Wednesday, February 01, 2012

Post Piece on Mormons and Rebuttal

I read this Washington Post article and enjoyed the rebuttal (thanks to Anna's post on Facebook).  The Post piece's negativity about the Church probably says as much about the writer as it does about those of whom she complains.  I believe in ultimate Truth.  But it can be elusive.  See my Twain quote in the sidebar.  Not infrequently the accepted "truth" of the day turns out to have been wrong after additional scholarship appears.  The recent scholarship on the DNA of the native Americans is a case in point:  I didn't worry when the original reports came out that there was no link to the Jews; and I won't base my testimony on the new finding of connections among tribes in the New York area.  I find it all interesting.

There's much that I can't explain, so I set it aside and figure someday I'll understand -- or not.  Worst case, if there is no hereafter, if it was all bologna, I'll be out some tithing, but otherwise will have lived a better, happier and more fulfilling life by having strived to live according to Church teachings and through my Church service and associations.  When I was teaching the Gospel Doctrine Sunday School Class in college, one lesson in the manual discussed the question of whether the prophet Isaiah wrote all of the Book of Isaiah or whether other writers wrote part of it.  Soon after I began the lesson, straight out of the manual, Bishop Pratt raised his hand and asked:  "Does it matter?"  It messed up my lesson, but I never forgot his lesson.  Most of the "mysteries" that I can't explain or the apparent contradictions really are irrelevant to the question of how I should live.

I haven't had a problem with much of the counsel of Church leaders during the last forty years or so since I started paying more attention.  It's clear that the Christian (not just Mormon) believer must exercise a "leap of faith" -- it's part of Biblical Christian doctrine.  (I liked Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" when I read it years ago.)  I am inspired by C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity."  I even notice plausible answers to the "mysteries" in Hawking's theories of the universe.  But I simply don't worry about the doctrinal (or historical) issues that I can't understand or that don't seem to make sense.  Some day I'll understand -- or I won't.  Either way, it doesn't concern me now.

6 comments:

Anna said...

And furthermore, if it doesn't take faith, then it isn't virtuous or worthy. I mean, if we know conclusively that the Hopewells are descendents of the Israelites then there is no faith involoved. I truly believe that there has to opposition in all things, especially faith related things. Joseph Smith was a prophet, but he certainly made some seemingly huge mistakes. The paradox of Joseph Smith requires faith. And that is the beauty of our entire religion. No one can "know" but they can have faith and hope. Right? (I wish we would bag the language of "I know the church is true" for "I believe the church is true")

Bill Hastings said...

And then there's Pascal's wager.

Whitney said...

I haven't read those articles yet but should. Love your relaxed and reasonable approach. I quoted you in my RS lesson on Sunday (the part about if you're wrong, you'll be out some tithing but will have lived a happier life, etc.) because it was about testimony and tied in with a statement from George Albert Smith about how the happiest people live in accordance with the gospel.

Whitney said...

P.S. What's Pascal's wager?

Bill Hastings said...

No one can prove God's existence, but one must wager that he is or that he isn't (and live accordingly). If you wager that he is and are right, you gain everything. If you are wrong, you lose nothing. The opposite is obvious -- you bet God doesn't exist: if you're right, you gain nothing; if wrong, you lose everything.

Liz said...

I enjoyed reading your thoughts. I've been reading quite a bit of stuff on line--a consequence of the current political climate--and have been disheartened to read so much that is simply wrong and misrepresentative. I like what you said, and I agree. Some things simply have to be left on the back burner. I don't understand--yet--is an acceptable answer for some questions. What I do understand is enough for now. Thanks for sharing.