Cognitive Dissonance for Mormons and Exmormons

All good points. I have also found power in the symbols we use in the church, I have grown to love symbols. We are told everything in the temple is symbolic, to me most everything in the church is symbolic. Dan of Mormon Matters podcast has said many times it is not the symbol itself that is object of worship, but what it points us toward. I’m not afraid to test potential symbolism of everything in the church, even the organization itself. Can we see anything in a new way if we look at the church as a symbolic representation of God’s kingdom or family? If we look at priesthood offices as a symbol of God’s authority? When I take that approach many things open up for me. I see opportunities to learn from human failings. I see a wise and grand design.

Can we see anything in a new way if we look at the church as a symbolic representation of God’s kingdom or family? If we look at priesthood offices as a symbol of God’s authority?

…or even God is a symbol for something, especially as we frame it as Heavenly Father.

I like the way it was defined up front:

Cognitive Dissonance:

Cognitive Dissonance is a psychological concept describing the discomfort one experiences with conflicting beliefs, ideas, behaviors, or desires.

a) cogdis is a human experience and not necessarily bad

I agree with this. Well worded.

To me, it’s based on that realization…that we do it all the time…all of us…it is how we learn and how we challenge old ideas with new learning or discard new ideas to hold on to past knowledge, and there is some stress or effort internally as we go through that.

Therefore, your coping mechanism to see the church symbolically and metaphorically is one way to see the church and the teachings. It is not more right than the literal true believers, or the ex-mos who see it false. There are just different views.

I take a very orthoprax approach to religious teaching.

That is why Fowler’s Stages of Faith are one way to look at it…because black and white can apply to TBMs in Stage 3 or Ex-Mo’s in Stage 3. They are just arguing different things.

Yeah I was going to get into Fowler Stages of Faith in that post, because the concepts intertwine, but it seemed like it was going to get too tedious to try to give the background info to a reader who is unfamiliar with it. I’d like to do an analysis on how Stages of Faith applies to Mormonism (and Exmo’s) later. One of my core beliefs I’m trying to popularize is that nuanced/metaphorical view of religion should be considered before a religion is dumped. Exmo’s frequently say they read a bunch of stuff, lost their testimony, and they’re OUT. I understand why. TBM’s will criticize them and demand them to come back with literal testimonies, which is impossible. I would like them to consider an alternate view before they give up so fast.

I think some people have more patience to work through things than others. Just like some people have patience to spend time price shopping, and others really just make purchase decisions quickly because that saves time and frustration…so there isn’t one best way…it depends on what you value. I tend to price shop…and analyze and over analyze…so staying while I figure it out is fine for me because I can manage through the frustration I face in the mean time.

One of my core beliefs I’m trying to popularize is that nuanced/metaphorical view of religion should be considered before a religion is dumped.

I think that is definitely wise and mature to be able to nuance and stay honest and meaningful, not lose the meaning by nuancing it so much. But…I would also say that while that works for me, I can accept it doesn’t work for everyone. There is no silver bullet for this thing…or someone would have written a book about it long ago and the issue would be solved. There are several books…and the issue continues to be a generational thing.

Our kids will have the benefit of our experience.

But they will experience CogDis in their life too. Sometimes about religion, even if they are nuance thinkers.

One of my core beliefs I’m trying to popularize is that nuanced/metaphorical view of religion should be considered before a religion is dumped.

For some reason I can hear my dad’s voice in my head, “A metaphor doesn’t put food on the table.” It’s stupid, probably doesn’t make any sense, but I heard it all the same.

I don’t mean to be flippant. Sometimes increased nuance isn’t enough to make it in a practical world. I do think it’s a good place for a softer landing but it’s not going to work for everyone. There doesn’t need to be a stigma associated with leaving religion.

I would say that authors like Joseph Campbell and Eckhart Tolle are definitely popular by reminding us the power of methaphors and myths and stories.

In our world that advances with science, we don’t need to jettison the metaphorical. There is great value that has lasted centuries in the metaphors we have for life.

It is not Historical vs Metaphorical that must be solved to believe in the church. We can accept metaphorical/symbolic AND some historical AND much of it not historical.

I don’t fear the church is going anywhere, or unable to offer individuals any value. Because it isn’t dependent on historicity for value. Or it would be dead by now.

there should be no stigma associated with leaving

+1