Nuanced Belief

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

The biggest problem, as I see it, is that we are continually bombarded with the message, from the highest levels of the chuch (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.

Yep that is the problem.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

…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 think church leaders make a mistake, by saying it’s either all true or all false, when it’s both, depending on your frame of reference.

It does seem childish for people to take everything so literally, even when advised against it in the scriptures.

Yet, just realize it’s their stage of awareness (like Jesus taught that people interpret parables according to their level of understanding)… & change takes time.

And really, I think we do need some kind of personification of spirituality to resonate. Some just take it to the extreme, by thinking the story is true, or the church is the object of salvation, when it really is just a tool to feel the spirit, & spiritually progress.

I’ve also been annoyed by how literally things are taken… but it helps if I mentally remind myself of the meaning behind it… that it’s symbolic – – & that symbolism can change meaning, depending on our perspective (which is actually quite beautiful). Once, as I had tons of “light bulb moments” during a lesson (that for others probably was routine – By the comments, it seems like I’m the only one seeing it that way.).. Afterwards I went up to the teacher almost in tears, thanking him for such a great lesson! 🙂

I only agree partially with your quote “Faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction–faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.” Thomas A. Edison

Truth or the actual circumstances in our lives distinguish facts from fiction simply by consequences. So, if we’re in denial about something, we may get a rude awakening or even “dis ease” – “as a man thinketh so is he.”

Yet, who can handle the truth about everything? We don’t take get-away vacations to see poverty & war, do we? Faith in functional illusions is what makes life bearable & even meaningful.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

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.

It may seem exhausting at first, but that doesn’t mean it will always be that way.

Any change requires extra effort at first to get yourself used to it (think of exercise, think of learning a second language, think of upgrading from software version 1 to software version 2). It can get easier if you find your stride and get more comfortable with it, but it may require a little extra effort at first. For me, it seems easier now…because I no longer have to worry about reconciling everything or finding the “proof” that Hawkgrrrl talked about.

When I hear comments in General Conference or over the pulpit, it seems my brain can put them into my perspective without conflict or difficulty (OK, sometimes there are some difficulties, but those are growing opportunities for me), and it can fit without much effort, because I’m not trying to fit things together like a puzzle and restrict what picture I’m seeing. I just let it be what it is, and see what I can make of it. Word of Wisdom was very, very, very difficult for me to make sense of it literally. I still can’t. So now I no longer have to. I understand the principle, I live it, and I don’t think it has anything to do with earthly substances like caffeine, nicotine, or alcohol…and now…its so much easier for me to live and to feel blessed for living it, mostly because I have let go of expecting literal rewards like running and not being weary. “Run and not be weary”…nah…most members don’t take that literal because it literally doesn’t make sense, but that doesn’t mean it is all false.

My point is that your post is based on an assumption that it will always take huge effort to make a nuanced belief work and you have to choose if you want to always make that much effort every Sunday and be willing to endlessly suffer through that. For me it doesn’t. And I don’t.

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

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.

I have heard some atheists go on about fundamentalism, or how stupid it is that people think that Balaam’s Ass talked. I think sometimes they miss the wood for the trees. With myth, legend, and scriptures it’s not whether something is literally true in the sense of “that donkey spoke”, but what the meaning of the story is.

I just wonder how some of these people approach, say, surrealism, or fantasy fiction. Let alone music… if they hear Beethoven’s Sixth, do they get puzzled over which bit is the thunder storm and village dance?!

In my case, regarding the Book of Mormon, I have had some very profound experiences with it. Other than a few odd things within the BoM, I don’t know of a single shred of physical evidence to back it up. And yet, it has great spiritual import to me.

As someone said about it on here, It’s like a cute kitten you find in an alley, you don’t care where it came from, you just might take it home, look after the thing and appreciate its beauty.

At times, when I see, say Richard Dawkins, I recognize a literalist and fundamentalist. He portrays his opponents as such, but his interpretation of religious texts and beliefs is based on such a position, even if he opposes them.

[Anonymous]

I have decided when someone bears testimony to me that the church is true I will take it as figurative. When I am asked to pay tithing I will assume they mean figuratively. Did you do your home teaching this month. Well yes I did in a figurative sense.

Sarcastic I know but again my point being there is no end to nuancing things to fit the paradigm we create for ourselves. I can nuance myself into the church or religion or anything else to be whatever I need it to be. If spirituality is important to me I find nuance in little things like an emotional impression. I think it is how the human brain is wired. We need to find meaning in the world around us. It is important that we matter. That things matter. That we have a place in the universe. Hence we mold and fold and parse out the meaning in sometimes obscure stories or beliefs. I do not say this in a negative way. It is how we cope. Maybe there is something to it all and there is hidden meaning in scripture and stories. But to be fair I think you must also accept that we nuance things into relevance or importance when it was just a story no hidden meaning intended.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely.

Life is what we make of it – and that actually is bedrock Mormon doctrine, phrased that way. It actually is one of my favorite parts of Mormon theology – that our eternal life is whatever we make it be. Of course, it’s enabled theologically by grace and the Atonement – but it still is enabled uniquely in pure Mormonism, and I really love that.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

It may seem exhausting at first, but that doesn’t mean it will always be that way.

