Holland talks about the essays and historical questions

[_DarkHelmet]

A correct analogy would be if a person test drove a car, looked at the carfax, viewed consumer reports, and felt good about all those facts as applied to his particular situation, but then walked away from the car because it was three shades too light, or because it had a chrome bumper when he wanted a matching bumper.

Of course, if someone didn't feel strongly about the fundamentals in the first place, then problems with secondary or tertiary things could certainly be the last straw that caused them to walk away from the car.

Holland wasn't talking about the social or emotional aspect of the gospel being what keeps him in the church, it was his experience with spiritual things, specifically the fundamentals, that keeps him in.

I think this is the fundamental difference between true believers and skeptics. To me, the things Holland considers secondary are actually fundamental to the truth claims of the church. The things he calls the fundamentals, I consider trivial. In your analogy, you equate checking the carfax and consumer reports to having a testimony, and you equate checking the paint color to digging into the church's truth claims and looking for flaws. I think it's the exact opposite.

[_DrW]

A correct analogy would be if a person test drove a car, looked at the carfax, viewed consumer reports, and felt good about all those facts as applied to his particular situation, but then walked away from the car because it was three shades too light, or because it had a chrome bumper when he wanted a matching bumper.

Of course, if someone didn't feel strongly about the fundamentals in the first place, then problems with secondary or tertiary things could certainly be the last straw that caused them to walk away from the car.

Holland wasn't talking about the social or emotional aspect of the gospel being what keeps him in the church, it was his experience with spiritual things, specifically the fundamentals, that keeps him in.

I think this is the fundamental difference between true believers and skeptics. To me, the things Holland considers secondary are actually fundamental to the truth claims of the church. The things he calls the fundamentals, I consider trivial. In your analogy, you equate checking the carfax and consumer reports to having a testimony, and you equate checking the paint color to digging into the church's truth claims and looking for flaws. I think it's the exact opposite.

And you are absolutely correct.

After all, it is your analogy.

[_Sethbag]

I could buy in to Holland's suggestion that things like the divinity and atonement of Christ are the truly fundamental truths to which one should cling, and the things such as the authenticity of the Book of Mormon being at best secondary or even tertiary truths, if the epistemology that apprehended the divinity and atonement of Christ were ironclad.

After all, if Jesus really did die for us, and also appear to Joseph Smith and annoint him the restorer of the church organization that God wanted to have represent him on Earth, then the issues around the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham or where the Nephite swords and chariots went truly are secondary or lesser issues.

That these primary "truths" are at least as, if not more suspect than all the others is glossed over. There's no particularly good reason to buy in to the atonement of Christ any more readily than to accept that Abraham really had anything to do with the authorship of the Book of Abraham.

Holland has absolutely nothing to say to those of us who no longer regard "scripture" as some unimpeachable, obviously true manifestation of the will of the putative Creator of the Universe.

[_mentalgymnast]

Truth...is a fickle thing. Although in Mormonism, overall, it has remained fairly stable in its core doctrines and declarations of faith.

Once past Joseph Smith, yes. It would seem that little else pertinent to currently-accepted doctrine emanated from anyone other than Smith. And since Smith's death, we've lost at least one very major core doctrine, or at least the practice of it (polygamy), which had to be shed in order to maintain stability.

In the present day... or even in the last century... I cannot think of anything significant that can be termed an 'eternal truth', having been put out there by any member of Church leadership - Q of 15 on down - that was not already accepted or known by any number of folks outside of the LDS Church.

Certainly, Holland has not revealed anything of the sort.

I would think that you would know me better than that. But it is a question that I always have in the back of my mind...having observed folks over the years. Whatever truth is...it is a fickle thing. And the only ones that make a solid claim of having arrived at the capital "T" truth are the religionists. Mormonism in particular makes some pretty bold truth claims. So, by default, it is a common course of thought/action to subscribe to a theology and/or system of thought that makes claims to bring you back into the presence of God and gain "eternal happiness". As I've mentioned many times, human beings naturally gravitate towards narratives/stories that have happy endings. We form communities based on those narratives. We find comfort in those communities and narratives. Outside of those communities we can be "ever learning and never come to a knowledge of the Truth".

OK. Then a brief recap of the relevant 'eternal truths' might be in order here, to see what the fuss is about.

I don't characterize 'God had a body of flesh and bone once' as an eternal truth because it's essentially meaningless within the context of salvation anyway.

