Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
felixfabulous wrote:
Quote:One of the things that “Misquoting Jesus” explores is that new religions often lay claim to old beliefs, prophecies, and scriptures but take them in a new direction. This way the religion is exciting and fresh while also having an old historic feel…the fulfilment of things foretold.
He explores this idea quite a bit and calls it “actualization.” For example, Matthew quotes Isaiah to show that the virgin birth was prophesied in the Old Testament. But, looking at the text, this prophesy in Isaiah is fulfilled a little later on in the narrative and is taken out of context by Matthew to apply to Jesus. We’ve also actualized the Old Testament to be about dispensations, prophets, priesthood and ordinances. But, when you look at the actual text, this is not what is going on. But, this made Mormonism fresh, exciting and bolstered the restorationist claims.
I don’t want to sidebar this discussion and maybe this is a topic for a separate post but this question has been nagging at me and it’s relevant. Is the whole idea of separate dispensations of the fulness of the Gospel with Adam, Abraham, Moses, etc followed by periods of apostasy and then restoration, leading up to the Great Apostasy and then the Restoration with Joseph Smith supported by the Old Testament? Is this narrative just made up whole cloth by the Church to support it’s own doctrine, or do other religions also read dispensations into the Old Testament? This is what missionaries currently teach and the whole premise seems completely unsupported by an actual reading of the text. Even the idea of Jesus establishing a church followed by a great apostasy doesn’t seem to be supported by actual history. Do those more knowledgable than me know?
DarkJedi wrote:
Oh, yeah, I’m definitely biased. I was also biased in my old beliefs. I don;t currently believe there were really gold plates and eve if there were I don’t buy any of the stuff about the Lamanites/Native Americans. Nobody can figure out the modern geography because it’s fiction. Etc. But the BoM is a good book that can and does bring people closer to Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.
This is where I’m at too, but I’m one step further. The Book of Mormon can and does bring people closer to God and Jesus Christ, both of whom I am not convinced exist. I think these relationships only exist in our minds, but that doesn’t mean there’s not value to seeking to have those relationships. There’s clearly tangible benefits people get from pursuing them, and who’s to say I’m not the one who is mistaken about all of this.
IT_Veteran wrote:
I haven’t listened to it yet. Since I’m not a member anymore, I’ve found that I have little patience for apologetics and I wasn’t entirely sure how that interview was going to go.Reading your post though, I’m thinking I’ll put it in the queue
I wouldn’t consider him traditional apologetics. Although his Authoring the Old Testament book melds modern OT scholarship with faithful perspectives, I think his interview shows he has changed quite a bit even in the last few years. His interview is essentially an exit story, highlighting what took him from a middle wayer (which he was for years) to where he is now (which is no longer participating or attending). He is brilliant. Highly recommend giving him a listen.
Whether one has left or is still in the middle way, Bokovoy offers empathy and points of view that can allow those striving to remain to do so with integrity. He may have left the church (for now) but certainly doesn’t advocate for that path – it’s just what was right for him at the time.
I just saw that Bill released the audio of his disciplinary council. He was asked to sign a document not to record it and he did sign it. So he not only recorded it anyway, which I could maybe justify for just your own purposes and private records, but to also release it just seems very dishonest to me. One of his claims was that leaders of the church have lied and now he seems to be doing the same thing. I haven’t listened to it and not sure I will. This just seems very dishonest and unethical to me.
I have currently stepped away from activity and doing so has helped me see more clearly some of the benefits I am missing out on. Most obvious to me is the community of fellowship. For me, a religion should be about love and kindness and looking for meaningful opportunities to serve others. For many, the church fills this role beautifully, particularly those who fit the mormon mold. For those who don’t fit, it is certainly a greater struggle to get these benefits but not impossible. I have been satisfied with stepping away but I do miss the community and a convenient structure that gives opportunities to serve others. I am still working to fill this gap in other ways without the church. The church is such a convenient way, if you can look past all the flaws. Especially when it is already an integrated part of your family, friends, and aquaintences. It’s definitely not the only source, or maybe even the best, but it may be the easiest way for someone to achieve when they are already integrated into mormon culture.
I listened to an interesting interview recently with David Bokovoy who is an Old Teatament scholar and antiquity historian. He commented that as a historian, it is quite easy to explain the Book of Mormon as being entirely a product of the 19th century, from the 19th century ideas about origins of the native americans to the very advanced 19th century Christology. One doesn’t need to invoke the supernatural to explain the Book of Mormon. That doesn’t mean one can’t invoke the supernatural and choose to believe the book is inspired scripture, whatever that means for that individual. But historically speaking there is no necessity in doing so to explain the origins of that book. The more I learn about 19th century ideas and Joseph’s amazing gift of syncretization, the less miraculous the book seems to me, but no less impressive. Even as a completely man made piece of literature, the book is extraordinary and certainly can and does bring people closer to Christ, as millions of members can attest.
