Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
An investigator has to decide if he believes that God calls and directs prophets today, despite their failings. Sometimes that includes accepting policies and doctrines we do not understand. Someone considering membership in the church needs to become familiar with the phrase, "some things we just don't know" because we have to use it a lot ... and that includes the blacks issue.
***
That's not to say the intellectual persuasion method doesn't work for some people--obviously it does, as Sleeping has pointed out. Good for them. Personally I don't necessarily consider it a good practice, all the same.
|
I think the above is a correct statement, but I disagree with the way you are applying it. We don't simply point someone to Moroni's challenge, tell them to pray about the BOM without trying to resolve their doubts.
Q: "But who is Moroni?"
A: "Don't worry about that, knowledge is not the point, listen to your heart."
I know my example is absurd, but the missionaries, notwithstanding the demise of the discussions, are regurgitating a great deal of information that has been very careful couched for the purpose of resolving people's question's and concerns. Of course we want to give people answers to questions if we can. But we both know that there are enough ambiguities in doctrine that many of the answers will begin with "Well we think that" and end with "but we're not completely certain."
You and I don't disagree about the second statement there, we are disagreeing about the value and cotent of the first statement. I think there is value in the first statement, that is, in telling someone that as best we can tell the reason is this, though there is little if any authority on this point. We do this all the time explaining polygamy.
I can appreciate your skepticism about what you are calling the "intellectual method" because to the extent you are troubled by any of these issues, you accept them on faith. I do exactly this as well, but I do so with the benefit of a lifetime of foundation in the church and, for me, these issues really are "behind us." But for many (read here basically anyone who is black) this is a CENTRAL issue and while the explanation doesn't need to be perfect, as long as it remains "we don't know" and nothing more, we will continue to have extremely few black members. And yes, having them is a worthy goal, IMO. It may well be that, as with polygamy, enough time will pass that future generations can just look back and explain with a shrug that that was along time ago. Someday that will be a more satisfying answer than it is now. In the mean time, it would certainly help if we had something more.
I agree with that I think your premise is, that is that a testimony is established by the spirit rather than any set of facts or argument, but there have to be bones to hang the meat on. The explanation doesn't have to be perfect, but neither should it be so wonting in detail or offensive to common sense that a person of reasonable intelligence immediately dismisses it. In the absense of a good explanation (which as is being suggested here is very doable) people are left to infer their worst suspicions. This is an issue we can get out in front of, so to speak, without abandoning faith for reason.