Today’s guest post is by Glenn. Let’s agree right up front that figurative language is essential, OK? We don’t always mean literally every word that we say. And we don’t always clarify when we are being figurative and when we are being literal. It is extremely aggravating, isn’t it? The classic example is using a heart to represent and visualize concepts like love. Valentines Day would be a pretty disgusting holiday (even more so) if we took that figurative image literally. But since we grow up with it, we all just assume its figurative meaning, so no one ever feels the need to clarify it. But bring in someone from another culture who doesn’t understand the underlying assumptions that the rest of us take for granted, and things get weird and confusing really fast. That may (or may not) happen here as I talk about Make Believe – some concepts that have become very familiar to me over the years may seem unclear of weird to some of you – but I’ll try to keep it plain and simple – ‘cuz that’s how Nephi would have liked it.
Travel with me, if you will, down the corridors of time, to a childhood moment in primary, or Sunday school, or Family Home Evening, or any other number of situations where you were instructed on the art of prayer. Were you ever told to imagine Heavenly Father in your mind? To picture His face? To imagine what it would feel like if His eyes were looking at you as you knelt there before Him? Were you ever encouraged in other situations to remove other peoples’ names from the scriptures and replace them with your own, and imagine that those scriptures had been written specifically for you? Were you ever encouraged to imagine the Savior at any point in his mortal ministry – as an innocent new born babe in a manger – as a twelve-year-old boy in a temple – as a 30-year-old man being baptized in a river – as a beaten and bloodied man hanging on a cross? Many times we are encouraged to use our imaginations to… well… to imagine the divine – to make real what is so far beyond the realm and scope of our human understanding. It is how we make our beliefs tangible. It is how we make belief.
Now in most contexts, “make believe” has a negative connotation and is associated with things that are otherwise not real – it doesn’t have to be this way, but that is its common usage – so if I assert that our faith and our testimonies are a product of traditional social constructions that function to create, validate, and continually justify our beliefs (which I most certainly believe), then some people here will most likely accuse me of spreading some kind of anti-gospel or of having no testimony, yada yada. But what other options do we really have when it comes to visualizing and realizing God? We sort of have to make our own belief, don’t we? Isn’t that what those Primary Lessons are designed to teach us to do? (ditto for all the correlated lesson manuals ad naseum)
I say this because this morning as I was exploring the perpetual pondering prayer in my heart (not a joke, I maintain a nearly running dialogue-thingy – almost exclusively one-way, as most pondering-prayer-type-thingys go), I was realizing that the Jesus I imagine may be a different Jesus than perhaps some of the rest of you imagine. I was considering this idea of people who approach life fearful of missteps – people who worry about things like eternal peril, which seems a little odd to me as I understand the message of the atonement and the afterlife. It seems odd to me that people fret so much – like we have too many Marthas. My Jesus loves both Martha and Mary equally, although there is a gentle chiding of Martha, it is only because she asked for it with her, “Hey Jesus, tell my sister to stop being lazy and to help me clean up” nitpicking. And Jesus’, “um, Mary is actually the one who gets it more than you do, Martha” response came not because Martha was fretting too much per se, but because she started pushing her agenda onto others who actually got it more than she did (perhaps some of you can see why I happen to gravitate towards this possibly biased interpretation).
Now maybe this is just me, and maybe this is just a part of the way that I make my own belief to validate and justify my own way of being, etc etc – of course it is. And along those same lines, maybe the way I make my belief is wrong. But here’s the thing – my Jesus gives me room to be wrong. And he does it with a smile, eagerly anticipating my next stab at things. He’s a pretty cool Jesus. Maybe not Fonzie cool, but he could do a lot more than just turn on a jukebox by hitting his fist against a wall or jumping over a shark on his waterskis, although he wouldn’t hold a candle to Fonzie’s dating life (that was Brigham’s Jesus). Anyhooo…….
I can remember a time when I would have felt very threatened by someone asserting that my faith in God was akin to “make believe.” But I embrace that now, and I don’t see a conflict with faith, because I still maintain a strong desire for things which are hoped for but not seen, and I share common values and a very Mormon-centric worldview, and I have felt the belief-validating feelings associated with the Holy Ghost. I still feel them. Even if those feelings are internally self-generated rather than externally bestowed (which I most usually believe, but don’t fully understand), those feelings are still real feelings — just as real for me as they are for my Muslim friends who feel them in their Zikrs, and my Evangelical friends who feel them in their worship, or my Atheist friends who feel them when experiencing a profound appreciation for nature, or the feelings I felt when I heard Paul McCartney come on stage and sing Hey Jude live in concert, and I joined in with thousands of people on the “na na na nanana na” chorus at the end, and the lights were flashing all around, and man that was AMAZING!!! What was I talking about?
Oh yeah, and you know the thing I love the most about by new found make believe faith – and this is just the best: Even if I am wrong – even if the strictest of the pharisitical McConkie Mormons are right (see D&C 76):
1. Been baptized, all the ordinances, doing all the important stuff, check check check
2. I’m not intentionally a liar, and when I am I don’t enjoy it (and when I do, I repent immediately)
3. I’m not planning on killing anyone, (I don’t even huunt)
4. I am rarely tempted by sorcery (although I may go see Harry Potter this weekend)
So in that case, the Terrestrial Kingdom would have my name written all over it, and that isn’t anything to sneeze at. In other words, I have been redeemed from the Outer Darkness of Hell, haven’t I? Rejoice and Hallelujah if that’s my worst-case scenario! The shackles of fear have no hold me. Isn’t that what faith in the atonement and the restored “good news” gospel of Christ is supposed to do?
So I can say to you in all honesty that there is a Jesus in my head with whom I maintain a regular one-way dialogue, and he plays a role in my life, and shapes and guides my thoughts and actions, and he is completely make-believe based on the Mormon make-believe belief-making machine, and some day I hope to meet the real guy if he is out there, and if so, I really hope he is as cool as I really hope he is, and I will take my make-believe, mamby-pamby, wishy-washy, metaphoric, liberal faith any day, thank you very much. And to anyone else out there who feel similar, I would encourage the same. It’s the best we can do until the day we can actually see with our eyes and feel with our hands and know for certain (for real with every fiber of our being) – until then, we just have to close our eyes and imagine his face in our minds, and open up our senses and try to feel him in our hearts (figuratively speaking, of course).
So what do you think? Are you convinced? Anyone as comfortable with the idea of “make believe” as I am? There are so many other examples of it in our church experience. Anyone think that the Fonze is actually cooler? Cuz you, my friend, would be totally totally wrong.
