- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Interesting evening. My DW has become a bit annoyed about when I bring up some curiosity of Church HIstory. Knowing as she does that I have an unorthodox view of things, she simply doesn’t want to hear some aspect of church history that upsets her. And I certainly don’t want to upset her.
So she was glancing my iPad, seeing the tagline, above, “Discussing Alternate Ways to Stay In The Church”, and that seemed to just resonate something, again, that things were amiss with her dear husband…
Hmmm.
So I explained to her, really again, that I participate in a community where people discuss how to remain in the church when the basis of their faith has been disrupted.
“Well I don’t know why you have to get into Church history — it’s all past, and for me all that does is bring up stuff that I don’t need to know”.
“Perhaps, as you were reading Rough Stone Rolling, had you finished (she didn’t), you would have learned that Joseph Smith never looked at the plates when he ‘translated’ the book of mormon. He looked at a seerstone in a hat, not at the plates as shown in the correlated picture we teach in primary. That bothers some people. And, when we find out that there is no DNA evidence that any of the Book of Mormon people existed on this continent, it forces us to rethink what the book of mormon is about. I can accept the book of mormon as a divinely inspired allegorical story.”
“You’re saying that none of the people of the book of mormon existed?”
“They don’t have to for me….”
She shook her head and walked a way.
a little later, we sat down to read Jacob 3 in the book of mormon. She says, “Now we’re going to read the story about the real people that lived here in the americas…” and she turns to the title page of the book of mormon.
Title Page wrote:Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile…
“Doesn’t really say that they lived here in the americas, does it? Does it have to be?”‘“Well I see your point”
Then as we are reading we get to this choice scripture in Jacob 3:
Jacob 3:8 wrote:O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.
I stopped her (she was reading), and said, “Now how do you feel about the idea that whiter skin is an indicator of righteousness?”
“Well I have always had a problem with those verses…”
“When we realize that the book of mormon is an inspired work through a man, and not a dictated or translated text, we can better accept that some of the things in it may come from a nineteenth century world view.”
“Joseph Smith didn’t have a problem with blacks”
“perhaps not, but the american worldview at the time was that dark skin was somehow inferior.”
“ok…”
“So I can look at the book of mormon, I can read it, and I can feel that it testifies of truth — I feel something about it. The title page even references mistakes in it…of men. And realizing it isn’t dictated, helps appreciate its divine content, because I can discard the ‘whiteness’ crap as ’19-th century worldview’.
I continued. “But my testimony goes further. When I taught Gospel Doctrine on the Book of Mormon, it’s witness of christ and of the pure principles of the gospel is clear and unambiguous. It contains the truth. That’s my testimony. But what happens with testimony is that just because we feel it contains truth, the church makes a statement, could any man have written this book? And then from that requires acceptance of an historical account of its creation that simply isn’t true. If I convolute my actual testimony of what I *know* to be true, with the testimony plucked from the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the church — the standard story of book of mormon creation, then when I find out the standard story is false, my testimony crumbles.”
She interrupted, “Well, yes, true…but”…
“If on the other hand, I focus my testimony on what I feel and know from the existence of the book, and what it says, including its human, 19th century worldview, I can realize that the message can be divine, while the origin stories are made up.”
“But if the origin stories are made up, how can it be true?”
“In the bible, there is a book – one of the five ‘books that moses wrote’. Deuteronomy. In it, is the Shema — the statement of faith in a unified god, and that we are supposed to love him with all our heart might mind and strength. Powerful words…. Except that moses never said them. A prophet, Josiah, a contemporary of Lehi, went into the temple and came out saying he ‘found’ a lost scroll of the Law written by the hand of moses. But he, or one of his scribes, actually made it up. They lied. They thought they needed to, because they needed to reform the same jewish problems that Lehi saw in Jerusalem. He claimed they came from Moses, because otherwise, no-one would listen to him — Moses is the only lawgiver. So he did what he had to. And it worked. And as a result, we have the Shema, and the first and greatest commandment, to love god with all our hearts, mind and strength.
