[spacious maze]

Valoel wrote:

I think a real problem comes up when the only version new people are given is the stuff in the temple will get you past the guards at the pearly gates, in only a very literal sense. It’s almost like all the symbolism is ignored as fluff. I think it is the actual meat.

I agree. I was talking to my older brother about the literalness of some of the temple stuff, and he noted that certain college fraternities have some of the exact same gestures to acknowledge their own fraternal membership. So maybe it’s just the endowed and the frat boys that get past (with the exception of any of them being amputee victims), or these things may have a more symbolic nod towards a very long tradition of human and spiritual prosperity. I’m with Valoel that these things may tie into a greater fellowship with human history.

[spacious maze]

Really great stuff. I can see these views even dipping into greek and roman mythology, where the gods came from chaos; this too I believe works with LDS theology, mysticism and science. JS said that God became a god, He organized the chaotic matter. A novel by Steven Brust To Reign in Hell adopts this idea of reshaping matter, or illiaster, as he calls it, in a similar way and gives an idea of how an intelligent being can come to be.

I also wonder, since we’re dwelling in mysticism, about the Egyptian line of kings and pharaohs. The pharaohs are noted down the line in history until they eventually go to the gods. It is said that, in the beginning, the gods themselves ruled Egypt. I’ve seen this type of historical dating in other cultures as well, placing gods in actual origins of the ruling of a certain people. It makes me wonder what was actually going on back when it was said that giants once dwelt here. Anyways, cool stuff HiJolly

[spacious maze]

Holy cow.

[spacious maze]

I think faith is our best euphemism of “truth”, this side of the veil.

[spacious maze]

Great post HiJolly, now I need to to rethink “Let there be light”

[spacious maze]

I certainly agree that Palmer’s work is unorganized and places equal value on both the strong and weak arguments, and he’s not that great of a writer. And I admit I actually became much more doubtful after reading Rough Stone Rolling, but still, the strong arguments are strong. I wonder about your own conclusions from the book?

I think the books presents an opportunity to struggle with a paradigmatic shift from the cultural church to a more holistic view. HiJolly, you quote Shakespeare as an authority on truth, would you say his works are any less inspired than JS? Would God allow pieces of His wisdom to come through an imperfect agent? And I don’t mean imperfect as “every human is imperfect”, I mean it that Joseph may have made this stuff up from being inspired by God, just as Shakespeare is inspired: but it’s still goodness, it’s Christian, it promotes faith and works. HiJolly, you claim to know God is real and how He works with His children, is the certainty of your knowledge any different than the inspiration given to JS, or to Shakespeare for that matter?

And as for my poor mother, I fear she is just another victim of a stagnant religious learning institution.

[spacious maze]

Well, I can see the necessity of science advancing faster than religion. Here’s my theory:

There’s something in JS theology regarding the plan of our earth becoming exalted, like the sun and greater stars in the hierarchy of the heavens. It is said once this is achieved, Jesus will present the earth to God, the earth will become exalted and some type of crystallization will occur, making the earth a great urim and thummim and advancing in its planetary hierarchy. But in order for this all to happen, the temple work must be completed, which I guess means all earthly souls must be sealed and endowed ect….But this may also apply to knowledge, which Smith placed a great spiritual value on- souls being made of light/matter/pure knowledge. Following this idea, I can see that science is the brother of spiritual progression, and if mankind must continue to climb spiritually in God’s plan, so must we climb in our earthly knowledge. Science is playing catchup.

So maybe the 2nd coming occurs at a time when science is beginning to break through the veil, our knowledge of space is coming close to discovering the science of the soul, maybe we locate Kolob, and maybe this coincides with all the temple work coming to a close. Weird right?

[spacious maze]

I like this discussion. Has anyone seen a movie with Ryan Reynolds called The Nines? He plays three different characters with similar blips in their psyche, which results in the ending revelation that he is a god and has placed himself on earth as different avatars in order to live the life of his own creations and understand the human experience.

Paul Toscano (of September Seven fame) views Jesus as the one and only God and Adam as playing the role of man’s father and Jesus’ father whilst Jesus was living with us down here. I suppose this is a variant of the Adam-God doctrine by Young. Toscano’s reason for this belief is that God would never sacrifice someone else, but would bare the pain Himself- therefore Jesus is God.

In response to a physical God, I’m with Valoel, I think it has to be so much more than what JS describes in the King Follett discourse. I think we are ants on an anthill, I think God paints with colors our eyes can’t see…..and so forth.

[spacious maze]

I was reading Hawkings, and he said something about scientist dismissing their interest in discovering anything pre-big bang, since there would never be any evidence. Time, matter ect… all immeasurable before the BB. With our technology advancing exponentially in future years, I wonder how the technical and astronomical aspects of the LDS church will be perceived when measured against scientific data.