Wheat & Tares 
Ah the difficulties of putting words to things. The specific term “make believe” is understandably threatening to many people because of other situations it is used. Perhaps the terms we use to define our own experience (and to define others’ experiences) are in themselves subjective. I do like the social-constructionist term better, as it does not carry the contempt that “make believe” or “magical thinking” does. Personally, I’m more of a pluralist – I honestly believe I have some of it right (as right as one can be, whatever that even means) and also believe others do. We’re also all probably mistaken in a lot of ways, or have a limited understanding.
Glenn, I am as comfortable with the idea of “make believe” as you are.
Speaking of make believe and symbolism, I have been thinking a lot about Santa Claus recently as my son is about that age to get excited about it. I decided that as soon as he can understand what a symbol or metaphor is, he can understand that Santa is a metaphor. So maybe around five y/o, haha.
I like using the terms “meaning making” or “interpersonal belief building” ;o).
If I make believe that I can walk out into a street without being hit by cars, then will the belief I’ve made save me from speeding cars?
OK, OK, that’s one area.
If I make believe the requirements that seem right to achieving even terrestrial glory, but it appears that heaven and hell were really the non-Mormon Christian variety and I apparently believed in the wrong stuff, will that save my eternal soul?
OK, If I make believe a conservative LDS belief that the LDS church’s teachings are not make believe, and as a result rack myself with guilt, self-loathing, and depression over some aspect of myself that I cannot change, then will the belief I’ve made save my from my despair?
Ah…but everyone will make their own meaning about why they were hit by the car. And their own meaning about what getting hit by a car will mean to them in the future.
but they don’t make meaning about the actual getting hit by the car.
apparently, the meanings that people make are in responses to events that happen and facts that exist on the ground (or, I suppose, against the bones).
I guess one issue to talk about…what if a person makes the meaning (or is led to make such a meaning) that “bad people get hit by cars” and then assumes that because they were hit by a car, they are bad?
What if there is an organization that is good at making people believe in these sorts of bad meanings about themselves?
I got one kid through with the St. Nicolas story and that Santa Claus is just everyone doing his worth metaphor. Well, at least I got away with that once 😉
As I was reading this post, I envisioned Mr. Rodgers sitting by his train and it driving off into the land of make believe……
Glen said: “I will take my make-believe, mamby-pamby, wishy-washy, metaphoric, liberal faith any day, thank you very much.”
Well written and entertaining thoughts on living a terrestrial life. Experiencing God on a terrestrial level is certainly a choice we’re free to make.
The Lord invites us to climb the mountains He climbed so we can be like Him. If we choose to stay in the foothills, we can.
Glen wrote: “…even if the strictest of the pharisitical McConkie Mormons are right…”
But please, don’t think less of me if I set my course to climb the mountains, with His help of course.
#5 @Andrew – You are a brilliant guy, so I am sure you already know the answer to your own questions, and they are probably better than what I’m going to come up with, but I’ll play along because I like you:
No, the belief will not stop the speeding cars. Maybe the drivers behind the wheel will slow down or swerve when they see the crazy nut (is that too condescending? Let’s just be safe, and say the crazy nut is me) stepping into the middle of the road – I’ve seen it happen in Tokyo, Beijing, and Hannoi (except on bicycles). But most likely the nut (again, me) will be hit. I never suggested that make believe = Truth.
(Terrestrial kingdom vs. traditional Christian heaven… um…. it’s much easier to talk about the speeding cars than the eternal souls – I’ve never hung a pine air freshener in an eternal soul – not that I’m aware of)
As to your last example, the make believe that leads to the interpretation of LDS doctrine that leads to despair (if I am following you correctly) is an unfortunate choice (or a series of unfortunate choices possibly supported by any number of unfortunate contributing factors). As for me and my house, I’d recommend some new interpretations, a new brand of make believe – one with a lot more hope. But Jared may be a better source of hope than I am. Apparently he has his sights set a little higher.
I like this post – thanks.
I think we all play “make-believe”, in the sense that you are talking about. Just in our church, there are hundreds of things that people could, and do, have different opinions on:
– Could you take mom our to lunch on Mother’s Day?
– Should you wear church clothes all Sunday?
– Homework on Sunday?
– Watching sports on Sunday?
– Playing sports on Sunday?
– Drinking Coke?
– Drinking a glass of wine?
– Having more than one wife?
– Etc.
The list could literally go on and on and on, into the thousands. People may agree on some items, but I bet if you were to have everyone in the Church answer what they thought about all of those questions, there would be NO ONE who would have the exact same answer for ALL of the questions. And it would also be temporally based. Joseph Smith might feel it’s fine to have a glass of wine and a second wife. Many members now might disagree with him. And that’s just WITHIN the LDS Church.
So, in a very real way, we ALL have different approaches to God, different images of God, different feelings – largely based on our backgrounds and life experiences and temperaments. Since none of us are the same, it is all make-believe to an extent, and we are all equally valid.
There are some givens:
– We are taught that ordinances are necessary, but the majority of people will have them done after they are dead, so having them done in mortality can’t be necessary
– We are taught to follow various commandments, like the WofW, but those things change as years and decades and centuries go by
– We have social standards regarding things like no beards and white shirts and one pair of earrings, but those also change with time.
Perhaps it all comes back to Christ. When asked what was most important – Love God. Love your fellowman. Everything else comes back to those. Everything else is make-believe.
re 11:
Glenn,
Thanks for the answer. To be honest, I am not so sure I “know” the answer to my own question, which is why I think the issue is so thorny.
As you admit, the belief will not stop the speeding cars. In fact, even if the drivers behind the wheel slow down or swerve, they do so *in spite of* and not because of a belief that a pedestrian/biker is impervious to cars. In fact, if the drivers also held the belief that bikers and pedestrians are impervious to being hit by cars, that would be disastrous for everyone.
You admit that you never suggested that “make believe = Truth,” but what I was trying to get at is this: the very nature of a belief is that we have a mental attitude of asserting (with however high or low confidence) that x proposition aligns with truth. There are different theories about truth (is truth something “out there” or not?), but for the church, at least, truth is very much something out there. We don’t “make” beliefs about Jesus, prophets, the truth of the church. We believe that these are facts “out there” (not inside our imaginations or minds)…facts that we *discover*, or have *revealed*, or are *inspired* to believe in.
I don’t think it’s enough to say “make believe that leads to the interpretation of LDS doctrine that leads to despair…is an “unfortunate choice,”” unless you mean it is unfortunate on the parts of parents, teachers, general authorities, etc., to continue to promote an institution that leads to this kind of reaction.
