Scriptures & Doctrine As Parables - How Far Can This Be Extended???

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I disagree with this almost entirely.

I am surprised but actually happy to hear this because I am looking for somebody to throw me a bone.   How do you personally do it? 

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Cognitive dissonance forces us to change things.

And I am in the middle of that change, hence the discomfort and the reaching out for new ways of seeing things.  I am finding myself squarely in what James Fowler would call stage 4 of faith and am seeking for support from others who have been there and may have some tips on how they were able to subdue the internal conflicts - specifically, in this case regarding the narrative of the angel Moroni, etc. 

Quote

Stage 4 – ”Individuative-Reflective Faith” (Ages Mid-Twenties to Late Thirties).  This stage is often characterized by angst and struggle as the individual takes personal responsibility for her beliefs or feelings.  Religious or spiritual beliefs can take on greater complexity and shades of nuance, and there is a greater sense of open-mindedness, which can at the same time open up the individual to potential conflicts as different beliefs or traditions collide.

 

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You are suggesting that we should give a certain amount of weight to an interpretation of history.

Not really.  I am suggesting that the church is giving a certain amount of weight to an interpretation of history, and it is really, really difficult (at least for me personally) to maintain indifference.  To me that is akin supporting Trump while maintaining indifference as to his role in Jan 6 and the narratives for and against him.  Can it be done? I guess so, but to me it seems dangerously apathetic to support someone, or something, who is pushing a narrative that is foundational to their claims and has significant implications, while remaining entirely indifferent.

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This isn't to say that there isn't value to the discussion you are bringing up - I am just pointing out that such a suggestion isn't all that meaningful in a broad non-individualistic fashion under the topic of cognitive dissonance (and this is why I find discussions that want to try and invoke the idea of cognitive dissonance so frustrating).

 I don't disagree.  This is very much an individual matter for me.  But I do know that my experience in this specific regard is not unique.  Many people find it difficult to work around one of the core narratives of the church or remaining indifferent. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

To me that is akin supporting Trump while maintaining indifference as to his role in Jan 6 and the narratives for and against him. 

You sure you want to use that analogy since many attach claims of criminality against Trump?  Are you suggesting one could view the Church’s support of the narrative as criminal?  If you don’t, maybe find a better analogy because this adds a very dark flavor to your description of your faith crisis…unless I am misunderstanding you, which is always possible.  Mentioning Trump leads to heated discussion in my family.

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

You sure you want to use that analogy since many attach claims of criminality against Trump?  Are you suggesting one could view the Church’s support of the narrative as criminal?  If you don’t, maybe find a better analogy because this adds a very dark flavor to your description of your faith crisis…unless I am misunderstanding you, which is always possible.  Mentioning Trump leads to heated discussion in my family.

You are right, I should have used a better analogy.   The point wasn't to make a direct comparison or give any dark flavor to a faith crisis - in fact, I wouldn't even call what I am going through as a "faith crisis", I prefer "faith journey".   The point wasn't to compare Joseph to Trump or suggest potential criminality, the point was to suggest that narratives matter when you decide who and what you want to support/follow.  Narratives have implications.   I find it very difficult to just ignore or be indifferent about the potential implications of the narrative. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

How do you deal with the Moroni teaching and delivering the plates to Joseph’s story and what place do you see it as useful for it in the Church?

This is a question with a complicated answer.

One of the features of early Mormonism is that the Book of Mormon isn't quoted very often. It is simply provided as an artifact, a representation of how the restoration could be seen in a tangible form. In the early LDS Church, these stories served to further the larger narratives of restoration. Fast forwards, we no longer share a lot of that restorationist vision. We no longer think that the second coming is something that we can speed up through our actions. We no longer have (speaking more broadly of the membership) that sense of an imminent beginning of the millennium. Our use of these narratives remains, but they are, I think, a bit unmoored from those roots. I am not opposed to these narratives all being completely accurate and our inability to give the Book of Mormon a historical context is due entirely to our own lack of knowledge and understanding. My focus though is on what the text tells me. Usually we use history and historical context as intepretive tools. Without a historical context, this isn't available to us. So without that context, the question of the historicity of the text and the narratives of its discovery and translation do just about nothing to help us understand the text. So for me there is some sense of irrelevancy with regard to what is important (at least in my opinion). Building a testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon through the narratives of its discovery and translation takes a back seat, in my opinion, to building a testimony of the Book of Mormon because of what it teaches us.

