The difference between confessional belief and convictional belief

Here is a good essay on the difference between confessional belief and convictional belief.  The following gives a good taste of it.

I’ve never heard my dad preach about the importance of self-reliance. Rather, he simply invested in several years worth of food storage and water, planted a garden and an orchard, purchased chickens, and learned how to care for bees. 

I’ve never heard my dad sermonize about caring for the elderly. Rather, he simply invited his mother-in-law to live in his house, spent hours remodeling the bathroom so she could more comfortably use it, remodeled her bedroom to give her more space, and is currently building a ramp so that she can drive her wheelchair into the backyard and enjoy the outdoors.

When I Do Good...

“When I do good I feel good, when I do bad I feel bad, that’s my religion.”  Abraham Lincoln

Origin of God Agnostic

Last summer, I had an interesting discussion about the origin of God. Before that, I did not know of a faithful LDS perspective that was different than the infinite regress of Gods. It was one of those topics that I heard theories from people I trusted. It made sense to me and so I did not pursue it.

Clean Cut emailed me a couple of weeks ago asking me about my post. He asked if my thoughts or feeling on the topic had changed at all. I had mentioned to him that I was looking forward to reading Rough Stone Rolling. I was given it for Christmas. I am about halfway through it.

While laying down for a Sunday nap I picked up the book. Richard Bushman quotes D&C 93:29-34 and then adds,

In later years, Joseph would elaborate these hints into a doctrine of the free intelligence. Human beings in their essence were uncreated intelligences as eternal as God, and so radically free... The idea of free intelligence combined the moral being of the Bible with the reasoning individual of the Enlightenment. In Joseph's revelations, truth could not be discovered in rebellion and wickedness. "That wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience." [D&C 93:29] The test of one's humanity was not whether one would abide by the independent dictate's of one's own reason, in accord with the Enlightenment ideal, but whether one would accept the light coming from God.

As to the origin of God, I am satisfied putting it in the "we'll find out someday" category. I also put discussions on the topic in the "danger of looking past the mark" category. It is much more important to me to practice the truth I know. I am confident that the Lord will grant me more light and knowledge on His origin later on. It is much more important to becoming more Christ like. More diligent, more patient, more loving, more thoughtful.

On a final note, one of the best parts of LDS doctrine is the focus on learning truth from whatever source it may come. I look forward to more light and knowledge on many subjects. I will also do my best to give them their due attention. Focusing on "right practice" will never fail. Focusing on "right doctrine" brings a possibility of diverting my energy to that which will not have lasting satisfaction.

Orthopraxy over Orthodoxy

It is aha moments like I found reading this comment by Seth R. that I love the bloggernacle, and evangelical-mormon blogs.

I think the reason for the “it’s not doctrine” line is that you’ve got Mormons who spend a lot of time wrestling with the formalized theology and dealing with its criticisms. Then you have all the other everyday church-going Mormons who don’t go in much for theological inquiry and frankly, don’t care much. The latter are far and away the majority in the LDS Church, and in most any other church, I would argue.

The question is how you deal with that divide.

In Protestantism, which emphasizes orthodoxy first and foremost, the solution is to put the thinking class in the leadership posts and charge them with bringing everyone else up to speed theologically.

In Mormonism, which de-emphasizes orthodoxy and instead pushes orthopraxy (”right practice”), the solution is to place the academically average LDS member in positions of leadership – even all the way to the top. The theologians are not put in charge, but are rather shunted off to a limited corner of Mormon life. A Mormon will typically almost always emphasize personal spiritual life over theological training as desirable qualities in a minister.

I think this approach is probably the main reason that Mormons can be so careless and unconcerned about the philosophical integrity of their religion. It’s also why it’s taking so freaking long to get Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph F. Smith out of our system, and why it took so long to get Brigham Young out of the system earlier.

You get someone with a strong vision of Mormonism, like those men, and if it’s serviceable in the day-to-day worship life of the average LDS, the thinking is – why not use them? Even when the theologically trained Mormons point out some problems with the paradigm, it still remains useful for most Mormons, and there just isn’t much sense of urgency about changing it. After all, the main concern is with ethical and spiritual living. Debatably, you don’t need a perfect theology for that.

Mormon theologians, on the other hand, recognize this emphasis within Mormon life and they don’t want to “kick over the beehive” just to make an esoteric theological argument. Building Zion comes first for Mormons – whether you are theologically minded or not. We’re not going to sabotage that just to score theological points.

I had never heard of Orthopraxy before. I also believe that "right practice" is much more important than having the "right opinion". I include in right practice my belief that Jesus Christ is my savior.