…But even if you’re willing to say this, don’t be so quick to blame! These people aren’t “choosing” to “make believe” in such a depressing situation…they are promulgating what they are taught is true…and the truth may be ugly sometimes. The fact that getting hit by a car hurts (and may kill) isn’t pretty…but we believe in this fearful possibility because we recognize it is a *real* possibility.
My question for people who want to “recommend some new interpretations” or “a new brand of make believe” is this: why? What is the point? Had you never been involved in the church, would it ever have struck you to do this? It seems to me that the people who do this are those who once believed in the church as something that was NOT “made believe,” but then they came to the fact that the church doesn’t stand up to that. So instead of rejecting the church, they tried to find a way to “make believe.”
OK, OK, so that’s your prerogative. But why?
“We are taught that ordinances are necessary, but the majority of people will have them done after they are dead, so having them done in mortality can’t be necessary”
Reject the gospel in this life but receive it in the spirit world is a one way ticket to the terrestrial glory. (D&C 76:74).
One of the thoughts I’ve had while reading this post and the comments is that there is an antagonism that can develop between those who have differing views.
As for me and my house, I don’t want antagonism to be seen in my comments. I accept, and respect, but may disagree with various points of view, but I want to go on record as saying that I don’t want to come across as an antagonist.
As Mike S. stated “love your fellow man”, it all comes back to this.
Joseph Smith put it this way:
“All the religious world is boasting of righteousness: It is the doctrine of the devil to retard the human mind, and hinder our progress, by filling us with self-righteousness. The nearer we get to our Heavenly Father, the more we are disposed to look with compassion on perishing souls; we feel that we want to take them upon our shoulders, and cast their sins behind our backs. … If you would have God have mercy on you, have mercy on one another.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1977, p. 241.)
Reading this post made me want to stand up at my desk and applaud. Thanks for sharing.
#13 @Andrew — I ‘m not sure I have a very satisfactory answer to your questions. I agree — it is a thorny issue — and I am probably wrong more times than I am right, but I’ll tell you what I think happened.
In my days as a folklorist, I chose to deconstruct my own “faith” as a way of balancing the playing field. I didn’t feel that I could maintain any intellectual credibility with my advisors if I looked at other people’s religious traditions as man-made but viewed my own as unquestionably divine.
So while I completely agree with your point that:
“the very nature of a belief is that we have a mental attitude of asserting (with however high or low confidence) that x proposition aligns with truth”
From my experience at least, I kind of set those truth claims aside early on and looked at the way that tradition (aka “lore”) functioned in the lives of the people (aka the “folk”) who kept those traditions alive, regardless of whether those traditions were “true” or not.
(The overriding assumption in any kind of approach to folklore scholarship is that a tradition — be it oral, material, customary, etc — will be passed from person to person if there is some perceived value in it. If there is no value, it will not be passed along, and it will die. So if it is still alive, what is that value? That’s what an academically trained folklorist looks for. It is a very different approach than what you see on Mythbusters).
So that was my approach. I wanted to be able to look at the value in my own religious traditions the way a non-Mormon folklorist would look at the value in my religious traditions — the way I would look at the value in any culture’s religious traditions. So that meant stripping away, as best as I could, any excessive sensitivity towards or dependence upon the truth claims of the church.
In the end, I didn’t like having a my own deconstructed traditions scattered in pieces all around me — for a number of reasons — so I put them back together pretty much the way they are today, although I still reserve the right to rearrange them from time to time. And in doing so I have learned how much power and control (and responsibility) we ultimately have over our beliefs, which is really what this post is all about to me (the process of “make believe”) – and it is why I call them choices – (sorry if I unintentionally put anyone down with my use of the word “unfortunate” when describing depression – I think you put me in an awkward situation and I made an unfortunate word choice). But this is why my beliefs can be so soft on truth claims – because I see tremendous value elsewhere.
So why this particular brand of make believe? I think for the same reasons everyone else believes what they believe: It validates and justifies the life I want to live – the worldview I want to maintain. For example: I don’t like conviction – I like being able to change my mind – I like the idea of hope – I like the idea of eternal progression – I also sometimes like the idea of oblivion, so if that’s the case, that might not be so bad – the scripture “this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” to me is one of Mormonism’s greatest doctrinal contributions to the world — I have a lot of respect for people in the church and I think there are things I can learn from them (my new bishop is one of them, several others in my current ward, people that I home teach) — I can’t imagine that the Tower of Babel was ever real, and that doesn’t do the Book of Mormon any favors in my mind, but I’m not prepared to come right out and reject it full stop either – I don’t know what to make of the three witnesses or the reports of miracles at the Kirtland dedication, ‘cuz that seems hard to fake, although some of what they reported seeing was completely WHACK! (Tongues of fire raining from the ceiling, are you kidding me?) – so much of our church ordinances and rituals have the fingerprints of man all over them (from my perspective, at least, especially as they have evolved through time) – if there is a Jesus, I hope he’s a cool one – I think that line about “Brigham’s Jesus” was pretty dang funny, and I like coming up with lines that I think are pretty dang funny. Does that answer your prerogative question? Should I stop now?
So that’s essentially my experience. How have you come to believe what you believe? (and don’t tell me that you don’t believe anything at all — because I won’t believe you).
😉
re 18:
Glenn, your answer is intriguing, but I’m not quite sure if I fully get what you’re saying. Let me try to summarize.
As a folklorist, you can take a methodologically naturalist position with respect to various mythologies and folklores — including the Mormon ones. Because folklorists assume that traditions will be passed on if there is perceived value in it, and because traditions like Mormonism continue to be passed on, there must certainly be value within Mormonism. However, since you have assumed a methodological naturalistic stance, you must discover naturalistic causes for the value within Mormonism. (E.g., to say “it’s because God runs the church” doesn’t work unless you allow the same possibility for all the other folklores.) The truth becomes irrelevant insofar as the value of a tradition is guaranteed (because the tradition is being propagated), and there are still workable models to describe what the value is and how the value is created.
Is that on track so far?
The thing I would have to imagine though…is that the value is partially created from the belief that God *is* in charge, that prophets *do* receive revelation, that scriptures *are* inspired, that various events *did* happen. It seems to me that without this belief — whether it is true or not — the whole enterprise begins to feel more hollow. It seems to me that you’re able to take a “make believe” approach and slip in and out of the folklorist view because there are others who decidedly do *not* take that view, and their way is in fact allergic to it.
So, I don’t know how to read your “likes” and “hopes” through this lens.