I admit, that I can use historical context to produce readings of the text. My first publication did this quite a bit (Nephi and Goliath). But consider this from my last publication:

Quote

Nephi, of course, could not have been a postmodernist. No matter what conclusions we may draw from the text, even from the perspective of a book published in 1830, his work simply stands outside the postmodern time period. Yet as I, a postmodernist, read Nephi, I find that he reflects that [Page 50]perspective. In this sense, I am providing both a postmodern reading of Nephi and illustrating how Nephi anticipates that reading. My goal in this essay is to offer a new perspective on the narrative of the Book of Mormon — a perspective that changes not only the way we read the text but also the way the text changes us and our perceptions of our faith.

Nephi himself offers this to me when he tells me I should liken the text to myself. If the context is uncertain or unknown, we aren't left with nothing, we are left with the text. I think that we (as a religion) are no longer dependent on the restoration narratives in the way that we once were. And so I think that while the narratives are used by the Church, they have a limited role in terms of personal growth and development.

So how do I deal with the narratives of Moroni teaching and delivering the plates to Joseph Smith? I would ask exactly what did Moroni teach Joseph Smith? I suspect that we could provide all of the quotes here in this thread - it wouldn't take up a lot of space, and it wouldn't be particularly helpful in our understanding what happened. Joseph Smith wasn't much of a diarist as a teenager, was he. In the absence of really helpful narrative, I simply don't worry about them. I don't think that they are very helpful at all in enlightening me about what the text has to say. What the spirit has to teach me about the text - now that is important.

I hope this doesn't seem evasive. I like the word 'indifferent' when discussing the idea of the historicity of the Book of Mormon text. We want there to be historicity for a variety of reasons. If I can accept historocity problems with the Old Testament text without losing faith it, I can certainly accept this for the Book of Mormon (at least in principle). Finally, I noted some years ago in my presentation on the translation of the Book of Mormon how its use of archaic language (and the King James text) makes it a lousy translation - especially for current readers. But, it serves a useful purpose in that it reads like we would expect it to read given our experience with scripture. This is the value of these narratives to me - they allow us to at least approach the text with a certain understanding in mind - and it was with that perspective that the text was authored. Recognizing this doesn't require that I need to take more than a minimalist approach to those narratives.

[Rain]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are right, I should have used a better analogy.   The point wasn't to make a direct comparison or give any dark flavor to a faith crisis - in fact, I wouldn't even call what I am going through as a "faith crisis", I prefer "faith journey".   

I like that term.

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

The point wasn't to compare Joseph to Trump or suggest potential criminality, the point was to suggest that narratives matter when you decide who and what you want to support/follow.  Narratives have implications.   I find it very difficult to just ignore or be indifferent about the potential implications of the narrative. 

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I am surprised but actually happy to hear this because I am looking for somebody to throw me a bone.   How do you personally do it? 

I don't know that I can write this - that's a long topic. I will say that there are four things that have helped -

1: A greater tolerance for ambiguity. I don't need black and white answers. I am okay with not knowing with certainty. This also means that I don't have to have everything. I can have a significant belief in the message of the Book of Mormon without having to worry about whether or not the current LDS view of the Celestial Kingdom is accurate.

2: A deep appreciation for the text. If I have tried to convey something about the Book of Mormon over the past thirty years, it is that the Book of Mormon is a beautifully complex text, with a lot to say about a lot of things.

3: More relevant to this discussion - if the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, then the history of the production of the Book of Mormon isn't at all helpful in understanding what the text means.

I am reminded of something that Derrida wrote in his Writing and Difference: “Our rereadings of Je bâtis ma demeure will be better henceforth.” Everytime I learn something new, it becomes a part of my experience that informs how I read and think. I have read the Book of Mormon many times. And yet, I can still say, "My rereadings of the Book of Mormon will be better henceforth."

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Not really.  I am suggesting that the church is giving a certain amount of weight to an interpretation of history, and it is really, really difficult (at least for me personally) to maintain indifference.  To me that is akin supporting Trump while maintaining indifference as to his role in Jan 6 and the narratives for and against him.  Can it be done? I guess so, but to me it seems dangerously apathetic to support someone, or something, who is pushing a narrative that is foundational to their claims and has significant implications, while remaining entirely indifferent.

