Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is Mormonism a load of nonsense?
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Mad Geo: Hmmmm, where shall we begin? How about something foundational to Christian (and Anglican if I am not mistaken) belief: How about Jesus birth prophecy.
Actually, I don't see that prophecy as foundational at all--maybe some Christians do, but I'm not sure I've ever met one. If Isaiah was talking about something else, and Matthew was just stretching to fit Jesus into the OT tradition for his Jewish audience...well, whatever--it doesn't affect my ideas about who Jesus is one way or the other, and never has, really.
Viewed purely through a secular, historiographical lens, the Bible and the BOM are not comparable as sources. Figbash summed it up nicely.
-------------------- When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. - C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oreophagite
Shipmate
# 10534
|
Posted
The Western mystery tradition (and at least some of the eastern traditions) tells us that there is our own world that we perceive with our 5 senses, and that there's also another realm that can be visited by meditation, contemplative prayer, lucid dreaming, astral projection, or whatever you want to call it.
I'm told that the latter world has its own native life, and that some of these folks like to play practical jokes (or even mean tricks) on neophyte travelers from our own realm.
Thus, the traveler ought to have substantial spiritual preparation to enter the other realm, and to discern the "masters" from the deceivers. This is a major plot-line in Wagner's Parsifal.
There also needs to be a competent spiritual director for debriefing.
From reading Joseph Smith's account of his first vision, I would speculate that he somehow learned how to enter that other realm, and ran across some astral wildlife who told him some of the things that he later wrote down. Furthermore, one's own dreams and fantasies can come alive in that realm, and I would speculate that this contributed to it. Lastly, on awakening, a newbie doesn't remember all the things said and done during the journey. I would guess that he consciously or subconsciously filled in the memory gaps.
I would further venture that he taught his friends how to project (a big no-no unless you know exactly what you're doing), and that they had similar astral experiences of a magnitude that led them to believe that he was a prophet, and that they were also big-shots.
Lastly, I would guess that subsequent high-level LDS leaders learned how to make the journey with proper discernment skills, and have been going nuts for 100 years, trying to figure out how to repair the damage done by Smith and his early followers.
Complete speculation on my part, of course. Still, I'll bet that there are bits and pieces of Truth to be found lurking in Mormonism. It could be that they're better off than some of the modern American Progressive Episcopalians.
Posts: 247 | From: The Klipoth | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Okay, Mad Geo, here you go:
If I told you that I saw a ghost when I was at the cinema last week, what would your response be?
You don't believe in ghosts, so you'd dismiss what I said as a lie.
Someone else might be more open minded to the possibility of the existence of ghosts, but might still skeptical. They'd have no way of knowing whether I saw it, but they could at least look into my story to see if it's trustworthy. They might see if the film I said I saw was actually on on that day, whether anyone saw me there, whether anyone else saw the ghost. If the mundane parts of my story don't add up, then they can probably dismiss the ghost part as well. If they do, then, although it's no proof that the ghost was there, the fact that the rest of my story held up means that they might entertain the notion that I was telling the truth, especially if they can find no motive that I had to lie. Perhaps they might go to the cinema to see if they can see the ghost for themselves.
This is the difference between Mormonism and Christianity for me. Not just quantitative, but qualitative. The mundane parts of Christianity do add up. The mundane parts of Mormonism don't. I don't discount Mormonism because of the Angel, the fact that Jesus might have teleported to America post-death, or any of the other supernatural stuff. I believe God exists, so I am not surprised by the existence of supernatural phenomenon, although some of the aspects of the supernatural side of the Mormon story make me suspicious. I discount it because other people have translated the Book of Abraham for what it is, the issues on horses and steel, the genetic makeup of Native Americans, and the suspicions of plagiarism.
So Mormonism isn't just a bit wackier than Christianity, it's falls into a completely different category.
-------------------- "Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure: Actually, I don't see that prophecy as foundational at all--maybe some Christians do, but I'm not sure I've ever met one. If Isaiah was talking about something else, and Matthew was just stretching to fit Jesus into the OT tradition for his Jewish audience...well, whatever--it doesn't affect my ideas about who Jesus is one way or the other, and never has, really.
Not to single you out, but this is SO typical. Anything that is ever brought up in these kinds of discussions is excused away by "Oh that is someone ELSE's Christian Church" or "Oh, I don't believe that aspect of Christian belief, that is for those OTHER guys, and so on".
The point is that Christian groups have played that game over the centuries. Moving shit around to hide information. Actually killing off competing viewpoints. Erasing history, or conveniently having it erase itself given the time involved etc.
The bottom line (to me) is that the Mormen are YOU 2000 years ago. THEY exclude the things from THEIR religion as individuals. They try to shine on the history. Some might even believe it. The point is that it's FAITH, even the historical bits.
People on this thread can keep moving the goal posts, excluding this, adding that, writing things off as not in THEIR flavor of religion, whatever. It doesn't matter. In order to criticize the Mormen you invariably will end up criticizing yourself. It's religious hypocrisy. You/we are no better than they. You/we are only DIFFERENT.
As an aside, the line somedude said about judging not lest you be judged just RINGS through this thread. quote:
Viewed purely through a secular, historiographical lens, the Bible and the BOM are not comparable as sources. Figbash summed it up nicely.
With all due respect, as viewed through a "secular, historiographical lens," the Bible and the BOM are BOTH completely shot through with bovine scatology. That's the POINT.
Secularists/historian's love the literature of the bible, on a good day. The ones I know make NO bones about it being a cute piece of mythological fiction, historiographically or otherwise.
-------------------- Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
You know, Mad Geo, you really sound like a recent convert to Atheism who doesn't want to admit to their shameful roots.
One last try, and then I give up.
Yes, the Bible has problems. For instance, much of the Deuteronomic history is dubious in the extreme. But then, one doesn't need to believe in the book of Joshua as history in order to accept Christ's message.
The problem with Mormonism is simply that the validity of the BOM (let alone the other writings) is predicated on any number of testable hypotheses. Which include its basic premise: that there were these peoples in the Americas in antiquity. That is provably false. A comparable problem would be if it was provable that there was no nation of Israelites in Palestine in the first millenium BC.
And then there's the fact that in the case of the Book of Abraham, Smith's rendition of the Egyptian text is demonstrably false. Nobody can say that translations of the Bible. Slanted, yes. Small errors, yes. But fabricated from whole cloth? No.
Thus though there are issues with the veracity of the Bible, it is not plagued by the basic problems that affect the BOM. To borrow your refrain, in 2000 years it will still be the case that the BOM is predicated on a falsehood, while the OT is a polemical 'history' (written at a time when people didn't have our understanding of history anyway, so saying what ought to be true was OK) and the NT, though containing some clearly 'miraculous' events, is more or less compatible with what we know of the history of the time.
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Figbash: The problem with Mormonism is simply that the validity of the BOM (let alone the other writings) is predicated on any number of testable hypotheses. Which include its basic premise: that there were these peoples in the Americas in antiquity. That is provably false. A comparable problem would be if it was provable that there was no nation of Israelites in Palestine in the first millenium BC.
Depends who you look to for evidence doesn't it? It was only a few years ago that it was a death knell to funding if an archeologist in the US dared claim that the area was inhabited pre the peer reviewed conclusion that the natives arrived from the North from Siberia around ten thousand years ago, one man digging further down found evidence of people 13,000 plus years with different tools and no one wanted to know, and so it goes on. Now it's accepted, entrenched archeologists in the old view are nearing retirement or something, anyway, there were settled folk there and latest research from tools used puts their origin in France. Then of course, there's the Hopis who say they first came into the South some 22,000 years ago gradually making their way into the North.
And if mamoths = elephants, then there were plenty around.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Mad Geo: The point is that Christian groups have played that game over the centuries. Moving shit around to hide information. Actually killing off competing viewpoints. Erasing history, or conveniently having it erase itself given the time involved etc.
[CITATION NEEDED]
Funny how the ancient sources who would have had access to all that mysterious knowledge the Christians destroyed or erased, don't seem to have used it as a weapon against Christianity.
P.S. You might want to tell the Jews that we managed to hax their sacred books and convince them to used the haxed versions for two thousand years. It is only polite.
