Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Fascinating thread. I began to leave the church when at 16 I was told by the bishopric of my ward that I would be excommunicated if I continued to smoke pot. This was 1982. I remember thinking they can’t excommunicate me because I don’t even have the MP. I saw them for what they were at that point, mere mortals out of their league with no so-called priesthood authority using fear mongering because they didn’t have anything else. It was sad. I can imagine so many other ways that they could have handled that situation IF they had truly been guided by God. I don’t think Joseph Smith would have been as torn by beer drinking, smoking, etc, as the church has been since his death, or at least since 1929. I really doubt he would have prevented temple attendance b/c a member liked to have a beer after sacrament meeting. Like the priesthood and black issue the WofW as “doctrine” came in the context of prohibition, that is, it was a product of the culture at that time.
My only problem with your post is that I think McKonckie was a knucklehead who should never have been appointed an apostle. His Mormon Doctrine book has done more to confuse the Saints than anything else they have written (well accept the Journals of Discourse, which they generally do not read, but that is for another day). Quote:“I view it as a revealed account of actual people – a (loose) “translation” of an actual record that might or might not have been recorded on the plates Joseph used as the catalyst for the translation. I don’t care one whit if the plates he used actually were an accurate historical record, just as I don’t care one whit if the Book of Abraham is an actual translation of the writing that inspired it. I believe he believed it (that it wasn’t a fraud), and I am convinced that it is inspired.
(My mind wanders all the time when I am reading things, and some of my greatest and most inspired insights come almost as fully developed paragraphs that have little or nothing to do with the text I am reading. If that is true for me, I can understand and accept it happening in a more voluminous way for Joseph, whether or not the record he translated was on the plates that served as his prop or on other plates thousands of miles away and buried deep in the earth. I just don’t care, because I love the book itself so much.)
I also think it is and has been incredibly misunderstood. Ironically, I think one of the absolute strongest arguments for its validity is that it was so misunderstood by the early Church – and even by Joseph himself. If it had been a deliberate fraud, a typical author would have understood it better than Joseph did – wouldn’t have made cultural assumptions that simply didn’t fit the actual book. (For example, K Rowling and Stephanie Myers know exactly what they were creating and can talk in minute detail about their books. George Lucas is the same way with Star Wars.) There are lots of instances, however, where Joseph (and others of his day) made all kinds of assumptions about the record that simply aren’t justified by a careful parsing of the record itself. The book is abso-freakin-lutely complicated and intricate and astoundingly complex – and Joseph seemed to be almost oblivious to that fact. That, imo, is amazing – and a testimony that it didn’t originate from within his own mind.
Okay, now this is a very well-stated version of the problem that I face with the Book of Mormon and JS more specifically. It really is hard to imagine how, even when he put his head in a hat, he could possibly have come up wholly out of his imagination with such a complex book, for all of the reasons you have given. But it is there where the argument gets turned around, or has gotten turned around, by people like BH Roberts, one of the greatest defenders of the book until his death in 1933. In his rather private papers (since published) he ultimately wrote a pretty damning argument against the Book of Mormon’s authenticity, and, more specifically and importantly for this discussion, provided reason to understand the book, not as complex, but rather as a wonder tale, a fanciful story created from a fairly unsophisticated mind (by which I think he meant not classically educated, especially as education began to change in the period after Smith’s death, such as with archeology, linguistics, etc., such that Smith simply did not understand that what he was writing would not hold up to history even as it kind of made sense at the time he wrote it). And others made similar claims. The famous jab by Mark Twain about it can be fairly brushed aside but it does offer evidence that many others who read it in its first several decades did not find it all that astounding as to not be a work of fiction. I don’t think there is really a question here just an observation. And I would be curious what others think. I know we have been down this road before but it does seem to me that the vitality of staylds.com is that there are always new people coming in and to simply tell them that we have discussed this before and you can access the archives is to miss the point of the listserv.
Well you have written more here than I can possibly get my mind around or have the time to do so right now, but aren’t the The 13 Articles of Faith somewhat akin to the Westminster Confession? Aren’t Mormon children taught this like the pledge of allegiance. It seems to me I remember I had to memorize them all to graduate from primary, and actually perform the act in front of a considerable group of people in the sacrament meeting room. Maybe Mormons do not recite them every Sunday or whatnot, but do Presbyterians recite the Confession on anything like that basis either? It just seems to me that it is not correct to suggest that the Mormons do not have something similar with the 13 articles staring us in the face. Best, Curt Quote:I think perhaps a huge key is to study/pray/think/mediate on the source of that undeniable, deep feeling. Where is it coming from? Why do you feel that way?
In my mind there are 2 possible answers.
1) It is coming from God.
2) It is coming from you.
How do we know? I would be really interested in hearing what others have to say about this. I am thinking in particular of the promise in Moroni 10:4 that if one asks if the Book of Mormon is true or not that he/she will get answer, usually expected to be yes (if humbled and with true intent, etc.). But I wonder if this is the proper approach in praying about such an issue (or any issues, I suppose). Is putting the question in such a stark yes/no, either/or format the correct approach? And, this is the heart of the question for me, does the format itself set us up for hearing what we want to hear? That is what I am trying to get at. And, if so, is there another way of seeking out such answers through prayer?
