The normally pedestrian Faith-Promoting Rumor, formally the 'Naccle's #1 Site for unsolicited obscure scriptural explication, has been taken over by some sort of strange giant-brained life form with an ego whose size has never been seen outside a university setting. Personally, we here at Snarkernacle LTD have no idea why the average Saint would be wary of something like this:

    Kants conception of autonomy requires us to respect the dignity of others by respecting there choices. Clearly Mormons are not Kantian is this sense. Mormons do approach questions about right and wrong with a deontological form of divine command theory. However, I do not see much of an appreciation for reason, universal rationality, and particularly liberty rooted in autonomy.

    To be honest I think that LDS theology is not philosophical enough (or systematic enough). I think part of this is that we as a conservative people are wary of intellectual approaches to faith.
So in the spirit of FPR's [in]famous surveys, we'd like to propose one of our own:

Which topic would be most appropriate as a formal introduction to LDS thought for your friends and neighbors?
    A. Deontological forms of divine command theory

    B. Conflations leading to a Kierkegaard-type position
And stay tuned for next week's survey, when we ask the question "Can the Kierkegaard-type position be used by consenting adults married in the temple?"

After that, we'll be taking up the moral implications of improperly using homonyms of "their" and do save up all your change because we are taking up of a collection for a new ostomy bag to assist in HP's blogging.


Anonymous said... @ May 23, 2006 at 2:17 PM

"Can the Kierkegaard-type position be used by consenting adults married in the temple?"

No, it Kant.

HP said... @ May 24, 2006 at 9:45 AM

All I can say is, Garbage in...

Post a Comment