- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I read on a blog something to the effect “When I couldn’t believe in it literally any more, I couldn’t believe in it at all.” This has stuck with me and I think it explains much about my feelings towards the church. I spent so many years taking everything literally that to try a more nuanced approach seems disingenuous to me. I marvel at individuals that can move from a literal belief of something that was preached as an actual event and later move to a more metaphorical approach when the evidence or understanding of said event begins to discredit it as literal. There are many examples but it state one we cold look at the flood. For years many insisted that it was an actual event as described and many still do yet as science has pretty much discredited it. Many believers have moved to a more nuanced approach that it is a metaphor for cleansing or something else that fits their new paradigm. Perhaps this is an ability I do not have. If something is presented as literal by those in the know and latter I find it to be incorrect it loses all of its meaning to me. I can no longer find much value other than maybe it is a good story to teach some values, but not necessarily divine in nature. Just a story someone though up. It seems to me this has been going on for 100 years and it is going to accelerate. Going from literal to metaphorical as new information comes out. I ask how others manage this leap. Is it easy for you to toss out the literal teaching and you actually like a more nuanced approach? Were you never literally minded in the first place? All I seem to be able to see is I was mislead and now someone is trying to offer a new equation to hang onto a discredited belief.
I have a different way of coping with all that. I stopped caring about whether it was literal or metaphorical shortly after my trial of commitment a couple years ago. I felt led to be in this Church, and I choose to attach value to that leading I received, so I simply relate to what the Church is today and not what it was or even what it claims about history. Also, consider looking at it from a cost-benefit perspective. What does it encourage people to do? What kind of people does it allow me to associate with? What benefits does it bring to my family? Does it help me grow in character?
With the exception of the last question, it has OK answers of positivity to all of those questions. So, because I don’t care much about the history, I am immune (so to speak) to new information coming out PROVING that Joseph Smith was a fraud or that the Book of Mormon was just a figment of his imagination — because I honestly don’t care much. History is a pack of lies — agreed upon, and that is true for a wide variety of Churches and situations. For me, in my new mindset, it’s whether the benefits being a member of the Church outweighs the sacrifices.
Satisfaction with Church Ratio = Benefits/Sacrifices.
As long as the ratio is in a positive, then I feel OK with staying alongside my family. Lately I have dealt with the ratio being less than one by reducing the denominator and setting boundaries, which has made it at least 1.0 or slightly more.
As far as feeling mislead goes, no. I don’t feel mislead. People who taught me probably don’t KNOW for sure — they tend to perpetuate what they hope to be true, and have chosen to believe these things, so they pass on the culture to the next generation. I honestly think NO ONE is out to intentionally mislead anyone to believe in the Church when they know firsthand it’s not true (if anyone can even know that). Most Church members teaching and training are sincere about what they are teaching. It’s just the nature of religion to be unprovable, unclear, and to require you to make some kind of mental gymnastic (such as having faith) in order to live it without angst. These people have made that flip, and pass it on to others.
Cadence wrote:Perhaps this is an ability I do not have.
I just read that as many as 10% of the population may be physically or physiologically unable to see the difference between 3D and 2D movies. If we were to apply this same possibility to “faith” and nuanced belief in particular, it is quite possible that it just won’t work for you because God made you that way.
Cadence wrote:If something is presented as literal by those in the know and latter I find it to be incorrect it loses all of its meaning to me. I can no longer find much value other than maybe it is a good story to teach some values, but not necessarily divine in nature. Just a story someone though up.
SilentDawning wrote:At my urging DW began reading “The Shack.” I had read the book and found it helpful and impactful at a hard time in my faith deconstruction. (There is a review of the book in the book review section) She was about 50 pages from the end and we began discussing some of the concepts in the book. It turns out that my wife had been reading the book as though it were a true story (or at least based on a true story). This is understandable because in the beginning of the book there is an intro or forward where it gives that impression. When I told her that it was fiction she stopped reading the book!
Later DW told me that she was actually really into the story line and would have experienced it as a dream or vision wherein God can be communicating. But now that she sees it as fiction (just something that somebody thought up) it is now seen as less reliable, As though the sub conscious mind is more in tune with God than the conscious mind.
Anyway, it is a clear example of greater value being placed on “true” events. I even told DW that the BOM would still have value even if the characters never actually existed. To which she countered, “Ahhh – but they did exist.”
So here are my questions, they are addressed specifically to Cadence but others may respond as well:
Would you find a story more credible as divine/inspirational if it were declared to be “fiction” from the start as are the parables?
