LDS believers and ex-mos

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

In another thread Gray had said:

I'd agree.  I dont' know how many discussions I've had with some exmos who only want to argue against their old selves rather than discuss with someone else.  Their old selves seem to often be those believers that I can't quite understand myself. 

yesterday in EQ, we had a lesson on chapter 16 from GBH manual.  https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-gordon-b-hinckley/chapter-16-the-power-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

many stories were shared in the group about how the BoM is true.  So I had to ask what was meant by true, and in that question asked if there was room in the minds of those in the room to see the BoM as scripture but not accept it as historical.  that it is but a story, or set of stories, to give us different lessons.  that if there were  people who conjured up the book in time, that the stories were largely fabricated or embellished to offer certain teachings.  As we went around, I learned the concensus for everyone but me of course, was that one must accept the Book as authentically ancient that it's writings came directly from God through Alma, or Nephi to Joseph Smith. 

Additionally I added, perhaps we're missing some great meaning and application of scripture by not being open to reading it as myth, metaphor, or not historical.  They weren't pleased.  I realized discussing this was a bother to everyone else, so I ended and let them have their discussion.  There felt to be no room to discuss possibilities  It felt really limiting and really stagnant.  I'd hope for more open discussion, of course.  But it made me realize just as I can't convince a believer that there is room to believe but see it all differently, I can't seem to convince an ex-LDS who feels like the counterpart, as Gray mentioned, to accept that I am  believer and yet see it differently.  The common opinion of both seems to be I can't.  There's no place for such nuance.

I'm curious as we proceed inlife how this will all play out.  Thoughts? 

Great point that they are arguing with their former selves, and well worth remembering. How often do they argue some fine point of doctrine which isn't even doctrine as if the whole gospel hinged in it? 

I don't know how many times people have told me that I am not a Mormon.

According to my way of seeing it there are just many levels of intelligence and you are clearly up there.

Hang in there do what you can to elevate the level but know that most won't ever be there. But most of all don't be prideful in church.

Remember that their way of seeing it is not invalid it's just their way of understanding it all and let it go. We are at a time where different paradigms are conflicting in the church. We must see those paradigms as just conflicting ways to see the reality which itself is changing.

I came into the church nearly forty years ago and from day one I saw things as I see them now. I dared never to say anything for 30 years.

One approach regarding metaphor is in my mind the use of the equal sign. Both sides of the equal sign are equal. If spoken reality is metaphor then metaphor is spoken reality.

I see every word out of our mouths is metaphor. Words are not things. When we speak of chairs and tables chairs and tables do not come out of our mouths.

Anything we say must literally be metaphor. That means in words, art imitates reality and therefore reality imitates art. If reality as spoken is metaphor then metaphor as spoken is reality.

There's a real world out there that we trip over and fall down upon but when we speak about it we are using metaphors.

So now instead of telling people that the Adam and Eve story is a metaphor, I come from the point of view that it is a story that happened in reality that we take it into our lives as a metaphor.

We are to liken the scriptures to ourselves so it becomes irrelevant if the stories of The Book of Mormon actually happened from that perspective.

We have not lived the lives of those in the Book of Mormon so therefore any lessons derived from those people are metaphors for us and our reality. They could never be our reality because we did not live them.

And the fact of the matter itself is that it is unknowable at this point as to whether they existed or did not exist.

So now I start every discussion speaking of the Adam and Eve story as if Adam and Eve were real people but then I simply flip it to saying what the Adam and Eve story means in my life and I speak only of the Adam and Eve story in terms of what it means in my life. So to me in my life I see Adam and Eve as my personal fall from innocence and my personal need to make choices and my personal gratitude for the agency the Lord has given me.

There is no need to question the veracity of the story when we are applying the principle in our lives for ourselves.

Suddenly all of literature becomes a source for my personal life's Improvement. There is no need to worry about Star Wars actually happening if there is something in that story that I can take and use in my personal life.

Suddenly it becomes easy to present any story as metaphorical when one applies it in one's life. The admonition to apply all scripture to ourselves suddenly takes on life and gives one a new way to teach scripture as metaphorical for each of us, because for each of us that is exactly what it is.

So in teaching at church the first assumption is always that of course this literally happened. There is no need to question that, because no one cannot possibly know if the story actually happened or not. The best we can hope for is evidence one way or the other but that still is irrelevant to the story and how we apply it.

There is no need to shake the testimony of the literalist if that is what their mind requires of them. Teach the principle as it applies in your life and suddenly everything is metaphor anyway.

What can we learn from the Genesis story as is literally written? I learned that if God could create the universe in six days surely he can change my life in 6 minutes.

What about a talking donkey?

If God can make a donkey speak surely he can guide my words.

 

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I am one that believes that Sunday lessons should be faith promoting, spiritually, edifying, and furthering one's knowledge of the Kingdom of God as it has been revealed and will be revealed.

I loved most off your comments Glenn101 and I agree with you in general, but I'm struggling with this element about maintaining a "faith promoting" environment at church.