I don't characterize 'families forever' as a unique truth claim because there are so many other religions that also imagine an afterlife where they will mingle with family. Of course, the LDS version has some interesting extra rules (below).

So what's left?

To sum up somewhat (perhaps over-)simply, we have a version of Christianity that's even more exclusive than the vanilla version, wherein true Heaven is limited to a tiny fraction of the population, and to no-one who died prior to the last 200 years or so unless some living bloke finds thier records and does a proxy baptism for you... because, presumably God does not have a way around this glitch.

But, wait - there's a catch - we also have a multi-tiered Heaven where the only level in which you'll get to hang out with Jesus is the TOP level, and only accessible if you get married, and do it in an LDS temple building. Why, I'm not sure, given that Jesus wasn't married, at least as far as we know, so I don't see why this is the TOP level requirement. But I have my own idea as to how this odd rule came about, and it doesn't involve any sort of actual Godly input.

All of this comes to you, by the way, via a man who claimed that he was a prophet and knew universal truths. But he was still a man, nonetheless, and men are - inescapably - capable of error. He has subsequently been replaced by other men who have set up their own system of progression to call themselves up in ranks to perhaps also be a prophet if enough folks ahead of them in line keel over in time, although none of them has made any new doctrinal pronouncements anyway.

At this point, I'm not seeing that these are truths that I can stake my life on with certainty, stating that they came from God's mouth, given the odd requirement of deferring responsibility of and ability to receive your best possible eternal reward on some other random living fellow finding your 'records', or on needing to be married. And these don't address any aspect of interpersonal relationships or moral behaviors... I would ask any believer that if they did not know about any LDS truth claim, do they believe that their life would be lived any less sensibly or morally?

And if you've decided that you want or need to believe the two items above, (1) why do you accept their veracity as God-given truths, as opposed to possibly being nothing other than Joseph's creation? Or (2) why believe Joseph over any number of religious leaders who would not agree that being married in a temple and deploying secret handshakes is the only way to get into Heaven?

Nice post. Food for thought. I DO appreciate your "layer peeling". I've done my fair share of this too. From where you're sitting I can't fault you for the way you view things. You're one of those folks I'd love to sit down with and have a real life conversation. Thanks for you participation on this board. At least in my case, your input is highly valued and yes, even respected.

Believe it or not, I don't have any real qualms with what you've said here.

The divided kingdoms doctrine is obviously the foundation on which LDS doctrine is built. I was talking to my wife after church today and after our home teacher had been by to see us. We'd had an interesting discussion with him and after he left I asked her, "So hun, when all is said and done have you ever thought about what day to day life will be like in the celestial vs. the terrestrial kingdom...after all, we work so hard to get there...how will life be significantly different than living in the terrestrial kingdom? " She answered, "having babies"...somewhat in a joking way. "So in other respects, how would life be different?" So we came up with a few things like "creating" and "being with God"...and the like. And then I asked, "So what are all those billions of folks, the good and honest people of the earth, going to be doing on a day to day basis in the terrestrial kingdom if they're not doing all the creative and baby making duties?" Our conclusion was, "who knows?" LDS doctrine does create some conundrums for trying to speculate about the eternal "rewards" those folks in the terrestrial kingdom. And of course all those poor saps that go to the telestial kingdom belong there because they were well, just wicked, and they ALWAYS will be.

So, from a faithful perspective, there's just a lot we don't know and so we just don't think about it a lot. Well, some of us do.

Oh, in answer to your two questions:
1.why do you accept their veracity as God-given truths, as opposed to possibly being nothing other than Joseph's creation?

I don't. I've mentioned a number of times on this board...maybe previous to your engagement...that I look at the truth claims of Mormonism with open eyes and with the viewpoint of looking at things as either being possible/plausible/probable. And look at things accordingly. I've not thrown out the possibility that Joseph's "creations" are not also a composite and/or a reconstruction/redesign of existing 'truths' that were already in 'the mix' of human knowledge/understanding.

2. why believe Joseph over any number of religious leaders who would not agree that being married in a temple and deploying secret handshakes is the only way to get into Heaven?

At this point, and for a while now, my answer is in the fact that the Book of Mormon has yet to be explained away with finality. Yes, there are issues and problems that I am well aware of...but I'm not convinced that these issues and problems are 'deal breakers' although they are troublesome...I admit. New Testament in the Book of Mormon? What gives? Etc. But I've also tried to remain balanced in regards to those things that, for me, seem to point towards the Book of Mormon being something more than just...and only... a nineteenth century production. And there are some beautiful sections in the D&C that I've often asked myself "could these have had as their sole source, the mind of a man?" And I've remained open to the plausibility/possibility that they could be God inspired. Now...probable?...not sure on that one at times.

