Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alaskaboy19 wrote:
Is is right to call the Book of Mormon the keystone of our religion like so many do? Is it right to say that it is the most correct of all writings?
I would say ‘yes’ and ‘it depends on you’.
As for preference of the BoM over the Bible, I agree that it’s over-the-top. On the other hand, it’s also cyclical. JS hardly ever referred to the BoM in his teachings, but referenced the bible constantly… But that wasn’t because he preferred one over the other, rather, he lived in a time when the church was trying to show legitimacy by connecting with the bible. Even though he spent more time in the bible, teaching from it, receiving revelations regarding meaning of it, translating it, and even trying to learn Hebrew to understand it better, it was JS who originated the statements you are asking about. There have been periods where one set of scriptures (including the D&C) was preferred over the other, or when none was specifically preferred. ETB elevated the BoM to its present status.
But it’s all a pretty broad brush. I find 2Nephi to be a much more interesting and meaningful work than Revelation, and I find Hebrews to be much more compelling than Ether. You might doubt that there ever was a man named Alma, but I can counter that with there was probably no man named Job either. An argument could be made that Moroni plagiarizes Paul, but it’s also the case that I & II Timothy weren’t written until probably 2-3 centuries after the death of Paul. The wars are boring and pretty pointless in the BoM, but no more so than Leviticus and Numbers. Did the Jaredites really cross the ocean in uncontrollable, semi-submersible barges? I don’t know, did Noah really collect two of every kind into a single boat? Including Rocky Mountain, Dahl, Stone and Desert Bighorn Sheep? How many different species of bears are there?
As we begin to question it, it becomes pretty apparent that the BoM does not reflect true “history”. There may be some elements of it that are historical, but it sure doesn’t seem like it. Regardless, if you treat it like a work of inspired writings that aren’t historical, or that are only loosely based on history, like Genesis, Exodus, Job, Jonah, Hosea, then you may find spiritual truth in it.
Like you, I love the NT, but I find much more spiritual truth in 1 Nephi 1, than I do in Matthew 1.
In other words, feel free to pick and choose the elements of christianity/mormonism that work for you… and allow that others can do that, too.
The ban was wrong. It was arrogant and un-Christlike. And parenthetically, the worst part wasn’t the priesthood, but the temple exclusion. The church stayed with it too long. I’m grateful it was resolved finally, if belatedly, 34 years ago. I was around during that time, and I didn’t like the ban… I mean, I was a youngster, but old enough to start wondering why God would have such a policy, and right about that time, it was changed, which I found exciting and wonderful. So, that’s my history. I’m not young enough to think of the ban in strictly theoretical terms, and I’m not old enough to have accepted and defended it (thankfully). I consider that time to have been a great time to grow up, because there was a strong emphasis in the country that we are all just people, and skin color is entirely superficial. I think it was a less cynical time, than either the time before (institutionalized segregation) or the time after (excessive differentiation in the pursuit of diversity)… in the 70’s it was all about being color blind… ignoring the outward appearance and treating all as not only equal but as not different. Sort of an innocent adolescence, not only for me, but for the country, in terms of race relations. Heck, I had a serious crush on a black girl in my junior high school, before the ban was lifted.
So, I view myself as not a racist and as never having been a racist. I’m not a former racist, I’m not a reformed racist, I’m not an apologetic, repentant, racist.
Given that, from my vantage point, I would rather that the church NOT apologize specifically for the ban. Doing so, I feel, would implicate me as needing of absolution. All of my adult life, I have bristled anytime the notion comes up that we are racists because of the past practices of the church. I look around the church and I don’t see racists… sure, there are a few, but no more than in any other cross-section of society at large. In my view, and from where I stood at the time that it happened, my perception is that there was a collective sigh of relief among the rank-and-file church membership when the ban was lifted… not all, but the vast majority.