Personally, I've found some elements of my explorations and deconstruction of my literal beliefs to be faith promoting.  But its just a different kind of faith.  It's largely a naturalistic based faith, but it has been life changing for me, and I think its helped me to be a better person.  Why isn't my "faith promoting" perspective just as legitimate as the institutionally promoted one?  I find many elements within scripture and the Christian tradition, now that I know where to look for them, that promote a deeper and more complex faith.  It seems like when you say faith promoting, you're saying only the kind of faith promotion that is approved for primary ages.  

Why can't we have more messy faith promotion at church, something for adults, a process to help those struggling with the challenges we see in a secular science based world.  I worry that if we can't find ways to talk about these things in church, that people like myself and stemelbow will be pushed out, and thats sad to me.  

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

In another thread Gray had said:

I'd agree.  I dont' know how many discussions I've had with some exmos who only want to argue against their old selves rather than discuss with someone else.  Their old selves seem to often be those believers that I can't quite understand myself. 

yesterday in EQ, we had a lesson on chapter 16 from GBH manual.  https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-gordon-b-hinckley/chapter-16-the-power-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

many stories were shared in the group about how the BoM is true.  So I had to ask what was meant by true, and in that question asked if there was room in the minds of those in the room to see the BoM as scripture but not accept it as historical.  that it is but a story, or set of stories, to give us different lessons.  that if there were  people who conjured up the book in time, that the stories were largely fabricated or embellished to offer certain teachings.  As we went around, I learned the concensus for everyone but me of course, was that one must accept the Book as authentically ancient that it's writings came directly from God through Alma, or Nephi to Joseph Smith. 

Additionally I added, perhaps we're missing some great meaning and application of scripture by not being open to reading it as myth, metaphor, or not historical.  They weren't pleased.  I realized discussing this was a bother to everyone else, so I ended and let them have their discussion.  There felt to be no room to discuss possibilities  It felt really limiting and really stagnant.  I'd hope for more open discussion, of course.  But it made me realize just as I can't convince a believer that there is room to believe but see it all differently, I can't seem to convince an ex-LDS who feels like the counterpart, as Gray mentioned, to accept that I am  believer and yet see it differently.  The common opinion of both seems to be I can't.  There's no place for such nuance.

I'm curious as we proceed inlife how this will all play out.  Thoughts? 

What a great idea! Pack the ranks of the Church with people who don't believe the Book of Mormon is historically true but believe  it's teachings are 'sort-of-true' in an Aesop's Fables sort of way. Years ago such people would exit the Church, but now there appears to be a clever way for them to disbelieve and sort-of-believe at the same time so that they can remain on board the Good Ship Zion.

How will it all end? I suggest rereading the Savior's parable of the wheat and the tares.

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

What a great idea! Pack the ranks of the Church with people who don't believe the Book of Mormon is historically true but believe  it's teachings are 'sort-of-true' in an Aesop's Fables sort of way. Years ago such people would exit the Church, but now there appears to be a clever way for them to disbelieve and sort-of-believe at the same time so that they can remain on board the Good Ship Zion.

How will it all end? I suggest rereading the Savior's parable of the wheat and the tares.

But which are the wheat?

They both are.  Which are the tares?  They both are.  Neither are right and neither are wrong- they are two sides of the same coin.  Opposition in all things.  Choice and agency.

I thought we actually believed that stuff??   No??

What of pride in knowing your position is the only true one??

The GA's have said the church is open to all.  I agree with them- do you?  Do you know of standards other than holding a temple recommend that I am not aware of?

Should we let the church die because of historicity issues?  Should we let Christianity die because of historicity issues? The same issues apply to the Bible as they do to the BOM in the final analysis.  Eyewitnesses to the crucifixion did not accept Jesus as the Christ.

What is the difference?  If your own eyes are not sufficient evidence what ever WILL be sufficient evidence?

It's time to change the question or lose it all to scientism.

Yep, as always that good old parable cuts both ways.

Edited July 17, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Seems like a good stopping point to me.

Adieu

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

What is the difference between "room to believe" and "believe"?

Room to believe is suggesting there is variety in belief amongst a group and there is tolerance for that variety.  Often in Church I get a ton of push back about not tolerating variety in belief.  So that's how I chose to word it here. 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

What is the difference between convincing a believer that there is room to believe, and a non-believer that you believe?

Not sure there's much.  I guess that's my point.

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

As for how things will play out, I find that expanding my interaction with others beyond just doctrinal discussion, allowing a higher proportion of service and socializing to serve as both glue and lubricant, offers a more promising future.

Well stated.  Couldn't agree more. 

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I do find that the core assumptions of both groups tends to be similar. For example, the idea that the Book of Mormon must be historical or the church is a fraud. This is an article of faith among many believing members and exmormons alike. Exmormons tend to have the same world view of Mormons, just in mirror image. There is quite a lot of literalism on both sides. Exmormons don't seem to understand just how "Mormon" they still are. One finds the same dynamic among many vocal atheists, who are often stuck reacting to fundamentalist Christianity over and over again, as if fundamentlism represents the whole of Christianity. Many atheists come from fundamentalist traditions.

