You're moving your horsey wrong

[UtahDan]

What I've seen in my 19+ years as a member is that there is this norm and that questioning that norm will get you ostracized, quickly.

You are fighting the good fight when you do this, IMO. I think that part of our cultural conditioning is to be sensitive to what the group thinks. I have never once gone out of my way to offend anyone and I never express an opinion that I can't defend in a faithful way. Still, I know that I have said things that others strongly disagreed with from time to time. Maybe it is just what I do for a living, but it doesn't bother me one whit that someone strongly disagrees with me. If I lose their respect as a consequence of it, that isn't a person whose respect is worth having.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I apologize if I gave that impression. I think allegory is a very special class of work, and that it is oft-overused to describe things that aren't truly allegorical. I think for something to be an allegory, it has to try to teach something to its audience via symbolical representations that have limited potential interpretations:

Animal Farm
A Christmas Carol
The Chronicles of Narnia

Have you ever studied Benjamin on the dialectical image? His thinking on allegory is a portion of it.

[wuapinmon]

You are fighting the good fight when you do this, IMO. I think that part of our cultural conditioning is to be sensitive to what the group thinks. I have never once gone out of my way to offend anyone and I never express an opinion that I can't defend in a faithful way. Still, I know that I have said things that others strongly disagreed with from time to time. Maybe it is just what I do for a living, but it doesn't bother me one whit that someone strongly disagrees with me. If I lose their respect as a consequence of it, that isn't a person whose respect is worth having.

What I've run into is the willful ignorance of those who are unwilling to question the norm, even entertain that the stuff they've been told all their lives, is Gospel truth, when in fact, it is not (e.g. White Horse prophecy, Cain & Priesthood, or that Joseph Smith only ever had one wife). This is when it feels like participating in Church meetings is like pushing an elephant up the stairs.

[wuapinmon]

Have you ever studied Benjamin on the dialectical image? His thinking on allegory is a portion of it.

My exposure to Benjamin is limited to "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" and some brief readings from one of the "LITERARY THEORY" compendiums they make you read in intro to theory classes. However, I did buy a copy of The Arcades Project a few years ago when I saw it sitting on a B&N sale table for $5, hardback even. But, grad school, work, other research interests, and family have kept me from reading it.

[LA Ute]

Genesis can be mythic, but still the word of God (i.e., true). I agree with Peter Enns, "we must resist the notion that for God to inculturate himself is somehow beneath him. This is precisely how he shows his love for the World." To borrow once again from Enns, scripture, like Jesus, is both fully divine and fully human.

Many (many!) years ago, Jim Faulconer, a BYU philosophy professor who I think is still there and is a bloggernacle luminary, wrote an article entitled (I think) "The Mythical Nature of True Religion." I was in Jim's class at the time and the piece made a real impression on me - I have used the concept in many a GD and priesthood lesson. I can't find the article now, though. Has anyone else seen it? It would add to this discussion, I think.

[EDIT: I just e-mailed him and asked if he can point me to a copy. Stay tuned.]

[SoCalCoug]

The horsey moves like an "L", right? And the pope goes sideways and back and forth, and the castle goes diagonal, or is it the other way?

[Babs]

Right, I see ... internally consistent is just not something I expect out of scripture.

Yeah. I don't, either. I wasn't sure which fundamentalist concerns you were addressing by invoking figurative interpretation.

[LA Ute]

What I've run into is the willful ignorance of those who are unwilling to question the norm, even entertain that the stuff they've been told all their lives, is Gospel truth, when in fact, it is not (e.g. White Horse prophecy, Cain & Priesthood, or that Joseph Smith only ever had one wife). This is when it feels like participating in Church meetings is like pushing an elephant up the stairs.

Wuap: This is not a cute question, I am sincere. When you run into that willful ignorance does it make it hard for you to love the people engaging in it?

Why do I ask? Well, as UtahDan knows, I routinely argue that it's important to be careful what we say in church classes, whether as teachers or class members, so as not to injure the "tender shoots." I am sure that in your ward you have your share of newer members. We do in our ward. The older I get the more I am convinced that the most important thing we can do in church is love one another. That may sound quaint and simplistic to some, but I think it is undeniable. When we behave among other members in a way that causes some to leave church angry or hurt or needing to forgive or be forgiven, I am not sure we are moving the ball down the field the way we really want to.

Heaven knows I have been in all those positions many times - much more often in my brash youth than now. (Fortunately repentance is available for all of us.)

