Blame Is An Interesting Thing

[mfbukowski]

I know your post is a metaphor for something, I just can't figure out what.

 If we weren't there, it is all metaphor or blind faith without "evidence".  The spirit is good enough evidence for me, but it seems that to get to total certainty, one needs to abandon any possibility of "metaphor".

 

All verbal descriptions are metaphors anyway, so I really don't know what the fuss is about.

[mfbukowski]

I dont' think a metaphorical view is a big deal. But it's hard to maintain for everything associated with scripture history and doctrine. For me, for instance, it's easy to see the creation and fall as metaphorical, but its hard to imagine God had no influence on the forming of this earth (or no part in creation of it). So while, in my mind, scriptures view of how the creation is metaphorical, it doesn't mean there was not a God that caused creation. He just did so in a way and perhaps at a time and place we simply don't and can't understand. So we get metaphor. Is it also possible for meaning and purpose if Jesus did not ge sacrificed and was not resurrected? I guess. I suppose. But if so, where do we start because surely not everything is metaphor. Something has to be real, no?

Because it cannot be proven, even a belief that it literally happened is a religious position in itself.

 

I believe in the historicity of all this, but I know it cannot be proven, so for me even a literal position is a religious position, based on religious belief not "facts".

 

There ARE no "facts".  People do not rise from the dead.  I believe that at least one person actually did, but at least I know that is a religious belief, not one based on verifiable history.  Who cares about verifiable history anyway when so much is unverifiable by its very nature?  to me literalism is just not intellectually justifiable- there is no need for it. One can simply say that one believes these events really happened, but that belief itself is a religious belief beyond the ability to prove empirically..  For me that one distinction solves the whole problem.  Yes they are real, but no, they cannot be proven.  What's the big deal?  That is what faith is!!

 

And look at all the richness one picks up with this, seeing how every story applies to the human condition of a fall from innocence and redemption through repentance- what's wrong with seeing that story alongside the other stories??  For me it makes it amazingly rich to see how the history recapitulates the nature of the human condition.

 

It is like seeing temple promises on multiple levels- the literal promise as well as how the promise fits into the symbolic whole-- it is all just terribly beautiful!

 

Why only see it one way??

[mfbukowski]

In my experience, people tend to see as metaphorical those parts of scripture they disagree with. There certainly can be value in an entirely metaphorical approach to scripture, but it is infinitely harder to commit and sacrifice for something metaphorical. It's just human nature.

Yeah that's why no one has ever died "for his country" in a war that made no sense, or died for the flag, home and apple pie, or "freedom".

 

I am not denigrating patriots- my point is that people die for  metaphors all the time.  And look at the money spent on sports teams and terminology like "the Laker Nation"?  Fans from different sports teams beating on each other?   Oh no, people do all sorts of things for their metaphors.  We live and die by our metaphors.

Edited September 10, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

In tithing settlement last year I told the bishop I had paid a full metaphorical tithing. He handed me a blank piece of paper telling me it was a metaphorical temple recommend that was good at any metaphorical temple.

No you paid real tithing with real.... pieces of paper metaphorically representing tokens of value and received back another piece of paper representing a token of your worthiness.

 

Your worthiness was not the piece of paper., or the pieces of paper you gave the alleged "bishop" who was picked by another alleged "leader" to certify your "worthiness".

 

I hope it was more than an exchange of paper that got enabled you to make and keep covenants with the Lord.  Maybe like it showed obedience or some other metaphorical reality?

[mfbukowski]

It's about trust. Why was the church afraid to tell it like it was if there's nothing to be afraid of. Do they not believe in it? Leaders in general...like Pres. Packer....why was he afraid of a rock in a hat if he didn't struggle to believe it himself. I believe in one, two or three seerstones over the gold plates translation. I don't believe it's physically possible to engrave that many words and carry that many plates. But I don't believe there were actual gold plates at the moment.

Like even little old me, maybe they don't see all that other stuff as important?