Sure.  I wonder if there's a poll out there.  Years ago I remember a Catholic random person on the net had told me that he's fascinated with things Mormon because when Mormon's leave they often leave religion and belief in God altogether.  From his perspective every Mormon who left the faith went atheist.  He put it that the LDS Church is creating atheists.  I told him, I don't know, I'd guess there are more atheists that used to be Catholic than there are those who used to be Mormon.  Percentage-wise he may have a point.  I'd just like to see the breakdown. 

2 hours ago, Gray said:

That is not to say that there isn't some divergence from that on both sides, Mormon and exmormon. There is, and you see examples of that every day on this board.

Sure.  I still maintain though, that the Church will have to learn to make more room within the religion for those who might trend a little more secular in thought and approach.  If not, those who want clearly defined lines might push enough people out the Church will be reeling in the long run.  This will continue to be quite an issue though, I think.  The more fundamentalist-leaning folks will invoke scripture, like those that are lukewarm will get spewed out type of stuff to try and maintain clear boundaries.  Those that are less orthodox, I guess I"ll call me and others like me, will continue to find space in the cracks, though, and thus overall grow in relation to the whole.  It's kind of small and easily shouted out with dogma these days, but in the future it'll be too pervasive.   

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Stem, you are going to have to accept the fact that a lot of LDS people believe that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be.

I think I accept that.  But you're right I need to keep that in mind as I interact with my fellow Mormons. 

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

You will find few who are interested in speculating on what if's and maybe it could be such and such. Most people in the Melchizedek Priesthood classes are not looking for intellectual stimulation or inquiry. They are seeking spiritual stimulation and edification. As you noted, most are not pleased with your efforts, and I have noted that this seems to be a common occurrence when one or two people try to introduce non faith inducing ideas and themes into Sunday School, Relief Society, or Priesthood lessons. For a person who has received a testimony of the Book of Mormon as divinely inspired and produced scripture and of the restoration of the Gospel, and of Joseph Smith as a prophet called of God, introducing ideas that the Book of Mormon may be fiction albeit with a moral is no better than speculative fiction itself.

I would gladly admit and have, I believe, that I struggle in understand the needed division of faith inducing ideas and those that aren't.  In my mind reasoning things out is a faith inducing exercise.  Challenging assumption, and dogma is faith inducing.  So, on this it gets tough being silenced. 

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I think you were wise to retreat from the discussion as further input just may well have caused contention withing the group.

I am one that believes that Sunday lessons should be faith promoting, spiritually, edifying, and furthering one's knowledge of the Kingdom of God as it has been revealed and will be revealed.

I, myself, would not be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints if I thought it was going to play out any other way than has been revealed in the scriptures, including the Book of Mormon, and by latter day revelation. But that is how I believe that it will play out.

Meanwhile there are a lot of people here on this board and others that will be more than willing to engage you in speculative discussions about the Book of Mormon, etc.

All the same I am not going to waste my time trying to convince an ex member of the LDS Church that the Book of Mormon is true, i.e. that it is a translation of words written (mostly) by prophets called of God and that the stories in it are true. I don't even try to convince anyone of that, but rather tell them what I believe and why and leave the rest to them and the Holy Ghost.

I hope I have not come across as sounding critical. That is not my intention. I am trying to respond to your question as honestly and clearly as I can.

 

Glenn

I didn't feel this as critical at all.  It's a fine response and tone.  I'm happy you chimed in.  I will add, we are far better off shedding the faith promoting style of Church and letting, what I'd call, a more mature approach work it's way in.  We will all grow more and we'll be better suited to have greater influence amongst our neighbors, and we'll be able to articulate where we're coming from better.  The repeat dogma at people and not giving room for thought and discussion isn't going to get us anywhere, I think. 

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the topic, very interesting, we're a few weeks behind on our lessons, but I'm already thinking how I too might address this in my HP group.  

First, I think I might approach this from a - personal perspective - saying what my experience is with respect to my personal beliefs about the BoM.  I'm not criticizing your approach at all, but I'm wondering if by asking others whether they feel there is room for people to relate differently to the BoM as metaphor, you got a more defensive perspective that is protecting something they find personally under attack (backfire effect).  I think by pivoting to an approach where you share how you personally relate to the BoM, how you consider it scripture, even in a very different way, that you'd have less defensiveness.  

I'm going to claim my experience as authentic and I feel I'm entitled to my space as a Mormon that doesn't believe in the historicity of the BoM.  I will never require others to share this belief, as I view the principle of freedom of belief to be fundamental.  At the same time, I have a space and a viewpoint, and that view is that there are some things I really feel are inspirational about the BoM, and others that I don't find inspirational. 

My wife and I discuss at length how we ought to approach different things with members in our ward, family or friends.  I'd agree, the way it came out resulted in not the best approach, yesterday.  I think I could have approached just as you suggested and it would have went better. 