Apologizing now would go against the idea that we are not responsible to answer for the actions of our predecessors. In fact, there’s a bit of irony there… because when I was a young man, and not understanding of the ban, what was confusing to me is why a “curse” placed on people in an ancient time would have any impact on their posterity. By the same token, I don’t feel responsible and don’t want to have to answer for the church’s prior failures, false teachings, and false practices… The church did eventually get it right. That’s good enough for me, and I would hope that would be good enough for my neighbors.
There are plenty of other areas where the church hasn’t gotten it right yet. Having a long memory about past failures, rather than being ready to forgive the church when it does set things aright, will only strengthen the church’s resolve to justify current practices and slow its willingness to change.
ElCid, I wasn’t there when my kids married in the temple. Honestly, it was one of the suckiest parts of all this for me. But some things that helped… I came to a point where I could not in good conscience, go to the temple, because I didn’t believe. I tried to help my kids understand that, and not only did they, but they were supportive. They went out of their way to help me feel OK with my decision, and I went out of my way not to blame anyone, or anything, or to complain that I couldn’t go. I made sure it didn’t come across like I just didn’t care enough. That would have been a slap in the face, for my kids. It was a conscious, painful decision, and I told them I wish it were otherwise, and that I wished I could go. I was open to them about the fact that I’m no longer a believer, but also never let that get into a discussion, let alone an argument, about why.
It’s natural for your son and your wife to express a desire for you to be present when he marries in the temple, but it probably is an indicator that you need to be a little more clear about your situation with them… at least that’s what happened to me… my wife would occasionally make comments about how she perceived my situation, and I realized that I wasn’t being open and honest with her, so I opened up a little, and it’s been helpful, both for my own mental state, and for our relationship.
While I don’t see polygamy the same way as Ray, I think it is at least, a viable explanation. As for this quote from Roy:
Roy wrote:Perhaps he was trying to square his visions of the heavenly order of things with the mortal process and the two just didn’t mix.
To me, that sums up my perception of the motivations and outcome of polygamy very well.
alaskaboy19 wrote:If there’s one thing I know about God, it’s that He doesn’t disrespect women like that.
Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding… Vanna, show Alaskaboy19 what he has won!
I totally agree with you. And funny thing… this is one front where I believe the “middle-way” mormons in our community, and others like it, can actually make inroads in the church. I believe the church is warming up to the idea that men and women should be equal partners, and that, I believe, is the most exciting current-event in the church. Just like the lifting of the PB, it’s lagging behind societal changes, but it is at least, and at last, happening. I hope for a day when church leaders embrace women… er… I mean… when the church accepts women as just as vital and important to the church as men. It’s happening now, and this is an area where we, if we stay in the church, can help shape the outcome. Alaskaboy19, if you do go on a mission, maybe this can be part of your self-purposed calling. I believe that a natural result of this shift will be the refuting of polygamy as a doctrine, and I’m keeping my fingers crossed to see it in the next few decades. Another natural result is the priesthood being given to women, but I don’t see that happening in my lifetime… rather, I think a logical progression for now is the separation of priesthood from leadership hierarchy. If it sounds far-fetched, all I can say is that if you sat in a church meeting in 1975 and said that the priesthood ban would soon be lifted and that before too long, we would have missionaries in Russia, or operate more than 50 temples world-wide before the turn of the century, you would have gotten some really odd looks.
bc_pg, Agreed… racism in the church is part of that embarrassing history. But here’s the thing. We, in these forums, constantly call for the church to take a step back from the infallibility-of-leaders stance. We will never get our way if we continually trot out the failures of certain leaders and then hang them on the church. If the church IS responsible for the actions of some, then we can never expect the church to admit imperfection in its leaders. I’m prepared to allow the church to repent of past sins… if it does truly repent… I think it has done so in the case of the priesthood ban. I don’t think it has done so in the case of polygamy.
alaskaboy19, FWIW, I feel much differently regarding the priesthood ban than I do about polygamy. The PB is something that is still used as a hammer by the anti crowd, but it’s a bit unfair to do so. Here’s why:
– It didn’t seem to exist in any form during the time of JS. In fact, when Clay County residents called for displaced Mormons to move on (to Far West), they used as part of their rationale, that Mormons were opposed to slavery.