For me the church lives or dies on whether it's teachings work and move me toward a greater love of Christ, not whether or not Joseph had a hat on his head or a few inches lower to keep out distractions.   Heck I have been known to put a hat over my face when I am meditating.  Oh well, time to break off I suppose

[The Nehor]

This is black and white thinking..  Surely being able to see it both as metaphorical for our journey through life AND seeing that it "really happened" make for a stronger position not a weaker one.  No one alive today was there, so your belief could be just as metaphorical as anyone's belief, so then where does that possibility leave you?

 

And guess what?  A little ambiguity also makes room for black and white believers like you and ones who are grey all over like me, to actually agree and co-exist.

Of course it has metaphorical applications when we take upon ourselves the name of Christ and symbolically die and rise again with him. At the same time if it did not really happen then there is no redemption and metaphorically following a falsehood would be meaningless.

[Tacenda]

Like even little old me, maybe they don't see all that other stuff as important?

For me the church lives or dies on whether it's teachings work and move me toward a greater love of Christ, not whether or not Joseph had a hat on his head or a few inches lower to keep out distractions. Heck I have been known to put a hat over my face when I am meditating. Oh well, time to break off I suppose

Not quite getting what you mean by "time to break off"? Are you fed up? If so, no need to be because I totally agree the church can provide wonderful ways that lead to Christ...or that bring the light of Christ in.

Why the heck do you think I stay half in this boat? It isn't fun you know. Which btw, makes me think of the new Mormon Discussions Podcast with Richard Bushman. I see you and him with many of the same faith paradigms. Can't wait to listen to that podcast!!

Edited September 10, 2015 by Tacenda

[stemelbow]

I say nope.

For one thing, it's not obvious to me that there is a "jam."

The fact is that the history of the Church -- much like the history of any other movement involving lots of people over a period of time -- is an absolutely vast subject that cannot be taught in its entirety to anyone except highly motivated specialists with hundreds of study hours available.

Therefore, the teaching of that history, if it is to be done at all, requires a prioritising of subject matter, and a selection of material to fit the priorities.

To some, little pettifogging details about the minutiae of the translation process take top priority.

To others, they do not.

Interestingly, those who are obsessed with those aforementioned little pettifogging details rarely show the kind of discipline or work ethic necessary to actually master the whole body of relevant material. Instead, they most commonly pick up a couple of 3x5 cards with notes on them about stones and hats, and imagine that they know all there is to know.

I'm confused by this claim of others pretending to know all there is to know. Who are these others? And, the way you put it sounds eerily like "we have all that we need to know for now" type of stuff that is common among LDS when they are confronted with not knowing everything.

I have a thought experiment I find useful for this particular topic, and it goes like this:

Can you seriously imagine anyone who is so impressed by the thought that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by looking at two stones attached to a breastplate, that that was sufficient to compel them to join the Church?

If you can imagine such a person, how is one stone qualitatively different than two?

And why is a hat rather than a breastplate such a deal-breaker?

The fact, though, is that other matters are vastly more important than the number of stones Joseph used at any given time. That question is a trivial one.

The leaders of the Church have -- rightly, in my view -- chosen to focus upon the weightier matters.

I fail to see how that puts them in any kind of "jam."

I think your thought experiment works. I'm not sure it's a good idea to mislead while focusing on the weightier matters, though. Perhaps it would be wise to not mislead and also focus on the weightier matters. I tend to agree that it doesn't matter at all that Joseph looked at one stone in a hat rather than 2 stones as spectacles fastened to a metal plate. Why wasn't the story told based on how it happened? Instead, largely it was depicted as if Joseph was looking at the plates with a mechanism that later they termed the Urim and Thummim? This is, fo course, just one tiny matter to consider in all of this. Its a shame that this isn't the only case wherein the leaders mostly taught things that didn't accurately reflect the historical record. There are plenty of other examples.

