Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sorry I have disappeared everyone. I noticed this thread and wanted to post some fuller thoughts I wrote up. Hope everyone is hanging in there! I think I have a handle on how most TBMs would deal with the usefulness of the symbolic Savior. I think it would be enough for the “unbelievers” but not enough for one of the fold who should “know better”. Cwald, I agree with how literalistically most LDS culture sees these issues. But I would think that even the mainstream literalists would prefer that people appreciate the Atonement and apply it in their lives, even if they happen to understand it symbolically. The nice thing about this theory is it also allows room for these things to be literal. I am quite open to Jesus really being our Savior, and God having a body, and Moroni being real etc. It would be a pleasant surprise if all these things were the case. 
I hope I can emphasize this strongly enough when I write this up in longer form… my point is NOT just a “symbolic Jesus and Atonement.” My point is more powerful and useful… it is that EITHER way it works.
Look at this from a literalist’s perspective. If Jesus is really our Savior, then would not he rather people appreciate and apply a symbolic understanding of his mission than reject it entirely? That way when they die and meet Jesus they will have served him and accepted his sacrifice and been transformed thereby, even though they were not able to accept the literal reality until it was demonstrated to them in the afterlife.
I hear you Doug. Again, my audience for these thoughts was not TBMs. It was even for groups like these and other internet forums. I was asking and exploring the limits and possibilities of encouraging dialogue between those of differing beliefs. I am part of an amazing facebook group that has everyone from near TBMs to atheists. It has been incredibly positive and respectful so far. I was just thinking through how to keep it that way. Thanks for the comments. SilentDawning, I was very moved by your itemization of costs and benefits of activity. My heart is breaking today over the pain the Church causes and over a few friends, AMAZING advocates for the Church who have done so much good but who have felt pushed out and so who have become inactive.
For the record I am not talking about sharing in a ward context, but whether people of a range of beliefs can discuss issues productively even in forums such as these or whether we need to quarantine ourselves according to levels of belief, as I said.
Not much to add to the great comments that have been made so far but to say that I really feel for you. Ugh, this is a bad case of “Priesthood Leader Roulette”. I hope that your subsequent actions are more positive. I agree there is NO reason you should not be able to finish a temple recommend in one sitting. Perhaps you won’t get one, perhaps you need follow up (not saying you do; I can just imagine those being possibilities) but to spread out the interview seems ridiculous.
The bishop is there to ask you questions. YOU are the one who has to feel worthy, not him (I realize he is a “judge in Israel” but I still think we are the ones who determine our worthiness).
Hmmm…. 27-29 are John Dehlin’s own story, so it would not be an interview. If you got abducted you should talk about it on Mormon Stories
Are we talking about the same podcast episodes cwald? I don’t remember any of this in the NT one, except the part about “I don’t know but am open to the possibility” Orson, I think you and I see things quite similarly on this. As I said, I intentionally pushed these principles to their extremes to explore the options and ramifications. I agree completely that motive is oh so important on this–the motivation really needs to be love and not the desire to escape consequence.
I am so glad things are well with you and your wife. My wife is very understanding and supportive of my views. At first she was weirded out and a bit concerned when I would call myself agnostic, but participating in the Mormon Stories community has made a huge difference. She is able to see how much I care for the Church and want to help its members, and understands my views about the limitations of knowledge and practical benefits of religion. I was deeply touched when she read “The Blessings of an Unknown God” and said it was “beautiful”. She is less of a questioner than I am, but is awakening to the issues in the Church and is really flowering as a feminist. I feel very blessed to be married to her.
Orson, I agree with you that outright lies should be avoided, and that living within a mainstream definition of the truth is a far simpler way to go. I can think of three examples where I feel lying is justified, however.
