Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I agree with what you posted, SilentDawning, which is why I purposely focused my question–and I would like to see discussion–in the personal and family realm. I think there is still good we can do in the Church, but you are right; there is much more to take into account, and patience is required. Macalla, my kids are already vegetarians.
I define myself as an agnostic theist–I really do believe in God for several reasons, but I don’t know how to define God. The idea that God is a conscious, concerned, more actualized being is a hope for me rather than a belief, even though I feel that hope is justified. Canadiangirl, I join with everyone else in applauding your integrity and strength of character in standing up to that…. and groaning at the SP’s overstepping of his bounds. Imposing personal interpretation on someone else? Seems quite antithetical to God’s plan to me… Sorry you had to go through that. doug wrote:As an avowed agnostic I have to put in my two cents. Agnosticism is the position that the true, ultimate nature of things is unknown and likely unknowable. In that sense, I don’t see agnosticism as an oversimplification. Any other position requires one to either confirm or deny the existence of God (and a whole bunch of other things), and my brain won’t allow me to do either. Accepting that I can never objectively know anything about God does simplify things, in a sense, because it provides another place to file things. Unfortunately the ‘I don’t know’ file is getting pretty full. I am astonished from time to time when I note the things that once seemed obvious to me that I no longer have any attachment to, and it makes me wonder where I am heading.
All this talk about markets reminds me of a quote from Peter Lynch who quipped that if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything. I think I have been trying to set the ‘data’ free to see where it leads, not in the expectation that I will find ultimate truth, but just that maybe I will find something that works for me. So far the experiment has been mostly successful. Most people don’t think that way, and pretty much all of my difficulties are due to the incongruity of trying to interact effectively with those people.
I really liked this post Doug. The quote about torturing the data made me laugh… I often tell my students it isn’t that you can’t make an argument…it is how hard you need to work to do so that should tip you off!
I agree with you that agnosticism is not an oversimplification. In fact, think the limitations of our perception and cognition impels us to acknowledge we are all agnostics–just some more self-aware than others.
Not just different Cwald, BETTER. I do think our position is better overall, more healthy, less vulnerable, more effective in meeting the challenges of life. At the same time, I have a deep respect and empathy for the need for simpler faith, such as many of our loved ones manifest.
Great question, Butters. I appreciate everyone’s insights; your positions are so inspiring! I admit I felt a bit of loss when I recently re-read something I wrote about five years ago:
“While the Book of Mormon is not exactly the precise historical record many readers assume it to be, neither is it a work of fiction. It is filled with 19th century elements, but also contains a minority of intriguing details that seem ancient. If we presuppose an ancient document, we can easily explain all 19th century details as divine truth being filtered through Joseph’s worldview. Lacking an ancient document, the minority of ancient features becomes difficult to explain. I want to expand somewhat on the difference between the Book of Mormon being fundamentally different than most think, and being completely fictional. In the first instance, the content of the golden plates would have been filtered through Joseph Smith’s world view in a way that maximized its salvific effectiveness. In the second, there would have been no gold plates. The first option seems to fit with what we know about human nature, revelation, historical process, and common sense. For example, 2 Ne 10:3 and 25:19 equate Messiah with Christ. In a Semitic language, this just doesn’t make any sense, as they both mean “Anointed,” one in Hebrew, one in Greek. Yet “Jesus Christ” is the only thing that the 19th century readership of the Book of Mormon would have understood. It is not as if “and the name of (whatever their name for him was; I was going to say Quetsaqoatl until Mark spoke) will be Joshua Messiah” would have had the same impact. In Joseph’s day, it was hard enough to get the people to accept new ideas within the framework of dispensationalist Christianity. If he were to overthrow the whole schema in the interest of historical “accuracy,” people would have never gotten past it. In general, it makes sense that Joseph would have “improved” the Bible to make things clearer and conform to his revealed theology. This also conforms to how Biblical scribes and editors have worked in the past, as well of the historical process of theology and historiography becoming more refined and congruent over time. But the big thing is that it makes sense for God to reveal truth in the way that will lead the maximum number of His children to salvation. So as radical and possibly disturbing as the first option is, it makes sense.