“Now these are painful words, “Pious Fraud”, but that’s exactly what Josiah did. When Joseph Smith brought forth the book of mormon, somehow, he gave gravitas to the story, by saying that it came from ancient records. If it were just a book he wrote, it would never have taken off like it has. I know it seems inconceivable, but Pious Fraud works. In my impression that’s what joseph smith did.
“what we really learn is that god does not communicate by dictation or by these miraculous law pronouncements. rather, god inspires people in the same way you and I are inspired to make decisions in our lives. Some people are able to take their inspiration public, and push forward the word and will of the lord to a lot of people. And as a result, we have a church, a community, and the means whereby we can be reading the book of mormon right now. But it changes our testimony, doesn’t it?”
At this point she decided to finish reading the chapter and go to bed…
Quote:At this point she decided to finish reading the chapter and go to bed…
You think?
:silent: Old-Timer wrote:Quote:At this point she decided to finish reading the chapter and go to bed…
You think?
:silent:
yeah, well…do you think maybe the tagline under “staylds” isn’t exactly what we’re about? not sure…
wayfarer wrote:Pious Fraud works.
Just for my own edification, how is Pious Fraud better than lying for the Lord? Isn’t the fruit of a rotten tree rotten?
Luther Hegs wrote:wayfarer wrote:Pious Fraud works.
Just for my own edification, how is Pious Fraud better than lying for the Lord? Isn’t the fruit of a rotten tree rotten?
do you accept deuteronomy as scripture? if so, then Pious Fraud works for you.if you don’t, then maybe we can have a conversation that since there really isn’t a single god out there that coherently dictates his will into one set of books, the all religion that claims revelatory authority is either delusion or pious fraud.
root or trunk rot does not creat rotten fruit…it creates weak fruit, but not rotten.
and rotten fruit is not always bad…some grape rot (specific fungi) makes for the most delicious wines.
wayfarer wrote:
and rotten fruit is not always bad…some grape rot (specific fungi) makes for the most delicious wines.Agreed!
But you haven’t discussed the difference between lying for the Lord and Pious Fraud. A reason that many of us struggle is when we come to realize all the lying for the Lord to which we have been subjected. When is it just a lie and when is it Pious. A straight forward response would/could be we decide (I like that because I think we need to make our own path). However, if god(s) inspires people to write a portion of “The Mind” and wrap it in a lie, then what is trustworthy? If that is the case I think I (at least for me) prefer to through it all out and rely on my connection with “The Mind” (sort of an ex nihilo inspiratum). That cuts all other people’s lies and delusions and at least replaces them with my own.
Why would I discuss the difference? Seems that “Pious Fraud”, a term laid out by Wellhausen and others about scriptural evolution is a bit different than the simple pejorative “Lying for the Lord”. The term “Pious Fraud” was not meant as a polemic. “Lying for the Lord” is, and I have no real use for polemical argument. In this middle of a new world realizing that the scriptures, histories, and ‘commandments’ of religion are made-up, there are multiple paths. Some try to ignore the truth, like a recent resident here, and revert back to true belief. More power to them, it probably won’t stick, but for many that’s the way to go. Others dwell on the fact that for years, we have been apparently lied to, deceived, and critical information has been withheld. It’s sad, and true, but dwelling on this fact of being hoodwinked is not a sustainable middle path. Bitterness is not a place where people can dwell for long.
A path, closely connected with the ‘revert to true belief’ path is the path of apologetics — of defense of the church, its history and teachings, as a way to deal with the cognitive dissonance. Some of the defenders get very creative in their selection of factoids in order to defend, and justifiably, people like us tend to find apologetics distasteful. As well, the concept of ‘defend’ gets painfully close to polemical defense, and that just offends truth and harmony. It tends to create more bitterness among those who are already deceived and lied to. But the polemical reaction to apologetics, the one which uses terms like “Lying for the Lord” as a way to frame debate, is not productive.
When I say reframing testimony in this thread, I’m trying to think about an approach that accepts the truth of flawed history as a phenomenon. As well, the uplifting message in the Book of Mormon is also a phenomenon. The feelings that most of us had as we read the book of mormon is yet another phenomenon. These phenomena are all real, yet the judgements made on both sides of polemical debate are quite invalid and not justified by the phenomena.