I wish I had the wisdom to say what you did in your last paragraph here.  Excellent.

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Great point that they are arguing with their former selves, and well worth remembering. How often do they argue some fine point of doctrine which isn't even doctrine as if the whole gospel hinged in it? 

I don't know how many times people have told me that I am not a Mormon.

According to my way of seeing it there are just many levels of intelligence and you are clearly up there.

Hang in there do what you can to elevate the level but know that most won't ever be there. But most of all don't be prideful in church.

Remember that their way of seeing it is not invalid it's just their way of understanding it all and let it go. We are at a time where different paradigms are conflicting in the church. We must see those paradigms as just conflicting ways to see the reality which itself is changing.

I came into the church nearly forty years ago and from day one I saw things as I see them now. I dared never to say anything for 30 years.

One approach regarding metaphor is in my mind the use of the equal sign. Both sides of the equal sign are equal. If spoken reality is metaphor then metaphor is spoken reality.

I see every word out of our mouths is metaphor. Words are not things. When we speak of chairs and tables chairs and tables do not come out of our mouths.

Anything we say must literally be metaphor. That means in words, art imitates reality and therefore reality imitates art. If reality as spoken is metaphor then metaphor as spoken is reality.

There's a real world out there that we trip over and fall down upon but when we speak about it we are using metaphors.

So now instead of telling people that the Adam and Eve story is a metaphor, I come from the point of view that it is a story that happened in reality that we take it into our lives as a metaphor.

We are to liken the scriptures to ourselves so it becomes irrelevant if the stories of The Book of Mormon actually happened from that perspective.

We have not lived the lives of those in the Book of Mormon so therefore any lessons derived from those people are metaphors for us and our reality. They could never be our reality because we did not live them.

And the fact of the matter itself is that it is unknowable at this point as to whether they existed or did not exist.

So now I start every discussion speaking of the Adam and Eve story as if Adam and Eve were real people but then I simply flip it to saying what the Adam and Eve story means in my life and I speak only of the Adam and Eve story in terms of what it means in my life. So to me in my life I see Adam and Eve as my personal fall from innocence and my personal need to make choices and my personal gratitude for the agency the Lord has given me.

There is no need to question the veracity of the story when we are applying the principle in our lives for ourselves.

Suddenly all of literature becomes a source for my personal life's Improvement. There is no need to worry about Star Wars actually happening if there is something in that story that I can take and use in my personal life.

Suddenly it becomes easy to present any story as metaphorical when one applies it in one's life. The admonition to apply all scripture to ourselves suddenly takes on life and gives one a new way to teach scripture as metaphorical for each of us, because for each of us that is exactly what it is.

So in teaching at church the first assumption is always that of course this literally happened. There is no need to question that, because no one cannot possibly know if the story actually happened or not. The best we can hope for is evidence one way or the other but that still is irrelevant to the story and how we apply it.

There is no need to shake the testimony of the literalist if that is what their mind requires of them. Teach the principle as it applies in your life and suddenly everything is metaphor anyway.

What can we learn from the Genesis story as is literally written? I learned that if God could create the universe in six days surely he can change my life in 6 minutes.

What about a talking donkey?

If God can make a donkey speak surely he can guide my words.

 

There are a ton of really well thought out ideas in this post.  Thanks.  I agree, "Remember that their way of seeing it is not invalid it's just their way of understanding it all and let it go. We are at a time where different paradigms are conflicting in the church. We must see those paradigms as just conflicting ways to see the reality which itself is changing."

I try not and really don't ever want to come off as trying to invalidate the position or perspective of another.  We're all somewhere short of God's perspective, after all. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

In another thread Gray had said:

I'd agree.  I dont' know how many discussions I've had with some exmos who only want to argue against their old selves rather than discuss with someone else.  Their old selves seem to often be those believers that I can't quite understand myself. 

yesterday in EQ, we had a lesson on chapter 16 from GBH manual.  https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-gordon-b-hinckley/chapter-16-the-power-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

many stories were shared in the group about how the BoM is true.  So I had to ask what was meant by true, and in that question asked if there was room in the minds of those in the room to see the BoM as scripture but not accept it as historical.  that it is but a story, or set of stories, to give us different lessons.  that if there were  people who conjured up the book in time, that the stories were largely fabricated or embellished to offer certain teachings.  As we went around, I learned the concensus for everyone but me of course, was that one must accept the Book as authentically ancient that it's writings came directly from God through Alma, or Nephi to Joseph Smith. 

Additionally I added, perhaps we're missing some great meaning and application of scripture by not being open to reading it as myth, metaphor, or not historical.  They weren't pleased.  I realized discussing this was a bother to everyone else, so I ended and let them have their discussion.  There felt to be no room to discuss possibilities  It felt really limiting and really stagnant.  I'd hope for more open discussion, of course.  But it made me realize just as I can't convince a believer that there is room to believe but see it all differently, I can't seem to convince an ex-LDS who feels like the counterpart, as Gray mentioned, to accept that I am  believer and yet see it differently.  The common opinion of both seems to be I can't.  There's no place for such nuance.