The other option not only doesn’t make sense or conform to human nature, it would be ineffective. So if there weren’t any golden plates or Nephites, what would be the point? Why wouldn’t God use a different avenue to restore His Church? It crosses the line for me to imagine God talking to an angel and saying, “Here, you pretend to be Moroni, and make up an 1000 year history of your people, and plant some plates,” or even more extreme, that there was no angel or plates, but only Joseph’s mental derangement used for the salvation of mankind. Where would this minimalist argument stop? Does everything go but the Atonement? Even that? This process easily is reduced to absurdity.”
That stage of my faith put me in a nice middle-ground position. I had the freedom to think about how the gold plates differed from the Book of Mormon, or how reincarnation fit into progression to godhood, but I accepted the basic framework of LDS cosmology. I still fit into the mainstream of LDS thinking, even if I floated along the banks of that stream. But I don’t have that any more. I can’t conceptualize of a way I would regain it; I have moved beyond that conceptualization.
I think Brian’s return to childhood analogy was spot-on. We might feel a bit of nostalgia about the simplicity and ease of certain aspects of childhood, but we would not really want to return to it.
To give my input to your question Butters, I am open to continuing spiritual experiences; I seek them. I would love to have a confirmation that the Atonement has basis in reality. I would accept that gladly. At the same time, I am deeply skeptical of the awkward literalism the TBM understanding of reality demands. Nostalgia aside, I am really happy where I am spiritually. I love the freedom and clarity that comes from carving my own beliefs and decisions out of the bedrock of reality, with the chisel of critical thinking. I love being able to relate to a wide spectrum of worldviews. The “critical distance” and a portion of outside perspective gives me hope for improvement in the LDS community, which I love.
So no, I don’t think we can go back to an earlier stage of faith, but I think the later stages transcend the earlier, bringing benefits that do not need to carry painful costs.
Roy, I take it by your careful wording that you no longer hold to this absolutist position? With you, I see the value (and also danger and offense) of such a position, though I no longer hold to it. And really, such an exclusivist position isn’t that satisfying. I prefer to see the Church as the “best system out there”… I can imagine God giving all people as much truth as they will handle, and that is why all religions and cultures have differing mixes of edifying, transformative teachings.
With Brian, I have to strongly agree that it comes down to
what kind of truthyou are looking for. Remember, for most of the world’s history people didn’t concern themselves with “what really happened.” Most people don’t even now, not really. How many people are aware that we constantly edit and spin our own memories?! I agree with your main point and find that my academic and intellectual training and thinking often leads me one way, and my heart leads me another. I think that is appropriate. Ideas can be theologically true and historically false. I think much of this bible falls into this category.
I wrote up my thoughts on this elsewhere:
http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2010/07/the-hierarchy-of-truth/ Great discussion point!I think the bottom line is that with the flavors of truth out there, whenever we find evidence of a truth we can ask ourselves, “What type of truth is this witness testifying to?” I would submit that most often it resonates with us on a spiritual/emotional level, and that rarely are we really seeking what really happened historically (if any of you have spiritual experiences to that effect, I would love to hear them!).
I want to respond point by point to all these great comments…. Brian, I read an article quoting the official Church response on the Packer thing, and it said that it is standard practice for those who give conference talks to look over what they have before it is printed in the Ensign, to confirm that what they said matches up with “what they really meant.”
Amen, Ray. Great thoughts! I have also been reflecting on the peace I feel in my life, because
I have accepted ownership of it. There is something so empowering (and necessary in a fulfilling life!) about figuring out what we believe, how we want to live, and how we want to interact with others. I am grateful you have found that balance, and pray that we can help as many as possible do the same thing. You provide a great example in your relationship with the Church, Ray… I love the idea of making it our own, living it as we feel is best, without making a big deal of it.
