[jpacman]

Hearing from you “non-traditional Mormons” is like seeing something familiar in a very unfamiliar way. This is really, really great. Thank you everyone for your answers. I’ll respond to a few of your comments and make few additional points for clarification of our very interesting dialogue.

Quote:

Valoel wrote:

When it comes to messages from prophets, I see them as a mirror. . . Everyone sees their own message in the mirror. We are looking into our own soul and drawing out the wisdom specifically tailored to fit our needs. That message could have nothing to do with the literal words and ideas being spoken. What matters is the sense of receiving the whispers of the divine, and trying to figure out what the message might be.

Valoel brings up an interesting point about prophets and revelation being mirrors. It reminds me of the uncomfortable fact that when JS translated the BOM, he mostly used his own seer-stone that he found when digging a well with Willard Chase, and the gold plates were either covered or not even present – so he didn’t use the gold plates when dictating the BOM. So why did the BOM prophets painstakingly preserve a record for over a thousand years and carefully preserve them for Joseph, along with a means to “translate” them, when he didn’t even use the gold plates or the Urim and Thummim during the translation? Similarly, one defense of the Book of Abraham (since the Egyptian papyri have nothing to do with the text in the BOA) is that the papyri served as a facilitator for the actual text – given by revelation. So why did he need to purchase the papyri and say he was translating them? Maybe the gold plates and Egyptian papyri can be thought of as “mirrors” that helped JS get his own God-inspired message. Similarly, if we also view our prophets as a mirror or facilitator for our own personal revelation, then why do we need prophets at all? Couldn’t a work of art, music, or nature itself be a mirror or facilitator for our personal revelation? If JS didn’t need the gold plates or papyri, then do we need prophets?

Another point I wanted to highlight and discuss further involves something Orson said:

Quote:

. . . we may just need to think in the Martin Luther mindset — that no earthly authority can get between a man and his God. Maybe if we look at earthly “authority” as facilitative instead of absolute and literal then we can move forward and find the spiritual food where it exists.

In the reformation, Luther said that the way to discover truth was not by following the authority of the Catholic church. Rather, the way to discover truth was through personal revelation. The Catholic church and their apologists, during the counter-reformation, said people should trust the church and it’s authority as the divinely sanctioned repository of truth (interesting parallels between our church and apologists and the Catholic church).

Anyway, Luther’s ideas are great. I’m personally a fan and agree with Orson. However, the problem with Luther’s “personal revelation” path to truth is that it gave rise to many different views of Christianity and eventually many different churches. This is exactly what the Catholic church wanted to avoid, and just what our church wants to avoid now. Our “watchman on the towers” try to prevent this sort of heresy from entering into our church and dividing the flock. This was the problem that JS had to confront when Hiram Page said he was getting revelations with his own seer stone (see D&C 28). It seems JS (or the Lord) realized that this would be a problem, JS received a more authoritative revelation with his seer-stone, and Hiram was told that the messages he received were from Satan (vs 11).

Some part of me feels that to be part of the church in a meaningful and honest way, I have to “follow the rules” that the church makes. The church has that right. It’s like playing a game. If I’m going to play, I have to agree to play by the rules, and when the referee says I fouled, then I eventually have to agree or I get ejected. If nobody follows the referee and becomes a law unto themselves, then the game stops because chaos ensues. One of those rules seems to be “follow the brethren”. I think that in small ways, we can be our own light, but can we really disagree about the big things; the nature of God and salvation, the historicity of the BOM, the literalness of the BOA, or restoration of priesthood, necessity of temple ceremonies or ordinances of salvation, etc, etc?

[jpacman]

Gabe,

thanks for your candid reply. I tend to agree more with your first paragraph than your second (maybe you do too). However, I don’t think I can “come back” physically and mentally if I don’t believe the prophet leaders are, in some way, actually receiving reliable revelation from God. People with good ideas are ubiquitous – and at least most aren’t claiming to get their ideas from God. The explanation in the second paragraph why prophets “see through a glass darkly” can explain small errors in doctrine and policy (not being honest about church history or Prop 8, for example), but seems inadequate to explain things like polygamy (a 60 year mistake that cut across multiple presidencies and involved the entire church and nearly destroyed it).

HiJolly,

thanks for your very thoughtful reply. I feel your love and concern. I thought your fifth reason was especially pertinent. You say that everything we are taught from our leaders is the “doctrines of men, mingled with scripture”. But I thought that is what Satan was teaching to Adam and Eve and their posterity – symbolizing the confusion in the philosophies of men and teachings of other churches? Our prophets, symbolized by Peter who is a “true messenger”, give the pure message straight from the source, unpolluted and undefiled. Maybe I’m getting this wrong – please correct me if I am.

To me it just feels like an attempt to rationalize our desire to believe in a prophet who is in communication with God, with many of their actual teachings that seem to be “philosophies of men” – easier to see in retrospect (polygamy, blacks and priesthood, evolution, theocracy, etc) than it is with contemporary issues (Prop 8, historical whitewashing, anti- intellectualism, and anti-feminism). I’m not trying to criticize your point, but I’m not sure if I can degrade a prophet and revelation to that level and still follow them as a “prophet, seer, and revelator”.

One solution would be for the church to come to terms with our history, open the archives again, disillusion the church members of their literalist beliefs regarding “infallible” revelation and the mythical Joseph Smith, etc. I know this would be extremely painful in the short-term, but in the long-term it would prevent a lot of disillusioned members like me from being marginalized to the “borderlands” or just walking away entirely. Maybe there are trends in this direction. I will be paying attention during General Conference to hear any.

[Author]

Posts