Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well, in the NT they were living the law of consecration and had “all things in common.” So, you pretty much gave 100%, not 10%. Well, of course, if you are a self-reported (that’s the only kind there is) full tithe payer, you have access to the Church Welfare system. In these rocky economic times, that’s a comfort, IMO. It’s got to be the best system out there for taking care of those who can’t make ends meet, and I have been surprised at times by some of what the church is willing to cover to help families meet obligations. As a business executive, I guess I’m just a little more stingy than I have seen most bishops behave. Just to add to what Valoel and Ray have already said so well, the “story” of the temple that JS was trying to portray is not only significantly different than the Masonic ritual story, it is really a unique concept to Mormonism: that throughout all time, the human experience has always been essentially the same and there has always been a Savior (pre-Christ Christology). This is in fact a very unique religious perspective in the scope of what he was communicating. It adds (restores?) a clearer strategic view than can be found elsewhere. In a very real way, the temple is more focused on Christ than our weekly worship is. The caveat is that people are not as symbolic (or interested in symbolism) as they were when JS was putting this together. We just don’t communicate this way. Symbolism was to JS what parables were to Christ. And, both can be hard to understand or to connect with.
Quote:When LDS teachings and the words of Jesus contradict one another
This is an interesting concept. I think the key is that the words of Jesus are often enigmatic and layered with meaning (as he said “he that hath ears to hear, let him hear”), subject to varying interpretation (as attested by the various interpretations from Christian sect to Christian sect). Or, as one comedian put it, “Even your followers aren’t getting it!”
It’s very easy to pine for what you don’t have rather than to create something wonderful from what you do have. After all, fantasies aren’t subject to the harsh light of day since they only exist in our minds. If fantasy ever became reality it would cease to be fantastic. These are just a few thoughts I have about the questions you raise that might be helpful to you (or might not). Quote:The S.P. was supposed to have been inspired. So how did he not see through my deceipt to him to my wife and to myself
That was explained that as I had not gambled for some time before the interview and had taken sacrament that it had been forgiven – the gambling fair enough but what about the lying.
Even if he did see through your deceit (which would be related to his own ability, not necessarily the truthfulness of the church IMO), what is he supposed to do? Call you a liar to your face? Even someone “inspired” (which can include you and me, BTW), can doubt the best course of action. Would it have really made you so much more believing to have been called out for your lie? That would be an extraordinary response on your part, IMO. If I believed someone was lying in these circumstances, I would probably ask them to elaborate at most, but not call them a liar probably ever.
Quote:changes in temple stuff
the idea of blood atonemnet
adam-god theory
“Racism” (for want of a better word) in the priesthood
Interestingly, these are all from the times of Brigham Young. I find a lot of his stuff unpalatable, too, but I see him as someone with a difficult task (a challenge he met that maybe no one else could have) yet a person who was a product of his time in that he was a sexist and a racist and held to many of the notions from his Protestant upbringing that he should have discarded but seemed too deeply ingrained in him to let go. Which is one reason that I see his influence in many ways being tempered greatly. Blood atonement (which was more introduced in JS’s day) and Adam-God theory were thrown out. Changes in the temple stuff, I’m not sure exactly what you refer to (there are many changes to be considered). Racism was also dropped, albeit a little later than I would have liked.
Quote:And here is one thing that I personally can NOT get my head around
The guilt trips that I get given for KNOWING not thinking but KNOWING that for my wife and myself
after discussion and PRAYER
that I yes ME the MAN am supposed to go out and work to provide for my family and my wife is supposed to stay at home
Well that just isnt US
My wife is VERY suited to the work place and I am VERY suited to home life
And imho and in our experience (my wifes and mine as a comparison)
having a mother at home does not always “trump” having a workling mother
There are many quotes from apostles & prophets stating that this decision is to be made prayerfully between the husband and wife as a couple and the Lord, regardless of what the stated “ideal” is. I don’t find the stated ideal suitable either. Both my husband and I work. That’s your decision as a couple. Many women at church work. What I think causes the most consternation are those who are doing what doesn’t feel right to them as a couple: SAHMs who don’t want to stay at home but feel they should (some of whom judge women who work uncharitably), couples who need a second income but feel too guilty for both to work, or SAHDs who feel like the only man at church who chooses to stay at home. But, the times they are a-changin’.
I also like to ask myself sometimes “What is the purpose of speaking up?” If the purpose is worthwhile and will have a good outcome, I do. But I don’t have to enlighten people with my wisdom 24/7. Quote:I do entertain this idea as a possibility — that Joseph was drifting too far off course the last couple years, and that is why he was “removed.” I mean that both in a divine sense, and also of course that his decisions and actions finally caused the consequences of so much persecution that he was murdered.