I have come to believe what I believe by being persuaded to believe that that is what is most likely to be true…or by being personally convinced that those things are how things actually work or will work. It’s not that I “like” it or “hope for it” or whatever — it’s that I feel (for whatever internal reason) that x is more likely than y. In the instances where I am not persuaded, I do not believe. Not saying I don’t believe anything at all 🙂
Andrew,
I’m afraid we’re starting to bore people.
As for your folklore methodology question, I’ll give an example: I learned (through books, not actual experience, unfortunately) of a religious practice called Zikr among certain groups of Muslims. A spiritual leader beats on drums as a group of people chant and sway in rhythm until they reach what many describe as a state of spiritual ecstasy. Some describe a close communion with God; spiritual connections with each other; a cosmic connection with the universe. It was presented as a traditional practice of the lower-middle class, and something that was looked down upon by more orthodox groups. They described their experience as divine — an escape from everyday life.
Folklorists looked at this practice as functioning to create a shared identity, a sense of group unity, a common language and shared experience of the divine. All of this is what I mean by “value.” It is real and it is powerful to the people who practice it. I don’t want to put it down in any way. I want to honor and respect it.
In this example, it matters very much to the believing participant that the experience is “real” and that God is truly in the experience. However, it doesn’t matter to the folklorist. Our interest is purely academic. Maybe the ecstasy is internal and can be explained through some cognitive scientific explanation. Maybe it is external and some metaphysical religious forces truly do exist. As a folklorist, I have no investment in proving or disproving the believers’ truth claims. I only need to be open to hearing their story and observing why they do what they do and recording the experience with as little bias as I possibly can (which is nearly impossible – I can’t really escape my own biases). And in some cases, even the participants have conflicting explanations as to what is really going on. I have to be open to recording and respecting it all.
However, if I come at this with the competing truth claims of Mormonism telling me that the Zikr experience is of the devil (or that I am in the mountains while others are, say… in the foothills), because some internal logic tells me that all good things come from god and must therefore point to me, then my bias is going to be huge and it is going to stink to high heaven. That’s what I was hoping to avoid when I was a graduate student in my mid-to-late twenties.
As for the rest, I agree with you. I too believe what I believe by being persuaded by what is most likely to be true. But like I said, I don’t like conviction. So I shy away from conviction either way when I am not sure, and that’s where the make-believe model is most effectively applied. But did you just say that you base your beliefs on what you “feel?” You might want to go back and re-write that. Cuz that’s not too far from the “like” or “hope” that you seem to be so Adam Ant-ly opposed to in my model of make-believe.
And just for the record, I don’t really believe in “don’t believe.” I think belief is active — you believe things are one thing, or another, or another, etc, but I don’t really believe in the absence of belief (except, perhaps, in the case of extreme apathy, or of course in cases of ignorance/lack of awareness). So take the Tower of Babel. I am not persuaded that it really existed and that it is really responsible for the language differences in the world as the Bible and BoM claim. But I can’t say I don’t believe it. Instead, I say I believe (active belief) that it is a myth. Whole. Nuther. Can O Werms.
OK, OK, Glenn, I’ll try to wrap things up, so that the conversation can get back to interesting stuff. 😉
I don’t think I have to go back and rewrite it at all. I said what I meant.
What I think is the difference is that the church would have me believe that I can consciously choose what I like or what I hope for — and maybe I read you wrong, but I got a similar idea from your message. This I disagree with. What I’ve been trying to say throughout (but haven’t emphasized it) is that the issue I have with “make-believe” is that I would say most people do not consciously or voluntarily “make” anything about their “believe.” What they believe is not personally “made” (even if it may differ from someone else).
I don’t choose to say, “I desire to believe…therefore I will start believing.” Or “I desire to believe, therefore I will hope that x is true.”
I will clarify further. I can like something, or hope for something, but not feel that thing is true. So, I don’t think “feel” connects with “like” or “hope”. (In fact, I think the the gap between these things is cause for despair and suffering…I’m not a Buddhist, but I do think that unrealistic desires, wants and hopes are asking for disappointment.) When I say “feel,” I’m trying to point out that I recognize that belief says a lot more about me internally than it does about the world around me.
I tend to absolutely disagree that belief is active, and in more than one way than the way you say it is. First, I believe that belief is a product of several less-than-conscious mental and emotional processes…at the end of an internal assembly line logic and reasoning gates in the mind…all of which have processed all the data you have received…is a conclusion. That is the belief. If that process is…well…inconclusive, you lack a belief. You “fail to reject the null hypothesis,” rather than “accept” the null hypothesis. This unconscious process leaves the conscious me or you the passive harborer of belief, not the active determinant of it.
So, for me, if I do not believe in one thing, that does not mean that I believe in the opposite claim. Not being persuaded to believe that the Tower of Babel exists *does not* imply that I *am* positively persuaded to believe that the Tower of Babel is myth. This seems to be a false dichotomy to me. I may be positive persuaded by other data, but the fact that I am not persuaded to believe it is real is not a smoking gun data point for myth.
I think the dichotomy is “believe x” vs “not believe x,” NOT “believe x” vs. “believe not-x”
While I haven’t really been commenting, just wanted to let you know that the comments HAVE been very interesting, so please continue. I do have to slow down and read carefully to process much of what has been mentioned, but this is always a great thing and a much welcome relief from the knee-jerk comments that fill much of the internet. So, thank you.
In general, I do agree with the dichotomy is “believe x” vs “not believe x,” NOT “believe x” vs. “believe not-x” philosophy.
At the end of the day, ALL of this is based on what we “feel”. Because we are all different and unique, and because feelings are so subjective, very little of any of this is based on “fact”.
Because this is based on “feeling” and not objective “facts”, with regards to the LDS Church, I see there are 2 general ways of approaching the “belief” vs “not belief” aspect of it: hierarchal claims vs individual claims
Hierarchal claims: The logic here goes something like I know the BofM is true, therefore JS was a prophet, therefore Hinckley was a prophet, therefore two pair of earrings is bad, and Monson is a prophet, therefore the WofW means what Monson currently interpets it to mean, etc.
While this seems to be the model promoted by the Church, there are potential problems with it. What if someone gets the same feelings reading the Qu’ran as the BofM? Does the whole logic chain fall apart? What if someone finds out that JS had faults? What if someone agrees with most of what JS did, but felt he was wrong on polygamy, for example? What if someone realizes that McConkie or others were wrong sometimes? Does the “chain” fall apart? Were Hinckley’s comments about earrings his opinion or do they carry the same prophetic weight as JS talking about a plurality of Gods? How do we know?