I'm curious as we proceed inlife how this will all play out.  Thoughts? 

If you don't accept what the book purports to be, you don't accept it as true. It's that simple. 

Sounds like the members of your elders quorum were spot on. 

Oh, and a Sabbath day class in Church is no place to debate doctrinal fundamentals like the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you don't accept what the book purports to be, you don't accept it as true. It's that simple. 

I disagree. 

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sounds like the members of your elders quorum were spot on. 

Sure if by spot on you mean they subscribe the gospel of Scott. 

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oh, and a Sabbath day class in Church is no place to debate doctrinal fundamentals like the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. 

Funny to call it a debate.  There was no debate nor no effort to debate.  It was a couple of questions posed to engage in thoughtful discussion.  Your opposition here tells me you think there is no room for thoughtful discussion in Church.  Believe me, I realize you're not alone.  Luckily though, things will shift in time.  There will be a good variety of thought shared in Church which will help us progress.   If you have your way we'll all be stuck repeating platitudes and shouting out ideas with strongly worded dogmatic axioms, granted that's largely what Church is today. IT can't stay like this though. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Theologically, I completely agree with this, but I think the primary difference is that I view the BoM as complete Midrash with no actual historicity at the foundation, but that the Bible has some historical narratives(very limited) underneath all the myth and the BoM is purely a literary work. 

The pseudepigraphic theory of the BofM would be just fine if it were on a par with The Hobbit, which is actually complete fiction.  The way we differentiate fiction from fact is to examine the minute details of any book claiming to be factual and historic.  The forensic evidence is to be taken seriously.  If there is nothing at all there, such examination should demonstrate that.  Have you bothered to seriously assess the Book of Mormon?

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The pseudepigraphic theory of the BofM would be just fine if it were on a par with The Hobbit, which is actually complete fiction.  The way we differentiate fiction from fact is to examine the minute details of any book claiming to be factual and historic.  The forensic evidence is to be taken seriously.  If there is nothing at all there, such examination should demonstrate that.  Have you bothered to seriously assess the Book of Mormon?

I've read some books, but I don't consider myself a scholar on the subject, at the same time I've researched enough to feel pretty comfortable.  I just haven't found the arguments in support of historicity to be as compelling as those against when you weight the balance between the two.  Also, I find the naturalistic explanations for just about everything to be more compelling than the supernatural ones.  While I leave the door open for the unexplained, I tend to think there will be explanations in the future for those things too. 

I can respect those that find the evidence compelling for them, like Brant Gardner and his work.  

My question to you is how seriously should a person examine the evidence before coming to any conclusions about this subject?  Is a few years and multiple scholarly books serious enough?  I'd like to think I've studied it many more hours than Joseph Smith did, and he dictated the book.  

Edited July 17, 2017 by hope_for_things

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

 

What makes you think "divinely inspired and produced scripture" has anything to do with "historically accurate"?

I am not debating those points right now. I am just pointing out what most people expect from their Sunday classes in response to stemelbow's comments and questions.

[cdowis]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Doesn't matter, since he didn't use the plates to translate anyway.  

You are mistaken.  When he lost possession of the plates, he was unable to translate, so the physical possession of the plates, even if they were hidden away, were necessary for the translation process.

I do not have physial possession of the server hosting this forum, but I can still "use" it.

Edited July 17, 2017 by cdowis

[CV75]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Room to believe is suggesting there is variety in belief amongst a group and there is tolerance for that variety.  Often in Church I get a ton of push back about not tolerating variety in belief.  So that's how I chose to word it here. 

Not sure there's much.  I guess that's my point.

Well stated.  Couldn't agree more. 

I’m not sure why a former believer wouldn’t allow you room to believe at least something of the total LDS belief set that he completely left behind, unless he’s a one-issue non-believer and that issue defines the whole religion for him. But even then, as long as you agree on not believing in that one issue, I would think he would tolerate whatever else you believe, unless it’s really a matter of not accepting that you act on what you don’t believe way that differs from him. Maybe it’s more than one issue, but at least one.

I would think convincing the non-believer that you believe some things would be akin to convincing the believers that you don't believe some things (and that it would be relatively easy).

Who gets more annoyed with you, the ex- or your quorum members? Of your ex- and current LDS acquaintances, who are more accommodating in the long term and despite the occasional tension of your association with them in a setting where you talk about beliefs?

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But which are the wheat?

They both are.  Which are the tares?  They both are.  Neither are right and neither are wrong- they are two sides of the same coin.  Opposition in all things.  Choice and agency.

I thought we actually believed that stuff??   No??

What of pride in knowing your position is the only true one??

The GA's have said the church is open to all.  I agree with them- do you?  Do you know of standards other than holding a temple recommend that I am not aware of?

Should we let the church die because of historicity issues?  Should we let Christianity die because of historicity issues? The same issues apply to the Bible as they do to the BOM in the final analysis.  Eyewitnesses to the crucifixion did not accept Jesus as the Christ.