One final interesting quote from BH Roberts who spent considerable time studying this very question:
Quote:
“One other subject remains to be considered in this division… viz. – was Joseph Smith possessed of a sufficiently vivid and creative imagination as to produce such a work as the Book of Mormon from such materials as have been indicated in the proceeding chapters… That such power of imagination would have to be of a high order is conceded; that Joseph Smith possessed such a gift of mind there can be no question….“In light of this evidence, there can be no doubt as to the possession of a vividly strong, creative imagination by Joseph Smith, the Prophet, an imagination, it could with reason be urged, which, given the suggestions that are found in the ‘common knowledge’ of accepted American antiquities of the times, supplemented by such a work as Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews [published in Palmyra in 1825], it would make it possible for him to create a book such as the Book of Mormon is.”
– Studies of the Book of Mormon
I share others concern about a sub-culture developing where service missions are seen as “less than.” Particularly in the language that says prospective missionaries are first considered for a proselyting mission, and then if not eligible may be able to serve as a service missionary. It’s already establishing that somehow a service mission is a lower tier than a regular proselyting mission. I also browsed through the service missionary handbook found here:
https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/english/service-missionary/09795-YCSM-Principles-Handbook.pdf?lang=eng Some interesting tidbits about how these will go:
[list]- The Stake President will be their leader but may delegate this to counsellors, Bishops, high councilors, or even a “stake service mission specialist.” Whoever is delegated will conduct regular monthly interviews.
[/list] [list]- There will also be service mission leaders (typically a couple) to oversee the service mission experience and help missionaries find places to serve in the community.
[/list] [list]- Grooming standards are the same as proselyting missions.
[/list] [list]- Service missionaries don’t wear the badge unless at a service assignment or at church meetings.
[/list] [list]- Service missionaries don’t need to be endowed.
[/list] [list]- In their off service time, missionaries are encouraged to do family history or indexing, but may also have a ward calling. They can also play video games, watch TV or movies, attend institute and YSA activities. They are not allowed to date though.
[/list] [list]- In the chastity section there is ambiguity and maybe some personal interpretation as to whether masturbation is expressly forbidden. The language here is borrowed heavily from For the Strength of Youth.
[/list] [list]- There is an odd paragraph about how missionaries are not to approach or initiate contact with general authorities. Or to write them letters. Seems out of place and oddly prohibitive.
[/list] [list]- There is a section where modifications to the handbook may be appropriate for a missionary with help from the Stake President in making those modifications. I like the flexibility of this approach.
[/list] Those were just some things that stood out to me. Overall I see this as a positive step, but have concerns with how it will be rolled out and accepted culturally.
AmyJ wrote:
That is a tough one. My step-grandmother died last year (great lady), and for the first time that I could recall, hearing the platitudes about her and the next life caused a lot of grief and loneliness that I did not expect.I quoted her as “returning to the God who gave her life” a lot – even if it isn’t the literal truth (I don’t know what my beliefs are in this area), it’s what I would want to think happened – that she exists elsewhere – and it provided concealment that I may not be socially acceptable by not believing in a next life.
That’s my .02 cents – take it for what it is:)
My new favorite song, even though it’s an old one:
nibbler wrote:There are several ways to frame this, here are a few:
1) I don’t believe that there’s a spirit that resides in our body and I don’t believe there is a spiritual realm.
2) I believe that there isn’t a spirit that resides in our body and I believe there isn’t a spiritual realm.
That’s why it’s hard for me to embrace the notion that we can’t believe
anythinganymore. There’s always a way for me to wriggle out from under something by changing a definition or by changing the framing. 
One might say that you still believe something, just not a specific thing that many people around you insist is true.
I’ve also had this thought. Today I recognize how wrong my beliefs were 20 years ago. Extrapolating that out to 20 years from now, I will recognize how wrong my beliefs are right now. Beliefs evolve over time, I’d like to create space for which direction things end up going.
As far as the afterlife and spiritual realms go. I don’t have much use for them now. I’ll worry about them when and if they get here.
Great perspectives. It’s like the difference between “soft” and “hard” atheism. “I’m not convinced there is a God” (where I tend to fall) versus “I am convinced that there is not a God.”
I agree and hope and expect that my beliefs and perspectives will continue to evolve and grow.
I have no problem with waiting until I die to find out the mystery of an afterlife. I have a harder time with the ideas thrust upon me at church about how the spiritual realm interacts with our physical realm on a regular basis and with those in leadership who deny me the opportunity to participate because I can’t profess a belief in that realm anymore. So I don’t participate. For now. But sometimes I miss the community and wonder if I can regain the community without the belief and without feeling like I’m faking it when I do participate.
dande48 wrote:I would change this question to “Why do people believe in the supernatural without there being good evidence for it?”. Because There are a number needs it meets, which are very hard to find elsewhere. Coping with the fact that they are unavoidably going to die (maybe today) is one of them. Coping with the fact that every facet of their life, their family, their hard work, their home is going to crumble to dust as well. Confidence in the face of uncertainty, finding the strength to go on, dealing with the utter lack of justice in the world, the inability of all of us to undo our past “sins” and mistakes…
If you feel satisfied with where you are at, I think you should be open to changing your mind in the future, but shouldn’t “force” belief upon yourself. It’s important to accept and learn to be ok with not knowing. You’re in a good place. And it’s not like you can’t gain a wealth of wisdom from something that probably isn’t true (whoops!
