I hope I didn’t give the impression of dismissiveness. If I did, it was just to get the argumentam ad it-takes-out-the-Bible-tooam out of the way quickly, by simply stating that I agree: The Bible’s got its own problems.

As for the basic point: we’re in agreement, as far as I can see.

I’m familiar with the concept of “rational ignorance.” (Although I think a lot of *irrational* ignorance tries to pass itself off as irrational; the various arguments that nobody could have seen the present financial crisis unfolding are ridiculous, since I was screeching jeremiads at the top of my lungs since 2003, and *I’m* not getting paid millions of dollars to manage other people’s money; if *I* can afford to inform myself properly, presumably it would have been rational for the other guys.)

What you’re saying is similar to the Catholic doctrine that people are not held responsible for “invincible ignorance” — that is, ignorance of truths despite reasonable diligence in seeking truth. I think the modern Church has more or less the same position, although it’s not expressly spelled out and there are still some schools of thought within Church culture that define the Mormon version of “invincible ignorance” quite narrowly. In essence, these views say that if the missionaries taught you, and you didn’t get baptized, or if you were born in the Church, but left, you can’t claim not to have had reason to know the Church was true, and you will be punished for your rejection of it.

My experience has been that being familiar with LDS doctrine, hearing the missionaries, or even being immersed in Church culture from birth is not necessarily enough to furnish every person with sufficient grounds for belief in the Church’s teachings, that such a person’s nonbelief should be held against him. There are individual Church members and leaders, as well as aspects of more or less official teaching, that are in accord, although there are other aspects of teaching that suggest otherwise. An example of the latter might include the recent Gospel Doctrine lesson on apostasy (focusing on “being offended” and “rationalizing sin” as the main reasons people choose other religious paths).

I think your question, “I’m not sure it takes care of the broader question, though, of whether *either* Mormon or Biblical tenets are established with a sufficient degree of certainty, that a just God ought to hold it against a person if he declined to accept them,” is a good one–and one that I DO take seriously–despite the seemingly dismissive tone.

The short answer is, “No; there is NOT sufficient certainty.”

Indeed there CANNOT be sufficient certainty–at least not using only temporal means–for two reasons:
1. Much information is simply beyond our constraints. For example, we don’t have the resources to go back in time to Spring of 1820 to witness the event.
2. Even if the information is within our constraints, much of that information is simply too costly for the benefits provided.

Economists (like Yours Truly! ) call situations where Reasons 1 or 2 apply, “Rational Ignorance.”

And, when there is truly rational ignorance, I do not believe that God would hold failure to know against them. If He did, why would He command us to be baptised for them after they die?

An extreme example of this would be Holocaust denial. The evidence of that historical fact is so firmly established that I would have to engage in willful denial of facts that ought to convince a rational, conscientious person. Irrespective of the independently unsavory considerations that often motivate people to engage in this particular variety of willful denial, denying the truth — *any* truth — is immoral, because it is a declaration that truth doesn’t matter. And if truth doesn’t matter, then there is no basis for any of the other virtues, because then there is no objective basis for classifying love as truly better than hate, or chastity as better than lust.

Re: Joseph’s and Paul’s respective First Vision accounts, good point. I made it in my June 19th post, above. Although I’m not sure it follows that “taking down the LDS church will take down all of Christianity.” At most, applying skepticism to Paul’s conflicting First Vision accounts “takes down” the concept of Biblical inerrancy, which (not being a conservative evangelical Protestant) I have no problem with. “As far as it is translated correctly” and all that. The keystone of Christianity is the revelation of Jesus Christ, the accounts of whose life and resurrection can be understood as having been imperfectly recorded by inspired but fallible men without diminishing the basic truth of the overall story.

As for the “two witnesses,” I agree that if the witness of the Holy Ghost that comes to a person is sufficiently unambiguous in its reality and meaning, then yes, it’s possible that rejecting that evidence would be immoral and irrational. My experience is that not all people who diligently seek such a witness, obtain it. It is also my experience that other people who declare that they *have* received such a witness, claim its imprimatur for notions that are factually false, or at least subject to dispute. See, for example, the criticism on this board of people who claim the authority of a spiritual witness as support for their favored theories of Book of Mormon geography.

One person says the Spirit has revealed X to him. Another person says the Spirit told him Y. If X and Y do not contradict each other, both people may be justified in choosing to believe that the impressions they experienced were divine communications. I do, in fact, experience impressions like these, and I choose to interpret them as evidences of God’s presence, His endorsement of certain principles, and His approval or disapproval of aspects of my life.

On the other hand, if X and Y are inherently at odds — for example, if Xavier believes his impressions are a confirmation that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church, and the Jared believes *his* impressions are a confirmation that the LDS Church is the true church — then we have a problem. A sectarian deadlock. Unless Jared can get inside Xavier’s head, and be fairly convinced that what Xavier experienced was fundamentally different from what Jared experienced, what is Jared’s basis for believing he’s right and Xavier’s wrong?

So often in history, the response to this question has been for one of the parties to try and chop off the other’s head. Sectarianism kills — maybe even more than tobacco. We’re more civilized nowadays, of course; instead of firing up the literal autos-da-fe, we just divorce our unbelieving spouses, disown our wayward children, and spread nasty rumors about why that guy down the street *really* started questioning things.

