- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:
“Imagine if all that time effort and money was used for the living. We may actually get something accomplished.”
If all that time, effort and money was used for the living, we would lose MUCH of what is so compelling for so many people about our theology.
I agree, DA, that too many members seem to prioritize the dead over the living, but doing away with temple work and its underlying theological foundation would make us nothing more than one more Protestant denomination – and I don’t want to see that happen. There’s a LOT of good people and good beliefs and wonderful service provided in and by those denominations, but I don’t want to lose the uniqueness of temple theology to focus exclusively on the living. Even though I see what we do in the temple as symbolic and not “objective, immutable need” – I still love what it symbolizes and really would hate to lose it.
I ca see how some people need the abstract theology to keep them going. It provides a uniqueness to Mormonism that makes them feel special. I just wish we as a people could move beyond the need for such things. It seems it is a leftover from the 19th century when the world as we know it was much more a mystery. As we evolve in knowledge I would hope that we can move beyond symbolism and move to a more tangible reality. Things such as the temple IMHO consume a lot of resources for little useful production
Cadence wrote:Things such as the temple IMHO consume a lot of resources for little useful production
I expect that if the temple did nothing more than improve committment and activity it would be useful and justified.
Destroying empowering myths (NOT “falsehoods”) is not a good thing, nor is it useful. It might not mean anything substantial to you, Cadence – but do you really want to eliminate something that provides such deep meaning and purpose to so many?
Would it have been better if cathedrals never had been built – or synagogues – or any other type of physical worship / meeting sites that take resources away from some that could have been spent on practical aid? What about monuments – even something like Arlington Cemetary, that costs plenty of money to maintain? We can talk degrees, but removing the tangible evidences of faith and commitment to the entire human race, including (and perhaps especially) the dead . . . I don’t want that.
Being able to strike that type of balance between what means something to each of us individually and what means something to lots of others is a key component to community building – and peaceful coexistence – and charity – and true love (not “to blave” – sorry – couldn’t resist) – and much of what I believe lies at the heart of a real “Zion”.
I have to agree with Ray on the need for the “useless” and impractical trappings of humanity. Why do humans do so much that isn’t purposeful or practical? Because we must! That is what human beings do. Once we have the basic problems of day-to-day survival and the biological imperative of procreation solved, we spend all our remaining efforts into meaning/myth projects. Mostly, we call them hobbies these days:
-People work gardens that produce no food.
-People watch sports and never play, but feel a part of the team.
-etc. etc. etc.
-Mormons baptize a concept of their dead ancestors
It’s really more important than it looks on the surface. A life without myth and meaning-making activities is a life without flavor. The best parts of life are the meaningless and purposeless parts…
Old-Timer wrote:Destroying empowering myths (NOT “falsehoods”) is not a good thing, nor is it useful.
It might not mean anything substantial to you, Cadence – but do you really want to eliminate something that provides such deep meaning and purpose to so many?
Would it have been better if cathedrals never had been built – or synagogues – or any other type of physical worship / meeting sites that take resources away from some that could have been spent on practical aid? What about monuments – even something like Arlington Cemetary, that costs plenty of money to maintain? We can talk degrees, but removing the tangible evidences of faith and commitment to the entire human race, including (and perhaps especially) the dead . . . I don’t want that.
Being able to strike that type of balance between what means something to each of us individually and what means something to lots of others is a key component to community building – and peaceful coexistence – and charity – and true love (not “to blave” – sorry – couldn’t resist) – and much of what I believe lies at the heart of a real “Zion”.
I do not know. I just ask myself why all the mythology. I can understand 500 years ago when the world was more in the dark and people were searching for answers, but as we learn more about the world around us why do we still need to try and explain things with mythology that are perfectly explainable by more rational means. You speak of cathedrals and synagogs, but did mythology put a man on the moon? did it cure polio? Did it give us any real advances that made life better in a real physical way. Maybe it makes you feel good and inspires some people to find some sense of peace but again I say there certainly is a high cost associated with mythology s perpetuation.
Call me what you may, I just choose not to participate in things that give no real answers or perpetuate old theories about the nature of man and the universe. Others may choose to do so and that is great for them, I just find it a exercise in futility. I find it easier and less agonizing to just admit I do not know something instead of trying to develop a mythology to explain something that is unexplainable with the current information.
