Mythic Literalism and Fundamentalists

[Gadianton]

I’m investing a bit of time in reading up on Fowler’s stages. I’m not really familiar with them. My first thought is that his age band assignments aren’t maybe distracting from the veracity of the categories themselves. It seems to me that movement through the categories, while somewhat linked to age, is more linked to time spent studying and researching and contemplating, and maybe even a person’s willingness to accept intellectual honesty.

I have generally found that Mormons are quite “childish” (blind, unthinking, unchallenging, naïve etc) in their religious thinking. In many cases I’ve seen that to be a conscious decision.

Right. it seems like more analogizing to development theory tied to age. Internet boards like this one might select for less adult faithful Mormons simply because more adult ones would know better then to defend things they suspect they can't.

[Gadianton]

"Doubling down" does not necessarily mean that one remains a two on Fowler's stages.

MG, I don't think you read what I wrote, at least not for comprehension. If you go back and read it, you will see that I'm explicitly saying that a religious luminary "doubling down" on simplistic statements of creed does NOT necessarily mean such person is a two.

Earlier I had mentioned that I would place myself somewhere in the 4-5 category/range. Still do. Definitely not a two or three.

I think you would need to be evaluated by a competent team of psychologists to determine your stage.

One does not have to abandon core beliefs in order to live a more mature faith.

I think this would be a fascinating topic. What is a belief? Just because you (or I) say on a message board that we believe something doesn't necessarily mean that we really believe it. Especially when it comes to abstract material. There is better reason to think that you really believe you will be wet if you step into the rain than you believe God has a body. And the terms aren't even clear here -- what is meant by God? What is meant by a body?
What is really meant when a person says that they believe in something that is abstract?

[Gadianton]

Do you think those comments betray an unfairly negative attitude towards Christianity by Russell? As I said, I'd prefer not to argue about whether calling Russell "arrogant' is helpful to a clearer understanding of his work.

I don't know how to best respond here, Chap. If Russell weren't a little condescending toward religious belief then I definitely picked the wrong AV.

[sock puppet]

Now I understand why the various Mormon missionaries who came to my home were utterly perplexed when I ask them what I considered to be very easy questions, such as how did the Holy Ghost become a god without a physical body or why is there only one Heavenly Mother if, in fact, Heavenly Father has, in truth, a harem of wives at his disposal.

That kept you from pursuing the discussions and learning more about the church?

* * *

More important question I would think is whether or not Jesus Christ was the literal son of God and if he came to the Earth and atoned for our sins.

Did you ask them that question?

Regards,
MG

More accurate question, have you seen God or Jesus with your eyes (physical, not "spiritual ones")? Have you heard God or Jesus with your ears (physical, not "spiritual ones")?

When the young Elders and Sisters answer "no", just reply: "Nothing for me to trifle my time on then; move along."

[sock puppet]

I think this would be a fascinating topic. What is a belief? Just because you (or I) say on a message board that we believe something doesn't necessarily mean that we really believe it. Especially when it comes to abstract material. There is better reason to think that you really believe you will be wet if you step into the rain than you believe God has a body. And the terms aren't even clear here -- what is meant by God? What is meant by a body?
What is really meant when a person says that they believe in something that is abstract?

When it comes to the abstract, "I believe" means nothing more than "I hope." Some hope so much that they'll even conduct their lives in line with that for which they hope. It doesn't mean they have any evidence for it, at least not that can be observed by anyone else that has his/her 5 senses intact.

[Gadianton]

On the one hand, yes: obviously it's silly. That sort of doctrine seems to be the source of the common remark from non-LDS about how "Mormons think they're going to get their own planet!" But don't actual, tithe-paying Mormons really believe that God lives on a planet near Kolob?