It is probematic for anyone to take the two phenomena: (1) that the book of mormon has a clear uplifting message and (2) I feel good about the book and its message; and convert these two phenomena into a concrete statement of truth: “Therefore, I KNOW that the book of mormon was translated by the gift and power of god from ancient gold plates containing a history of native americans and Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.” This conclusion is epistemologically flawed.
It is likewise problematic to two take three phenomena: (1) that joseph smith was convicted of fraud using a seer stone and (2) that joseph smith translated the Book of Mormon by that same seerstone, and (3) the church has covered up this fact through correlation for most of its history; and conclude that the Book of Mormon is worthless.
Let’s evaluate the typical testimony phrases:
1. The Church is the only true church on the face of the earth
2. Joseph Smith was a Prophet and Seer of the Lord, and he has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it.
3. If we follow the Prophet, we will never be led astray.
These are superlative, absolute, value judgments that are not sustainable from the phenomena.
Statement 1 is easily dismissed when the word ‘true’ in its most common meanings is falsified by deceptive practices. if we define true as ‘true for me’ or ‘directionally true’, then the word ‘only’ does not apply. The statement is provably false.
Statement 2 is easily dismissed by virtue of comparative value and contribution. Unless ‘salvation’ is defined as ‘what the church teaches about exaltation’, then the contributions of gandhi, muhammed, gautama, Cyrus, etc., must be dismissed as inferior to Joseph Smith. By sheer numbers, this is not the case. And even in a believing sense, does the contribution of Joseph Smith outweigh Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, John the Baptist and Paul? A superlative hagiography proclaimed at the funeral of Joseph Smith, while understandable, does not have to be ‘forever true’ in the context of testimony. And as a testimony, how does the testifier make a conclusion of such a summary value judgment? Has the testifier studied the contribution of all other people and come to this conclusion as a witness? Or are we just repeating someone elses opinion? In any case, statement 2 fails as ‘testimony’.
Statement 3 is easily disproven by history. The ‘prophets’ have repeatedly led the people who follow astray in many different ways. Those who participated in polygamy thinking that it was essential for their exaltation and would be an eternal principle to the ends of the earth were led astray. Those who believed that Adam was “the only god with whom we have to do” because Brigham Young declared such to be the case were led astray. Those who bellieved that Blacks were neutrals because they were taught this by the prophets, were led astray. Those who faithfully built up food storage expecting near term disaster only to have such storage rot and never be used were led astray. And those who faithfully discriminated against gays and gay marriage were led astray by prophets who claimed that gays were intent on destroying the family.
Is it “Lying for the Lord” to proclaim rote testimony? No. It’s just not an informed practice, and perpetuates an environment of ignorance. To reframe testimony is to return to the phenomena upon which testimony is built. These become true statements of ‘witness’, and therefore testimony:
1. When I read the book of mormon, i clearly understand the first princples of the gospel.
2. When I read the book of mormon, i feel good about it, and i feel that it’s teachings can help me in my life.
3. As I have applied the principles in the book of mormon (specifically…), I had these positive outcomes…
4. When I pray about the book of mormon, I find peace and joy.
These, being my observations of the phenomenology of the book of mormon are unassailable testimony of what I know to be true. They are my witness, and although you may have a different one, my witness is completely valid as a testimony. This, to me, is reframing testimony.
I only will add that I have no problem whatsoever with people saying, “I know . . . is true” – because I know what they mean is precisely what wayfarer just wrote – that they have had experiences in their lives that built their testimony that _________ is from God and, therefore, they have a personal, experiential testimony of its worth and goodness. They say, “I know,” because that is the accepted idiom of their time – and I’m totally cool with that. I’m going to say this carefully but directly:
If someone can’t handle hearing someone else say, “I know”, when they themselves can’t phrase it that way, it says more about the person doing the complaining than about the person making the statement. It says the hearer can’t accept any phrasing other than their own – that the hearer is operating within a paradigm of exclusivity and rejection, as opposed to a paradigm of inclusivity and acceptance. Please think about that; don’t just gloss over it. It’s critically important to peace within a community.
