone else.  They can only seek to know for themselves -- whether by direct prayer, or by the experimental method suggested in Alma 32 (which you summarized so well).  Paul's encounter on the Road to Damascus is just such a meaningful experience which is non-transferable.  We talk about it and pass it on to others in order to give them the opportunity to ask God for themselves.  It is not in itself evidence.  So for the Three and the Eight.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was addressing the Peterson blog on this subject, which is continuing (so perhaps he will expand on the nature of evidence).  The FBI Academy has always had a predilection for demonstrating the likelihood of failure of witnesses to make accurate observations.  For trained observers (with a template in mind) it is another matter.  Juries may have once been more able to judge someone back in the day when they were in fact peers of the accused (knew him personally), back in the days of the Danelaw.  But times and the rules have changed, and it is easy to hornswoggle a jury -- with the right legal "dream team," which takes money, lots of it.

As you know, Mark Bukowski is quite comfortable with a personal, nontransferable testimony via the Holy Spirit.  But that is not objective evidence of anything for others, or for a court of law.  Thus, relying on the testimonies of the Three and the Eight is like carrying coals to Newcastle.  The same applies to the Gospels or to many of the fabulous stories in the OT.  Our personal belief or faith in those stories is ours alone and cannot be transferred to someone else.  They can only seek to know for themselves -- whether by direct prayer, or by the experimental method suggested in Alma 32 (which you summarized so well).  Paul's encounter on the Road to Damascus is just such a meaningful experience which is non-transferable.  We talk about it and pass it on to others in order to give them the opportunity to ask God for themselves.  It is not in itself evidence.  So for the Three and the Eight.

What is ironic is that we are constantly being told to find our own testimonies, and that is the only way to know the truth of the gospel, and yet we ignore TEACHING THAT in apologist blogs and websites. 

Due to ignoring our Prophets and seers, sites and individuals who teach that history and science are the way to find an individual's meaning in life and the path to Christ, unintentionally make matters worse.

It takes subjective prayer and communication  with the Lord to find that, as taught clearly in Alma 32.

 We need to teach that the path to Christ is a personal one, found in your heart.

 Instead we are unconsciously teaching that it should be a freeway made of objective concrete and steel.

 When people don't find too that they give up or leave the church.

 I think it is a shame we don't understand that.

 If historical evidence could teach spiritual truth then logically everyone worldwide should be a member of the First Egyptian Church.  Or Zoroastrianism.

Politics seems to be the new religion and no one seeks for political truth based on historical evidence or science!

And yet political ideology is how they will happily define values and even morals.

I hate to be dramatic but I believe that stress on historical or scientific evidence could be the death of the church, or at least show a need for another Restoration based on spirit, not history.

I think someone needed to say that.

It's 17th century thinking and will never convert a 21st century secular world.

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

.................................t.

 If historical evidence could teach spiritual truth then logically everyone worldwide should be a member of the First Egyptian Church.  Or Zoroastrianism.

Politics seems to be the new religion and no one seeks for political truth based on historical evidence or science!.......................

😎

[Emily]

This might not be exactly what you are looking for, but the article was hugely instrumental in changing my perspective about the relationship between religion and faith during a time when faith was "losing" to science in my personal paradigm. It's a very long article, so I'm only extracting some of the parts that I've retained most strongly in my memory.

Hugh Nibley, “Before Adam,” in Old Testament and Related Studies (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1986), Chapter 7

The Latter-day Saints are the only Bible-oriented people who have always been taught that things were happening long, long before Adam appeared on the scene. They have never appreciated just how revolutionary that idea is. It does away with creatio ex nihilo, which, ever since the triumph of the School of Alexandria, has been for Christian and Jewish theologians alike the only possible definition of the word creation... It should not be hard to confound such an absolute concept, since any alternative will do; and long before the time of Christ the ancient Sophists, supplanting religion by naturalism, came up with a scenario very close indeed to what we think of as evolution. And so we get at an early time (at the trial of Socrates, in fact—at which, incidentally, Socrates is the defender of religion—not the other way around!) the sight of an apostate religion squaring off against an always inadequate science. And the issue is never the merits of the evidence but always the jealous rivalry of the contestants to see which would be the official light unto the world...

...Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God’s affection or even a right to exaltation—for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared. God assigned them their proper times and functions, as he has given me mine—a full-time job that admonishes me to remember his words to the overly eager Moses: “For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.” (Moses 1:31.)...