- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This is a fantastic discussion. Such an important topic! One that many in our community wrestle with. Sorry for not jumping in, but for once it seems I haven’t had anything to say. I have been reading it though. Here’s my addition:
I often think that the problem, the unpleasant dissonance and emotional turmoil, is not because of what scripture REALLY ends up being. Scripture ultimately is what it is. Our emotions are based on our attachment to expectations we had, and having that perceived stable footing yanked out from under us.
As painful as that is, I can’t help but thinking sometimes about how useful that experience can be in maturing our souls. If there is such a thing as an afterlife and a powerful God in control who is trying to develop us, we must have a LOT (x1000 in intensity) such surprises ahead of us. The longer I live, the more it feels like flexibility and adaptation seem useful for my survival — financially, physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. But those qualities require us to let go of their opposite attributes: all forms of pride, including the emotional attachment to feeling that we are correct and really know for sure.
Brian Johnston wrote:As painful as that is, I can’t help but thinking sometimes about how useful that experience can be in maturing our souls. If there is such a thing as an afterlife and a powerful God in control who is trying to develop us, we must have a LOT (x1000 in intensity) such surprises ahead of us. The longer I live, the more it feels like flexibility and adaptation seem useful for my survival — financially, physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. But those qualities require us to let go of their opposite attributes: all forms of pride, including the emotional attachment to feeling that we are correct and really know for sure.
I really like this thought Brian. Part of what I love about it is the equal value it places on the everyone’s mortal experience. I love the idea that the “meat” of our lives is the actual living rather than how many ordinances we have under our belt.
Heber13 wrote: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 feel I should elaborate a little on what I mean by fooling myself. I do not mean that religion is foolish or that faith and the Easter Bunny are in the same basket. What I mean is that my perception of reality is not the same thing as reality. Specifically, I resonate with the idea of progression from one kingdom/heaven to another. I think it would be wrong of me to insist that it is “just so” in the afterlife. I only seek to imagine the possibility of what could be. There may be others that like the same imaginings of heaven that I do, but to surround myself with like minded individuals does not make my perception of reality into reality.
My comments were directed at what Cadence had written:
Cadence wrote: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.
It is also possible that our sun will supernova and obliterate mankind and all of our accumulated knowledge and achievements save for some space junk that we have managed to hurdle past the blast zone. How then will all of us put together, let alone a single life, matter? Related to this is my own particular issue – Does a life that never existed outside of the womb matter? No birth or death certificate. No social security number. No experiences of testing or growth. No overcoming temptation for never having been tempted. How do we measure meaning? Must the human experience or soul continue forever in order to have meant something?
People do matter (even anonymous ones)! Love matters! Faith matters! These things matter to me. These things are as real to me as water or rocks or gravity. Yet my perception of reality and reality are not necessarily correlated and Iām not sure that the “reality of the cosmos” would give a hill of beans for my deepest held convictions. But then, the reality of space and evolution and extinction and molecular physics may not matter especially in creating a life with those that I would give everything for. So I continue on with my assumptive reality and mental constructs that seem to bring order to a chaotic world, every once in a while reminding myself that the relationship between my reality and reality is indefinite. That, to me, is as close as I can come to being honest with myself.
Roy wrote: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.
š :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 youshouldlike it.) And so I continue on my personal path, fooling myself – with periodic inklings that Iām being fooled.
Roy,I’d say it’s more spiritual to “liken scriptures” to you. Yeah, some may call you a heretic. Yet, that’s ok because some also called Jesus, Joseph Smith & others who wanted to progress beyond superficial tradition, heretics too.
Personally, I feel a little like, “Took the road less traveled & now I’m lost.”
š Yet, I feel like I’ll get there & I’m doing ok (trying in my own humanly imperfect way)…
There is no “one size fits all” in spirituality, I think. If there were, we’d all get excited, scared or motivated about the same things, but we don’t.
This may sound strange… but I feel a little like everything’s illusion… I mean, that my view is always more limited than I think.
