Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Euhemerus wrote:
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.
Thanks. I appreciate the insight and suggestions. By “reconcile” I think I meant how do you not allow the historical JS to taint your experience in the church. You offer some great suggestions to answer that question. Thanks!
Euhemerus wrote: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 thepieces that they feel are importantwhile 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? I think the difficulty here is that in trying to have it both ways, while trying to create their own JS myth, they are simultaneously declaring that the myth literally happened. This places them in a very difficult position when the historicity contradicts the “literal myth.” This makes the leaders look like they are deliberately lying to protect their own power or that they are very foolish. While there may be no mass exodus, information is going to become more available, not less. I can only see things being ultimately sustainable if they let go of the literalness. In the meantime, their emphasis on the “literal myth” makes the church a very uncomfortable place for those that have read the historical account and who are judged as unrighteous and sinful by the TBMs.
MWallace57 wrote:I have wanted to protect them, to preserve them, to protect their sacred, God-given rights to reproduce, even if they have very low fertility. I am alone in this belief.
I am with you. While I doubt they are descendents of Lehi, I do not think a group needs to descend from “Prophets and Holy Men of Old” to be worth protecting, preserving, and helping. I am a student planning on going into medical genetics and I think additional support is needed for groups representing all such genetic conditions.
Euhemerus wrote: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).
IMHO, I think the Christ we worship may be more mythological than literal as well. But again, dark night of the soul speaking here.
I agree that JS is being turned into a mythical “hero”. As it stated in the PBS special on “The Mormons”, all religions must move past their founding stories in order to survive. I think Hawkgrrl’s Mormon Matters post on Jungian types in the JS first vision story is one example of how we can move past the literal founding “story.” 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. But Mormonism is such a literal religion, following the new Mormon historians’ advice would result in mass defection within the church. I think the implications are similar to how things would be if we were able to actually identify the tomb of Christ, exhume the body (proving no resurrection), and test the DNA showing 46 human chromosomes, rather than Divine DNA. In my dark night of the soul, I’m leaning that this is probably the reality, but for all of Christianity, at least the physical evidence isn’t overwhelming as it is in the case of JS, since we can’t identify the body and Christianity has moved far enough past the historical Christ that we cannot find the body because it was resurrected (what a lovely paradox).
Euhemerus wrote: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.
And the church is such a literal church, that this is exactly what the church teaches and preaches, even in GC. Even for repentance, often the church teaches you need to go to the Bishop to truly repent. Pray to God, no the church doesn’t intervene, unless maybe you think it’s important to pray to Heavently Mother.
Euhemerus wrote:or to learn and emulate Christ’s teachings, then I would say this claim doesn’t hold water as the church never dictates that.
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.
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.
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? 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?)? 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)?
Old-Timer wrote:MisterCurie, sincere question, asked simply to read your response:
Is that how you felt about this last General Conference?
Yes.
EDIT: But I admit that much of what I heard at General Conference could have been filtered and comprehended through my Stage 4 “Dark Night of the Soul” filter, and that my impressions from General Conference are in no way a reflection on what was actually said at GC. I freely admit that I may be over focusing on what bothers me in the church than what is good in the church. Which is why I come here. So that when it becomes a challenge to stay LDS, I can find support at StayLDS. I’m struggling right now.
EDIT2: And in my dark night of the soul, it actually doesn’t bother me that much that there is so much focus on JS, the modern prophet, the church, and little focus on Christ. I’m not sure there is that much about the historical Christ that should be focused on. When people talk about becoming Christ-like, I’m not sure we really have many examples of Christ doing whatever it is they think we need to do to become Christlike. It seems that many of the attributes of Christ are attributes of a mythical Christ and not the historical Christ. But again, as I said, I’m struggling right now.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:What I have been pondering recently is where is “Jesus Christ” in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So much praise is given to Joseph Smith. What about Jesus Christ? I do not mean to offend anyone, but I would think people who know very little about the LDS Church would think the members worship Joseph Smith, not Jesus Christ. I think all the focus on Joseph Smith is what leads people to question whether or not Mormons are “Christians.”
I tend to agree that too many go to church to worship the church rather than to come to Christ. It seems a little short-sighted and defensive to me as well, and it happens a lot. There are a lot of cliches and stories that point to that – proving the truthfulness of the church rather than the divinity of Christ, giving evidence that prophets have real revelation rather than focusing on how we can develop our own relationship with Christ. I’m not sure why that is the case, but it seems to be pretty prevalent in the church.
When I was working on the post about Jesus and Buddhism, it struck me for the first time in a while that we really do have a lot of unique insight into the nature and character of Jesus through the BOM, D&C, and even POGP. The Mormon interpretation of Jesus is one we often take for granted, but if you try to stick to NT/OT only, you really miss out on a lot of nuances and interpretations that I find valuable that add quality to the picture of Jesus that develops. So, even though people are not really talking about the right things often, I was somewhat amazed at the contribution of those modern additions.
The quality I most admire in JS is his open-mindedness. He seemed to be willing to entertain just about any notion that came his way. There’s something to be said for not trying to be so controlling of life. Of course, on his heels, BY had to bat clean up a bit.
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.
