mormonstories.org

[jay santos]

Yea, I get that. My point, as Santos is saying as well, I think, is that these guys aren't leaving the myth behind, they are exchanging one myth for another. Instead of the original myth, they adopt the myth of the myth, if you will. This is fine, and certainly doesn't bother me per se, but I find it ironic that many of these sorts (and I do NOT mean to pick on Andersen here, as i haven't even listened to his podcast) ridicule the believers in the myth as being deluded and lacking awareness when they themselves cling to the myth of the myth, perhaps for the same reasons (shielding their eyes from the abyss, if you will) that the believers have for their own supposed self-delusion.

You sparked another idea I have on why I don't like this. I hear the Jared Anderson types saying stuff like that "oh I feel so sad when I hear Brother so and so lost his testimony when he discovered difficult historical facts. If only he would have talked to me. I could have saved his testimony. Look at me, I know everything and I still believe." But, believe what? I don't see that there's any belief there.

[creekster]

This is nonsense.

I like the myth of Santa Clause, and it helps me live my live in a good way, to be more giving. Does that mean I believe in Santa Clause?

Let's get real: to say you believe in Jesus Christ, means you believe he's the Son of God and Savior of mankind.

If it's just a myth that isn't actually true, but it helps you live a good life, then that's not believing in Christ. That's just learning from a myth like people can from any good story.

This sentiment is fine, but at least describe what it is accurately. It's: I derive benefits from story of Jesus Christ. "I like it," as you say. It helps me out in some ways. That doesn't mean you believe in Christ any more than I believe in Santa Clause.

I don't which one of us will be most bothered by this, but I find myself agreeing with you quite often these days.

[Levin]

It's Santa Claus.

You don't know if the whole thing is a myth or not and neither do I. It's not something that can be known, in my opinion.

You're being sloppy. You switched to "know" where before it was "believe."

But you really just admitted that you were spewing baloney. Of course what you said ("I like the myth of Christ; it helps me") doesn't mean you actually believe in Christ.

[CardiacCoug]

You sparked another idea I have on why I don't like this. I hear the Jared Anderson types saying stuff like that "oh I feel so sad when I hear Brother so and so lost his testimony when he discovered difficult historical facts. If only he would have talked to me. I could have saved his testimony. Look at me, I know everything and I still believe." But, believe what? I don't see that there's any belief there.

I think the idea is that it's a testimony based on the LDS take on Christian principles. This testimony stands apart from both the abstract theology and a literal belief in the mythological history (of Christ and the LDS Church). It's a testimony that doesn't hinge on belief in the unlikely and/or unknowable.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Yea, I get that. My point, as Santos is saying as well, I think, is that these guys aren't leaving the myth behind, they are exchanging one myth for another. Instead of the original myth, they adopt the myth of the myth, if you will. This is fine, and certainly doesn't bother me per se, but I find it ironic that many of these sorts (and I do NOT mean to pick on Andersen here, as i haven't even listened to his podcast) ridicule the believers in the myth as being deluded and lacking awareness when they themselves cling to the myth of the myth, perhaps for the same reasons (shielding their eyes from the abyss, if you will) that the believers have for their own supposed self-delusion.

This is a problem, your really should give it a listen. I recognize it is difficult to dedicate 5 hours to something like this. Anyway, I don't recall any ridiculing in this podcast (other than the funny anecdote about professors from BYU telling him that his colleagues at UNC - including Bart Ehrman - can't possibly find the 'truth' when reading ancient Greek, Sumerian, Latin, and Hebrew texts because "they don't have the Spirit to guide them in their research", and then further claiming that certain scriptures and writings from Joseph Smith prove own their theories of biblical writings).

I don't have an answer for your 'exchanging myth for the myth of a myth' question. I will state that I have a great deal of faith in the power of meditation, spirituality, and ritual to focus the human mind, and that the LDS Church has the best combination of these things that I have found in my (admittedly limited) studies. No matter what I amount of the church's structure, history, or narrative I believe, I still see a good and positive influence in church attendance. Perhaps this is a reason why people who no longer fully believe in the church still attend? In the end, I am a Mormon. It is in the fabric of my being, and is where I feel I belong.

In the Joanna Brooks podcast, she mentions that she no longer believes in the church but that she still attends most weeks and keeps her children in Primary. IIRC she more closely associates with her husband's Jewish faith, but still loves the church.

[CardiacCoug]

You're being sloppy. You switched to "know" where before it was "believe."

But you really just admitted that you were bullshitting. Of course what you said ("I like the myth of Christ; it helps me") doesn't mean you actually believe in Christ.

Thanks for the honesty -- on the second try.

I'm still struggling to see the big difference between a guy who says:

1. "I believe in Christ as the literal Son of God and Savior of the World. Of course by its very nature that is an abstract and unknowable thing." and

2. "I believe in living a Christlike life. I have no idea whether or not Christ is the literal Son of God and Savior of the World."

