Literalism

[CCRW]

I'm not necessarily a fan of and I'm not a follower of Fowler's stages of faith but they come to mind as I consider this topic.

 

Once again groupings/titles being bad things in general can sometimes be like a single picture telling a1000 words.  So in keeping with bad titles, I'll propose two more for this discussion:

 

1. literal'ist

2. intricate'ist (close antonym for purposes here)

 

In recent threads some posters strongly identified with the literal’ist group, and it seems some might fall into a fuzzier or more of it being an intricate part of some bigger/unknown puzzle.

 

I remember my first read of the BoM and my first reading of the D&C via the History of the Church (where I grew to appreciate BRH).  Having no clue of the somewhat typical magical world view of the people of whom I was reading.   I grew to have a strong desire for the supernatural experiences of which I was reading.  They were so prevalent to what I assumed was the religion.  I suppose an almost reverse presentism.

 

The LoF did not help me here, giving a very literalist view of faith.  A view nothing short of expectation.   Now add in scriptures on the likes of Baptism of Fire, Calling and Election (need to do it in mortality), Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood, sect 76 etc. and you have the recipe for disaster.

 

Literal’ist you should be able to have angels administer, be shown the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, to see his face before you die right?  Is there any reason you should not be shown the vision of the Tree of Life in this life?  Any reason you should not have dreams, visions and poke your head through the veil from time to time?

 

Please read the brief description of stage 3 to 6

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

[Freedom]

 

 

The LoF did not help me here, giving a very literalist view of faith.  A view nothing short of expectation.   Now add in scriptures on the likes of Baptism of Fire, Calling and Election (need to do it in mortality), Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood, sect 76 etc. and you have the recipe for disaster.

 

Literal’ist you should be able to have angels administer, be shown the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, to see his face before you die right?  Is there any reason you should not be shown the vision of the Tree of Life in this life?  Any reason you should not have dreams, visions and poke your head through the veil from time to time?

 

Please read the brief description of stage 3 to 6

 

Thoughts?

We should and we do. I don't know what you are referring to by a recipe for disaster. The link has a different definition of faith than what we use. They are more referring to religious tradition. We do not normally use the term 'faith' in that matter because faith is acting on a revelatory experience. I have experienced the administration of angels, and I have had the mysteries of God unfolded to me. If sufficient faith is attained, I do not see why a person would not see the face of God. By faith I mean obedience to the principles and ordinances of the gospel, truly have a pure heart and mind. I have never sought to have the vision of the tree of life shown to me, but I can honestly say that I have had other visions and impressions that are in my view just as impressive. We are a church of revelation so if a person is not receiving revelation, there is something amiss. 

[CCRW]

sorry, it was a "recipe for disaster for me"

 

also, I did note the difference in the definition of faith, but it was the descriptions independent of that definition which struck me ... i.e. plug our definition in and I believe I see similar in the Church

Edited April 24, 2015 by CCRW

[JLHPROF]

I don't think I buy into Fowler as a developmental continuum.  I do think those stages exist, but not that we necessarily pass through them.   I definitely passed through #4 at the time described.  But I don't see #5 or #6 as necessarily valid paths for me.  But time will tell.

 

That said, I am definitely a literalist.

 

Anyone surprised? 

Edited April 24, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Freedom]

What parts?

[HappyJackWagon]

I appreciate Fowler's stages, not as a definition/destination of a person's faith at a particular time, but rather as a developmental model. It is possible to remain in stage 4 forever without ever taking the path farther into stage 5 or 6. Same with stage 3. What I like about this is that it doesn't define how a person SHOULD experience faith but rather explains why they may shift over time.

I used to be an extreme literalist. Hard to tell, right JLHPROF? Literal flood, literal garden, literal plates, literal angelic visitaions, literal miracles. And now I don't discount the possibility that some (or all) of those things may be literal, but I don't accept that they MUST be literal. I find greater room for faith in allowing for the metaphorical and allegorical in some cases.

So I found the transition from an extreme literal stage 3 into a figurative, questioning stage 4, to be a shock and concern until reading Fowler. At that point I was able to at least see that the shift in perspective was a natural transition for many people.

[CCRW]

We should and we do. I don't know what you are referring to by a recipe for disaster. The link has a different definition of faith than what we use. They are more referring to religious tradition. We do not normally use the term 'faith' in that matter because faith is acting on a revelatory experience. I have experienced the administration of angels, and I have had the mysteries of God unfolded to me. If sufficient faith is attained, I do not see why a person would not see the face of God. By faith I mean obedience to the principles and ordinances of the gospel, truly have a pure heart and mind. I have never sought to have the vision of the tree of life shown to me, but I can honestly say that I have had other visions and impressions that are in my view just as impressive. We are a church of revelation so if a person is not receiving revelation, there is something amiss. 

