Nevertheless, if I am completely honest with myself (and not just focused on joining the chorus of other like-minded Mormon intellectuals who enjoy this sort of thing), I’d have to admit that the comment from Tiberius is potentially even MORE insightful than the OP and the chorus supporting comments (and squabbles with Dan Lewis). That’s not to say that I gravitate toward Tiberius’s view, or that i LIKE it more than the OP… but this comment is me quietly whispering, “Tiberius is probably right.” Whether I really like it, or not.

Just saying.

I’ve done a casual study of 2 Nephi 25:23 and its changing interpretation in the 20th Century and because of that have noticed more and more that the context issue is huge in LDS sermon making: even without access to Greek or Hebrew glosses or alternate Bible translations, it should have always been clear, based on context alone, that 2 Nephi 25:23 was just another scripture about grace, not one unique declaration in all of holy writ that saving grace only applies after we’ve done every last thing we can possibly do for ourselves. I think the context issues crop up more for Mormons when dealing with the Bible, because we generally are less familiar with it than with the Book of Mormon and D&C.

Again, I think your exegesis of Alma 32 is just wrong not just because of the important verses you downplay. The whole point is to try things out. To say this is nothing but confirmation bias again distorts the text. Rather it’s trying, testing, and judging. The more something works, the more confident we are. To say verse 21 is about certainty is again to make an egregiously bad reading that is the polar opposite of what it says. The point is to act when you aren’t certain. The whole point of verse 21 is that you are far, far from certain.

Goal-post moving. And beyond the point, which is the issue of certainty.

“The point of Alma 32 is that we don’t know and don’t feel certain but act anyway”

Read it again and pay careful attention. The point is that you don’t have to know, but you have to be certain and that if you don’t eventually come to a knowledge of Alma’s propositions about truth, then the problem is not his words, but the listeners themselves. Again, you’re conflating knowledge with certainty. Alma compares his words to a seed, which he has already predetermined are true (verse 21). In verse 28 Alma notes that the listeners can know that his words are a good seed by not casting it out because of unbelief. In verse 36, Alma notes how listeners have to have faith to plant the seed and in verse 30 that the seed planted because of faith will yield greater faith. Faith begets faith, you strengthen your faith by strengthening your faith. This is classic confirmation bias, and circular reasoning. Alma tops it off in verse 39 when he says that if the listeners aren’t getting anything from the seed, then that is because their “ground is barren.” The problem is with them, not his words. Alma preaches from a position of certainty (verse 21), equates faith with certainty (verse 28), and blames the audience for not coming to a position of certainty about his words (verse 39). And verse 39 appears to trump verse 32. Alma allows for no possibility that his words (the seed) are a bad seed.

I never said that you were a full-on relativist, just that you resort to relativist argumentation about truth when you are unable to root Mormonism in evidence. More correctly put, you, and this goes for other intellectual believers, are a doublethinker and resort to whatever lines of reasoning, even if they contradict other lines of reasoning that you have invoked, to defend it. The unintended consequence of this is that you have constructed a Mormonism that is inconsistent with the Mormonism promoted by the LDS leaders and unrecognizable to the rank-and-file, not to mention often incomprehensible. In my interactions with you on this blog, it has occurred to me repeatedly that you are mostly interested in one-upping and scoring cheap points against those who disagree. That goes for Ben S, too, although he can’t control his temper as well as you. The problem is that at some point your argumentation becomes nothing but a smoke and mirrors show. Farewell, Clark. I’ll give you the last word, for I know how much you love that. Unfortunately, that last word will not be read by me.

On the other hand, you can be certain of your faith, have a “perfect knowledge” of your God, attend your meetings and support the Church every jot and tittle, but if you lie a little here and dig a little pit for your neighbor there and justify not living the big commandments and covenants, then you are a bad Mormon and are on your way to hell.

Certainty in your faith guarantees nothing. Many of the Pharisees were certain, even as they prodded the crowds to shout Barabas. It is probably true that those guys flying airplaines into buildings while calling out the name of their God were also certain. Indeed, religious zeal that seeks certainty and purity often ends up doing evil, and evil people often have highly confident egos filled with certainty.

Of course, I believe in being certain in your faith, when certainty is possible. I am certain that God exists. Most things about God are a mystery to me though. Very often certainty of particular kinds of faith (e.g. a testimony of the Church) are not possible for some people. There are too many individual circumstances where the only certainty is suffering and doubt, and this caused by the actions of those who are bad Mormons who are religiously certain. Or, what seems more common, is the doubt caused by the zealous certainty of those who treat the applied gospel and Mormonism (its doctrines and history) as infallible and construct them in the same way they were taught as six year olds. The black and white narrative of faith is filled with certainty and has paradoxically caused many to doubt; rightfully so.

