- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In “The Heart of Christianity” he talks about ways to see the Bible. How exactly this applies when I am LDS and have an open canon and a book that I’m almost required to take literally, but can’t, I’m not sure, but I still benefitted from these quotes: Quote:Metaphor…has both a negative and a positive meaning. Negatively, it means nonliteral. Positively, it means the more-than-literal meaning of language. Thus metaphorical meaning is not inferior to literal meaning, but is more than literal meaning.
As metaphorical narratives, [Bible stories] can be profoundly true, even though not literally factual. This claim – that metaphorical language can be true – needs to be emphasized in our time. … To a large extent, we have become tone-deaf to metaphor.
I do not speak of metaphorical fictions, but of metaphorical truths.
A Catholic priest once said in a sermon, “The Bible is true, and some of it happened.”
Metaphorical narratives are myths in Thomas Mann’s sense of the word: stories about the way things never were, but always are.
So perhaps metaphor can be a bridge between conflicting understandings of the Bible among Christians today. It would mean declaring a moratorium on the question of literal factuality, or at least agreeing to disagree on that issue. To repeat language I used earlier: believe whatever you want about whether the story happened this way; but now let’s talk about what the story means.
One final comment about a metaphorcal approach: metaphor means “to see as.” Metaphorical language is a way of seeing. The Bible not only includes metaphorical language and metaphorical narratives, but may itself be thought of as a “giant” metaphor. The Bible as metaphor is a way of seeing the whole: a way of seeing God, ourselves, the divine-human relationship, and the divine-world relationship. And the point is not to “believe” in a metaphor – but to “see” with it. This the point is not to believe in the Bibke – but to see our lives with God through it.”
Thanks for the quotes. Ann wrote:How exactly this applies when I am LDS and have an open canon and a book that I’m almost required to take literally, but can’t, I’m not sure…
With Sunday School centered on the BoM this year I’ve noticed that the discussion has shifted toward a more literal interpretation.
These days it might be easier for me to recognize the benefit of taking all scriptures metaphorically but the issue seems to be that more literal interpretations are ruling the day in my classes. In order to reach a better place I’m going to attempt to interpret people’s comments on scripture metaphorically as well. In other words, extend people the same courtesy and same wiggle room that I afford the scriptures. I probably already do that to some extent but I’ll have to make a more concerted effort and see how things pan out.
I also feel like metaphorical interpretations of scriptures are already shared in our classes all the time. It’s just that a literal interpretation will step in from time to time to limit the direction that a conversation can go.
Literal interpretations can play an important role, I think literal interpretations often serve as a catalyst for receiving metaphorical inspiration. If we were to assume the great flood was a literal event that might inspire us to come up with the idea that the great flood was the process by which the earth was baptized. We might use those thoughts to come up with the idea that the earth follows a similar path as we do down the road that leads to exaltation; we are spiritually connected to the earth, we share fates, etc. It might inspire us to be a better steward of mother earth.
A literal interpretation really only gets in the way when it becomes an entity unto itself, arguments that break out over whether something did or did not happen a certain way. Once the argument begins we are no longer trying to derive meaning, we’re trying to convince someone else of our answer to a question.
When it comes down to it “there was no Nephi” is really just a different type of literal interpretation that we might get hung up on. It might not matter that much when it comes to discussing spiritual truths. If you’re trying to get me to use personal funds to finance archaeological digs then that’s an entirely different discussion.
nibbler wrote:
When it comes down to it “there was no Nephi” is really just a different type of literal interpretation that we might get hung up on. It might not matter that much when it comes to discussing spiritual truths.Thanks for putting it so clearly.
Quote:If you’re trying to get me to use personal funds to finance archaeological digs then that’s an entirely different discussion.
Ha! No money for digs, but what about when “they” (sounds more adversarial than I feel) are trying – and succeeding – in teaching your kids that Nephi absolutely does exist? How do you handle this issue at home?
My sister recently said that in GD class she feels like an adult who’s put the kids to bed on Christmas Eve, only to come back downstairs and find all the adults talking about Santa Claus – for real. She doesn’t have the time or energy or enough interest to connect with people online, or read independently. So she’s just checking out. I don’t know how long it will take for us to broaden the discussion so people like her actually get some of it on a given Sunday. I’m enjoying the reading I do now, and I really do hate for her to miss out. I can just keep the Book of Mormon alive in my own life and she’ll hear about it occasionally that way.
I like the quotes, and points made by both of you. Ann wrote:My sister recently said that in GD class she feels like an adult who’s put the kids to bed on Christmas Eve, only to come back downstairs and find all the adults talking about Santa Claus – for real.
Perhaps it will take General Conference talks or devotionals and quotes by GAs to make it “safe” to discuss it as adults. I don’t sense the church has positioned itself for that. The correlation program of the church would need to sign off on it, until then, the class discussions are the same and mostly literal interpretations. I know I’m not the only one in my ward that thinks openly about it, but I also don’t sense a need to openly talk about non-literal views, because metaphorical views are accepted, even while the assumption is historical literalism.
I can still work within that space. But it seems silly to have to go along with it sometimes.
Ann wrote:believe whatever you want about whether the story happened this way; but now let’s talk about what the story means.
I agree with this statement. So, what others believe is not that important to me.
Thanks for this Ann, I needed it today. Excellent thoughts Nibbler.
I am saddened by expressions that appear to be “stuck” on the strictly literal black/white view. In my view it ends up destroying relationships and losing the value that can be found in church. I do agree that our church culture promotes an all-or-nothing literal and black/white view, as well as other misconceptions; but in my mind when cracks start to develop in the absolute trust – the all or nothing expressions should be the first out the window. Personal authority should be the first thing claimed.