-------------------- Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us? Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir! Mal: Ain't we just? — Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Mad Geo
An honest approach to evidence (as opposed to a dogmatic insistence on received wisdom) is a virtue in any walk of life. Even theology. Don't think it leads to Christianity becoming an "empty category" - we might differ on that. It's led me to the personal conclusion that Fundamentalism is fundamentally incoherent - but I've believed that for 25 years or more.
-------------------- Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Has anyone advised Merlin the Mad that this thread is on?
The best online resource on Mormonism is Utah Lighthouse Ministry. They're debunkers, but they debunk in a spirit of genuine love.
Ross
-------------------- I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Figbash: ....Back to Mormonism
Finally, note to MadGeo: I think that Mormonism is actually considerably wackier than Christianity simply because, as I have already said, Christianity doesn't actually make claims that can be disproved. It may offend against reason, but it doesn't offend against history / archaeology / you name it like Mormonism does.
I'll dive in here.
You want a Mormon, here I am. No longer a believing sort, but actively attending church as a family solidarity thing. And, the good part is, I study the church in depth; its history, doctrines, culture, etc. I have lived in Salt Lake city all my life (over half a century) and there has never been a time that I was "inactive" in the church: I currently hold a temple recommend (means, I can go into a temple anytime I want to, even though I don't want to, except for the occasional family milestone).
In short, gents and ladies, I am qualified to speak on the subject, and I can answer (I estimate) 90% plus of your questions about Mormons and their religion.
The observations of some on this thread, that the passage of time is the only significant difference between Mormonism and Christianity, is very true. I have observed many times elsewhere, that studying Mormon history is like looking closely at the early centuries of Christianity: and Christianity is like established paganism back then: that is to say, it is the "state" religion, and Mormonism is like the new religion that is growing in its midst. The kind of claims about Mormonism, being whacky and impossible to believe, were exactly the same things said about Christians in the Mediterranean world back in the day.
Also, the claims that the Book of Mormon is disproven, or that archeology has disproven it, are unfounded; simply because what is known so far about ancient America is not remotely close to most of what there is yet to know: and as TBM's (truly believing Mormons) will tell you, much that is yet to be discovered might very well vindicate many of the "difficult bits" (like metals and horses). As for the "missing cities", no they aren't: Mormon "archeology" looks at MesoAmerica as the most likely spot where BofM history took place (in spite of specific statements by Joseph Smith, that the entire Western hemisphere encompasses the land masses spoken of): and therefore many cities and ancient ruins are available for further discovery and study. That no specific named spot in the BofM has been irrefutably located is only a problem if the research is over, and it isn't by a long shot. So Mormons can believe in their "Mormon Bible" with the same faith that Christians hold for the "word of God". It is a matter of faith first, empirical evidence second.
Joseph Smith's visions: yes, these are no more problematic than visions claimed by anyone in any other denom, going all the way back to Adam. You can't get Mormons on the basis of visions: but as Grant H. Palmer said, these ARE a problem within the church itself because they are commonly accepted as having been empirically true: Palmer says rightly that visions and revelations are all metaphysical experiences, and we ought to not imagine them to have physical, empirical veracity, i.e. they are not experiences that can be examined scientifically, at, all.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
OK, MG, you're a Buddhist. Does the fact that the life of the Buddha as we have received it is almost certainly pure myth (and the stories about all his previous lives pure myth in spades) affect your belief? How about the fact that the sutras were certainly written centuries after the fact by followers and can't be considered to contain the actual words spoken by Gautama? You expect me to believe that someone actually meditated for 49 days straight? Bovine scatology, indeed....
Your failure (or refusal) to grasp the basics of historical method is staggering. The Bible is a collection of polemical works pushing particular points of view. The different books agree about some things, not about others. They are certainly not history as we understand it today. Nevertheless, they do provide information about what people in those times believed had happened (and why). On the whole, they are probably about as reliable as most contemporary accounts. Which is to say, not very, by modern standards--but by careful analysis and comparison it is possible to make reasonable inferences about life in Israel and the biographies of some individuals (including Jesus).
(For comparison, you might read some of the 11th and 12th century accounts of the Norman Conquest, and try to figure out who's telling the truth.)
The BOM, on the other hand, provides no information about anything except Joseph Smith's imagination.
The theological claims may be equally improbable; the historical claims are not even in the same ballpark. And for Mormonism, the theological claims rest entirely on Joseph Smith's claim to be a true prophet--which he clearly wasn't, since he made so many demonstrably false assertions. The various writers of the NT said some things that are broadly consistent with other sources and each other, some things that can't be verified, and some things that are contradicted by other sources (including other parts of the NT). The parts that are critical to the theology are pretty much unverifiable (like the resurrection, which I'll grant you is almost--not quite, because there are secondhand reports of people who claimed to have witnessed it--as unverifiable as Smith's story about the origins of Satan or his scheme of levels of heaven, etc.) But that does not make the books equivalent as historical sources. You really should learn something about social science methodology before you shoot off your mouth like this.
-------------------- When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. - C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Oreophagite: ....I would further venture that he taught his friends how to project (a big no-no unless you know exactly what you're doing), and that they had similar astral experiences of a magnitude that led them to believe that he was a prophet, and that they were also big-shots. ...
Here's the fact of the visions matter: all the Witnesses to the BofM, and to Jesus Christ and other heavenly beings as messengers, were only able to receive such in Joseph Smith's presence. He was the common denominator.
What that means is debatable. His detractors either refer to him as little better than an imbecile, or some kind of mystic with powers of of impression over one or more people at a time.
For instance, the Three Witnesses to the BofM: first, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer "saw and heard" the angel, revealing the Gold Plates, etc. Martin Harris had gone off into the woods by himself, because the vision promised by Joseph Smith wasn't happening, and he was afraid his lack of faith was holding the others back. Joseph Smith, after the vision witnessed by the first two, went and found Harris praying fervently alone for strength. Joseph Smith told Harris that a vision had just been seen by all three of them. Encouraged, Harris and Smith prayed together, and at once Harris saw, he always claimed later, a vision open up; and at once he said, "It is enough, I have seen, I have seen!" Later, also, he told listeners that not just his physical eyes, but his spiritual eyes had seen the vision; and sometimes he said flat out that he had only seen spiritually; but he always said also that it was as real or more real than physical sight.
Obviously, Joseph Smith had a strong metaphysical capability; and in his presence, others did also at times.
Equally obvious, is the fact that the "testimony" of the Three Witnesses, and the Eight Witnesses, is actually no such thing; but rather their signatures came at the bottom of a single document for the Three, and another single document for the Eight, written by Joseph Smith himself.
In other words, it would seem reasonable that if individuals, in number no less than eleven, were presenting their written testimonies to the world of what they had seen and heard in vision, that there might be as many as eleven such documents, each signed by its author/testator. But instead, Joseph Smith felt the need to create the testimonies, ONE for the Three, and a shorter one for the Eight, and then obtain their signatures. The reason seems obvious: metaphysical visions do not agree in detail! How could they, being so connected to the subconscious, imaginative part of our perceptions.
The Witnesses and others in the early church who shared in the "official" visions establishing and confirming the creation of the church, all had to abide by Joseph Smith's authority in their statements to the public: their retelling had to agree with his interpretation/recollection, or else they were in error....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Mad Geo: quote: Originally posted by goperryrevs: Tiny copying mistakes don't bother me - you don't invent a virgin birth with accidental copying changes.
Yes, you invent it out of thin air, or worse, you invent it because you heard it from someone who heard it from someone, who heard it from the religion of their forefathers.
Or, against expectations, it actually happened!
Okay, although this has become a bit of a tangent, and probably deserves its own thread (although it may be a dead horse...), to answer your stuff on the canon:
Yes, the books in the New Testament have changed from the originals - most Christians are aware of this - it's not some big secret. When you read a footnote saying "The earliest and most reliable documents do not contain...", you can see where the changes between the different documents we have are. Much as I love the story of the woman caught in adultery, it probably wasn't in the original. However, all these changes are minor, often meanings of words or whatever. There are no theological implications of accepting one over the other (the only contentious one would be the obvious later 'insertion' of the trinity in 1 John 5 - better left out).
