- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I understand what you are saying Enoch, about your attended audience not being TBMs And — I think Doug is 100% correct. And Brown. We might train ourselves to get along with TBM’s —- but it certainly appears as if the church is doing just the opposite. The example about the symbolic Jesus and atonement, IS NOT GOING TO WORK in a church setting.
Yeah, the leadership has circled the wagons. If the disaffected really want to trudge along in the caravan – they would be best to just keep their mouths shut. I don’t see any other way, because the “faithful” are not going to “compromise.” As least that is my experience – RECENTLY.
cwald wrote:I understand what you are saying Enoch, about your attended audience not being TBMs
And — I think Doug is 100% correct. And Brown. We might train ourselves to get along with TBM’s —- but it certainly appears as if the church is doing just the opposite. The example about the symbolic Jesus and atonement, IS NOT GOING TO WORK in a church setting.
Yeah, the leadership has circled the wagons. If the disaffected really want to trudge along in the caravan – they would be best to just keep their mouths shut. I don’t see any other way, because the “faithful” are not going to “compromise.” As least that is my experience – RECENTLY.
That’s right Cwald. However, I take comfort in the fact that everyone at Church has the outward appearance they put forward at Church, and the real life they live. Even our ex-Bishop was that way. He didn’t ever do much home teaching, but I’m sure he couldn’t share his true feelings about it. I personally, find the lack of productivity on the Sabbath Day a problem, and have bent it a lot when I find Saturday is a better day for family stuff due to it being acceptable, gospel wise, to play hard on Saturday. I can’t give up two days a week for totally focused-family activities. So, I work a lot on Sundays. But can I say that over the pulpit? No, or incur the wrath of the TBM’s that happen to be doing well on THAT commandment, and think that can give them license to judge and pontificate.
I agree with your conclusion — stay mum about extreme or contrarion values. Try to gently influence others on non-doctrinal issues, such as the inherent beauty of each human being and the need to treat everyone with kindness and respect, whether they agree with you or not — general stuff like that.
Enoch wrote:…can everyone from near-TBMs to atheists really dialogue without destroying the faith of the faithful? Can we post all our questions without irreparably shaking the faith of those who do not naturally question?…Another part of my approach is that some approaches to religion really should die, such as the ones that make people think their spouses are going to hell, the ones that prevent productive communication and exploration…I really do think that Mormonism has the theological flexibility to adjust and grow and be more open.
So here is my question. Is this enough? Does this approach truly allow believers to take things literally while the skeptics question?
Is there room for all of us to dialog together and still respect and maintain our individual beliefs? Should this be possible?Should that dialog not shift our positions?…I appreciate your thoughts and input. Personally, I think the best way for non-believing members to get along with TBMs would be to try not to talk about the Church too much and why you disagree with it. It seems like many of them don’t really want to hear why. It is not so much destroying the faith of the faithful that concerns me as much as the likely possibility that some of them would judge and disrespect me as weak and sinful as if I was just looking for excuses to doubt the Church so I can be a lazy slacker without feeling guilty about it.
In my experience, tolerance and understanding are not exactly most TBMs’ strong points. From their perspective, there is no good reason whatsoever to question the Church’s claims because they think they already know the Church is true and right no matter what. That’s why I’d rather not share my honest beliefs about the Church with most TBMs if I don’t feel like I absolutely have to. Don’t get me wrong, I definitely think it should be possible to have more open dialogue about some of these beliefs without worrying so much about how people will react but until the Church starts emphasizing this idea and more active members understand it I don’t know if it really helps much to wish things were different than they currently are.
Great discussion! I have seen pro’s and con’s in this agreement. Here in Europe there isn’t a strong “Mormon” community. A lot of my friends are LDS, yes, but I have Muslim, Catholic, Agnostic and Atheist friends as well. We get along just fine, because we do not try to convince the others that our chosen path is right.
We had some great discussions together and occasionally still have them. Our goal is more to look at how we view things differently or even similarly.
I greatly respect devout believers of any faith, as long as they, as mentioned before stick to the 11th article of faith. Yes, there are things I disagree with other religions, and even in discussions I try to be openminded more than trying to attack them at what they believe.