Cadence wrote:I can understand 500 years ago when the world was more in the dark and people were searching for answers, but as we learn more about the world around us why do we still need to try and explain things with mythology that are perfectly explainable by more rational means.
This is a mythology in itself — the myth that modern materialist science has answered all the important questions worth knowing, or is so close to the answers as to no longer need stories. Science is a story of the same answers.
Do we really know what happens us after we die? No. But science provides a new mythology, a new story to explain it — the concept of nothingness, the abstract concept of zero applied to our consciousness. But this isn’t factually true. We never cease to exist — the tangible matter that was organized as our human body is as old as the universe, and will never cease to exist in some form or another (even if converted to energy). So why does science lie and create a myth that we cease to exist when we die?
Cadence wrote:You speak of cathedrals and synagogs, but did mythology put a man on the moon? did it cure polio? Did it give us any real advances that made life better in a real physical way. Maybe it makes you feel good and inspires some people to find some sense of peace but again I say there certainly is a high cost associated with mythology s perpetuation.
Mythology did indeed put a man on the moon and cure polio. I agree that highly skilled and knowledgeable people used tools to construct these things and create the events, but it was mythology that inspired them all to make it happen.
Mythology did not build the cathedrals or the pyramids. Architects and skilled craftsmen used tools to make those objects. But it was mythology that compelled them to try.
We operated under a mythology in the U.S. that we are the defenders and promoters of peace, prosperity and the best form of social order. That isn’t factually or historically true: we create more war, misery and disorder in the world — we just make all that happen generally elsewhere, and for our gain. This is the mythology that sent a man to the moon. Why did we do such a useless thing? Because we had to prove to the world that our form of social order was better than the Soviet form of social order — to prove that our economic religion was the one-true path to “the good.”
I could deconstruct the Salk Polio Vaccine the same way as the moon launch.
Cadence wrote:Call me what you may, I just choose not to participate in things that give no real answers or perpetuate old theories about the nature of man and the universe.
I will call you brother and friend. And you should follow the mythology that creates the best meaning for your life. If that is your story, then I salute you. We need voices like yours as a reality check. Too much of any one view is just as dysfunctional in the whole.
Cadence wrote:I find it easier and less agonizing to just admit I do not know something instead of trying to develop a mythology to explain something that is unexplainable with the current information.
The fundamental existential crisis, that the universe might actually be totally random and nobody is in control, is harder to come to terms with than it might seem. I really don’t think most people in the world want to be comfortable with it. I also observe that it seems to be more of a “thought luxury” for the extremely affluent (in terms of human history and the world as a whole). It seems like the vast majority of humanity, those who have lived in constant fear of violent death or starvation, those people don’t particularly value nihilism. The thought that their misery is totally meaningless is counterproductive to survival.
Quote:“did mythology put a man on the moon? did it cure polio? Did it give us any real advances that made life better in a real physical way?”
Yes. Absolutely, it did and has. We would not have gotten involved in space exploration without our foundation of religious mythology – and that is just one example.
I think you still are equating “mythology” with “fiction” – but it has multiple meanings. One is something that is made up and incorrect (the THIRD dictionary definition, interestingly), but the very first meaning simply is a story about something of seminal importance – regardless of whether or not it is grounded in a factual base.
Let me try to say it a different way:
Mythology is the narrative embodient of faith in the purest, non-religious definition of “faith”. It is the creation of stories that explain the unexplainable and (yet) unknowable. It is the way humans make dreams tangible in word. It is the way we encapsulate extremes (both “ultimate good” and “pure evil”) into images to which we can relate and, in doing so, make those extremes “useful”.
That is one of the wonders of Mormon theology / mythology, imo – that it takes the transcendant and often useless images of GOD and Christ (within much of Christianity, especially) and frames those images / concepts in “useful” terms.The ability to conceptualize and create myth is one of the key factors that distinguishes humans from other animals. Intelligence is NOT as important in that process as creativity and the ability to imagine and conceptualize. I mean that last sentence literally. There are some really intelligent animals out there in the world, but they can’t step outside themselves and imagine the unseeable.
That is the genesis of mythology – and we would be nothing more than smarter animals without it.
When I think about it, I remind myself that baptisms for the dead are no different than baptisms for the living. They are both symbolic, they are both an expression of our faith to an idea (or myth), they both connect us to others we love, and they can both produce enriching and meaningful experiences in our lives (as many have shared on this thread) which are real and of value to us as we go through life.
