Leonard Arrington Testimony

[_beefcalf]

Will,

I hadn't remembered seeing the Faust talk before, so thanks for bringing it to my attention.

In reading your emphasized snippet, it did make me think of the shift that seems to have occurred in the ~160 years between 1850 and today. In 1851, Orson Pratt wrote this:

The Book of Mormon claims to be a divinely inspired record... If false, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions... if true, no one can possibly be saved and reject it: if false, no one can possibly be saved and receive it...
If, after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments on which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated....
But on the other hand, if investigation should prove the Book of Mormon true... the American and English nations... should utterly reject both the Popish and Protestant ministry, together with all the churches which have been built up by them or that have sprung from them, as being entirely destitute of authority...
(Orson Pratt's Works, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, Liverpool, 1851, pp. 1-2)

I have emphasized in this passage what I believe to be telltale markers of Pratt's faith in the foundations and doctrines of Mormonism. He is absolutely confident in his faith. So confident that he feels safe in admonishing people to investigate, to examine, to study.

Even as late as the 1950's, over one hundred years later, Joseph Fielding Smith seems to echo this sentiment of confidence that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will withstand any scrutiny a skeptic might bring to bear:

Mormonism must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a Prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead people, then he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false.
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1 pp 188-189.)...

In this quote, Smith does not explicitly invite the the skeptic to examine the truth claims of Mormonism, but that invitation is clearly implied.

Faust, in his 1986 address, seems to be recommending the opposite approach as his predecessors.

It is important for us to nurture such a simple, untroubled faith. I urge complete acceptance of the absolutes of our own faith. At the same time, I urge you not to be unduly concerned about the intricacies, the complexities, and any seeming contradictions that seem to trouble many of us. Sometimes we spend time satisfying our intellectual egos and trying to find all the answers before we accept any.

This quote quite clearly asks each of us not to investigate, not to consider, not to question.

Assuming you agree with me that these quotes truly represent a shift in emphasis over time, to what would you attribute this shift?

What prevailing conditions or causative events, in your estimation, might be the root cause of this shift?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Hey, I am a Leo Kottke fan. Saw him in Mpls a long time ago.

I guess you owe it all to Pamela Brown?

As you might have expected, he did, in fact, sing that song.

[_GR33N]

Faust, in his 1986 address, seems to be recommending the opposite approach as his predecessors.

It is important for us to nurture such a simple, untroubled faith. I urge complete acceptance of the absolutes of our own faith. At the same time, I urge you not to be unduly concerned about the intricacies, the complexities, and any seeming contradictions that seem to trouble many of us. Sometimes we spend time satisfying our intellectual egos and trying to find all the answers before we accept any.

This quote quite clearly asks each of us not to investigate, not to consider, not to question.

Assuming you agree with me that these quotes truly represent a shift in emphasis over time, to what would you attribute this shift?

What prevailing conditions or causative events, in your estimation, might be the root cause of this shift?

Urging you to not be unduly concerned about the details that would interfere with your faith in Christ doesn't equate to asking "each of us not to investigate, not to consider, not to question" in my opinion

[_Themis]

Urging you to not be unduly concerned about the details that would interfere with your faith in Christ doesn't equate to asking "each of us not to investigate, not to consider, not to question" in my opinion

Faust does not say faith in Christ. He is obviously talking about LDS faith in general, which involves more then just faith in Christ. in my opinion he is saying not to consider or question. He is asking for complete acceptance of the absolutes of our own Faith(LDS).

[_beefcalf]

Urging you to not be unduly concerned about the details that would interfere with your faith in Christ doesn't equate to asking "each of us not to investigate, not to consider, not to question" in my opinion

GR33N,

You don't see this as a fairly complete reversal of the earlier attitude that invited, even begged, people to examine Mormonism?

I urge you not to be unduly concerned about the intricacies, the complexities, and any seeming contradictions that seem to trouble many of us

If we investigate and find a contradiction, it seems that previous apostles were recommending that our findings be 'extensively published to the world'. Faust is recommending that we not be 'unduly concerned'.

It seems clear to me that this is a fundamental shift. Do you not agree?

[_GR33N]

GR33N,

You don't see this as a fairly complete reversal of the earlier attitude that invited, even begged, people to examine Mormonism?



If we investigate and find a contradiction, it seems that previous apostles were recommending that our findings be 'extensively published to the world'. Faust is recommending that we not be 'unduly concerned'.

It seems clear to me that this is a fundamental shift. Do you not agree?

Recommending that the principles of Mormonism be published and open to scrutiny is a separate concept compared to not allowing the personal results of that scrutiny to allow your foundation of faith to be shaken.

[_Morley]

GR33N,

You don't see this as a fairly complete reversal of the earlier attitude that invited, even begged, people to examine Mormonism?



If we investigate and find a contradiction, it seems that previous apostles were recommending that our findings be 'extensively published to the world'. Faust is recommending that we not be 'unduly concerned'.

It seems clear to me that this is a fundamental shift. Do you not agree?

Recommending that the principles of Mormonism be published and open to scrutiny is a separate concept compared to not allowing the personal results of that scrutiny to allow your foundation of faith to be shaken.

How so?

[_beefcalf]

GR33N,

You don't see this as a fairly complete reversal of the earlier attitude that invited, even begged, people to examine Mormonism?



If we investigate and find a contradiction, it seems that previous apostles were recommending that our findings be 'extensively published to the world'. Faust is recommending that we not be 'unduly concerned'.

It seems clear to me that this is a fundamental shift. Do you not agree?

Recommending that the principles of Mormonism be published and open to scrutiny is a separate concept compared to not allowing the personal results of that scrutiny to allow your foundation of faith to be shaken.

At the risk of being overbearing, GR33N, which is not my intention, I feel it is worth point out something that may not have been made clear in prior posts.

If, after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments on which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated....

The clause 'it should be extensively published' is not Pratt referring to the principles and doctrines of the LDS church. The clause is Pratt directing us that if we find problems with Mormonism, our critical results, our skeptical findings, should be published extensively.

There is no middle ground. If Joseph was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead people, then he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false.

In this quote, Smith is making a similar conditional recommendation. IF we investigate Mormonism, and IF we find that there are problems which lead us to conclude the foundations of Mormonism are unsound, THEN we are admonished to actively make these facts known unto the world.

This is obviously at odds with the later, modern approach forwarded by Faust. It is Faust's recommendation that we be not unduly troubled over 'seeming contradictions'.

If we are counseled to not be troubled by contradictions, for what purpose would we venture to seek what those contradictions might be? Well, obviously, no purpose at all. In telling us to keep our faith intact, and not allow ourselves to be troubled by 'complexities', he is implicitly but clearly recommending that we do not even begin the process of investigation.

That you have not previously come to this conclusion yourself is obviously due to a shortcoming on my part and the imprecision and awkwardness of my earlier line of argumentation. I am confident, however, that in laying out my case in this clear and lucid manner, you will most certainly be compelled henceforth to agree with my conclusions.

[_Themis]

In this quote, Smith is making a similar conditional recommendation. IF we investigate Mormonism, and IF we find that there are problems which lead us to conclude the foundations of Mormonism are unsound, THEN we are admonished to actively make these facts known unto the world.

Yet we have some like SB who say the opposite that we should not say anything. lol