1) To protect yourself from “priesthood leader roulette.” A friend told the the following story: His brother was about to get married, and his interview went fine. His fiancee’s bishop, however, said in a pre-interview meeting, “I just want to let you know that I consider ‘deep kissing’ a sin, and if you have done that I will not give you your recommend to get married.” So my friend’s brother asked him for advice, and he replied, “Well, your fiancee needs to be comfortable with her decision, but I would say…. lie!” Yes, it would be possible to respectfully protest and say “I have already answered that I keep the law of chastity,” but I could imagine some leaders withholding the recommend until a clear answer was given to all follow up questions. I think in those cases the leader easily could be wrong, is overstepping his bounds, and I would never sacrifice my wedding day to some one else’s misguided standards.
2) I think the situation I will describe can be avoided almost all the time by speaking carefully, but I could imagine being cornered by a loved one, either in family or Church, where the best solution would be to lie. This is such a tricky situation, but I know situations where once a wife knew her husband was struggling with doubt, it was game over. I do not think the only answer is to fess up and force the marriage into ending. I think the spouse should reserve the right to navigate the truth/lie boundary until he/she decides how to proceed. Of COURSE ideally marriages and membership should be honest. But I intentionally pushed this point to its extreme in order to define boundaries. The same could be said for Church membership.
2b) This is less of an outright lie, and I am less confident about the need to speak like this, but I could imagine needing to speak about a historical event in such a short hand way that you could call it a lie, in order to preserve the faith of your audience. But this is a weak example since it is so easy to get around.
3) As I said, I think at the end of the day we are the ones who determine whether we want to be in this community or in our relationships. I underscore what I said about communicating the “deep truth” of our desire to remain in the community and *especially* if we feel worthy to be in the community, go to the temple, etc. I am not going to jump through hoops “just because”. If I feel my relationship with God is what it should be, I will “translate” my communication accordingly.
I am glad engaging with my views led to self-illumination.
Ah, what the hell… I will out myself to this wonderful little community. I was not trying to make too much of the parallel between Gnostics and Mormons, though we do have strikingly similar questions “where are we from, why are we here, where are we going” as different as the answers may be. I was using one particular parallel… that heresy hunters such as Irenaeus and Tertullian complained that you could not tell a Gnostic when you see one, because they read the same scriptures and went to the same meetings, but attributed very different meaning. You are correct that it breaks down after that point. That and I was playing with the Agnostic/Gnostic parallel, as I did in my “Love and Lying” paper.
I have considered talking to John about doing an Old Testament companion podcast for Mormon Stories, and perhaps lay out my approach to religion more clearly, answer questions, etc. We will see.
No matter what Brian and I will be moving forward with Searching Mormonism. I plan on putting together a 20+ hour lecture on the New Testament, History of the Bible etc. We want to do similar mini-courses on all the Standard Works. What I was thinking for the Book of Mormon was getting something like “Five Approaches to the Book of Mormon”, from taking it pretty literally to understanding it as inspired fiction. But we will for sure have one on the OT over there, whether or not there is a short OT Mormon Stories podcast.
Glad you are enjoying it!
Just want to say I hear and support you Silent Dawning. I am young and enthusiastic… let’s see how I feel in 10 years. I am also very self-centered, which helps.
Devil’s Advocate, I intentionally chose to use word “lying” to be provocative of course. I like the model of “translation” and think it works. SilentDawning, I am still hopeful. I think the internet has radically restructured society and we are all trying to catch up, including the Church. You know how the saying goes–“change will not happen until the pain of the pain becomes greater than the pain of the change.” I have hope that this point will come for the Church, and soon. Already I have heard that growth in the US has come to a standstill with so many people leaving, that about 40% of return missionaries go inactive right away, etc.
In the meantime, I will live Mormonism the way I think it should be while striving to maintain as much legitimacy as possible to maximize the chance I will have opportunities to do good for the community. If I cannot make it work with the Church, it will be after I have done all that I can to model and influence a progressive form of Mormonism. Of religion as a whole, really.
I have some philosophy, mingled with scripture. Joking aside, I really do think we have much potential to support each other in constructing a new way to look at things. I systematize theology a bit compulsively, so welcome conversation. Silent Dawning, your concerns prompt me to post a paper I wrote up, “On Love and Lying”.
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2314