I am rambling but I hope this makes sense. Collisions at church are unavoidable, of course, but IMO, the intense focus here on CUF on the "storms" arising from what is said or taught in church classes is largely misplaced. But that is just me. I hope no one interprets this as a criticism of anyone personally or as any kind of judgment of anyone. Just an older guy's perspectives. (I am only 55 but that is probably at least 20 years older than the average poster here, maybe even more. I used to be a young guy; what happened, anyway?)

[I.J. Reilly]

Many (many!) years ago, Jim Faulconer, a BYU philosophy professor who I think is still there and is a bloggernacle luminary, wrote an article entitled (I think) "The Mythical Nature of True Religion." I was in Jim's class at the time and the piece made a real impression on me - I have used the concept in many a GD and priesthood lesson. I can't find the article now, though. Has anyone else seen it? It would add to this discussion, I think.

[EDIT: I just e-mailed him and asked if he can point me to a copy. Stay tuned.]

Whoops. I've been sitting here looking at what I think you may be talking about. This article was published in Sunstone in '79, and is entitled Scripture History and Myth.

http://sunstoneonline.com/magazine/i.../014-49-50.pdf

From his vitae this appears to be the one you are talking about, but it may be a tad too new for you

[woot]

Great post, Pelagius.

When it came to the flood, my dad taught us kids that when Noah talked about the Earth being covered by water, it wasn't the entire Earth, but as Noah looked at it, there was water everywhere. IOW, when Noah looked to the horizon, all he saw was water.

My understanding is that from a height of 300 feet the horizon is about 25 miles away. If you were on the ark, unless my limited math skills are wrong, that would be a diameter of 50 miles. It would sure look like the entire Earth was covered, especially if you were in a relatively flat area as Noah was.

It wasn't until I was on my mission when I started to think about the Flood as an allegory. On of the other Elders in the office with me asked our MP his thoughts about the Flood and the MP told us to think about it allegorically rather than literally.

As for me, I go back and forth between it being an allegory and it being a regional flood. But to be perfectly honest, I don't necessarily look at Genesis as being literal or allegorical because it really has no bearing on my salvation - if salvation is literal.

I'll just add another plug for an allegorical interpretation. Considering that Noah and the gang were in the ark for a year or more, the only way the scenario you describe works is if the ark never moved, and there was some magical force keeping all the water in just that area the whole time rather than gravity carrying it into oceans/lakes as it tends to do.

[pelagius]

Yeah. I don't, either. I wasn't sure which fundamentalist concerns you were addressing by invoking figurative interpretation.

In the end I think what is revealed is that I don't understand CUF (this has happened before you would think I would learn); at least the more vocal participants in the foyer. IJR was probably right. I assumed there was frustration with Genesis in terms of making sense of it within the LDS interpretive tradition. That the LDS tradition in this particularly case leads to tension with modernity and the recourse was to move outside of it (but that this was problematic and troubling for many). I also wanted to chide CUF for what I viewed as giving up too easily (and adopting what I viewed as an undisciplined approach). I think I was entirely wrong. I made that mistake because it would be the thing that bothered me. I don't think most here (at least the vocal) care much about the tension in terms of their own views. I am not sure most consider the LDS interpretive tradition as much of a normative force in terms of how they view scripture. I was probably obtuse for not recognizing it before but it does have, I think, important implications for how I interact with and view CUF.

[Babs]

In the end I think what is revealed is that I don't understand CUF (this has happened before you would think I would learn)...

It seems that you don't spend as much time in the foyer as you once did (much to the detriment of the discourse, I might add). CUF in general, and the foyer in particular, have evolved a great deal in a year or so. I think the fact that your post was not received as you anticipated is, more than anything, simply indicative of the changing nature of the forum.

[wuapinmon]

Wuap: This is not a cute question, I am sincere. When you run into that willful ignorance does it make it hard for you to love the people engaging in it?

Why do I ask? Well, as UtahDan knows, I routinely argue that it's important to be careful what we say in church classes, whether as teachers or class members, so as not to injure the "tender shoots." I am sure that in your ward you have your share of newer members. We do in our ward. The older I get the more I am convinced that the most important thing we can do in church is love one another. That may sound quaint and simplistic to some, but I think it is undeniable. When we behave among other members in a way that causes some to leave church angry or hurt or needing to forgive or be forgiven, I am not sure we are moving the ball down the field the way we really want to.

Heaven knows I have been in all those positions many times - much more often in my brash youth than now. (Fortunately repentance is available for all of us.)

I am rambling but I hope this makes sense. Collisions at church are unavoidable, of course, but IMO, the intense focus here on CUF on the "storms" arising from what is said or taught in church classes is largely misplaced. But that is just me. I hope no one interprets this as a criticism of anyone personally or as any kind of judgment of anyone. Just an older guy's perspectives. (I am only 55 but that is probably at least 20 years older than the average poster here, maybe even more. I used to be a young guy; what happened, anyway?)

