- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
“Well-meaning but misinformed people think animals in the wild are ‘happy’ because they are ‘free’… They imagine this wild animal roaming about the savannah on digestive walks after eating a prey that accepted its lot piously, or going for callisthenic runs to stay slim after overindulging. They imagine this animal overseeing its offspring proudly and tenderly, the whole family watching the setting of the sun from the limbs of trees with sighs of pleasure…Then it is captured by wicked men and thrown into tiny jails. It yearns mightily for ‘freedom’ and does all it can to escape…
“That is not the way it is. Animals in the wild lead lives of compulsion and necessity within an unforgiving social hierarchy in an environment where the supply of fear is high and the supply of food low and where territory must constantly be defend and parasites forever endured. What is the meaning of freedom is such a context?..
“Animals are territorial. That is the key to their minds. Only a familiar territory will allow them to fulfill the two relentless imperatives of the wild: the avoidance of enemies and the getting of food and water…Territories in the wild are large not as a matter of taste but of necessity. In a zoo, we do for animals what we have done for ourselves with houses: we bring together in a small space what in the wild is spread out…A sound zoo enclosure is the equivalent for an animal…Finding within it all the places it needs.., an animal will take possession of its zoo space in the same way it would lay claim to a new space in the wild…Once this moving-in ritual is done and the animal has settled, it will not feel like a nervous tenant, and even less like a prisoner, but rather like a landholder…
“I know zoos are no longer in good graces.
Religion faces the same problem. Certain illusions about freedom plague them both.” –Life of Pi (emphasis added)
This is NOT an argument about zoos being good or bad – I really don’t know where animals are happier or if they care. This is about the comparison to religion and I love the point made. Any thoughts?Nephite wrote:Quote:“Well-meaning but misinformed people think animals in the wild are ‘happy’ because they are ‘free’… Animals in the wild lead lives of compulsion and necessity within an unforgiving social hierarchy in an environment where the supply of fear is high…A sound zoo enclosure is the equivalent for an animal…Finding within it all the places it needs.., an animal will take possession of its zoo space in the same way it would lay claim to a new space in the wild…Once this moving-in ritual is done and
the animal has settled, it will not feel like a nervous tenant, and even less like a prisoner, but rather like a landholder… Religion faces the same problem. Certain illusions about freedom plague them both.” –Life of Pi (emphasis added)
This is NOT an argument about zoos being good or bad – I really don’t know where animals are happier or if they care. This is about the comparison to religion and I love the point made. Any thoughts?Personally I don’t like this analogy because for one thing I think zoo keepers actually do know better than the animal itself what it really needs to survive comfortably and they are able to provide it with an adequate controlled environment and monitor its health and take care of it in a fairly accurate and effective way. However, when Church members and leaders have the similar attitude that “we know what’s best for you” then I don’t really believe that at all in most cases. What puts them on a higher level to try to judge and dictate what I should or should not do in an overbearing way?
If anything I think the overall knowledge, awareness, and understanding of most TBMs is already on a lower level than my own even if they are older with more life experience than me in part because their perspective has typically been limited by not even seriously considering many realistic alternatives to the pre-packaged answers already provided by the Church but I am at least willing to take a look at everything there is as long as I have the time and interest in it before deciding what it means or what I should do about it (if anything).
Sure freedom has an obvious downside if people use it to make bad decisions but I’m not convinced that is really happening for the majority of people that are free from the Church’s controlled environment any worse on average than those that completely conform to the Church’s list of constraints and requirements. For example, how do we know that paying 10% of your gross income as tithing isn’t a bad decision directly influenced by the Church? I’m not saying the Church should openly endorse unlimited freedom from responsibility and uninhibited selfishness I just think they should allow a little more flexibility with how people can interpret these doctrines without feeling like there is no place for them in the Church. Personally I think more flexibility would benefit both the majority of Church members and the organization as a whole more than being so strict and dogmatic about so many different details of questionable importance ever will.
When I was in seminary, I had one particular teacher who stood out from the others. Whenever I or another student had a question on the specifics of a certain rule or behavior we were told to abide by, he would simply raise a finger and say, “Let your conscience be your guide.” He would smile and refuse to elaborate any further. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if the church could adopt this attitude a little more? It certainly comes with a high risk of people doing something you don’t want them to do, but it allows people to make the decision that is right for them: either obeying because it genuinely feels right, or disobeying because it genuinely feels right. That is the kind of freedom that we lack in the church.
The First Presidency and Twelve Apostles are wiser than anyone here, in my opinion. No offense, but I really mean that. Really, the relatively few Church rules that are in stone are not a problem for me
when I have the Spirit. Sadly, that is not often enough. I havebeen tought to let to let my conscience and the Spirit be my guide. We are given many guidelines to go by, but I still make the choices. Shawn, just so you know you are on the verge of crossing the lines of civility and respect for this site. I know you said “for me”, and I appreciate that, but there is an implication that everyone else here would “get it” if they only had the Spirit with them. My experieces teach me clearly that having the Spirit doesn’t remove differences of opinion and perspective, so please be careful with those implications. Thank you for not saying it explicitly, but please be aware of those types of implications. Personally, I don’t like the zoo analogy
IFit puts church members in the place of animals and church leaders in the place of zookeepers. The ultimate extension of that analogy is what we teach as Lucifer’s plan, and I just don’t like comparing humans to animals in most anologies. Animals in zoos are caged, and I view the Atonement and proper leadership as processes by which humans can be uncaged and liberated. Nephite wrote:The First Presidency and Twelve Apostles are wiser than anyone here, in my opinion. No offense, but I really mean that.
