[Euhemerus]

Huh, Pride & Prejudice reference? Is that like that movie that my wife always watches with the sappy love story? You mean that I could glean metaphorical insight from it? I’ll be sure to watch it with her next time.

[Euhemerus]

I think I’m in swimordie’s camp on the fear/respect issue.

You know, this graph is really trippy for me. I’m an independent too, mostly because I hate to label myself. But most of my views line up with the libertarian platform so I’m really a mix of both sides. But even that is a stretch sometimes as I see the need for dictatorship in some situations (e.g. when developing software). In any case I mention this because I find myself on both sides of the graph. I highly value individuality, free markets, personal responsibility, building character, and freedom as a means to an end rather than freedom from oppression. On the other hand, I highly value equal rights, unconventionality, science, empathy, inclusive community, etc.

Where does religion fit in in shaping my beliefs about politics? I’m not sure at this point. Many members of the church don’t like real liberty (IMHO) because it means lack of safety, or it means allowing people to do things we disagree with morally. Many leftists don’t like real liberty (IMHO) because it means people will suffer. However, I see liberty in the Mormon notion of the war in the pre-existence. Personally, the take-home message for me is that liberty (agency) reigns as the supreme virtue. This includes sacrificing our safety (or salvation for some) at the expense of personal liberty.

[Euhemerus]

just me wrote:

The problem is that the church has reinforced those unrealistic expectations. We give lip service to JS the human, but the only flaws people will admit he had are the ones written in D&C. We put the cloak of God’s command on several of his largest flaws. This has caused a tendency to do the same thing with ALL ancient leaders as well.

This is a problem, IMO. If they killed people, it was because God told them to. If they committed fornication and adultery, it was because God told them to. If they raped and plundered, it was because God blessed them with the plunder.

But somehow, despite the messege getting mixed up, somehow Joseph Smith really is a mythological hero! I can’t even understand it, let alone explain it. But let’s look at it realistically, all the hero’s have a flaw. We are supposed to learn from it, not mimick it. Rather than learning the spiritual and symbolic significance of the myths we are only looking at them as literal/historical truths.

Add that to the false doctrine that a prophet will never lead us astray and the covenant against “ill speaking” and it’s a recipe for disaster.

Sorry, I haven’t followed this thread as closely as I’d like, so I hope I’m not repeating.

I think just me is touching on the point I’m trying to make. I admit this is a problem, but only if we continue to keep the realistic Joseph alive. I think the church, whether on purpose or not, is forgetting the real Joseph, and focusing on the mythological hero. When I think about it in this light, I am more inclined to be sympathetic, and accept Joseph in this light. That is to say, despite the obvious irrational, illogical, historically unlikely, physically impossible claims that the story of Christ represents, we gain value from the mythological Christ (and of course most believe in the literal Christ). I don’t know enough about New Testament history, Jewish history, or ancient Hebrew to even guess at Christ’s literal reality. But just the resurrection alone raises my skeptical eyebrows. Nevertheless, I am not going about being upset that every Christian church in the world believes in the literal Christ, and doesn’t give an alternate perspective.

In this same light, I find myself personally caring less and less about whether or not the church fairly represents Joseph, or paints him as a mythological hero. In either case, I can get value from the story. Now whether or not it is fair to the many people who become disaffected when they discover the other side of the coin is another issue that I’m not addressing. I’m not making any statement about the ethicality of what the church does, only observing that Joseph is painted as a mythological hero, and I am learning to accept it in this light.

[Euhemerus]

I see Ray’s point, and agree that people would complain (especially at first). But the truth is, anti-mormons complain no matter what, and apologists apologize no matter what. Personally, I’m in just me’s camp for wanting financial transparency.

A bigger problem that I see is that it would seem that general membership is oblivious to the fact that they are paid. We had a lesson in SS yesterday in which one member of the class indicated that a mark of a true prophet is that they shouldn’t be paid for their service. I thought that was a bit ironic, and no one rushed to correct him. It’s fine with me that they get paid, especially since they devote most of their time to it. And frankly, I don’t really want to know what they make. I just want the transparency on principle, not because I care about the amount or want to judge the church for its actions.

To answer the original post, I agree with Ray that attempts to pin it down to a number are speculation, even if they are reasonable. I will say that when I graduated from BYU the IT dept. at church approached me with wanting me to submit a resume. I was a bit turned off by the salary. Typically, church employees don’t make very good money (at least in my experience, and I have worked for the church before). It’s almost like there’s some sort of expectation of that church employees should just be grateful to be working for such a great cause. OTOH, it also shows frugality which the church preaches. I would say that in financial matters the church very much practices what it preaches.