On to the Gospel of Thomas. Firstly, far from being a big problem to the accounts in the 4 NT Gospels, the bulk of it contains material found in them. It backs up the NT gospels' historicity, and certainly doesn't directly contradict them. It does however contain the problem that the strange verse about Mary M becoming a man was likely a later addition. This does have theological implications on the rest of the biographies of Jesus, and makes you wonder whether the group that used it added any of the other sayings.
In the NT, we have two biographies written by eye-witnesses, one by a close associate of an eye-witness, and the fourth by Dr Luke. When you ask "Kinda makes you wonder what ELSE they banned, doesn’t it? ", I don't know - but I'm sure that Luke did. Here's his introduction to his gospel:
"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."
Luke specifically researched, interviewed and compiled all the different testimonies (surely including Thomas and the others we no longer have), and formed his gospel from it. As an objective researcher, you can't ask for much more. I'm therefore much more inclined to trust Luke as historical document than any other biography of Jesus, NT or otherwise.
Quick note on diversity in the gospels. As Lee Strobel points out in his book, when you have a variety of testimonies to an event, there is usually some minor contradictions. If they're too diverse, you worry about the accuracy. If they're too similar, then you suspect they fabricated the story together. Interesting how (apparently) the gospels differ by just the right amount that it their historicity convincing. You might not like Strobel, but it's an important point.
Next: gnostics. By accusing the Church of censorship, I think you're over-estimating the power it had prior to Constantine. Governments and institutions have the ability to censor. A (then) small but growing sect, still fairly organic and yet to become the institution it would later be really doesn't have that power.
Here would be a modern-day equivalent. If I wrote an unauthorised biography of Gandhi, and in it asserted that he popped over to Germany and gave Hitler a hand with the extermination of the Jews, what would the response of his more accurate biographers be? Ridicule and argument against my version.
Paul was clashing with the gnostics fairly early on in the Church's existence. If they were claiming that Jesus taught or did something that the reliable eye-witnesses and biographers were contradicting, of course they'd be suppressed and argued against. But that's not censorship, that's reasonably ignoring them (or at least ignoring the parts that didn't match other eye-witness testimonies).
2000 years later someone finds my copy of Gandhi's biography, and rejects the genuine historical versions, because they like conspiracy theories, and because my version was 'censored', it must be right...
You often hear the argument that the New Testament must be unreliable, but that's usually because people don't like the supernatural elements and want to edit them out. However, what you don't hear is a suggestion of HOW they have been altered - or indeed how they could have been altered. Because to fit into a non-miraculous world-view, they have to be altered fairly substantially. The only attempt I know to do this was the Jesus Seminar, and what a load of bollocks that was.
If the NT gospels aren't reliable, then either they were fabricated when written, or were changed a hell of a lot from the originals. The first doesn't seem convincing - these guys were persecuted and murdered for their faith. If they'd fabricated the gospels, would they really have taken it that far? The second isn't convincing either. There simply wasn't time for the amount of changes that would be required to turn them from mundane biographies of a rabbi into the documents that we have now. Also, if Jesus hadn't been so extraordinary, why (as Luke points out) would so many people have attempted to write biographies of him?
End of Tangent (I hope...).
Merlin the Mad, thanks so much for replying. Rather than make this post any longer for now, , it would be interesting to know why you're no longer the believing sort of Mormon. Your status says you a Deist-hopeful-Christian-catholic. What made you reject Mormonism, but retain Christianity?
-------------------- "Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by MerlintheMad: You want a Mormon, here I am. No longer a believing sort, but actively attending church as a family solidarity thing.
Nice to have you on the thread!
What do you mean by "no longer a believing sort"? You seem to be accepting of Mormon history.
Is the cartoon posted earlier an accurate description of Mormon beliefs?
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oreophagite
Shipmate
# 10534
|
Posted
Visions only in Joseph Smith's presence, eh? Uh-oh.
Not having time to make a study of the BoM, I've assumed all along that Joseph Smith probably did encounter some sort of tablets in the other realm, and that he was given the ability to read them. (I've also assumed that the content of the tablets, real or an astral prank, is in no way necessary for salvation.) The idea that the risen and ascended Jesus might appear to other people in other places and in other times doesn't particularly bother me. (His decision to use Elizabethan and Jacobean language for the translation is puzzling. The LDS concept of underwear is also puzzling, but that's a topic for another thread...)
I've also assumed that when JS came out of his visions, he had partial memory of what he had read, and wrote down what he could remember - filling in the gaps. If all that were so, then others coming into that realm could also have seen the tablets if they knew where to look.
However, one reads that the other realm can be influenced by one's own thoughts and expectations.
If JS's friends could have visions ONLY in his presence, that would suggest that they were encountering projections originating from his own mind. Can't prove any of that, of course. Pure speculation from the cookie eater.
The real questions in my mind are whether modern Mormons have learned how to visit the other places, whether they have learned discernment, and whether they are receiving edifying teachings in the temples of learning that are supposed to be there. From the way that some LDS friends don't answer direct questions, I would wonder about that.
Posts: 247 | From: The Klipoth | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: quote: Originally posted by MerlintheMad: You want a Mormon, here I am. No longer a believing sort, but actively attending church as a family solidarity thing.
Nice to have you on the thread!
What do you mean by "no longer a believing sort"? You seem to be accepting of Mormon history.
The history I believe is most accurate includes many facets that "official" church history either spins into "faith promoting history" (whitewashing, -- ignoring -- the more human aspects of the early heroic Saints' lives), or denies altogether. But I can't separate original sources into the two categories of, "This I will teach and believe, but this (from the same source) I will discount or interpret by a double standard."
Joseph Smith to me was a religious genius. But revelations are personal (egocentric) experiences, and I do not believe "God" reveals ONE metaphysical truth to apply to all people, or even masses of people. Therefore, NO dogmatically organized religion has any superior claim to a "line to God." To me, personal religion is a singular event, just as each of us is an egocentric universe that never touches another one metaphysically: we only interact (share) empirically, never metaphysically. Only "God" interacts with each of us uniquely and metaphysically.
That should settle the question of my being a TBM! I am not remotely. I studied to become such a believer; but eventually I learned "too much" to allow that to be possible. quote:
Is the cartoon posted earlier an accurate description of Mormon beliefs?
Not very. It starts out better than it ends. About midway it starts to make some false statements: mainly, that Joseph Smith taught he had contributed more to salvation than even JC. Not true, not remotely true. The twisted quote is actually part of Joseph Smith's eulogy, composed by John Taylor; and it says (D&C 135:3) "Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it."
The theology expounded regarding our Existence, and the "line of Gods" we are all part of, is essentially "true", from an early church perspective. But the late president/prophet of the LDS people, Gordon B. Hinckley, when asked about the famous couplet, As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become, said: "I don't know much about that; and I don't know anyone who does know much about that." I was never taught that doctrine IN Church growing up; even though my family taught it to me, and the same could be said of practically every Utah Mormon. It isn't a doctrine of the church per se: it was taught back in the 19th century (along with a LOT of other stuff no longer taught as doctrine, including Blacks being less valiant in pre earth life).
Any religion has its kooky past characters and teachings. The LDS religion TODAY if a much better, more trimmed down, religion than the early church was. And as Hinckley also was insistent on repeating: "Those things you bring up are the the way the church was back then. Let's talk about the church as it is today...."
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Oreophagite: ....(His decision to use Elizabethan and Jacobean language for the translation is puzzling. The LDS concept of underwear is also puzzling, but that's a topic for another thread...)
It is about Mormonism being silly nonsense, so it definitely applies to THIS thread, fire away!
On the KJV passages in the BofM (of which there are a great many), the first edition (1830) repeated the errors in a late 18th century edition of the KJV; thus proving that JS used one to "copy down" the equivalent passages found on the "gold plates": apologetic explanation says this was easier than struggling with the translation process: when the biblical mirroring parts ended, JS was back at the "seer stones" to translate (actually, face in hat, but THAT IS another story, since the official history will not allow that such a hokey detail is legit; this is what I mean by using a double standard with the original sources: it was the clear, unequivocal testimony of significant early church members that give us the face-in-the-hat description of how JS "translated" the BofM). quote:
I've also assumed that when JS came out of his visions, he had partial memory of what he had read, and wrote down what he could remember - filling in the gaps. If all that were so, then others coming into that realm could also have seen the tablets if they knew where to look.
