Despite the rhetorical posturing of many critics of the Church, it does not excommunicate people for asking questions, much less for “thinking.” (Note the equally absurd implication that only critics and dissenters can be Mormon “intellectuals.”) Indeed, the Church was founded by a young boy asking questions. Asking questions is a very important path to greater light and knowledge. Nor does the Church excommunicate people for doubt. Part of the inevitable consequence of the human condition is uncertainty and ambiguity. This makes doubt the inevitable companion of faith: “I believe; help thou mine unbelief” (Mark 9:24). Doubt is not the opposite of faith; disbelief is the opposite of faith–or, as the the scriptures generally describe it, “unbelief.” Disbelief is the rejection of faith-claims of the Church: rejection of God; rejection of the divinity and atonement of Christ; rejection of the prophethood of Joseph Smith; rejection of the authenticity of his scripture; rejection of the authority of LDS priesthood. But the Church doesn’t even excommunicate members for disbelief. Many members of the Church disbelieve one or another of the Church’s claims while continuing in Church activity and membership. The problem that leads to possible excommunication is predatory disbelief–the open and public attempt to convince other members of the Church that they, too, should disbelieve its truth claims. If the Church is true, then predatory disbelief aims to destroy the eternal salvation of Church members. Clearly and publicly identifying predatory disbelievers is an obligation the Church has to its members.
I posted the following comment on his site, and to my great shock, it was censured:
As usual, Bill Hamblin sets up a strawman in order to brand John Dehlin as apostate. He asserts that "disbelief" is the opposite of faith, and therefore to actively promote disbelief, he sets up a new sin called "predatory disbelief" and then using this strawman, indicts the accused.
Belief and faith are distinct concepts, therefore "disbelief" cannot be the opposite of faith.
According to Alma, faith requires three things:
1. An explicit understanding that we do not have knowledge of a thing. Although Alma starts by saying it isn't to have perfect knowledge, he notes that if we know something, we don't have 'faith' in it, because we know.
2. Faith is to hope for something, ultimately impelling us to action: a test on faith. The epistle of James goes further to distinguish faith as requiring action.
3. The thing in which we have faith must be 'true'.
Belief is the emotional assertion of certainty: an epistemological claim that something is 'true' to me, and differs in three ways from faith:
1. Belief asserts something without distinction as to whether I know it. IN fact, in LDS terms, we don't say "I believe", but we are taught to say "I KNOW". This explicitly denies the idea that I can hope for something without belief in it - an essential ingredient of faith.
2. Belief is passive. It requires no action, indeed, action may be irrelevant to believe. James said the "devils believe, and tremble."
3. Belief makes no requirement that the thing believed is indeed true.
There is much in the LDS faith that is uplifting and holy, but to believe in things that are false is not one of them. One can argue that "false" is a relative term, but in some cases, it's pretty absolute: the Book of Abraham is simply not a translation of a papyrus that Abraham made with his own hand no matter what we might believe. The facts are absolute in the contrary. And I'm not here to debate this: Bill and his merry band of self-appointed "interpreters of Mormon scripture" have performed stellar mental gymnastics on this topic. They don't change the facts.
Therefore, to believe that the Book of Abraham is a true translation of a papyrus by the hand of abraham is not faith, it is simply to believe a false thing. Faith cannot be in a false thing. I can "believe" that the book of abraham is somehow inspired, but this is a separate claim, and unprovable: therefore as it cannot be known objectively if it is inspired, we can accept the Book of Abraham on faith, not knowing, and acting on its principles. If the principles are true, and we believe they are, then this is "Faith".
Going a step further, the process of determining which assertions in our faith schema are false, and then rebuilding faith based upon truth, is what we might call "Faith reconstruction", which is what John Dehlin, I, and others strongly advocate. Faith reconstruction requires first deconstructing faith, much in the same way Decartes rejected all of his priori knowledge assertions in order to build a new schema.
In the process of faith reconstruction, we often may say things that can be shocking to those who base their faith on the literal schemata of the church. Do not confuse this with any attempt to 'destroy faith'. On the contrary, when we teach falsehoods as literally true, we create the grounds for shattered faith when the new convert or child grows up and finds out the truth.
to teach the truth, that specific claims are either false or epistemologically unjustified, is simply to help us all arrive at true faith, based upon the sure foundation of the Way, the Truth, and the Life. By Hamblin's definition, Jesus was a preditory disbeliever in the false beliefs and practices of the true and authorized church of his day, ever reminding us that the self-appointed "interpreters of jewish scripture" had it all wrong.
you have to hand it to the "interpreters of Mormon scripture": if disagreeing with mopologists isn't a sin, then let's invent one. Maybe Bill censured my comment because of the "merry band" comment...
