[spacious maze]

I’m not trying to be a downer here, since these stories obviously mean different things to different people, but I have had a similar experience; just as strange but with very little religious significance. Yesterday, my co-worker told me he was going to go to our cafeteria to get some coffee so he could wake up. About 1 minute after he came back with 2 cups of coffee, a Red Bull car pulled into our property and started handing out a bunch of cans Red Bulls. I sincerely wonder how different this is from the other stories.

[spacious maze]

Buddhists have cosmological mythologies of eternal matter, multiple universes, hierarchies of consciousness(spirits), attaining godliness and absolute values pertaining to the Sermon on the Mount.

I’ve been getting into Buddhism as a philosophy recently. It is very fascinating. A jewish friend of mine stated that Christ’s teachings were misinterpreted over the years, and that he was a Buddha himself. Makes sense to me, there have been so few truly enlightened teachers in this world, I think it is a harm to humanity to simply choose only one when there is so much wisdom to be shared.

One of my favorite tenets of Buddhist thoughts is that one that chooses to ignore empirical evidence about a certain subject is deemed unworthy to participate in a discussion regarding that subject. Buddhists are bound by reason and thought, and that the truth requires self-affirmation. I really love the openness of their theology. Jesus, to me, can certainly seen as Buddhist.

[spacious maze]

the church’s genealogy website, familysearch.org, notes over 20 of JS’s marriages, though temple records have him sealed to over 50. A bunch were added after his death. here is the link to JS’s genealogy page , http://www.familysearch.org/eng/search/AF/individual_record.asp?recid=7762167&lds=0&region=-1&regionfriendly=&frompage=99” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.familysearch.org/eng/search/AF/individual_record.asp?recid=7762167&lds=0&region=-1&regionfriendly=&frompage=99

[spacious maze]

My 2 cents, JS wasn’t matyred, he was killed by a mob of his enemies, most of whom were created by JS’s leadership decisions and not his personal beliefs. I’m with Bruce that the watered-down version isn’t very helpful, members shouldn’t have to go outside the church to find facts about their prophet. Other than that, I think he was brilliant.

[spacious maze]

I certainly think receiving revelation is a privilege. I know I feel closer to God and feel the spirit more often when I’m being a good fellow. It only makes sense that one should be in the right state of character to be able to receive the Lord.

And back to the original question; I was wondering more about the JS revelations, where he would kneel in prayer, ask something of God, and turn and speak God’s words to his scribe. Does that kind of revelation/relationship still exist?

[spacious maze]

thanks for the link, Bruce, checked some of it out, her explanations are pretty sound, good explanations

[spacious maze]

Wowzers, that’s a lot of stuff Kraut has given me to contemplate. I take a pretty loose view on God’s hand in guiding religion, so this isn’t very bothersome for me. But the conflict I see is this:

Fundamentalists: JS was given the restored gospel and what he said was what God said, ’nuff said.

TBM: JS was given the restored gospel, all LDS prophets receive revelation, God’s will is done. Everything since JS is part of that truth.

Quote:

Abraham, Issac, Jacob, JS, Oliver C., and many more….all priesthood holders with no church around

Agreed, so here’s my question about fundamentalism: If the truth has been around for so long, and laws come and go, what’s the big problem with changing some laws on polygamy and black’s with the priesthood? The truth has spanned thousands of years and fundamentalist want to preserve a such a small moment in time. But laws change, we certainly never adopted the Aaronic Priesthood solely for the blood-relatives of Aaron. We don’t drink wine for the sacrament, we don’t obey the Levitical Laws, we never received the grand godly powers promised with the endowment ect…

I can even make sense of the Adam-God doctrine, as clearly as Paul Toscano’s Stranger’s in Paradox argues the view of Christ-God. Compare this with the OT and LDS theology and I’m not really sure to whom I am praying. Ha

Anyway, Bruce, anything thoughts on that specific moment in time?

[spacious maze]

I ran through this one pretty quickly. I really don’t see any controversy here. Well, I’m actually not even sure if this book is held as controversial in the church’s eyes, because it doesn’t really make arguments about any truth within the church. It simply outlines the history and reasoning of temple practices. It doesn’t give away any tokens or signs, other than ones already known in history’s and the public’s eye (which is most of it, sorry but true). It merely acknowledges origins I would suppose could be unsettling for those that haven’t ever looked into it. I liked the book, but after all the research I’ve done on the topic and the stuff given in other books, I don’t think I came off with a much greater view of temple worship. I guess it’s worth reading if you haven’t even heard about the cinnamon and whiskey tub.

