- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I am feeling increasingly frustrated that so many of the narratives we are taught do not correlate to their histories. I’ve been attending the Gospel Essentials class for SS for the past little bit, thinking that getting back to the basics might be a good idea right now. A couple of weeks ago, the teacher read a section from the manual about a restoration narrative, and I thought it might be the key to calming down my crisis. The church’s narrative says that there were heavenly messengers and more than one person in attendance for this particular event, so I thought for sure that if I looked up the history, the witnesses would all have corroborating stories. But no, the records are differing, those particular doctrines weren’t even taught to the early church, there are major discrepancies…. UGH. I don’t even think I’m angry, just so, so, so disappointed. This makes me wonder: do any of the church’s narratives match up to the actual history? I am really trying to hang on, I really am, but this is just getting so frustrating. I feel like every rock I turn over is covered with more and more gunk.
When you are in that space of really just wanting it to be simple and straight forward without the brush or hype of making it spiritually uplifting, but just facts…it is so frustrating, isn’t it? Does anything stand? I think that is a good question…wondering if there really is anything you can trust to just believe in without having to do mental gymnastics or so much effort to nuance things to make it palatable.
I don’t think there has been an answer proven for that about narratives, especially religious narratives, and especially mormon claims of heavenly messengers and prophetic scripture in our day. So much emphasis is placed on these things in our truth claims, it makes one want to know they are real.
Here is an interesting read about the different versions of the First Vision which I like how it raises this issue…how do you know what really happened? How do you prove it? Or how do you handle myths and narratives and the critiques by those trying to disprove it with good arguments?
https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/approaching-the-first-vision-saga/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/approaching-the-first-vision-saga/ In one section, he writes:
Quote:Traditionally, religions have been studied normatively—that is, either by insiders committed to the faith’s claims or by outsiders seeking to critique them. But in the mid-twentieth century, American universities began creating departments of religious studies—academic units designed to study religion as cultural objects created by human beings through the methodologies of history, anthropology, sociology, literary studies, feminist studies, and the like.
In this vein, many scholars of religion employ an approach called epoché, or “bracketing.” The aim is to set aside one’s opinions regarding religions’ distinctive truth claims in order to more fully examine the accessible dimensions of those traditions: to “understand religion without necessarily having to explain it, much less refute or promote it.”…
Practicing epoché in relation to the different accounts of the First Vision means asking questions about the First Vision’s “meaning,” rather than its historicity—to focus on what the First Vision narratives meant to those who heard them, or what sort of symbolic truths the narratives contain, not on the question of the accounts’ historical veracity.
Although epoché is intended to create a common ground for insiders and outsiders, believers and non-believers, scholars who apply the tools of epoché to the First Vision can still be easily divided into those who believe Joseph Smith actually experienced the divine and those who believe he probably did not. A representative example of the believing group is the late LDS Church Historian Leonard J. Arrington, who apparently applied this principle in his professional scholarship and personal life. He writes that he “was never preoccupied with the question of the historicity of the First Vision—though the evidence is overwhelming that it did occur. . . . I am prepared to accept [it] as historical or metaphorical, as symbolical or as precisely what happened. That [it conveys] religious truth is the essential issue, and of this I have never had any doubt.”
Arrington’s statement is representative of a subset of Mormons who value the First Vision stories primarily for their mythical components—for the moral meaning and ideology encoded within the narratives. For people in this category, the existence of different accounts of the vision is unimportant and perhaps completely irrelevant. Literary theorist Jean-Francois Lyotard argues that many thinkers believe
religious myth must be “raised from the ruins to which it has been reduced by rational, demythologizing, and positivistic thought.”Arrington’s acceptance of Smith’s vision, “whether it is literally true or not,” would seem to comport with the goals Lyotard describes. This mythical view differs substantially from the positivist critique of the First Vision already discussed in that it does not grant the last word to scientific rationality. It protects mythological truth claims by rendering them un-falsifiable. Hence, though Arrington mentions “overwhelming” rational evidence for the First Vision, he immediately suggests that such evidence is irrelevant. Utah State University professor of philosophy Richard Sherlock similarly suggests that those engaging in positivistic apologetics should ask themselves, “Is there any conceivable fact or set of facts that might be discovered about Joseph Smith that would cause one to lose faith in the church? If the answer to that question is yes, then I submit you have placed your faith in hock to the historian, that you are willing to believe the church is true to the extent that you have not found any human evidence to contradict it.” Regarding the First Vision in particular, Sherlock argues that the canonized, 1838 account of the First Vision is the “one account [that] is true because it bears witness to the faith of the church better than any other.”