Individual claims: In this model, claims are more individual. Someone may not accept the Towel of Babel as literally described in Ether, yet still not throw everything else out. Someone may reject polygamy as a misguided principle of man, intermingled with religion, yet still accept Monson as a prophet today. In some ways, this is a more robust model as one “crack” doesn’t bring down the whole structure. But it is at odds with the hierarchal model we teach our children when they sing, “Follow the prophet, don’t go astray, follow the prophet, he knows the way.”
Thanks for the post. You articulated what I feel on my very best of days.
On my very worst of days, however, I just shake my head and think,”How could I ever have believed this bullshit.”
#22 @MikeS,
Thanks for chiming in. I think Andrew and I might be playing that slumber party game where the last person who speaks wins. I’m going for the gold, cuz I don’t want my bra put in the freezer.
#23 @mcarp I can totally relate to those days as well, although I don’t have such a potty-mind — for shame! Get yourself a nickle jar Elder. 🙂
#21 @Andrew,
I don’t understand the leap from “active” to “null hypothesis” and “oppositionals” – I don’t see “myth” as the opposite of “real,” but, anyway – I also sorta got lost in the internal-assembly-line-logic-and-reasoning-gates metaphor. I’ll have to spend some time thinking that one over. I think you are more well read on this subject than I am, so I have some catching up to do.
That said, I think you are pretty far off on your take regarding the relationship between belief and “make.” People (and especially groups of people, through traditions, cultural institutions, etc) create, maintain, validate, and justify belief all around you every single day – consciously, unconsciously – without a doubt. Individual people also choose which traditional beliefs they will accept and which ones they will reject – which ones “make sense” to them for whatever reason, and which ones do not. Right? I must be misunderstanding what you are saying, because that seems really obvious to me, and I hope I’m not coming across as condescending – I certainly don’t mean it that way. I’m just confused…
You really think that people do not create their beliefs? You think that the beliefs you were taught as a kid are the same beliefs that you have now, and that you had no influence or control whatsoever in the way those beliefs have changed over the years? I’m sure there are a lot of reasons why beliefs change, but come on… can’t you at least imagine that some Mormon at some point had a thought process something like this:
I believe that Joseph Smith was a Prophet. Wait a minute, he married 14 year old girls and other men’s wives and told them it was for their eternal salvation and then turned around and lied to Emma about it? Yuck. I don’t like that at all. No, no. I do not believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet anymore.
I think it is obvious that we can and do consciously choose to believe. Maybe we will still disagree. OK. But I also think we choose how we will act upon the beliefs that we choose to accept or to doubt (or to put on a shelf, or whatever other metaphor you want to use).
Of course there are both natural and learned behavioral tendencies – I don’t deny that for a minute – some much stronger than others. To illustrate – in my job, I took one of those evaluation thingys a few years ago that I found to be very helpful and I ended up “believing in.” It showed me that I have certain behavioral tendencies, to varying degrees, that motivated my actions towards certain “red” qualities (competition, perfectionism, being contrary and oppositional, seeking power). There are also certain “green” qualities (avoidance – putting things off because they were uncomfortable or hard, being too conventional and following rules for the sake of rules, being too dependent on others – especially authority figures, seeking the approval of those around you). Fun sidenote – New idea for a Primary song: The Primary Colors are one-two-three: Green, green, and green.
Now all of those “red” and “green” qualities can have some benefits, and I scored high in some areas and low in others, but ultimately, these are not the most effective qualities when working with other people and getting things done, especially in leadership positions. Instead, there are “blue” behavioral categories (affiliative – being friendly, humanistic-encouraging, motivating others, self-actualizing, being positive, honest, focusing on achievement – setting goals for yourself and others, taking personal responsibility and accountability, etc). Those are the most effective qualities, proven time and time again, and those are the ones we should emulate.
The point of all this color mumbo jumbo was to make conscious choices to act more “blue” and less “red” or “green.” And after several years of putting this into practice, I can tell you that it works. I believe that it works. I’ve seen it work for me. It may not be the same for everyone. It may not be perfect. But it is how I want to live my life, both in and out of the workplace. And it is why I take the approach that I do with the church.
That belief didn’t always exist. It was created. And at some point it may fail, and be un-created, or destroyed. But for now, it is why I take public vocal responsibility for my wishy-washy testimony, even though I know that some people will tell me that I should just sit down and be quiet, or that I am somehow lacking integrity by staying in an institution that I don’t “really” believe in the way that others around me demand I should believe in it. Because I do have a belief in it – like I stated above – a made-up make-believe belief in it – a best-that-I-can-do belief that is based on many things, not the least of which is this belief that it is better to be more “blue” in my approach than to be “red” or “green.” [insert obvious Kermit reference here]
Goodnight Johnboy.
(Honk if you remember The Waltons)
re 24
Glenn,
If it appears like I’m *just* trying to avoid having my bra put in the freezer, then I’d like the disavow you of that. I can’t leave a substantial comment un-responded to. This combines with the fact that I am long-winded anyway for Death by Verbiage.
For the sake of space, I won’t explain assembly lines or logic gates unless you really want that doozy. Instead, I’ll just pick a few things that I really had reactions to:
This is a major divide. I do not believe that people *choose* which traditional beliefs they will accept and which ones they will reject BECAUSE I do NOT believe that people CHOOSE which ones “make sense” to them and which ones do not. I don’t say one day, “OK, quantum physics will make sense to me.” I either have an aptitude for it, or I will need someone to break it down for me in REALLY basic terms…but at no point am I consciously choosing for it to make sense or not. I believe this applies to all the other beliefs, and this really is what makes my worldview so different from yours, I think. When you talk about “making beliefs,” it sounds like you’re saying anyone can just “choose” to comprehend quantum physics with one simple choice.
I do not think that the beliefs I was taught as a kid are the same ones I have now…but I do not ever dare to be so audacious to say that my belief changes are because of a conscious “making” of my beliefs (To continue the physics analogy…one day I may come to understand quantum physics, but I did not come to that position as a result of consciously deciding to understand quantum physics.)
At best, I am playing roulette. (Metaphor alert!) I cannot change statistics. I can try to play the game more and hope to “game the system,” but probability is against me. I can *act* in certain ways that make it more or less likely that my beliefs will change (in the same way I can change my betting habits), but I do not consciously change the beliefs or change the very statistical framework.
I can clearly imagine this process because I know many who have gone through it. I am not disputing this process. But please note that this process has no conscious making or conscious changing of belief. A person does not consciously choose to believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. He evaluates evidence and data he has seen (passive) and a conclusion is the result (passive). The conclusion is not made. It seems obvious, natural, and apparent.
A person does not consciously choose to react “Yuck” to Joseph Smith’s exploits. Once again, this conclusion is passive. A person does not consciously choose to disbelieve in Joseph Smith’s prophetic nature after the “yuck.”
