Scott Gordon: Mormons Can Believe Whatever They Want

[_DrW]

Do they ask in a temple recommend interview if you believe in the Book of Mormon? I believe all they ask is whether or not you believe in the restored gospel. I would say it is possible to believe in the restored gospel before you receive a testimony of the Book of Mormon. All members are at varying stages in their testimonies especially those who are born and raised in the church. So if a person has not gained a testimony the Book of Mormon is historical, but believes it is valid scripture it seems like they would be in good standing. It seems to me the general principle would be to testify about what you believe in and be quiet about the rest.

I understand what you are saying. But do you have any idea what it sounds like to someone who is not LDS (or more significantly, some one who was LDS)?

What you are saying is that, in order to be a true Mormon, one must convince themselves that a 19th century con man and adulterer was chosen of God to "translate" the contents of Golden Plates, which were not actually used in the translation process, (for good reason - because they never existed).

These folks have to convince themselves that, in spite of wholesale copying from the KJ Bible, and the many anachronisms and fatal chronological problems with Isaiah, Joseph Smiths later fraud, polyandry, and his public lies in denying that he had multiple wives, this man did indeed translate a historical record of the pre-Columbian population in the New World.

They must ignore the fact that there is so much evidence against this narrative that mainstream science won't touch it with a ten foot pole. In spite of all this, they really have to believe that Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon is historical so that they can have the privilege of spending endless hours in boring Sunday meetings and donating a large proportion of their disposable income to a tax exempt business.

You seem to believe that this is a worthy goal and the relatively few folks who achieve it have really achieved something.

You will understand if I do not agree.

I strongly believe that God writes straight with crooked lines. God could even use Mormonism as a way to draw someone closer to Christ. For example, I know a lot of Mormons who reject some aspect of traditional Trinitarianism and prefer a lay leadership. And yet they accept the atonement and the resurrection. Somehow the restoration of the gospel rings true to them. They may never accept what some Mormons have in regards to the Book of Mormon, but can still believe in Mormonism based on what they see as the fruits of the restoration. Those fruits may indeed convince them that it is worthwhile paying tithing and attending what others might see as boring meetings. To them the adventure of Mormonism is exciting and perhaps that makes the rest exciting as well! The opportunity to serve others and enjoy the fellowship within the LDS Church may make it worthwhile for them to keep seeking a testimony of the Book of Mormon even though they never get the traditional testimony that others receive.[/quote]
BartBurk,

Here is the difference between you and me - between a religionist and a secularist.

Your worldview is based on unfounded belief and your imagination. There is no physical evidence to back up your religious beliefs and therefore they are no more valid than those of the FLDS, or for that matter, the Muslims among whom I live. You worldview is inconsistent and self contradictory because it is not based on evidence. It has no grounding. It is whatever you or those you follow can feel or imagine. Look at the whoppers Joseph Smith made up as he went along inventing Mormonism in the first place.

The worldview of the secular is based on physical evidence, and while there are any number of variations, one can always check their worldview against evidence. Secularists don't labor under false concepts about the age of the earth, the ascent of man, the curse of cain, the role of women. They don't have to make up excuses for the bad behavior of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or Paul Dunn or Gordon Hinkley or continually choose between faith and fact.

[_BartBurk]

Here is the difference between you and me - between a religionist and a secularist.

Your worldview is based on unfounded belief and your imagination. There is no physical evidence to back up your religious beliefs and therefore they are no more valid than those of the FLDS, or for that matter, the Muslims among whom I live. You worldview is inconsistent and self contradictory because it is not based on evidence. It has no grounding. It is whatever you or those you follow can feel or imagine. Look at the whoppers Joseph Smith made up as he went along inventing Mormonism in the first place.

The worldview of the secular is based on physical evidence, and while there are any number of variations, one can always check their worldview against evidence. Secularists don't labor under false concepts about the age of the earth, the ascent of man, the curse of cain, the role of women. They don't have to make up excuses for the bad behavior of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or Paul Dunn or Gordon Hinkley or continually choose between faith and fact.

[/quote]

All the secularist has to do is try to justify the behavior of a Stalin or a Hitler -- that's where it seems to always lead. Once you remove God from the equation everything is justifiable. That doesn't mean those who believe in God are always good at doing the right thing either (see Iran), but democracy seems to thrive more in Judeo-Christian nations where God is believed to be the source of our rights rather than rights deriving from the politicians in power at the moment. That has always been the strength of the American experiment where God is recognized as the source of our rights, but a state church is banned. It even has room for secularists who don't believe at all.

[_BartBurk]

Folks, you could believe anything you wanted in the Soviet Union under Stalin, you just had to keep quite about it. LDS Apologetics, holding Mormons and GA's to the high standards of Stalinism since 2011.

It does seem right to me that in order to be a member of a voluntary organization you might want to at least not try to undermine the beliefs of the voluntary organization.

[_Chap]

...
All the secularist has to do is try to justify the behavior of a Stalin or a Hitler -- that's where it seems to always lead.

Yes ... YES!!! YES!!!! Oh, YES!!!!!!

Now it has all come out in public, further concealment is useless, and I shall be out there massacring people as soon as I can get an atheist mob together!

(Could I have your address please, and a note of your movements in the next couple of days?)

Once you remove God from the equation everything is justifiable. ...