Of course decent people can practice Mormonism without falling into these traps. And of course no religion can be made completely idiotproof, and maybe I’m nitpicking here; at least Mormonism, when abused, doesn’t get people strapping on suicide bomb vests. I’ve just seen real pain caused by the Mormon flavor of sectarianism, and seen good men tarred with an unjustly broad brush, and I wish there were some way around this.

I don’t think salvation is dependant on doctrine as much as “in as much as ye do it unto the least of these, ye do it unto me.” The doctrince is how we progress the fastest. However, at some point, Jesus will ask us point blank if will accept baptism by those in authority, and too many of us will answer, “not now, it’s not necessary.”

God provides two or more witnesses, and the witness of our faith is (1) the Holy Ghost, and (2) how the doctrine plays out in our daily lives. For example, the Word of Wisdom would save 500,000 lives every year in America alone, and enormously more misery. I’m not sure any other prophet in the history of the world can claim that.

So I totally disagree that acceptance of the doctrine is compelled neither by reason nor morality.

That’s my opinion. But I must admit, Thomas, I have felt they way you feel more in times past, and still occasionally hear those whispers. Through Obedience with exactness and virtue garnishing our thoughts unceasingly, our confidence will wax strong in the presence of God.

I agree that Joseph Smith’s, and his contemporaries’, accounts of the First Vision are little, if any, more uncertain than many Biblical accounts.

That takes care of the non-Mormon Christian sectarian critics, hoist on their own petard. I’m not sure it takes care of the broader question, though, of whether *either* Mormon or Biblical tenets are established with a sufficient degree of certainty, that a just God ought to hold it against a person if he declined to accept them.

Of course if everything was certain, there would be no room for faith — and our choice to follow the Lord’s truth would show nothing more about us than that we could be bought. The basic question of God’s existence, and His character as a being who requires us to love truth and love our neighbor as ourselves, are propositions that can only be known by faith.

However, it’s also true that different people accept, on “faith,” mutually exclusive sectarian doctrines. For example, a Muslim exercises “faith” that Mohammed was God’s final prophet — an article of faith that can’t be reconciled with a Mormon’s faith that Joseph Smith was a prophet eleven hundred years later.

Who accepts what revelation seems to be a matter more of the accidents of geography, time, and biological temperament than any other single factor. It would be one thing if a given religion’s sectarian doctrines were established with such certainty that a person had to actively will disbelief. In that case, we could reasonably question whether his decision to do so had immoral motivations, such as cowardice, sloth, or unwillingness to have to curb physical or other worldly appetites.

Is the Mormon revelation so thoroughly established? Joseph Smith, who declared that he didn’t blame any man for not believing his history, evidently didn’t think so.

I do not understand how a just God, who is no respector of persons, could ordain that a man’s eternal salvation is contingent upon his accepting one sectarian doctrine over another, when acceptance of the doctrine must ultimately be based on a “faith” that could just as well be the basis for acceptance of one such doctrine as another.

Now, the religion that Joseph Smith revealed was superior in countless respects to the narrowly sectarian Protestantism he rebelled against. However, the sectarianism problem — the idea that salvation, or other divine favor — is conditional on a person’s acceptance of a doctrine whose acceptance is compelled neither by reason nor morality — is still ultimately present in the Church he restored. The doctrine of vicarious work for the dead takes some of the edge off the sectarianism, but not all.

I know nothing pisses off the fundamentalist mindset more than introducing nuance and uncertainty into the comfortable black-and-white little bubble they’ve led their whole lives in. But perhaps it’s time for a few people to grow up and embrace a bit of the uncertainty inherent in life.

It’s true that, in this life, NOTHING is 100% certain. Otherwise, there’d be no room for faith!

Still, Thomas’ question, “If, as a recent Ensign article declared, our eternal salvation hangs on what we think about the First Vision, is it enough for the First Vision accounts to be “mostly” consistent?” is a good one. The obvious answer is, “It depends on how ‘mostly’ that consistency is.”

This, of course, leads to two more questions:

1. How many differences are there in the accounts? and,
2. Are there any outright contradictions?

The answers, according to Brother Brown, are “Not much,” and “No,” respectively. As a comparison, if we were to ask those questions of the Bible, we would get the respective answers of “Not much–roughly 10%,” and “A few.”

Joseph Smith comes out pretty well, I’d say!

Yes.

I know nothing pisses off the fundamentalist mindset more than introducing nuance and uncertainty into the comfortable black-and-white little bubble they’ve led their whole lives in. But perhaps it’s time for a few people to grow up and embrace a bit of the uncertainty inherent in life.

Do you REALLY think that a cheap-shot comment that discussions of the First Vision do not belong in non-fiction qualifies as a sustantive comment?

We KNOW that you disbelieve history, but, unless you are willing to either address specific aspects of either the First Vision (or accounts of it), Brother Brown’s book, or Brother Holyoak’s review, don’t be surprised if we dimiss you as a vacuous troll!

“…there is actually a great amount of consistency between the various texts.”

“… the various accounts are much more consistent than critics would lead us to believe.”

“…The various accounts are shown to be very much in harmony with each other.”

Is that enough? If, as a recent Ensign article declared, our eternal salvation hangs on what we think about the First Vision, is it enough for the First Vision accounts to be “mostly” consistent?

The old saw “a little bit pregnant” comes to mind, but probably isn’t entirely fair here. History is ambiguous, and even the apostle Paul couldn’t get *his* First Vision account straight. However, it does call into question the justice of God’s supposed conditioning our eternal destiny on our conclusions as to matters about which the evidence is inherently unclear.