If people really could make their own beliefs, as you assert, there would be no crises of faith. A person would believe Joseph Smith is a prophet, would find out evidence about Joseph’s polygamy and then CHOOSE not to be disgusted. He would then CHOOSE not to be shaken in his testimony.
But people can’t do that! Not consciously!
Interestingly, I find that your very same example shows how it is obvious that we cannot and do not consciously choose to believe. So, I suppose we still *do* disagree.
I do agree that we can choose how we will *act* on beliefs and doubts. But this doesn’t change those beliefs and doubts. That’s why we experience cognitive dissonance, an internal uneasiness, inauthenticity, a sense that we are lying to ourselves or to others.
I believe that this process (of acting more blue, for example) is like the gambling analogy. If we gamble more, we are more likely to win more bets. But at what cost? Fortunately, in most cases, it’s not cash. But it is at cost of our emotional or mental health, because in “faking it till we make it,” we are living a lie.
To try to conclude, what I’m baffled at is not what you may think I’m baffled at. I’m not saying that you “should just sit down and be quiet.” And I am not trying to tell you that you are lacking integrity.
What I’m baffled at is why you don’t hear anything from yourself pining that you lack integrity. Because I’ll tell you…when I have tried to “make belief,” THAT is what has wracked me. The sense that I am lying to myself, denying myself, etc., The sense that I’m not being real or genuine…that I’m not making sense, that I’m not seeking sense.
Andrew,
If you reject choice and personal responsibility in the creation and maintaining of beliefs, then it does not surprise me at all that you are baffled that I do not see or hear a lack of integrity in myself. But I am telling you that I could choose agnosticism, or atheism, or choose to cling to some glimmer of hope — some “make believe” that maybe there is something out there that I just can’t quite comprehend. I am being quite open and honest about it. But anyway…
re 26:
Glenn,
I’m probably just digging myself further in the hole at this point; we probably have been speaking past each other and will continue to do so for the rest of…ever. Nevertheless, I’ll give it one last shot:
For a theist, there is at least “a glimmer of hope” perceived to act upon. For a theist, there is the suspicion that “there is something out there that [one] can’t quite comprehend” (and such can be attributed with the label “deity”) to act upon. But what I am saying is that the theist does not choose to perceive such. And theists who have stronger perceptions do not choose their stronger perceptions of such. Theists who have weaker perceptions do not choose such.
I know plenty of theists who have tried not to believe — for whatever reason. But the fact is that they *do* believe — and that was not a choice, so it cannot be a choice to change. What these people find from the dissonance is a kind of emptiness or hollowness…a lack of sense and sensibility. Living a lie or an incompleteness. They can’t choose to get rid of these things…to see the universe in a different way.
The atheist is quite different. He does not feel “empty” from not believing, because he never saw any “glimmer” from which “hope” for a God could spring in the first place. He does not feel the wherewithal to “make believe” that maybe there is something out there that he can’t quite understand (called anything divine, at least), because he doesn’t perceive such.
Instead, it is when the atheist tries to FORCE this (as he probably will be expected to…since he is likely to grow up in a church — if not the LDS church — where such belief is expected) that the world doesn’t make sense…that he despairs because what he perceives doesn’t fit with what he is told to believe. “Hope” doesn’t bring a positive longing for something which he suspects could actually be; it brings the disappointment of an expectation that is seen as unlikely to be fulfilled. Why? Because he doesn’t believe!
Maybe you’re different. Maybe you can go both ways with the flick of a switch without any adverse reactions. If so, more power to you!
But I just do not think that is the case for many, if not most people — on either side. For these, belief is not something they choose; it is something that chooses them, so to speak.
Since I’m apparently not even saying anything that even slightly rings as true to your experience, I’m going to stop here.
I’m still listening 🙂
This is terribly interesting to me. Can someone CHOOSE their beliefs? This is really the fundamental question.
Can I choose to believe that the LDS Church is true? I can choose to follow it’s principles. I can choose to “fake it until I make it”. I can choose to accept callings, etc. Unlike some other churches (not all) a fundamental part of being Mormon, however, is having a “testimony”, of being able to say that I know the Church is true, that JS was a prophet, et al.
But can we really choose this? As I’ve mentioned, I’ve been at this for over 4 decades. I still don’t KNOW that the Church is true. If I could have CHOSEN to have an answer, I certainly would have – either way, to be honest – as it would certainly simplify my life.
But I can’t choose that. I can’t force God to give be belief. I suppose it’s up to Him. But this smacks of Calvinism to me. Does God choose certain people to give an LDS “belief” to, while others He doesn’t? Is a belief in the LDS Church something we can choose to have or is it a gift from God? And back to the logic in a comment above – at what point does no answer regarding a belief in the LDS Church become the answer “no”, it’s not the path God has for me?
Mike,
If I understand Glenn correctly (which it is entirely likely that I do not), the thing is: it shouldn’t matter that you can’t force God to give you belief, because belief doesn’t come from God. As you note, if you put that in God’s hands, then you wander into Calvinistic territory. (Which, in spite of Calvinism’s abolutely abhorrent view on deity, their view on belief is a lot closer to my experience than the LDS view.)
As for the question of “no answer,” I don’t think that a “no answer” ever becomes “no, it’s not the path God has for me.”
However, I think “no answer” is significantly different than what people experience. In my experience, pursuing the church is not neutral. I know for some it’s an uplifting experience, it puts them closer to what they want to become, makes them a “better person,” so to speak, so even if they don’t have the “answer”, they *are* getting some feedback. But for me, this has not been the case. The uplifting parts of the church aren’t proprietary to the church, and the aspects that are proprietary to the church frustrate and irk me.
I’m not a doctor, but I think this is signal enough to change scenery.
#28 @Mike It sounds as though you already have a belief in God. Who gave that to you?
I don’t know the answer to all these questions. You all make really good points. I think that beliefs change over time. I think our choices definitely influence that. I don’t personally like the “fake it till you make it” approach. I hope that’s not really what my “make beleive” is all about, but maybe it is. I can respect Andrew’s approach — it hasn’t worked, change of scenery. But if it does work, or if you still want it to work, then perhaps “make believe” is a way to make it work. But now that whole ‘fake it till you make it’ thing… I don’t know… I think I’ll have to think it out again.
Glenn,
What do you think are the differences between your make believe approach and the “fake it till you make it” approach? I do not understand why you don’t personally like the latter, which probably means I really don’t understand what you’re trying to accomplish with the former.