In my mind we can uncover the cause of the problem and that alone will help us move forward then trying to sweep it under the rug and defend at every opportunity by saying it doesn't matter anyway. I like openness. I'm behind the Church with things like the JSP project and the essays. More attempts like these are only going to help. More attempts to control the message and leaving out or editing reality are only going to hurt.

[stemelbow]

Elder Neal A. Maxwell in 1986 said the following:

"Even so, some discount the Book of Mormon because they cannot see the plates from which it was translated. Furthermore, they say that we do not know enough about the process of translation. But Moroni’s promise to serious readers, to be discussed shortly, involves reading and praying over the book’s substance, not over the process of its production. We are “looking beyond the mark” (Jacob 4:14), therefore, when, figuratively speaking, we are more interested in the physical dimensions of the cross than what was achieved thereon by Jesus. Or when we neglect Alma’s words on faith because we are too fascinated by the light-shielding hat reportedly used by Joseph Smith during some of the translating of the Book of Mormon."

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/voice-my-servants/book-mormon-great-answer-great-question#_ednref2

I don't know that I should "blame" the brethren for focusing on Gospel.

I wouldn't either if that's all it was. It's a shame its more complicated than that. Focusing on the gospel is good. Focusing on the gospel while misleading in some cases and then using the excuse that the gospel is important, is a problem. One can focus on the gospel and not mislead. One can focus on the gospel and still give an accurate telling of history.

It's just so discomforting to think about.

[stemelbow]

Funny but i see this thread as just an excuse to blame the church. It's ironic.

Perhaps some people should listen to president Packers talk on spiritual self reliance.

YOu mean you see the piece linked in the OP as an excuse to blame the Church? I'm curious why it's an excuse? Is there any reason to think the argument put forth doesn't carry merit?

[stemelbow]

I don't blame them for doing everything in their power to ensure each members testimony remained firm and that they didn't throw away the restored gospel of Jesus Christ over something insignificant like a seerstone.

It's a problem that the leaders of the Church have faced since the very beginning:

But there has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation it has been like splitting hemlock knots with a Corn doger for a wedge & a pumpkin for a beetle, Even the Saints are slow to understand I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God, but we frequently see some of them after suffering all they have for the work of God will fly to pieces like glass as soon as any thing Comes that is Contrary to their traditions, they Cannot stand the fire at all, How many will be able to abide a Celestial law & go through & receive their exhaltation I am unable to say but many are Called & few are Chosen. - Joseph Smith

 

Now, this quote was a veiled reference to the introduction of polygamy, but the principle applies throughout the history of the Church.  I don't blame the leaders for trying to prevent people from "flying to pieces", even if I don't think they always handled it well.

I mean, Christ during his ministry knew exactly what the future would hold, but he withheld certain things even from his apostles.  Think of all the truths he could have revealed to them but kept to himself for their own protection.

These are not cosmic truths that we simply can't grasp. We're talking about historic events. If leaders had the intent to hide the unfolding of history and replace it with something else, they certainly weren't wise enough to realize that they simply can't hide such things. People will find it out. I can't really go to the store and buy a load of groceries with my credit card without leaving a trace of evidence. If I do so and pretend I never did, if someone is interested and capable enough to look, I'll be found out.

[filovirus]

These are not cosmic truths that we simply can't grasp. We're talking about historic events..

Yet there are many who choose to let the historic events overshadow the "cosmic truths" to the point where it becomes a stumbling block for further testimony growth. They will complain that they were misled. From what were they led astray from? The straight and narrow path to the tree of life? Partaking of God's love? I will throw my support to God's called prophets over disgruntled members.

 

It's like being invited to a feast of all types of meats, breads, and all manner of delicious foods and deserts, and then complaining that the side salad has cucumbers. And then demanding that the host apologize for putting cucumbers in the salad.

 

People need to understand that the use of a seer stone is a fact, but it has no bearing for salvation. So what? It happened. Get over it and move on to what matters. But like Neal Maxwell stated, they are looking "beyond the mark".

