What makes 'anti-mormons' so anti?
Peggy Rogers
another LDS discussion group that I frequent. It gave me a surprising
new way of looking at people who leave the church and then proceed to
fight against it. I thought that maybe some of you would also enjoy it.
Peggy
(Note: RFM is Recovery From Mormonism, a web-based ex-mo BB)
You Can Leave the Church, But You Can't Leave It Alone
After 6 months of study I took my exam yesterday, and now can spend a
few minutes doing a few things that I want to do. A post has been
bubbling inside of me for the last couple of weeks, and I want to spill
it now. The subject is the cliché, "you can leave the church, but you
can't leave it alone."
Several months ago I found myself chatting with a Jew. I mentioned to
him that I had left the church of my youth; I believe the specific word
I used was "renounced". He was in shock that I would renounce the faith
of my family. I tried to explain to him that I didn't believe it was
true. His reaction surprised me a bit; he asked me what that had to do
with it. He didn't believe Judaism was true either--he didn't believe
that Moses really parted the Red Sea or that Elijah was going to return
or anything else. In fact, he said that nobody believes those things.
But he felt it was his duty, honor, and privilege to pass on the
cultural heritage that had been passed on to him. Doing so was such a
sacred duty he couldn't imagine somebody doing otherwise.
What made me think about this was a post I read at RFM a couple of weeks
ago. The subject was Dr. Laura. Somebody said that an 18-year old Mormon
called up Dr. Laura with a problem. The problem was he didn't believe
the church was true and didn't want to go on a mission, but he didn't
want to disappoint his family either. Dr. Laura's advice was that he
should go on the mission and follow the church of his youth and stop
being so selfish. She said it was immature and selfish for somebody to
leave the church in which they were born (the big irony of this is that
she is saying, in essence, that it is virtuous to stay in the religion
of your birth, and thus morally wrong to leave. Thus, the kid was
supposed to virtuously remain in and practice his religion by spending 2
solid years trying to convince others to commit the vice of leaving the
religions of their youths).
The person at RFM who was relating this story put it under the title,
"How Dr. Laura almost killed me." He said that when Dr. Laura gave this
kid this advice -- that he should go along with Mormonism even if he
didn't believe it--he got so mad he started screaming at the radio, lost
concentration of his driving, and drove off of the road and almost got
into a major accident.
So we see a pattern developing here--both of these Jews believe that
religion is a sacred culture that through major sacrifice has been
passed to you, and that you therefore need to honor and pass it on to
your children.
This concept of honoring the religious tradition of your parents is a
value that exmormons ostensibly don't espouse. Furthermore, many of them
actually go one step further and actively "fight" against the church
that they left by trying to make members uncomfortable by exposing
various esoteric details of the religion's past. Not only do they
disgrace the tradition by leaving it--they go one step further and fight
against it. And I think there is some truth to the observation that
Mormons are more likely to fight against their church when they leave it
then people who leave other faiths. Thus the cliché, "you can leave the
church, but you can't leave it alone."
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded in the
spring of 1830. But the driving value of the church goes back 10 years
more. In the spring of 1820, Joseph Smith didn't want to join just any
church, but rather wanted to join the right one--the true one. So he
studied, meditated, and prayed to find out which church was the true
church. I argue that the value of belonging to the "true" church is more
fundamental in Mormonism than the Mormon Church itself.
The church was established by people who left the false churches they
found themselves in favor of what they believed to be the truth.
Throughout the church's history, the sacrifices that Mormons have made
for what they believed to be the truth should be held in reverence by
all.
And that is what Mormonism is all about.
The church itself isn't a culture that was passed on to us that we pass
on to others. It is an expression of what we believe is the fundamental
nature of truth and reality. We value the truth so much that one of the
main missions of the church to proclaim the gospel to anybody who will
listen. We make huge sacrifices to convince the world that we have a
better way.
In a sentence, Mormons believe more than anything else that the truth
matters. It matters so much that we have to be willing to leave economic
well being, friends, family, and even our religious heritage to embrace
it. It matters so much that we must leave the comfort of keeping our
beliefs private and proclaim them to those who see things differently.
We see then that people who leave the church but don't leave it alone
aren't fighting against the culture and ideals in which they were
raised. Rather, they are embracing it--they are honoring the integrity
of the true believers of the church throughout its history by actively
living and preaching the truth that they see.
David Naas
Peggy Rogers <kro...@xmission.com> wrote in message news:EcmW4.72214
> In a sentence, Mormons believe more than anything else that the truth
> matters.
