- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I wasn’t sure whether to post this in the general discussion or spiritual forum. Looking back when I had stronger faith and felt I was right with The Lord and walking with the Spirit, I never really cared about church history or the details of the back story. I think because it was just boring and didn’t seem to matter much. I guess I didn’t understand the need for angles and miracles, all that really mattered to me was feeling and sharing God’s love and being at peace with my decisions, I accepted the narrative because I believed the doctrine of the restoration, mostly certain parts of the plan of salvation.
I guess the history and stories of the church and scriptures help illustrate principles. It got me thinking about Greek mythology. These days, greek mythology is seen as a great fictional work of literature, almost like Lord of the Rings, certainly not taken seriously as a religion or belief system. But in those days, the Greeks really believed in Zeus and Achilles and all the stories about the gods intervening with mortal affairs. Nevertheless it was all a rich part of their culture, and I imagine it was inspiring to them in many ways. The fact that they actually believed the stories probably made it all that much more powerful than if they would have simply seen them as allegories, like we do today.
What got me thinking about all this was that I plan to have children soon, and am starting to think about what kind of a household they will grow up in. I wonder if the Greeks would have been better off without the mythology or if, although not literally true, was inspired by God to teach them moral truths and other lessons. And if so, could Mormonism be similar?
I can’t help but wonder if I would have been a TBM (True Believing Mythologist), or if I would have simply seen the truth in the allegory and passed the stories on to my children as part of tradition, and if the latter, would I have led them to actually believe that Zeus lived on Mount Olympus and threw lightning bolts at the mortals to restore justice? What about you?
I could say a lot about this since I have recently read The Iliad, The Odyssey, Prometheus Bound, and other such writings. All I have time to say now is that I think the powerful and/or intellectual Greeks did NOT literally believe in those gods. Perhaps the uneducated believed and were kept under power by the system that way. The literal and the mythological/symbolic both can be powerful – but, usually, a person gravitates toward one or the other, based on personality and natural inclination. Thus, I don’t discount either. What works for someone works for someone, and the options are almost as varied as the individuals. I actually enjoy looking at things in every way possible – and I try to gain insight and meaning from a story no matter what perspectives are available to consider. In my Sunday School class last week (within the month’s topic of Spiritual Self-Reliance), we walked through a few scriptural stories (Laman and Lemuel, Judas, Peter), and I showed my students how to consider alternative conclusions based on seeing some main points differently – considering context, theme, larger socio-cultural factors, motivation, pre-existing bias, etc. (The lesson summary is the most recent comment in the “My New Calling” thread.) I have been considering going over seeing things literally compared to figuratively with them this coming Sunday by focusing on the Garden of Eden, Job, Abraham and some differing versions of Atonement Theology (literal experience of all pain or representative pain, the concept of a symbolic scapegoat, etc.) – emphasizing, as I always do, that I don’t care in most cases how they decide to look at and interpret something as long as they make it a conscious decision that they can own as theirs.
Old-Timer wrote:as long as they make it a conscious decision that they can own as theirs.
That’s key.
It’s not just ancient history, believers in these gods are campaigning for recognition from Greek state right now. Dawkins said that the only difference between himself, an atheist, and the Christians, is he simply discounts and doesn’t believe in ONE more god than the Christians do. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Richard Dawkins worships his own shadow… What do you mean by this? Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Richard Dawkins can’t believe in God, mainly because that would require him to admit another being was actually superior to him and his massive ego. And I’m only half joking.
Unknown wrote:What got me thinking about all this was that I plan to have children soon, and am starting to think about what kind of a household they will grow up in.
I imagine you’ll let them have fun with Christmas, and the family traditions you grew up with, right? There is value in teaching kids traditions, and mostly important in how you do it. How much literal truth is there in Christmas? Yet it can be magical, and it can bring families together, and it can inspire great acts of kindness and love.
That’s an imperfect comparison. I do not think that Mormonism and Santa Claus are the same. But the point is something to consider. (The better comparison might be Johnny Appleseed comparisons…Johnny was a real person…the stories have become embellished for story-telling. Joseph Smith was a real prophet. But we have some folklore taught by the church about his doings).
Sometimes we can get too fixated on literalness, and make it an all or nothing thing. We either go 100% literal with our teachings of the scriptures, or we call it all a great hoax and lie.
There are other options besides to the two extremes.
