- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This question is one that came to me earlier today. One can get really hung up on whether the First Vision really happened, or if the BoM was really translated from plates, or if it was the spiritual fiction of Joseph Smith. My question — does it have to be absolutely true to be good?
I’m reminded of a story about a man who was a wreck in his life. Unsuccessful, lost everything. Then, through a strange twist of events, learned that he was a direct descendent of Napoleon. This energized him, and he began acting as a leader, taking risks, and believing he was an extension of the Napoleonic heritage, capable of doing the same kinds of things that Napoleon did, but in his own life circumstances. In short, his relationship to Napoleon changed his self-paradigm and world view, and therefore, his experiences, actions and character.
After achieving great things in his lifetime, he learned irrefutably that he was NOT a descendent of Napoleon after all. Everything he believed about himself during his period of achievement was based on untrue information. Yet, in believing, he adopted a paradigm of himself and the world which enabled him to rise above himself. And in the process, he learned many great and true things which became part of his character. IN short, his inaccurate beliefs became an infrastructure on which he built his spirit and character — and that character and spirit then stood on its own when the infrastructure crumbled.
I wonder just how important it is for the roots of our religion to be glaringly true and absolutely certain? As long as these beliefs point our behavior into directions that allow us to discover lasting, meaningful, personal truth that builds our character — does it really matter if the infrastructure eventually crumbles?
I wonder if our religion is like the balloon around which a paper mache sphere is created. The purpose of the balloon is to provide structure and shape while the real goal — a structurally sound. paper mache sphere — has a chance to be applied, to form and to harden. Then, when sufficiently formed, the balloon can pop, having done its work in supporting the growth of the sphere.
I used to think — “if I die and find all this Mormon stuff is false, am I ever going to be angry!!!”.
However, now, if this happens, I think I may just let the infrastructure crumble, and take satisfaction and pleasure in what I’ve become as a result of doing my best to act within the frameworks and principles that flow from our roots, and that make sense to me. What I eventually become is what
reallymatters to my inner peace. As John Milton wrote of Satan in Paradise Lost, Satan said ‘Which way I fly is hell, myself am hell”. I think the reverse is true — “Which way I fly is heaven, myself am heaven”, which may well be the final goal. And myself is myself regardless of the philosophy on which I’m acting….is it merely scaffolding on which I build a higher level of character? True believing in something that may not necessarily be true can be helpful and beneficial. It can inspire you to do things that you otherwise would not. But the flip side is it can just as easily lead you down dangerous and perilous paths. It is a fine line to walk. Take the Mormon church for instance. If you are white, straight, relatively financially secure, and you enjoy leadership and counseling positions it is a wonderful place to be. It will lift you up and give you great happiness. It will fulfill many desires. If you are none of these things or just some of these things the church can bring great turmoil into you life. So believing in something that is suspect works for some but not for everyone. Cadence, to be fair, it “can” be either experience for anyone – regardless of how they fit the categories you listed. “Straight” or “gay” is the only aspect you listed that I believe has ANY reasonable bearing on overall satisfaction in the LDS Church. In fact, I think those who have NO expectation or desire for leadership, for example, probably are more likely to be happy and satisfied in the Church. I think the thought of being Bishop or RS President scares more members than it excites.
Old-Timer wrote:In fact, I think those who have NO expectation or desire for leadership, for example, probably are more likely to be happy and satisfied in the Church. I think the thought of being Bishop or RS President scares more members than it excites.
Amen to that one. At first it seemed exciting to have these new responsibilities when I was first called into a whole variety of leadership positions. Then, when I hit the hard core ones like Bishopric and HPGL, it got difficult. As it stands, I regret no longer having the esteem I once felt because I was always “in demand”, but at the same time, don’t miss the time I had to invest, the frustrating programs and frequent lack of commitment I often saw from others, as well as the frustration.
We have openings in our Ward now, as the Bishop has moved on, and they were digging into the less active pool for other key positions, which they filled. In other parts of my Church experience, I would’ve been a target for some kind of leadership position, but now, I’m pretty sure I’ll be left aside given my antics in leaving my last position….I feel sad, and happy about it at the same time…..
But that doesn’t change the fact that the philosophical infrastructure the LDS gospel brings to my life has helped me progress in character and ability. So, whether it actually turns out to be true, or validated in the next phases of our eternal journey is secondary to the ways its helped me progress spiritually.