That doesn’t surprise me that you would think that; they definitely should be wiser than any of us if they really were inspired and receiving direct revelations from God. In fact, even without direct input from God I would still expect them to be wiser simply due to the fact that they have been appointed leaders of a world-wide organization with millions of members and it is their full-time job to manage this organization. Meanwhile I am just a no-name average Joe second guessing what they say and do (or don’t do) on the internet in my spare time.
However, the reason their credentials and status don’t impress me that much is simply because I see many of the accepted revelations and established traditions that come with the territory of Church leadership as mostly being a hindrance to any real wisdom and inspiration they actually possess because they typically already start out with so much of this as given and then work backwards from there right on cue. Even if they actually were wiser than everyone else I still don’t think they should make decisions for other people rather than just giving their advice and letting people decide for themselves.
Although there is much truth in the the zoo statement, it falls apart as a comparison to religion, simply because we are free to accept, reject or do something in between, and in all cases, we mingle with others that have nothing to do with the Church. I do agree that religion in general and the LDS church in particular, offer benefits to people against the cold hard reality of life alone. It’s always amazing to me how people without a church feel a greater need to socialize with the people with whom they work, for example… or how shallow their pool of support resources is. On the subject of “Freedom in Religion”…
When I was young, I used to say, “I can’t drink.” Later, I would say, “I don’t drink.” The sentiment of that latter statement has held true, even post faith crisis, because although I now can drink, I still don’t drink. Others view it as a constraining mandate. I view it as a personal choice. As such, I’m also free to not disregard people that do drink.
Well, I didn’t expect this thread to go this way at all. I thought it was a good, positive analogy about truth setting us free. It was meant to encourage faith in God generally. I am sad that it took a negative turn from the start. Analogies and metaphors are not perfect. Why can’t people just learn something from them rather than knocking them?
Quote:Why can’t people just learn something from them rather than knocking them?
Some people can learn from some things; some people can’t learn from those same things. Some things resonate with some people without resonating with others. Some things work for some people but not for others.
All of us are different – in many ways, so not everything that works for some people will work for others.
I think the example of explorers and settlers applies exceptionally to the analogy of the zoo. Settlers need a feeling of protection and safety above almost all else; explorers need a feeling of freedom and independence above almost all else. Thus, settlers are going to see good in an analogy of a zoo, generally, while explorers are going to reject that same analogy, generally.
It can be disconcerting to be a settler in the midst of a bunch of explorers or an explorer in the midst of a bunch of settlers. The key, imo, is to try to understand the other perspective – and I really do understand acceptance and stabilizing power of the zoo analogy. It just doesn’t work for me – and part of that is because I can’t “learn from” something I’ve considered already in the past and that isn’t new to me.
Nephite wrote:“Well-meaning but misinformed people think animals in the wild are ‘happy’ because they are ‘free’…
Nephite wrote:The First Presidency and Twelve Apostles are wiser than anyone here, in my opinion. No offense, but I really mean that.
Interesting viewpoint. One in which I find no validity whatsoever, but, hey, everyone is entitles to their own opinion…Here is how I see it:
Chuang Tzu wrote:Chuang Tzu and Hui Tzu were strolling along the dam of the Hao River when Chuang Tzu said, “See how the minnows come out and dart around where they please! That’s what fish really enjoy!”
Hui Tzu said, “You’re not a fish – how do you know what fish enjoy?”
Chuang Tzu said, “You’re not I, so how do you know I don’t know what fish enjoy?”
Hui Tzu said, “I’m not you, so I certainly don’t know what you know. On the other hand, you’re certainly not a fish ‑ so that still proves you don’t know what fish enjoy!”
Chuang Tzu said, “Let’s go back to your original question, please. You asked me how I know what fish enjoy ‑ so you already knew I knew it when you asked the question. I know it by standing here beside the Hao.”
— Zhuangzi, 17, tr. Watson
some very important concepts here for those who have a mind to see.Perhaps a point or lesson may be taken from an analogy even if it doesn’t jive with someone’s view. Regardless, I am sorry for being a jerk about it. Just lock this thread if you will. I will be more careful about what I post and try to grow a thicker skin. Shawn, there is nothing wrong with the post or topic. I just didn’t work as an analogy for many of us. That’s not a bad thing. It just “is”. wayfarer wrote:Interesting viewpoint. One in which I find no validity whatsoever, but, hey, everyone is entitles to their own opinion…
Oh.Shawn wrote: Quote:I have been taught to let to let my conscience and the Spirit be my guide. We are given many guidelines to go by, but I still make the choices.
wayfarer said:
Quote:Interesting viewpoint. One in which I find no validity whatsoever
I agree completely with Shawn and disagree with wayfarer on this one, when the above quote is taken independently. I also have been taught and believe in exactly what Shawn said above, and I think most of us here do, when what I quoted from his comment is taken on its own.
I’m guessing wayfarer believes it, as well, when just the above is considered.
Ok, sorry for not being clear. I don’t share the view that the q15 are wiser than people here – they are just men, and in some cases limited in their intellectual understanding. What makes them apostles is their calling, and not their wisdom.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.