Cnsl1, I find your observation both illuminating and disturbing at the same time. Says a lot about our culture of guilt. We who have wrestled and struggled to determine what we believe and how we want to live fit awkwardly in the compartmentalization of orthodoxy, but we feel at peace with ourselves. Whereas even those active LDS who live the checklist retain a lingering sense of inadequacy. SamBee, “Adam” does mean “human”; in fact, in the creation narratives it is a bit tricky to know when the word means human and when it means Adam. “Eve” has the same root as “life” (Her name in Hebrew is “Chawa” or “Chava” and life is “Chi”, pronounced “Khai”) Thanks for keeping us honest, cwald. I agree. As I said earlier, rather than “orthodox” I meant “dispensationalist authority”, but orthodoxy as expressed in literal understandings of scripture also comes up. I will raise the ante a bit though. It is not just that these ideas are accepted by most Mormons…. the other scriptures of our canon *require* us to believe these literal understandings to be orthodox. Doctrine & Covenants 107 talks about all sorts of Biblical figures getting the priesthood… and how can we understand Adam and Eve as allegorical when they are right there, waving to us from D&C 138:38-39?
And so it goes. I actually want to dedicate my scripture study to identifying all of the literal biblical figures and events presupposed by the other LDS scripture. As one more example, D&C 7 completely falls apart historically (the origin of the “immortal missionary John the Beloved” idea), because the idea of an immortal Beloved Disciple is disproved in the very passage it originates! Not to mention that “John the Beloved” is a problem…
So nope, can’t do it. It doesn’t mean there aren’t satisfying and even superior ways to interact with the scriptures and the Church, but we can’t call ourselves orthodox.
But admit it; all of us feel a little special being in the heterodox club anyway.
Canadiangirl, I hope you feel better…. I hope that you can allow yourself to be empowered, and “work out your own salvation…” as it were. I find it helpful to understand the role and importance of priesthood leadership, and then accept that or *reject it* as it helps me. You are the important authority in this case. I hope that you will be able to feel at peace as you talk to your priesthood “leaders”.
I have worked hard and fought on the journey to carve out my own spirituality, to go on my own journey, to make my faith my own. This journey is *sacred*. And with these sacred beliefs, we should not share them with those who will misinterpret them or use them to hurt us.
Hey Canadiangirl! I am glad you shared your concerns here, and I add my “Amen” to what has been said before. In my opinion, if you feel worthy to hold a temple recommend and you find value in the temple experience, *you already have your answer*!
The problem with unloading to your bishop is that you enter the game of “Priesthood Leader Roulette.” I heard of one bishop who said if a member had a testimony of the human value of the Church, that was good enough for him, and other bishops take away recommendations for absurd things like being divorced or having doubts. I feel the last question is really the only important one. I like what Ray said about acknowleding in a vague, general way that you are working through some questions and concerns right now, but feel that you are worthy to attend the temple and that the temple experience would be helpful. Perhaps you can go from there.
I could tell my bishop was pretty open, so I was more detailed than I needed to be. At the beginning of my TR interview I asked, “Do you want the version with our without the footnotes?” His brow furrowed a few times when I said that I believe in God but don’t know how to define him, or that I don’t know if I believe in the Atonement, but that I want to and I try to live it. He did give me the “looking beyond the mark” line and said if I ever got to a certain point of doubt I should talk to a priesthood leader (and in my head I thought, “And that leader would say or do WHAT? These are not concerns that can be resolved by reading the Book of Mormon five times fast.”). But he gave me my recommend and said I was just honest.
For my SP interview, I will stick to “yes”
Know that you are not alone, Canadiangirl! Give us an update and let us know how it goes.
Doug, thank you for posting that link; I had not read it yet.
I swear. I use all the words. But I do so selectively, and very consciously. My children have never heard me swear. I never have sworn at anyone. So if you swear without thinking, you are right, you should probably stop. But I don’t think it is a bad thing in and of itself.
Some things deserve a good f-bomb, like talking about child abuse. These words have power, and to consciously tap into that power is a responsible way to use them. But using them sloppily or worst unconsciously, I don’t see any benefit.