 

I can only base this on my experiences, and I have had several very good experiences.  However, having taken the word literally the experiences were not literal based on the word.  And when I say literal I mean known by the senses, or in the case of dreams/visions that they would be like unto being known by the senses.

 

My experience with what I assume is the administration of angels have not been accompanied with whisperings and burnings in the chest type of deals, but typically passed unrecognized until later reflection. 

 

I assume this might be typical of others experiences?

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65246-the-tangible-miracle/

 

Should we not expect literal experiences?

Edited April 24, 2015 by CCRW

[Avatar4321]

We do have the ministering of angle, visions, healings, and the other gifts of the spirit.

but many times our faith needs to be tried before we get the faith and power as is needed to obtain those blessings.

the key is being patient and seeking veil piercing faith by choosing to exercise faith in times where we may be inclined to doubt. Especially then.

[CCRW]

We do have the ministering of angle, visions, healings, and the other gifts of the spirit.

but many times our faith needs to be tried before we get the faith and power as is needed to obtain those blessings.

the key is being patient and seeking veil piercing faith by choosing to exercise faith in times where we may be inclined to doubt. Especially then.

 

Healings seem like fair game, but most are almost taboo and seldom testified of.  Sure the whole pearls before swine stuff, but even in private circles, or as might be expected from  FP/Q12 is anyone having literal experiences?

[Freedom]

I can only base this on my experiences, and I have had several very good experiences.  However, having taken the word literally the experiences were not literal based on the word.  And when I say literal I mean known by the senses, or in the case of dreams/visions that they would be like unto being known by the senses.

 

My experience with what I assume is the administration of angels have not been accompanied with whisperings and burnings in the chest type of deals, but typically passed unrecognized until later reflection. 

 

I assume this might be typical of others experiences?

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65246-the-tangible-miracle/

 

Should we not expect literal experiences?

I think you are asking the wrong question. It should be worded, perhaps, do we deserve a literal experience. The veil is only as thick as our worthiness makes it. Remember, the faith of the Brother of Jared was so strong that even God could not hide himself. Jared broke down the veil through his faith. The degree of your spiritual manifestations is dependent upon the purity of your soul and the needs of the moment. I have never needed to see an angel and if I saw an angel I don't think my testimony would be altered. My spiritual manifestations have been sufficiently powerful and I do not seek them out. I experience them as a result of righteous living. So no, we should not expect literal experiences because the moment you come to expect this is the moment they will cease to be an option for you. 

 

Jeffrey Holland gave a talk on  'The Ministry of Angels' that is in the Nov 2008 Ensign and said the following: "Usually such beings are not sen. Sometimes they are. But seen or unseen they are always near. Sometimes their assignments are very grand and have significance for the whole world. Sometimes the messages are more private."

 

I suspect you have experienced the literal ministry of Angles, you were just unaware. I think we will all be surprised just how involved in our lives our ancestors are our lives to ensure that we can complete the work for both our salvation and theirs.  

[Gray]

I haven't been a literalist for some time. I've found that spirituality and an approach to ancient scripture as if it were composed using modern historical methods are two quite different things. 

 

Faith in an unseen other world and spirituality are also two different things. 

Edited April 24, 2015 by Gray

[CCRW]

I suspect you have experienced the literal ministry of Angles, you were just unaware. I think we will all be surprised just how involved in our lives our ancestors are our lives to ensure that we can complete the work for both our salvation and theirs.  

Yes I have, multiple times, unaware.  And I very much agree with the inference to family.

[The Nehor]

I lean towards literal unless obviously not. I think there is more spiritual danger in believing too little then in believing too much.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I lean towards literal unless obviously not. I think there is more spiritual danger in believing too little then in believing too much.

 

I'm not sure I understand. The point is to believe truth, right? So if I believe something to be literal which is actually figurative, then I am just as wrong as if I believe something is figurative when it is really literal.

[The Nehor]

I'm not sure I understand. The point is to believe truth, right? So if I believe something to be literal which is actually figurative, then I am just as wrong as if I believe something is figurative when it is really literal.

The point is to embrace truth. When there is ambiguity in the gospel I find it is generally healthier to be more trusting rather then more skeptical until more truth is revealed.

Luckily this life is not a test to be right about everything. It is a test about choosing the right.