Note that Sherlock is not saying that the 1838 account is the most accurate description of what happened in the grove. For Sherlock, calling the account “true” is not an assessment of the account’s literal veracity. Sherlock calls the account “true” because it is “better” than the other accounts at witnessing to the Church’s faith.By what criteria this account is “better” than the others, or what exactly Sherlock understands the Church’s faith to be, is not clear. [Emphasis Added]
I know of no way to really know for sure if the narratives as we have them in sunday school manuals are very accurate or not. But I find it worthwhile, for myself, to know which parts are likely embellished stories, and which parts are things I truly believe happened for a purpose that can benefit me.
Determining what I believe, what I don’t, and what I choose to park as “unknown…needs further study” is part of my faith going forward. My eyes have just been opened to how complex it really is…something I consoled myself earlier that as a mormon I did not have such complex problems…but alas…I do.
IMO, it’s important to understand the difference between verifiable historical facts and faith. First and foremost, history is elusive. The things we don’t know vastly outweigh the things we do know. People look at history from different perspectives. For example, we know that JS used a head-in-the-hat method to translate the BofM. For some people that is of no consequence. For others it’s the most important factor. The former camp thinks of that as either an aberration or a mis-telling of history by the primary sources. The latter thinks of that as the ONLY method used. What, exactly, is the truth? We don’t know the whole story. Even if JS used that particular method, we have no way of knowing what percentage of the BofM was produced in that way. It is beyond our ability to discern the truth, so we fill in the gaps with our biases.
I’m an Atheist. As such, when I read the new testament, I completely and unequivocally discount miracle stories. Yet for those who believe, it is no stretch at all to believe in these miracles and they take these accounts to be accurate. To me they are stories that have grown with the telling. To others, they are not only true, but PROOF that Jesus was the Messiah.
But let me bring this to an even more personal level. When I was a missionary, I saw plenty of healing-related miracles. In those days, I believed that they were divine intervention. Now, I believe it was sheer coincidence. Yet the events happened exactly as they happened. The difference, across the years, rests entirely on the biases I have brought to my interpretation of the events.
Well said, OON. Revisiting the religion from a new perspective can be interesting, and can help growth and progression.
Some of the Lord’s most powerful stories in the NT were the parables, that teach us on so many levels.
Perhaps we have more parables taught to us than we previously thought, and less historical events. That does not need to diminish religion.
Nontraditionalmom – I would love to say a thousand things, but I won’t. I will just send a hug. Please know the disappointment is valid. Have confidence that you aren’t the first or only one to pick up on it. Keep processing here. So many of us have been exactly where you are. Feel safe with us. Thanks for trusting us. NonTraditionalMom wrote:I don’t even think I’m angry, just so, so, so disappointed.
I know exactly what you mean. I often refer to my Faith Crisis as “The Great Disappointment”.NTM, to me the question “do any of the narratives stand?” is similar to asking “are any of the narratives true?” Some on this forum have said they think teachings are true but their definitions have evolved or matured. That’s how it is for me. Unfortunately I don’t accept most official church lesson material at face value any more. I’m basically a deist who would love to be proven wrong – that a loving Heavenly Father does indeed exist who will let me live with my family forever. But I think a more accurate description of reality is probably a physics textbook. Although Church might be less uplifting if we replaced the scriptures with science textbooks.
Roadrunner wrote:But I think a more accurate description of reality is probably a physics textbook. Although Church might be less uplifting if we replaced the scriptures with science textbooks.
Roadrunner, I’ve often thought that it would be impossible to make church more boring than it already is. I think you’ve found a way!
😆 The records differ, because the people who recorded them differ. There is no way to avoid that. It is history encapsulated succinctly. That can be challenging, but . . .