As for general authorities, I believe most of them have never really lived anywhere else than Utah, so they forget what it is like to be the only mormon kid in the school, or to be shunned by one side of the family because you were baptised into the church.
RMsister wrote:…
I greatly respect devout believers of any faith, as long as they, as mentioned before stick to the 11th article of faith…
Yes, but we only believe other folks of different faiths have the right to worship how, where or what they may. We don’t allow our own members that privileged – in the least degree. Conformity conformity conformity. I suppose it’s for the best, to help the most people, the masses, and necessary?
@Cwald, I hope I can emphasize this strongly enough when I write this up in longer form… my point is NOT just a “symbolic Jesus and Atonement.” My point is more powerful and useful… it is that EITHER way it works.
Look at this from a literalist’s perspective. If Jesus is really our Savior, then would not he rather people appreciate and apply a symbolic understanding of his mission than reject it entirely? That way when they die and meet Jesus they will have served him and accepted his sacrifice and been transformed thereby, even though they were not able to accept the literal reality until it was demonstrated to them in the afterlife.
Enoch wrote:@Cwald,
I hope I can emphasize this strongly enough when I write this up in longer form… my point is NOT just a “symbolic Jesus and Atonement.” My point is more powerful and useful… it is that EITHER way it works.
Look at this from a literalist’s perspective. If Jesus is really our Savior, then would not he rather people appreciate and apply a symbolic understanding of his mission than reject it entirely? That way when they die and meet Jesus they will have served him and accepted his sacrifice and been transformed thereby, even though they were not able to accept the literal reality until it was demonstrated to them in the afterlife.
Yes, I understand that. But I don’t think many of our members would ever take the time to contemplate the subject enough to even understand what you are talking about. I don’t know about anyone else here, but this entire forum is DEEP DEEP spiritual study and research, that quite frankly, I don’t see happening at church. We don’t talk like this at church. It’s not in the manual, and it’s discouraged. To even QUESTION that Jesus and the atonement might be symbolic rather than literal, is WAY out there in the LDS culture. At least that is my experience.
So, yes, I agree with you, but I don’t think a “literalists” would. A literalist, IMO, would not have room to compromise on this,
Quote:my point is NOT just a “symbolic Jesus and Atonement.” My point is more powerful and useful… it is that
EITHER way it works.…If Jesus is really our Savior, then would not he rather people appreciate and apply a symbolic understanding of his mission than reject it entirely?
No. That will not work in the orthodox LDS church setting, because a literalist, in most cases are too black and white to ever consider it a possibility. There really is only ONE way, so to state that EITHER way will work, is not acceptable.
Does it work for me? Yep, absolutely, makes perfect sense.
I don’t know, I agree with your entire premise. I just don’t think our culture does.
Cwald, I agree with how literalistically most LDS culture sees these issues. But I would think that even the mainstream literalists would prefer that people appreciate the Atonement and apply it in their lives, even if they happen to understand it symbolically. The nice thing about this theory is it also allows room for these things to be literal. I am quite open to Jesus really being our Savior, and God having a body, and Moroni being real etc. It would be a pleasant surprise if all these things were the case. 
Enoch wrote:Cwald, I agree with how literalistically most LDS culture sees these issues. But I would think that even the mainstream literalists would prefer that people appreciate the Atonement and apply it in their lives, even if they happen to understand it symbolically. …
Well, lets do an experiment. Maybe I should bring it up in priesthood meeting and see how it takes?
Enoch wrote:…Can we post all our questions without irreparably shaking the faith of those who do not naturally question? Can we have so many red pills around and expect some not to go down the rabbit hole, or stop half way down? Or
do we really need to quarantine ourselves into our respective levels of (dis)belief? And if the answer is no, what does that mean, specifically about the nature of faith and religion?
cwald wrote:Enoch wrote:…I hope I can emphasize this strongly enough when I write this up in longer form… my point is NOT just a “symbolic Jesus and Atonement.” My point is more powerful and useful… it is that
EITHER way it works…Yes, I understand that. But I don’t think many of our members would ever take the time to contemplate the subject enough to even understand what you are talking about…
It’s not in the manual, and it’s discouraged. To even QUESTION that Jesus and the atonement might be symbolic rather than literal, is WAY out there in the LDS culture…I agree with your entire premise. I just don’t think our culture does. I agree that it would be nice if we could interpret more of these doctrines the way that makes the most sense to us without being treated like heretics deceived by Satan himself, but that would probably require a drastic change from the top down compared to what we have seen out of the Church so far. If it was just a few things like the atonement and resurrection that they expected us to accept then it would be easier for me to give them the benefit of the doubt but we are basically expected to have a “testimony” of what seems like 1001 different doctrines at the same time and if we don’t then it is typically not acceptable to other active members.