To this I would make a comment - the LDS Church pushes a lot of things. Three subdivisions in the Celestial Kingdom? First discussed around 1920 (didn't exist before then). Sealing families by proxy? Didn't start until 1894. Priesthood for the blacks? 1978. Calling ourselves Mormons? Remember the "I'm a Mormon campaign"? The United Order? Polygamy (boy that was a foundational narrative for a long time wasn't it). These narratives were all important to the Church. They are less important now. I would say the same about this history. And for me, it is certainly less important on a personal level. Not only do we not have to have a testimony of everything (as I just noted), I think that it is reasonable to understand the Gospel on our own terms - and to choose which ideas and principles we take as the foundation of our journey. SOme might label me as a cafeteria Mormon for a position like this. I would say that the deliberateness of doing this ourselves provides us with a greater understanding of what we believe and why - and gives us stronger faith. That others won't agree with us in our priorities is only to be expected. And realistically, you may find that you simply cannot disentangle the one from the other. There may be no way for you to accept the Book of Mormon without fully engaging those narratives behind its origins and production. I would just add that at least within early Mormonism, these "foundational narratives" were not nearly so foundational as you might think they are. They are just the ones that we have chosen to promote because they may still have real relevance to us today (where others do not).

[pogi]

46 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I would ask exactly what did Moroni teach Joseph Smith? 

Indirectly, he taught him that Moroni was indeed a historical figure. 

This had enormous implications for Joseph and for the rest of the church who viewed the Book of Mormon people as other witnesses of Jesus Christ.  There are prophecies in the Book of Mormon about the Lamanites in the latter-days.  This leads us to the Doctrine and Covenants where the Lamanites are mentioned in 9 different sections as efforts were made to fulfill Book of Mormon prophecies.   Now, not only do we have to remain indifferent as to the narrative of the Book of Mormon origins, but we have to remain indifferent as to the revelations about the Lamanties in the D&C.  

That narrative leads us to several possible implications that I find hard to set aside.  I am happy that you have found a way to do so, and I am hoping that I will find a way to reconcile all of this in a way that works for myself.  

Setting all of this aside and focusing only on the text of the Book of Mormon, I am squarely with you on that point - I personally find the text valuable and spiritually edifying. 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Indirectly, he taught him that Moroni was indeed a historical figure. 

For me, there's really only two people in the Book of Mormon that I believe were actually historical figures: Mormon and Moroni.  They were the ones that wrote it.  But they wrote it based on their founder myths.  I know they talk about records but after I learned about how inaccurate ancient records were, I came to the realization that what Mormon and/or Moroni used was probably not 100% accurate.  For example, the stories about Captain Moroni occurred (per the Book of Mormon) 400 years before Mormon lived.  That's a long time for history to turn into a myth.  It is possible Captain Moroni did exist but by the time Mormon lived, his story changed into the more dramatic story that Mormon wrote.  Kind of like how we have King Author myths which are probably based on some historical figures but have been heavily modified.

I'm not even sure about the founding history of Lehi, Nephi, and Laman.  Mormon says he found the story on the small plates but what if those plates weren't actually written by Nephi but instead where a pseudepigraph?  Kind of like how we debate on whether Moses actually wrote the initial books in the Bible or whether Paul actually wrote Ephesians.  What if the small plates were actually written in 100AD instead of 600BC?  There's no way for us to know and I doubt Mormon had the expertise or knowledge to make that distinction.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That narrative leads us to several possible implications that I find hard to set aside.  I am happy that you have found a way to do so, and I am hoping that I will find a way to reconcile all of this in a way that works for myself.  

Setting all of this aside and focusing only on the text of the Book of Mormon, I am squarely with you on that point - I personally find the text valuable and spiritually edifying. 

I thought I would have a voluminous response, but I think Ben has said much with which I would agree.

Max Weber, in regard to politics, primarily but religion secondarily, saw metanarratives as a prison for the mind, and I believe he was right.  We must take each text as it is in its own right and accept it or not.

There is no such thing as a "Theory of Everything" and imo will never be.

In terms of the BOM I see Taves as having some very good insights.

I know what it is to honestly see human beings as "angels" and could - in the right context- say that I was, as Joseph Smith asserts, ordained by an "angel" because the mortal human who ordained me has that status in my mind.

Of course that would be a figurative statement, taking into account that in the LDS vocabulary, living people can be "angels".

Taves speaks of a confederate of Joseph who she sees as "Moroni"- who supplied Joseph with the plates.  The question of who and how they were made is irrelevant if you can accept that SEEING AS is a phenomenon that simply adds to the ambiguity of our perceptions and how we think.

