Jump to content

Benjamin Seeker

Members
  • Content Count

    742
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

527 Excellent

1 Follower

About Benjamin Seeker

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Recent Profile Visitors

2,578 profile views
  1. Your approach is an oversimplification and an untrue negative stereotype. I understand the defensive position it comes from, but it’s so unsympathetic and tone-deaf it’s mind-numbing.
  2. In many cases its more like an invested-so-much-into-it-and-still-connected-to-many-others-in-the-church-and-feel-like-they-can-now-more-freely-express-themselves attitude.
  3. I agree that it’s hard to subscribe to the literal interpretation of Mormonism after your personal views have transformed, and I don’t subscribe to literalism. I was just offering an example that I thought did a good job of illustrating the literalist’s need for literalism as I was just telling our forum philosopher.
  4. I believe fearless is questioning how Churchistrue’s apologetics could fit into Mormonism. If you remember, Churchistrue started this conversation offering non-literal approaches as a kind of apologetics, and so our discussion has ensued...
  5. I understand. I was trying to find a simple example that showed the typical literalist’s definite need for literalism (to keep the dialogue going as I said).
  6. I’ll step in to help further the dialogue. I think the point is that even without historical evidence there needs to be literal truth to get the promised literal result. So, if Christ didn’t literally rise from the grave, neither will I.
  7. And I’m not worried about literal salvation, so that’s where we part ways! Jesus is a more meaningful symbolic figure for me than Sam Gamgee because he is how my family and community express faith. His life and teachings are the language of Christian faith that I inherited. I don’t believe literally, but I use the language of Christianity to express my faith, at least partly. Let me correct myself and clarify how I feel. This is what I just wrote in explanation to Calm: When I was saying that people argue against inspired-fiction because it undermines the church’s truth claims, I
  8. I think JS probably believed everything he taught and said he experienced. While I believe spiritual experiences really happen, I don’t think they generally represent concrete reality. I’d be happy to get into that if you’re interested. So I believe JS believed he was visited by Moroni, and I also think JS experienced something real. However, I don’t believe that Moroni was/is a literal person. When I was saying that people argue against inspired-fiction because it undermines the church’s truth claims, I actually agree with them. I think the church’s truth claims are fairly rigid and lite
  9. A symbolic Christ is inspiring in my life. I’ll never be a 100%-in Mormon, but I do derive meaning and spiritual belonging from my membership and participation. All of the arguments against inspired fiction or any kind of non-literalist interpretation because they undermine truth claims are simply not sound. I and others like me are living proof that non-literalist interpretations can work fine within Mormonism. Alright? I’ll go back and hide under my rock now.
×
×
  • Create New...