– There is no revelation, scripture or even doctrinal statement that we can point to as the inception of the PB… We don’t know why it started. In fact, it’s a real mystery, because at the time of its development, there was no need for it. It didn’t seem to be an issue one way or the other for the church… it just appeared out of nowhere. Best guess is racism of individual church leaders at the time, that was simply projected onto the church practices. As terrible as that sounds, just keep in mind that racism was the norm in middle-19th-century America, rather than the exception.
– The church ended the practice 34 years ago, and since has completely relegated the practice as not a doctrine. I wish they had ended it a lot sooner, but they did at least get it right in the end.
As someone who remembers before the ban was lifted, I can tell you that it made little sense, and was an uncomfortable aspect of the church… and it did breed racism, even in those who wouldn’t have already had it. Black people were not simply barred from the priesthood, but also the temple. It was racist, arrogant, and un-benevolent.
As much flak as the church took for having the policy, they ALSO took flak, from the same people, for changing it. I specifically remember watching the news on TV on that day (not in Utah) and the anchor rolled her eyes as she announced that the church leaders had received a “revelation”. And that continues to be the approach of the church’s detractors. It’s apparently OK for them to call out the past racism of the church, but when you say that it was stopped in the 70’s they will complain loudly about how such a policy could even be changed… yet, that’s hypocritical… the US had institutionalized segregation until the 60’s… a segregated military in WWII… constitutionally-accepted slavery into the last half of the 19th century. At some point, you have to be allowed to move on from your history. As bad as the PB was, it wasn’t on the same level as legalized humans-as-property. Yet, the US has been allowed to move on from that disturbing chapter in its history, and the church should be allowed the same opportunity.
For me, what separates the priesthood ban from polygamy, is the historical and doctrinal distinction. From a history perspective, the church and polygamy are inseparable in the early days of the church, including under JS… The PB was not a major characteristic of the church, and likely went fairly unnoticed until well into the 20th century, when society as a whole was waking up from lots of programmatic racism. It was an increasingly big deal in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, but less so earlier. From a doctrinal point of view, polygamy is still fully a doctrine of the church (Sec 132), but the practice is suspended. The PB, on the other hand, has been effectively moved into the not-a-doctrine and never-a-doctrine category.
So, for me, I still see polygamy as the biggest elephant in the room, but I get bored with the priesthood ban, as an attack on the church. The latter is an embarrassing smear on the middle history of the church, but the church has successfully left it behind. The former continues to dog the church, and the church just can’t break free of it. I would love to see the church make an acknowledgment that polygamy is not a doctrine and that it was practiced by early leaders, as a sincere attempt to connect to the ancient, but that it wasn’t from God. I think that is the only way to get it off the top-of-the-list of reasons why people leave the church.
Luther, I would love to ‘like’ your post. Thank you for your insights. I might have to print it and put a copy in my triple.
alaskaboy19 wrote:Love is between two people. The core, the sacredness, the beauty, and of course, the passion, of physical and emotional intimacy radiates from the exclusiveness of the relationship. Love is symmetrical. It is one to one. Pure exclusiveness. The joining of two souls as one unit. Regardless of my standings with the church, I will always believe this. Not all relationships work out, but any relationship, any marriage, is originally based on the exclusive admiration and affection two people feel for one another. If you don’t like mushy stuff, I apologize. I believe in old fashioned courtly love and classical romanticism. I am disgusted with the lack of dignity, and acceptance of sexual promiscuity that goes on today. Every child deserves to be born to a mother and father who love each other and are exclusive with one another. Sadly, many births in the world aren’t this way anymore.
I couldn’t agree more. Even though I myself and no longer a believer, I think it is a wonderful thing for two people to be “mated for life” with no other partners. I caveat that by acknowledging that it’s not always so… it’s certainly better to divorce and remarry than to stay in a failed marriage, and I certainly mean no judgment on people who have a different opinion, but for me… my marriage and exclusive relationship with my wife is the best part of life… by a mile.