Ahh, but, you see, in the "Modern World", the one created by Darwin,
Marx, and Freud, ttruth is not an absolute. In the "Modern World", truth is
negociable, determined by spin doctors, opinion polls, and politically
correct gurus. It's most common statement is," You can't tell me what's
right! That's just your opinion!" If anyone, ANYone comes along with the
declaration that it has absolute truth, the world will react by spitting
vemom. To quietly and simply state what is true is sufficient for the
"Modern World" to protest that the truth-sayers are "cramming their religion
down our throat." I leave it as an exercise for the student to figure out
which church spends millions of dollars sending Missionaries forth to
declare what they believe to be absolute truth.
I realize that there was another point to your post, but this one just
struck me.
( Besides, there may be the hostility of those who have a sneaking
suspicion that their proplaimations may only be opinion, and that the cursed
Mormons just might be right after all.)
--
Regards,
David Naas...
fences and hearts mended, dragons slain, windmills tilted,
damsels rescued, potatoes peeled, tyres changed, essays
written, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera,
" I Also Walk Dogs."
SongSylvan
>So we see a pattern developing here--both of these Jews believe that
>religion is a sacred culture that through major sacrifice has been
>passed to you, and that you therefore need to honor and pass it on to
>your children.
>
IMHO, the major difference is this: the Jewish people are one of the few
religious groups that were also once a mighty nation, so once they were more
than just another religious sect--they were an actual independent nation-state.
Not to mention for a couple of thousand years, they've been almost universally
persecuted and driven out of one country after another. So even if they think
their religion is a lot of hogwash, they're very aware of their tenous place in
the world. (I think as of today there are perhaps only 14 million Jewish
people in the world?)
Truth to be told, there really aren't any other religions I can think of that
could have claimed nation-state status and went through the amount of
persecution that the Jewish people did. Other religions may have had their
down moments (Catholics in Northern Ireland, Mormons in Missouri), but not on
the scale that the Jewish have.
My two cents worth, take it as you will.
Shannon
Hedgehog
<da...@theriver.com> wrote:
> Ahh, but, you see, in the "Modern World", the one created by Darwin,
> Marx, and Freud, ttruth is not an absolute. In the "Modern World", truth is
> negociable, determined by spin doctors, opinion polls, and politically
> correct gurus.
Just as a point of order, the philosophical point of view you are
rejecting (perhaps not entirely fairly) isn't Modernism, but rather
Post-Modernism.
Interestingly enough, I don't see a lot of evidence that Mormons believe
in absolute truth--at least not anymore than any non-Mormon group does.
For example, from just the past few days on SRM, one Mormon wished to
re-write the entire field of Egyptology in order to explain how the Book
of Abraham came to be with Chandler's mummies. A few weeks before that a
Mormon who was a "young earth" Creationist was arguing that since it was
more pleasant to believe in a 7000 year old universe, he would believe
that no matter what the hard scientific data suggested. The entire basis
of LDS proselytizing is not to make a determination of the truth of the
Book of Mormon on objective data alone, but to pray for a spiritual
confirmation--which of necessity is a subjective criterion.
In Peggy's original post, she quoted someone who was reacting to advice
from several Jewish sources (one of them being Dr. Laura) to keep living
as a Mormon despite his subjective lack of belief. The argument was that
since our ancestors lived and died to pass on their religion to us, we
should do the same. I guess this makes a certain amount of sense from a
purely Jewish perspective. From a Mormon perspective, it makes less sense
to me. Consider, for example, the LDS interest in genealogy.
It's not really clear to me, based on the genealogy I have done so far,
what my ancestral religion would be. Some lines go back to Lutheran
ancestors and some lines go back to Quaker ancestors. Presumably if I
could follow these lines far enough back, Lutherans & Quakers would have
Catholic ancestors. If I follow those lines farther back, presumably I
would find worshippers of Thor or Odin or perhaps of Mithra or Jupiter.
Certainly there would be no particular reason to take the claims of the
LDS Church seriously. If the LDS Church does represent the absolute
truth, then following Dr. Laura's advice doesn't lead me to the absolute
truth, but instead has me wandering the halls of religious history.
Isn't it ironic that Dr. Laura, who is often praised as an advocate of
strong values, doesn't support the value of truth seeking, but instead
advocates following a religion merely on the basis of historical
accident? It certainly is a short step from there to Post-Modernism.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Raymond Bingham
[snip]
>In a sentence, Mormons believe more than anything else that the truth
>matters. It matters so much that we have to be willing to leave economic
>well being, friends, family, and even our religious heritage to embrace
>it. It matters so much that we must leave the comfort of keeping our
>beliefs private and proclaim them to those who see things differently.