There is such a thing as a useful myth. One example might be “good always triumphs”. Well it may do in Hollywood (with the exception of the Empire Strikes Back and even that got reversed by Return of the Jedi…)… but it doesn’t in real life. However, it is a good thing to believe as it brings hope, and may well improve behavior.
Ray posted this basic quote some time ago: Quote:
”Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that …good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love… true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in.” – Hub, Secondhand LionsOrson wrote:Ray posted this basic quote some time ago:
Quote:
”Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that …good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love… true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in.” – Hub, Secondhand LionsI’ve been extending this idea lately. In academia, we try to deal with unstructured problems all he time — and figuring out what is true and right is definitely an unstructured problem when it comes to religion.
I was discussing this with one of my colleagues, and he commented “if the problem is unstructured, put structure on it, and see what conclusions you draw — you’ll be surprised how often you’ll make the right decisions, even if your theory/structure/philosophy isn’t 100% correct”. That always stuck with me. So, I might analyze how I should behave in a leadership position using Fiedler’s Congtingency Model, or the Vroom Yetton model — both models require you to analyze a situation for certain variables, which then point you to a certain leadership style.
I think one can analyze religion the same way. The LDS theology is a structure that you put on the unstructured problems of life, and it leads to direction about how we might make decisions about what to do. Whether it’s absolutely true or not may not be essential…perhaps that’s why God lets so many people believe so many philosophies of Christianity….I muse.
I like that description of religion – a structured imposition of what can be comprehended and/or imagined on top of the unknowable and mysterious. SilentDawning wrote:…perhaps that’s why God lets so many people believe so many philosophies of Christianity…
..or Hinduism/Buddhism/Islam or Life period.
I think its been said about a million times, but I think we set ourselves for big falls when we really start demanding truth. Truth is just too subjective. I think there is kind of a truth-o-meter that slides back and forth between true and false. The thing I think we tend to do is equate true and false with correct and incorrect. I think this question comes up way way way too much in the Mormon world for either side to the point I get a migraine. I think the scripture is the biggest culprit for this and then come the ham sandwiches.
As for the first vision regardless of the accounts JS I believe did have a vision and maybe it happened different in each recollection in his mind we won’t know until we can get in his mind.
For me it just doesn’t matter anymore either JS had something happen or didn’t . When I look at it from that point of view I can say no it doesn’t matter. It’s jsut one of those things you can’t know for sure from a factual scientific basis. There are just some things in this world we have to boil down to faith.
I guess from the truth or false dichotomy we can say that there are multiple accounts of the first vision, so strictly on that basis I guess you’d have to take the first or last account.
I think though if we ask ourselves that, what was the point of the story? I think I can accept JS had a supernatural experience that was from God. Whatever the details the lesson to be learned is that God is here, alive, and with us.
I have only one name to say: Dr. Joseph Campbell Pick up any of his many books (Power of Myth, Hero with a Thousand Faces, Myths to Live By, etc.). This is exactly what he argues — Myth is not only valuable, it is vitally important to individuals and to healthy societies.
The factual and historical truth of it is only a tangential side interest.
Brian I just wanted to give you a shout out. I listened to you on a fairly recent podcast with John Dehlin that I thought was really good. I like your style and your “testimony” is pretty similar mine I think in some ways. I’ve seen you post at NOM here and there and I really wish you would post more often. I believe that the middle way is a lot more tennable than people tend to think. I often get discouraged when I see people with some doubt get sucked over to NOM as if it were the only or best way. Its really sad to me as I feel NOM does serve a purpose, but encourages a lot of negativity and an all or nothing approach more often than not. Recently Mike Tannehill was banned from NOM, while I think some censure would have been appropriate banning I believe was uncalled for. I am more of a non-literalist/reconcilliatory Mormon and I feel as though when I or others say anything positive there we get shut down pretty quick.
StayLDS links to NOM. I actually was at NOM before here. I frequently see many posters almost automatically suggest NOM to even the slightest doubter. I think this in many cases is not a good thing and my encourage or accellerate false/minor doubt.
I’d like to know your thoughts or anyone elses. How would/do you go about helping friends or family who have doubts?
FenixDown wrote:Brian I just wanted to give you a shout out. I listened to you on a fairly recent podcast with John Dehlin that I thought was really good. I like your style and your “testimony” is pretty similar mine I think in some ways.
