Mythic Literalism and Fundamentalists

[I Have Questions]

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.

I'd go further and say that there is a relationship between Mormons professing belief in something and their doubts about that thing. It's as if the act of professing belief will, alone, resolve the doubts that they are having. Believers who have come to this board don't try to defend their Church with facts, and reasoned argument, they defend it with personal statements of belief. They won't consider the breadth of information available, just the bits that they think in isolation will support what they hope to be "true" whatever that means.

[I Have Questions]

"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?

I agree that it's a fascinating topic, but unfortunately there isn't a believing Mormon on the board capable of having a sensible conversation about it. For instance, try getting to the bottom of what a person actually means, the nuts and bolts of it, the details, when they profess to "know the Church is true". What does that actually mean? I don't think the people they make that statement know what they mean. It's just a dog whistle of belonging. A status signal to the group they want to belong to.

Take something very specific, like The Book of Mormon. Members will state passionately that they believe the Book of Mormon is true. But what does that statement mean? You won't get past Fowlers earliest stages in any discussion about that with the vast majority of Mormon adults. Or the fallibility of Prophets - members are quite happy to point to and discuss the mistakes that past Prophets have made under the guise of it being divinely revealed to them. But try getting them to point to something the living Prophet has revealed that they personally think is a mistake - given every dead Prophet has made significant errors of judgement when supposedly operating under divine guidance, given Mormons will claim that the living Prophet is fallible, you'd think they could cite an example of that fallibility from the living Prophet. But try getting them to point to one. Try getting MG2.0 to point to an example of President Nelson doing something that he claimed was divinely guided but which he, MG2.0 thinks was wrong.

[sock puppet]

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

A question that they cannot answer from personal knowledge. Mazel tov!

[sock puppet]

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.

I think that in addition to 'your own planet' the Mormons exhibit this same duality when it comes to the temple rituals. When with just other Mormons, I've seen some get downright giddy about how "special" the temple is and they feel so much closer to God each time they go and that they learn something new each time they go through the endowment for a dead person. But when a non-LDS person asks them about something that goes on in the temple, even in a non-judgmental, non-critical fashion, the Mormons get downright defensive about it.

[malkie]

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.

I think that in addition to 'your own planet' the Mormons exhibit this same duality when it comes to the temple rituals. When with just other Mormons, I've seen some get downright giddy about how "special" the temple is and they feel so much closer to God each time they go and that they learn something new each time they go through the endowment for a dead person. But when a non-LDS person asks them about something that goes on in the temple, even in a non-judgmental, non-critical fashion, the Mormons get downright defensive about it.

I wonder what kind of response you would get (other than "too sacred to discuss with 'swine'") if you asked them to list what new things they learned on each of their previous 5 or 10 visits to the temple.

"I don't remember" = "nothing significant enough to stick in my memory" is, 𝙄𝙈𝙊, another likely possibility.