🙄 ). No one frets over how false the old gods were, but we still love, relish and are inspired by their stories.
I love this perspective. Thank you!! Yes, I guess I struggled for a while with some of those existential issues and sometimes still do, but no longer feel the need to satisfy them with religious explanations. I am content and at peace (or at least striving to become so) with the possibility that when I die, the lights may simply go out. If I’m wrong, what a wonderful surprise!
As far as gaining a wealth of wisdom from something that maybe isn’t true, this is important and I need to remember this.
nibbler wrote:
I get hung up on definitions.
I’m not as interested in altering the traditional definitions and understandings of terms in order to make my current beliefs still sound orthodox as I am in trying to figure out if I even believe at any level anymore.
If we define spiritual as just connecting with something that feels bigger than yourself, than sure. But I mean literally is there even a spirit that resides in our bodies or a spiritual realm that is real that we just can’t see. I don’t believe those things exist because I don’t have enough reason or evidence. I believe emotions exist and I believe we can feel small and connected to each other or even with the universe. But I don’t believe that is enough of a reason to believe in a real spiritual realm.
Is it ok to simply not believe in these things anymore? If you’ve been in this place and have now moved past it, is it worth the effort and struggle to regain that belief?
I don’t believe in God right now, or at least not in an interventionist one that speaks to prophets. Therefore, from my perspective this all makes perfect sense. President Nelson truly believes he is inspired and that the thoughts he has are directly from God. The problem is, from my perspective, he is archaic. Presidents Hinckley and Monson seemed to understand the need to make the church more mainstream and palatable to the general public. President Nelson believes literally and is working from a place of sincerity, but ultimately one of archaity. If God truly guides the church, why this flurry of changes now? Why not tell his other prophets if these things are so important? Sure, you could argue that it wasn’t supposed to happen until now. But from a non-believing perspective, this just looks likes a typical changing of the guard of an institution run by men, with an accompanying flurry of changes from someone who has been wanting to make changes for a while. I think the evidence supports this conclusion and makes a lot of sense to me.
Some of these changes are great (yay 2 hour block!), while others just look like personal preferences of Nelson, rather than revelation from God. But he calls them all revelation. This is problematic for those who are willing to think critically and not blindly accept everything that comes out of his mouth as God-breathed, especially when it grates against someone’s personal conscience (Nov 2015 policy).
My 2 cents…
There was a time as a non-literal believer when I tried to separate the “presentation of the endowment” from the endowment itself. I saw the presentation as the adoption and borrowing of certain masonic elements that are actually non-essential to the actual endowment itself, which I saw as the covenants made. Joseph could have borrowed a different means of presentation or made up his own. Masonry was convenient because it was known to many and familiar and because there was a lore attached to Solomon’s temple. It was an easy way to present the endowment, had covenants of secrecy which was especially important at the time polygamy was being secretly introduced, but perhaps not the only way the endowment could have been given. I say I tried to see it this way because it was still difficult. Even when I focused just on the endowment itself, I became uncomfortable with the gender discrepancies and the oaths of loyalty, even my life, to the Church, rather than to God or Christ. That began to feel culty and a little creepy to me. But for a time it did help me to separate the two and try to focus on the essentials.
I still appreciate the temple can be a quiet meditative place where people feel they have access to special insights for their lives. I just feel I can access my own quiet insights through more accessible locations that don’t require me to participate in elements I now feel uncomfortable with.
nibbler wrote:
dande48,Perhaps this is the subject of some other thread but if it’s more of a general thing, what place can organized religion make for people that are at a place where organized religion doesn’t work? Is it best to just move on? Is such a person in the organized religion obligated to be pigeon-holed into a role of helping the organization be more authoritative for the benefit of people that do thrive in organized religion? Does that role meet their spiritual needs? What are their spiritual needs?
This thread has taken a very interesting turn! (Or at least very interesting to me). I think Nibbler’s question is excellent and gets to the very core of organized religion. Organized religion does great at helping those in stage 2 or stage 3 faith. In fact, it serves them perfectly and gives them exactly what they need and are looking for. Once someone moves beyond that, organized religion can fall short in meeting someone’s spiritual needs. I’m not sure how organized religion can serve both those in stage 2 or 3 and also those in a 4 or 5 stage. Unless there are at least some spiritual leaders in those stages who can be mentors for those who need that guidance. And unless there can be more acceptance throughout the church in accepting, acknowledging, and even encouraging that type of development.
It’s a conundrum. Those in stage 4 or 5 can seem to be a threat. Where do they go for spiritual fulfillment? Are they obligated to stay and help those in stage 3 to be fulfilled?
I realized I can’t be all in when at the most basic fundamental level I simply don’t believe. It felt too fake going every week and pretending to be orthodox. However, when I was still attempting this, I found the following website to be very helpful.
Here is an unorthodox believer who seems to be all in. His nuanced approach works for him and I had high hopes that it would work for me. Ultimately I couldn’t make it work but I haven’t shut the door completely. If I were to be “all in” again, this is the approach I think I’d have to use.