Those two guys believe the same thing, they are just expressing it differently. Of course #1 (at least the first sentence) is the proper way to express it in the LDS tradition, but it's not quite as honest as #2.

[Levin]

I'm still struggling to see the big difference between a guy who says:

1. "I believe in Christ as the literal Son of God and Savior of the World. Of course by its very nature that is an abstract and unknowable thing." and

2. "I believe in living a Christlike life. I have no idea whether or not Christ is the literal Son of God and Savior of the World."

Those two guys believe the same thing, they are just expressing it differently. Of course #1 (at least the first sentence) is the proper way to express it in the LDS tradition, but it's not quite as honest as #2.

Those two guys aren't different.

But they are different from guy #3, who was a part of the discussion:

I believe in Christ. This belief is based on spiritual experiences that I accept as being from God.

[CardiacCoug]

Those two guys aren't different.

But they are different from guy #3, who was a part of the discussion:

I believe in Christ. This belief is based on spiritual experiences that I accept as being from God.

Fair enough.

I don't think everybody is capable of those types of spiritual experiences -- some of us can only be guy #2. Some of us just don't have the gift.

[UtahDan]

Yea, I get that. My point, as Santos is saying as well, I think, is that these guys aren't leaving the myth behind, they are exchanging one myth for another. Instead of the original myth, they adopt the myth of the myth, if you will. This is fine, and certainly doesn't bother me per se, but I find it ironic that many of these sorts (and I do NOT mean to pick on Andersen here, as i haven't even listened to his podcast) ridicule the believers in the myth as being deluded and lacking awareness when they themselves cling to the myth of the myth, perhaps for the same reasons (shielding their eyes from the abyss, if you will) that the believers have for their own supposed self-delusion.

Guys like Jared look at the myth from a pure utility perspective. Can you explain what you mean by myth of the myth?

[Levin]

Guys like Jared look at the myth from a pure utility perspective. Can you explain what you mean by myth of the myth?

Since Creekster and I are currently tuned to the same frequency, I'll take a shot at answering.

The "myth of the myth" is the belief that the Christ story is a myth. In other words, the belief in the myth that the Christ story is a myth, or for Cardiac, the belief in the myth that you cannot know. That too is a belief system and is likewise unverifiable.

Can you verify that I haven't had veritable spiritual experiences?

[UtahDan]

Of course not but the equivalence you are suggesting is absurd. I don't think that is what creekster is saying.

[Rosebud]

I'm still struggling to see the big difference between a guy who says:

1. "I believe in Christ as the literal Son of God and Savior of the World. Of course by its very nature that is an abstract and unknowable thing." and

2. "I believe in living a Christlike life. I have no idea whether or not Christ is the literal Son of God and Savior of the World."

Those two guys believe the same thing, they are just expressing it differently. Of course #1 (at least the first sentence) is the proper way to express it in the LDS tradition, but it's not quite as honest as #2.

In my experience, people who express number 1 compartmentalize their belief in the first sentence from the thinking that evokes the second sentence. Thus, on some level at least, they really do BELIEVE in the literality of Christ as the son of God and are being just as honest (based on their compartmentalization) as the guy who would express number 2. Those who express number 2, OTOH, have a more integrated (less compartmentalized) thinking pattern.

That would be a separate issue from whether or not some with more integrated thinking patterns choose to express their number 2 sentiments as number 1 sentiments so as to avoid being looked down upon by those who would express only the first sentence of number 1. The number 2 guy is the same as the number 1 guy only when the number 2 guy is choosing to be a number 1 guy because s/he's aware of its strategic utility. Otherwise, they're different.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You sparked another idea I have on why I don't like this. I hear the Jared Anderson types saying stuff like that "oh I feel so sad when I hear Brother so and so lost his testimony when he discovered difficult historical facts. If only he would have talked to me. I could have saved his testimony. Look at me, I know everything and I still believe." But, believe what? I don't see that there's any belief there.

Jared wouldn't say that.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Jared wouldn't say that.

That was more of a D. Michael Quinn type of statement, since he is the one who pushed 'inoculation '. However he comes across as purely humble, with no brag.

Quinn is correct in saying that the church should own up to some of its history, or at the least address some of the past controversies, rather than hoping for the sands of time bury them. Unfortunately for them, Google has a very long memory.

[jay santos]

I have given this non-literal thing a real go, but my brain can't handle it. I don't know if I'm not smart enough or just not flexible enough, but I can't do it.

You can say Jesus is the Son of God and you believe he is the Son of God. Or you can say Jesus is not the Son of God and you do not believe he is the Son of God. But you can't say he is not the Son of God yet you believe he is the Son of God.