I am certain that faith in God works, I just am full of doubts as to how to apply that faith in individual circumstances. I am certain that repentance is the way, but I am uncertain as to what it might look like in some circumstances. I know Joseph was a prophet, but I have many sincere and severe doubts about his introduction and practices of polygamy. And on it goes. I have lots of questions about Church history, and doubt a great much of what I was taught growing up in orthodox Mormon culture. But neither my doubts nor my certainty make me a good Mormon. My living the commandments is what does that.

We are taught to seek certainty, but that does not equal blind belief. That equals the scientific method and experiencial knowledge. Those experiences follow sincere seeking for understanding and light, as is taught in Every. Single. Missionary. Discussion. These are things so fundamental its really silly to insist that that’s not how it “actually” is. We’re always taught about how Joseph Smith’s certain knowledge of God was attained by means of his doubts. We’re taught such things in hundreds of places. Your blind faith narrative is a popular anti-christian criticism, but is easily reproofed by the greater bulk of Mormon thought and teachings.

I’d also like to go ahead and echo what a bunch of people have said about the OP: Its not strange that sister Burton should get something different than the literal meaning of the scripture, when God does the same himself in his revelations all the time (speaking of both personal and of scriptural precedent).

You also completely ignore verse 32 which talks of the bad seed. “but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.” So to say this is only about certainty seems completely wrong. The whole point is that exercising faith in a false thing simply is unreliable. So the person conducting the test can know whether something is true or not. To say it’s only about confirming biases requires a whole lot of repression of the text itself.

To Elder Packer’s point as we bear witness the witness is often (not always) more strongly confirmed as the Holy Ghost testifies of what we say not only to those we’re speaking to but also to ourselves. Often the gift of prophesy is this being filled with what to say. Again this is pretty standard LDS doctrine so I’m quite surprised you’d say what you say.

As for the message of Mormonism and myself, I fear your ability to interpret me is about on part with your ability to interpret these texts. To say I’m a relativist is ludicrous for anyone familiar with what I’ve written over the years.

I’m surprised that you bring up Alma 32 in support of the idea that uncertain hope is the emphasis of LDS scriptures. In the rhetoric of LDS leaders and much of the LDS scriptures, faith = certainty, not uncertainty. Let’s go through a few verses.

“And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, WHICH ARE TRUE.”

The author of Alma, here, is expressing the idea that faith is hope that something that he has already predetermined to be true to actually be true. You are conflating knowledge with certainty. The whole idea of Mormonism is that you don’t have to know the fine details about something in order to have certainty in it.

Verse 27:

“if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, LET THIS DESIRE WORK IN YOU, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.”

In other words, you can believe something with your own willpower alone. No signs are needed. As Elder Boyk K. Packer said, “a testimony is to be found in the bearing of it.” This is the epitome of certainty. You gain certainty by being more certain of something.

Verse 28:

“Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.”

The “word” that Alma is talking about is the words that he is teaching the people. To put it in other words, the people are to plant his words in their hearts and the only way to know that these words are true are to consider them and not cast it out because of unbelief. In other words, just believe and voila! it is true. Alma is emphasizing certainty.

Verse 30:

“But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.”

How does faith grow, according to Alma? By believing something long enough for it to take root in you. You strengthen your faith by strengthening your faith.

Alma 32 is all about confirming preexisting biases.

I think that much of the message of Mormonism comes as an inconvenience to you. Hence you misinterpret it to try to make it conform to how you think it should be or you appeal to a sort of quasi-relativism (i.e., “hey we can’t know anything for sure, therefore no one can say that Mormonism is wrong, and therefore there is always a chance that it is right”) as a bad excuse not to face the realities of it.

Some things we can be rather certain of. For most Mormons that’s the reality of Christ and his atonement and a few other key doctrines. Not everyone is always certain on those things. Again nothing Pres. Hinkley, as he testifies of his certain, says is at odds with that. Many of Hinkley’s talks were focused on doubt. But the opposite of doubt is not necessarily certainty but faith. Hinkley’s solution to doubt wasn’t feigned certainty but faith and optimism. As Hinkley said in conference,

We reach toward the unknown, but faith lights the way. If we will cultivate that faith, we shall never walk in darkness.

So honestly I think you are just getting the message of the prophets wrong. Even though we know many things there are always new things to learn. Certainly the brethren want people to know doctrine, especially the key doctrines of the restoration. But the goal is not merely to have people say they know. That is pointless and a false faith. They want us to know by revelation. Again quoting from Pres. Hinkley.

As each man or woman walks the way of life there come dark seasons of doubt, of discouragement, of disillusionment. In such circumstances, a few see ahead by the light of faith, but many stumble along in the darkness and even become lost.