Do we really think the baptismal waters wash sins from our dirty mortal bodies? No. If we took such a literal and surface interpretation, I would argue that our scriptures suggest our spirits are made of matter as well, just more fine matter … so baptizing spirits should work in the same way and proxy baptism is unnecessary. But that is missing the point, IMO.
We are comfortable with the symbolism in the earthly baptismal ordinance. That should equally apply to proxy ordinance work, and the actual collection of all names of all individuals that lived to an age of accountability becomes less important. Perhaps if we don’t understand it or it bothers us, perhaps we haven’t fully understood the symbolism and meaning that can be found therein, and there lies an opportunity to open our minds to the myths that can enrich our earthly existence in a very real way.
Quote:If our religion is something objective, then we must never avert our eyes from those elements in it which seem puzzling or repellant; for it will be precisely the puzzling or the repellant which conceals what we do not yet know and need to know … the truth we need most is hidden precisely in the doctrines you least like and least understand. – CS Lewis
If we want to just throw out proxy ordinance work for the dead, I think you might as well through out ordinance work for the living, and all of religion while you’re at it. I think the reason people turn to religion is that they WANT these things in their life because it has shown to provide benefits while in this life, right now.Old-Timer wrote:[
I think you still are equating “mythology” with “fiction” – but it has multiple meanings. One is something that is made up and incorrect (the THIRD dictionary definition, interestingly), but the very first meaning simply is a story about something of seminal importance – regardless of whether or not it is grounded in a factual base.
I do equate mythology with fiction. I think they are one and the same. I will admit however that many times mythology can be derived from some real event although retold in a manner over the years as to completely alter it from the original story. It may as you say be of seminal importance to some belief structure. Take an example from Mormon history. The business about china being ground up to make the temple sparkle. It turns out it was mythology developed to complete the narrative. So yes it is fiction. Did the story serve some purpose probably so, but it is still fiction.
Cadence, in watching this thread, I have wondered if maybe there is a shared body of information that Ray, Brian, and Heber13 are drawing from that you are missing. So I went to the http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=313 The Power of Myth, Joseph Campbell and Bill MoyersI remember when Heber13 first came to StayLDS. I’m probably remembering totally wrong, but this is my myth, so bear with me. It was startling how suddenly his perspective changed when he immersed himself in Campbell after what seemed like only days here. To me, it seemed like a overnight and, frankly, unsustainable shift. But it appears to have been
deep and abiding for Heber13Cadence wrote:
I do not know. I just ask myself why all the mythology. I can understand 500 years ago when the world was more in the dark and people were searching for answers, but as we learn more about the world around us why do we still need to try and explain things with mythology that are perfectly explainable by more rational means. You speak of cathedrals and synagogs, but did mythology put a man on the moon? did it cure polio? Did it give us any real advances that made life better in a real physical way. Maybe it makes you feel good and inspires some people to find some sense of peace but again I say there certainly is a high cost associated with mythology s perpetuation.The world’s still in the dark, and if anything is too noisy and too busy. If kids aren’t watching TV, they’re listening to iPods, there is no silence, and that’s how things are going. In temples Ithink we get back some of that peace and silence. They’re a place to escape the unpleasantness and noise of a furious world, which may be technologically advanced, but is still fulminating just above barbarism.
Quote:Did it give us any real advances that made life better in a real physical way.
Erm, music, architecture, art, novels, gardens etc. I think all of these make life better.
Cadence wrote:Did the story serve some purpose probably so, but it is still fiction.