This is where Wittgenstein's Rabbit/Duck, which I have quoted many times before, enters the question at hand.

Is this a picture of a rabbit or a duck?   It can be SEEN AS either.

Is this a pipe?  If we just asked "What is this?" one might quickly answer "a pipe" without even mentioning that it is an attempted REPRESENTATION of a pipe.

But the French across the bottom, from the artist/creator of the concept, Rene Magritte, makes the point directly that it is NOT "a pipe" at all.  

It is a metanarrative that we might actually call it "a pipe" when it "ACTUALLY" is a representation of a pipe- but it lacks 3 dimensions, it lacks weight, the true sheen a real pipe would have, the smell of the tobacco, and all the other perceptions we would know comes along with a "real pipe"

William James speaks of the difference between a "steak" on a restaurant menu and the sizzling tempting and completely engaging onion fragrant hunk of meat placed before you.     Of course today all that might also be disgusting to a vegan who has accepted another metanarrative.

But even here WE are creating our own metanarrative to show how metanarratives can imprison us in a point of view we have always held!

And so the steak is disgusting, the pipe is a forgery, the duck is clearly a rabbit and Joseph is a fraud.

It's the magic of words and metanarratives!

I have had to train myself I guess that the Eucharist might indeed be flesh and blood if the priest says it is, we CAN see it that way, that angels can be humans, if we see them that way, and that Joseph was a prophet if we choose to see it that way.

It's language and metanarratives that can make a steak dinner into something disgusting to others.

Reality and choosing adjectives is precisely the battle in which we are enganged.  You are not alone.  The correspondence theory of truth no longer works and positivism is dead, and with it go metanarratives.  

 

 

[Teancum]

On 8/13/2023 at 6:05 PM, teddyaware said:

If Lehi, Nephi Jacob, King Benjamin, King Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, Mormon and Moroni aren’t real people, the Book of Mormon is a book of lies and the Church of Jesus Christ of Jesus Christ is a massive hoax. People who think they can have it both ways, with the Book of Mormon being a work of fiction and yet somehow being “true” at the same time, are  delusional and will sooner or later fall unless they repent.

Indeed!  Preach it!  It is most likely the first sentence.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

For me, there's really only two people in the Book of Mormon that I believe were actually historical figures: Mormon and Moroni.  They were the ones that wrote it.  But they wrote it based on their founder myths.  I know they talk about records but after I learned about how inaccurate ancient records were, I came to the realization that what Mormon and/or Moroni used was probably not 100% accurate.  For example, the stories about Captain Moroni occurred (per the Book of Mormon) 400 years before Mormon lived.  That's a long time for history to turn into a myth.  It is possible Captain Moroni did exist but by the time Mormon lived, his story changed into the more dramatic story that Mormon wrote.  Kind of like how we have King Author myths which are probably based on some historical figures but have been heavily modified.

I'm not even sure about the founding history of Lehi, Nephi, and Laman.  Mormon says he found the story on the small plates but what if those plates weren't actually written by Nephi but instead where a pseudepigraph?  Kind of like how we debate on whether Moses actually wrote the initial books in the Bible or whether Paul actually wrote Ephesians.  What if the small plates were actually written in 100AD instead of 600BC?  There's no way for us to know and I doubt Mormon had the expertise or knowledge to make that distinction.

That is an interesting take.  Thanks for sharing your perspective, it really helps me to consider all different perspectives.  

[teddyaware]

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

For me, there's really only two people in the Book of Mormon that I believe were actually historical figures: Mormon and Moroni.  They were the ones that wrote it.  But they wrote it based on their founder myths.  I know they talk about records but after I learned about how inaccurate ancient records were, I came to the realization that what Mormon and/or Moroni used was probably not 100% accurate.  For example, the stories about Captain Moroni occurred (per the Book of Mormon) 400 years before Mormon lived.  That's a long time for history to turn into a myth.  It is possible Captain Moroni did exist but by the time Mormon lived, his story changed into the more dramatic story that Mormon wrote.  Kind of like how we have King Author myths which are probably based on some historical figures but have been heavily modified.