Now, polygamy… In my opinion, the Church’s stance – not facing it head on, as you say, results in polarizing views. On one end of the spectrum, JS was commanded by an angel with a sword that he should enter into plural marriage or be struck down. On the other end of the same spectrum, JS invented polygamy, first to cover up an affair, and once he got away with that, then to have God-sanctioned sex with anyone he desired. There is a vast empty space in the middle of the spectrum, left alone, because nobody has interest in it. Yet, I find the middle to be completely rational.
In my view, polygamy did not come from God. No way. It was too destructive to the church, to individuals and to families, to have been part of God’s plan. Fifty years after JS introduced polygamy, it was common for polygamous men to be detached from their families… They did their best to provide, but could offer little in terms of true familial relationships. These men were often lonely. Their wives typically raised the children on their own. The children of these families had a father, but not a dad, in the sense that we think of it. More like a close uncle than a dad. Eliza Partridge Lyman was plural wife of Amasa Lyman. In her writings she almost always referred to him as “Brother Lyman”, or occasionally as “my husband”, but never as “Amasa”. There is no way that God wants it to be that way… for his most faithful children…
But I also can’t see how JS could have been a man driven mainly by sex. He was just too substantial of a person to be nothing more than a con-man who built up the church as an elaborate way to bed as many girls as possible, which is the view of the super-critical. I believe JS was sincere in what he was doing, though his means were frequently not justified for his ends. JS was fully trusted as the Oracle of God by really good, strong, dedicated people. They weren’t wackos, like the Manson Family or Heaven’s Gate… These were first-rate characters, like the aforementioned Eliza Partridge and Amasa Lyman, or like John Taylor, Eliza R Snow, Joseph Fielding, Heber C Kimball, and Parley P. Pratt. Edward Partridge first kicked Oliver Cowdery and PP Pratt out of his Ohio store, telling them they were imposters, but later investigated, and came to the brink of being baptized. Before doing, so, however, he traveled the long distance to Palmyra to meet JS for himself. Satisfied, he finally joined. JS also did great things. The church he established was incredibly vital. Here was a farm-boy from an obscure location, yet by the time of his death at the age of 38, JS had established a flourishing city, defined a lasting religion, and had a multinational following. What he started continues to grow with adherents in places like Los Angeles (US, and Chile), Ghana, Hawaii, Miami, Montreal, Russia, India, The Congo, and Hong Kong. Compare JS’s success against James Strang, and you can see a marked difference. Finally, JS was dedicated to the cause, more than anything else. I often think of the translation of the Bible as an indicator. He worked diligently at that project for all of his tenure as the Prophet. If his heart weren’t really behind the cause, he would have no need to work on that effort at all. So, in other words, I think he was a man of too much consequence to explain polygamy as an elaborate hoax for sex.
I view polygamy as a legitimate attempt to connect with ancient practices, something that was important to JS and the early church. Also driving him… again, in my opinion, was the desire to connect inner-circle families, similar to royal alliance marriages. From God? No. From JS as an attempt to get closer to God? I think so. It was a big mistake, but I think it was a well-intended mistake that had disastrous consequences.
Quote:But it was also clandestine, surreptitious, sneaky.
Wait, are we talking about dissension or polygamy? I’m confused.
TragedianActor wrote:And what makes it worse is that this is published by Deseret Book, which is actually owned by the church. So it seems to me that the church is officially (albeit indirectly) endorsing the idea that God is a partisan Republican.
