Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Quote:
I wish also that we could just lay it all out there and talk about it. Hiding it, as usual, seems to cause a lot of trouble.
I somewhat agree, but then I think “What can we really say about it?” From a correlation committee standpoint, the party line is impossible to draft, which is probably why this topic is the unmentioned elephant in the room so often. Open dialogue, asking open-ended questions seems reasonable, but you know that there will be weird weird speculative things said by well-intentioned members and that it could be worse than if the topic is skirted. Like with most things, I’m all for open debate and questions so long as stupid people are not allowed to speak.
This comment may be totally irrelevant, so take it for what it is worth. I grew up in an area with few church members (we had six high schools in the same branch). Our seminary teacher was someone who had a lot of struggles, but as kids in his class we really didn’t perceive it. He was open to our questions, and he enjoyed his time with us. He just cared about us and listened to us. Not long after we graduated from high school, he left the church because he was having an affair. His wife also left the church after a few years to marry a minister of another faith (she was one of our YW leaders). None of us kids cared whether he had a rock-solid testimony. All he did was facilitate discussions anyway. We just liked him because he liked us and listened to us, and he had a great sense of humor. We were sad he left the church, but he was still a positive influence for us.
Mike, Welcome! What a great yet difficult story. Thanks for sharing. I would recommend changing your reading list a bit at this point, leaning toward books that open up questions vs. books that try to be confident and certain about answers (such as the God Delusion). It’s easy to exchange one black and white dogma for another that is equally black and white. A good starting point might be to read about Fowler’s Stages of Faith. Some others you might like have been discussed on the site. Good luck! Salo, I like this thought:
Quote:As I said I think it was a failed social experiment. As far as BY’s polygamy goes, polygamy was JS’s baby and BY did the best he could with what JS gave him to work with, in the end it failed because the system was flawed and not of God IMO.
One thing I was interested to read was that open sexuality or communal sexual experimentation was a common thing among these “enthusiastic” new religions (those that relied heavily on manifestations of the Holy Ghost, and people were more or less waiting to hear that Mormons were practicing something odd in that vein. I find it interesting that it seems a natural byproduct of that type of worship, at least based on what else was happening at that time.
Salo – welcome. I enjoyed your intro. Personally, I think “humanism” is a very good place to be since it’s pragmatic. This is a topic that is very personal to me. I agree with all of the comments here, even though many are contradictory. When I was in college, I went through the BOM and wrote down all the things I didn’t believe, disliked about it, thought were just laughable, etc. I kept these in a journal. I really had no belief that it was an ancient record or that it was even very worthwhile. But when I re-read Lehi’s dream, my perspective suddenly shifted. I realized that I had had a very similar dream that I would not have recognized as a “Lehi’s dream” parallel because it was modern (for example, the great and spacious building looked like a parking garage–also, there were elements of Lehi’s dream not included in my dream and no tree of life). Then I thought, maybe I’m just not reading what’s actually on the page. Maybe what I think is laughably bad is just me remembering other people’s perspectives and not what it says. To Ray’s point, separating what others think the BOM is and what it actually is are two completely different things. I decided I was going to pray about it, like we have always been told, despite the fact that I was still convinced that it was laughable. There were so many flaws, so many things I didn’t like (many of which are listed by others above). When I prayed, I had an answer that I won’t deny. I actually got up and checked to see if the window was open or if someone had come into the apartment because I felt like rushing oxygen filled my lungs, as if I could breathe for the first time. I can question what that answer meant exactly, but I very clearly had an answer in a way that I understood it that I should not dismiss it and that it was good. That was a personal experience. I don’t necessarily think everyone has or needs that kind of answer, nor that it means that Zelph was really a Nephite
I agree with Ray that JS didn’t really seem to “get” the BOM, which argues against his own authorship. There are other elements that make it seem like a 19th c. record as well as things that don’t. The BoA as a 19th c. document can be argued pretty persuasively, too. Can a 19th c. document be inspired? Absolutely! Hopefully, so can documents written today.
The illustration of translation is misleading, especially when contrasted with D&C 9, which is much more like a “translation” that takes place entirely in the mind (maybe even including elements of wishful thinking) vs. using the plates themselves (note that it doesn’t mention any use of the physical plates–but humans are not wired to notice omissions).