What is the difference?  If your own eyes are not sufficient evidence what ever WILL be sufficient evidence?

It's time to change the question or lose it all to scientism.

Yep, as always that good old parable cuts both ways.

Hi Mark. There's a problem with your 'everyone's testimony is equally valid and morally equivalent' frame of reference, is that is that the day is going to come when the Lord actually is going gather up those he has judged to be mature spiritual wheat into his storehouse; and he is also going to gather up those he has judged to be the unfaithful tares into bundles and cast them into the fire.

 In pointing out the above, you need not think I do so with arrogance and self-righteousness because I'm painfully aware of the fact that unless I become truly faithful, profoundly humble and ever submissive to the will of the Lord, I might very well end up being bundled with the tares and cast into the fire as well. I'm simply pointing out the facts as laid out in the scriptures, both to myself and to others. And the facts are that the voice of warning goes out to everyone, first and foremost to Yours Truly. And the voice of warning repeatedly testifies throughout the scriptures that some of us are going to be judged faithful and believing and, on the other hand, others are going to be judged faithless and unbelieving. Is it not the adversary of our souls who said that under his plan all would be saved and not one will be lost? Why should anybody listen to him?

How can one be on solid spiritual ground and yet believe the Book of Mormon is an elaborate hoax filled with a multitude of elaborate, blasphemous lies?  Wait, I think I know how! All one has to to is take a page out of John Lennon and sing, "Let me take you down cause I'm going to Stawberry Fields, nothing is real, and nothing to get hung about. Mary Baker Eddy forever."

In the above lyric, I replaced 'Strawberry Fields forever' with 'Mary Baker Eddy forever' because the founder of Christian Science believed everything that appears to be occurring isn't real and is only an illusion. She believed this because the only person or thing that exists is in her reality is God and God alone -- everything else is a lie and only seems to be real. Cool, heh?  😉 This is what Christian Science healing is all about. According to Eddy, the key to healing is to realize you're not really sick in the first place because God is the only thing that exists and the perfect God doesn't get sick. I kind of see 'the Book of Mormon is an inspiring fantasy' position as being a sort of Mormonism/Christian Science amalgam.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Hi Mark. There's a problem with your 'everyone's testimony is equally valid and morally equivalent' frame of reference, is that the day is going to come when the Lord actually is going gather up those he has judged to be mature spiritual wheat into his storehouse; and he is also gather up those he has judged to be the unfaithful tares into bundles and cast them into the fire.

 In saying pointing out the above, you need not think I do so with arrogance and self-righteousness because I'm painfully aware of the fact that unless I become truly faithful, profoundly humble and ever submissive to the will of the Lord, I might very well end up being bundled with the tares and cast into the fire as well. I'm simply pointing out the facts as laid out in the scriptures, both to myself and to others. And the facts are that the voice of warning goes out to everyone, first and foremost to Yours Truly. And the voice of warning repeatedly testifies throughout the scriptures that some of us are going to be judged faithful and believing and, on the other hand, others are going to be judged faithless and unbelieving. Is it not the adversary of our souls who said that under his plan all would be saved and not one will be lost? Why should anybody listen to him?

How can one be on solid spiritual ground and yet believe the Book of Mormon is an elaborate hoax filled with a multitude of elaborate, blasphemous lies?  Wait, I think I know how! All one has to to is take a page out of John Lennon and sing, "Let me take you down cause I'm going to Stawberry Fields, nothing is real, and nothing to get hung about. Mary Baker Eddy forever."

In the above lyric, I replaced 'Strawberry Fields forever' with 'Mary Baker Eddy forever' because the founder of Christian Science believed everything that appears to be occurring isn't real and is only an illusion. She believed this because the only person or thing that exists is in her reality is God and God alone -- everything else is a lie and only seems to be real. Cool, heh?  😉 This is what Christian Science healing is all about. According to Eddy, the key to healing is to realize you're not really sick in the first place because God is the only thing that exists and the perfect God doesn't get sick. I kind of see the Book of Mormon is an inspiring fantasy position as being a sort of Mormon/Christian Science amalgam.

Because we have a history I will answer this one briefly though I really am out of here.  In fact I have already answered it a hundred times and you have not listened.

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Great point that they are arguing with their former selves, and well worth remembering. How often do they argue some fine point of doctrine which isn't even doctrine as if the whole gospel hinged in it? 

I don't know how many times people have told me that I am not a Mormon....

I see every word out of our mouths is metaphor. Words are not things. When we speak of chairs and tables chairs and tables do not come out of our mouths.

Anything we say must literally be metaphor. That means in words, art imitates reality and therefore reality imitates art. If reality as spoken is metaphor then metaphor as spoken is reality.

There's a real world out there that we trip over and fall down upon but when we speak about it we are using metaphors.

So now instead of telling people that the Adam and Eve story is a metaphor, I come from the point of view that it is a story that happened in reality that we take it into our lives as a metaphor.

We are to liken the scriptures to ourselves so it becomes irrelevant if the stories of The Book of Mormon actually happened from that perspective.

