- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I hear dichotomies all the time in the Church — there is either the Church of God or the Church of the devil, the BoM is either literally true or its totally false. The Church is either true or its the biggest fraud on earth. You are either a Son of God or a Son of perdition. You are either part of the problem, or part of the solution. You are either furthering the work, or hindering it. God wants you hot or cold, not lukewarm. What is the lure of these dichotomies? Why do people resort to them all the time — both in the scriptures and in modern day real life?
For me, they just alienate the middle group, forcing them to cut or commit on the speaker’s terms now. They provide no compassion for people who are undecided, growing, or who have had a temporary lapse (for example, the people who are tired, as per Wirthin). And they seem to ignore the realities of life — that you start out with certain simplistic, black and white principles (the fewer the better in my view), and then quickly have to learn to apply them in a world that is decidedly gray.
Quote:What is the lure of these dichotomies?
They work for a whole lot of people. “When I was a child, I thought as a child,” is easy to understand and perpetuate – but Paul also said, “When I became a man, I put away childish things.”
I know it’s cliche and too broadly implemented, but there really is great wisdom in the idea of milk before meat. The problem arises when it’s time for meat and only milk is still being served. The lure there is to focus on those who still need milk and call it a reasonable sacrifice for those who are ready to eat meat; the problem is that those who can eat meat need to eat meat to remain strong – or, to be more precise, to grow stronger.
Our ultimate goal isn’t for everyone to be reasonable healthy; it’s for everyone eventually to be kick-butt strong (without acutally kicking butt).
🙄 Upon reflection, I see it more as a rather incomplete approach to life…still thinking as a child. It also has an undertone of “I’m right” as it has a solid claim that the subject matter is absolutely true. There is intolerance in it — people in the middle group are lumped in with the antagonists. I also think it satisfies the speaker into thinking s/he is motivating the fence sitters who most certainly don’t want to be cast into the outgroup. This the first principle in the Book of Mormon that I now seriously question….as much as I like the book.
Quote:This the first principle in the Book of Mormon that I now seriously question
What do you mean? I’m not sure of the connection.
Your post reminds me of this video I saw recently: http://www.disinfo.com/2011/10/the-bible-tells-me-so-video/ Old-Timer wrote:Quote:This the first principle in the Book of Mormon that I now seriously question
What do you mean? I’m not sure of the connection.
There is a section that talks about how there are only two Churches – the Church of God or the Church of the Devil. I never used to question that one, but I now see it as a false dichotomy.
Quote:1 Nephi 14:10
10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.
So, the connection is this — I think false dichotomies represent oversimplications. The Book of Mormon has one, so I question the truth of that principle — that you are either in or your out. As I’ve been reflecting on this thread, I think the false dichotomy is there to try to inspire the undecided “vote” to join the ranks of the committed. The dichotomy eliminates middle ground as a viable option, lumping it in with the forces of satan. No one wants to be part of the Satanic group, so, the dichotomy leaves them with only one option — join the ranks of the committed and thus serve its ends.
Dualism is an easy world view to understand. It’s a bit like warfare, the other side is represented in completely black terms. Got it. I don’t read that passage as applying to the LDS Church and everyone else, but I see what you mean. Fwiw, it’s a universal, human tendency – not just a religious one and certainly not just a Mormon / Book of Mormon one.
People either see the world in the form of simple dichotomies or they don’t. They can’t have it both ways. 😆 And now for some dichotomy humor: There are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don’t.
with apologies to those who didn’t know that ’10’ is the binary representation for the number 2.😆 :clap: :thumbup: Old-Timer wrote:Fwiw, it’s a universal, human tendency – not just a religious one and certainly not just a Mormon / Book of Mormon one.
That’s part of the appeal that Communism had (although I realise most Americans would run a mile from that!!!) among people across the world. It divided up people into exploited and exploiters, with a final victory of the underdog… and if you were against it you were part of the exploitation
Millenialist religions such as our own deal in it too.
Old-Timer wrote:What is the lure of these dichotomies? –
They work for a whole lot of people. “When I was a child, I thought as a child,” is easy to understand and perpetuate – but Paul also said, “When I became a man, I put away childish things.”
I know it’s cliche and too broadly implemented, but there really is great wisdom in the idea of milk before meat. The problem arises when it’s time for meat and only milk is still being served. The lure there is to focus on those who still need milk and call it a reasonable sacrifice for those who are ready to eat meat; the problem is that those who can eat meat need to eat meat to remain strong – or, to be more precise, to grow stronger.
Our ultimate goal isn’t for everyone to be reasonable healthy; it’s for everyone eventually to be kick-butt strong (without acutally kicking butt).
Ran across this scripture and thought immeadiately of Ray’s post:
“For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses excercised to discern both good and evil.” Hebrews 5:13-14
Elder Callister’s Talk in last conference really bothered my in how it used dichotomies throughout. It ruined conference for me, honestly. Quote:
“That is the genius of the Book of Mormon—there is no middle ground.It is either the word of God as professed, or it is a total fraud. This book does not merely claim to be a moral treatise or theological commentary or collection of insightful writings. It claims to be the word of God—every sentence, every verse, every page………..If that story is true, then the Book of Mormon is holy scripture, just as it professes to be; if not, it is a sophisticated but, nonetheless, diabolical hoax.”Quote:“C. S. Lewis spoke of a similar dilemma faced by someone who must choose whether to accept or reject the Savior’s divinity—where there is likewise no middle ground: “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. … You must make your choice.
Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse.… But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” Brown wrote:Elder Callister’s GC talk: That is the genius of the Book of Mormon—there is no middle ground.
That’s a nice rah rah speech to the Stage 3 listeners, but I disagree with that. There is certainly middle ground. I have found it.
I get the guy’s point…it helps us clarify and focus things if we simplify it and make it binary, it either is or isn’t…that makes it simple. Some need that simplicity to make a choice and act.
But that line of thinking just doesn’t always hold up.
It would be like saying:
Quote:There is no middle ground with money. It is either the root of all evil, or it is a blessing to provide for your family. If the former, you must do as Jesus asks and give all of it away and follow Him. If the latter, you must do as our prophets teach and become self-sufficient like the 5 wise virgins that could not share their oil. There are no other options.
Well, there are fanatics on the extremes that actually view it that way. Good for them. Most of us sane people know there is middle ground, and I can do a lot with money to help others, and seeking a good living for my family is encouraged by our prophets, while also generously giving to those in need.
Middle ground is cool. Moderation in all things.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.