[primarycolor]

Just an aside to this thread

It has always bothered me that Joseph Smith never seemed to “use” the Book of Mormon. Can you point to speeches, talks, critiques, thoughtful meetings where he and other leaders went over the Book of Mormon with a fine tooth comb?

Instead of the School of the Prophets, shouldn’t the School of the Book of Mormon have preceded it?

No, instead, Joseph Smith went on to bigger and better things.

You would think that such a treasure would not just be heralded- but methodically read and re-read. But instead it was then and is mainly promoted now as a “witness.”

But, here again, why didn’t Joseph Smith preach from the Book of Mormon, quote from it, carry it with him till his dying day? Do you think that he labored over it like we do? Deciphering so many rich meanings? Or, was he done.

[primarycolor]

I hope that the general authorities are browsing this site, at least a few, or Church staff. Do you think that they could be?

Do you picture leaders in the Church wanting to know what we think?

[primarycolor]

I’m going to throw this against the wall-

Truth to Mormons might be intentionally (psychologically) ephemeral. Joseph Smith knew how to conjure, yes conjure. One example, the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Why did they have to pray so hard, separate themselves, groan and sweat it out, and have Joseph Smith working so hard on them, separating them, etc., before they saw the angel and gold plates- and then, did they spiritually see this, or was it reality?

What is the one sin that is unpardonable to Mormons? Worse than murder? (when you answer that question then you dare not further question your faith or search outside certain confines for the truth, because it is unpardonably sinful.) See how psychologically and mentally inhibiting that is? What an ultimatum that is, if you don’t believe what the Church says, then you’re damned. And the Church can get away with this, because it gave you a gift.

Why have someone representing the spirit of truth in our religion? and in such a threatening manner? And why the spirit of truth? Why not just call this member of the Godhead the comforter? Why the“spirit” of truth? I’d rather have a comforter just comfort, not demand that this or that is true.

So, what I’d like to throw against the wall is this challenge. What if we considered giving back our gift of the Holy Ghost? But, in a polite way.

Yes, wrote letters saying, “I just wanted to return this gift, and try getting along with everything else in the Church but not this gift.” It would be hard, wouldn’t it?

I’m joking, but half way serious. And I know that you should esteem as deadly serious even the flippant suggestion to say such a thing. I would have to be unworthy of the gift to even suggest such a thing. Unworthy of truth- like the three witnesses, until they eventually agreed with Joseph Smith that they saw the angel and the plates.

[primarycolor]

I’ve been reading Albert Camus, and found this statement resonate:

Quote:

there are truths but no truth.

[primarycolor]

I decided to check out stayLDS after listening to a YouTube presentation by John Dehlin, where he suggested that members questioning shouldn’t confine themselves to deciding whether the Church was true or not, but rather whether it was good or not. I liked the way he was presenting this thought to active members- trying to get them to connect to their struggling brothers or sisters, to make them less persistent in the psychical demand that what they’ve learned and accepted about the Church is immutable. Because the longer you live and learn, you see that it’s not.

Many years ago I asked friends, leaders, family, etc., to give me the option to say that I’m a 90% believer, but that I had a 10% disbelief problem (I thought for sure that the 10% would be resolved; I anticipated that God would direct the Church in a way that my consternation would soon be shed). I struggled, implored, accepted callings, but couldn’t get relief. Steadily, year from year I would warn friends that I’m now 85%, 80%, but had an idea how to rectify my situation, if they’d only concede to help me, but it fell on deaf ears (no ears to hear). I could have used an internet back then. I got down to 50% and realized, it’s either all or nothing.

You see, the narrative of our Church is that it’s either true or not. I miss the music, the history, fellowship, camaraderie. I miss having the Church true, I really do.

[primarycolor]

Swimordie wrote:

“Theologically and traditionally and, maybe even culturally, yes. I know when I’m in EQ, I get the distinct impression that the end is nigh. This, combined with the political religious rights’ zealous defense of the state of Israel, makes it feel like that support may seem inevitable.”

Did you mean that the Elder’s Quorum members discuss the end times and have a “zealous” defense of Israel? Or were you combining EQ with political positions outside the faith (perhaps Evangelicals, “Christians,” politically right wing folks?)

Because, I don’t picture our LDS discussing Israel at all, in priesthood, Sunday School, conference, or where-ever. Back when I was in High School, after the 6-day war, when Israel had beaten Egypt, Jordan and Syria; “Exodus” had been popular at the movie theaters the decade before; WWII atrocities were still stinging, etc., yes, LDS talked about Israel back then. Cleon Skousen wrote “Fantastic Victory,” you could find it at your local Seventies book store. Israel was popular within LDS circles, they were another tribe in the house of Israel- just like us.