I'm not even sure about the founding history of Lehi, Nephi, and Laman.  Mormon says he found the story on the small plates but what if those plates weren't actually written by Nephi but instead where a pseudepigraph?  Kind of like how we debate on whether Moses actually wrote the initial books in the Bible or whether Paul actually wrote Ephesians.  What if the small plates were actually written in 100AD instead of 600BC?  There's no way for us to know and I doubt Mormon had the expertise or knowledge to make that distinction.

Hopefully this is a tongue-in-cheek spoof. If it is, congratulations because it’s clever and funny.

But if the above represents what you actually believe, your point is beyond ludicrous because you admit that real human beings produced the very real records that Mormon and Moroni abridged, yet for some inexplicable reason you don’t think it’s possible that the people who produced those very real records could have been living prophets themselves? Why? What you appear to be saying is that God had the Book of Mormon come forth in a miraculous manner even though knew it was filled with scores of false narratives hundreds of lies. Why do you think the God who cannot lie would allow the following highly manipulative “lies” to come forth in the guise of most sacred and solemn truth?

10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.

11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness. (2 Nephi 33)

[webbles]

13 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Hopefully this is a tongue-in-cheek spoof. If it is, congratulations because it’s clever and funny.

But if the above represents what you actually believe, your point is beyond ludicrous because you admit that real human beings produced the very real records that Mormon and Moroni abridged, yet for some inexplicable reason you don’t think it’s possible that the people who produced those very real records could have been living prophets themselves? Why? What you appear to be saying is that God had the Book of Mormon come forth in a miraculous manner even though knew it was filled with scores of false narratives hundreds of lies. Why do you think the God who cannot lie would allow the following highly manipulative “lies” to come forth in the guise of most sacred and solemn truth?

I believe it is very possible that all the people mentioned in the Book of Mormon are real.  But the only two people who I'm certain are real are Mormon and Moroni.  And that is because they are the ones who produced the book and made it possible for Joseph to receive it.

And no, I don't believe that the Book of Mormon is "filled with scores of false narratives hundreds of lies".  But I do very much accept Moroni's statement on the Title Page:

Quote

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men;

 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I hope this doesn't seem evasive. I like the word 'indifferent' when discussing the idea of the historicity of the Book of Mormon text. We want there to be historicity for a variety of reasons.

Not in the least (to me, at least).  I find it highly sensible to work with what we have and to limit having to use assumptions as much as possible when teaching others (and ourselves) to allow them to find their own connections and meaning rather than superimposing what catches my own or others’ passion.  I see the Church doing this with removing speculations from many manuals, relying more on scriptures and what is documented as modern revelation.

Still, I love trying to find a historical context for the background of the Book of Mormon to see if it can provide interesting views and interpretations of the text and I have my preferences.  I like solving puzzles or watching mysteries be untangled.  I don’t insist any particular position is right though, though I can enjoy pointing out inconsistencies with the text as that’s part of the puzzle solving approach (identifying when pieces don’t fit is often easier than finding the ones that do and it is easier to explain to others why something might not work, I find, then persuading a location, idea, or practice fits the text and might be useful to draw out new ideas.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I thought I would have a voluminous response, but I think Ben has said much with which I would agree.

Max Weber, in regard to politics, primarily but religion secondarily, saw metanarratives as a prison for the mind, and I believe he was right.  We must take each text as it is in its own right and accept it or not.

There is no such thing as a "Theory of Everything" and imo will never be.

In terms of the BOM I see Taves as having some very good insights.

I know what it is to honestly see human beings as "angels" and could - in the right context- say that I was, as Joseph Smith asserts, ordained by an "angel" because the mortal human who ordained me has that status in my mind.

Of course that would be a figurative statement, taking into account that in the LDS vocabulary, living people can be "angels".

Taves speaks of a confederate of Joseph who she sees as "Moroni"- who supplied Joseph with the plates.  The question of who and how they were made is irrelevant if you can accept that SEEING AS is a phenomenon that simply adds to the ambiguity of our perceptions and how we think.

This is where Wittgenstein's Rabbit/Duck, which I have quoted many times before, enters the question at hand.

Is this a picture of a rabbit or a duck?   It can be SEEN AS either.

Is this a pipe?  If we just asked "What is this?" one might quickly answer "a pipe" without even mentioning that it is an attempted REPRESENTATION of a pipe.

But the French across the bottom, from the artist/creator of the concept, Rene Magritte, makes the point directly that it is NOT "a pipe" at all.  