Yes, but WHAT did they see? JS would have to correct any wildly inconsistent details. Actually, I think it was more the power of suggestion.
E.g. during the Kirtland temple dedication, JS cried out at one point, "The temple is filled with angels!" And he said something about heavenly fire too. The odd thing about metaphysical experiences is that later they are subject to added detail. To corroborate the like-visions shared by a number of the Saints present on that occasion, you would have to establish, as far as possible, when their personal diary accounts (or letters describing the event) were written: and the family relationships, close friends, etc: without a doubt, most would be discounted as borrowing from previous claims to have seen the angels and heavenly fire, etc. JS started it. Even claims of people outside (too many to all fit inside) the Kirtland temple, to have feared that the temple was on fire because of the light inside, are most likely later accounts based on what they were told by those inside with JS.
And visions don't grab hold of all or even most of the people in the same room: one of the most influential/important visionary experiences occurred at this time in the Kirtland temple (the dedication took most or all of a week, with meetings for hours each day): Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery drew the "veils" across the pulpit and knelt in prayer, and saw Jesus Christ and heard his voice "like the rushing of mighty waters", then were visited by Elijah, Moses, et al. OT testment prophets who delivered to JS and OC "priesthood keys" that the OT prophets held. And all of this light and noise show was on the other side of a cloth curtain, separating the two men from a packed temple of hundreds of men and women. As far as I know, nobody heard or saw a thing going on behind that piece of hanging cloth. Metaphysical is not empirical.
quote: .... If JS's friends could have visions ONLY in his presence, that would suggest that they were encountering projections originating from his own mind. Can't prove any of that, of course. Pure speculation from the cookie eater.
Exactly, Shared, IMPORTANT visions affecting the whole church, had to be vouchsafed by the "prophet" himself. In the early years of Mormon history, several occurrances of others having visions troubled the members, because they were at variance with what JS had been saying. He made it clear that although individuals could have visions, ONLY THE PROPHET could receive revelations for the establishment of the church: others could share in them, but no one but JS could receive revelations as the leader of the church. He denounced a number of visionary experiences as "of the devil." quote:
The real questions in my mind are whether modern Mormons have learned how to visit the other places, whether they have learned discernment, and whether they are receiving edifying teachings in the temples of learning that are supposed to be there. From the way that some LDS friends don't answer direct questions, I would wonder about that.
Ironically (because of the double standard vis-a-vis "faith promoting history", and the full truth), the church has always taught that each member is duty-bound to get their own testimony of the truth of the restored gospel (i.e. of JS's prophetic calling from God); by studying out of "the best books." There comes from time to time, a warning to not dabble too much in "controversial issues", but rather to concentrate on the doctrines of salvation. Church history is good to know, but not too much
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Thank Merlin, very helpful. Would you extend what you believe now beyond Christianity to other faiths? Would I be right in saying that you believe that God essentially reveals himself to each person as he deems is right for them, as they search for him, and that could be in a whole manner of ways?
In terms of Mormonism, it seems that for your common-or-garden Mormon, it boils down to taking Joseph Smith's word for it. E.g. there isn't any archaeological evidence yet, but there might be one day - anyway, is doesn't matter because you can know Joseph Smith was right through faith. Is that a fair description?
What would the Mormon answers to the other issues? Mainly:
- The AV 'mistakes' in the BOM - How they can revise the BOM despite no access to source documents - The genuine translations of the Book of Abraham - Joseph Smith's occultish leanings
Also, I appreciate the point that many criticisms are against the way that the Church was, but am I not right in thinking that JS thought that the Christian Church in his lifetime was apostate, and he was putting it right. If so, wouldn't he view the major changes in doctrine or practice as anathema?
One other question - I'm led to believe that if a Mormon encounters a contradiction between the bible and the BOM, then they ignore the bible as they believe it's been doctored to an extend. Is that true?
Thanks!
-------------------- "Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by MerlintheMad: [QUOTE] On the KJV passages in the BofM (of which there are a great many), the first edition (1830) repeated the errors in a late 18th century edition of the KJV; thus proving that JS used one to "copy down" the equivalent passages found on the "gold plates": apologetic explanation says this was easier than struggling with the translation process: when the biblical mirroring parts ended, JS was back at the "seer stones" to translate
Sorry, cross-post! Thanks Merlin - that's the first time I've heard a reasonable answer on that issue. Is this something that was raised in JS's lifetime, and a response he gave, or is it a later explanation?
-------------------- "Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dixit Domine
Apprentice
# 14069
|
Posted
Mormons - the religion with the superfluous middle consonant.
[Duplicate with spello deleted] [ 15. January 2009, 19:25: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posts: 48 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by MerlintheMad: quote: Is the cartoon posted earlier an accurate description of Mormon beliefs?
Not very. It starts out better than it ends. About midway it starts to make some false statements: mainly, that Joseph Smith taught he had contributed more to salvation than even JC. Not true, not remotely true.
Nice to hear.
So then it is true that Mormons believe that Elohim is just the God of our particular earth? And that his son Satan was angry that his brother Jesus was sent to earth to be the savior, and so went down to oppose Jesus? quote: Originally posted by MerlintheMad: The theology expounded regarding our Existence, and the "line of Gods" we are all part of, is essentially "true", from an early church perspective. But the late president/prophet of the LDS people, Gordon B. Hinckley, when asked about the famous couplet, As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become, said: "I don't know much about that; and I don't know anyone who does know much about that."
I understand that religions have their kooky beginnings, but the idea that people can become gods and have their own planet seems like a fairly important mormon idea. Are you saying that this is not taught in the mormon scriptures or accepted by the church? [ 15. January 2009, 23:49: Message edited by: Freddy ]
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by goperryrevs: Thank Merlin, very helpful. Would you extend what you believe now beyond Christianity to other faiths? Would I be right in saying that you believe that God essentially reveals himself to each person as he deems is right for them, as they search for him, and that could be in a whole manner of ways?
Yes indeed. Since each of us only connects to "God" and nobody else, it only works to have religion be a completely individual, unique "event".
quote:
In terms of Mormonism, it seems that for your common-or-garden Mormon, it boils down to taking Joseph Smith's word for it. E.g. there isn't any archaeological evidence yet, but there might be one day - anyway, is doesn't matter because you can know Joseph Smith was right through faith. Is that a fair description?
Yes. It all boils down to having faith.
The difficulty comes in when we follow the advice/counsel of our spiritual leaders: get an education, learn all we can about anything and everything: be in the world but not of the world, i.e. wise as serpents and harmless as doves, etc. When you gain intellectual knowledge the questions multiply. The number of "back burner" issues multiply.
For instance, the BofM: I spent my whole life following the path of reading/studying it as literal truth. The archeology has always been taken to support the BofM! So Mormon archeologists see the physical remains as a mysterious wealth of evidence just needing more knowledge in order to open the secrets that will empirically support the BofM. The way a Mormon apologist does it is with a "wait and see" attitude; and a lot of supposition and assertion.