We have not lived the lives of those in the Book of Mormon so therefore any lessons derived from those people are metaphors for us and our reality. They could never be our reality because we did not live them.

And the fact of the matter itself is that it is unknowable at this point as to whether they existed or did not exist.

So now I start every discussion speaking of the Adam and Eve story as if Adam and Eve were real people but then I simply flip it to saying what the Adam and Eve story means in my life and I speak only of the Adam and Eve story in terms of what it means in my life. So to me in my life I see Adam and Eve as my personal fall from innocence and my personal need to make choices and my personal gratitude for the agency the Lord has given me.

There is no need to question the veracity of the story when we are applying the principle in our lives for ourselves.

Suddenly all of literature becomes a source for my personal life's Improvement. There is no need to worry about Star Wars actually happening if there is something in that story that I can take and use in my personal life.

Suddenly it becomes easy to present any story as metaphorical when one applies it in one's life. The admonition to apply all scripture to ourselves suddenly takes on life and gives one a new way to teach scripture as metaphorical for each of us, because for each of us that is exactly what it is.

So in teaching at church the first assumption is always that of course this literally happened. There is no need to question that, because no one cannot possibly know if the story actually happened or not. The best we can hope for is evidence one way or the other but that still is irrelevant to the story and how we apply it.

There is no need to shake the testimony of the literalist if that is what their mind requires of them. Teach the principle as it applies in your life and suddenly everything is metaphor anyway.

What can we learn from the Genesis story as is literally written? I learned that if God could create the universe in six days surely he can change my life in 6 minutes.

What about a talking donkey?

If God can make a donkey speak surely he can guide my words.

 

I see nothing in there that says that anything in the bible or Book of Mormon didn't "really happen".  I know that KNOWING it DID really happen is an article of faith, not a scientifically verifiable proposition.  If you think it IS scientifically verifiable AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I am sorry, you are mistaken.  There is evidence of it all, yes.  But beyond even a reasonable doubt?  No way.

You don't seem to be able to make the distinction.

Epistemology is about what we know about what really happened and what we do not know really happened.  The spirit has testified to me multiple times that these events "really happened" but this post is for those who understand epistemology.

Sorry, you are a great person and a faithful sweet and dear member but you do not understand epistemology perhaps because you don't need it in your life

Epistemology IS my life.   I was BORN asking "how do you KNOW THAT........"  God made me that way for his purpose and slowly I am finding out what that purpose is.  Even as an old guy.

I faithfully submit my life to God's judgement daily- I do not have to worry about the day I will stand before Him- I do that daily and am well aware of my deficiencies. At my age, as George Burns said, I do not buy green bananas

He is my Judge and I have nothing to fear- that is something I know to be true.  Wherever I end up, I accept His will for me.  That's all I have to worry about.  I will even trudge through the 3 or 4 callings the church has for me because He has called me to serve.  I do my best which is always deficient but it is my best and He knows it.

I wish you well - sorry we never were able to communicate well about this all.

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Seems like a good stopping point to me.

Adieu

To yieu and yieu and yieu!

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Why can't we have more messy faith promotion at church, something for adults, a process to help those struggling with the challenges we see in a secular science based world.  I worry that if we can't find ways to talk about these things in church, that people like myself and stemelbow will be pushed out, and thats sad to me.  

But why would you be pushed out? Is anyone in your home ward suggesting that you maybe go into a less active state? Or is it that you would feel marginalized because no one or very few wish to discuss things the way you wish to discuss them?

Now what do you think would really happen if the lessons were to be opened up to such a free fall type of discussion? Everywhere? People do not come to church prepared to defend their faith. Many do not have the time to research all of the topics that might be presented and challenged. (From my own experience a lot are not even prepared to discuss the current lesson.)

What do you really mean by adults? I do believe that we have a lot of adults that participate on this very board. Yet I also seem to recall that oftimes the discussion get heated and some are even asked at times to refrain from posting for a bit.

Scroll back up and read Bobbieaware's post, then imagine how it would come across to so many if someone tries to tell them that the scriptures that they have obtained a testimony of are fiction or probably fiction. 

Read Gray's response to my first post. Those are the type of questions that could be posed. Discussing that would take more than one time block. Just think about how involved such discussions get here, with people who take time to look up stuff and then get back to the fray. This would not work for classes that meet once a week.

I could go on and on about this, but maybe I have said all I really can. I don't know if it will make any difference.

 

Glenn

[Calm]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 But it made me realize just as I can't convince a believer that there is room to believe but see it all differently, I can't seem to convince an ex-LDS who feels like the counterpart, as Gray mentioned, to accept that I am  believer and yet see it differently.  The common opinion of both seems to be I can't.  There's no place for such nuance.

I suspect that if you asked either, they would see their position as the nuanced one and you the one refusing to see it differently from your own position (whether or not you are).

In the future, rather than use the term "story", I would suggest using "parable".  Its connotations will probably be viewed in a more positive way than either "story" or "fiction".