[spacious maze]

1. Goodness

2. Belief in ongoing revelation

3. The Mormon Rap (anyone remember this?)

[spacious maze]

I hear ya, I admit my last comment was a bit insensitive, I’ve seen plenty of icky heterosexual marriages in my workplace (Newport Beach , CA,) but I was just thinking of the true reason folks feel uncomfortable with gay marriage. It’s not the moral issue, its discomfort. I was listening to this comedian Louis CK discuss gay marriage being debated in the courts in Boston. One side fought for equality, the other fought because gay people were “queer”. I really think the whole debate rest on something that stupid and simple. One side is seeking a peace through a positive philosophical ideology, the other is just reacting because they don’t like it. I admit to feeling uneasy about it, but I also accept anyone who fights for their right to be themselves.

[spacious maze]

Been reading the posts, wanted to throw my 2 cents in. My best LDS buddy was crazy about being involved with the LDS Prop 8 campaign, and he took a lot of personal pride after the recent court decision. Good for him, I guess.

I just don’t see this as a true church topic, only political. I place it along with the 1978 “revelation”. I think church authorities will maintain status quo until they are eventually pushed over by the government and name their submission “revelation”. If the trend of the world wanders back to a less gay-friendly attitude, so will the church. But one can hardly be surprised by the fact that a church, started by a white male that married over 30 women and kept the blacks at bay as long as possible, has chosen to stand against homosexuality.

Maybe things will keep going, and the church will keeping shifting their position until they allow gays to be sealed in the temple around the year 2300 or something.

I personally don’t think gays should marry because homosexuality is icky to me. Sorry, I’m hetero, and therefore gay stuff seems gay. It’s that simple. I have gay people in my family, I’ve had gay roommates and landlords and friends. All cool folks, but no one ever brings up the fact that gay men act a lot more like women and gay women act like guys. Please don’t dispute this, you know what I mean, it’s the reason we can spot a gay dude from a mile away. So it’s not exactly the same sex you’re attracted to if you behave like the other side. This is just something that has kept me from thinking of homosexuality as perfectly acceptable.

But if the law changes, I’m alright with it. We’re all people and the laws are created by us.

Oh, and on a personal note, I was at church for the first time in about two years, and the two talks were on the importance of tithing, protesting gay marriage, and having lots of babies even though we’re in tough financial times. I got the feeling that membership is in a rapid decline. I could see why.

[spacious maze]

This is all good stuff, guys, but if I could bring the topic back to the content of Palmer’s book.

There are obviously many ideas on how visions, revelations and translations occur, but Palmer’s argument is taken straight from the prophet’s mouth: that if we are to believe his works, we should believe his words. Palmer is making the case against JS’s enduring claim on the physical-ness of the Church- the plates, the angels, the visitations, the papyri of Abraham, powers of the endowment, relics, heaven ect….these were not metaphysical in JS’s claims.

Palmer puts these claims into question: due to what we now know of things like the witnesses, the papyrus of the Book of Abraham, the Kinderhook plates, translation process of the Book of Moses and BoM ect…..due to all these facts, Palmer argues that Smith’s notion of a physical and literal church doesn’t hold up, and therefore allows for Smith’s claims of physicality to be placed under scrutiny. Thoughts?

[spacious maze]

Holy cow, Jmb275, what have I started? Ok, here’s what I meant: That matter is infinite, that God is physical, that He lives on a planet in our own universe, that knowledge is referred to as light(masonic idea, actually), that even our spirits are a pure form of light and matter, that Jesus made the earth out of matter from other planets……all comes from JS theology, not science. It’s in the PoGP, the King Follett discourse and other talks, and most of these concepts are supported and discussed in further detail in Bushman’s biography of Smith in “Rough Stone Rolling”.

Smith took the spiritual realm and placed it in our own universe. This triggered my thoughts on Einstein and matter’s relationship with energy, and energy’s relationship with light, light with knowledge, knowledge with the spirit, and so forth. Just thought it could be a means of how a spirit could find its way back to God, speed of light.

Here’s some stuff from the King Follett discourse:

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!”

“know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves”

“God had materials to organize the world out of chaos — chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end.”

“The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end.”

This is fascinating stuff.

[spacious maze]

Your right, I think I must have gotten the FV theory from Palmer, though I also saw a trend in Bushman’s chronology. Smith certainly struggled with his position in the church. But towards the end, he was self-appointed as mayor(after excommunicating Bennett), general, presidential nominee, king (from the second anointment), and leader of the council of the fifty, which looked to be the government that would hold divine-authority over every nation. I don’t think he had trouble allowing his status to grow.

Bushman also shows how ferocious Smith could be when criticized. He constantly spoke of the sins of his critics in public meetings, he made Cowdrey, Bennett and a militia leader publicly recant their criticisms of him and were then punished…..

With this in mind, as well as the strain he must have had with the plural marriage commandment going disastrously, I can see how a man struggling to keep a hold on a faltering organization would amend his account of a personal religious experience to that of an all-out calling as the restorer of the gospel to secure himself as their leader. Doesn’t mean this is what happened, but I can’t help but think of how the church would be today if our only knowledge of the FV was Smith’s hand-written 1832 version.

[Author]

Posts