At some point you can either functionally stop paying attention to the mounting empirical evidence that attacks your ability to believe (basically say, "it doesn't matter"), or be compelled into making a decision that takes it all into account. Which is what I have done. And my religious world view doesn't allow Mormonim to be literally what it empirically claims for itself.
quote:
What would the Mormon answers to the other issues? Mainly:
- The AV 'mistakes' in the BOM
"AV"? It doesnt signify.
quote:
- How they can revise the BOM despite no access to source documents
This is one of those "special pleading" areas: i.e. the "thousands" of BofM revisions are like a straw man argument to show how invalid the BofM must be, since the original that JS produced has been fiddled with so much. But in fact, the moment that the 1830 (1st Edition) left the press, JS was already making revisions. The 1837 edition has a number of significant "corrections" that are very interesting, each one made by JS himself. As for the "thousands" of additional changes, the vast majority of these are grammatical and structural: e.g. the reordering of the text into verses and chapters differently. In many cases, the most modern changes have been to correct BACK to the 1830 edition and original manuscript.
quote:
- The genuine translations of the Book of Abraham
Hugh Nibley, the church's main apologist, back in the day when the papyri first came to light, made a lengthy study of the fragments and wrote up a 700+ page (iirc) book on his observations. I was never able to get a copy of the book years later (when I was interested, finally, in studying this myself). He wrote a series of distilled articles for the church's monthly magazine (now called The Ensign). The conclusion was confusing to a literalist. Nibley claimed that the fragments were just that, a smattering of the total mass of Egyptian papyri in JS's possession. He also admitted that nothing in the fragments we have, as far as text goes (the facsimiles obviously relate directly and specifically to the Pearl of Great Price facsimiles), have anything to do with the text in the Book of Abraham: Nibley's hypothesis was that JS studied the Egyptian (which he was even then trying his ignorant best to compose a grammar for, to help him learn to translate it better), the Spirit brought the Book of Abraham to his mind, and that that was what JS wrote down! That is some fancy exegesis!
quote:
- Joseph Smith's occultish leanings
Actually, this one is the easiest to explain, although the truth is uncomfortable in the company of the church's "faith promoting history", which paints JS as quite a modern, unsuperstitious person. The fact is that almost everyone in early 19th century America, especially rural America, was superstitious; evidently far more than we are today. So the early members of the church held a wealth of concepts that would be laughable (and some of them disturbing) in today's LDS congregation.
(e.g. Brigham Young's notions of astronomy and the beings living on the moon: and women holding a meeting, during which they were convinced because of a raging storm outside, and one of their babies unable to quit crying, that Satan was prowling at the door, preventing them from receiving "the promised blessing" of some revelation-or-other, and that they might have to be willing to allow one of their children to be taken by the Lord before they would receive said-blessing; then one of "the Brethren" entered the meeting, and they explained their fears and suspicions, and he said they were right to think so! (this is all in one of the holistic chapters on one of JS's wives, in Tod Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness, the Plural Wives of Joseph Smith"))
When JS went to get the BofM gold plates from the angel, he went at midnight, on the autumnal equinox, dressed in black, and he took his wife Emma: these are all occultish motifs to keep the forces of evil at bay. Some years earlier JS had been digging for treasure, by invitation of the owner of the property: and when the almost-recovered treasure kept elluding the diggers' grasp, his explanation was that the "spirit(s)" guarding the treasure were not going to let them have it, but instead kept moving it just our of their reach. Not only was this excuse suitable, it was believed by those assisting JS!
Martin Harris was the quintessential wide-eyed believer in many superstitions (I can't recall at the moment any specific examples, but do recall also, that even judging by the standards of the time, Martin's contemporaries/friends considered him quite credulous): it was one of the reasons his wife was so against JS and her husband's support financially of his religion building: she was practical, her husband was not, and she saw JS as exploiting Martin. It never occurred to her that JS was just as genuinely convinced of his visions and calling as Martin Harris was.
quote:
Also, I appreciate the point that many criticisms are against the way that the Church was, but am I not right in thinking that JS thought that the Christian Church in his lifetime was apostate, and he was putting it right. If so, wouldn't he view the major changes in doctrine or practice as anathema?
JS's original version (1832, written in his own hand) of "the first vision", has nothing at all about other churches in it. Not until 1838, did JS mention that the main reason for praying to receive guidance that day was because he was confused as to which church, if any, to join; and in THAT version of "the first vision", we have Jesus Christ (positively ID'd for the first time) telling JS that he is to go after none of them, for "their creeds are an abomination." This has been taken by critics to apply to all people in all other relgions: but that is never the way the Mormon church has it: instead, it is the abominable creeds that the Lord was denouncing, not the people and their genuine religious convictions: it was to reclaim them from their darkness, that JS was called to "reestablish the true and living church".
My opinion is that if JS had lived much longer he would have instituted enough additional doctrine and changes to unravel his own church. For instance, somewhere is a transcript of a letter from Eliza R. Snow Smith Young, to her brother Lorenzo Snow (future, fifth president/prophet of the Mormon church), in which she states that JS believed in reincarnation. Now reincarnation completely and irrefutably contradicts the BofM's "this life is the only time a man has to prepare to meet God" doctrine: which doctrine in the church today is that this short mortal span determines for eternity which "kingdom of glory" you will inhabit after the resurrection.
I imagine that early Mormons would be picking up their collective jaws off the floor, if they could see the LDS church today.
quote:
One other question - I'm led to believe that if a Mormon encounters a contradiction between the bible and the BOM, then they ignore the bible as they believe it's been doctored to an extend. Is that true?
Thanks!
Yes, any modern scripture trumps the older. That's because of modern revelation, and the age/tampering of the older scripture. Mormons believe that the devil has inspired wicked men to "take away many of the plain and precious truths of the gospel in its original simplicity" from the Bible and religions of men. The Mormon prophets, seers and revelators (of which JS was the first) can correct any earlier interpolations and erradications caused by the adversary.
But in fact, the BofM is in harmony with the Bible throughout. It is the later doctrines (mostly contained in the Doctrine and Covenants) which cause the difficulties most critics list: e.g. the "Godhead" problems that Ross and I hashed out over a year ago: she likes to refer to Mormons as polytheists. In fact, the BofM has ZERO reference to any other Godhead than a Triune one; and in fact doesn't specifically mention a Holy Ghost in a Godhead context at all. Right up till at least 1835, JS taught that the Godhead was TWO, with the HG as the Father and Son's combined influence (not exactly an irreconcilable distinction with mainstream Christianity's Trinity). The interesting thing about that 1835 statement (found in lecture Five of The Lectures On Faith), is that the Father is specifically stated as a Being of Spirit; the Son having a physical body -- you can see how JS's theology had been morphing since 1830: where the BofM God takes on a body of flesh and becomes a man ("thus becoming the Son") in order to condescend to succor his people: by 1835, you have TWO separate, distinct beings, evidently the Son becoming a separate manifestation of God in a fleshly form. By 1843, JS's theology had morphed further into the present LDS Godhead doctrine of THREE: God the Father and the Son Jesus Christ, both possessing physically distinct bodies, and finally the Holy Ghost, a being of Spirit only, so that he can dwell within us.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by goperryrevs: quote: Originally posted by MerlintheMad: [QUOTE] On the KJV passages in the BofM (of which there are a great many), the first edition (1830) repeated the errors in a late 18th century edition of the KJV; thus proving that JS used one to "copy down" the equivalent passages found on the "gold plates": apologetic explanation says this was easier than struggling with the translation process: when the biblical mirroring parts ended, JS was back at the "seer stones" to translate
Sorry, cross-post! Thanks Merlin - that's the first time I've heard a reasonable answer on that issue. Is this something that was raised in JS's lifetime, and a response he gave, or is it a later explanation?
All the criticisms of the BofM and its author originated at the time. I am sure they've just been rehashed down the generations.
The archeological criticisms and other scientific difficulties, of course, though not new, are understood better, bringing the problems into clearer focus.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: ....So then it is true that Mormons believe that Elohim is just the God of our particular earth? And that his son Satan was angry that his brother Jesus was sent to earth to be the savior, and so went down to oppose Jesus?
Essentially, yes. Satan was originally "Lucifer" (all these "revealed" names, of course, are straight out of the known evolution of Judeo-Christianity, and have nothing whatsoever to do with reality in any preexistence). He didn't go "down" voluntarily; but was "cast out" after losing the "war in heaven." He and his minions are spirit beings without physical bodies, forever.
"Elohim" (another verifiably old Judeo-Christian name, originating from "el", possibly the earliest name for "God") is THE GOD, "to us, the only God with which we have to do" (B. Young). In other words, don't trouble ourselves with questions about other gods or even the origin of Existence in the first place: Mormon theology does not extend that far: but rather JS taught that matter was not created nor can be, but has existed forever; including our very "intelligences". Elohim gave our intelligences "spirit" bodies to inhabit; and now we have received physical flesh upon spirit; all part of "eternal progression". Any deeper questions about the radical Cause of Existence in the first place (my way of asking after the concept) are left unaddressed in Mormonism.
quote:
I understand that religions have their kooky beginnings, but the idea that people can become gods and have their own planet seems like a fairly important mormon idea. Are you saying that this is not taught in the mormon scriptures or accepted by the church?