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think by pivoting to an approach where you share how you personally relate to the BoM, how you consider it scripture, even in a very different way, that you'd have less defensiveness.  

I agree.  Don't make it about others, don't offer criticism, simply speak of your personal experience.

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

I suspect that if you asked either, they would see their position as the nuanced one and you the one refusing to see it differently from your own position (whether or not you are).

I can't see why that would be.  Even if I rejected the possibility of their position that doesn't mean there is nuance in their view. That wouldn't make sense.  But rest assured I have not suggested their view lacks possibility in either case.  Quite the opposite in fact.  

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

In the future, rather than use the term "story", I would suggest using "parable".  Its connotations will probably be viewed in a more positive way than either "story" or "fiction".

I don't think I used the word story thinking back.  I agree the trick in all this is in how it get presented but I'd add part of the problem is that it requires a how.  We should have a safe and better place for thoughtful dialogue.  I'd feel much more obligated to ask and give the benefit of the doubt to others-- seems like common courtesy to me.

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree.  Don't make it about others, don't offer criticism, simply speak of your personal experience.

I'm looking forward to the day when we more room to discuss.  It's not a good place now.  I think bill reel suggested it's not necessarily a safe place.  

[Calm]

" Even if I rejected the possibility of their position that doesn't mean there is nuance in their view. That wouldn't make sense."

This is an example of what I mean.  You are refusing to see their view as potentially nuanced.  How is that any less rigid than their rejection of your view as a possibility?

The vast majority of people in my experience see their own views as quite nuanced no matter how someone else sees them.

It seems to me it boils down to you saying "they won't be convinced by me" and them saying "he won't be convinced by us".  You appear to be as certain and confident in your view as they are.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Calm

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Because we have a history I will answer this one briefly though I really am out of here.  In fact I have already answered it a hundred times and you have not listened.

I see nothing in there that says that anything in the bible or Book of Mormon didn't "really happen".  I know that KNOWING it DID really happen is an article of faith, not a scientifically verifiable proposition.  If you think it IS scientifically verifiable AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I am sorry, you are mistaken.  There is evidence of it all, yes.  But beyond even a reasonable doubt?  No way.

You don't seem to be able to make the distinction.

Epistemology is about what we know about what really happened and what we do not know really happened.  The spirit has testified to me multiple times that these events "really happened" but this post is for those who understand epistemology.

Sorry, you are a great person and a faithful sweet and dear member but you do not understand epistemology perhaps because you don't need it in your life

Epistemology IS my life.   I was BORN asking "how do you KNOW THAT........"  God made me that way for his purpose and slowly I am finding out what that purpose is.  Even as an old guy.

I faithfully submit my life to God's judgement daily- I do not have to worry about the day I will stand before Him- I do that daily and am well aware of my deficiencies. At my age, as George Burns said, I do not buy green bananas

He is my Judge and I have nothing to fear- that is something I know to be true.  Wherever I end up, I accept His will for me.  That's all I have to worry about.  I will even trudge through the 3 or 4 callings the church has for me because He has called me to serve.  I do my best which is always deficient but it is my best and He knows it.

I wish you well - sorry we never were able to communicate well about this all.

 

I believe our failure to have a meeting of the minds lies in the fact that I take my cue from the leaders of the Church and the words of the prophets in the scriptures, and I must say (unless I'm blissfully ignorant) I've never heard any of the prophets, past or present, go on and on about how human language is such an ineffective way to communicate the things of God to the human mind. I believe the reason why the prophets of the past and present don't ever appear to obsess over the inadequacies of human language when it comes to effectively communicating the knowledge and wisdom of God is because they know when human language, as imperfect as it may be, is employed in combination with the revelatory inspiration that comes from the gift of the Holy Ghost, the two systems working synergistically together generate a method of communication that's effective and accurate enough for the saints to be able to effectively learn all they need to know and do in order to obtain a fulness of eternal glory. What more is needed than this? Why lament and express exasperation and despair over the inadequacies of human language when the gift of the Holy Ghost is a more than adequate tool to pull up all the slack?

For example, read the following words of the apostle Paul and see how he confident he is when he teaches the Ephesian saints, in their earthly language, that the Holy Ghost has the power to effectively communicate the deepest things of God to their minds and hearts so that they might truly comprehend them, and this even though their spoken earthly language is inadequate to the task on its own.

15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,

16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;

17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 1)

and again:

14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,

21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. (Ephesians 3)

So the question is, why all this lamentation and worry about the inadequacies of human language when the gift of the Holy Ghost makes truly effective and life-changing communication with God possible? In the gift of the Holy Ghost God provided the answer to those who worry that human language is inadequate to the task of effectively communicating the deep things of God to the human mind. Paul's focus was on the profound spiritual enlightenment that comes through revelation from the gift of the Holy Ghost. You don't hear Paul going on and on about how we're all trapped in a morass of ineffective communication and clumsy human language that dooms us to remain mostly in the dark. Or is it that the prophets don't "get it" either.

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by Bobbieaware