I LOVE IT! It gives me more options for what will connect with my own heart and mind – and allows me, if necessary, to add one more different record from one more perspective. It is SO liberating to not have only one choice.
:thumbup: For me, there are big differences between events being interpreted differently by different witnesses and events whose witnesses fail to corroborate the event at all. Here’s a non-church example:
On Friday, May 15, my son had a birthday party at our house. My husband and I were there, along with my son and his friends. We served pizza, cake, and ice cream. These are historical facts. Everyone at the party had a different experience, so would probably tell about the party differently. My husband would probably complain that there were kids running around everywhere. I would probably talk about all of the prep-work and the expense. My son would talk about his presents. And his friends would talk about the games or food or whatever they enjoyed the most. In each of our interpretations, though, there would be some common elements: a party, my son’s birthday, our house, food. Even where all of our accounts would differ, each account could be used to verify that there was, indeed, a party.
My problem is that some of the historical accounts of church history do not contain those common elements that support the event. Do you see what I mean?
I’m not saying that I have to have a 100% clear picture of proof; I recognize that faith is key in developing and maintaining a testimony. I guess what I find so disappointing and frustrating is that it seems like the history actually is more disproving of the narrative than it is proving.
You know, I really appreciate the sentiments that I have to find my own truth, follow my own conscience, listen to the spirit for myself, etc, but can I just say for a second how extremely difficult that is for me? I have been taught to follow and respect authority for my entire life, and I’ve done a pretty good job of staying in line. When I find out that the line isn’t even a line, I don’t feel like I can jump to a new philosophy so easily. I don’t love it, and I’m not having a good time with all of the nuances. I feel frustrated and confused, like I have some form of spiritual vertigo. I know everyone talks about how you have to get out of the whole black-and-white mentality and learn to enjoy the mystery, but I am just not there. I’m just spiritually exhausted, and I just want something to make sense. Sorry. /end temper tantrum./
We hear you NTMom. I am only recovering now from the mental and more importantly emotional drain it was going through my faith crisis.
The shift is hard to move from “to know what is right I need to listen close in general conference” to “either God can guide me directly – or there is no God at all” is the hardest mental shift I have gone through. I am somewhat resisting thinking much about “there is no God” as I am still trying to figure what truths there are in Mormonism. I would be heart broken if I came to the conclusion there was no God.
NTM, I understand your spiritual vertigo. I think most here do. There’s just no getting around it… faith crisis is an awful thing. I still remember the tears streaming down my face when I finally came to believe that the Church was not “true” way, way back, when the Internet (as we know it) was still new and you could buy lunch at a restaurant for under $4. In no way does anyone here want to discount the Great Disappointment that you are now experiencing. We have all felt it in gut-wrenching ways, and most here, I would say, still feel the pain. It took me a really long time to realize something very important… like a decade and a half. For each person who finds their way here, I hope they can figure it out in much less time than it took me. That is to focus on what you do believe. Here’s what I wrote in response to another post on this site by a user called Audrey, which I think is very relevant for you:
On Own Now wrote:Audrey,
Welcome. I’m sorry you are going through this. Just know that many have been through what you are going through and have found peace. It probably doesn’t seem possible right now, but it can happen. Many feel that they come to a more personal faith than what they ever could have had before. Almost three years ago [more than three years ago now], Roy, a major participant here, said the following (April 18, 2012):
Roy wrote:Perhaps it would be helpful to focus on what you do believe.
Those were wise words. I don’t even know if he was the first to say it, but it was the first time I had read it. Although my faith crisis had occurred long, long before, I had only just recently joined this site at that time, and that idea had a profound impact on my faith transition. It has become sort of an unofficial mantra of the site, and many here have continued not only to follow that advice, but to give it to newcomers as well. You mentioned a belief in the afterlife, and how that gave you an anchor to hold onto. Your feelings of disorientation will subside as you learn what you can believe and what you can discard.I wish you the best in your journey. I know it’s not easy. Just know you have kindred spirits here.
