I don’t think trying to force someone to choose is how Jesus goes about things. His approach seemed to be more about attraction than tricking people into believing Him. Joseph, on the other hand, repeatedly cornered people with authority claims and secrecy.
Here’s one for you Limnor - in 1986 the current President of the Church (an Apostle back in 1986) made the following statement during a talk to students, which he tried to explain in a subsequent interview.
I also said something else that has excited people: that it’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true, because it diminishes their effectiveness as a servant of the Lord. One can work to correct them by some other means, but don’t go about saying that they misbehaved when they were a youngster or whatever. Well, of course, that sounds like religious censorship also.
He also said
“Not everything that’s true is useful,” and that [meant] “was useful to say or to publish.”
I hadn’t seen the first part of that quote. Essentially this says truth must be silenced to preserve authority.
What protects conscience? Nothing, apparently. You must learn to squelch your own conscience.
So now I’m wondering—is there a requirement to squelch conscience to affirm the Abrahamic sacrifice story?
In fact, you could almost extend this to Job’s friends—they essentially were telling Job his moral intuition was wrong because it contradicted their theology.
On the other hand, though, I think you can find a lot of good things in C.S. Lewis's writings, even if you have to doubt their authority and recognise outright errors. Just as his di- or trilemma was a false dilemma, so also his own work can have a lot of good in it without being all wrong or all right.
I don’t think trying to force someone to choose is how Jesus goes about things. His approach seemed to be more about attraction than tricking people into believing Him. Joseph, on the other hand, repeatedly cornered people with authority claims and secrecy.
Although he did teach this: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." -11th Article of Faith.
Also in a discourse from July 9, 1843, he expressed his commitment to defending the rights of all individuals, saying, "I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist or a good man of any other denomination."
I don’t think trying to force someone to choose is how Jesus goes about things. His approach seemed to be more about attraction than tricking people into believing Him. Joseph, on the other hand, repeatedly cornered people with authority claims and secrecy.
Although he did teach this: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." -11th Article of Faith.
Also in a discourse from July 9, 1843, he expressed his commitment to defending the rights of all individuals, saying, "I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist or a good man of any other denomination."
Although he did teach this: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." -11th Article of Faith.
Also in a discourse from July 9, 1843, he expressed his commitment to defending the rights of all individuals, saying, "I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist or a good man of any other denomination."
Regards,
Fibber
Fibber,
It is a fascinating bit of historical irony, isn't it? On paper, Joseph was the ultimate champion of individual liberty and free agency, in practice, that liberty often seemed to end where his own personal sexual interests began. While Joseph was busy offering to die for the rights of a Baptist, he was busy coercing dozens of women and girls into sexual relationships. For many of these women, some as young as 14, the "dictates of conscience" were replaced by Joseph’s threats of eternal damnation, public slander/libel and/or promises of salvation for their entire families only if they complied. Praise to the man!
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
Although he did teach this: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." -11th Article of Faith.
Also in a discourse from July 9, 1843, he expressed his commitment to defending the rights of all individuals, saying, "I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist or a good man of any other denomination."
Regards,
Fibber
Fibber,
It is a fascinating bit of historical irony, isn't it? On paper, Joseph was the ultimate champion of individual liberty and free agency, in practice, that liberty often seemed to end where his own personal sexual interests began. While Joseph was busy offering to die for the rights of a Baptist, he was busy coercing dozens of women and girls into sexual relationships. For many of these women, some as young as 14, the "dictates of conscience" were replaced by Joseph’s threats of eternal damnation, public slander/libel and/or promises of salvation for their entire families only if they complied. Praise to the man!
And if they then did not turn around and comply, Joseph Smith slandered them viciously.....
Although he did teach this: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." -11th Article of Faith.
Also in a discourse from July 9, 1843, he expressed his commitment to defending the rights of all individuals, saying, "I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist or a good man of any other denomination."
I don’t think that’s dogmatism so much as acknowledging agency. Saying someone can choose to be tricked isn’t the same as declaring what must be true—it’s just noting that trust can persist even when warning signs are visible. Dogmatism would be insisting that one must draw the same conclusion I do.
Dogmatism - the tendency to lay down principles as undeniably true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others. Sounds familiar...
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I've observed a lot of Mormons who seem happy - anxious, even - to allow a virtual stranger to tell them how to be a husband and father, a wife and mother. Some not only allow the bishop to tell them what to do, and how to do it: they invite him or require him to do so. The bishop is the shepherd of the flock, and knows what's best for them, or so they believe. They tell him all sorts of intimate things about themselves and their families, confess their "deviances", ask for guidance which he is ill-equipped to give, but he gives it anyway as he feels inspired to. He is responsible for all of this because his god has decided that he's the best man to do the job.
Could you see yourself as not only a Reverend, but as a Bishop?
I could not see myself as an LDS bishop. My dad threatened to take up smoking when an outgoing branch president told him he was going to be next. I think he had the right idea.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
I've observed a lot of Mormons who seem happy - anxious, even - to allow a virtual stranger to tell them how to be a husband and father, a wife and mother. Some not only allow the bishop to tell them what to do, and how to do it: they invite him or require him to do so. The bishop is the shepherd of the flock, and knows what's best for them, or so they believe. They tell him all sorts of intimate things about themselves and their families, confess their "deviances", ask for guidance which he is ill-equipped to give, but he gives it anyway as he feels inspired to. He is responsible for all of this because his god has decided that he's the best man to do the job.
Could you see yourself as not only a Reverend, but as a Bishop?
I could not see myself as an LDS bishop. My dad threatened to take up smoking when an outgoing branch president told him he was going to be next. I think he had the right idea.
If only I had had your dad's wisdom ...
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