If you want a good read on the subject, check out Joseph Campbell’s “The Power of Myth”. Stories and allegories are not just for children, and not something we must outgrow to become completely scientific or historical-minded. There is a place for myths in our lives and our culture.
Unknown wrote:would I have led them to actually believe that Zeus lived on Mount Olympus and threw lightning bolts at the mortals to restore justice? What about you?
It would depend on my kids and what they needed, perhaps their age.
I have 2 daughters in college. I have talked to them about my views, and that I don’t believe a flood covered the earth, or that Job was a real person, or many other accounts in the bible in a literal way. These discussions are not initiated by me, but by them. They come to me with questions on the interpretations of scriptures, or the questions they have from something they heard at church, and I tell them what I think. I would not feel good telling them something i don’t believe, and I would not feel good complicating their minds with deeper thoughts they aren’t thinking about.
I have 2 younger boys at home with me. They do not know my beliefs in much detail, and they haven’t raised questions about it. I assume they will as they grow, and when they want to have those discussions with me, I will have them.
I want to prepare my kids to be good people and be in the world and be happy. I believe church is a big part of our lives and they will be better by being active in the church. My approach is to be close to them, love them, teach them, and be honest when the spirit directs me they should hear my thoughts on some things. I cling to the teaching I receive personal revelation for myself and my household. I take that serious, even if it conflicts with things I hear at church. My children are to be taught by their dad.
I remain a believer in my view of the truthfulness of the church. My kids are blessed by youth activities and primary lessons and scriptures and prayer and all the good things I find in the church.
Heber13 wrote:That’s an imperfect comparison. I do not think that Mormonism and Santa Claus are the same. But the point is something to consider. (The better comparison might be Johnny Appleseed comparisons…Johnny was a real person…the stories have become embellished for story-telling. Joseph Smith was a real prophet. But we have some folklore taught by the church about his doings).
St. Nicholas was a real person and Santa Claus is based on him, so in a way it is a better comparison than you might think.
Heber13 wrote:I have 2 daughters in college. I have talked to them about my views, and that I don’t believe a flood covered the earth, or that Job was a real person, or many other accounts in the bible in a literal way.
Regarding Job, I recently read an analysis by a Jewish Rabbi. He makes the point that the story we currently have of Job goes against type (similar to how the Good Samaritan goes against type). He believes that at the time this story was written there was either a prominent figure who was thought to be blessed by virtue of his righteousness or a well known story or fable about a man named Job that was blessed for his righteousness. He believes that by twisting the story to have Job lose everything despite his righteousness the author is exploring the realities of bad things happening to good people. So Job could have started as a real person in the same way as Santa Clause and Johnny Appleseed.
I imagine that if JS lived 4-6,000 yrs ago, we might not know anything about him except the mythology.
Unknown wrote:I wonder if the Greeks would have been better off without the mythology or if, although not literally true, was inspired by God to teach them moral truths and other lessons. And if so, could Mormonism be similar?
I don’t know a whole lot about Greek mythology but I do know a bit about Roman religions. The Romans were very religious but not very moral by our standards. They felt that the God of war would help them in conquests and approve of unspeakable brutality. They also had Gods of the hearth that they would give offerings/ respect to in order to keep food from spoiling. I suppose we would liken it to superstitions.
The moral religions gradually took root and overwhelmed these types of religions. I believe that the world is generally a better place because of the moral message. I further believe that there is more refinement that can be done to help us soothe the hurting ones and generally civilize our collective natures. I see this as progress and I believe that God is pleased with this.
SamBee wrote:Richard Dawkins can’t believe in God, mainly because that would require him to admit another being was actually superior to him and his massive ego.
And I’m only half joking.
Question: who has a bigger ego and who is more arrogant because they think KNOW all the answers, Richard Dawkins or Dallin Oaks?
And I’m only half joking.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
cwald wrote:SamBee wrote:Richard Dawkins can’t believe in God, mainly because that would require him to admit another being was actually superior to him and his massive ego.
And I’m only half joking.
Question: who has a bigger ego and who is more arrogant because they think KNOW all the answers, Richard Dawkins or Dallin Oaks?
And I’m only half joking.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Well, I’ll bow out of that one, since I know little about Dallin Oaks to be honest, and much more about Richard Dawkins! (I’m not completely in a church bubble) He does look like Yul Brynner though, doesn’t he?
[img]http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5032285515220449&w=109&h=142&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7 [/img] Yeah. He does. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
[img]http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4764275265110456&pid=1.7 [/img] 😆 😆 😆
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.