So, I realize much of what’s motivated me in the past has been somewhat illusional.
Yet, I still need motivation – to feel enough desire & passion to accomplish goals that are challenging & to enjoy.
So, I’m learning to respect LDS rituals for the spirituality/motivation they stir in others… & actually feel a little jealous that I don’t feel inspired by that anymore.
Yet, I do feel inspired in many other ways that I didn’t before… sometimes seemingly simple things like nature…
Cadence wrote:…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 messageof authority the church portrays to many members. Old-Timer wrote: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…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. I guess the way I would put it is not so much that most people need to believe the Bible is literally accurate and inspired from beginning to end in order to find much value in it (I doubt that is actually the case) but that people typically like simplified answers and are often perfectly willing to take what they have always been told by authority figures or people they trust at face value without caring enough about it to really investigate it in detail. I’m not trying to say the Church should come right out and preach that the story of Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, etc. are probably complete myths or anything like that I just think they should start to de-emphasize some of the traditional teachings that are the most difficult ones to defend and start to focus more on teachings that are easier for more people to agree with or feel good about nowadays.
I just don’t see the long-term wisdom and value of basically depending on ignorance and denial of strong arguments and evidence against some of these beliefs that can’t really withstand any honest questioning very well. The problem is that this approach will set way too many people up for disappointment and leave many of them feeling angry, victimized, betrayed, etc. when the relative weakness of these beliefs is inevitably exposed in an increasing number of cases. Continuing to get away with it to some extent it is not necessarily an indication that this strict and inflexible approach really works all that well when they are basically ignoring what happens in all the cases where it fails miserably not to mention all the members that continue to put up with this not because they are truly happy with the situation but simply because they think this is what they are supposed to do and/or because it’s what others expect out of them.
Cadence wrote:…What would happen if the church changed its approach and started relating the stories from the pulpit as not literal?
The church doesn’t make sharp course corrections unless forced to by government interference (think polygamy) or when they are so far out of phase with society that the writing on the wall simply cannot be ignored any longer (think blacks and the priesthood). I can’t foresee anything that would could lead to backpedalling on scriptural literalism. But who knows?
Devil’s Advocate wrote:I’m not trying to say the Church should come right out and preach that the story of Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, etc. are probably complete myths or anything like that I just think they should start to de-emphasize some of the traditional teachings that are the most difficult ones to defend and start to focus more on teachings that are easier for more people to agree with or feel good about nowadays.
Why shouldn’t they? I think that quietly backing away from incorrect, or at least ‘stale’, teachings does the current generation a major disservice. It’s already confusing enough to try to make things make sense without the rules of the game changing all the time. My case in point is ETB’s “To the Mothers in Zion”. People are probably sick of hearing about that from me, but it was a very big deal at the time, resulted in a lot of hand wringing, and now has apparently quietly gone away, leaving some people, at least, to wonder what the heck that was all about. When those people die off the issue permanently goes away, but that doesn’t seem like a very kind way to deal with the situation.
Roy wrote:Part of what I love about it is the equal value it places on the everyone’s mortal experience. I love the idea that the “meat” of our lives is the actual living rather than how many ordinances we have under our belt.
I have also found that perspective very satisfying and just. For way longer than I could consciously reason or explain, I felt dissatisfied with the notion that a human life only had value through a set of very limited ordinances that almost nobody in human history had access to. It just didn’t resonate or make sense to me. Life had to have a lot of value outside that narrow paradigm.
It doesn’t mean the experience of ordinances, or their symbolic meaning, are irrelevant. It just makes them one more type of experience that can be powerful and transformative. I love how you worded that last bit: The meat of our lives is the actual living of it. Perhaps the ordinances and the mental theologies are the milk?