I've read these statements several times because I think you're really saying a lot here. I'll be a little contrarian and say that when a member recoils when a non-member brings up their odd beliefs, I don't think the member is reacting to the inherent illogical nature of the belief, but the lighting in which the belief is portrayed. The planet thing just rubs the wrong way for some reason. Whoever came up with it is a genius. The truth is actually more illogical, that exalted Mormons will create worlds without end. But the "your own planet" accusation just sounds so dumb, especially in the hands of someone getting belligerent. And so the Mormon would assent to believing the technically more illogical belief if framed just right by a trusted fellow member but deny the less illogical belief when spat out by a critic. And I don't think that denial is merely being evasive about an embarrassing subject. I think they really feel that way. But what is belief in this context? It's more than assent to dry propositions, but texture and imagery and poetry. "Worlds without end" when standing between two mirrors facing each other or watching a movie with stars and galaxies and majestic music sets a mood. The beliefs are the fabric of the world woven by the language of the insiders.

That's why "silver plates in a cornfield" sounds dumb vs. "golden plates in a mountainside" which sounds majestic -- to insiders. The rock in the hat is the same jarring problem that's totally out of place with the learned imagery. The story must be told "just right" to have the magic.

[Doctor Scratch]

Additional forms of compartmentalization, then, no? The belief becomes believable based on context? On whether it’s being discussed by an insider or an outsider?

And speaking of the “planets” thing: I recently heard an interesting variant on it where the non-LDS person had managed to fuse the planets with the tripartite kingdom doctrine: I.e., they were under the impression that Mormons believe in a Celestial Planet, Terrestrial Planet, etc. It raises all kinds of logistical questions. And yet, it seems to me that a common response to this among TBMs is to shrug and say, “Ah, well, I dunno. I figure it’ll all get sorted out in the next life.”

[Gadianton]

Additional forms of compartmentalization, then, no? The belief becomes believable based on context? On whether it’s being discussed by an insider or an outsider?

Yes, the familiarity of the language as well as who is saying it. Insiders have their own coded ways of talking about things.

And speaking of the “planets” thing: I recently heard an interesting variant on it where the non-LDS person had managed to fuse the planets with the tripartite kingdom doctrine: I.e., they were under the impression that Mormons believe in a Celestial Planet, Terrestrial Planet, etc.

This is the way I always imagined it. In my imagination, the telestial world was the most intriguing because it was far off. I imagined driving a mad-max kind of car all over back country and exploring at night. This earth is supposed to be the "celestial kingdom" literally after it is burned and becomes a sea of glass; a great urim and thummim.

[MG 2.0]

That kept you from pursuing the discussions and learning more about the church?

* * *

More important question I would think is whether or not Jesus Christ was the literal son of God and if he came to the Earth and atoned for our sins.

Did you ask them that question?

Regards,
MG

More accurate question, have you seen God or Jesus with your eyes (physical, not "spiritual ones")? Have you heard God or Jesus with your ears (physical, not "spiritual ones")?

When the young Elders and Sisters answer "no", just reply: "Nothing for me to trifle my time on then; move along."

We will have to agree to disagree on that.

I think the question that I suggested asking is the all-important question.

Regards,
MG

[Dr. Sunstoned]

It is interesting to ask those in senior Church Office - General Authorities, specific questions about specific things and whether or not they believe them literally. It is nigh on impossible to get a straight answer. There is a lot of "don't ask, don't tell" going on at General Authority level. Ask them directly about their belief in skin turning black and they will talk ambiguously and change the subject. Some will talk about it simply being symbolic until you follow up with what President Kimball said about witnessing skin literally getting lighter with religious learning. Then they will change the subject and try and put the spotlight on what you believe.

I've asked many times, many different General Authorities. They won't give a straight answer. Ever.

Straight answers from General Authorities on subjects of belief in specific spiritual things will end up in a conversation about your lack of faith. Perry promised straight answers to people in Sweden, but when push came to shove those "answers" remained locked in his briefcase and he turned it into a question about whether or not people in Sweden had sufficient faith in him to believe he had those answers.

They're just snake oil salesmen, who don't really believe in their own product if and when it comes down to testing it on themselves.

The BBC "I'm not a Dodo" interview was a big wake-up call for church leadership. No more unscripted interviews and no more direct answers.