Reason and revelation

[JohnnyLingo]

Has anyone read this essay by Elder Oaks? Originally it was in The Lord's Way. He discusses the relationship between reason and revelation. Here's quote from it:

"When persons attempt to understand or undertake to criticize the gospel of Jesus Christ or the doctrines or its practices of His church by the method of reason alone, the outcome is predetermined. No one can find God or understand His doctrines or ordinances without using the means He has prescribed for receiving the truths of His gospel."

Since it doesn't seem that Elder Oaks is on the Cougarguard hit list along with Elder McConkie and Packer, I figured I'd throw this out here and see what you think.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Has anyone read this essay by Elder Oaks? Originally it was in The Lord's Way. He discusses the relationship between reason and revelation. Here's quote from it:

"When persons attempt to understand or undertake to criticize the gospel of Jesus Christ or the doctrines or its practices of His church by the method of reason alone, the outcome is predetermined. No one can find God or understand His doctrines or ordinances without using the means He has prescribed for receiving the truths of His gospel."

Since it doesn't seem that Elder Oaks is on the Cougarguard hit list along with Elder McConkie and Packer, I figured I'd throw this out here and see what you think.

I am uncertain what to make of it.

I understand the perspective and the motive, given his stature.

First, his tenet is "criticize" the Gospel. I wonder if he means it in the academic sense of the word, the classical sense, or the modern conventional sense, of speaking pejoratively of it.

Second, of course, as a moral and spiritual leader, he must focus upon his domain and not wander into the domain of academics because that statement would not hold up there.

So what to make of it, I am uncertain. I understand the "spiritual witness" concept, even if attaining one is not always certain.

[JohnnyLingo]

Many Cougarguarders complain that I never make solid contributions to the board.

So here I am, trying to start a serious discussion on an idea and I get one response.

Thank you, Archaea, for taking the time to let me know what your initial impressions were.

First, his tenet is "criticize" the Gospel. I wonder if he means it in the academic sense of the word, the classical sense, or the modern conventional sense, of speaking pejoratively of it.

I'm willing to bet he meant "criticize" in the modern conventional sense. Such as, "This policy of the church is awful."

Second, of course, as a moral and spiritual leader, he must focus upon his domain and not wander into the domain of academics because that statement would not hold up there.

So you're saying when acting as an Apostle, Elder Oaks must turn off his brain and ignore the intellect which made him a Utah Supreme Court Justice?

[DrumNFeather]

I don't know if the essay and the book are the same thing, but I found this quote from the back cover of the book...

"In The Lord's Way, he constrasts the ways of the Lord with the ways or methods of the world in resolving such issues as these: What is the relationship between learning by study (reason) and learning by faith (revelation) — and when should each be used? What is the difference between the proofs of science and the signs or miracles that the Lord has told us we should not seek? "

So, basically there are two ways we can arrive at a conclusion/decision. We can reason our way to it, or we can seek out personal revelation on the issue. (Maybe I'm oversimplifying)

The sentence I find interesting in this description is that the book outlines when to learn by "faith" vs. when to learn by "reason." This suggests that there is a time and place for both, and I suspect that the Lord leaves it up to us to know when and when not to use it...and when all else fails, perhaps he expects us to ask...but that's just my guess.