NTM, let me add a couple of thoughts specifically for you:
Starting when I first had my faith crisis, and continuing for years thereafter, I became obsessed with historical truth. What I now believe is that I wasted a lot of years of spiritual growth. I no longer care about ‘facts’. I care about meaning. I’ve learned to separate belief from spirituality. I’ve come to a point in my life (after a long time) where it just doesn’t matter to me whether there is someone in yonder heavens watching me either with a frown or a smile. That’s not an easy or obvious path, but I’m at peace because I have chosen that path and have been able to make it work. I live my life for the here and now, and I try very hard to follow teachings that I have received from Christianity and Mormonism. I have bad days. I have cringe moments at Church. I fall short of my own ideals. But I am so much happier now than when I was trying to find truth and only finding disappointment at every turn.
I’ve come to a view of JS that doesn’t belong in black & white realm. I think he believed he was a prophet chosen to preform a great work. I believe he thought that God spoke through him, more than to him. He was such a substantial figure. He created a movement that that not only grew but flourished under his leadership. His movement survived many hardships and setbacks, any one of which would have sunk most movements. By the time he died at age 38 everyone in the country and lots of people around the world knew who he was. He taught a new style religion that in many was as revolutionary as what Paul taught 1800 years earlier, focused on many similar concepts: that God and mankind could have a personal relationship. For both of these theologians, God wasn’t detached and aloof, but alive and wanting to bring us to him. For them, it wasn’t the duty of people to submit to God, but rather, their opportunity to unite with Him. Those are concepts that have great meaning to me, whether Paul was really inspired by God or JS really was a prophet is a distant question from my past history; one which no longer needs and answer… because if my pursuit of their ideals required me to believe, then I would lose the wonder of their message.
As I often say here, if you want to focus on a belief in Jesus, my favorite book in the NT is Mark. Mark’s presentation of Jesus is fast, startling, emotional. Jesus in Mark is by far the most human. He was one of us.
I know how tough it is and I hope you can find a way forward. Figure out what you believe and focus on that. Don’t fixate on what you don’t believe. If you can do this, you’ll be on a much more productive track, and you’ll find peace much earlier than I did.
NonTraditionalMom wrote:I don’t even think I’m angry, just so, so, so disappointed.
But part of me isrelieved. I wish I’d been thinking for myself decades ago, but even at this late date, it’s a joy to start fresh. I found a favorite quote early on in my crisis: Quote:We are like sailors who on the open sea must reconstruct their ship but are never able to start afresh from the bottom. Where a beam is taken away a new one must at once be put there, and for this the rest of the ship is used as support. In this way, by using the old beams and driftwood the ship can be shaped entirely anew, but only by gradual reconstruction.
“Entirely anew” sparked the first hopeful thoughts I’d had in a long time. I gave myself permission to think, explore, decide, change….all that good stuff.
NTM: I feel your pain. I share your pain.
Life would be so much easier if the narratives made sense.
If I could make most of the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fit, I would be okay with a few missing pieces. Honestly, I would be comfortable with a lot of missing pieces. The more I look, the more I realize that there are 5 or more different types of puzzle pieces in my religious puzzle box. Not only do the final pictures not match up, some of the puzzle pieces are from a puzzle that was cut on a different scale. Those pieces are never going to fit. Some are wood, some are card stock, some were mass produced, some are ancient, some are brand new, and some were home made. None of the pieces are enough to give me a really good idea of what religious truth is. Family around me looks at their box of puzzle pieces and declares their puzzle is finished. Their completed puzzle doesn’t look finished to me. It looks incomplete to me, but they are thrilled with how their puzzle turned out. I am trying to be happy for them; while at the same time, I am still holding my same crazed box of pieces.
Do I throw out the entire box and go buy a new puzzle? Do I give up on all puzzles as a waste of my time? There are some popular jigsaw puzzles that have all their pieces .. Do I read Amazon ratings and just order the most popular? Do I hold onto this box and hope that more pieces will arrive in my future? As an organized person, my puzzle box leaves me uncertain what to do.
NTM and ap (and anyone else who is relatively new), search the word “mosaic” in our archives. I can’t post a link now, but I think it was Roy who wrote an amazing post about how a mosaic is a much better analogy than a puzzle for many people. Seriously, it is one of the most profound things I have read, anywhere, ever. If you find it, please post the link so others don’t have to search for it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.