My call to you this morning is a call to faith, that faith which is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1), as Paul described it.

In the process of conversion, the investigator of the Church hears a little. He may read a little. He does not, he cannot, comprehend the wonder of it all. But if he is earnest in his search, if he is willing to get on his knees and pray about it, the Spirit touches his heart, perhaps ever so lightly. It points him in the right direction. He sees a little of what he has never seen before. And with faith, whether it be recognized or not, he takes a few guarded steps. Then another, brighter vista opens before him.

Hinkley’s not even saying that only happens to a few. He explicitly says, “each man or woman.”

I earnestly think you’re fundamentally missing the message of Mormonism. It’s interesting that one of the most popular scriptures of the past few decades is Alma 32 – a treatise on faith. It is quoted from a lot.

Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe. Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.

Honestly, it seems like you think Mormons and the apostles reject Alma 32. Quoting from an other talk by Elder Scott,

Profound spiritual truth cannot simply be poured from one mind and heart to another. It takes faith and diligent effort. Precious truth comes a small piece at a time through faith, with great exertion, and at times wrenching struggles. The Lord intends it be that way so that we can mature and progress.

“The Book of Mormon is like a vast mansion, with gardens, towers, courtyards, and wings. My tour of it has never been completed. Some rooms I have yet to enter, and there are more felicitous fireplaces waiting to warm me. Even the rooms I have glimpsed contain further furnishings and rich detail yet to be savored. There are panels inlaid with incredible insights, and design and décor dating from Eden. There are even sumptuous banquet tables painstakingly prepared by predecessors which await all of us. Yet we as church members sometimes behave like hurried tourists scarcely entering beyond the entry hall. May we come to feel, as a whole people, beckoned beyond the entry hall. May we go inside far enough to hear clearly the whispered truths from those who have slumbered – which whisperings will awaken in us individually a life of discipleship as never before.”

He later referred back to this speech, adding:
“All the rooms in this mansion need to be explored, whether by valued traditional scholars or by those at the cutting edge. Each plays a role, and one LDS scholar cannot say to the other, ‘I have no need of thee’ (1 Corinthians 12:21).”

1. Nephi counsels us to liken the scriptures unto ourselves. (1 Nephi 19:23)
2. We are all weak to some degree in the eyes of God (Ether 12:27)
3. She’s in a calling that she did not seek and gave a talk she didn’t ask to give..
4. She was clearly described an experience of receiving additional insight from the Holy Ghost.
5. The original Greek manuscript of the verse she referenced isn’t available for examination. As Bart Ehrman states, we only have available “copies of copies of copies” of the Greek New Testament. And no two copies are alike. Who’s to say she didn’t bring forward a small insight that was lost over the centuries?,

“Some time ago I read the newspaper report of the remarks of a prominent journalist. He is quoted as having said, ‘Certitude is the enemy of religion.’ The words attributed to him have stirred within me much reflection. Certitude, which I define as complete and total assurance, is not the enemy of religion. It is of its very essence. Certitude is certainty. It is conviction. It is the power of faith that approaches knowledge—yes, that even becomes knowledge. It evokes enthusiasm, and there is no asset comparable to enthusiasm in overcoming opposition, prejudice, and indifference. Great buildings were never constructed on uncertain foundations.”

Not too long ago, your co-blogger Nathaniel Givens wrote on this blog (sorry I don’t have the link, but he did write about this) about these very words from Hinckley and how it was causing him cognitive dissonance. He didn’t like a Mormonism that emphasized certainty, but one that emphasized the opposite. He wanted a Mormonism that was about exploring and finding not about guarding well-established territory. It was yet another example of the disconnect between many intellectual believers and the LDS leadership. Much of what you write is disconnected with the certainty narrative that the LDS leaders repeatedly emphasize. This idea that the LDS leaders want members to read scripture with a sense of uncertainty is flat-out wrong. They want the members to read the scriptures as a confirmation of preexisting certainty biases that the LDS church is true. They most certainly don’t want them arriving at positions that are in friction with the LDS church leaders’ through their readings of scriptures. You and other intellectual believers want to have your Mormonism and eat it too. You’re imagining a Mormonism that just isn’t so.

To put it simply, the LDS leadership tries to get members to claim, “I know x, y, and z teachings to be true” as quickly as possible.

On the other hand, so many intellectual believers see themselves in a debate with not only ex-Mormon critics but also with the part of their brains that is leaning in the ex-Mormon direction and appeal to the idea that truth is uncertain as a defense mechanism against skeptical narratives. What they often don’t realize is that in an attempt to defend the traditional truth claims of Mormonism they ironically emphasize a narrative that is disconnected with traditional Mormonism.