It is a metanarrative that we might actually call it "a pipe" when it "ACTUALLY" is a representation of a pipe- but it lacks 3 dimensions, it lacks weight, the true sheen a real pipe would have, the smell of the tobacco, and all the other perceptions we would know comes along with a "real pipe"

William James speaks of the difference between a "steak" on a restaurant menu and the sizzling tempting and completely engaging onion fragrant hunk of meat placed before you.     Of course today all that might also be disgusting to a vegan who has accepted another metanarrative.

But even here WE are creating our own metanarrative to show how metanarratives can imprison us in a point of view we have always held!

And so the steak is disgusting, the pipe is a forgery, the duck is clearly a rabbit and Joseph is a fraud.

It's the magic of words and metanarratives!

I have had to train myself I guess that the Eucharist might indeed be flesh and blood if the priest says it is, we CAN see it that way, that angels can be humans, if we see them that way, and that Joseph was a prophet if we choose to see it that way.

It's language and metanarratives that can make a steak dinner into something disgusting to others.

Reality and choosing adjectives is precisely the battle in which we are enganged.  You are not alone.  The correspondence theory of truth no longer works and positivism is dead, and with it go metanarratives.  

I agree with you as always. 

The difficulty I am running into is that when I have been trained my entire life to see the duck, and have testified that I know it is a true duck with every fiber of my being, it is hard to unsee the duck - especially when the painting is not as ambiguous as the one above but was intentionally painted to look like a duck with corroborating witnesses who testify that it is a duck.   All evidence leads me to believe that that is what the artist was trying to depict and wanted me to see.  Sure, I can choose to see it however I want, but I am finding difficulty seeing it any other way.  

I brought up the example of Trump before.  In some ways that was a really bad example for all the reasons Calm mentioned, and anytime Trump is brought up in a forum like this it is more likely to end up with sparks flying because everyone has very strong opinions and feelings about him...which is why I think that in some ways he is a really good example to use in describing the importance of narratives - because opinions of him are drastically different based on which narrative one chooses to believe (just like the church).   The famous picture of the rabbit/duck above, for example, might as well be a picture of Trump.  To some, he is a messianic figure and to others he is the antiChrist.  Between those two extreme perspectives there is a range of different ideas about Trump.  There are narratives to support all of these different views.  Before I can support, believe in, or follow Trump, I have to weigh all of those narratives and chose one to believe because the implications are too great to remain indifferent as to the narratives.  I feel the same way about the church.   So, I appreciate you offering different potential narratives and perspectives regarding the angel Moroni.  I will weigh all these different narratives with the same care and caution that I weigh the narratives about Trump.  In the end we can't know for certainty about any of this, but I think judgment based on good reason/faith is important.  I don't think it is wise to casually believe something, or adopt one perspective, simply because it supports other things we believe or perceive. 

I agree with you about over-arching metanarratives.  That is why I am beginning to be more and more skeptical of anyone who pushes one, that includes the church.  But as Benjamin, my relationship with the church will forever be more nuanced as I accept all the good fruit I can receive from it (and there is much). 

Edited August 17, 2023 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree with you as always. 

The difficulty I am running into is that when I have been trained my entire life to see the duck, and have testified that I know it is a true duck with every fiber of my being, it is hard to unsee the duck - especially when the painting is not as ambiguous as the one above but was intentionally painted to look like a duck with corroborating witnesses who testify that it is a duck.   All evidence leads me to believe that that is what the artist was trying to depict and wanted me to see.  Sure, I can choose to see it however I want, but I am finding difficulty seeing it any other way.  

I brought up the example of Trump before.  In some ways that was a really bad example for all the reasons Calm mentioned, and anytime Trump is brought up in a forum like this it is more likely to end up with sparks flying because everyone has very strong opinions and feelings about him...which is why I think that in some ways he is a really good example to use in describing the importance of narratives - because opinions of him are drastically different based on which narrative one chooses to believe (just like the church).   The famous picture of the rabbit/duck above, for example, might as well be a picture of Trump.  To some, he is a messianic figure and to others he is the antiChrist.  Between those two extreme perspectives there is a range of different ideas about Trump.  There are narratives to support all of these different views.  Before I can support, believe in, or follow Trump, I have to weigh all of those narratives and chose one to believe because the implications are too great to remain indifferent as to the narratives.  I feel the same way about the church.   So, I appreciate you offering different potential narratives and perspectives regarding the angel Moroni.  I will weigh all these different narratives with the same care and caution that I weigh the narratives about Trump.  In the end we can't know for certainty about any of this, but I think judgment based on good reason/faith is important.  I don't think it is wise to casually believe something, or adopt one perspective, simply because it supports other things we believe or perceive. 