Would you find a story more credible as divine/inspirational if it were represented as a vision or dream of divine origin but not a depiction of real events?
How would you feel about a fictional story that the author claimed was inspired or even directed from God (Imagine J. R. Tolken made the announcement the Lord of the Rings trilogy was directed from God or perhaps a book that might have changed the course of human events more profoundly such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin)?
Do you pick out, enjoy, and feel additional value from metaphor in fictional (non-religious) texts such as Lord of the Flies or others?
Yeah, some people simply are wired to take things literally – and there can be great power in doing so. The danger, as you pointed out, is when some things taken literally are proven not to be accurate – or, often, meant to be taken literally originally. (Fwiw, that’s my position relative to many of the OT stories – that they were intended originally to be grand hyperbole that teach lessons but were taken literally by those who are inclined to do so.) Other people take things figuratively – and there is great power in doing so. The danger is that some things taken figuratively actually might be accurate – and some of the power can disappear if literal things aren’t understood literally.
I read an interesting post earlier today that is thought-provoking in this regard. It is called, “Seeing Jesus in Action” – and the link is:
http://betchadidntknow.blogspot.com/2011/09/seeing-jesus-in-action.html It opens with the following:
Quote:As most people who know me realize, I’m a very literal person. I don’t get symbolism and hidden meanings easily. I tend to take things as they are and as they appear to be. This has sometimes made it hard for me to really grasp the deeper meanings of many things I read.
The thing is, this woman is our former Relief Society President and one of the most humble, Christlike people I know.
Roy wrote:
So here are my questions, they are addressed specifically to Cadence but others may respond as well:Would you find a story more credible as divine/inspirational if it were declared to be “fiction” from the start as are the parables?
Would you find a story more credible as divine/inspirational if it were represented as a vision or dream of divine origin but not a depiction of real events?
How would you feel about a fictional story that the author claimed was inspired or even directed from God (Imagine J. R. Tolken made the announcement the Lord of the Rings trilogy was directed from God or perhaps a book that might have changed the course of human events more profoundly such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin)?
Do you pick out, enjoy, and feel additional value from metaphor in fictional (non-religious) texts such as Lord of the Flies or others?
I would say there are many fictional stories that present a good story and they may even be inspired or divine in nature. But they are fiction. Presented as fiction, and understood as fiction. So you never have to cross the bridge from literal to figurative. Also those stories come from a history that requires literal truth. Jesus had to live and be the son of God for those parables to have meaning. So the figurative story still relies on a literal foundation at some point.
If Tolkien claimed inspiration from the divine to produce Lord of the Rings I could accept that. If he claimed it to be an actual history of the earth some 10,000 years ago it would lose its value to me because it obviously would not be what it claimed.
So I would say yes I find value in metaphor and figurative stories as long as they are understood as such.
Perhaps all the bible stories were meant to be figurative from the get go. It is us who came along later and messed it up and tried to apply a literal meaning to something that was intended to be figurative. If that is the case then I would still say the LDS church in not inspired because if we claim revelation some leader somewhere should have gotten the message and led us down the figurative path instead of claiming all the stuff about how Adam did this and that and the garden of Eden is in Jackson County.
I hear what you are saying, Cadence. It seems it would be easier for me if the OT and other church teachings were presented as non-literal, but when I thought my whole life they were literal, there is that feeling of disappointment and betrayal no one ever taught it to me as metaphorical. Why should I have to figure that out on my own? Shouldn’t the true church teaching me truth from God be explaining this to us all in church? I’ve struggled with those questions. You asked how I have tried to make that shift happen and make it work for me, and I would say the cafeteria approach is my way. I slowly start letting go of some things and nuance some things that dont seem logical or rational to accept literally, and see how it tastes. I have found I like it. I find the meaning of things richer and more robust for my life for some things, but sometimes it is just a way to not lose my patience with it all and just dump the whole faith. And I still think some things are literal. Joseph Smith was a literal person. His revelations are hard to frame literally.
I had to stop relying on church as the authority of all truth in my life, and start taking brave steps to take more responsibility for my beliefs of what is literal and what I don’t think is, through the spirit, whether others agree with me or not. I was uncomfortable with that at first, and now find it liberating and rewarding.
Why do things have to be literal in religion?