I am saying that most of the popular conceptualizing of the afterlife is not taught in detail by the leaders of the church anymore, and not for a long time. But these concepts are as much a part of Mormon culture as the very name. Most people do indeed expect to have nuclear family members surrounding themselves in "the celestial kingdom"; and to increase said-family by procreating and thereby having "spirit" children, who will then "do down" and experience mortality like we are now. Like it or leave it. I left.
To me it is all unknown and metphysical imagination: it is founded on JS's metaphysical imagination. If others join with it, fine, I don't have a problem allowing them to have all that in the "hereafter". But plenty of people don't relate, at all. I want something a whole lot bigger than being some kind of cosmic "gardener", terraforming worlds without number ad nauseum forever and ever and ever; fucking countless wives. Wait, that part does sound rather neat. But, hey, what's good for this goose must be good for the ganders; so lots of endless sex with "soul mates".
(Section 132 in the Doctrine and Covenants makes very, very interesting reading in the light of a polyandry concept; and it was "revealed" at the height of JS's polygany, to Emma, the "first wife": she tore it up -- but there was a copy, just in case! Anyway, she wasn't impressed with an offer of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander": any interpretation of D&C 132, in this way, is of course anathema from a TBM perspective )
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Pontivillian
Shipmate
# 14308
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Oooh, that's quite a gauntlet. It's also mighty convenient. Your writers got to rewrite the prophecy to fit the history. Again 2000 years cures a lot of blunders. [QUOTE]
Mormon Anthropologists, even, admit that the Book of Mormon is totally wrong [ 16. January 2009, 18:52: Message edited by: booktonmacarthur ]
-------------------- The Church in Wales is Ancient, Catholic and Deformed - Typo found in old catechism.
Posts: 665 | From: Horsham | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Thanks so much for taking the time to answer things, Merlin!
Just a note, AV = Authorised Version = KJV. You answered my question very well.
It does seem that you, along with the testimonies people on the site that RossWeisse linked to, 'left' the Mormon Church because, despite warm friendships and enjoying their life in the Church, simply couldn't ignore the voice in the back of their head that said "all these claims simply can't be backed up." Now, most ex-Christians I know don't generally abandon the faith for that reason - they backslide, they become disillusioned with Church, they give in to doubt.
It's good to know that there are some reasonable Mormon answers to the criticisms levelled (and some, to be polite, weak answers too). I'm glad for you that you're more settled in a faith that is more coherent. How do your Mormon friends and family feel about your faith now?
-------------------- "Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by goperryrevs: ....It does seem that you, along with the testimonies people on the site that RossWeisse linked to, 'left' the Mormon Church because, despite warm friendships and enjoying their life in the Church, simply couldn't ignore the voice in the back of their head that said "all these claims simply can't be backed up." Now, most ex-Christians I know don't generally abandon the faith for that reason - they backslide, they become disillusioned with Church, they give in to doubt.
It's good to know that there are some reasonable Mormon answers to the criticisms levelled (and some, to be polite, weak answers too). I'm glad for you that you're more settled in a faith that is more coherent. How do your Mormon friends and family feel about your faith now?
As I attend Sunday services weekly with my family, and have nothing to say, most of my friends at church don't know that I have "left", so to speak. I share still our concern for each other, and I participate at social functions. My personal faith does not require sharing, i.e. coming into conflict with Mormons or anyone else. The church members and leaders would not appreciate airing of any of my "interesting" views on JS, Mormon doctrine, or even history. So mostly I keep my mouth shut.
My family knows about my changed faith. And my wife listens with interest, because she is interested in me. She admits being effected by my ideas and beliefs and explanations for them: but she also remains a TBM, and is a good example of someone who KNOWS what they believe to be true, because God told them it is true. I never got such a witness of the truth. And that's where we differ: she's operated from a conviction all her life (well, since she was c. 12 or 13), and I have operated from skepticism, studying to convince myself of what to believe. "Doubt not, but be believing", and "Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief", have been two scriptural insights into the nature of my mind: I can't help thinking things over until convinced one way or the other.
Right now, the state of my understanding/knowledge can be summed up like this: "I know practically nothing, about almost everything." And it just gets worse
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by MerlintheMad: ...It is the later doctrines (mostly contained in the Doctrine and Covenants) which cause the difficulties most critics list: e.g. the "Godhead" problems that Ross and I hashed out over a year ago: she likes to refer to Mormons as polytheists. In fact, the BofM has ZERO reference to any other Godhead than a Triune one; and in fact doesn't specifically mention a Holy Ghost in a Godhead context at all. ...
[clarification] I'm trying to stay out of this one, but I would like to clarify that my statement concerning polytheism was not based solely on the "godhead" business, but on the "God was once a man just like you and me, and if we do the right things we can all be gods too" theology.
Polytheism does not, to me, have anything to do with the number of gods one worships, but with how many gods one acknowledges -- and Mormonism acknowledges a ton of them. The references of various OT writers (who were surrounded by polytheists) about "gods" notwithstanding, Judaism and Christianity only acknowledge one. [/clarification]
Ross
-------------------- I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
The late Horton Davies, a distinguished Church historian and sometime Professor at Princeton, had a brilliant and incisive article on Mormonism in his book 'Christian Deviations' published in the 1960s.
I believe the book appeared in the USA as 'The Battle of the Sects'.
My own belief is that Mormonism is not simply 'a load of rubbish' but one of those strange New World outgrowths from Christianity.
As with a lot of new religions, which it seems to have, in effect, become, it just doesn't sit together coherently enough for me.
On a historical, archaeological and anthropological level it makes no sense.
-------------------- Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Margaret
Shipmate
# 283
|
Posted
Mormonism makes much more sense if you put it in its historical context. The BoM was written at a time when Americans were beginning to move westward into largely unknown territory, full of possible perils, and the idea that Jesus had been there before them in that strange land struck a chord with many people. JS was a religious genius, as Merlin says. Like the BoM itself, the very firsr Mormons were theologically pretty unalarming, just another new Protestant group, apart from their extra scripture. It was as they became marginalised and driven further into isolation that JS began to develop his wackier ideas, a process that continued under his successors in the remoteness of Utah.
But now that Mormonism is no longer isolated, many of the weirder ideas have been dropped, or toned down. I've read somewhere that some liberal Mormons now believe that the BoM was actually written in the normal sort of way by JS - though they still regard it as an inspired document. I think it will be fascinating to watch what happens in the future.
Posts: 2456 | From: West Midlands UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd): The late Horton Davies, a distinguished Church historian and sometime Professor at Princeton, had a brilliant and incisive article on Mormonism in his book 'Christian Deviations' published in the 1960s.
I believe the book appeared in the USA as 'The Battle of the Sects'.
My own belief is that Mormonism is not simply 'a load of rubbish' but one of those strange New World outgrowths from Christianity.
As with a lot of new religions, which it seems to have, in effect, become, it just doesn't sit together coherently enough for me.
On a historical, archaeological and anthropological level it makes no sense.
I agree with this.
I read that book when I was a teenager and found myself answering the doorbell to Mormons and JWs and not sure how to respond.
-------------------- My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/ My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Rossweisse: ....I would like to clarify that my statement concerning polytheism was not based solely on the "godhead" business, but on the "God was once a man just like you and me, and if we do the right things we can all be gods too" theology.
Polytheism does not, to me, have anything to do with the number of gods one worships, but with how many gods one acknowledges -- and Mormonism acknowledges a ton of them. The references of various OT writers (who were surrounded by polytheists) about "gods" notwithstanding, Judaism and Christianity only acknowledge one. [/clarification]
Ross
Yes, and I pointed out, back then, that the NT specifically calls us "sons of God" and "joint heirs with Christ", and "...we know that when [Christ] appears we shall be like him for we will see him as he is." Etc. The Mormon use of such terms = "gods", i.e. children of God the Father, just like Jesus Christ is. Mormonism emphasizes our joint status as children of the same Father; again, from the NT. So your emphasis/objection that "gods" means polytheism is just plain wrong from the Mormon perspective: because Mormons do not pray, and will never pray to or worship, any other God but the Father (or, in his presence, the Son who has become ONE with our Father). These other "gods" you speak of are not deities to worship, ever: they are "us." Once we have achieved our full potential and destiny.
