[doug]

I made (and subsequently deleted) a comment that would be difficult to interpret as anything other than insulting to those that believe in a literal Satan. Such was not my intent. I apologize. *Note to self to try better to follow good examples of others on the board. Especially late at night.*

I am reminded of something I read in Gerald Lund’s book, Hearing the Voice of the Lord — something or other. “A testimony is when you believe that what you know is true”. I puzzled over that one for a while and finally decided it was the dumbest thing I’d ever heard. Later, I decided that maybe there was some deeper meaning hidden there, intended or otherwise. Our beliefs are only as true as we choose to make them. A testimony is when our beliefs become real enough to provoke us to action. Maybe that’s what he meant.

Anyway, like most things related to faith and religion, whether or not Satan is real in a literal sense is not subject to verification, so to speculate one way or the other is nothing more than that — speculation. I brought it up not because I’m going to change some fundamental behaviour based on the outcome, but out of idle curiousity. It’s a mere decoration in a house I am building. The model of the world that currently fits in my head leaves no room for such a being, though that could change.

This applies to all aspects of my faith. Does God exist? I choose to believe that the answer is ‘yes’. Does Satan exist? I choose to believe the idea of Satan is a metaphor. In my estimation, these things (and myriad others) are the best choices out of many that can both impel me towards spiritual improvement AND not leave my rational mind reeling. Since, as has been pointed out recently, no two people see things the same way, why should I expect any uniformity of belief? A big problem with the church for me is that I feel that uniformity of belief is expected (culturally, at least). Once one gets used to that idea it becomes easy to get into the habit of shooting down other people’s models out of self-preservation when they are (invariably) different than our own. Or, more often for me, seeking external validation for my interior decorating skills. Maybe a big part of being in stage 5 involves losing the craving for that validation.

In the meantime, I guess I’ll keep asking questions about things that don’t really matter.

[doug]

cwald wrote:

Wow. Maybe my kids ARE watching and listening to me more than I thought they were? the whole fam is in the Rational/Idealist camp 😮 . In 20 years they will either be thanking me from the bottom of their hearts, or they will be cursing me to no end.

That’s really interesting. Amongst my family (me, wife, three kids) are nothing but idealists and rationals. No wonder I like being at home best. Given the supposed rarity of these personality types, I am a bit surprised.

I’m not sure if you were serious, but you seem to imply that your kids’ personality types might be the result of their upbringing. Do you think this is really the case? My own parents were artisan/guardian (I think) and I have a difficult time understanding them. I guess I assumed that in the nature vs. nurture argument, as it applies to personality, that nature wins out. Obviously I’m no expert.

[doug]

SilentDawning wrote:

— when I gave that reason, they questioned why I even needed to go back to school, and I had to justify it a number of different ways.

Wait a minute. That doesn’t sound right. No wonder you’re concerned.

[doug]

I have found that it depends greatly on your priesthood leader. If they are inclined to present it as “This is what the Lord wants you to do. I am His messenger”, it can be difficult to say ‘no’ and walk away with your dignity. Or it can be handled much more sensitively. Once I observed a calling presented as follows: “We have been thinking about the possibiliy of calling you to such-and-such position. How do you feel about that/do you feel there are any reasons why you wouldn’t be able to accept such a calling?” Notice that the calling hasn’t actually occurred. I realize that may be splitting hairs, but for some it is a very meaningful distinction. I am much more inclined, by the way, to respect leaders who operate this way because it demonstrates both humility and a meaningful concern for the feelings of other.

[doug]

canadiangirl wrote:

I just took the quick one at humanetrics and scored INFJ very high on the I. Which is why actually attending church is such a problem for me. I struggle with group settings and would just rather worship on my own and go at my own pace without having to follow someone else’s agenda. Sometimes just the thought of having to chat with someone in the hall sends me quickly out the door after Sacrament Meeting. Some days I don’t mind it.

I can relate to that comment, except that I can’t remember the last time I didn’t mind. I surprise myself with some of the detours (literal ones) I will take to avoid contact.

[doug]

canadiangirl wrote:

I’m really glad you brought this up. I use to believe in a literal Satan and “the devil made me do it” was a big part of my life. Those ideas are changing but I have no idea where they are going. I’m leaning towards a metaphor gone amok but C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters idea is so engrained in my mind that it is a tough paradigm to change. I kind of think that what I’ve been attributing to Satan is what I believe psychologist call our ego? That part of us that keeps us down, tells us we’re trash and sometimes leads us down the wrong path. I’m very interested in what everyone else thinks about this.

I’m pretty sure you’re on the right track. I’ll have to do some thinking about what the practical differences are, but to me the idea that ‘the enemy is us’, as opposed to the idea of an independent intelligence constantly leading us down forbidden paths, puts the responsibility where it ought to be. I suppose you could argue that there is no practical difference, i.e. that we are also being responsible if we’re constantly on the watch for Satan’s influences.

[doug]

Tom Haws wrote:

John suggested that for a big majority of misfits, the StayLDS approach isn’t sustainable in the long term.

That seems to make intuitive sense, but I just got here and I’d really like to know when I’m supposed to bail.