Cadence, I know you take things literally by nature, but have you ever considered that perhaps the central genius of Joseph was that he was able to transplant the great figurative mythology of history into the literalness of his own time and location – to see the symbolism of an ancient world and turn it into a moving literalism in his own day? Seriously, what more grand endeavor is there than the idea of entering the presence of God on a regular basis – to take Heaven (a symbolic location, I believe) and locate it at the end of a symbolic journey here on earth that can be traveled over and over again in our own literal time and space?
We have temples that do that, at least in theory.
What more grand endeavor is there than the idea that Zion is where we build it – to take the City of Enoch (a symbolic story, I believe) and locate it literally in our own land(s)?
We have stakes that do that, at least in theory.
What more grand endeavor is there than the idea that paradise is in our own backyard – to take the Garden of Eden (a symbolic story, I believe) and locate it literally where you want your people to live?
We have Independence that does that, at least in theory.
What more grand endeavor is there than the idea that Christ will return to where his saints gather – to take Adam-Ondi-Ahman and the New Jerusalem (symbolic stories, I believe) and locate them literally at the “beginning” and desired end of your own community?
We have a valley and a designated location that do that, at least in theory.
Joseph was a “restorer” in his own mind – and, if you look at that role as comprehensively as possible, the “Restoration” becomes much more than just a theology or a group of ideas. It becomes the re-establishment of an entire symbolic world, moving backward AND forward in time until we literally are walking and talking with God.
“One eternal round” is a powerful concept – IF it can be seen figuratively and not literally. Seen literally, it has power enough for most people; taken figuratively, it has immense power for me. I don’t begrudge those who take it literally, if it works for them. It is when the literal loses significance that it has to transition to figurative or lose its power completely – and if you think LDS leaders haven’t spoken in figurative terms, I think it’s because you simply have a hard time seeing it (as you admitted in this post).
After all, the endowment ceremony itself said for a long time that the creation of Adam and Eve, as depicted, was figurative. I think that line was removed in order to benefit those, like you, perhaps, who had a hard time accepting and understanding it – but that removal doesn’t make it any less of a fact that Mormon leaders have spoken symbolically and figuratively a lot throughout our history, including to this very day. They just speak literally more often than figuratively, since a FAR higher percentage of people are literalists than figurativists, so to speak. Literalism is general and works fine for a community of settlers; figurativism is individualized and must be pursued and constructed outside of communal constraints. Leaders can speak figuratively, but they can’t lead figuratively – and that’s an incredibly important distinction, imo.
The issue for subsequent leaders is taking the transfigured symbolic become literal and not forgetting that it really is symbolic at its root – and that is not an easy recognition, at all. There’s no failure in continuing the literal iteration, but the real power is in recognizing the symbolic and figurative foundation for what it is – sheer visionary brilliance, imo.
I don’t know if that makes any sense at all to you, since you are such a literalist, but it’s absolutely mind-blowing to me.
Ray – YOu are just much better than me at molding and bending meaning to fit your paradigm. You see great value in metaphor and stories that inspire. I can see that to when it is presented for what it is. I just struggle sitting in high priests hearing all the talk about the literal history of the figures in the Old Testament. There is no talk of the figurative, just Adam really lived, messed up and was kicked out of the garden. The core members of the church still live a very literal existence in regards to their beliefs. I believe that is OK. Believe what you must to get through life intact. But to the point of my original post as things become more figurative driven by new knowledge, I think there will be many who are disappointed like me because they were not taught correctly from their youth. A natural consequence of molding and parsing scripture and stories to fit one’s belief is that after a while, you stop taking anything literally — even literal statements in the scriptures. Amen, SD & Cadence – and that’s a real consequence of over-literalizing what should remain symbolic. For example, if “be ye therefore perfect” loses its literal meaning (complete, whole, fully developed – NOT mistake-free) and becomes purely symbolic, it loses much of its power. On the flip side, if “god is love” loses its symbolic meaning and becomes purely literal, it loses much of its power.
What I’m saying is that I believe the ideal is to find what makes the most sense literally and what makes the most sense figuratively – and not rely on just one approach to understand “Truth”. The issue that such construction varies person-by-person. Therefore, I gave up caring much about if others take something literally or figuratively in opposition to how I take it. If “there must needs be opposition in ALL things” . . .
I’m fine with it existing in this way – and I truly don’t begrudge whichever approach is dominant at any time. Generally speaking, I expect the literal to be emphasized more often than the figurative – since that works for more people.
So, my only advice relative to this post, at the core, is:
Learn to appreciate the symbolic and figurative – or, at least, let go of the angst over what is taught literally that you don’t accept literally.I think you’ve done that, for the most part.