There are lots of legitimate concerns about history of any kind, and our own religious history is no different. Establishing one true, exact wording for people to use in framing their testimonies is not one of them. Denying them the ability to express “I know” to mean what they feel and believe is no different than insisting everyone say, “I know.” If you don’t like the latter, it’s a good idea not to insist on the former.
Just because someone may be pious and believe what they are doing is good does not make it so. This line of reasoning is what sometimes bothers me. When the evidence becomes blatant that something is not true we attempt to weave a new narrative to satisfy our past belief with current knowledge. I understand the human need to do so, but as I move farther along on my journey it is less needed. I am very pale skinned, which makes me more righteous than most of you. (Under my fur…) 😆 When people are convinced of certainty, there isn’t anything we can do to change them. let’s allow those who feel certain to have or declare their testimony any way they see fit. It works for them, and that is good enough for me. speaking closer to home, literally, what i am saying is that reframing testimony is important to those who discover and come to accept that some Church truth claims are not so truthful after all. In these cases, the prior convolution of the experience of good feelings and clarity with the bogus truth claims creates cognitive dissonance and doubt, the opposite of certainty. i am seeking to explain in this thread a parachute for the testimony side of this equation.
i think what happens to the majority of those willing to face this doubt is an eventual loss of all testimony. looking at NOM, the more active middle ground site, most of the participants are either out of the church, or wish they were. They lose family, friends, and connections held for life, in an effort to remain true to themselves. i understand and respect the position, but i have no desire to leave the church, lose friends and family, nor deny the testimony experiences i have had that testify…of something.
reframing testimony, for me, is the process of reconciling faith-inducing experiences with the conclusions of certainty we make, personally, about those experiences. This is not meant to be critical of those who make flawed epestemological conclusions. words like “I know” and “true” are epistemological conclusions. I recognize that people living as well as scriptural characters say these words, so criticizing others’ use of them does nothing positive. I could confront the person Job as speaking a flawed epistemological conclusion when he said:
Job 19:25-27 wrote:For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.
Job makes three truth claims here, none of which are provable. regardless of what i personally believe, i accept that Job “knows” these things, in other words, he has strong belief to the point of feeling certain. between the verbs “i believe” and “i know”, English does not have a verb to say “I faith”. to say “I have faith” does not convey the same power. so let’s agree that when we or someone make the statement “I know”, it means “I believe to the point of being certain.”this redefinition of “I know” is part of reframing testimony. as well, “true” cannot mean “true” in the sense of being without flaw or artifice. not any more. but here, the redefinition of the term is a stretch, unless explicitly qualified as “true for me”, or “directionally true”. when i hear “true”, have no problem interpreting other peoples words that way…i just can’t use the word.
I want to say. Despite my weakness in grammar. That I personally feel placing a testimony on any man or event eventually leads to failure. Which to me leads to moroni 7-46 “for charity never failith. wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail–” That after talking about hope and faith. Seems to imply that both will surely fail sooner or later. But if we base our life on the 2 greatest commandments, love for god and love for thy neighbor that it will not fail us. I find very interesting wayfarer your talk to your DW and the 2 points of view strikingly similar to TEdTalks: Brave Neuro world season 1 “Jill Bolte Taylor’s Stroke of Insight” episode. You can view it on Netflix, YouTube or iTunes. I really recommend you watch it if you can. It is a short talk and very insightful into the workings of the 2 halfs of the brain when she experiences a stroke. It’s also kind of funny and touching testimony of her experience. I think it relates very well to the view points of you and your DW as well as maybe to modern Mormons and the early saints mig have seen things from different halves of the brain. And the way they process information.
I base my testimony on the teachings that I have personally witnessed do good and uplift others and can not give testimony to things and teachings I watch pull down or harm others. I’m pretty much at a state where I just love god, love my neighbor and do my best(which varies from person to person and day to day). And after that it is “Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.