Re: Santa, myths, religion, and god…

[MerrieMiss]

Some thoughts I've had and never got around to posting, but Linked's post about the Tooth Fairy changed my mind.

About eighteen months ago at a Meetup I met a woman, my age, same number of kids, same ages. She was the first person I ever told I was an unbelieving Mormon. She told me she was an atheist and did not play Santa in celebration of Christmas.

When asked why and here was her reason: She was told Santa was true as a child. When she questioned her mother, her mother lied and told her Santa was real and doubled down, making intricate explanations, situations, etc. to prove Santa was real. This woman was quite old when she came to terms that Santa was not real and that her mother lied to her. She was hurt and refuses to allow her children that same hurt.

I told her my experience: My parents played Santa with me. I figured it out on my own, kept it to myself for a time all while gathering evidence, finally approached my parents who confirmed I was right, Santa wasn’t real, and I continued to play for the benefit of my younger siblings. I felt no harm in the game. My parents didn’t go to great lengths to push the Santa myth, and when confronted, they told the truth. I fell absolutely no harm was done to me because Santa left me presents as a child. The woman told me that had her parents approached it like mine did, she may not have such negative feelings toward Santa, but she has a lot of hurt and anger and therefore refuses to play Santa at Christmas.

I’ve thought about this a lot. Much has been said equating belief in Santa and religion/god, and I have to admit, that finding out the truth about the church isn’t what hurt – it was being lied to. Had I asked some questions, confided my doubt, asked someone (parents, leaders, church authorities) and been given the truth, I’m not sure that I would have been so upset about finding out the truth about Mormonism. Had I been treated more like I graduated from being a child and was ready to move to adulthood I think I could have felt like there was a place for me and to stick around. But in Mormonism, one is perpetually a child.

Theoretically, I’m trying to raise my kids the way my parents played Santa with me. I don’t see a lot of harm in letting kids go to church, teaching them about god. I want them to know the bible – I think it is an important literary work and the basis of western thought/ideology. But when they come to me and ask questions, I want to give them the truth, even if that truth is: I don’t know, I don’t have it figured out yet, let’s figure it out or discuss it together.

When my child comes to me and asks if Jesus really walked on water*, I want to be able to say, “What do you think?” I want to start a dialogue about why people would want to believe in a miracle like that, to explain why people today believe it is true. How the myth behind it can be true or contain truth, but not be historically or physically factual.

I say theoretically I am trying to do this, because the indoctrination I received runs deep. My initial and emotional reaction is to repel everything I was ever told, taught, believed and to throw it all away. I do believe that young children are much brighter than we give them credit for. There will come a day when naturally they will wonder, ask questions, doubt. I have to remember that the stories we tell have a basis for teaching truth.

I think the big problem with the way we teach religion/god/spirituality within Mormonism (and within other denominations as well) is that we teach it as the absolute truth and not a stepping stone or a path to find or explore truth. The way we teach religion is for children. We need to grow up and move past it. I know that to a lot of people (at church) that makes me uppity. I prefer to think that I’ve matured and moved beyond the stories and am ready to progress into what the stories mean and what they represent.

Anyway, a lot of rambling about things I think about. The short version is this: I consider myself a believer in the power of myth and I want my kids to learn and understand stories and the power and truth they contain in order to understand the world and themselves. If the church could teach this way, I’d have no problem staying in.


*I only use this as an example because my six-year old and I were reading a book about water, surface tension, and how some insects can walk on water. “Can a cat walk on water? A person?” I asked. My kid laughed. “No! That would be silly.” So we’ll see what happens when they’re taught something different in Primary.

[MoPag]

Great post. I love this idea of focusing on the truth contained in the myth rather than the myth as truth.

I also agree with the literary importance of teaching the bible. I remember studying British literature in college and thinking I would have missed so many things if I didn't have a solid foundation of the bible. Thank you early morning seminary!

[Corsair]

The short version is this: I consider myself a believer in the power of myth and I want my kids to learn and understand stories and the power and truth they contain in order to understand the world and themselves. If the church could teach this way, I’d have no problem staying in.

I'm with you on allowing small children to believe in Santa Claus then letting them in on the secret when they figure it out. My children came to enjoy the arguably better secret that they get inducted into the club of playing Satan Claus to younger siblings and cousins. This changes Santa into a role that is played be people helping younger children to learn about giving.

How could the LDS church incorporate this? Have their been any churches that encourage critical inquiry and allow non-literal myth to inspire themselves and other church members? Would the LDS church be able to function if enough people continued to attend church but did not believe things literally?

This almost sounds like merging the LDS church with Unitarians. Perhaps this would work better like the model of Orthodox Jews and Reform Jews. I imagine there would be enormous clashes between different types of believers.

[deacon blues]

Wonderful post Corsair. I would probably be happy in the LDS church if it were more accepting of alternate explanations of the way God works, instead of the narrow, God of keys, literal flood, literal fall, evolution is Satan inspired lies, polygamy is God ordained, party line they follow. I think the church would rather lose people like me than the literalists. Probably because the leadership selection process favors literalists. And their big problem, as I see it, is they would rather lie (carefully worded denials) to defend their literalism, than promote an honest search for truth.

[Linked]

Good thread MerrieMiss, thanks for posting. Your story about the woman from the meetup sounds about right to me, if a child feels like their parents are being deceitful to trick them into believing in Santa then they probably won't like Santa. Although, there are probably people who wouldn't like Santa no matter what. Scrooges.