[Euhemerus]

Just my own $.02. Thanks for joining!

Happy Valley wrote:

This intro may across arrogant, but I mean it as a way to share where I’m coming from. I truly don’t think I’m smarter or better than anyone who hasn’t reached the same conclusions. I still haven’t decided if my faith issues are a negative or a positive, i.e. is it due to a character deficiency like rebellion or pride or is it a sign of positive character?

There are plenty of TBMs in the world who will try to tell you that your “intellectualism” is bad and you just need to have faith. Your faith issues are a positive, I assure you. You just might not see it yet. But it will come. And, no it’s not a deficiency like rebellion or pride. You have chosen to grow up spiritually. There are few who allow themselves this opportunity!

Hawkgrrrl wrote:

I believe there is value in understanding them on a personal level rather than seeking for an interpretation outside of ourselves or even from an external worldview

This is brilliant!

[Euhemerus]

Brilliant Jordan!! I’m happy to have gotten a little better insight into your life.

Jordan wrote:

So, I see controversy. I do not dismiss it. I have no answers for it. But I do not need answers anymore, because I do not let the controversy distract me from my new purpose, from the balm of my soul, from the very real Christianity that is in Mormonism (and elsewhere). And I’ve gradually become so very grateful for this whole process, glad it happened. Life’s better, not easier, but so much better.

I love this, and feel this way too. I still have opinions, and I am interested in the controversy, it’s just that it no longer carries any special weight for me. I think this is where many TBMs and critics alike will criticize people in this position because they are caught up in the either/or thinking of the controversy. Transcending the controversy has been so liberating for me.

Thank you for sharing!

[Euhemerus]

Let me say that I will echo Ray on this one. Necessary – not likely, beautiful – absolutely. I think a Catholic baptism is beautiful too, but in a different way that doesn’t convey the same imagery and symbolism.

And now, I simply must post this image that this thread reminded me of.[attachment=0]postmodern.jpg[/attachment]

[Euhemerus]

Old Timer wrote:

Honestly, I don’t think our society would accept another Joseph Smith – even less than it did the first one.

I think this is true, and when I think about it, the implications are telling. We are shoving out the mystics in favor of an objective reality. I think there’s both an upside and downside to this.

[Euhemerus]

Bruce in Montana wrote:

I do, however, wish that the Church would knock it off with the watered-down versions….They have to know that people are going to eventually find the real history and, if it’s in conflict, they are going to have problems.

Bruce, if you look at the JS story that the church promulgates as more mythical, rather than literal, do you think what the church is doing is sustainable? What I’m asking is that it seems to me that you take the more literal approach, and I take the more metaphorical approach. Is the church, by creating their own JS myth (so to speak), trying to have it both ways, and is that sustainable? It seems to me, that it is. Yes, there are people leaving, but by employing apologists, and giving talks like Elder Holland’s, they are reinforcing a literal view of the pieces that they feel are important while somewhat ignoring the fundamentalist take on things along with many of the other details. Since people are still joining, and there’s not a mass exodus, it seems like what they’re doing is sustainable. Thoughts?

[Euhemerus]

MisterCurie wrote:

The problem is that Mormonism is such a modern religion that there is a plethora of evidence against JS being the mythical “hero” (evidence of lack of honesty, sexual sins, false translating, etc.) While they are doing a decent job of turning him into a hero within the church, It really makes it hard for the church to move past JS’s flaws and turn him into a hero with these pesky evidences being broadcast across the internet and people having trials of their faith. Additionally you have evangelicals who are unlikely to allow those outside the church to forget about JS’s flaws. Many of the new Mormon historians think it is best to accept and teach these flaws because you can’t hide from JS’s past in the modern era.

Well, yes and no. I see what you’re saying here, but in the church we have some pretty important guards against letting the “pesky evidences” get in the way. Many TBMs just “shelf” these problems, or have faith, or dismiss it as intellectualism, etc. etc. In fact, Elder Holland’s conference talk could be seen as nothing more than a reaffirmation of the JS mythological story, with a dismissal of critical evidence. Talks like this, while burning the bridges of many of us, really confirm the traditional JS story. And TBMs will buy that stuff hook, line, and sinker and never second guess!