There are probably pros & cons on both sides. I grew up the only Mormon in my graduating class in PA. As a result, I think I always felt like an outsider (despite having many friends), but distance also gave me perspective. When I went to BYU (in UT for my first time), I REALLY felt like an outsider. There is a very strong Mormon culture in UT that is unlike living anywhere else. My DH was raised in SLC, and he still has many close friendships with his high school friends who also went to church with him. When you’re the only Mormon, you feel like you’re expected to be an example, but you also feel a little self-conscious, and you know there is a side to your life that no one else would relate to (especially if you are doing seminary). When you’re among many Mormons there may be more variation in the social circles among other kids who are Mormon. Plus, according to studies, SLC is becoming less and less Mormon as more people move there. Personally, I think the best of both worlds is CA or AZ. Some place where Mormons are not the majority but not so uncommon that no one knows anything about it until the local pastors get together to show “The Godmakers.”
I agree with Ray’s perspective on this one. I think we can grow stronger as we try to understand all the theology including things we misunderstood previously. Quote:I find myself scrutinizing everything.
I find myself feeling (at this point) that this is in fact what God intended. Surely He does not want us to simply take everything at face value as it is spoonfed to us–how would that work for our eternal progression? I realize that in some circles in the church “thinking,” “questioning” and “scrutiny” have become synonymous with apostacy, but there are plenty of other places that encourage that approach. Other words for “scrutinizing everything” are searching, pondering, praying and seeking out wisdom, and increasing our understanding and seeking further light and knowledge. All of these are ostensibly Mormon principles, but there are many who don’t pursue those things or are afraid of what they might find. I’d rather believe things that are true, nuanced and unsettling than things that are untrue, simplistic and commonplace.
I bought but haven’t yet read the book Gerald Lund just did on personal revelation. I almost feel like I could write my own book on it. I love your idea of gathering those spiritual experiences you have heard about. The key, IMO, is that regardless of your spiritual experiences, you can’t “prove” anything religious. You can’t prove God exists, much less that Jesus was the son of God or that the BOM was an ancient record. None of this is provable or disprovable. There’s inconclusive evidence on both sides of any religious claim. Even spiritual experiences could be a brain anneurism or undiagnosed schizofrenia. Or they could be how God communicates with man. Richard Bushman said there are people who want to believe, and they do.
Maybe the most important thing is not whether it’s true, but what we want to believe and how we want to live our life. The church is there to test us, not the other way around. Or at least that’s what I think sometimes.
That’s going into my file of great stories, along with the David O. McKay drinking Coke story. I hadn’t heard that one before. One thing I like to remember is that the church belongs to all of us as members, not just to the leaders. I’m just as much a Mormon as anyone else in the church. That sounds like “fighting words,” yet it’s not. I just think that like all human organizations, some people think they own the place. Sally M – FWIW, I don’t like it either. Not one bit. I can’t think of a scenario in which I would comply with it. But as I said, I also don’t want to dismiss the perspective of those women who found it repugnant yet felt they had a spiritual witness they should participate. Now, the men, OTOH, I don’t really have a great excuse for one way or another–and I’m not a man, so it’s hard to identify. Clearly it was not great for anyone, but obviously worse for women in most ways (although it did enable many to pursue careers through opportunities opened up by group parenting.) Quote:Its a pity many have this all or nothing mindset..it is hard to fight…but I may not want or now accept it “all”…but I know I do not want “nothing” also!
I really relate to what you are saying. I think the key is that once you have taken the “backstage tour,” you start to get an idea for how things work to bring it all together, and you realize that all human organizations are make-believe to a certain extent. Some people take this newfound perspective and use it to criticize and mock the actors from behind the curtain. Some people try to drop sandbags and sabotage the play. But some just sit back and enjoy watching how it all comes together and realize that it’s not the only stage in town, and every theater works the same way. What I think is interesting is that the new insights really just reveal the kind of person YOU are. I’m sure you’ve seen other approaches out there.
It’s also like the process of growing up, but we forget that there are certain elements to growing up that are unpleasant. But growing up spiritually is similar. It involves rejecting one’s parents to some extent, seeing their flaws, and even at times hating them, but eventually we start to see the whole picture. After that, they are never those perfect people we thought they were (that they never were in the first place). But we can find that they are good, they have moments of greatness despite their flaws, and ultimately they are a part of us.