>We see then that people who leave the church but don't leave it alone
>aren't fighting against the culture and ideals in which they were
>raised. Rather, they are embracing it--they are honoring the integrity
>of the true believers of the church throughout its history by actively
>living and preaching the truth that they see.
Unfortunately, from what I've observed (and what I classify as truly
"anti" behavior), this is only a superficial dedication to truth, as
evidenced by the shoddy, win-at-any-cost, honesty-is-relative,
dishonest tactics used by the opposition in an attempt to back up
their arguments.
Case in point, how you brought into question said person who in an
attempt to be true to the truth, had to compromise one's own
integrity in divulging the Temple Ceremonies.
It's an interesting observation, nonetheless, hence, my reply to
Craig. That what said person was doing was justifiable in his
own mind, for he viewed himself on a higher moral plane. Such
an individual reads the commandments as "Thou (All of you other
than me) shalt not bear false witness."
Best regards,
--
Raymond Bingham (aka. wReam...) | 100 % PURE Unabashed Opinion
- - - -- --- ---- -----www.frii.com/~rayb----- ---- --- -- - - -
"Her eyes widened, and it seemed to Molly that the Bull moved in them,
crossing their depths like a flaming fish."(The_Last_Unicorn - P. Beagle)
--------> Hewlett Packard -- Getting the Most from Rectangles <---------
father of peace
>We see then that people who leave the church but don't leave it alone
>aren't fighting against the culture and ideals in which they were
>raised. Rather, they are embracing it--they are honoring the integrity
>of the true believers of the church throughout its history by actively
>living and preaching the truth that they see.
So many who are called antis are doing exaclty
that. Honoring the traditional teachings of the
church, in the face of what they see as the
americanization of the church. It's always
astounded me that people would call me anti
for promoting the traditional values of the church.
--
All countries my homeland, all people my kinsman,
all truth my religion. http://www.absalom.com
John Colton
wrote:
>In article <mlnW4.72366$H8.50...@news.easynews.com>, "David Naas"
><da...@theriver.com> wrote:
>
>> Ahh, but, you see, in the "Modern World", the one created by Darwin,
>> Marx, and Freud, ttruth is not an absolute. In the "Modern World", truth is
>> negociable, determined by spin doctors, opinion polls, and politically
>> correct gurus.
>
>Just as a point of order, the philosophical point of view you are
>rejecting (perhaps not entirely fairly) isn't Modernism, but rather
>Post-Modernism.
>
>Interestingly enough, I don't see a lot of evidence that Mormons believe
>in absolute truth--at least not anymore than any non-Mormon group does.
[snip to end]
I would disagree. For example, I think most Mormons would believe that
if you had a time machine, you could go back in time and see was
Jesus's tomb empty or not. You could see, did He really feed the
multitude with the loaves and fishes. You could see if Joseph Smith
really had the golden plates. You could visit him and Oliver and see
if the translation of the Book of Mormon really proceeded as they
described.
All of these things, I believe, are part of the absolute truth.
However, they are just unverifiable to us through normal means. But,
unverifiable does not mean truth is not absolute. In that sense, I
believe most Mormons differ from the post-Modernists that were
mentioned.
John
Gerald de la Flechere
John Colton <col...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote :
> I would disagree. For example, I think most Mormons would believe that
> if you had a time machine, you could go back in time and see was
> Jesus's tomb empty or not.
Do you mean that Mormons believe that a time machine is something possible ?
I don't know why, but I feel that a time machine is something impossible for
any Christian.
-- gdlf
Hedgehog
(Raymond Bingham) wrote:
> Unfortunately, from what I've observed (and what I classify as truly
> "anti" behavior), this is only a superficial dedication to truth, as
> evidenced by the shoddy, win-at-any-cost, honesty-is-relative,
> dishonest tactics used by the opposition in an attempt to back up
> their arguments.
Well, I am still witing for a couple of LDS readers to answer "calls for
references" I issued. One was on whether the Voyage of the Beagle
contains enough information for Smith to have been aware of the theory of
the origin of species by natural selection. The other was on some alleged
incident where the Church supposedly suppressed information about a
spherical earth.
What shall we say when Mormons themselves play by win-at-any-cost tactics?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
col...@socrates.berkeley.edu (John Colton) wrote:
> I would disagree. For example, I think most Mormons would believe that
> if you had a time machine, you could go back in time and see was
> Jesus's tomb empty or not.
I don't see how this sets Mormons apart from non-Mormons.
Some Mormons do see truth as relative. Some non-Mormons see truth as absolute.
