Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Euhemerus wrote:
I served in Russia, and we went to ridiculous lengths to satisfy their completely absurd laws).
Poor guy! I have heard many stories about the place. I gather that Moscow City Council even listed the Salvation Army as a paramilitary organisation (and their theology aside, I won’t hear a word said against the SA), and that the national government basically doesn’t like anyone who’s Christian and not Orthodox (although they seem to think mainstream brands of Islam, Buddhism and Judaism are alright), including RCs and Protestants. I gather Baptists get it in the neck, and the LDS are treated like the religious branch of the CIA!
I suppose I have a slightly anarchist streak when it comes to secular government in certain respects. I always think there’s room for improvement in one way or another, but I also think that governments make bad decisions on a regular basis (some more so than others). On the other hand, I’m not very enamored of how many Western governments seem to do exactly what big business tells them to either.
Tom Haws wrote:SamBee wrote:Well, what I’m trying to get at here is… if you supported the independence of Quebec, or Puerto Rico, would that violate the 12th Article?
…or South Carolina or Texas? Tee hee hee. I’m a secessionist.
Well quite! This is what I’m getting at. Is it alright for Mormons to hold such views (as long as they don’t veer into violence etc) or not? Or does this get in the way of supporting the presidents, kings and magistrates of the world?
(I used Quebec and PR because they’re both obvious North American examples… I think if I was a Tibetan I probably would take up arms, but that’s an extreme government you’re dealing with there.)
I don’t know about other people, but I think Joseph Smith’s “illiteracy” has been exaggerated. He could read the Bible well enough, which is more than many people could do at the time. To present him as a completely illiterate oaf may actually be counter-productive. I am currently fascinated by 2 Nephi, because a lot of its concepts are startlingly original, and if they’re not, I couldn’t imagine them coming from any book he could have got hold of at the time. What I do find puzzling though, is why so many references are made to Egyptian, and abridgements. The other thing I find difficult are some of the repeated names, e.g. Nephi refers to two separate people. While some of it obviously ties in with the Bible, not all of it does, and although I find it very hard going to read and stylistically heavy (especially some of the historical stuff), now and then it does amaze me.
I admit I’ve had big problems with the archaeological side of the BOM, but then again, I’ve long felt that there was more travel across the Atlantic, and maybe even Pacific, than people traditionally realise. At least two of these migrations appear to be fairly well supported by mainstream archaeology now, the Norse settlements in north east America, and the Clovis culture. I doubt these were regular round trips, but there are bits and pieces that suggest that not everyone reached the Americas through Alaska and Siberia.
The FARMS stuff (from what little I’ve read of it) is interesting, but occasionally it does overstretch a bit in my view. If the Nephite culture existed, I’m not sure why it had to be related to the Mayans specifically.
Well, what I’m trying to get at here is… if you supported the independence of Quebec, or Puerto Rico, would that violate the 12th Article? (As I understand it, there is a respectable level of support for such things) Or if you thought Australia should become a republic? And when does “the law” here run counter to the church? All of these are fairly mild political opinions IMHO in themselves, even if someone tries to use violence to achieve them. While I don’t want to say too much about myself, I probably should mention that I’m not American myself (nor US resident). Like a lot of non-US folk I have a love-hate relationship with the USA, some of which I’m not going to get into, because it would end up detracting from the original point. I will say this though… because I’m not American, I don’t have any particular attachment to the US constitution, Bill of Rights etc. They’re all fine and well as long as they’re upheld, but I actually think they’re no better or worse than a lot of set ups in other western countries. (I agree with most of the historical points made about Joseph Smith and the US govt.)
I think in other parts of the world though, there are issues. I think once we leave the West, i.e. the USA, Canada, most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan, we start running into governments which are not so well behaved. In fact, even some of the governments I’ve just mentioned have their problems – there’s been corruption problems in many of them, parties almost never out of office (like the Liberal Democrats of Japan), and in Spain and the United Kingdom, the activities of terrorist groups have brought some ugly responses from the governments (especially in Northern Ireland). Australia’s relationship with the aborigines has not been a happy one either…
Latin America, where there are countless Mormons, has had its share of atrocities through the last few decades. Fascists there have locked up or murdered anyone left of Mussolini, and the Communists have murdered people just for being tribal or middle class. And some of these countries, notably Argentina, seem to change their presidents on a regular basis. Just under ten years ago, Argentina seemed to have one a week for a while. So who should Mormons be subject to?
As for what Mormons living in some of the Middle Eastern states, or the “People”‘s Republic of China…
I don’t know if the concept has ever penetrated Mormonism, but amongst some of the more happy-clappy churches, there is this word “churchianity” that they use frequently – http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Churchianity Quote:Any practices of Christianity that are viewed as placing a larger emphasis on the habits of church life or the institutional traditions of the church than on theology and spiritual teachings; The quality of being too church-focused.
I had a look at “Mormonism for Dummies” the other day. It follows the same format as the other books in the series, and was pretty good. I also don’t think (or hope) it is an anti-Mormon book. There also “The Book Of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction”, which I found good.
A lot of the stuff out there is not Mormon-kosher (for want of a better phrase). I’ve read a few books which I wouldn’t want to mention in a church interview. Occasionally though, even when the books are “anti”, stuff does come out of them. For example, a book I read about Brigham Young recently was highly critical of him, in many ways, and yet, there were points that you could tell that the author admired his political skills, and thought his methods of colonising the west were highly original and usually effective.
