Hyperliteralism

[_Runtu]

One of juliann's mantras is that critics fail to adapt their beliefs to new discoveries. Hence the thread about how we never admit to being wrong.

But I've noticed an interesting phenomenon. More than a couple of people over on MAD insist on a hyperliteral approach to the church and its teachings. One guy has insisted that evolution is wrong because the scriptures teach against it and God has told him it isn't true. Another guy insists that the temple endowment is a literal restoration of ancient ritual.

As a believer, I would have identified more with people like katherine the great, who see things less literally and more allegorically. I find it fascinating that she's being criticized for unbelief because she won't go along with such hyperliteralism.

I guess I never noticed the literalist, dogmatic crowd (well, except folks like Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce McConkie). Lately they seem to be coming out of the woodwork.

[_The Nehor]

One of juliann's mantras is that critics fail to adapt their beliefs to new discoveries. Hence the thread about how we never admit to being wrong.

But I've noticed an interesting phenomenon. More than a couple of people over on MAD insist on a hyperliteral approach to the church and its teachings. One guy has insisted that evolution is wrong because the scriptures teach against it and God has told him it isn't true. Another guy insists that the temple endowment is a literal restoration of ancient ritual.

As a believer, I would have identified more with people like katherine the great, who see things less literally and more allegorically. I find it fascinating that she's being criticized for unbelief because she won't go along with such hyperliteralism.

I guess I never noticed the literalist, dogmatic crowd (well, except folks like Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce McConkie). Lately they seem to be coming out of the woodwork.

Both groups coexist in a generally happy way. Occasionally you'll get a dogmatic git who sees Mormon Doctrine as the personal opinion of Jesus Christ and can't bear that anyone think anything different. They generally lose their hair and have a desperate look about them.

[_Runtu]

Both groups coexist in a generally happy way. Occasionally you'll get a dogmatic git who sees Mormon Doctrine as the personal opinion of Jesus Christ and can't bear that anyone think anything different. They generally lose their hair and have a desperate look about them.

Are you losing your hair, Nehor? ;)

Seriously, it's just interesting to see people act like believers must have a certain degree of orthodoxy (usually hyperorthodoxy) to be accepted as "faithful."

[_The Nehor]

Are you losing your hair, Nehor? ;)

Seriously, it's just interesting to see people act like believers must have a certain degree of orthodoxy (usually hyperorthodoxy) to be accepted as "faithful."

My hair has thinned a little but it's not really noticeable :( BOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

As my Second Mission President said (paraphrased): "You should have taken a class with me back when I was in my 20's and 30's. I knew everything. Now I know that Jesus is the Christ and a few other things."

[_Runtu]

My hair has thinned a little but it's not really noticeable :( BOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

As my Second Mission President said (paraphrased): "You should have taken a class with me back when I was in my 20's and 30's. I knew everything. Now I know that Jesus is the Christ and a few other things."

That's kind of my impression, that these hyperliteralists are youngsters.

[_The Nehor]

That's kind of my impression, that these hyperliteralists are youngsters.

In my experience they're either young or they're older McConkie-ites. Hyperliteralists tend to be young because novices seem to always go overboard and exaggerate. I went through a phase of pretty hard-core literalism. I suspect most LDS people do. Missions are full of these people.

[_Mercury]

I guess I never noticed the literalist, dogmatic crowd (well, except folks like Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce McConkie). Lately they seem to be coming out of the woodwork.

As the church falls further into decline this will become more common.

[_NorthboundZax]

I guess I never noticed the literalist, dogmatic crowd (well, except folks like Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce McConkie). Lately they seem to be coming out of the woodwork.

I think that just speaks to what MAD has become. As MAD continues to purge critical views (in the name of apologetics!), the dogmatic one has much more room to flourish. On one of my last lurkings on MAD, there was someone going on about all the evidence for the Book of Mormon and Lamanites he learned on his mission to somewhere in South America. Like for instance Quetzacoatl was a white bearded, blah, blah, blah. This stuff is just less challenged now and it feeds on itself. I find it telling that despite Juliann's and others' insistence that the hyperliteral approach is taken only by critics, pretty much only KtG tries to debunk this kind of nonsense as it crops up.