kjones wrote:If you polled the entire faculty and student body of the Harvard Divinity School (excepting faculty member Dr. David Holland, who is believing LDS, in fact I think he is a serving s.p.) — if you polled the entire faculty and student body, how many do you think would say they believe in the divinity of Christ and the Resurrection? Probably not many.
What gives you that idea? Or did you just pull this from the place you think is your elbow?
kjones wrote:If you polled the entire faculty and student body of the Harvard Divinity School (excepting faculty member Dr. David Holland, who is believing LDS, in fact I think he is a serving s.p.) — if you polled the entire faculty and student body, how many do you think would say they believe in the divinity of Christ and the Resurrection? Probably not many.
What gives you that idea? Or did you just pull this from the place you think is your elbow?
Sounds like a great research question. And we could answer two different questions at the same time by doing this. One group would conduct the research using standard polling methods and the second group could conduct the same research using the exact same methods and respondents while also applying their "faith" to the study. Afterwards we could compare the results of both groups and see for sure how many Harvard Dimity School members believe in Christ and the Resurrection and also show that faith base research had absolutely no effect on the study. Two birds with one stone so to speak.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
kjones wrote:If you polled the entire faculty and student body of the Harvard Divinity School (excepting faculty member Dr. David Holland, who is believing LDS, in fact I think he is a serving s.p.) — if you polled the entire faculty and student body, how many do you think would say they believe in the divinity of Christ and the Resurrection? Probably not many.
First, not all the faculty and students are Christian. The level of belief is going to vary quite a bit between the faculty and student body. I would guess that 1/3 to 1/2 of the faculty are atheist or agnostic. Most that are christian believers have a very nuanced theology. I would say less than 20% are what an American would call a traditional Bible believing Christian.
I was a very devout Mormon when I first started taking classes at HDS. I wasn't when I left.
kjones wrote:If you polled the entire faculty and student body of the Harvard Divinity School (excepting faculty member Dr. David Holland, who is believing LDS, in fact I think he is a serving s.p.) — if you polled the entire faculty and student body, how many do you think would say they believe in the divinity of Christ and the Resurrection? Probably not many.
What gives you that idea? Or did you just pull this from the place you think is your elbow?
I don't know what the results of such a poll would be, however I found this interesting:
Austin Farrer: "Though argument does not create conviction, 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." (Austin Farrer, Light on C. S. Lewis, Jocelyn Gibb, ed. [New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1966], p. 26.)
Just as "rational argument" does not create faith, study and research alone cannot be used to sustain it. This is why the scriptures say that the ideal way to learn is "by study and faith".
This is all that I am saying, and I think Elder Oaks was saying something similar.
kjones wrote:Just as "rational argument" does not create faith, study and research alone cannot be used to sustain it. This is why the scriptures say that the ideal way to learn is "by study and faith".
This is all that I am saying, and I think Elder Oaks was saying something similar.
No. Oaks was suggesting that members with doubts drop the "study" part of learning about the Church and it's history.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
kjones wrote:Just as "rational argument" does not create faith, study and research alone cannot be used to sustain it. This is why the scriptures say that the ideal way to learn is "by study and faith".
This is all that I am saying, and I think Elder Oaks was saying something similar.
No. Oaks was suggesting that members with doubts drop the "study" part of learning about the Church and it's history.
To be fair here is what Oaks said.
He acknowledged that some Latter-Saint couples face conflicts over important values and priorities. Matters of Church history and doctrinal issues have led some spouses to inactivity. Some spouses wonder how to best go about researching and responding to such issues. “I suggest that research is not the answer,” he said. The Church does offer answers to many familiar questions through its Gospel Topics Essays found at LDS.org. “But the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said. “Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church. And conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study and service, furthered by loving patience on the part of spouse and other concerned family members.”
So Oaks is drawing a distinction between research and study, which I interpret to mean, based on his recommendation to go to Church websites for information, is to avoid learning stuff on your own (research) and stick to reading (or studying) what the church has produced. It really is the same old tired message.
"Trust us to tell you what to study and avoid learning stuff on your own."
In effect what is happening is Oaks is telling the uninformed spouse not to look into problematic historical or doctrinal issues on their own, because he knows that the faithful spouse will discover the doubting spouse has good cause for their questions. Instead Oaks wants the faithful spouse to go to a bunch of prepared bland anonymous essays that the church itself has put together in the hopes of plugging finger sized holes in the Titanic. Unfortunately if the doubting spouse is even mildly well informed, these essays are almost useless and in many cases are going to expose the faithful spouse to more damaging information they may not be aware of to begin with.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