Mister Curie wrote:

Agreed, you might do a better job learning and emulating Christ’s teachings if you don’t follow the church’s dictates, since the Church emphasis seems to be on pharisical rules and old testament throw-backs.

Well, if I’m being honest here, I really think you ought to listen to GC again. I know it’s hard to change perspective, but try listening to find things that aren’t pharisiacal. I think you’ll find there’s more than you think. In fact, I think what you’ll come to is that Mormon culture is pharisiacal, but that the Brethren are actually teaching something quite different.

Mister Curie wrote:

Sorry if this post is coming across bleak. I can only say that I am writing things as I see them and I recognize that my view is largely influenced by the status of my faith.

No worries, I get it. I have been there (sometimes still go back there).

Mister Curie wrote:

Perhaps a way to try and live up to the ideals of StayLDS, I can ask the following questions I am pondering from this thread, if you don’t mind. How does one reconcile the myth of JS propogated in the church with the historical reality?

Well, what, more specifically are you interested in reconciling? I understand this need to try and “reconcile” things, but I don’t feel this way anymore. I am most certainly interested in the historical reality, and it shapes how I perceive JS and the church. But it doesn’t affect whether or not I get something useful out of church. That’s my reality!

Here’s how I would (and eventually learned) to approach things. Remove all beliefs, preconceptions, and assumptions. Recognize that you, and only you are responsible for your spirituality (given that spirituality is important to you. If not, then you may as well leave the church and religion altogether). Now you have power to decide who, or what you will follow or adhere to. Now look at modern day Mormonism. Is there value in Mormonism as a framework for growing your spirituality? If so, use it, if not, abandon it. If you insist on reconciliation of JS with a literal interpretation of the church, its history, and doctrines you become one of two things: an apologist, or a critic! Both of these, to me, miss the mark!

Mister Curie wrote:

What course would be most useful for the continued livlihood of the church and improvement of missionary efforts (continuing to preach the myth of JS, teach the historical realities of JS – maybe a RSR approach, try to relegate JS to myth, some other course?)?

Why is this question important? Does it influence your spirituality? Does it help or hurt you? Is this just theoretical and you’re asking because you want to know what would be the most beneficial for the organization? If that’s the case, that’s fine, we can theorize, but I don’t see how it will help you if the church changes its missionary efforts. Although I don’t want the church to fail, I’m sufficiently divested that I don’t wrap up my entire spiritual livelihood in it.

Mister Curie wrote:

How can I (or someone else who has experience a trial of their faith) influence the church to adopt a more helpful approach on JS (I believe one of John Dehlin’s reason’s to stay LDS is to be a positive force for change within the organization)?

This is something I have struggled with a bit. Here’s how I divide it up:

What I don’t try to do.

1. preach

2. tell my leaders what they should do

3. loudly voice “reality checks”

4. care too much whether or not the church changes it’s approach on JS (it’s not why I stay LDS that’s for sure). I think (speaking for John here a bit) John is more interested in helping people who get tripped up in this stuff than rather than changing the church’s approach to JS. John, please disabuse me of my ignorance if this is incorrect.

What I try to do:

1. worry about my own spirituality and how I can become a better person

2. carefully, constructively, in a faithful manner bring people back down to reality to let them know that there is another interpretation beside the traditional one. Most of the time I only do this when we have gotten WAY off track.

3. serve where I’m asked as long as it works for me (I love to serve, but my own family and spirituality come first).

[Euhemerus]

Good summary MapleLeaf. I wonder about the implications of the Mormon idea of eternal progression in a circular fashion as well. That is, if we really do become gods, like God himself, then Mormonism also teaches a sort of circular progression in which we can create our worlds, have our own universe, etc.

[Euhemerus]

Very well said Ray. I whole-heartedly endorse this kind of sentiment. I recently read a post at MM that I thought was trying to convey this exact sentiment with regard to Elder Hafen and his recent remarks at an Evergreen conference.

Oh, and I agree that going over the 2 hour alloted time (or any alloted time for that matter) really rubs me the wrong way!

[Euhemerus]

Old-Timer wrote:

That is why I really like the Mormon concept of salvation and exaltation extending beyond the traditional restrictions of mainstream Christianity. There is a recognition in it, at what I see as its “pure” core, that allows for honest disagreement that will NOT derail our ultimate end. I realize many members don’t see it that way, but it’s what I love most about the way Mormonism focuses on Christ – extending his atonement / grace to cover (nearly) all of God’s children.