…

My point is that your post is based on an assumption that it will always take huge effort to make a nuanced belief work and you have to choose if you want to always make that much effort every Sunday and be willing to endlessly suffer through that. For me it doesn’t. And I don’t.

Thanks for the input. I hope that my experience becomes more like yours at some point in the future. Sometimes it seems hopeless, and at other times, not so much. The gulf between my understanding of the traditional and institutional culture of belief in which I am immersed and what I think I am prepared to give is so great that I really doubt whether it can be bridged. At other times, I wonder ‘what’s the big deal?’ Why not just hitch my wagon to this particular star? Put on the blinders, and just go with it. Root for the home team. But then, after some reflection, it seems almost meaningless.

Case in point: At our recent stake conference, ‘we’ received an apostolic blessing. For some, I assume this was the highlight of their day and a moving spiritual experience. For me it was an experience that highlighted that gulf I was talking about. If I were to boil it down to its essence, best case for me is that a kind and spiritual man said some things expressing his best wishes for the members of my stake. Meshing that with the mainstream takes a lot of energy, and, some would say, disingenuousness, no matter how you look at it.

[Anonymous]

Actually tithing is one of the least spiritual things, since many of the results are tangible. If we’re in church buildings, temples, using church provided materials, or using the church as a creche, then that’s all tithing in action.

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

Actually tithing is one of the least spiritual things, since many of the results are tangible. If we’re in church buildings, temples, using church provided materials, or using the church as a creche, then that’s all tithing in action.

And… BYU football players playing football is also tithing in action.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

I have decided when someone bears testimony to me that the church is true I will take it as figurative. When I am asked to pay tithing I will assume they mean figuratively. Did you do your home teaching this month. Well yes I did in a figurative sense.

Sarcastic I know but again my point being there is no end to nuancing things to fit the paradigm we create for ourselves. I can nuance myself into the church or religion or anything else to be whatever I need it to be. If spirituality is important to me I find nuance in little things like an emotional impression. I think it is how the human brain is wired. We need to find meaning in the world around us. It is important that we matter. That things matter. That we have a place in the universe. Hence we mold and fold and parse out the meaning in sometimes obscure stories or beliefs. I do not say this in a negative way. It is how we cope. Maybe there is something to it all and there is hidden meaning in scripture and stories. But to be fair I think you must also accept that we nuance things into relevance or importance when it was just a story no hidden meaning intended.

I agree!

Lately, I’ve felt like I’m fooling myself, yet I want to fool myself, but knowing that I’m fooling myself takes away some of the fun.

If that makes any sense. 😆

[Anonymous]

Featherina wrote:

Cadence wrote:

there is no end to nuancing things to fit the paradigm we create for ourselves. I can nuance myself into the church or religion or anything else to be whatever I need it to be. If spirituality is important to me I find nuance in little things like an emotional impression. I think it is how the human brain is wired. We need to find meaning in the world around us. It is important that we matter. That things matter. That we have a place in the universe. Hence we mold and fold and parse out the meaning in sometimes obscure stories or beliefs. I do not say this in a negative way. It is how we cope. Maybe there is something to it all and there is hidden meaning in scripture and stories. But to be fair I think you must also accept that we nuance things into relevance or importance when it was just a story no hidden meaning intended.

I agree!

Lately, I’ve felt like I’m fooling myself, yet I want to fool myself, but knowing that I’m fooling myself takes away some of the fun.

If that makes any sense. 😆

:clap: :clap: :clap: I too sometimes wonder, “Who am I to mentally modify little bits of doctrine to make them more palatable for me?” But then, would I be any more true to go around searching for a group that believes more similar to my own preferences? Or not finding one, deciding to start my own group? Does a theory or doctrine become more valid depending on the number of adherents you can surround yourself with? This is in contrast to the “one size fits all” approach of there being one plan with authorized administrators and you can either take it ALL and like it, or leave it. (or take it all and grimace as you swallow some mouthfuls and grow to learn why you should like it.) And so I continue on my personal path, fooling myself – with periodic inklings that I’m being fooled.

[Anonymous]

I don’t know if I’m right…or if I really have things figured out or not…I’m just sharing my thoughts as I have them, and where I’m at in my journey, and expect to learn more as I go.

I like this discussion, as it seems to be brought up many times on many threads.

But what I’d like to share, is that I disagree with those that think you have to fool yourself to make it work. I disagree that it has to be disingenuous. I disagree that it is not being honest with yourself.

I have started to look at these things in religion (like the Bible), as just what Cadence said:

Quote:

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.

The more I study, the more this seems to hold true for me. I also realize there is more to religion than bible stories. There are things I take from those figurative stories, and I make them literal in my life by how I act, how I love others, how I think. And so, some things are figurative, and were always meant to be, and some things are literal, and help us because of it. I try to separate those out, and accept things as they are.

And so, I adjust my understanding of what was taught to me my whole life. It starts to become more powerful and more meaningful, and more spiritual to me…and easier to reconcile, not harder to go to church and bridge a gap.