[Calm]

I really dislike Fowler's model. I think I've gone into that enough here that if anyone cares they can search on my name and his.

Main gist: he takes a process simple and then attaches everything he assumes is associated to it without the research to back it up. Research doesn't really go beyond the few original concepts he borrowed from others (unless new stuff has shown up).

One is assumed to have a more thoughtful nuanced faith if one moves away from literalism and boundaries when the reality can be such a faith can be even more black and white and rigid/close minded than someone who allows for a significant literalism to their faith.

Edited April 24, 2015 by calmoriah

[CCRW]

I know of two living self proclaimed prophets within the very broad Mormon Tent (both excommunicated).  One bases his claims on having had his Baptism of Fire (but no literal spiritual experience).  Another claims to have seen Christ (literally).

 

Putting aside knee jerk reactions of knowing of whom I might speak ... what say yea.

[JLHPROF]

I know of two living self proclaimed prophets within the very broad Mormon Tent (both excommunicated).  One bases his claims on having had his Baptism of Fire (but no literal spiritual experience).  Another claims to have seen Christ (literally).

 

Putting aside knee jerk reactions of knowing of whom I might speak ... what say yea.

 

I say they don't understand priesthood or they wouldn't be making those claims.

[CCRW]

I say they don't understand priesthood or they wouldn't be making those claims.

why, because they are x'ed?

[JLHPROF]

why, because they are x'ed?

 

No, because certain ordinances are necessary to have Christ's visitation.  Perhaps this ex'd member had them, but I doubt it.

And as for the one who claims he received the Baptism of Fire and is proclaiming himself a prophet, I suppose that's possible, but if his prophecies are for those outside his stewardship we can presume his claims to be false too.

 

The fact that they were both ex'd probably means they weren't following their priesthood heads either.  Just another red flag as to the authenticity of their claims.

 

God's house is a house of order.  Is the 2nd comforter real?  Absolutely.  Is it given to those who have not received correct ordinances and are not in harmony with the priesthood keys upon the earth?  No.

Is the Baptism of Fire real?  Absolutely.  Is it received by those who are rebelling against God's servants?  No.

[CCRW]

No, because certain ordinances are necessary to have Christ's visitation. 

Not sure I know which ones these are?

 

Perhaps this ex'd member had them, but I doubt it.

Both would have been endowed, both claiming the BoF and visitation before x'ed (cause of x in both cases).

 

And as for the one who claims he received the Baptism of Fire and is proclaiming himself a prophet, I suppose that's possible, but if his prophecies are for those outside his stewardship we can presume his claims to be false too.

 

The fact that they were both ex'd probably means they weren't following their priesthood heads either.  Just another red flag as to the authenticity of their claims.

 

God's house is a house of order.  Is the 2nd comforter real?  Absolutely. 

Same as day of Pentecost?

 

Is it given to those who have not received correct ordinances and are not in harmony with the priesthood keys upon the earth?  No.

So Christ will not appear to a non-Mormon?

 

Is the Baptism of Fire real?  Absolutely. 

I have not been for so long ... is this ever mentioned in Church anymore?

 

Is it received by those who are rebelling against God's servants?  No.

I could not say the two men's status with the Church upon receiving their proclaimed gifts.

I do know one man personally who I think has had literal spiritual experiences (C&E) who had big issues with an Apostle.

There is always the Pedersen Letter where an SP was going to X and appeal to GA was required (another literal C&E).

 

[mfbukowski]

If you think about it, literalism takes the gospel out of your heart and puts it into the world.

It becomes about events, scientific facts, and external reality instead of internal spiritual change.

Edited April 25, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

But that doesn't mean "it neve happened".

That is unknowable. The point is, it's not important that it happened or not. It IS important that we take on faith that it did all happen.

[mfbukowski]

If no one knew that the atonement happened, would it change our lives?

Suppose it was a secret.

What is important in our lives is the BELIEF /knowledge that our sins are forgiven.

If it really happened, and no one knew, no one would change.

It is the knowledge (belief) that changes us.

[CCRW]

But that doesn't mean "it never happened".

That is unknowable. The point is, it's not important that it happened or not. It IS important that we take on faith that it did all happen.

 

The teachings of JS would have me believe that what happen was not a one time event just for them, but was indeed intended to happen for each individual who sought for it.

 

Would it be accurate for me to say you are a literal'ist in the word, i.e. it happened (dreams, visions, C&E's etc) but not a literal'ist in having faith in those things for yourself? 

Edited April 25, 2015 by CCRW