While I appreciate the comparisons that are often made to JS and other biblical prophets, primarily showing their flaws as a way of accounting for JS’s (all of God’s prophets were flawed, all of God’s prophets were just men, many were egotistical, womanizers, etc.) I wonder if the comparison really gets us anywhere when Christ is supposed to have ushered in the new law. Since Christ there have been no prophets but those claimed by the church, right? Or other self-proclaimed ones and those who follow them. But, and here is the main point, the New Testament doesn’t tell of any. JS should be judged by not by the standards of the OT but of the NT. If he is like the prophets of the OT then he missed the point about Christ’s coming, didn’t he? Quote:
How does anyone know that JS was referring to this statement as the 1831 origin of polygamy?My understanding is that one of JS’s closest confidantes, I can’t remember who at the moment, asked him, in direct relation to the revelation, how they were to take the Lamanite women as wives, if they were, in fact, supposed to copulate with them, and JS replied in the same way that the Old Testament prophets took multiple wives. I think he added “by revelation” to that the end of the statement.
I wish I knew what wayfarer meant by “make-believe.” Do you think this revelation is a phony? Why the seeming mention of it in the introduction to D&C 132 then? At any rate, as is probably somewhat well-known the polygamy implications of the revelation were not in the revelation itself but came later when one of the brethren asked JS how they could take Lamanite women as wives when they were already married and JS supposedly answered “in the same way the prophets of the Old Testament took other wives through revelation” (that’s a paraphrase and not a very good one). The point is well taken, though, that polygamy is not in the revelation itself.
The podcast was on Mormon Stories. It is fairly new, from Dec 2011. Brant Gardner is the speaker and John Dehlin the interviewer. I wasn’t sure how much promotion was allowed on here so I didn’t initially say where it came from. Again, it is pretty strong apologetics. I remain as perplexed as the next person about the book but Gardner’s arguments need to be taken into account, imo. Quote:the argument is that Nephi tried to distance himself and his people from the traditions of the Jews, not being Jewish himself (and succeeded during his lifetime and that of his immediate successors in relation to the festivals, kingship and stuff like that) but that those who later became kings referred back to the only model they had – that of the Old Testament times described in their records (significantly after the merger with the people of Mulek who were of Jewish descent and perhaps as part of the compromise to become the leaders of that newly formed group).
Actually, isn’t the argument that when King Benjamin referred back to the only model he had that model was New World? At least, that is Brant Gardner’s argument. Iow, he (KB) had lost the Hebrew model by then so he could only refer to New World phenomena. That’s where the complexity comes in. If SMith just created it he probably wouldn’t have thought deeply enough to do that but would have referred instead to Old Testament times.
Quote:i assume from your language that you are in the latter category. some questions:
1. does the church have to be infallible in order to be “of god”?
2. what scriptural or historical precedent is there of an infallible church?
3. did peter, paul, and james agree on doctrine?
4. after the jerusalem accord, did peter, james, and paul stick to the accord in their teaching and practice?
5. what did paul say was the authority and doctrinal basis of the gospel he preached?
6. is divine revelation a precise process, resulting in an explicit and complete statement of doctrine?
7. is the process of seeking and receiving divine revelation any different for the prophet than any other person?
None of these questions matter except insofar as what the church has said about them. The church has claimed infallibility for its prophets and though perhaps that is changing it is not clear that it has. Further, if receiving divine revelation is not different for the prophet than for any other person, or more to the point, the prophet’s domain alone, what need is there for a prophet? I know one can come up with all kinds of reasoning as to why but so what? The church is led by a prophet or it is not. The church is true or it is not. The church placed itself in this trap, however led by divine revelation at one time or another it claims to have been.
I can see how the question could be taken that way but it was not meant to be nor especially was it meant to offend anyone, and I apologize if it did. Plus, whom am I to say who or who has not received revelation? The question was more rhetorical in nature, like when one is having a bad day and asks, in exasperation and at no one in particular, “what could possibly go wrong next?” It is an old complaint of mine that serves as a continuous source of frustration. It lies in the fact that every single time a seemingly true doctrine or belief that the church once espoused is proved wrong or proved to have been misunderstood or what not, there is always some justification for it, some way of making it right. After awhile, these justifications just stretch the limits of credulity. As I have stated elsewhere I just find it difficult to believe that God would put us through such an incredible test if in fact the church is true. I mean accepting it as true goes beyond even accepting Christ as one’s savior. There seems to be all these hurdles one has to jump over in order to believe. It just gets tiring. Not certain but I am guessing the comment that this post “directly attacked an apostle” was directed at me, the original poster? I don’t see at all how this is a direct attack on anyone in particular, except the church’s claim to receiving divine revelation. I have nothing against any of the apostles or GAs, and certainly not this one. So really am a bit perplexed here and would appreciate some clarification. Quote:Now, how do we know that the statements in this press release represent Church doctrine? How do we know if other matters, such as women and the priesthood, or homosexual marriage, or Word of Wisdom requirements are also doctrine, and not just “personal statements that do not represent Church doctrine”?
Wow, this goes much deeper than I thought. No kidding. Talk about destroying the church’s claim to revelation. I am no longer active but if I still were this would really make me question the GAs authority claims. I hope others will weigh in on this.