So let's say your great great grandson invents the time machine and comes
back to visit you. Great! Now you can see the empty tomb for yourself.
I assume you have to go first to some time when Jesus was still alive and
speak to him and verify that such-and-such a person really is Jesus. We
don't want to be watching the wrong tomb after all.
Can Jesus speak English, as Richard Bach might argue?
Or does Jesus speak only 1st century languages such as Aramaic or Greek or
Latin?
So we verify that such-and-such a man is Jesus and we stand around and
watch him die and follow his corpse to the tomb. We climb into the tomb.
We sit there waiting. Then what happens?
Since you chose this example, presumably you feel there is one and only
one LDS answer to the question and just as surely there is one and only
one non-LDS answer to the question. Are there lights? Sounds? Odors?
Angelic visitors? Or does the body just go poof? Do we see a glorified
body rise out of the corpse? Or is the corpse itself glorified? What
happens to any fleas, mites, ticks, or other parasites in or on Jesus'
body at the time of death? Does the resurrection leave an image on the
shroud? Is it the same image as the one on the cloth we call the shroud
of Turin? Does the resurrected Jesus see us? Speak to us? Sometimes the
disciples didn't seem to recognize the risen Lord at first glance. Does
he look the same? When Jesus rises from the dead, is he naked? Or does
he create a new set of clothes for himself miraculously? Is the Father
present? Is the Holy Spirit present in spiritual-body form?
I just don't believe that all Mormons have the same take on these questions.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Raymond Bingham
>What shall we say when Mormons themselves play by win-at-any-cost tactics?
So? That wasn't my point. This only goes to show that the basis of
Peggy's argument about truth at all costs, is um... less simply as she
stated it. I never agreed with her premise.
IMO, the compromise of honest discutory techniques, comes across a lot
more clearly in antimormon literature. But that's my opinion.
John Colton
<geralddel...@veribox.net> wrote:
>
>John Colton <col...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote :
>
>> I would disagree. For example, I think most Mormons would believe that
>> if you had a time machine, you could go back in time and see was
>> Jesus's tomb empty or not.
>
>Do you mean that Mormons believe that a time machine is something possible ?
>I don't know why, but I feel that a time machine is something impossible for
>any Christian.
No, I don't mean that. I mean that if it were possible, than it would
give a definite answer.
John
Gerald de la Flechere
John Colton <col...@socrates.berkeley.edu> a écrit
> No, I don't mean that. I mean that if it were possible, than it would
> give a definite answer.
>
OK. Thank you for your answer.
I think that a time machine is something impossible : God created the
universe and the time in one direction; to want to come back is against His
will.
--
gdlf
"L'univers a ceci de particulier qu'il comporte plus d'atomes que nous
possédons de neurones. Il nous est donc relativement difficile de
l'appréhender." (Tzeba).
Nivel Acuso
In article <5eaX4.83781$H8.59...@news.easynews.com>,
"Gerald de la Flechere" <geralddel...@veribox.net> wrote:
> I think that a time machine is something impossible : God created the
> universe and the time in one direction; to want to come back is
against His
> will.
I cannot accept.
God created the universe and gave it to the humans. If the humans find
the way to create a time machine, they're not against God, but use the
power they received from Him.
Nivel Acuso
--
--
Nivel Acuso
"Netagidocu m'a supplanté"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Have2Scrap
>the way to create a time machine, they're not against God, but use the
>power they received from Him.
I agree.
Humans never *find* such knowledge. All knowledge and so called discoveries
are dispensed by God himself in his own good time and for his own good
purposes. That we often twist discoveries into evil purposes is our choice.
If time travel/ universe sliding** is possible (and I have no idea if it is) it
will only be discovered if God wants it to be so-- and why would He?
**Read Michael Crichton's *Timeline*-- pretty cool fiction. Orson Scott Carde's
*Pastwatch* is neato too.
John Colton
wrote:
>Well, I am still witing for a couple of LDS readers to answer "calls for
>references" I issued. One was on whether the Voyage of the Beagle
>contains enough information for Smith to have been aware of the theory of
>the origin of species by natural selection.
Huh? Maybe I missed that thread. Wasn't the Voyage of the Beagle
published right around the time of Joseph's death? The only date I
could easily find was for the 2nd edition, published in 1845. You can
find the complete text here:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-voyage-of-the-beagle/
The phrase "natural selection" does not even appear in the text. In
fact, neither the word, "selection" by itself nor the word "evolution"
(in this context) appear in the text.
Keep in mind, this was long before the publication of "Origin of
Species" (20 years, I think). I doubt many scientists around 1844 were
making those connections, let alone laymen such as Smith.