My favorite lessons to teach/discuss are the dreams/visions/parables because people are more open to metaphor and multiple meanings for things. Ann wrote:My sister recently said that in GD class she feels like an adult who’s put the kids to bed on Christmas Eve, only to come back downstairs and find all the adults talking about Santa Claus – for real. She doesn’t have the time or energy or enough interest to connect with people online, or read independently. So she’s just checking out. I don’t know how long it will take for us to broaden the discussion so people like her actually get some of it on a given Sunday. I’m enjoying the reading I do now, and I really do hate for her to miss out. I can just keep the Book of Mormon alive in my own life and she’ll hear about it occasionally that way.
I know all too well what that feels like. I think that one of the things that contributes to those feelings is the all the repetition in our classes. Talking about Santa is nice and all but talking about Santa using the exact same language for over 40 years? It fails to inspire. It’s hard to blame people for checking out.
There are pros to all the repetition. There’s the famous go-to “you didn’t learn it the first time” but I think it has other benefits. It’s hard to get away from repetition because it’s baked in when it comes to teaching the rising generation. The subject reminds me of Ray’s
Moderation and MeOld-Timer wrote:To be totally honest, I have considered leaving this site a few times over the last five years – for various reasons. It takes a lot of time, and I have family and other things that don’t get the time I spend here.
It also can be incredibly draining, emotionally – especially when we get a flood of new participants and we have to rehash everything we have discussed, multiple times, over the course of the last five years.It’s hard going through a faith crisis / transition personally; it also is hard going through the faith crisis of others. Not to pick on Ray but even approaching things from a metaphorical perspective can become tiring if it’s the same thing over and over again. It can be a game of balancing pros and cons. A pro – people that are growing spiritually really need to hear the stuff. A con – the repetition becomes draining.
Church has its function, repeats that function to the point of exhaustion, but it does fill a role in spiritual development. StayLDS has its function, repeats that function to the point of exhaustion, but it does fill a role in spiritual development. I don’t think we’d be doing ourselves any favors by making church (or even StayLDS) something we never allow ourselves to grow out of.
If the church becomes the end rather than the means then that might cause someone to conclude that the church is something that can never be outgrown. From time to time I feel like that mindset dominates our discussions in church. Church doctrines start to feel finite, after a certain point there’s no place to go. The only thing you’re left with is helping other people reach that same plateau. That’s a noble cause but it can be an exhausting one.
I didn’t mean for this post to be about repetition, back on subject… it’s hard to broaden the subject at church. It feels like we’re in a rut. The discussions are mostly the same, feel walled off, and increasingly I’m starting to feel like discussions are disappearing altogether. I can only speak to the experiences I’ve had in the wards I’ve attended but most classes aren’t really discussions, they are lectures. The same lectures. It’s hard for people learning how to lead a discussion to interact with people learning how to participate in a discussion. Formulaic lessons or reading straight from the manual is so much easier.
Some time ago I remember hearing the youth curriculum was revamped to promote more discussion. I also heard that the adults would be getting this same revamped curriculum and I remember getting excited. Change! I still haven’t seen it yet. It makes me wonder though. We did too good a job standardizing our lessons. Even if the curriculum and methods were changed we’d probably stick to the way things already are out of habit, preparing our lesson out one eye, watching SNL out the other.
Yes, this was a huge tangent post. I understand checking out. People need to be inspired in order to remain engaged. After a while repetition can become a roadblock to inspiration.
nibbler wrote:If the church becomes the end rather than the means then that might cause someone to conclude that the church is something that can never be outgrown. From time to time I feel like that mindset dominates our discussions in church. Church doctrines start to feel finite, after a certain point there’s no place to go. The only thing you’re left with is helping other people reach that same plateau. That’s a noble cause but it can be an exhausting one.
[snip]…
Some time ago I remember hearing the youth curriculum was revamped to promote more discussion. I also heard that the adults would be getting this same revamped curriculum and I remember getting excited. Change! I still haven’t seen it yet. It makes me wonder though. We did too good a job standardizing our lessons.
Pretty good tangent, though, Nibbler. I like how you put this. And I do believe it leads to exhaustion by some people.This is how I can still find it ok to teach on Sundays, because I try to promote discussion in class. There doesn’t have to be consensus to my views or others’. It simply is what it is. Metaphors are more difficult to argue about as opposed to black and white viewpoints that are right or wrong.
At this juncture a lot would die if the BoM became metaphor. We are too young for that jump. I sat in GD the other day, I had an enlightening experience – the class and comments didn’t bug me. It wasn’t that the group was seeing things my way, in fact when it comes to Nephi and Co. I am the outsider. What was most amazing about that is the calm it gave me to consider other ideas and inputs. Some one went on a rage about Laman and Lemuel dancing and partying and pushing the spirit away. Lots of heads nodded. Then I remarked “but Isaiah was commanded to dance and make merry. King David also.” The room held a hush. It wasn’t that I was great. It was that I was okay, without making it a deal. Someday we will get to the metaphor phase. It will happen after we pass. We give the bible that license, eventually all scripture will be that.
mom3 wrote:It wasn’t that I was great. It was that I was okay, without making it a deal.
Someday we will get to the metaphor phase. It will happen after we pass. We give the bible that license, eventually all scripture will be that.
Very cool example, mom3.If it will happen someday…then some of us need to see it that way now without making it a big deal, or it will never change.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.