I’ve got to disagree with you on that one. The church has its own publication arm for official texts; this book is not published by the church. While the church’s population within the boundaries of the United States is overwhelmingly republican, I think the church does a VERY commendable job staying out of party politics. I guarantee you that prior to the election in November, we will have a letter from the FP, reminding members that the church does not support any political party or candidate… and this will be at the very moment that an LDS church member in good standing will be running for the nation’s highest office. If Mike Huckabee were in that position, I can inform you that Southern Baptists would be hearing sermons all during the month of October about why they should vote for him and get all their friends to vote for him, too. I was in a primary class on Sunday, when one of the kids made a comment about President Obama and socialism, no doubt echoing family discussions. The teacher calmly, but firmly let the youngster know that church wasn’t the place for that. In other words, Mormons are conservative people by nature, so many are republicans. They reflect that back onto their own perceptions of the doctrines of the church. But the LDS Church, itself, specifically stays out of that classification.
IMO, Schools and churches can’t really stop bullies. They can punish, but kids with bad behavior live lives of alternating actions and consequences. They simply compartmentalize and put up with punishments in order to continue being they way they are. The real issue is that in our society, we have parents that don’t teach correct principles, yet still allow their children to govern themselves. Too many parents are oblivious to their kids’ bad behavior… and when confronted, simply make excuses for their kids. While the Church is not at fault, per se, for the existence of bullies, the Church seems especially susceptible to abuse by miscreants, because people in the Church are patient, forgiving, and optimistic. I’ve seen so many cases where good LDS people just quietly shake their heads and mutter, “if I could just get Jimmy to pray more, I know he would stop
.” In my way of thinking, the Church does a pretty poor job of rewarding and respecting the kids that are good and are trying to be good, and gives undue attention and emphasis on the kids that will be out of the church at the first opportunity. I’ve seen, first hand, YM/YW organizations where the good kids feel clumsy and awkward and even embarrassed to be the good kids. I’ve seen them be shunned by the popular kids, who themselves, barely understand the most basic precepts of the religion, yet are always smiling and having a great time, sucking energy from the Church organization in the form of free camping, dances, adventures, activities, and social gatherings. In case this thread is being monitored by SLC 
, let me put it in plain terms. I’ve seen girls that ruled in YW but who could barely relate ANY story from the scriptures. I’ve seen the most popular member of the YM unable to describe what the atonement is. I’ve heard the cool YM standing in the hallway during SS, literally complaining to each other over how much religion is talked about at church. Adult leaders in these situations just press forward with optimism and try to find even MORE ways to make church fun for these kids… all the while, completely ignoring the below-the-radar kids that are really trying to live the gospel.Along with creating a stronger community, I think that it can create stronger individuals. The basic concept of every religion is that there is a divine something, and that there are things we do to get closer to, and connected with the divine. Fasting is a great example. First of all, it’s not limited to the LDS faith, but it is something with which we are all aware. The idea of fasting is to deprive yourself of something that you clearly want. By doing so, you gain a certain amount of “hey, I’m strong enough to overcome base desires” realization, and if you turn that toward God, you can make a spiritual growth experience out of it. On a much smaller scale, observing WoW restrictions is the same thing. Whether or not you think the WoW is a true commandment, or direct from God to the Prophet’s mouth is really inconsequential. If you decide that for you, you want to use this as a test of yourself, then you have an opportunity to gain from it… you can make it part of your discipline or discipleship.
From my own history… when I was a young person, I’d say, “I can’t drink or smoke”. When I got older, and a little more self-aware and self-directing, I would say, “I don’t drink or smoke”… it had become my own choice. Even though I’m no longer a believer, myself, and I do not have a TR, I continue to observe the WoW… it’s part of who *I* am.
So, if you decide to make it a part of your personal religion, it has value. You (scooter), talked about wanting to make it back to the temple, and the WoW as a delineator. Great… so observe the WoW and make that part of what you sacrifice personally in order to make the temple experience more personal.
Having said all that… if you DON’T find any value in the WoW, you should feel free to drink coffee, tea, and alcohol and to smoke. It has to have value to you, or there is no point. Aside from debatable health benefits, that value may come from A) not rocking the boat with family
staying associated with the larger Mormon community C) observing rules required for going to the temple D) making it a part of your inner religion. If none of those resonate with you, then there is no need to observe it.