So I'm not too far removed from where your thinking takes you except for having remained on this side of the proverbial tracks, rather than the other. And that I have, and continue to remain open, to the concept/idea of a 'restoration of lost truths' and authority (temple custodians and proxy providers for the sealing powers to be operative/effective) that may play an integral, but largely unnoticed, part in 'God's plan' for larger humanity. Could it all be simply a well developed/constructed narrative/system created by man?

Sure. But not necessarily. I'm not convinced that there is only ONE default position to take...even though, and like I've said often here...I can see why others might think that there is.

Again, canpakes, thanks for your thoughts. I respect your POV.

Regards,
MG

[_Lolitsme]

Holland has absolutely nothing to say to those of us who no longer regard "scripture" as some unimpeachable, obviously true manifestation of the will of the putative Creator of the Universe.

I think he does have something to say. He is saying that you should trust the spirit over reason; In other words, he's explaining that he has serious epistemological differences, and that he thinks you should listen to the spirit over reason. I tend to agree with him. Some things cannot be known through logic. The divinity of Christ, the power of the atonement, these things are by their very nature un-provable, yet they are propositions that are either true or false. All of his "first level" beliefs fall into this category. The other levels are things that are verifiable, that can be looked at from a perspective of evidence, yet these are not core doctrines at all. Brigham Young viewed the creation accounts as mythical to a large extent. Joseph Smith didn't. Other GA's have not, but others have taken them much more figuratively. The bottom line is that we really don't understand these things, yet does that mean that other truths, which have been agreed upon both by all Prophets and Apostles and your own revelation are invalid? I think not. I'd be interested to see what first level beliefs Elder Holland mentioned that have been denied by other Prophets or Apostles. There probably are a few.

By the way also, infallibility has always been far from Mormon doctrine. You may want to read some historical documents if you don't know that. I understand your bitterness towards the Church. Sometimes I feel it now. Sometimes I wish the Church was more open to doubters and freethinkers like myself. Sometimes I wish Mormon Culture aligned more closely with Mormon doctrine, but I try to hold off my bitterness and angst no matter how hard it is, no matter how hard I just want to leave, because I feel like through it all I can make Mormonism a better place. If I just stay a bit longer, I can make that one comment in Gospel Doctrine that saves someone pain when they do begin reading historical documents and realizing nothing is as simple as it is made out to be, or establish that friendship that helps someone through hard times.

Just some thoughts, but Lol its just me, ignorant me

[_Kishkumen]

I think it is fine to trust faith regarding the issue of spiritual salvation. I don't think it is fine to trust faith when it comes to dating purportedly ancient documents. The former is much more important than the latter, so I am left wondering why everyone invests so much angst in the latter. Particularly those who demand that all Mormons aver something about the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham that does not square with the evidence.

[_cwald]

Doubt your doubts?

[_Lolitsme]

Doubt your doubts?

I am unsure of what you mean and whether that was a response to me? I think what you're saying is that at some time every skeptic must doubt his or her own skepticism? I completely agree, but I doubt I have enough information or objectivity to warrant such a move

Kishkumen: I think we disagree very little. I would just define faith differently. It seems that you define it as believing in that which there is little evidence for or against. I would define it as hoping or believing in things which are not seen which are true, as manifested by the power of the Holy Ghost. That being said, I think faith to some degree in your sense of the word is a necessity. I am not so arrogant as to think that I must be right and 99.5% of the world must be wrong with any high degree of certainty, particularly given the immense complexities of revelation.

Sincerely, Lolitsme

[_grindael]

By the way also, infallibility has always been far from Mormon doctrine. You may want to read some historical documents if you don't know that.

Prophetic infallibility (doctrinal infallibility) has ALWAYS been the essence of Mormon Doctrine. It is only Mormon apologists that deny this.

[_grindael]

If a person develops a faith/testimony in the first level truths then the other stuff becomes less of a burden...even though those second/third tier "truths" may cause a certain sense of ambiguity and a default position of having to accept the messiness of the human condition...even when it comes to religion building and/or restoration of a fullness of first level truths.

This is known as cognitive dissonance. It's like a pyramid scheme. On the surface it looks good, but you are always going to get screwed because it is unsustainable.