I agree with you about over-arching metanarratives.  That is why I am beginning to be more and more skeptical of anyone who pushes one, that includes the church.  But as Benjamin, my relationship with the church will forever be more nuanced as I accept all the good fruit I can receive from it (and there is much). 

I agree fully with that last paragraph especially, but I feel no compulsion to take on ANY metanarratives from the church or others, but strongly affirm the beliefs implied in the Temple interview.  I tithe, and to the best of my ability, obey the commandments as taught.

But I have CHOSEN to take upon myself those and other practices, I personally affirm due to testimony.

So for me, I feel that I do not have to accept metanarratives, nor choose between beliefs I do not believe.

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree fully with that last paragraph especially, but I feel no compulsion to take on ANY metanarratives from the church or others, but strongly affirm the beliefs implied in the Temple interview.  I tithe, and to the best of my ability, obey the commandments as taught.

But I have CHOSEN to take upon myself those and other practices, I personally affirm due to testimony.

So for me, I feel that I do not have to accept metanarratives, nor choose between beliefs I do not believe.

Metanarrative - Wikipedia

The Postmodern Condition - Wikipedia

• Example of a Metanarrative: Title Page of the Book Mormon
• Example of a Localized / Personal Narrative: Moroni’s Promise, which appeals to a metanarrative in the process:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how ^amerciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time [this is the metanarrative] that ye shall receive these things, and ^bponder it in your ^chearts [this is the localized / personal narrative: we do not comprehend everything, but we comprehend enough]... 7 And ye may ^aknow that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power [the metanarrative], ^baccording to the faith [the local/personal narrative or individual experience] of the children of men...

This passage is written in such a way as to demonstrate that the metanarrative is ultimately experienced and interpreted through the localized narrative.

Edited August 18, 2023 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Metanarrative - Wikipedia

The Postmodern Condition - Wikipedia

• Example of a Metanarrative: Title Page of the Book Mormon
• Example of a Localized / Personal Narrative: Moroni’s Promise, which appeals to a metanarrative in the process:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how ^amerciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time [this is the metanarrative] that ye shall receive these things, and ^bponder it in your ^chearts [this is the localized / personal narrative: we do not comprehend everything, but we comprehend enough]... 7 And ye may ^aknow that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power [the metanarrative], ^baccording to the faith [the local/personal narrative or individual experience] of the children of men...

This passage is written in such a way as to demonstrate that the metanarrative is ultimately experienced and interpreted through the localized narrative.

A quote from the above Wikipedia article, explaining what metanaritives are, I have underlined a section:

" Jean-François Lyotard defined philosophical postmodernism in The Postmodern Condition, writing "Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity towards meta narratives...."^[4] where what he means by metanarrative is something like a unified, complete, universal, and epistemically certain story about everything that is. Postmodernists reject metanarratives because they reject the conceptualization of truth that metanarratives presuppose. Postmodernist philosophers in general argue that truth is always contingent on historical and social context rather than being absolute and universal and that truth is always partial and "at issue" rather than being complete and certain. "

 

Edited August 18, 2023 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

A quote from the above Wikipedia article, explaining what metanaritives are, I have underlined a section:

" Jean-François Lyotard defined philosophical postmodernism in The Postmodern Condition, writing "Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity towards meta narratives...."^[4] where what he means by metanarrative is something like a unified, complete, universal, and epistemically certain story about everything that is. Postmodernists reject metanarratives because they reject the conceptualization of truth that metanarratives presuppose. Postmodernist philosophers in general argue that truth is always contingent on historical and social context rather than being absolute and universal and that truth is always partial and "at issue" rather than being complete and certain. "

 

This is his definition of postmodernism; I was using the definitions of meta- and local narratives (from the first article) without advocating for or making a judgement on the usefulness of either in isolation based on the special meanings you explain that he uses within this definition of postmodernism (talk about a story for stories!)...

I am pointing out that we have examples of both kinds of narratives in Moroni's Promise, which bridges the two kinds of narratives.

Edited August 18, 2023 by CV75

[CV75]

PS is this the same guy who invented the tight-fitting exercise garment?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

PS is this the same guy who invented the tight-fitting exercise garment?

It depends on what story he told you!