Restornu:
I’m not a potential convert to LDS, if that’s what you mean, and I apologize if you implicitly understood my curiosity to stem from such a potential.
As the thread states, LDS asserts itself to be a Christian denomination, and, like any sincere belief system, its inherents believe it to be the most correct (which is why I find the brouhaha about Pope Benedict’s recent assertions to be so preposterous).
Here’s my agenda: Are LDS followers inherently anti-rational? Is there any point to ecumenical dialog? Can I trust a Mormon president to think rationally? As I pointed out much earlier, the LDS seems nonsensical, but appealingly nice. Part of me has wanted to say “well, maybe it doesn’t make any sense to them either, but some part of them figures that a naive trusting in kindness is a requirement for salvation” After all, Jesus *did* say that “unless you become as these children, you shall not inherit the kingdom.” But, gosh, that seems awfully condescending of me.
If there’s a case to be made that LDS is sensical, even if I don’t subscribe to their beliefs, I can accept a Mormon as President as easily as I can accept a Protestant. If LDS is nonsensical, but y’all don’t claim rationalism as a means of wisdom, then I can accept y’all are capable of reason, but focus on love more, so that you don’t let intellectualism stifle love. I don’t believe those two should be at cross purposes, but I can respect the Mormon resolution of the apparent but nonexisting dilemma far more readily than I can accept the Marxists’, Rationalists’, Utilitarians’, and Objectivists’ resolution.
But the third option, frankly, scares me: that Mormons do value rationalism, but refuse to acknowledge that their faith is not rationalist, and thus are incapable of rational thought. The gentleness of most Mormons, while not being inconsistent with this, does not support this conclusion. (Many others in this categorically are decidedly non-gentle: Soviets, Nazis, Islamofascists, Maoists; others are gentle while conditions are favorable, at least: neopagans, deconstructionists, etc.). But there are other slight hints: the unusually high suicide rates among Mormons, for instance. (And please let me emphasize that Mormons are far more virtuous than the others I’ve placed into this category!!!)
I’ve been trying to see if anyone will accept being nudged from Category 3 into Category 2. It seems Colorcountry is arguing that Mormons should accept this nudge, but is regarded as a heretic. It seems that Elsie might also accept this. But at least several of you seem stridently resistant, firmly believing you are in fact in the first category.
I left something a little ambiguous which I should correct: I have also certainly been testing to see if, in fact, Mormonism belongs in the first category I mentioned: Reasonable, even if not convincingly correct. The failure of anyone to objectively define “testimony of the Holy Ghost” has frustrated any attempts to do so, much to discredit in my eyes those who refer to it.
“Are LDS followers inherently anti-rational?”
We believe in applying ourselves to understanding things as best we can using reason and logic. The church encourages getting as much education as possible and has programs to help members in poorer countries get better education. We however recognize that there are limits to what objective reasoning can accomplish (especialy in the areas of religion), and we also see revelation from God as a source of true and reliable information that is not limited as man’s reasoning is.
“Is there any point to ecumenical dialog?”
There are many issues of common concern (pornography, gay marriage etc.) where we have worked together with other faith quite well, but there is no point trying to negotiate any kind of merging of faiths with us.
“Can I trust a Mormon president to think rationally?”
Yes, but as a prophet his knowledge of what is true and what is not true is not limited to only what objective reasoning can establish as true.
You cling to objective reasoning like it is your life raft. We have a different outlook. Revelation is very real to us, not just to the President of the Church but to every faithful member, and we put more stock in what God can and does reveal to us than in the reasoning of men. That means at time we will cling to things that for a time will seem foolish to the world, but are yet the wisdom of God. Smoking used to be considered good for your health for example.
If you are going to argue that everything God would reveal would appear rational to an objective observer, you are implying that God is no smarter than the observer.
Let's define some terms:
rational: consistent with or based on or using reason;
irrational: not consistent with or using reason;
anti-rational: opposed to the use of reason.
There is nothing in Mormonism that requires or promotes either irrationality or anti-rationality. Quite the contrary: in my experience, Mormons tend to be rational and practical.