From my perspective, “fake it till you make it” IS what happens when someone seeks to consciously change a belief. It’s not a straightforward flick of a mental switch, which necessitates the “faking it” part. The HOPE is that if one fakes it enough, one will actually start believing it (the “make it” part). I just happen to think that this is an unlikely proposition.
So I’m curious in how you would say the “make believe” approach differs.
Andrew,
Well, like I said, I certainly need to give this more thought. But perhaps — maybe — and I am just grasping at straws here (lots, really — just casting lots) — perhaps my understanding of “faking it” has always been that someone is 100% convinced that the church is *not* true but they go along with it inspite of that conviction (thuse the “faking” — it’s kind of negative and deceptive), whereas with make-believe, I’m not 100% sure, so I fill in the gaps and add the colors that I like to the grey areas (thus the “making” — it’s kind of positive and creative). Maybe. Possibly. Don’t carve that in stone or hold me to it. I still want time to think it through.
Glenn,
That’s interesting. I can sorta see what you mean, but then, at some point, I have to wonder whether most people use the term “faking it till you make it” in that sense. I don’t think most people are describing a situation where they (or someone else) is “100% convinced that the church is *not* true.” Rather, they are in the situation where they lack a testimony, but it’s not like God is telling them, “Yeah, this church is an abomination and a cult.”
The faking is their pretending to have a testimony when they do not. Because they believe that “in the bearing of a testimony, one is found,” and other such things.
I feel like at some point, you have to find the “colors that you like” to be plausible. (In other words, you aren’t CHOOSING colors; certain colors already seem most apparent, in the same way you can often guess what a gray-scale photo would look like IF it were in color) Otherwise, the gaps that you fill in, and the colors that you choose are also “faking” it…are they not?
Andrew,
I think one area where we keep diverging is when I explain my experience (or attempt to, at least) and then you extrapolate that to the masses (or attempt to, at least). Does that seem fair? I can’t really speak for anyone else’s experience — just mine. And there will be some places of convergence and some some not.
In reading your comment, a lyric from a Rolling Stone song came to my mind, “I sit and watch the children play / doing things I used to do / they think are new.” Here I thought this “make believe” thing was somehow new to me, but it is quite possibly the same old “fake it” thing that I have heard for ever. What’s the difference? Mainly it is me. My perspective. My experience. My desire for it to be one thing and not another. Time. All of the above. None of the above. Only the above that are right. Take your pick.
When I first heard the “fake it” thing, I was in TBM mode, and I heard it through very my judgmental ears, so it came to mean certain negative type things to me. It felt negative. It also came to me as if imposed upon me from the outside. The make believe, on the other hand, came more organically through my own experiences, working things out internally, trying to figure things out and find a positive value in things. It was at a different time in my life, looking at things through different eyes, without the negative stereotypes I had before.
Maybe from an outside perspective, the “fake it” and “make believe” still look remarkably the same. But from my experience, they still feel very different. And while I can appreciate the similarities, I still see a difference, at least the difference in my perspective of the two, and I think I can illustrate this in terms of “top five.”
You know how everyone seems to have their “top five?” (I think it is a survival from Friends). So say your top five is something like this, and we’re just playing at hypotheticals here: Julie Bowen, Odette Yustman, Jennifer Connelly, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and Monica Bellucci (moment of silence for a very nice hypothetical top five…..) And let’s say that every night as you fall asleep, you dream of different scenarios (hypothetically these are rated-G, although some guys may have different ways of “faking the making”) where you meet one (or more, if the rating is slightly higher) of them at an airport or a hotel while you are traveling, say in Tokyo, or Beijing, and the sparks just fly and, of course, you share the gospel with them, cuz you are just a missionary everywhere you go, and they join Church and become a your 2nd-6th wives eternally. This is your dream. So in reality, whenever you go to the airport or hotel, you keep your eyes peeled, and you have your fundamental missionary discussion memorized, just in case, cuz you never know, it could happen. That is possibly the equivalent of faking it until you are making it — I think — maybe.
It is probably even more the “fake it” case if you carry around pictures that you printed off the internet and stuck in your wallet and told friends that you actually HAVE met them and you are holding out for the day that you actually do meet them.
On the other hand, if you look at your wife and say, “hmmm, you know, she kind of has Julie Bowen’s hair, and Odette Yustman’s smile, and Jennifer Connelly’s eyes, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s chin, and Monicca Belucci’s build” and that is how you live your life, with that kind of, um, optimism — well — that is more along the lines of what I think of as “make-believe.” You don’t ever expect to “make it” with the top five, and you don’t ever really “fake it,” in that fantasy world either (honest Bishop, I don’t).
Probably not the best apples-to-apples analogy, but I hey… I did get to use Monica Bellucci and apples-to-apples in the same sentence. You got to give me some points for that.
Glenn,
I apologize for trying to generalize. It’s just that I often see statements of individual behavior as statements of human behavior (which *ought* to extrapolate to the masses.) I suppose I misinterpreted several parts of your comments and post as doing this: “let (US) agree that figurative language is essential.” This did not seem to be a statement of something that just reflected you, but an appeal to what you believe is a consensus. When you talked about making belief, you talked in terms of “we,” not in terms of “I.” You didn’t take yourself down the corridors of time. You took *us* down the corridors of time. You asked *us* if we were comfortable with this…and then stated that it is so prevalent not just in your church experience, but in *our* church experience.
This seemed to me like the sort of thing someone would say if he believed his experience were generalizable.
So, I don’t know how it is that you say you think this is new, when your previous comments and the article itself imply (and that’s just when it doesn’t state quite directly) that you believe this is something 1) “we” have the potential of doing (as human beings, maybe…) and 2) “we” *already* do (because of how Mormonism works).
I think your branding of this phenomenon (e.g., as “making belief,”) is somewhat novel, but even when distinguished from “faking it till you make it” (which I *will* concede I can see a distinction), what you describe seems…with all due respect…to be par for the liberal believer/new order Mormon course. Yet, even with such distinction, *both* seem unpalatable at best and unrealistic at worst.
Taking your top five example: no offense, but that example incredibly creeped me out. I actually think that your distinction for “Make-believe” was creepier than “fake it,” because in the former, you propose to use your wife as a conduit for your Potato Head-esque imputations of your fantasies. Now I’ll have to spend the greater part of the day wondering if you’re being facetious here, wondering if this entire thing is a joke designed to take advantage of the fact that I don’t process jokes on the internet very well…or if people (there I go, generalizing again) actually do this and find this acceptable?
What is the wife to think when she learns that her most appealing qualities are “hair that can kinda sorta be likened to Julie Bowen’s, smile that can be liked to Yustman’s, etc.,”?
