- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Reading two blogs recently from Millenial Mormons, which offended the Exmo’s, and then the Exmo response at Zelph on a Shelf, got me thinking about this subject again and prompted me to write up my thoughts. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/lds-cognitive-dissonance/ The main points I make are:
a) cogdis is a human experience and not necessarily bad
b) it’s not fair for Mo’s and Exmo’s to point fingers at how much cogdis each other have
c) we should recognize common cogdis possibilities from both Mo and Exmo perspective
d) it’s more mature to sit with our cogdis, analyze it, and struggle with it for a while than to immaturely react quickly to remove it
e) viewing the church through a metaphorical paradigm could lead both literal Mo’s and Exmo’s suffering with cogdis into a more healthy place, where Mo’s can retain the faith and Exmo’s can retain the intellectual integrity, that are vital to each
PS, moderators if you need to delete my link, go ahead, but please leave the post up.
Interesting. I agree with some of the points you make in the post. Especially the big one that exmo’s also experience cognitive dissonance. 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. [ Admin note: link is not a bad thing if you are sharing with us and talking with us. We just moderate those who come here to “advertise” their other sites. I don’t see you doing that…you’re sharing something and avoiding cutting and pasting a wall of info…that’s a good post here on our site. I also like the way you summed it for us to help us discuss topics here with the group. We are looking for good discussion and involvement to this support forum membership. Glad you’re not just stopping by to draw crowds to other sites!
:thumbup: We will see the intent based on the ongoing involvement in the discussion.]
Orson wrote: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: Quote:Cognitive Dissonance:Cognitive Dissonance is a psychological concept describing the discomfort one experiences with conflicting beliefs, ideas, behaviors, or desires.
churchistrue wrote: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.
Heber13 wrote:I like the way it was defined up front:
Quote:Cognitive Dissonance:Cognitive Dissonance is a psychological concept describing the discomfort one experiences with conflicting beliefs, ideas, behaviors, or desires.
churchistrue wrote: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.MormonStories has an interview where John is interviewing Dan Weatherspoon and Dan is very clearly saying the same thing. They even go into how it kind of sounds like Dan thinks for many people they give up way too soon and he thinks many that have done the TBM one day and then a few months later they are gone would probably be able to stay if they worked through the pain a bit. I have not quite finished it, but I do find it interesting. I think as they discussed it does take a certain temperament and patience to get there. Dan even mentions he left for 4 years as part of the path to get to where he is. 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. churchistrue wrote: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.
churchistrue wrote: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.
That is a worthwhile effort that may be helpful to many. As Heber said there is no silver bullet that will work for everyone. I have heard people say a lot of things such as “the church doesn’t allow for alternate views” or “I never really enjoyed church, why should I try so hard to make it work?” It is true we who have basically enjoyed our time in church have a much better chance of putting effort into a new approach, and when we realize we don’t need anyone’s permission to believe what we authentically believe then we have cleared at least one hurdle.
churchistrue wrote: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.
nibbler wrote:churchistrue wrote: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 hope there is enough to offer to keep a large portion of people, even if they reject the historical truth claims. But, I agree, if religion doesn’t work for you, there should be no stigma associated with leaving.On the power of metaphor, this is something I’ve been trying to work out in my head. I think I still need a deeper understanding myself to internalize it better and communicate it to others, but i’m getting there.
http://www.churchistrue.com/saving-faith/ 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.
churchistrue wrote:there should be no stigma associated with leaving
+1
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.