Ray, I truly wish that more Mormons were like you. Today during our EQ lesson I spent well over half the lesson (through comments) just trying to reign everyone in from literal, dogmatic interpretations of D&C 132. There were a lot of wild claims about marriage and what it would be like in the after-life. Too many times these kinds of opinions go unchecked. I, like you, agree that at the root of Mormonism there is much room for honest disagreement that will not effect us in the eternities.

[Euhemerus]

MisterCurie wrote:

It seems to me that the church largely places itself between the members and the Godhead. The church acts as if it is a gatekeeper to God. The Church teaches that you must be in good-standing in the church in order to be in good-standing with God. It teaches that if you are not worthy of carrying a temple recommend, you are not worthy in the sight of God. And it seems that even in General Conference, when talks are about becoming more Christ-like, they are largely about following the Church’s rules and guidelines, rather than following what Christ really taught. I agree there is a lot of JS worship and current prophet worship and church worship. But I don’t think there is a lot of Christ worship.

Sometimes I think I need to go to a different cafeteria to get a good helping of Christ. The Mormon Cafeteria doesn’t seem to serve much Christ.

Okay, let me divide this up into how I see it:

1. Sometimes our meetings are high on obedience, JS, tithing, obedience, WoW, faith, obedience, baptism, etc. and a bit light on Christ. I think there’s some truth in this and I would like to see more sacrament meetings devoted to becoming more like Christ by talking about his life, than by obeying the tenants of Mormonism (of course we believe we’re becoming like Christ by obeying these dictates since we believe they were revealed by Christ to our prophets).

2. In the way implied by #1 I can see that in a literal interpretation of the church’s teachings that it could seem this way. If you are of the opinion that you must have the endowment, be sealed by the sealing power of the Priesthood, be worthy to hold a TR, etc. in order to obtain the Celestial kingdom, then yes, absolutely the church, by definition (since it administers the ordinances) has placed itself between me and the Godhead (since I can’t actually enjoy full presence of the Godhead outside of the CK). And, even in a more metaphorical sense, if we believe that this church’s spin on rules and doctrine is the right one, then of course it has placed itself between us and the Godhead if I am under the impression that I must obey these rules to have access (which would be true of any religion nearly). But if we’re talking about my ability to pray to God, or to repent, or to learn and emulate Christ’s teachings, then I would say this claim doesn’t hold water as the church never dictates that.

[Euhemerus]

Holy crap!! Maybe I wrote a very poorly worded question.

Let me explain what I’m not asking:

1. I am not comparing Joseph to Christ, or elevating him above Christ, or even claiming that we worship JS or anything like this.

2. I am not claiming that the church doesn’t focus enough on Jesus

3. I am not asking about whether or not JS literally restored Christ’s church

Now what I’m asking:

In much of Campbell’s work, particularly “The Hero with a Thousand Faces” the idea of a hero is put forth. And, even in our own mind, we have an idea of what it is to be a hero. In the LDS church we aggrandize Joseph Smith, that is, we don’t talk about his polygamy, or the plethora of historical conundrums involved in early LDS church beginnings, or the quotes that shed light on the ambiguity JS faced (e.g. “Some revelations are from God, some from man, some of the Devil”). I’m not saying we worship him. I’m saying that he is becoming a hero in Mormon theology. Step back, and look at Mormonism from the context of a mythology. Who are our heroes? Jesus Christ – but we worship him. He’s already a god, and the quintessential hero. Joseph Smith has become the hero accessible to us. Becoming like Christ is a lofty goal, but JS was a normal human being. Becoming like him is more realistic given that he only lived 200 years ago and faced trials like the rest of us.

On the one hand we know JS is flawed, unlike Christ. OTOH, we are slowly erasing the tragically flawed portion (at least in our church lessons). As time marches on, JS becomes less realistic, and more mythical. In our mind, as Mormons, we will always know that JS was imperfect. But we have all but ceased talking about his imperfections. It approaches heresy to question whether or not JS actually saw God and Jesus (which is a perfectly legitimate question given the history).

Many of us (myself included in the past) have felt that because the historical record may not support all the firm truth claims we make, we feel inclined to set the record straight. My point is, that’s not the point of the JS story. The JS story is approaching myth status in its use in the modern day church.

I hope that was more clear.

p.s. just read Heber’s response. Yes, that’s more like what I had in mind. I’m not making any claims that we revere JS more than Muslims revere Abraham. But Abraham is a hero in Islam that definitely is more mythological than literal (IMHO).

[Author]

Posts