But now. No. You can’t convince me that it’s nothing but political correctness for LDS to shy away from talking up Israel. It’s more PC to worry about the Palestinians- who by the way have never relented on their vow to eliminate Israel. So if you ask me to be careful what I wish for, I’m not wishing for anything along the lines of the end of times. The reality of the hear and now is scary enough:

Not to go political (I don’t intend to). But doesn’t “death to…” “death to Israel…” “death to America…” Doesn’t death to, by both “chanting,” policy, and real time killing, rocket fire, suicide bombings, etc., not something in the future; doesn’t that deserve attention from the tribe of Ephraim right now? Seems like an easy call.

[primarycolor]

Ah, but don’t dismiss the O/T too quickly.

The Jewish Prophet Isaiah is included profoundly in Mormon theology, by way of the Book of Mormon, (Old Testament verbatim in our Book of Mormon), and delineates responsibilities that Mormons should have regarding the Jews. We are inexorably linked, house of Ephraim visa-via the house of Judah. The stick of Joseph and the stick of Judah. Looks to me like God intended for the Jews to keep their record, and that God spoke to them, and directed them, and still must be directing them. Why else would Joseph Smith direct Orson Hyde to dedicate Jerusalem for the return of the Jews in 1834?

Aren’t the Jews supposed to be about reclaiming Jerusalem before Christ’s return, while we are supposed to be about setting up a new Jerusalem here on this the American continent? Twin events? Twin exigencies?

Seems to me that we should be in full fledged support of Zionism, both here and in Jerusalem.

I have a question. Shouldn’t Mormons unequivocally support the right of Israel to exist?

If yes, then what does that mean?

[primarycolor]

johndehlin,

I just recently read “Anti-Semite and Jew,” by Jean-Paul Sarte written in 1946. Couldn’t put it down.

You may be right, the historicity of Moses, Abraham and David could be questionable (David being the most authentic, but perhaps not as grand a King). It is still the most impressive 22 century history, mixed with continual laws and demands on a people.

I found some gems in the book I just read, and I’m re-reading it. It was loaned by a Jewish friend who has known for years that I am drawn to a dichotomy that is apparent to me, between how Jews “think” and how Mormons “feel.” The rational splitting of hairs in Jewish tradition, mentally going over their laws and teachings with reasoning, reasoning, reasoning; I, on the other hand was raised to mentally get information, but faith really, was first and foremost: critical thinking- not that encouraged.

Sartre said, “We should say (that the Jew) has a taste for pure intelligence, that he loves to exercise it with reference to anything and everything, that the use he makes of it is not thwarted by innumerable taboos which still affect the Christian, or by a certain type of particularist sensibility which the non-Jew cultivates willingly. And we should add that there is in the Jew a sort of impassioned imperialism of reason.”

Get this. Sartre goes on to say that for centuries (particularly in France), the Jew finds safety in universal truths, because it will hopefully protect him from the passions of the “faith based” majorities in which they have difficulty assimilating.

I don’t know if this is making sense, but as I appreciate the Jewish situation, they want to reason and be accurate, hoping that others (Christians, Muslims, or any impassioned people who might come for them, etc.) will adhere to concrete truths, not faiths that can be inflamed.

Thanks for your work regarding inactives. I’ve been in this boat for awhile, and appreciate your reaching out.

[primarycolor]

My first post: I’m here because of a YouTube presentation by a John Dehlin, which lead me to StayLDS. Forgive me, but I wanted to tell John that I was very impressed with his understanding “inactivity” and the inactive person; Very impressed.

I often compare Jewishness with Mormonism, especially with a couple of Jewish friends, and sometimes express my jealousy toward them. They have thousands of years wherein Jews went over literal documents, arguing the facts/ I on the other hand have a religion with a 180 year history and our most important document was taken back by an angel, and then I’m stuck arguing “faith.” A Moses did exist, a David did exist, Abraham… Then I have to “pray about my book, and then Lehi, Nephi and Moroni will exist in my heart. But did they really exist?

The Jews are a tough act to follow. Yet the wellspring of conversations that they have, compared to the narrow scope of what we can talk about at Church, is enviable. They get to talk about concrete history, we have to believe in our history- and therefore are threatened if we question it. Jews are encouraged to question.

Instead of saying “why stay Jewish,” I sometimes wonder, “why not become Jewish.” It would seem to be the only politically correct change of religion a Mormon could make: can’t become Catholic or Protestant, etc., wouldn’t make sense.

[Author]

Posts