One of the things that shocked Jesuit missionaries when they arrived in China around 1600 was that fact that in their terms the Chinese governing elite appeared to be effectively atheist.

And yet, again in comparison with the Europe of their day, China seemed to be a well-governed and orderly country, with a conscientious and thoughtful ruling class highly concerned with moral action. The best the Jesuits could do was, in effect, to claim that China had anciently possessed a knowledge of their deity from the light of nature, but had forgotten it. Oddly enough, very few educated Chinese with whom the Jesuits interacted turned out to find the Christian revelation very interesting ...

There are, and always have been, decent people outside the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, and indeed outside all theistic traditions. There have been monsters within it. You will find it quite hard to dissect either theism or atheism away from its historical context and ascribe good or evil qualities to belief or disbelief alone in a convincing way.

[_Buffalo]

I'm always amused when religionists try to conflate secularism with Marxism. What made Marxism so deadly was its slavish duplication of the worst traits of Abrahamic religions (grand purpose, idea that the cause is worth more than the lives of individuals, ultimate triumph over evil, founding prophetic figure, etc).

[_Carton]

Over on MD&D, there is a thread with the following title:

You Can Believe Whatever You Want, You Just Can't Teach It

The OP (by Libs) reads as follows:

I just finished listening to Scott Gordon, John Dehlin & Rosemary Avance, participating in a discussion panel at UVU (very interesting discussion, by the way). Scott Gordon made a statement that kind of surprised me, and so I wanted to bring it here and see what you all thought about it, and how exactly this might work, in reality.

The statement was, something to the effect that you can believe whatever you want, in the church, you just cannot teach it. He further said, that you can even believe the Book of Mormon is not literal, and still be a member in good standing. I took that to mean you can believe the Book of Mormon is not literal history. This statement caught my interest because my own belief about the Book of Mormon leans in that direction. I do believe the book is inspired, but I'm not sure it is true history.

The problem I see, with holding that kind of view, and maintaining activity in the church is that, if you can hold the view, but not "teach it" (I would assume, not speak it), wouldn't that put one in a position of potentially having to lie? I was trying to remember if there was anything asked in the Temple recommend interview, about the Book of Mormon, that would cause one to have to lie, if their views were a bit unorthodox?

Comments?

Here is a link to the actual discussion:

http://www.mormondia...entry1209119207

Is this yet another evolving principle of the Gospel?

Is belief in the Book of Mormon no longer required to be considered a faithful member of the LDS Church?

If such belief is not required, then why waste so much credibility and good will insisting that the Book of Mormon is historical?

Is this where the Mopologists are trying to take the LDS Church?

If there are any Universal Unitarians out there, would you care to comment?

Mopologetics is the philosophy of the worst ark-steadiers out there. They should all be excommunicated as apostates.

[_Carton]

There is a great thread going at MDD, and cinepro made a fabulous post yesterday.

[_madeleine]

Over on MD&D, there is a thread with the following title:

You Can Believe Whatever You Want, You Just Can't Teach It

Is this yet another evolving principle of the Gospel?

Is belief in the Book of Mormon no longer required to be considered a faithful member of the LDS Church?

If such belief is not required, then why waste so much credibility and good will insisting that the Book of Mormon is historical?

Is this where the Mopologists are trying to take the LDS Church?

If there are any Universal Unitarians out there, would you care to comment?

I guess I"m wondering why anyone would want to belong to an organization in which they don't really subscribe to what is taught by that organization. Seems odd.

[_madeleine]

...
All the secularist has to do is try to justify the behavior of a Stalin or a Hitler -- that's where it seems to always lead.

Yes ... YES!!! YES!!!! Oh, YES!!!!!!

Now it has all come out in public, further concealment is useless, and I shall be out there massacring people as soon as I can get an atheist mob together!

(Could I have your address please, and a note of your movements in the next couple of days?)

Once you remove God from the equation everything is justifiable. ...

One of the things that shocked Jesuit missionaries when they arrived in China around 1600 was that fact that in their terms the Chinese governing elite appeared to be effectively atheist.

And yet, again in comparison with the Europe of their day, China seemed to be a well-governed and orderly country, with a conscientious and thoughtful ruling class highly concerned with moral action. The best the Jesuits could do was, in effect, to claim that China had anciently possessed a knowledge of their deity from the light of nature, but had forgotten it. Oddly enough, very few educated Chinese with whom the Jesuits interacted turned out to find the Christian revelation very interesting ...

There are, and always have been, decent people outside the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, and indeed outside all theistic traditions. There have been monsters within it. You will find it quite hard to dissect either theism or atheism away from its historical context and ascribe good or evil qualities to belief or disbelief alone in a convincing way.

uh what? One thing the RC church struggled with in China in the early 1600's was the syncretic mix of pagan practices, specifically, offerings to the Emperor and ancestors. At the ending of the Ming dynasty, the Jesuits were given a choice by the Emperor to accept Confuscian and ancestral rites, or get deported. They were deported.

[_MCB]

One thing the RC church struggled with in China in the early 1600's was the syncretic mix of pagan practices, specifically, offerings to the Emperor and ancestors.

Deification of the ruling leader or elite, or ancestors, in the absence of an external God, leads to exploitation of the masses.

Oh----wait----