In my experience, some of the worst literalists are in fact atheists, agnostics and skeptics! SamBee wrote:In my experience, some of the worst literalists are in fact atheists, agnostics and skeptics!
It is interesting that when you can’t bear testimony of what is you’ll bear solemn and fervent testimony of what isn’t.
Quote:Do you pick out, enjoy, and feel additional value from metaphor in fictional (non-religious) texts such as Lord of the Flies or others?
Absolutely!
Cadence, welcome to the philosophies of men mingled with scripture, aka church. I find that there are literalists in the church, and there are pragmatists. I’m not saying which you are, but it sounds like you’ve encountered a lot who are literalists. Literalists feel that you can “prove” things that are not provable: that the church is true, that God exists, that the BOM really happened, that Adam & Eve were the first humans, etc. They view the Bible and doctrinal teachings as a special textbook that provides the unique insights of the correct worldview, all the answers to how things work. They like to say they “know.” They are thrilled when smoking kills people or coffee causes migraines or wine causes liver damage because it is “proof” that the Word of Wisdom was written by God. When a person who leaves the church has a bad thing happen to them, it’s more proof. When someone righteous gets material blessings – proof. These are the same people who focus on obedience and then look for the literal blessings to tie back to the obedience. They are superstitious.
Pragmatists look at those same things and they ask “what personal value can I find in this?” or “what does this teach me about human nature and my own nature?” They believe spiritual things are esoteric and unprovable, and they are more concerned with understanding the patterns behind things, the principles at play, and the lessons about human nature that they can apply. They find the stories, teachings, principles valuable in their application or in the learning they gain from pondering them. Rather than “knowing,” they appreciate the benefits in their lives from the principles or insights.
Personally, I think literalist faith is a bit insecure, seeking for a sign or proof that the faith is not misplaced. But these things are not provable, and proving them is beside the point. I do believe some people are just more literal-minded. JS certainly viewed these things as literal, too. I’m not saying I’m right, but that’s how I see it.
The biggest problem, as I see it, is that we are continually bombarded with the message, from the highest levels of the church (we just had one of the 12 at our stake conference yesterday, so my anecdotal evidence is at least recent), that all of it is, in fact, literally true. So even if you have begun to try to make peace with a more nuanced approach, and have begun to convince yourself that it’s just possible that what all those people have been saying all these years is something quite different than what you’ve been hearing, each week you have to do an exhausting juggling act just to try to tread water and stay sane. I believe this is a problem for a small percentage of the general population, and even less so in the church, due to natural selection. This is all well and good, and there appears to be a way forward for those with this ‘affliction’ to stay involved, until we come to the question of Christ himself. I’ve tried to encourage discussion on this before, but didn’t get anywhere, and I can certainly understand why, so I’ll leave it at that.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:Do you pick out, enjoy, and feel additional value from metaphor in fictional (non-religious) texts such as Lord of the Flies or others?
Absolutely!
Cadence, welcome to the philosophies of men mingled with scripture, aka church. I find that there are literalists in the church, and there are pragmatists. I’m not saying which you are, but it sounds like you’ve encountered a lot who are literalists. Literalists feel that you can “prove” things that are not provable: that the church is true, that God exists, that the BOM really happened, that Adam & Eve were the first humans, etc. They view the Bible and doctrinal teachings as a special textbook that provides the unique insights of the correct worldview, all the answers to how things work. They like to say they “know.” They are thrilled when smoking kills people or coffee causes migraines or wine causes liver damage because it is “proof” that the Word of Wisdom was written by God. When a person who leaves the church has a bad thing happen to them, it’s more proof. When someone righteous gets material blessings – proof. These are the same people who focus on obedience and then look for the literal blessings to tie back to the obedience. They are superstitious.
Yes!! I’ve been observing this for years!!! It’s like they seek proof for their literal claims, focusing on the bad things that happen to the “bad” people who violate covenants, and the good things that happen to the staunch members. At the same time, they filter out the good things that happen to “bad” people, and the bad things that happen to the “good” people!!!
They seem not to understand the scripture that says the rain falls on everyone.
And frankly, I think at times one’s life is much harder as a member of the Church when you compare the non-member basically righteous person with the member basically-righteous person. I sometimes shake my head when I think that the price of full fellowship is the obligation to pay 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 thousand a year in tithing, plus other expenses, with free janitorial duties expected from you. Also long, unpaid hours with little or no thanks, very little free time, and a culture that tends to put you into the outgroup the second you stray from the textbook path — which may nor may not have anything to do with salvation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.