[churchistrue]

Roy wrote:

I myself am a proponent of limited choice theory. By this I mean that we have our choices severely limited by a host of factors (including but not limited to the culture, nation, and religion of our birth as well as such individual factors as family upbringing, birth order, personality type, inclinations, and mental capacity). And so my friend the glass is partly full and partly empty. I make a choice – say in whom to marry. How much of that choice is mine and how much is influenced/programmed by prior factors outside of my control?

And it gets even harder to disentangle the control that others exercise in their life choices. If I were able to transport my pure essence into the body of someone else and have their brain patterns and their formative experiences – how can I know that I would not be making exactly the same sort of choices that they are now making?

Quote:

I believe faith as fidelity is not just faithfulness to God but also assumes faithfulness to the teachings and standards of the religion you choose.

So in this sense I did not choose this religion. I was born into it. I then was shepherded into making increasingly greater promises of loyalty and commitment.

And yet, I honor and respect those good things and experiences that have been afforded me. As far as life experiences go, my childhood was full of security and love. My church – flaws and all – does some things really well. To the degree that I am offered a choice – if my percentage of choice is 15% or 50% – I hope to choose love and honor and respect. I try. I sometimes succeed and sometimes fail. But then I get up again dust myself off and try to move that needle of self determination in the direction of love, honor, and respect. In the end that is all that I can do.

I’m not smart enough to jump in the self determination discussion. But I think what you say makes sense and adds perspective.

[churchistrue]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Well, it’s all preferences anyway. Another view of my type:

[strike](E)[/strike] I – [strike]I’ll talk your ear off.[/strike] I’d rather not talk to you

(N) – unless it’s About nothing concrete, lots of theories and stuff I’ve read.

(T) – Don’t expect hugs or tears.

(J) – I’ll be checking my [strike]watch.[/strike] smartphone–especially at church.

hah, I’m about the same. In fact my wife could’ve written this for me. Here’s my edit.

[churchistrue]

nibbler wrote:

churchistrue wrote:

One of my core beliefs I’m trying to popularize is that nuanced/metaphorical view of religion should be considered before a religion is dumped.

For some reason I can hear my dad’s voice in my head, “A metaphor doesn’t put food on the table.” It’s stupid, probably doesn’t make any sense, but I heard it all the same.

I don’t mean to be flippant. Sometimes increased nuance isn’t enough to make it in a practical world. I do think it’s a good place for a softer landing but it’s not going to work for everyone. There doesn’t need to be a stigma associated with leaving religion.

I hope there is enough to offer to keep a large portion of people, even if they reject the historical truth claims. But, I agree, if religion doesn’t work for you, there should be no stigma associated with leaving.

On the power of metaphor, this is something I’ve been trying to work out in my head. I think I still need a deeper understanding myself to internalize it better and communicate it to others, but i’m getting there. http://www.churchistrue.com/saving-faith/

[churchistrue]

Heber13 wrote:

I like the way it was defined up front:

Quote:

Cognitive Dissonance:

Cognitive Dissonance is a psychological concept describing the discomfort one experiences with conflicting beliefs, ideas, behaviors, or desires.

churchistrue wrote:

a) cogdis is a human experience and not necessarily bad

I agree with this. Well worded.

To me, it’s based on that realization…that we do it all the time…all of us…it is how we learn and how we challenge old ideas with new learning or discard new ideas to hold on to past knowledge, and there is some stress or effort internally as we go through that.

Therefore, your coping mechanism to see the church symbolically and metaphorically is one way to see the church and the teachings. It is not more right than the literal true believers, or the ex-mos who see it false. There are just different views.

I take a very orthoprax approach to religious teaching.

That is why Fowler’s Stages of Faith are one way to look at it…because black and white can apply to TBMs in Stage 3 or Ex-Mo’s in Stage 3. They are just arguing different things.

Yeah I was going to get into Fowler Stages of Faith in that post, because the concepts intertwine, but it seemed like it was going to get too tedious to try to give the background info to a reader who is unfamiliar with it. I’d like to do an analysis on how Stages of Faith applies to Mormonism (and Exmo’s) later. One of my core beliefs I’m trying to popularize is that nuanced/metaphorical view of religion should be considered before a religion is dumped. Exmo’s frequently say they read a bunch of stuff, lost their testimony, and they’re OUT. I understand why. TBM’s will criticize them and demand them to come back with literal testimonies, which is impossible. I would like them to consider an alternate view before they give up so fast.

[churchistrue]

Old-Timer wrote:

We probably should stop this now and not derail the introduction, unless churchistrue says this particular discussion should continue.

I don’t mind. Talk away.

[churchistrue]

Ann wrote:

Hi, churchistrue :wave: I’m glad you’re here.

churchistrue wrote:

One challenging aspect was what would I do with the knowledge I understood from a spiritual perspective. I couldn’t deny that I had felt powerful spiritual experiences. I began to reinterpret these spiritual experiences. Maybe when I was praying to ask God if the Book of Mormon was true and I felt he had burned it into my heart that it was true, maybe what he was burning into my heart was the message “I love you. I’m here. Thank you for seeking me.” It was very confusing and very difficult to sort out.

I’d never put it into these words, but this is how I see those interactions between me and God now.

Yes, one of the things I find kind of sad is when Exmo’s say these experiences are false or self-induced. I think it’s a much better, at least a lot of the time, to search for a different interpretation of what that spiritual experience might have meant, then to dump it completely.

[Author]

Posts