I knew a lawyer who put into a draft, as a placeholder "SJ standard: same old shit" and was mortified when they realized that they neglected to replace it before filing the brief, but was then pleasantly surprised that the judge loved it.

In science, in law, in basically every other discipline, we're comfortable with uncertainty and with probabilities rather than absolute truths. I don't see why prophets are different. 4/4

I think reducing religion to a quest for abstract knowledge rather than a quest for salvation is a very modern idea that would have been pretty foreign to most of the prophets in scripture. And it's odd because there is no other discipline where reliability requires infallibility. 3/

The point of prophets isn't to just reveal truth in the abstract, it's to reveal the truth*specifically about the gospel of Christ*. It's to testify specifically of Christ's ability to save us, and to inspire us to repentance and reliance on Christ (i.e. faith). 2/

a further thought on this: I think the idea that prophets must always get it right in order to have any value misses the point of prophets, and really, of religion itself, by reducing religion to a question of knowing truth, rather than a quest for salvation 1/

what's wrong with just learning to be comfortable with uncertainty? I don't think you need to formally deconstruct everything or have a faith crisis, and I don't think that means just ignoring it either

It's here! www.etsy.com/listing/1589...

I don't think anybody floating theories that the church is corrupt and evil can be fairly described as tbm

GC strikes me as primarily homiletics rather than dogma

oooh!

we've got a fun Mormon horror project coming soon from the arch-hive that I'm really excited for