Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Kind of number two. I believe the Book of Mormon to be an inspired work meant to draw people closer to Christ. Whether or not it’s origins are as presented by the authorities of the church holds no significance for me. Similar to the fact that I don’t care whether or not there was actually a guy named Moses who liberated a bunch of people by parting a sea after getting directions from a fire. The message and the context is what counts, not the historicity or origin. So, is the Book of Mormon a divine work that contains records of immigrants to ancient mesoamerica? Eh, I don’t care enough to know. But I do like the fact that it supports other works that track the life of Jesus Christ. Whether or not the BOM is a creative biblical reproduction of an 19th century man, or a divinely gifted primary source is of little significance to me. After all, the more time I waste on that debate, the less time I spend developing good traits and feeding his sheep.
Thank you featherina. It’s been a rough road for sure but I’m learning to cope. My ex-wife is getting married this month, civilly I assume because I haven’t been approached by the church, which has created a wide array of feelings: anger, sadness, relief, transfer of worry, etc. As time goes on I’m learning to really explore my individual shortcomings and not become hung up upon the mistakes of my ex-spouse, the role of the church, or doctrines that may be culpable in this event. Five months since, I feel I’ve grown substantially as a person. Although I’m still a bit conflicted on my personal issues with the church, and where I want to go with it, I have been healthier, happier, and far more in tuned with heavenly father in a way I have never been before. Thank you all for your kind words and support.
Thanks for all the amazing advice, it has really helped. After a few weeks of real inactivity, I have begun attending church again–it’s my home ward so I still get the ocassional “where’s the wife?” which get’s old. I have also realized how ironic the whole situation is. I do feel a bit more spiritual now than I could have possibly been in my marriage, whether or not this new found spirituality will reconcile with the church is yet to be seen.
@Jamison, It’s good to see that some of my actions are the ones you saw as beneficial. Yes, one of them is watching all the sports I couldn’t while married–without season tickets, I’ve managed to make it to 1/4 of the Timbers’ home matches this season. A GREAT distraction.
@absentminded, sadly I am not in Utah. Faux-Zion, which is no longer my location, was referring to Rexburg, Idaho. I am a recent graduate of BYU-Idaho and have since relocated to Oregon to prepare for grad. school. Thanks for the thought though.I have snuck away from homework. Here is the promised post. Quote:I think that’s a gross oversimplification. Of course there were many, but that doesn’t mean anything in and of itself other than it was a big movement.
There are many 18th century novelists (less than today, but still enough). But that doesn’t mean that they are equally good, or that their works are as good as one another, and the large number doesn’t invalidate them individually.
First off, Stephanie Meyers is totally on par with Thoreau so your statement is a complete non-sequitor–110% sarcastic. In all reality, I agree with your statement. Richard Bushman continued on in this forum to explain why Joseph Smith excelled and was far more successful than the others. Your comment also leads me to point out something I think is interesting. According to the Bible of Etymology–the Oxford English Dictionary–we see a more general use of the word prophet following Joseph Smith’s time. The first example is in the early 1840s with Emerson. The definition that I find best represents my views on Smith is as follows, “a prominent proponent of or spokesperson for a particular cause, movement, principle, etc.; a visionary leader or representative.”
So, a couple questions; first, is it possible that Joseph Smith saw himself as a literal prophet but, in reality, he was more of a figurative prophet as seen in the liberalization of the title in the years following the second great awakening? Second, regarding application, is it possible to be a temple recommend holding member of the church if you believe the figurative when the church maintains the literal?
I agree a lot with Brian, however, I tend to still operate on a fundamental disagreement on the idea of prophecy. I’ll explain more when I have more than 5 minutes to comment (stupid college, getting in the way of my learning). Is the “i’m with Brian movement” a restoration of the primitive Brian movement or is it more of a modern morph of a classic? If you don’t mind me answering my own question, I think it’s very possible that prophecy as discussed by contemporary orthodox leaders never existed–as in the intimate direction between God and a select man/men. I too have noticed that prophecy took a precipitous nosedive when BY took charge of the church; however, I’m not so sure it existed when Joseph Smith was around either. I have a sincere belief that Joseph Smith utilized the idea of prophecy–deceptively or sincerely is a matter for another debate–as a way of bringing about the religious and social reforms he sought. After all, religious reformers and heretics haven’t been treated too well in the history of the world, why not back your opinion up with a bit of “thus saith the lord?” As mentioned in my original post, Smith was just one of many talking to God at the time–let us not forget that John Brown was convinced God told him to chop up southerners with a broad sword. IMO, I don’t think it’s far-fetched to believe the prophecy Smith practiced was that which the liberal Charles Briggs explained a few decades later, that of mere “religious instruction.” However, in the era of open heavens, Smith was able to place his religious instruction against the backdrop of the second great awakening and achieve the ends he sought.
Then again, it’s possible that everything I just said is rubbish because I was ready for bed three hours ago.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:What I don’t really believe at all anymore is the idea that one man that has been given a special title of prophet within an organization that represents less than 1% of all the people in the world should automatically be entitled to special revelations that apply to others in a way that they should not even be questioned. Jesus said, “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me…If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:16-17). Paul said, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).
Rather than saying do this simply because some authority figure said so it sounds like they were suggesting to go ahead and try some of these things and see for yourself how well they work or not.This seems like quite a contrast compared to some of the shameless authoritarian ideas we hear in talks like the 14 fundamentals and the “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect.” Well said. These scriptures are awesome as well, especially John 7:16-17. See, that is something that I will be needing to work on myself. I believe with the sentiment you shared about seeing whether or not a specific revelation or prophecy is meant for you; however, I tend to resort to the black and white idea that if a prophecy does not work for me, therefore the prophet must be false. I feel this habit of mine is rather common as well because it’s reinforced by our culture. Then again, maybe I just want to believe that because I don’t want to feel alone in my foibles. Haha.
@GBSmith, good insight. I do have one question though, if you hold a pragmatist view towards LDS doctrine, do you personally decide what aspects of the church’s history and doctrine to believe in or do you follow the pick-and-choosing that the church already does? I’m sorry in advance if that came off intrustive or abrasive, not my intent.
@Mormonheretic, I think that’s a good point. I’ve noticed in the modern church we don’t have “revelation” or “prophecy” but we rely upon “proclaimations,” why do you think that is?I think where the main struggle comes in, for me, is that I’ve tended to equate truth with infallibility. So when I hear 30-40 times in a three hour block that “the church is true” I accept the silent implication that it is, therefore, infallible. I tend to agree with you all that leaders make mistakes–as is evidenced in every book of scripture and most modern-prophets that have lived–however, it’s a struggle to work through the cognitive dissonance that comes from the reality of humanity and the ideals of childhood where you sing “follow the prophet” regularly. This leads me to ask another question; if church doctrine states that the prophet will never lead you astray, how does that follow the reality that prophets are fallible? Especially when you look at history: priesthood exclusion, Equal Rights Amendment, John Birch Society beliefs, Proposition 8, and so on.