I often wonder that. I’m not sure it was openly taught when I was growing up, but I am certain there was speculation on this notion.
Great post. I kind of agree with Valoel about what is possible. My own two cents: 1. JS was a prophet of God called in these last days to bring the everlasting gospel to fruition. His actions and activities were pure. The Book of Mormon is what he claimed it was and his revelations are the same. He was called of God. Whatever problems have emerged in his story are not really to be examined because they are of God and so the explanation for them lies in the mystery of God.Notice that this is a description of what his task was, not what or who he was. That’s significant, because when we talk about JS at church, it is usually about his role or task, not a real breathing human being. 2. JS was a ne’er-do-well who concocted the Book of Mormon and the church itself (First Vision, Priesthood, Polygamy, etc.) for personal gain and glory. The whole thing was a sham from the beginning. He was just a great con man. A genius, to be sure, but just a con man in the final analysis.This one doesn’t really work for me. I am not saying he doesn’t have his moments of weakness when he seems to like some of the glory, but overall, that doesn’t seem to be his character. It is certainly not consistent or even the overwhelming theme of his life. 3. JS was psychotic, delusional. He truly believed he had seen God and Jesus, or had a visitation of some sort, and that he had been designated to bring forward the everlasting gospel in these last days. He believed he continued to receive revelation from God throughout his life and brought together a church that believed in him, with the Priesthood, Polygamy, temples, etc., and all of those visitations from the apostles. But, in this, he was psychotic. Here the analogy would be to Jim Jones and the People’s Temple, among other cult leaders that have existed both in our own time and the past.I don’t agree with the Jim Jones/People’s Temple analogy, but being prone to delusions is possible. Maybe all religious people are. What does the term “visionary” mean anyway? Is it a form of psychosis? It could be, and such a thing could be inherited. Or maybe it is “gifts of the spirit,” and those are inherited. Even in the NT, on the day of pentecost, people couldn’t tell the difference. 4. JS believed he had a vision of God and Jesus, or at least an epiphany of some sort, and that he believed the work he did was of God. He constructed the Book of Mormon from his own imagination but it was nonetheless a God-inspired work. His motivations were pure. If he wasn’t a prophet in the classic sense he was still God-inspired. Like sages throughout the ages he provided wisdom and, in the particular sense, an illuminated appreciation of Christ, which is worthy of following.I think it’s hard to read about JS and not see that he believed what he was saying. Certainly, I think he may also have been prone to wishful thinking at times, so I wouldn’t rule that out either. I do think you are right that the physical presence of the plates makes this explanation problematic. As I said on a different site, if he was sincere but deluded, what was in the box? Gwyneth Paltrow’s head? And I agree that we are just too hard on “prophets.” In fact, they were probably all as enigmatic and flawed as JS. The written evidence supports this. At minimum, they were anti-social and delusional as viewed by those who are not visionary. And the same criticisms could come into play for all of them (seeking power, deluded, following their imaginations).
The heart of the question is how much God is involved in this versus how much is the work of man. So many church members like to see God as very personally involved in the minutae of our lives; I don’t really view it this way. But I do think the idea of “draw near unto me, and I will draw near unto you” is a true concept. It’s a fine line, though. If you draw near to God, are you really hearing God or your own internal inspiration or the seed of Godliness within you?
K08 – Welcome. I’m sure you will enjoy the forum, and your insights will be appreciated. You mentioned how little you enjoy church since your disaffection. Are there some components that are better than others? Hmmm. What I meant by “the nature of Christ” is what kind of person he REALLY was (there is some evidence that he existed, but the nature of his personality is certainly questionable), not what kind of person has he been assumed to be through projection or association. When many people say “Christ-like” they mean things like being charitable, kind, merciful, patient, long-suffering but there were other components to his personality (at least based on the various written accounts) that we don’t hear that much about. That’s probably to the heart of my original comment. So I don’t dismiss the desire to be like Christ (or like Buddha even), just what that really means vs. what people usually mean when they say it. I think the problem is the difference of really trying to be Christlike by understanding the nature of Christ vs. wanting to be associated with those who call themselves Christian. A rising actor on a show we like was featured in an article for being a Christian and trying to live his Christian lifestyle while he’s in Hollywood. I asked my DH how Christian he was. My qualifier was “Is he so Christian that he thinks all Mormons are a cult?” Basically, it’s tough to want to belong to a club that is so un-Christian. Quote:it struck me how many of us would see such flaws in another religion’s history and not call that religion a false religion? Why do we go out of our way to still defend the church when its flaws are so apparent?
But that attitude of “I’m right, and you’re wrong” has to go, too. Honestly, Christ did that with Judaism a little bit, but it still somehow doesn’t seem Christ-like (stand back in case the lightning hits).