I’ve seen you post at NOM here and there and I really wish you would post more often. I believe that the middle way is a lot more tennable than people tend to think. I often get discouraged when I see people with some doubt get sucked over to NOM as if it were the only or best way. Its really sad to me as I feel NOM does serve a purpose, but encourages a lot of negativity and an all or nothing approach more often than not. Recently Mike Tannehill was banned from NOM, while I think some censure would have been appropriate banning I believe was uncalled for. I am more of a non-literalist/reconcilliatory Mormon and I feel as though when I or others say anything positive there we get shut down pretty quick.
StayLDS links to NOM. I actually was at NOM before here. I frequently see many posters almost automatically suggest NOM to even the slightest doubter. I think this in many cases is not a good thing and my encourage or accellerate false/minor doubt.
I’d like to know your thoughts or anyone elses. How would/do you go about helping friends or family who have doubts?
I went to NOM and I couldn’t take it unfortunately. It was too negative and I felt it would push me further away. Here at least, there is acceptance of divergent thinking, but the goal is peace within the Church in spite of any doubts or misgivings. I also felt there was a tendency to look down on TBM’s there, while the culture here is to respect their view as a tenable way to be a Mormon, as are other perspectives.
In terms of helping people who have doubts, I think there first needs to be a diagnoses of their doubts. For early doubts, the Standard Mormon Answers may help them just fine. I got by on SMA’s for years. However, people with seasoning in the Church often find those answers no longer satisfying. For them, I think the “How To Stay In The Church” article represents a new way of thinking they may not have considered. It might work, depending on their issues.
And then, there are the answers people give to people seeking advice here on this forum. I’ve tried to develop my own middle way, and the ideas I’ve shared in the opening thread, such as accepting that the religion may not have to be definitively true to be beneficial, is an example of one such way of thinking, as is the notion that religion is a useful theory to help put structure on the world, whether entirely true or not. But again, I think the prescription needs to follow diagnoses of issues and how far from accepting the literal gospel they are.
I think this site provides many arrows in one’s quiver…from which people can choose, and encourages new coping mechanisms. The creativity alone is useful for me personally and may help others feel less stifled — another way of helping them stay LDS.
SilentDawning wrote:I went to NOM and I couldn’t take it unfortunately. It was too negative and I felt it would push me further away. Here at least, there is acceptance of divergent thinking, but the goal is peace within the Church in spite of any doubts or misgivings…. I think this site provides many arrows in one’s quiver…from which people can choose, and encourages new coping mechanisms. The creativity alone is useful for me personally and may help others feel less stifled — another way of helping them stay LDS.
Amen to that SD. Well said.
I believe a “middle-way” of some sort is tenable for a lot more people! That is why I chose to become and advocate and “champion” of the idea. I really don’t have any agenda to change the Church, except whatever happens to it by keeping more awesome brothers and sisters INthe family. I want a broader tent, and it won’t get there if all the diversity constantly feels the only option is to leave. It’s MY FRIGGIN’ CHURCH TOO!!!! *Brian yells and shakes his fist in defiance* I’ve spent my whole life in it. I’ve invested time and effort to support it. It’s mine too! They created me as a person, literally. Now they have to live with me
😈 My personality is such that the worst thing they (the world, both sides in and out of the church) can tell me is that I should leave. It isn’t possible to stay. Oh yeah? Watch me… (I am such a stubborn booger)
As for NOM, I thoroughly enjoy that community, support their purpose, and believe they play an important role in the spectrum of Internet Mormonism. They have a much wider range of belief, which is good. But it also tends to drown out the people who want to be positive about the Church. That is why StayLDS is positioned in “the market” of ideas where it is. The cost of our positive environment is a much tighter control on content, and a focus on a much more narrow slice of the spectrum than NOM. We do not entertain the more negative half of the spectrum.
On a personal level, I am friends with Dathon and many others there. They are great people, and great compassionate and uplifting souls. They do a lot of good with their project, a TON!
I hear you though. I get frustrated after a time at NOM. I wanted to be positive and move on. I browse and post occasionally there. People don’t stay here forever either. That’s OK. I am satisfied, proud, and feel that we serve God in his grand plan when we help people with what they need.
I don’t have expectations beyond spreading love and reducing suffering.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.