Are you referring to a comment that can be found online?

Edit: Oops. Never mind. Did some research and saw enough to get the picture. Carry on.

[doug]

cwald wrote:

The “Devil” as I understand it and teach it – IMO – is nothing more than a concept. He is inside each of us – and it is our task and obligation to figure him out, tame him, and use his “knowledge” and “experience” to better ourselves, and make this life a better place for our families and community.

I like that. And I was just listening to Donald Fagen I.G.Y. (“… what a beautiful world this will be …”, etc) as I read it.

[doug]

Sorry about the Harry Potter reference, by the way. I’ve been reading to my daughter.

It has occurred to me, though, that there are a lot of parallels between Harry Potter-isms and … how can I say this? … some of the conceptions that we cherish in the church. I have meant to do a contrast/comparison, but I fear it would be taken (rightfully so, probably) as too far over the top. Don’t think I’ll go there just now.

[doug]

cwald wrote:

However, I am embarrassed to admit that occasional some of these test kick me over into the ISFP category. 😮

I don’t think I would ever admit that.

[doug]

I was just going to start a thead on this. Good thing I searched first.

First of all, I have to say that giving credence to this kind of thing is completely uncharacteristic for me. I am aware of some of the objections to the meaningfulness of the MBTI, but I have to say that in this particular area I am a true believer. Kiersey’s book Please Understand Me II (aptly named) can provide hours of entertainment for my wife and me. Reading those profiles is almost spooky — they are that accurate, at least in our cases. I suspect that I have been saved from untold grief by this book. My wife (an Idealist) has a lot more patience with me than she otherwise might have as a direct result of reading it.

I’m a Rational, by the way (and proud of it). INTP. I sometimes think I use this as a crutch (i.e. a lame excuse) for being belligerent and difficult, but, hey, the shoe fits. Seriously, I wonder sometimes how much control I have over the way I see things. There is a real danger, for me, of the MBTI becoming a label.

[doug]

Tom Haws wrote:

Does that help at all?

Well, yes, a little.

Edit: Yes. Good illustration. That may well have been how he meant it.

By the way, I certainly meant no disrespect to Brother Eyring. I’m impressed that he was a man of great character, and certainly someone I would have liked to meet. High praise indeed!

I realize, too, that certain nuances can get lost over the course of four or five decades. I don’t have the perspective to know what he really meant in that comment, just what went through my head when I read it. This reminds me quite a bit of Richard Bushman’s essay about history being a completely subjective undertaking and reflective of the present-day sensibilities of those writing the history.

Quote:

… you’re making a mountain out of a molehill

Guilty as charged. Just trying to stir things up, I guess.

Quote:

What’s wrong with stating the obvious, if the obvious needs to be stated?

You know, that’s an excellent point. I think if I were to read that statment of Dr Eyring’s again on a different day, I just might have taken that away with me. But I didn’t.

[doug]

Sorry that I wasn’t as transparent as I might have been. I’ve had this discussion with a friend and should have known better. I don’t object to what he said, but to what he didn’t say.

Perhaps at the time I read the book, I was still enamored of the concept of objective truth. Granting permission to only be bound to believe what is ‘true’, while a great sounding sound bite, on further reflection is meaningless. The contrapositive would be something like “if it’s false, Mormons don’t need to believe it”. Well, duh, Captain Obvious. Also not helpful without further illumination.

Unless Dr Eyring were to follow through on his threat by either a) telling us what is ‘true’, b) by giving some hints on how to judge what is true for ourselves, or c) at the very least by giving an example from his own life of a ‘truth’ that he believed in, but which would otherwise have been considered unorthodox (otherwise, what’s the point?), he is being disingenuous. Clearly he couldn’t do a). b) would also be going out on a limb, but c) seemed a reasonable expectation. To be fair, I suppose he did raise issues about things like the age of the earth (I don’t have the book in front of me, and don’t remember those details very clearly), but I don’t recall him pushing any limits. To me, the lack of follow-through spoke more loudly than anything else, and what it told me was that he was going to be satisfied by feigning a right hook and retreating, and that avoiding controversy, avoiding offense, and ceding to the status quo would carry the day. This was actually probably appropriate for nineteen sixty-whatever, and the most one might have hoped for. Maybe I read too much into it. I was expecting the other shoe to drop and when it never did, I was mad.

Had he said, “As Mormons, we are only required to believe that which we have found by some combination of experience, reason, and faith to be true” I would have been good with that.

[doug]

I must say that I was thoroughly disappointed at what I thought was to be the climax of the book, where the author states something to the effect that “as Mormons, we are only required to believe that which is true.” Is that really the best he could do?

[doug]

Uh, good point. I hadn’t meant to emphasize the survey thing — an aside largely unrelated to the rest of the book which is, essentially, a history taken from an unusual perspective, and a pretty readable one at that. Having said that, at the time I read the book, it was helpful to me to have Jennifer, whoever she is, tell me there was a believer inside of me when I was certain that any of my ‘peers’ would have told me otherwise. I’m still fairly certain that’s what ‘they’ would tell me, but at this point in my life, that prospect no longer frightens me.

[Author]

Posts