[stemelbow]

Yet there are many who choose to let the historic events overshadow the "cosmic truths" to the point where it becomes a stumbling block for further testimony growth. They will complain that they were misled. From what were they led astray from? The straight and narrow path to the tree of life? Partaking of God's love? I will throw my support to God's called prophets over disgruntled members.

I wish we took the position that we're all in this together rather than dismissing people based on perceived categories we want to shove them in. This just isn't a fun perspective in my mind. Members who are not disgruntled members struggle with many things. Gospel truths are sometimes not easy to accept for many reasons. This life carries very little concrete assurances. One could assume the prophets and apostles are always right or will never lead anyone astray, but it's possible, since we know they err, that they can so err. I wouldn't put prophets against other members, but both together. Any member can mislead much like leaders have so done. Its going to continue to some extent. We should expect some error and learn to deal with it, accept it and move on--not sweep it under a rug, blame anyone who wants to make note of it and then shame them because they aren't faithful enough...or whatever. That is just too contentious a place for me.

 

It's like being invited to a feast of all types of meats, breads, and all manner of delicious foods and deserts, and then complaining that the side salad has cucumbers. And then demanding that the host apologize for putting cucumbers in the salad.

It's not like that at all. It's like getting invited to a feast and then eat piece of the feast is spiked with something to make you increasingly sick. Once someone finds out about it and starts notifying others, that someone is decried, complained about and told to shut up because, afterall, there is tasty food in front of him/her. Can't we accept the tasty feast and be able to identify sullied morsels so no one feels ill? Seems ideal to me.

 

People need to understand that the use of a seer stone is a fact, but it has no bearing for salvation. So what? It happened. Get over it and move on to what matters. But like Neal Maxwell stated, they are looking "beyond the mark".

Seriously this is missing the mark, as I see it.

[Buckeye]

Metaphorical belief will either destroy the church or turn into something weaker then what it is. The Community of Christ tried it and I do not think the results are encouraging. I would leave if the church goes this route. I am not prepared to sacrifice for a metaphorical God whose son performed a metaphorical atonement and who metaphorically appeared to Joseph Smith and give him a metaphorical book and work hard to build the metaphorical kingdom of God now that I have the metaphorical power of God to do his work.

 

If this happened, where would you go? What's the next best literal belief if mormonism drops away?

[filovirus]

We should expect some error and learn to deal with it, accept it and move on

Bingo!! Let's not get caught up in it to the extent that it destroys a testimony. We need to learn to move on.

[The Nehor]

Yeah that's why no one has ever died "for his country" in a war that made no sense, or died for the flag, home and apple pie, or "freedom".

 

I am not denigrating patriots- my point is that people die for  metaphors all the time.  And look at the money spent on sports teams and terminology like "the Laker Nation"?  Fans from different sports teams beating on each other?   Oh no, people do all sorts of things for their metaphors.  We live and die by our metaphors.

They do not die for metaphors, they die for the big reality behind the metaphor. Living the gospel for the metaphor of the atonement while believing the atonement is a lie is like a patriot dying for the Stars and Stripes when there is no United States.

[jkwilliams]

If this happened, where would you go? What's the next best literal belief if mormonism drops away?

 

I just believe in me. Yoko and me.

 

I think you raise a good point. As I said, it is infinitely less likely that people will sacrifice for something strictly metaphorical, but to say it's either a literal belief in something or belief in nothing is a false dichotomy. If one does reach the point at which one believes that Mormonism is best seen metaphorically and not literally, one simply adjusts one's paradigms accordingly. That we can't imagine a non-literal Book of Mormon at this point doesn't mean we never will or never should. 

[Thinking]

They do not die for metaphors, they die for the big reality behind the metaphor. Living the gospel for the metaphor of the atonement while believing the atonement is a lie is like a patriot dying for the Stars and Stripes when there is no United States.

 

Or they die for what they think is the big reality.