I hope that makes the difference in the meaning of "gods" more clear, as Mormons look at it.
Ross will probably resist the urge to point out that MANY Mormons actually look forward to being worshipped someday, as the "God" of their own worlds. And I will just restate what Hinckley said: "we don't know much about that, nor do we know anyone who does know much about that." In other words, 19th century doctrine does not the modern Mormon church make; but old popularly held concepts will continue with us for many years yet....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd): ....My own belief is that Mormonism is not simply 'a load of rubbish' but one of those strange New World outgrowths from Christianity.
As with a lot of new religions, which it seems to have, in effect, become, it just doesn't sit together coherently enough for me.
On a historical, archaeological and anthropological level it makes no sense.
I would extend this further and make a prediction, that Mormonism is possibly going to become THE New World outgrowth from Christianity; similar to Islam growing out of the Arabic hodge podge of eariler religious concepts. Joseph Smith seems to have put it all together in a way that works better and is easier to explain than any other denom has before (or since, so far).
On the empirical evidence thing: all religions founder on this shoal, if the search for physical "proofs" of the religion are carried out too far. Mormonism is in difficulties vis-a-vis the BofM and empirical evidence. Back in the 50's through early 70's, it was beginning to look like MesoAmerican archeology was going to provide a wealth of "proofs" of the New World existence of Hebrews, their ruined cities, their language, etc. But that has all virtually gone away; to be replaced instead with a ton of unverifiable BofM internal claims that are either not shown, at, all: or else are directly refuted by recent evidence.
And so it goes, too, for the OT (especially): Levantine archeology shows the OT to be a 7th BCE creation (probably from the reign of king Josiah), with interpolations originating from the Babylonian exile era. So all denoms asserting that the Bible is a literally true historical book (the perfect and complete word of God), are in deepening waters too.
As this thread shows: pointing fingers at another religion and saying "rubbish", "bunk", or "nonsense" is likely to echo back at you from other quarters....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Margaret: .... I've read somewhere that some liberal Mormons now believe that the BoM was actually written in the normal sort of way by JS - though they still regard it as an inspired document. I think it will be fascinating to watch what happens in the future.
Indeed.
And yes, I think this notion must grow until it becomes generally accepted. The "information highway" provided by the Internet will make the process of change much more rapid, and certain imho. There is a lot of evidence that the BofM was in fact a product of inventive writing and biblical targumizing: it is a uniquely early 19th century American creation. There is no reason to suspect it of being uninspired; if we are going to accept the Bible as inspired then the BofM is also inspired. "Scripture" so-defined may go through a redefining process as well. It isn't just the BofM that is under scrutiny (attack)!
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by MerlintheMad: [QUOTE] As this thread shows: pointing fingers at another religion and saying "rubbish", "bunk", or "nonsense" is likely to echo back at you from other quarters....
I guess this is aimed at me ... Well, to be fair, I started the thread because I was happy to be shown to be wrong. Yes, some questions have been given reasonable answers, but I don't think I've altered my opinion that any Mormon who really looks into the background of his or her faith with an open mind will have some big, big questions - more than any other religion. Mind you, I'm sure Mad Geo et al would have the same opinion of my faith in Jesus (bit sad you've disappeared off the thread, was enjoying the banter ).
Mormonism has always stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Every other religion I've looked into seems to be at least consistent/coherent with itself and its own worldview that holds together. I think, as you say, Joseph Smith was a religious genius - I think he was also a very manipulative / influential person. But I just think there are way too many holes... I'm not really persuaded by the occult answer you gave - if God can reveal to him that the Church was apostate, surely he can reveal his thoughts on the superstitious leanings of people around him... The archaeology questions still seem way too big, and the Book of Abraham translation - well if he made that up, it follows that he likely made the rest up - especially given his 'evolving' theology (an interesting topic, and one that I wasn't aware of - thanks!).
ISTM that the only way you can be a 'reasonable' Mormon is to be a liberal one, and be content with the religious truths but not care for the historical fact. Still, that's just my opinion, perhaps 12 million Mormons can't be wrong!
By the way, I'm glad for you that despite the change in your faith, your wife has stuck with you and the church has treated you well. Having heard far too many horror stories, I'm glad things have worked out okay for you...
One last question (I promise). Having observed that the Mormon church has changed significantly from its beginnings, what are the different Mormon responses to that. The Christian Church has changed extremely significantly since Acts, and I would consider myself a member of those who think that we have lost a great deal as a result. I'd prefer that we went back to meeting in homes, with no salaried elders / apostles, living by faith a lot more etc. etc. (not trying to start another tangent here btw with people disageeing with me!). Are there Mormons that think that the Mormon Church should do the same, and be more in line with how it was in the days of Joseph Smith, or are they not bothered? (or are they unaware of how much it HAS changed?)
-------------------- "Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by MerlintheMad: "Scripture" so-defined may go through a redefining process as well. It isn't just the BofM that is under scrutiny (attack)!
That is some understatement, given that there's a whole school of OT scholars who believe it dates to no earlier than the 2nd century AD!
PS Not that I agree with them. [ 17. January 2009, 20:06: Message edited by: Figbash ]
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Figbash: quote: Originally posted by MerlintheMad: "Scripture" so-defined may go through a redefining process as well. It isn't just the BofM that is under scrutiny (attack)!
That is some understatement, given that there's a whole school of OT scholars who believe it dates to no earlier than the 2nd century AD!
PS Not that I agree with them.
Whoops! Should have been BC.
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by MerlintheMad: Anatoly Fomenko "History: Fiction or Science" proposes that neither part of the bible predates the 14th century, and that the NT was written FIRST! (I think the guy is just a mad Russian)
Well at least he's just a lone fruitcake. The ones I was talking about are 'reputable scholars'.
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by goperryrevs: ... Well, to be fair, I started the thread because I was happy to be shown to be wrong. Yes, some questions have been given reasonable answers, but I don't think I've altered my opinion that any Mormon who really looks into the background of his or her faith with an open mind will have some big, big questions - more than any other religion.
I don't disagree, except with the, "more than any other religion", part.
quote: .... Mormonism has always stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Every other religion I've looked into seems to be at least consistent/coherent with itself and its own worldview that holds together.
Mormonism's strength is, ironically because of what you just said, that it holds together. (I explain a little later)
quote: I think, as you say, Joseph Smith was a religious genius - I think he was also a very manipulative / influential person.
That's the same thing as "genius". His influence was dynamic enough to put together an entirely new church which continues to grow out from that influence.
quote: But I just think there are way too many holes... I'm not really persuaded by the occult answer you gave - if God can reveal to him that the Church was apostate, surely he can reveal his thoughts on the superstitious leanings of people around him...
JS held the same superstitions! "God" doesn't appear to be too concerned about disabusing everyone of their silly beliefs. When "God" reveals, it seems to be specifically about ONE thing at a time. "God" doesn't leap right in and start correcting everything that's wrong.
quote: The archaeology questions still seem way too big, and the Book of Abraham translation - well if he made that up, it follows that he likely made the rest up - especially given his 'evolving' theology (an interesting topic, and one that I wasn't aware of - thanks!).
But "evolving" is what religions always do, because of changing knowledge. For instance: the former RLDS, now call themselves the "Community of Christ." They've all but entirely dumped any references to JS and the BofM at all, and have with this latest change, joined mainstream Protestant Christianity entirely. That's quite an evolution away from their origins, and their century-long battle against the LDS.
quote: ISTM that the only way you can be a 'reasonable' Mormon is to be a liberal one, and be content with the religious truths but not care for the historical fact. Still, that's just my opinion, perhaps 12 million Mormons can't be wrong!
What's "reasonable" about religion in the first place? It is all metaphysical experience seeking some kind of empirical interpretation.
