The transition from "real" to metaphor

I am going to answer this openly and honestly and fully – even though many people who are in the midst of the struggle might find it hard to accept. I’ve weathered this particular struggle and am totally at peace with the questions in the post, so I hope my own answer from the other side will help those who still are fighting through it.

1) when a leader “calls” you to a position that would require you to do or say things that you frankly, don’t believe?

I’m not sure that can be done. I don’t want to minimize the struggle of others getting to where I am with regard to this exact issue, but nothing and nobody can “require” me to do or say things that I don’t believe (mostly because I simply refuse to do so) – and I’ve been on a High Council and in a Bishopric, for example, and been thanked for providing a different perspective on discussions. The key is being comfrotable BOTH with my own beliefs and actions AND the responsibilities of the calling in which I serve – and being willing to be open with those who extend callings and assignments to me.

For example, when I was asked to chair the MP Preach the Gospel committee in our Ward, I was clear that my suggestions and leadership would be based on why those committees generally are useless wastes of time and totally ineffective – and that I would be proposing some non-traditional approaches that might be seen as radical. The HPGL leader said, “OK.” If he had said anything different, I wouldn’t have accepted the assignment, since if he really wanted me he would have had to accept ME. The key is that he knows I’m a “faithful member” – that I care deeply about the Church and its members regardless of differences in specific beliefs (and that nothing I propose is going to be selfish in nature, and I’m not going to pitch a hissy fit if what I suggest isn’t approved). I’ll argue privately, and if it gets me released then so be it. Someone else will step in and do just as well as I can, and I will end up serving somewhere else. I don’t care where I serve, only that I serve – and I can do that without any formal calling or assignment.

2) when a leader “reprimands” (with love, of course ) you by quoting a scripture that implies that your actions are against scripture?

I either quote another scripture or prophet back at them with a HUGE smile on my face (if we are friends and they understand my twisted sense of humor), or I thank them for their concern, ponder it seriously and deeply, see what I can take from it to help myself understand them or the principle better, then make a change or continue as I have been – depending on the outcome of all the stuff I just outlined. The key for me has been to assume there is SOMETHING I can learn from the reprimand, even if it only is greater charity and understanding of other good people who see things differently than I do.

A former Bishop told me once that he deeply appreciated two things about working with me:

1) I told him exactly what I thought, both when I agreed and when I disagreed with him;

2) I said, “OK,” and supported him when what he decided to do wasn’t what I had suggested.

Very few things are worth fighting about, and a reprimand doesn’t even come close to that level of importance.

3) in general, when the “normal,” literal-believing member talks of needing to repent of an action that you really don’t feel is wrong, with your new perspective…how do you respond to him?

“Thank you. I appreciate your concern and will think about what you have said.”

Then I try to act as I’ve outlined in response to #2 above. I try hard not to be defensive and to try to model for them how I hope they would respond if I ever felt prompted to reprimand them or call them to repentance. After all, I believe the most important aspect of life is repentance – meaning simply “change”. If I can’t try, at the very least, to be open to observations of others that might point out changes I need to make, then I probably won’t change much – and that would be a shame.

I gotta admit it. Those are the right answers. And the truth is, as long as we keep showing up with a smile on our face, we will have plenty of opportunities to be asked.

Okay, I clearly have more than one hero here…thanks for all the responses!

In defense of the stage 4-er…

What Ray and Brian said is perfect. Most of us take a long time to get there however… 😳 😆

The in-between place is one of fear, shame, anxiety, etc. How do you go from saying “I know that…” to “I don’t know for sure that…”

It’s a tough transition, especially if you are in a position of being prompted to speak or teach or participate or be interviewed or whatever. It takes ALOT of time and pondering and praying and meditating to start to understand how metaphor can substitute for literal, how paradox can transcend certainty, and then be able to communicate it in a way that satisfies both our own sense of personal integrity and the external chorus of “testimony” in the church.

I know for me, personally, I had to make a paradoxical “break” or separation from my own perceived orthodoxy of the church to help me to begin the transition to a newer faith perspective/paradigm. I made what, for some, would be an extreme break but… it worked for me.

I’m not saying everyone would need a “break”, whether real, perceived, internal, spiritual, or otherwise, but that transitioning in the heart and mind is tough when there is such a premium on external rectitude in the church, both in word and deed.

Wow, so resonating (as usual!). First, I admit to having to look up “rectitude.” Nice word! Yes, I also find it challenging being actively involved and associated with those still in the “real” stage (and it seems that is about 98% of the Mormons I know). But I think Ray and Brian are helping me learn how to handle it.

Speaking of paradox, I was introduced to metaphor quite early compared to many — I served my mission in Japan where I learned the Buddhist way. It was a total shock to my black and white thinking in the beginning, then it was completely fulfilling years later when I finally allowed it into my soul. I love “story,” and I love not needing to know whether it is “true” (historically) or not. It makes movies so much more enjoyable and meaningful!

Thanks for more great comments!

1. There are definitely callings that I would not be a good fit for and would inform whoever was extending the calling. I don’t think that I could be a ward missionary because I am not comfortable with the missionary program right now. (I am hoping it’s just a phase.) But there are things that I am just not comfortable doing and stuff I just don’t care about. I would reject callings for ward activities or anything with family history. I know that I wouldn’t really fulfill them so I wouldn’t accept them. I am comfortable with rejecting callings.

2 and 3. This has never happened to me. But I think I would reply by saying, “Why do you believe that?” It is my favorite retort. I have found that it mostly stops someone in their tracks as they try to come up with a reply. It may come off as combative but if asked with sincerity it isn’t that bad. It probably gives the other person a much better idea of where you are so they can hopefully chill out.

Kudos to the other replies.

FWIW, I just got done reading “Early Mormonism and the Magic World View.” This wasn’t the main point of the book, but reading it helped me imagine how Joseph Smith and other early members (like the witnesses) would really see things radically different than you or I might see them today from a rationalist, modern world view. To them, a dream was as real as anything we consider scientific today, especially a dream repeated three times. Vivid imagination of an event was proof in many ways, indeed seeing something in one’s mind was very real. I totally see it different now when I read something like Martin Harris admitting that he saw the angel Moroni with “spiritual eyes” and at the same time being able to tell the story as if it were a physical encounter.

I forgot to add into my comment above that I think God works through all the mechanisms of our mind and heart. So my point was that a modern talks about subconscious or levels of hyper consciousness, dreams (as a psychological event), “visualizing” world peace and things like that to make it happen. These are all modern psychological, science and more materialistic forms of language and perspective.

Someone in the 19th century talks about dreams (as reality), seeing things in the spirit, visitations, visions, etc. This is magical language and perspective, from a non-materialistic point of view. It’s a different but validly experienced reality.

I think both are describing similar human experience, God interacting with humans.