[spacious maze]

Man, this topic sucks to get through. As I recall, BY was approached about a black man practicing polygamy in Utah. He was swooping up all the white girls. Some of his neighbors went to BY to see his view about interracial marriage. BY’s response was to restrict blacks members’ church practices. The so-called “curse”, which was originally thought of a certain race that held red hair and freckles, was the best justification at the time, being popular in the 18th and 19th centuries. I’m sure we’ve all looked into this from the OT. Their is nothing of any race attached to any curse. We’ve just been told this for too long. And all this because a black dude was getting all the ladies.

I think most of us here, TMB, fundamentalists, inactives and apostates, believe the modern prophets have gotten some things wrong from time to time, things that were not given by God but misinterpreted as so. This certainly could be one of them.

[spacious maze]

Quote:

This is one moment in the life of a 14 year old boy. And, whatever it was that happened, however it happened, it changed his life forever.

I think the argument is whether or not the moment that occurred changed his life forever. The fact that JS placed little significance in the FV with regards to the restoration with the first generation of believers shows it may not have been a life changing event at all. And following the history of his various accounts, it can be argued that he only beefed up the moment to support what he needed at the given time; divine support. By looking at the flaws and the evolution in JS’ accounts, I think it’s fair to address the fact that he may have embellished whatever he needed to in order to save a church that was in trouble.

[spacious maze]

Hmm, I thought all speeches were given forethought? You really find research and preparation to a televised talk before thousands to be troubling? As troubling as the Gettysburg Address, I Have a Dream speech, and Christ’s second go at the Sermon on the Mount in the BoM?

[spacious maze]

MWallace, I get the farsightedness we all have sometimes, though I’m not sure that’s some huge problem with Jews. I wasn’t there, so I won’t presume. But what we have is a living church that apparently receives revelation through a prophet, is the one true church, and therefore claims to know the will of God.

I wonder if some of you have problems with this aspect, that the church is true but is wrong on a major area, like homosexuality. Perhaps the church is ignoring revelation? I know it took a lot of prayer and asking to receive the 1978 revelation, maybe the church leaders are afraid to even ask the big guy about homosexuality. Again, I’m outside the cuff when it comes to revelation and interpretation, so this isn’t too much of a problem for me, but I can see TBM’s really struggling to reconcile how the true church would proclaim a stance antithetical to their own feelings about this subject.

[spacious maze]

Wow, this thread is really exploring some great and varied views. I think Poppyseed gives some clarity with the ideal model for LDS theology; the family. The main focus is to become Christ-like, in every sense of the word, and hence the “becoming a god” focus on all of our ordinances and practices. Not that I believe all of it, but I think the church believes it. And therein lies the problem. The church would indeed need a great paradigm shift to incorporate homosexual behavior into the big plan. And as for being born gay and ignoring your feelings: Ricky Gervais said once in an interview, “If God exists, why did He make me an aethiest?”. I think it is sin not to act on our feelings.

[spacious maze]

Aside from whether or not the church should shift their views, I personally wonder if the church can actually change their views on homosexuality. The church has a ton of laws which derive from history, revelation and scripture; and since history, revelation and scripture have not been kind to the same-sex lifestyle, how can the church justify any shift on such a long and adamant stance?

[spacious maze]

Bruce, I read Collier’s review, kind-of a jerk, if you ask me. I wonder what problems you had with the book? Collier’s rant is less a review and more an attack, much like the FARMS so-called reviews. To most TMB and fundamentalists, the way it happened was the way it was supposed to happen ’cause God made it happen and that’s that. So here comes Quinn and he says it may have happened in a different manner, and then he presents his case. Bruce, I think I remember in your introduction that you once had some serious doubts with your Mormon faith, so I assume you once believed some facts about the church that were not flattering. Working past that, do you now reject those facts? Are Quinn’s points laughable? What problems do you have with the book other than the fact that it doesn’t support your beliefs? Sorry if this seems like an attack, but I’ve yet to see you post anything remotely positive on any book that isn’t faith-affirming.

[Author]

Posts