With the church the betrayal is so complex. Most of the people who actually taught us the lies fully believed them, so it wouldn't make sense to be too angry with them. At the top they probably know the historical lies, but may still fully believe in Mormon God and Truth, which leads to an ends justify the means view of correlated lying. This is less defensible, as they are lying and they know it. And we don't really know if Joseph Smith was the worst of his story or maybe he was actually trying to do good some of the time, so can we just paint him as pure evil? I feel like I need to figure my own feelings out here before I change how I raise my kids, so I don't jump from a frying pan into a fire.

I want them to know the bible – I think it is an important literary work and the basis of western thought/ideology.

I agree. I love that when I watch Jeopardy I always kill the bible categories. And few bible references go over my head in pop culture. Though I would not say that the bible is THE basis of western thought/ideology. Christianity added an important piece of western thought with charity for charity's sake. But western thought is deeper than that. (I only say this because I have been diving into it lately, and it is fascinating to see the different and often contradictory ideologies that western society holds to all at the same time)

I think the big problem with the way we teach religion/god/spirituality within Mormonism (and within other denominations as well) is that we teach it as the absolute truth and not a stepping stone or a path to find or explore truth. The way we teach religion is for children. We need to grow up and move past it. I know that to a lot of people (at church) that makes me uppity. I prefer to think that I’ve matured and moved beyond the stories and am ready to progress into what the stories mean and what they represent.

This reminds me of the great TV universes created to explore humanity from a different angle. If we treated religion more like Star Trek it would be more palatable. Star Trek gives you a way to consider how you can treat "others" more humanely. Maybe if we considered it like The Walking Dead it would help, so we can evaluate how we ought to act when everything goes downhill. Or Superman to show how we ought to act when we are stronger than others, or weaker. But we get genocide when the Israelites return to Israel and find "others" there, and we are supposed to take it as reality and morally right. We get Job telling us to worship no matter what, family be dam%ed. Jesus and Superman are pretty comparable, though we aren't asked to believe Superman really turned back time by flying backward around the earth.

[deacon blues]

The Book of Job is a great example of a myth that gets treated very oddly by many Mormons. As missionaries we only used it to proof text. In Gospel Doctrine class discussion tends to treat it so literally that I suspect many people think God and Satan have a weekly lunch date. Because "we have to get through the O.T. in a year, it is skimmed over in favor of a GA talk on adversity.

[MerrieMiss]

Though I would not say that the bible is THE basis of western thought/ideology. Christianity added an important piece of western thought with charity for charity's sake. But western thought is deeper than that. (I only say this because I have been diving into it lately, and it is fascinating to see the different and often contradictory ideologies that western society holds to all at the same time)

I completely agree. I still think it's important, and perhaps more fundamental to literature. For the brief time that I taught literature, I told my students that if they have a fundamental understanding of Shakespeare and the Bible, they pretty much had a good basis of the western canon. Like MoPag, I loved my bible lit class in college and thought it was a breeze. I've always loved the OT. I still do, which makes a lot of people uncomfortable. It's the only scripture I still read out of choice. Ecclesiastes is a personal favorite. I've never felt the same way about the Book of Mormon.

This reminds me of the great TV universes created to explore humanity from a different angle. If we treated religion more like Star Trek it would be more palatable. Star Trek gives you a way to consider how you can treat "others" more humanely. Maybe if we considered it like The Walking Dead it would help, so we can evaluate how we ought to act when everything goes downhill. Or Superman to show how we ought to act when we are stronger than others, or weaker. But we get genocide when the Israelites return to Israel and find "others" there, and we are supposed to take it as reality and morally right. We get Job telling us to worship no matter what, family be dam%ed. Jesus and Superman are pretty comparable, though we aren't asked to believe Superman really turned back time by flying backward around the earth.

So, this is where it really comes dow to the fact that we do have modern myths. I'm a Jospeh Campbell fan, and maybe sometime I'll make a post on his works. I was recently listening to a podcast by an editor who said that the thriller genre is the contemporary genre because it speaks to us in very fundamental ways regarding our modern world. I'll have to dig out the quote. But I believe stories are an integral part of what it is to be human and they are one of the ways through which we work out our fears, hopes, thoughts, etc.

I'm with you on allowing small children to believe in Santa Claus then letting them in on the secret when they figure it out. My children came to enjoy the arguably better secret that they get inducted into the club of playing Satan Claus to younger siblings and cousins. This changes Santa into a role that is played be people helping younger children to learn about giving.

I think this could be a very powerful force within a church if it were permitted, more a mentorship/guidance toward wisdom with active participants on both ends.

How could the LDS church incorporate this? Have their been any churches that encourage critical inquiry and allow non-literal myth to inspire themselves and other church members? Would the LDS church be able to function if enough people continued to attend church but did not believe things literally?

This almost sounds like merging the LDS church with Unitarians. Perhaps this would work better like the model of Orthodox Jews and Reform Jews. I imagine there would be enormous clashes between different types of believers.

I don't think the church can do this. It's too fundamental, and explains why I am drawn to the UU. Last year I found a website by a philosophy professor which is now gone (much like Nom 1.0), where he states as an atheist he makes certain his kids participate in religion; the catch is, he's jewish and I just don't see it translating to Mormonism well at all. As it is, I am stuck within the American Religious Myth that is Mormonism, and I can teach it however I like to my children in my home. I don't see the church appreciating this, but it's the best I can manage for my family.

The Book of Job is a great example of a myth that gets treated very oddly by many Mormons. As missionaries we only used it to proof text. In Gospel Doctrine class discussion tends to treat it so literally that I suspect many people think God and Satan have a weekly lunch date. Because "we have to get through the O.T. in a year, it is skimmed over in favor of a GA talk on adversity.

It's so common in Mormonism to take scripture completely out of context. Job is a beautiful story. Jonah is my favorite but the only part focused upon is him being swallowed by a fish. In my opinion, the real story comes later.