Our lives can be consecrated and holy as we learn to make them so, under our own steam power.
doug wrote:Devil’s Advocate wrote:I’m not trying to say the Church should come right out and preach that the story of Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, etc. are probably complete myths or anything like that I just think they should start to de-emphasize some of the traditional teachings that are the most difficult ones to defend and start to focus more on teachings that are easier for more people to agree with or feel good about nowadays.
Why shouldn’t they? I think that quietly backing away from incorrect, or at least ‘stale’, teachings does the current generation a major disservice. It’s already confusing enoughto try to make things make sense without the rules of the game changing all the time. My case in point is ETB’s “To the Mothers in Zion”. People are probably sick of hearing about that from me, but it was a very big deal at the time, resulted in a lot of hand wringing, and now has apparently quietly gone away, leaving some people, at least, to wonder what the heck that was all about. When those people die off the issue permanently goes away, but that doesn’t seem like a very kind way to deal with the situation. The reason I wouldn’t expect them to openly admit that maybe the story of Adam and Eve was a myth or publicly apologize for the advice given in “To the Mothers in Zion” is simply because I think it is generally too painful and embarrassing for them to basically admit that they have made major mistakes unless there is almost no other option plus I don’t believe that there would be much of an advantage or need to do this even if they could ever be persuaded to. For every member like us that pays close attention to this kind of thing and wonders what it means there could easily be more than 10 that don’t have a problem with it or don’t really think about it that much if ever. So drawing unnecessary attention to issues like this will only create problems where there wasn’t one before for many rank-and-file Church members. Rather than thinking that at least they are trying to be honest too many members could instead get the idea that they don’t know what they are talking about and stop listening to them altogether.
For the sake of summary, I understand this thread to be about why people who find a literal belief unsustainable sometimes turn to nuanced belief instead. My answer to this question is that there is much value and meaning that can be derived both from myths and from our interactions with others. If moving to a nuanced belief allows an individual to both continue to glean value from the myths and to continue to interact in meaningful ways with those that still interpret things literally, then it seems like a reasonable approach and not necessarily dishonest or disingenuous at all.
Funny how in religion we can have this discussion. If we tried to take the same approach to most things in life it would not work. I can not nuance the law of gravity to my liking. It is never a debate whether it is really a law or a suggestion or a metaphor. It exists and there is little debate. With the unknowable we strive to mold and fold and manipulate it to come to some kind of understanding that makes sense to us. Helps explain why there are so many different concepts of God. Everyone is coming to a conclusion with the evidence they have, and the evidence is so minimal hence different conclusions.
Featherina wrote: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.
š š š Cadence wrote:Funny how in religion we can have this discussion. If we tried to take the same approach to most things in life it would not work. I can not nuance the law of gravity to my liking. It is never a debate whether it is really a law or a suggestion or a metaphor. It exists and there is little debate.
Gravity is a physical quality of the universe we experience and observe.
Religion is more like a form of art. What is the correct way to paint a pleasing and meaningful landscape using oils and canvas (art)? What is the correct way to live a human life (religion)?
Humans animals do three things: We consume resources. We procreate. And, we create imaginative stories out of the experiences in our environment. Why is there gravity? Does it mean something?
Gravity and religion are both models of an underlying objective (supposedly) reality. All models, including both religion and the law of gravity, are wrong in some sense. Some models, such as religion and the law of gravity, can be useful. Gravity also seems to be there, but scientists are still darned if they know how it actually works. Newton observed it, he didn’t understand it.
I like Brian s art analogy. I guess if you look at religion that way it is a creation of someone else. I can appreciate it or not depending on my taste. At least with gravity I am pretty sure I know how it it going to affect me. I jump off the roof and break my leg. Pretty straight forward. Religion not so easy to understand, which in itself is not bad, but I think the problem arises when individuals try to make religion like gravity. It is a fact and can not be disputed no matter the evidence to the contrary.
I agree, Cadence. I think when people try to make things that are not of this world fit the rules and laws of this world, there are some potential problems. It is better to be understood in metaphors and similes instead of facts and laws, probabilities rather than certainties, nuance instead of black-and-white.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.