I think you’re on to something here, Cadence. If it serves a purpose … that seems to be what is valued. There are certain truths and facts the church stays away from, because not all truth is helpful. So the stories have value, and may not be able to have that value if only based on cold hard facts and scientific explanation. However, there is a limit to the value a story has. It seems it only has value when it is useful and credible. If it loses credibility, it is discarded. I would think the example of china in the temple walls is an example. It is used as it is helpful. If enough people find out that there is no evidence it is true, but only a story, those stories would stop being told, because no one wants to hear a load of crock (when they know it is a load of crock).But if you can’t prove it one way or another, and yet there is value in the story, that is told over and over because it serves the purpose of teaching the idea behind the story. For example,
baptisms for the dead. We can’t prove it is worthwhile one way or another to spirits in the spirit world, but the story inspires us that God loves all his children, that the playing field is fair, and that there is a way or a plan for all. The church leaders aren’t trying to trick us with that story, we just don’t have any other proof. I know lots of people who have been drawn to the church specifically because of this issue they could not resolve in other churches. So there is a purpose to the story, even if there is no proof. So is it better to wait until we have proof to teach it, or is it better to teach it and achieve a good purpose even without proof?I believe the church is in the business of faith building, which is grounded in truth but extends beyond the facts. Therefore, science is out of its element in the religious realm, IMO. However, it must maintain credibility, or change its stories to keep the credibility, so the masses can sustain faith in it. Mormonism is a unique brand that allows strict adherence on one hand, and yet flexibility through divine authority to change when needed.
PiperAlpha wrote:Cadence wrote:Did the story serve some purpose probably so, but it is still fiction.
I think you’re on to something here, Cadence. If it serves a purpose … that seems to be what is valued. There are certain truths and facts the church stays away from, because not all truth is helpful. So the stories have value, and may not be able to have that value if only based on cold hard facts and scientific explanation. However, there is a limit to the value a story has. It seems it only has value when it is useful and credible. If it loses credibility, it is discarded. I would think the example of china in the temple walls is an example. It is used as it is helpful. If enough people find out that there is no evidence it is true, but only a story, those stories would stop being told, because no one wants to hear a load of crock (when they know it is a load of crock).But if you can’t prove it one way or another, and yet there is value in the story, that is told over and over because it serves the purpose of teaching the idea behind the story. For example,
baptisms for the dead. We can’t prove it is worthwhile one way or another to spirits in the spirit world, but the story inspires us that God loves all his children, that the playing field is fair, and that there is a way or a plan for all. The church leaders aren’t trying to trick us with that story, we just don’t have any other proof. I know lots of people who have been drawn to the church specifically because of this issue they could not resolve in other churches. So there is a purpose to the story, even if there is no proof. So is it better to wait until we have proof to teach it, or is it better to teach it and achieve a good purpose even without proof?I believe the church is in the business of faith building, which is grounded in truth but extends beyond the facts. Therefore, science is out of its element in the religious realm, IMO. However, it must maintain credibility, or change its stories to keep the credibility, so the masses can sustain faith in it. Mormonism is a unique brand that allows strict adherence on one hand, and yet flexibility through divine authority to change when needed.
All good points. I just personally like to take the option that if we do not have evidence that something is true or worthwhile we set it aside until we have more evidence. I do not find value in doing or believing things that might be true with nothing to back them up. Like baptisms for the dead. We say it has value for dead people but we really do not know that. It is just a belief. So I am find and dandy with anyone believing as they will, but it generally does not stop there. Believers tend to feel compelled to get you to believe as they do.
Bottom line is because of so many misleading “spiritual”experiences or mythological beliefs that have sent my head spinning, I am afraid I can not get the faith of even a mustard seed at this point to believe in anything mythological or unseen. Kudos to those who can I just can not.
SamBee wrote:Cadence wrote:
I do not know. I just ask myself why all the mythology. I can understand 500 years ago when the world was more in the dark and people were searching for answers, but as we learn more about the world around us why do we still need to try and explain things with mythology that are perfectly explainable by more rational means. You speak of cathedrals and synagogs, but did mythology put a man on the moon? did it cure polio? Did it give us any real advances that made life better in a real physical way. Maybe it makes you feel good and inspires some people to find some sense of peace but again I say there certainly is a high cost associated with mythology s perpetuation.The world’s still in the dark, and if anything is too noisy and too busy. If kids aren’t watching TV, they’re listening to iPods, there is no silence, and that’s how things are going. In temples Ithink we get back some of that peace and silence. They’re a place to escape the unpleasantness and noise of a furious world, which may be technologically advanced, but is still fulminating just above barbarism.
Quote:Did it give us any real advances that made life better in a real physical way.
Erm, music, architecture, art, novels, gardens etc. I think all of these make life better.
I love art and music and all that stuff. I jsut do not think it is tied to mythology as some would. It is an expression of the marvelous nature of the human mind.
I respect your view, Cadence, for yourself. It’s just that the world would be a really sucky place for the vast majority of the people on it without mythology.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.