I’m reminded of song lyrics as well.
“She likes me for me/ Not because I sing like Pavarotti/ Or because I’m such a hottie/ I like her for her/ Not because she’s phat like Cindy Crawford/ She has got so much to offer/ Why does she waste all her time with me/ There must be something there that I don’t see”
Andrew,
I laughed out loud five (and a half) times while reading your response. What does that tell you?
SInce you are so good at picking apart all of my so-called tricks, I’ll let you in on another secret (maybe not as secret a secret as I think) — the “we” and “us” and “our” in the blog post are all simply rhetorical devices — all part of the figurative language (but most of this, I would argue, is first person “I” experience: “familiar to me” “my Jesus” “my new found make-believe faith,” etc, written to all of YOU. — an invitation to generalize? — well, OK — I certainly asked for feedback and I do enjoy the conversation).
But, you know, even the mention of “figurative language” itself was quite a stretch and contrivance right from the beginning — not even part of my original concept of “make believe”. See, I wrote this blog post based on a song that I wrote a few years ago, and I knew I wanted to end this piece with the line about the “feeling with the heart (figuratively speaking, of course)” ‘cuz — I don’t know — ‘cuz I just liked it — it can be interpreted many different ways, and that appeal to me. So then I had to go back to the intro and find a way to force something in there to set that all up — and there’s the paragraph about figurative writing and valentines day whatever. It doesn’t really fit — but I made it fit. It’s just part of writing. It’s all a contrivance. A game. A sport. A lark. Fun. Exploration of thought. Of themes. Of ideas. Imperfect. Flawed. Works in progress. I haven’t got it all figured out yet (clearly, as you keep showing me…) 🙂
And yeah, the top five was tongue-in-cheek (the rated PG version, at least), but I’m glad it creeped you out. Imagine if I had gone with Emma Watson.
And also, that disappearing handkerchief trick — fake thumb.
We all have our personal biases and experiences. According to the gospel of “me”, I see these as the following:
– Fake It ‘Til You Make It:
This is someone who “wants” to believe, and may have a glimmer of hope in there somewhere. This is someone who is hopeful that if they are faithful and go through the motions (ie. do their part) that they will someday be blessed by God with a confirmation that that was right. (Note: this is different than just “fake it” as the “til you make it” part gives hope)
– Make-believe:
I picture this as something fairly benign, like a belief in Santa Claus, that perhaps might actually have some good. Someone might think it’s all make-believe, but goes through the motions for the sake of family or comfort or some other reason. While they may not truly “believe”, they accept the good and are willing to go along with it because of that.
– Fake it:
“Fake it” WITHOUT the following “’til you make it” should actually be considered separately IMO. This is someone who absolutely doesn’t believe and isn’t doing it in hopes that they may someday believe. This is the hypocrite that Christ talked about, who says one thing but does another. This is the least honest of the approaches.
Glenn,
Glenn,
I definitely try to integrate humor into every comment and sunshine into every soul.
I’ll counter your revelation of a secret with a dissection of the revelation: the reason WHY “we” and “our” work as rhetorical devices is because WE want to argue that others are like US and WE are like others. The rhetorical purpose is, “See, you and I are not so different…so listen to MY argument, and find commonalities to your experience. Consider that MY argument is also YOUR argument as well.”
That’s great. But if you use a rhetorical device, you do so to support a point. (Namely, the generalizability of your case to the audience.) If that is not the point you wish to make, then you ought not use rhetorical devices that are at ends with your message.
I don’t know what to think about the ever-unfolding revelation that everything you’ve written is not what it appears to be. I don’t know whether I should be relieved that this idea of “making belief” is a paper tiger, embarrassed that I was deceived and got a paper cut from petting it, or cautious of being deceived again (since apparently, your words are not trustworthy…they are “make believe” representations of whatever the hell you want them to be.)
Mike,
Good point in distinguishing “FITYMI” from just faking it, based on the aspect of hope.
But I’m confused about your distinction between FITYMI and MB. So, is the difference that someone who FITYMI eventually hopes to become faithful (e.g., have a confirmational experience), but the MB-er does not have that hope? If so, then what’s the difference between MB and Fake it?
Andrew S:
FITYMI vs MB: FITYMI is hope. It is someone who takes Church leaders’ teachings to heart, where if they bear their testimony enough they will eventually have a testimony. There is at least a glimmer of faith in there. MB is benign disbelief. It might be someone who doesn’t believe and doesn’t really expect to believe, but still accepts the good.
It’s kind of like Santa Claus. FITYMI is someone who has never seen Santa, but still hopes he’s there, and hopes that if he’s good enough that someday he’ll see Santa. MB accepts that there’s not a Santa, but still thinks the idea of Santa promotes enough good, that it’s still ok too.
MB vs FI: As above, MB is benign. It doesn’t necessarily believe, but accepts the good. FI doesn’t believe, but puts up a front of “belief” to achieve some ulterior motive.
Back to Santa. MB might talk about Santa to kids to emphasize giving, love, etc. FI may profess a pure belief in Santa because they run a Christmas shop and need to appear like believers to have cred.
In a Church setting:
FITYMI: This person wants to believe, is willing to follow all the “requirements”, and will act like a believer to hopefully get that answer.
MB: This person doesn’t really believe. They, too are willing to follow all the rules, however, as they think the Church is a good place to raise their kids, keep family harmony, etc.
FI: This person also doesn’t believe. Regardless of what they do in private, they look like an absolute believer, but only for an ulterior motive. They may sell Church trips to Central America. They may be looking for investors for some company. They may be a law firm that does business for the church. They may not believe at all, but fake it to make money or be on the “in crowd”.
This could be totally out there, but that’s how I see it.
Andrew,
Sorry I lost your trust, brother. Not sure how it happened (maybe I should have stopped at frozen bra?). I told you upfront I was make-believe, wishy-washy, that I don’t have all the answers and that I’m trying to figure this out as I go along. But I do hope you do trust this — I completely value the conversation. Thanks man. It has been challenging and fun.
Mike S,
The distinctions make sense to me. I just fear there are gray areas. For example, what if a person wants to make believe to keep the family together (so that’s a good thing), but does not believe the church is good for raising children, etc., But they need to be on the “in crowd” for the family to stick together.
re 42:
Glenn,
I can’t trust that you value anything. Your words don’t have any consistent meaning that I can discern.
Andrew,
Sure you can. I told you that I do, and I meant it. I have been open from the beginning. You can choose to trust it or not — to belive me when I say I value our exchange or not. Of course, if I understand you right (questionable) you think belief such as this is not a choice. But I beg to differ.