Hello from the FAIR Conference

[_huckelberry]

Wade, I gave some thought to your observation comparing need for certainty vs other needs such as love and respect. Thanks for the constructive reply.

I do find myself thinking that the comparison could work out in a variety of ways. That would be the reason a questionaire could be useful. It might help a person take a step back and reevaluate. It is entirely possible that a person is overvaluing certainty. I have noticed that life is full of important things about which there is no certainty. To marry a person must walk over a big uncertainity in order to sieze to possiblity of something valuable. I was momentarily amused thinking that even arranging a first date has this same problem. A first date has much smaller potential dangers(unless one is so certainty fixated as to fear marriage and marital disaster lurks behind each first date, come to think of they do) but the unknown dimension in a first date is much larger. Between these two events there is a growth of knowledge moving in the relative direction of certainty. I thing there is high value in that relative movement even if completely certainty is always out of reach.

I did have a passing thought that LDS speaking emphasis getting or being certain in faith more than other Christian groups I am familiar with. It might not help to make to much of that. I think your comments are focused on the observation that acting in persuity of other values, love etc, can move one closer to relatively more certainty provided certanity is not such an exaggurated value as to take rule alone.

I might add that to much attachment to certainity might inhibit exploration and learning experiences. It could inhibit someone learning more about faith in the LDS church. It might inhibit somebody else from discovering what lies outside. Afer all there is no certainity that I know of that the LDS church is not true.

[_wenglund]

Wade, I gave some thought to your observation comparing need for certainty vs other needs such as love and respect. Thanks for the constructive reply.

I do find myself thinking that the comparison could work out in a variety of ways. That would be the reason a questionaire could be useful. It might help a person take a step back and reevaluate. It is entirely possible that a person is overvaluing certainty. I have noticed that life is full of important things about which there is no certainty. To marry a person must walk over a big uncertainity in order to sieze to possiblity of something valuable. I was momentarily amused thinking that even arranging a first date has this same problem. A first date has much smaller potential dangers(unless one is so certainty fixated as to fear marriage and marital disaster lurks behind each first date, come to think of they do) but the unknown dimension in a first date is much larger. Between these two events there is a growth of knowledge moving in the relative direction of certainty. I thing there is high value in that relative movement even if completely certainty is always out of reach.

I did have a passing thought that LDS speaking emphasis getting or being certain in faith more than other Christian groups I am familiar with. It might not help to make to much of that. I think your comments are focused on the observation that acting in persuity of other values, love etc, can move one closer to relatively more certainty provided certanity is not such an exaggurated value as to take rule alone.

I might add that too much attachment to certainity might inhibit exploration and learning experiences. It could inhibit someone learning more about faith in the LDS church. It might inhibit somebody else from discovering what lies outside. Atfer all there is no certainity that I know of that the LDS church is not true.

I very much appreciate it when someone not only thoughtfully considers what I have said, and is accepting and respectful of it (whether they agree completely or not), but also when they are able to expound upon my comments in ways I didn't, and perhaps even in ways I had not considered. Your dating and marriage example was quite intellectually tasty and satisfying. You made my day!

If it is of any consolation, I have mentioned several times here and on other boards, that while my confidence in the restored gospel of Christ continues to grow, I remain open to other faith traditions. And, while that openness may likely not result in a change in Church membership, it is not uncommon for me to find welcomed spiritual enlightenment in the way other faith traditions view and interpret and practice certain scriptures and spiritual things. For example, an LDS friend and I recently spoke about how our familiarity with Eastern religions was instramental in helping us to better understand aspects of our own faith, not the least of which is the instructional methodology within Church symbols and rituals such as with the sacrament and certain temple ceremonies. I am also inspired by the charitable dedication of religions like the Salvation Army, and moved by the loving moral activism of Catholic and Evangelical neighbors and friends.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I agree that there is a connection between our beliefs and our needs and desires, so I've made up my own questionnaire:

1. Do you need to be told you are special often?

2. Do you need a set of commandments and rules to obey in order to feel like a moral creature?

3. Do you need to be interviewed, pronounced worthy, and given a little card saying so?

4. Do you worry that you won't be with your family in eternity if you don't go to the temple and make official arrangements?

5. Do you need to be right?

If you've answered any of these questions "yes," Mormonism may be the religion for you!

With the exception of LDS-specific portions of some of your questions (such as "little cards", "family in eternity", and "temple"), a "yes" answer to your questions may lend itself to belief in a broad range of faith traditions--including anti-Mormonism. ;-)

It also may work in regards to secular organizations or institutions--for example, answering "yes" to the generic portions of your questions may mean that the public school system is a good place for you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It sounds like you are saying that our unrighteous, unhealthy, or trivial needs/desires can work to keep us out of the church, but that the same could ever work to keep us in the church is not to be taken seriously. In other words, Wendy's FAIR presentation was designed to reassure believers that disbelievers disbelieve because of their personal flaws. Is this a fair summation of this thread?

[_wenglund]

I agree that there is a connection between our beliefs and our needs and desires, so I've made up my own questionnaire:

1. Do you need to be told you are special often?

2. Do you need a set of commandments and rules to obey in order to feel like a moral creature?

3. Do you need to be interviewed, pronounced worthy, and given a little card saying so?

4. Do you worry that you won't be with your family in eternity if you don't go to the temple and make official arrangements?

5. Do you need to be right?

If you've answered any of these questions "yes," Mormonism may be the religion for you!

With the exception of LDS-specific portions of some of your questions (such as "little cards", "family in eternity", and "temple"), a "yes" answer to your questions may lend itself to belief in a broad range of faith traditions--including anti-Mormonism. ;-)

It also may work in regards to secular organizations or institutions--for example, answering "yes" to the generic portions of your questions may mean that the public school system is a good place for you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It sounds like you are saying that our unrighteous, unhealthy, or trivial needs/desires can work to keep us out of the church, but that the same could ever work to keep us in the church is not to be taken seriously. In other words, Wendy's FAIR presentation was designed to reassure believers that disbelievers disbelieve because of their personal flaws. Is this a fair summation of this thread?

I am not sure you could have gotten it any more wrong. No mention was made by me or Wendy of unrighteous, unhealthy, or trivial needs, nor any mention of what may or may not keep people in or out of the Church, let alone unbelief being a function of "personal flaws", reasuringly or otherwise. Where you got all this from is anyone's guess--your projective imagination perhaps?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-