If you openly admit that you have doubts about any of these things then your bishop will probably try to fix your lack of certainty by telling you to fast and pray about it until you feel comfortable about professing sure knowledge that all this is absolutely true just like everyone else in the Church does. Even if they continue to preach all the same basic doctrines such as that the BoM is literally accurate history and that Joseph Smith’s restoration of the “gospel” was the best thing to happen since Jesus, the main reform I would like to see is simply for them to stop acting like all these beliefs and rules are fundamental requirements for full fellowship in the Church.
Personally, I don’t think the overbearing expectations that we absolutely need to believe all these dogmatic and inflexible doctrines is necessarily typical of faith or religion in general and my guess is that this is mostly a side-effect of the way Mormonism has developed in relative isolation for so long with relatively high costs of membership. So when many members have left over one or more of these doctrines rather than making the doctrines more reasonable or flexible the Church has reacted instead by tightening its grip in terms of the level of manipulation and control over the remaining members as if it always needs to be all-or-nothing and we can’t ever budge an inch.
cwald, only if you allow me to bring it up in mine and see how it takes. 
I can think of a few who might bristle, but if I phrased it in the following way, I don’t think even they would argue:
Quote:“I absolutely LOVE the symbolism of the Atonement. I know lots of members who view “how” it happened a bit differently, but the symbol of someone who suffered for everyone else is realy powerful. I really love that idea (or “concept” or “doctrine”).”
Old-Timer wrote:cwald, only if you allow me to bring it up in mine and see how it takes.
I can think of a few who might bristle, but if I phrased it in the following way, I don’t think even they would argue:
Quote:“I absolutely LOVE the symbolism of the Atonement. I know lots of members who view “how” it happened a bit differently, but the symbol of someone who suffered for everyone else is realy powerful. I really love that idea (or “concept” or “doctrine”).”
Good enough. I will hold off and wait and hear how it takes in your congregation. Good luck
I’ve actually said something very similar to that in more than one meeting, in more than one place. I’ve prefaced what I wrote in the last comment with something like: Quote:“I really love the concept of the Atonement. It’s SO powerful in SO many ways. I know people who focus on . . . and others who focus on . . . No matter how they see it, I really love the concept.”
As I’ve said in another thread or two or six, much of the reaction is based on the perception of the speaker that is held by the hearer(s), and, unfortunately, it’s really hard for most people to change their perception once a negative view has been created.
I think everyone here understands that from the other side of the coin. When Pres. Packer stands up to speak (or Sister Beck for some, or Elder Oaks for others, or Pres. Monson for others, etc.), many people shut down their full listening skills and instinctively latch onto ANY possible statement that might be interpreted negatively. Otoh, Pres. Uchtdorf probably could say some of the exact same things without the same consequence, simply because the hearers are willing to hear a different meaning – or cut him some slack they can’t cut Pres. Packer.
Quote:I think everyone here understands that from the other side of the coin. When Pres. Packer stands up to speak (or Sister Beck for some, or Elder Oaks for others, or Pres. Monson for others, etc.), many people shut down their full listening skills and instinctively latch onto ANY possible statement that might be interpreted negatively. Otoh, Pres. Uchtdorf probably could say some of the exact same things without the same consequence, simply because the hearers are willing to hear a different meaning – or cut him some slack they can’t cut Pres. Packer.
Ever notice that when you are in front of someone who has a reputation for being really funny, just about anything they say gets a chuckle? Previous experience creates context….
I think I have a handle on how most TBMs would deal with the usefulness of the symbolic Savior. I think it would be enough for the “unbelievers” but not enough for one of the fold who should “know better”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.