Interestingly, there seems to be a major trend amongst non-Christians, or post-Christians, i.e. people in traditionally Christian societies to criticise the cross. One comedian – and I hope you don’t mind me saying this – said it was sick for Christians to parade around a torture instrument like that, and that it would be the last thing Jesus would wish to see if he came back. In fact I think the joke was that if Jesus has gone to the chair, Christians would wear miniature electric chairs around their neck… (I’ve heard another variant of it, with gallows) Well, that’s in extremely bad taste, and I don’t really find it funny, but I can understand why some people might say it. I believe some churches now use a crown to represent Jesus (a symbol which originate in Mithraism, so I’m told) to represent his kingship. While fundamentalists don’t like this, all the evidence points towards early Christians NOT using the current cross, but the Chi-Rho*, the sign of the fish, alpha and omega etc. Fundamentalists are opposed to this as they seem to think that we should remember the cross as a sign of God’s love, and willingness to serve us. I have some friends who are Catholics, and Catholic art, as you’ve probably noticed has often emphasises the gruelling torture and suffering of the crucifixion. The Twelve Stations are a common feature in their churches… Mel Gibson’s bloodfest
The Passion of the Christis a really extreme example of this – and I don’t recommend seeing it. However, I’ve always wondered if perhaps all this emphasis on the death and suffering of Jesus overshadows the rest. For example, I think it is a bad thing to emphasise the cross at the expense of his other teachings, as it could engender a sado-masochistic streak. Also, in the COJCOLDS, there is a major emphasis on his resurrection (more so than his crucifixion? Not sure…) which is a positive thing, and a sign of conquest, rather than just the suffering aspects. I do have a confession to make… Even when I haven’t been anywhere near a church (of any description) or been a real believer, I’ve had a cross up in my room. I used to get some really bad nightmares, but since having the thing up, I’ve had far fewer, so it’s either keeping something nasty at bay, or has had some kind of positive subliminal effect on me.
Old-Timer wrote:Growing causes growing pains.
Sometimes we forget that.
That’s a very simple statement, but a very true one. It’s amazing sometimes how just a few words like that can mean so much more than dozens of polysyllables…
Quote:The only thing I would say about this is I hear many people say that much of the culture and orthodoxy is created by the members themselves.
Well, I made the mistake of mentioning that I knew Elohim was a plural word in Hebrew in home teaching once. I don’t think the HTs liked the fact that I said this, but AFAIK it isn’t something that actually clashed with the teachings. Still, I did feel a bit taken aback by it.
Interestingly one of the old names of Jupiter was Jove. I have read a piece where someone tried to connect Jove, which would have been pronounced Yoveh or Yoweh by the Romans, with YHWH… So who knows. There’s one major thing that’s changed with the “sects” (I don’t like referring to other churches by that name, but anyway) since Joseph Smith had his vision… they tend to work together. Sure, there’s a massive gap between the RCs and Protestants now, but Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists etc work together frequently these days on large numbers of issues, and agree to differ rather than having big fights with one another like they did in the 19th century. In a number of western countries, the tendency amongst denominations is towards co-operation and merger, not more split offs. I certainly think that it would be a good thing if there was co-operation, with say, charitable works and so on.
Quote:I seem to see and hear a couple conflicting messages at times at church as to whether we are like other christian churches or we are not
I got to church for the first time in a long while today, and one of the things that struck me is how many LDS hymns could be found in other churches. Flicking through the hymnbook to pass the time (and because I didn’t feel like being conspicuous), I noticed a number of hymns by Wesley for example. “Onward Christian Soldiers” is in the hymnal too.
There are other things that Mormons differ radically from most other churches on of course, like revealed scriptures, prophets, theology, temples etc, but it’s still recognizably like the “sect” I was raised in.
The bit about tobacco in the WoW has me puzzled too, but I suppose I’ve never smoked, so it’s not a problem. What about medicinal alcohol too? If I get a bad toothache, swishing some whiskey around the area around seems to get rid of the pain, but I don’t know if that’s wrong or not.
This has bothered me too. Are we allowed broth, cocoa, Ovaltine etc? Or even dandelion root? I was actually recommended barleycup by someone as a coffee substitute, but it tastes disgusting!
On the other hand, cold/iced tea and coffee are not “hot drinks” but are out of bounds.
I have to admit I do find it hard to think of anything Gordon B. Hinckley said as being revelatory. In his interview with Larry King, I was disappointed that he seemed to give such vague answers on issues I felt the church was more solid on. I have also read some old quotes from church authorities on jazz, which read more like ordinary parents complaining about their children’s taste in music, than actual divine inspiration. That said, he did have a hand in the declaration about families, which someone once suggested to me, may make its way into the D&C at some point. There is a lot of anti-family propaganda out there just now, from one quarter and another.
I always felt it ironic that most of Europe (the west anyway) had a Latin Bible foisted on them, and at the same time Jews were being persecuted as Christ-killers. In actual fact, as we all know, it was Latin speakers who put him on the cross. (Not necessarily Roman though, since a lot of their soldiers were from elsewhere.) Quote:One of the misconceptions we have as LDS people is that we think the bible has gone through numerous translations, when in fact, there have just been a couple of translations, but hundreds of transcriptions. This book is under 250 pages and well worth the effort.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve felt that most of the NT, gospels anyway, wasn’t originally written in Greek. Jesus may have known Greek, but I doubt it was what he preached in. I suspect we have lost a lot because the “original” version probably isn’t that at all.