It seems that some people start from a literal approach (as did I), then learn something that doesn’t make sense, and then think they have to trick themselves so in the back of their mind they know its literal but they are going to make it work by saying it is figurative. I don’t think that approach is sustainable.

But what I’m trying to do is come from a different angle, to change my paradigm, and leave assumptions such as it is really literal. The more I can accept things as figurative, the closer I am to the truth in which they were intended from the beginning, and the trick or illusion or disingenuous belief was actually my prior view of literal teachings that didn’t hold up to my experiences and rational thinking. I’m not trying to make them figurative…I accept they are figurative to me, and then there is no tricking my brain, and therefore, I am really honest with myself, and I think honest with the truth as I see it.

We should remember, the word “nuance” does not mean to trick, or lie, or be dishonest. The dictionary defines nuance as:

Quote:

1: a subtle distinction or variation

2: a subtle quality : nicety

3: sensibility to, awareness of, or ability to express delicate shadings (as of meaning, feeling, or value)

Accepting nuanced beliefs is about accepting variation in belief. Therefore, it is OK if the rest of the stake thinks one thing about the apostolic blessing, and I have a different shading to my perception of it. Look at my avatar…the prism takes the same light source, and makes different shades visible. That doesn’t mean red is right, and purple is tricking your mind to lie about what you see. It is realizing the different shades all come from the same source. They are all right. They are all beautiful. And I may have a preference of one shade over another, and you have a different preference. And that is ok. Those aren’t gaps I have to bridge. They are just variations that exist, in all honesty and genuineness.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

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 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?…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.

Cadence wrote:

…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…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.

To me, it is trying to interpret accepted scriptures as always needing to be literally accurate and inspired by God that actually complicates things unnecessarily if you really look at them in detail and try to make sense of it all. If we simply remove this requirement and expectation then no nuanced explanation or hidden meaning is necessary because we already know that it is easy for men to lie, make things up, and/or misunderstand the world around them. However, just because some parts of the Bible are almost certainly not inspired it doesn’t necessarily mean that all of it is worthless, that God doesn’t exist or doesn’t care about people, etc.

The main questions I have about supposed scriptures are: “Who really wrote this?”, “Did they know what they were talking about or not?”, and “How exactly do we know this?” If I have to guess more than I am really comfortable with then it’s hard to feel very good about investing too much time, money, or effort in it when I don’t have much confidence that it will ever pay off. On the other hand, sometimes belief and hope are their own reward and there isn’t much downside to giving someone the benefit of the doubt in specific cases until there is good reason to believe something else instead.

Even if we assume that Jesus was just another man or completely fictional character developed into a highly exaggerated mythical hero over time I can still appreciate most of the things he reportedly said without depending on whether or not he really walked on water, was physically resurrected, etc. If Jesus, Paul, Luke, John, etc. said some things that sound impractical or incorrect nowadays then a non-literal interpretation of scriptures becomes even more convenient for cafeteria Christians because it gives more flexibility to pick and choose which ideas you want to embrace or discard. Meanwhile, the LDS Church currently makes it difficult to shrug off or ignore some of the inconsistencies because of all the specific answers they continue to insist are absolutely right so then seemingly minor details like the flood or Adam being literally the first man can easily become a major deal-breaker for Church members that just don’t believe it anymore.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Even if we assume that Jesus was just another man or completely fictional character developed into a highly exaggerated mythical hero over time I can still appreciate most of the things he reportedly said without depending on whether or not he really walked on water, was physically resurrected, etc. If Jesus, Paul, Luke, John, etc. said some things that sound impractical or incorrect nowadays then a non-literal interpretation of scriptures becomes even more convenient for cafeteria Christians because it gives more flexibility to pick and choose which ideas you want to embrace or discard. Meanwhile, the LDS Church currently makes it difficult to shrug off or ignore some of the inconsistencies because of all the specific answers they continue to insist are absolutely right so then seemingly minor details like the flood or Adam being literally the first man can easily become a major deal-breaker for Church members that just don’t believe it anymore.

What would happen if the church changed its approach and started relating the stories from the pulpit as not literal? Would this enhance the belief of most members or destroy it. I am not sure. It may be that the church has backed itself into a corner that they can not easily get out of. If they start to say Adam was a figurative character it sort of starts to contradict that whole line of priesthood authority business being handed down from generation to generation among other problems. It seems the doctrine of the church is built on a very literal interpretation of scripture. To nuance that may diminish the power of the message of authority the church portrays to many members.

[Anonymous]

It’s worth repeating that the vast majority of people are literalists. Any organization that tries to reach people of all types, in all cultures, simply must realize that and teach “the group” mostly using literal interpretations and guidelines – if it wants to survive and thrive. Individual leaders can teach non-literally (and there are and always have been apostles who teach non-literally at times), but even they can’t do so all the time or too blatantly. Too high a percentage of people are literalists to allow that.

I honestly don’t care if “The Church” continues to present most things literally – since that works for most people I know and love. I can appreciate that and work out the nuances and symbolism on my own. I actually really like that approach, since it leaves me free to understand things however I can understand things – while still providing security for so many people I love.

[Author]

Posts