[Russell C McGregor]

I just believe in me. Yoko and me.

 

I think you raise a good point. As I said, it is infinitely less likely that people will sacrifice for something strictly metaphorical, but to say it's either a literal belief in something or belief in nothing is a false dichotomy. If one does reach the point at which one believes that Mormonism is best seen metaphorically and not literally, one simply adjusts one's paradigms accordingly. That we can't imagine a non-literal Book of Mormon at this point doesn't mean we never will or never should. 

 

It's always an interesting insight when someone appears to assume that the only reason anyone doesn't agree with them is because they lack sufficient imagination; or have some other mental deficiency.

 

Of course anyone can "imagine a non-literal Book of Mormon." The question is not what we can imagine, but whether or not it is true.

 

A further question is, why would we want one?

 

A non-literal Book of Mormon -- or any book of scripture, really -- is one that is more malleable, more easily controlled, much less authoritative, and much more easily adapted to the needs of an audience that doesn't want to answer for eternal verities that might be uncomfortable in the present social climate.

[The Nehor]

Or they die for what they think is the big reality.

 

True. Fortunately I am right so don't have to worry about that.

[jkwilliams]

It's always an interesting insight when someone appears to assume that the only reason anyone doesn't agree with them is because they lack sufficient imagination; or have some other mental deficiency.

Of course anyone can "imagine a non-literal Book of Mormon." The question is not what we can imagine, but whether or not it is true.

A further question is, why would we want one?

A non-literal Book of Mormon -- or any book of scripture, really -- is one that is more malleable, more easily controlled, much less authoritative, and much more easily adapted to the needs of an audience that doesn't want to answer for eternal verities that might be uncomfortable in the present social climate.

I missed the part where disagreement with me was caused by a lack of imagination. As I said, literal belief or nothing is a false dichotomy. I already agreed that a metaphorical belief is less desirable for some of the same reasons you note, but it's not impossible.

[JLHPROF]

These are not cosmic truths that we simply can't grasp. We're talking about historic events. If leaders had the intent to hide the unfolding of history and replace it with something else, they certainly weren't wise enough to realize that they simply can't hide such things. People will find it out. I can't really go to the store and buy a load of groceries with my credit card without leaving a trace of evidence. If I do so and pretend I never did, if someone is interested and capable enough to look, I'll be found out.

 

Actually, all of the "troubling history" is a result of a lack of grasping the cosmic truths behind the events.

 

Take the seerstone in the hat.  A troubling historical truth for some.  But if we understand the cosmic principles behind the transmission of revelation, the properties of physical items imbued by spirit, the parallell between a seer stone on earth and the white stone used in the Celestial Kingdom.  There is SO much information that could be taught on the use of a seerstone.  But would the general public understand or do they just hear "Joseph put his face in a hat and stared at a stone"?

 

It is my opinion that most troubling truths of history are kept from saints (whether rightly or wrongly) either because the explanations are too complex to explain easily to a general group, or the people would likely be unwilling to listen to any doctrinal explanation anyway.  Joseph was exactly right on this.

 

Pick your "troubling historical truth" - there IS a reasonable doctrinal explanation within the bounds of Mormon theology.  The question is whether the explanation can be easily given, willingly accepted, or even whether it should be.  But you are right, truth never stays hidden forever.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Del

Edited September 11, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Tacenda]

From what I heard on a podcast today, the reason for hiding the truth of the seerstone translation was to steer clear of anything to do with money digging or the occult. This is probably never a good idea to avoid the true history. Another podcast with Richard Bushman has him saying the same thing, there will usually be something written down somewhere, that brings these matters up from the past.

[filovirus]

From what I heard on a podcast today, the reason for hiding the truth of the seerstone translation was to steer clear of anything to do with money digging or the occult. This is probably never a good idea to avoid the true history. Another podcast with Richard Bushman has him saying the same thing, there will usually be something written down somewhere, that brings these matters up from the past.

Which podcast? I'm interested in listening.