Well, in spite of having this named after me, I'm actually a pleasant and polite man in person. I rarely will chide or scold anyone, and scorn only comes through for someone who is hurting or mocking someone else. Praise in public; scold in private.

So, to answer your question(s), yes and no it does and does not make it harder for me to love people who engage in willful ignorance. I'm going to use an fellow CUFfer to help illustrate the difference between people who disagree with me, and people who are willfully ignorant in their disagreement.

Let's take Il Padrino Ute as an example. We disagree on almost everything when it comes to politics. But, Il Padrino is not ignorant (Here's your new signature, EPU). Not at all. He knows precisely why he believes what he believes and can articulate those reasons clearly in spite of a definite moderate bent to this board. While I disagree with him, and the Census thread was a delightful example of his ability to remain entrenched (what did DDD say, "your charming paranoia?" LOL) in his opinions, he isn't willfully ignorant. He never says (I think), "I don't know and I don't want to know" about something. He reads and comments in most threads, even when he disagrees with the tone of the majority in a thread (he's kind of like you, only much more manly and tougher). If he's wrong on something, he'll admit it. But, with politics and religion, there is rarely a right or wrong, something that I know that you've learned in your 50+ years on this planet. Il Padrino doesn't say, "you're wrong because you go against what I've always believed because it's what I've been told." No, the Dealer in Death will know, usually (like most of us here), why he believes what he believes.

Therefore, Il Padrino Ute is a good guy. It's easy to love him.

The other side of the coin (I fear I've been using that phrase a lot lately) is the guy who says, "NO," and then gets pissed about what you said, and then gossips about you to others, and then your bishop asks you if your gallbladder pain might be due to "an imbalance in your life" due to sin.

So, no, it's not easy to love that guy (an amalgamation of things that have happened to me). It's easy to love the guy who says, "Maybe so, Brother Mac, but I believe that Laman and Lemuel were bad because Nephi took the time to engrave this story on plates for us to read some day. Therefore, I feel I can make that call about them."

[Jarid in Cedar]

In the end I think what is revealed is that I don't understand CUF (this has happened before you would think I would learn); at least the more vocal participants in the foyer. IJR was probably right. I assumed there was frustration with Genesis in terms of making sense of it within the LDS interpretive tradition. That the LDS tradition in this particularly case leads to tension with modernity and the recourse was to move outside of it (but that this was problematic and troubling for many). I also wanted to chide CUF for what I viewed as giving up too easily (and adopting what I viewed as an undisciplined approach). I think I was entirely wrong. I made that mistake because it would be the thing that bothered me. I don't think most here (at least the vocal) care much about the tension in terms of their own views. I am not sure most consider the LDS interpretive tradition as much of a normative force in terms of how they few scripture. I was probably obtuse for not recognizing it before but it does have, I think, important implications for how I interact with and view CUF.

I think that this is a little off. I think that the most vocal are vocal to bolster their beliefs(as if they need to say it to reassure themselves). In a sense, think of the analogy that their foundation beliefs start to erode like soft sand. They have the choice of either moving with the sands and losing some of their core viewpoints/beliefs or grasping to a vine(unorthodox interpretations, heretical beliefs) to keep them in the the same spot. In essence, they hold these positions/alter interpretations as a way to keep solid belief in their faith. Otherwise, they may be swept away to unbelief.

I think they care about the tension, but they handle it different than you. If I am interpreting your position correctly, you feel that the tension is a way to strengthen your resolve. You view it as a challenge. Whereas, they may view the tension as a threat that may take away something dear to them.

[wuapinmon]

(and adopting what I viewed as an undisciplined approach).

Well, I specifically took the time (long about an hour) to respond to this thread because YOU posted it. Far too often (I can feel Babs's daggers coming out right now to cut off some part of my body), I will spend a good amount of time writing something out, that is disciplined and poignant to a high discourse, only to find that NO ONE responds to the damned thing. Or, if they do, most people check out of the discussion because the post is too lengthy or too wordy or too esoteric.

This has definitely changed the quality of my posts in the Foyer since my arrival, and your observation isn't unjust, but I'd add that you can choose to walk away from here because of the lack of discipline, or you can bring the discipline and charisma back to it by elevating the discourse via your presence. I will always read a KatyLied, SIEQ, or pelagius post, especially in the Foyer, because I recognize a certain level of polish in what I'm about to read. But, I also like to not have to "be at work" constantly, and at times I do lower what I'm saying to get a laugh or to get a response because forums seldom work without people responding to one another.