DNA is pretty tricky, but it is remarkably accurate due to its necessary element of directing life. Bill Atkinson wrote:
The Book of Mormon is likely still best served with a recognition that the Book of Mormon peoples lived in a limited geographic area, were never that large compared to the surrounding peoples, and that the likihood of finding their DNA traces is not impossible but likely very difficult. Keep in mind that Laman and Lemuel and their followers likely assimilated immediately into surrounding peoples probably becoming the elite and so adding some of their world view but instead of assuming that millions of people (the Nephites) were available to pass on their genes into the future (who were afterall completely killed out in the end) we have that first nucleus of perhaps 40 to 60 sharing their genetics with the surrounding already exisiting inhabitants of the land and it is from those 60 people that the DNA would have to be passed down.I think it is pretty hard to accept that the BoM occurred in a limited geographic area, given critical analysis of the text itself, with multiple references of the land being saved for people that God would lead to it, descriptions of abandoned cities that were perplexing to the Nephites (much more likely that they would assume the other people living there had abandoned the city), etc.
However, I did use to think that Laman and Lemuel going off to assimilate with the surrounding people would make a lot of sense and would explain the skin color change if they intermarried with the indiginous people and the curse could come from marrying “outside the covenant”. While studying the BoM recently, however, I found evidence that it would be much more likely for the Nephites to marry the indiginous people. In the Book of Jacob, Jacob calls the Nephites to repentence for:
Jacob 2:35 wrote:Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you.
and in the next chapter
Jacob 3:5 wrote:Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none
While it isn’t conclusive, it does suggest that the Nephites may have been practicing polygamy and with the small group of people that traveled with Lehi, it is only likely they could practice any form of polygamy if they were marrying the indiginous people. Of course, then the skin color change wouldn’t be explained by this intermarriage because the Nephites remained white.
MWallace57 wrote:I think that it is interesting that so many men are requesting to have their DNA tested for for Cohanim Y Chromosome Markers. Many of you may know that this marker is the mark of the Priesthood given to Aaron and all men who sprang from this lineage in the Old Testament where entitled to hold the Priesthood. AAron, the brother of Moses was believed to have this Cohanim marker.
Interesting. I have never heard about a specific DNA marker being linked to the Levitical priesthood.
MWallace57 wrote:Mormons think that these genetic markers came over with Lehi and his family.
It is actually quite unlikely that this genetic marker came over with Lehi if it markes the Levitical Priesthood. Lehi was not a Levite, but was from the tribe of Manasseh.
Sounds like you will fit right in here. Welcome! I hope you find the support here you are looking for. I have to agree that the footnotes do not always directly support Quinn’s facts or assertions, such as the one footnote I specifically asked about. I cannot say that his assertion is necessarily false (here regarding the use of computers to assign mission calls), but it is not verifiable by the provided reference. I should have mentioned this in the review. However, overall, Quinn seems to be a careful researcher and the majority of his facts are at least corroborated by accounts given in other church history books. And while much of his work diverges from the church’s version of events, it is largely similar to the accounts given in history books, by both Mormon and non-Mormon historians, including in Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling.
silentstruggle wrote:1) Elder Oaks in his speech at BYU Idaho today, tried to relate the persecution the church experienced post-Proposition 8 to the blacks and the civil rights struggle. While I understand the arguement, I can’t help thinking that this is like comparing a 1.0 Richter Scale earthquake to a 8.0 earthquake. It the same, but HUGELY different in intensity. I also found it ironic to be chumming up to a movement that we as a church and a society decidedly resisted.
I agree with you that it is quite an ironic statement, similar to a General Conference talk a few years back talking about the evils of racism and how isn’t it great the church has never been racist (yeah right!) I think the persecution the church experienced post-Prop8 is likely just a little warning of things to come, there is likely to be much more of a backlash against the church as support for same sex marriage increases.
silentstruggle wrote:2) I can’t help, but make comparisons to the gay rights movement, and wonder how much change their will be in our leader’s attitudes and in our own in the course of the next 50-60 years. I doubt we would ever support gay marriage, but can we get to a point of supporting some legal rights for homosexuals, employment rights, recognizing that they have loved ones that they may wish to make medical decisions for, etc?
I hope you are wrong and that the church makes more progress than that and in a shorter time span. I think the church can be remarkably flexible with its doctrine when it comes to the right types of political and public opinion pressures. Blacks and the Priesthood and Polygamy are two great examples, but the pressure is going to have to increase quite a bit from where it is today.
Homosexuality is not about gender confusion, gay men do not think they are women. Gay men know they are men, but they are attracted to other men. My wife is deconstructing the Proclamation on the Family on her blog,
http://www.thirdwavemormon.blogspot.comhttp://www.thirdwavemormon.blogspot.com” class=”bbcode_url”> I’m feeling a bit pessimistic and sour today, so I lean toward yes – they are receiving the JS type of revelation (as described by Fawn Brodie). On my better days I lean toward they are receiving revelation the same as you and I receiving, with all the difficulties there are in interpretting what that revelation actually means.
just me wrote:Ray, this is where I am conflicted.
How do I teach my child that the scriptures are not historical and then send them to SS where they are told that they are?
I have no idea how to teach my kids things that are in conflict with current church teachings.
That is a tough one. DW and I are also struggling with this and our 2 year old, luckily there is still some time for us to figure this out.