Historical "fact" is problematical. I was sitting in "gospel doctrine" class just a couple of hours ago: and the lesson was on "the apostasy" and "first vision". The Mormon take on "the apostasy" first of all states that such an event occurred: denied by most or all of Christendom. Yet the "facts" are drawn from the same historical events: Mormons just see things differently. And I have to say that as I listened to the formulaic responses to the teacher's questions, I could just hear the lineup of responses to those responses: "Yes, but, I have a bigger concept in mind", or, "well, yes, but you have to consider the differing ways of looking at that", etc.
quote: By the way, I'm glad for you that despite the change in your faith, your wife has stuck with you and the church has treated you well. Having heard far too many horror stories, I'm glad things have worked out okay for you...
I think my good fortune is a complex thing: first of all, my personal response to loss of faith in the religion of my forefathers has not resulted in animosity, argument or criticism of the church and its people in any way: there is nothing on the outside to indicate any change of perspective on the inside.
This translates to me as Dad and husband being essentially the same; if any change has manifested it would be relaxing into life more, taking things as they are without any religious angst coloring everything; and taking life one day at a time.
My wife finds me easier to get along with than I was as a religious "zealot" (although I always tried to tone down my fundamentalism, there is no comparison to how I approach relationships now: I accept everybody as equals, and only balk at injustice).
My last four children (still living at home) are getting a VERY different upringing religiously than their older five siblings did! It's almost like having two separate families: even their mother is different than she was with the older five, and part of that is reacting to (taking) my lead, and part of it is her own life-changing experience giving birth to the youngest (she almost died, and a lot of the "fire" went out of her personality; she used to be a screamer, and now she's mellow and laughs a lot and is very, very patient). Complex. But it all seems to turn out better for all of us: religious changes and personality changes too. I go to church to please the wife and don't rule my house as some patriarch....
quote: One last question (I promise).
Don't worry about asking questions: answering questions is what I do right now.
quote: Having observed that the Mormon church has changed significantly from its beginnings, what are the different Mormon responses to that.
Now I explain the consistency latent within the church's membership.
Most Mormons know more or less that something is out of kilter with early church history. And the responses are limited.
Most Mormons, like in any other religion, don't really study their church's history: they get "spoon-fed" the official cant, so never really are interested in a counter to that: anything coming at them from "outside" is discounted automatically as the work of apostates and servants of Satan to deceive.
Criticism or "alternate history" originating from within the church (the only kind I ever personally gave any credence to), produces unavoidable confrontation: a member who suddenly is questioning what the official history has been telling them all their lives, now has to decide if the authors of the "alternate history/criticism" are still in the church or out: as in, are they "members of the church in good standing", or are they "on the road to apostasy". Most Mormons view askance all scholarly works that bring up details from church history that jar with the official history: and they lump such scholars in with the apostates, or those who are "on the road to apostasy". They can be ignored or discounted as worthy of attention.
Then there are those like me (and my brother), who honestly go after knowledge from "the best books", as we have been counselled all of our lives to do: and the result is quite different from our expectations going in. We discover things that cannot possibly unite with the "faith-promoting history" taught by the church.
These people react first of all one of two ways: either they feel betrayed, frightened and/or angry; OR, they accept the "revelation" that the church cannot possibly be true in the same sense that they previously understood that word. The church can still be "true", but only from a changed perspective.
The changed perspectives are probably legion.
In my case, I see all religions as manmade, always and forever: "God" never did call prophets to call "the people" to repentance, or to institute an organized religion to protect and teach them en mass. The "true religion" is ALL individuals who are devoted to making the world better, and who only follow justice to make it so. (My brother's personal religion adheres to this "true faith"; but he also is one of those who feels betrayed by the church's leaders. I don't know if his anger is growing or diminishing. I think the latter.)
quote: The Christian Church has changed extremely significantly since Acts, and I would consider myself a member of those who think that we have lost a great deal as a result. I'd prefer that we went back to meeting in homes, with no salaried elders / apostles, living by faith a lot more etc. etc. (not trying to start another tangent here btw with people disageeing with me!). Are there Mormons that think that the Mormon Church should do the same, and be more in line with how it was in the days of Joseph Smith, or are they not bothered? (or are they unaware of how much it HAS changed?)
This is another ironic point: Mormons believe that the modern church IS a restoration of the primitive church, along with all of the OT ordinances that Christ did not "fulfil" with his atonement. So meeting in homes or churches or anywhere is seen as unimportant, just meeting is important in the right spirit.
The early Mormon church per force was crude and ad hoc compared to the sleek, streamlined and wealthy modern LDS church. There are of course some individuals who believe that ALL the early (19th century) doctrines are still valid (I've been there myself). And all TBM's believe that the church is "unchanged" as far as the "saving ordinances" are concerned. Most Mormons believe that the church has not significantly changed (or essentially). It isn't my "job" to educate anyone about that or anything else.
I know the church has changed a lot. But I also know that is true of all religions. And the modern LDS church is much better than the early one.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Thanks for all your answers, Merlin. If I have more questions, I know who to ask
I'm a bit sad that there aren't any 'orthodox' Mormons on the ship who can answer from their perspective. Your answers have been very helpful, but they're still coming from someone who in a very real sense has rejected Mormonism. Nevertheless, thanks very much!
-------------------- "Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by goperryrevs: I'm a bit sad that there aren't any 'orthodox' Mormons on the ship who can answer from their perspective. Your answers have been very helpful, but they're still coming from someone who in a very real sense has rejected Mormonism.
I don't see Merlin as having rejected the church at all. But if you want to see how more orthodox Mormons respond to these questions just go to other discussion sites. Easy to find.
For example, I was much amused, on another site, by how lengthy and detailed questioning about the cartoon mentioned above was met by the most stony refusal to answer any questions about it. The response, in a nutshell, was that the point of view of the one making the cartoon is not worthy of any kind of response. But Merlin's cheerful response is, I'm sure, quite accurate.
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
I agree Merlin hasn't abandoned the Church, but he has abandoned traditional Mormon teaching, which is what I was questioning. I have every respect for the Mormon Church - as far as I know they do a lot of good work (although as with most organisations there are negatives too). It was teaching and history I was questioning.
Would you be able to post some links to the better threads you looked at? Would be interesting...
-------------------- "Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by goperryrevs: Would you be able to post some links to the better threads you looked at? Would be interesting...
I have one particular site and thread in mind, but for some reason I think we're not allowed to post links to other christian discussion forums. It's not one of the ten commandments, I see, so am I wrong about this?
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: I have one particular site and thread in mind, but for some reason I think we're not allowed to post links to other christian discussion forums. It's not one of the ten commandments, I see, so am I wrong about this?
Since no one has disagreed I'll give the link I have in mind.
It is a thread on "theologyweb" called "to Mormons Is this cartoon factual?". The stony responses to the question are amazing, and the discussion goes on for more pages than I cared to read.
To me it illustrated very clearly the absolute stranglehold on free thought that seems to exist within that religion.
To put it another way, the assertions of the cartoon are so scandalous that Mormonism surely can't be considered Christian if they are true. For example: - That Elohim is only the God of our planet.
- That we can be gods of our own planets.
- That Elohim came to earth and had sex with Mary.
- That Jesus had sex, and children, with multiple women around Him.
- That people are the result of the "endless celestial sex" of the gods with many women.
These ideas are crude to say the least.
Yet rather than deny them on that website, the mormons respond with circular arguments that reveal minds closed as tight as traps.
I am grateful for Merlin's candid comments.
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Freddy:
To me it illustrated very clearly the absolute stranglehold on free thought that seems to exist within that religion.
Sigh... After Merlin giving me hope that Mormons can reasonably discuss their faith, that hope quickly fades...
Still, at least the guy likes Napoleon Dynamite (IMO Mormonism's greatest export )
-------------------- "Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by goperryrevs: Still, at least the guy likes Napoleon Dynamite (IMO Mormonism's greatest export )
Is there anything Mormon about Napoleon Dynamite? The wedding at the end?
I do like the animated avatars on that website, although in general it is a lousy set-up compared with the Ship. [ 20. January 2009, 14:28: Message edited by: Freddy ]
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Freddy:
Is there anything Mormon about Napoleon Dynamite? The wedding at the end?
I think one of the characters wears a Brigham Young University t-shirt or something... Apart from that, just that it's produced by Mormon dudes (not sure if Jon Heder's a Mormon...)
-------------------- "Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|