>The other was on some alleged
>incident where the Church supposedly suppressed information about a
>spherical earth.
Which church are you talking about? Even in Columbus's day, most
people knew that the Earth was spherical.
>What shall we say when Mormons themselves play by win-at-any-cost tactics?
You could say "shame, shame"?
John
John Colton
wrote:
>In article <DRCW4.75859$H8.53...@news.easynews.com>,
>col...@socrates.berkeley.edu (John Colton) wrote:
>
>> I would disagree. For example, I think most Mormons would believe that
>> if you had a time machine, you could go back in time and see was
>> Jesus's tomb empty or not.
>
>I don't see how this sets Mormons apart from non-Mormons.
>
>Some Mormons do see truth as relative. Some non-Mormons see truth as absolute.
Not being a philosopher, maybe I'm confused as to what you're talking
about as absolute truth vs. relative truth. It was my understanding
that, in the example of the empty tomb, an AT believer would say "we
can know the answer; there is only one correct answer. Either Jesus
rose from the dead, or he didn't." A RT believer would say "the answer
is not knowable. Maybe believing in Jesus is what works for you, but
I'll do what works for me." Most Mormons would choose the former
point of view, I would guess.
[snip intro to hypothetical situation]
>So we verify that such-and-such a man is Jesus and we stand around and
>watch him die and follow his corpse to the tomb. We climb into the tomb.
>We sit there waiting. Then what happens?
[snip lots of questions]
>I just don't believe that all Mormons have the same take on these questions.
Sure, who knows what the answers to the questions would be. But, most
Mormons would believe they at least *have* definite answers. Most of
the people I've spoken with who subscribe to modern philosophies (or
possibly post-modern; I don't know the difference) would say things
like "If it's true for you, then that's great. If this other path is
true for someone else, than that's great, too." They won't admit to an
absolute truth, as in "Either the Christian is right, and Jesus did
die for everyone, or the Christian is just dead wrong."
John
Gerald de la Flechere
Have2Scrap <have2...@aol.com> a écrit
> If time travel/ universe sliding** is possible (and I have no idea if it
is) it
> will only be discovered if God wants it to be so-- and why would He?
>
May be to give us a choice. It is not because God made it possible that we
have to decide it is good. A lot of things have been made possible, but are
against God's will, because He wants that we take the right way.
Hedgehog
col...@socrates.berkeley.edu (John Colton) wrote:
> Not being a philosopher, maybe I'm confused as to what you're talking
> about as absolute truth vs. relative truth. It was my understanding
> that, in the example of the empty tomb, an AT believer would say "we
> can know the answer; there is only one correct answer. Either Jesus
> rose from the dead, or he didn't." A RT believer would say "the answer
> is not knowable. Maybe believing in Jesus is what works for you, but
> I'll do what works for me." Most Mormons would choose the former
> point of view, I would guess.
How would that differ from most Catholics or most Muslims?
> [snip intro to hypothetical situation]
> >So we verify that such-and-such a man is Jesus and we stand around and
> >watch him die and follow his corpse to the tomb. We climb into the tomb.
> >We sit there waiting. Then what happens?
> [snip lots of questions]
> >I just don't believe that all Mormons have the same take on these questions.
>
> Sure, who knows what the answers to the questions would be. But, most
> Mormons would believe they at least *have* definite answers.
But since we don't currently know the answers, the type of resurrection
event one envisages will depend on one's personal experience and
judgement. Even the most ardent believe in absolute truth has to make
reasonable guesses in areas where his knowledge fails him.
You are also glossing over the distinction between unknownable in
principle and the concept of something being unknowable simply as a matter
of practicality. For example, the next spin of the roulette wheel will
give a definite answer, but chances are you'd be wrong if you tried to
guess. The result is knowable in principle, but in practice you can never
know where the marble will stop.
So the state of the tomb may be knowable in principle, but since we don't
have a time machine it is as mysterious to us as the outcome of the next
game of roulette.
> Most of
> the people I've spoken with who subscribe to modern philosophies (or
> possibly post-modern; I don't know the difference) would say things
> like "If it's true for you, then that's great. If this other path is
> true for someone else, than that's great, too." They won't admit to an
> absolute truth, as in "Either the Christian is right, and Jesus did
> die for everyone, or the Christian is just dead wrong."
When Scott said that either Heavenly Father did have a Father or didn't
have a Father, the Mormon readers of the newsgroup jumped all over him.
If the majority of Mormons believe in absolute truth, as you claim, there
should have been overwhelming agreement with Scott.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
col...@socrates.berkeley.edu (John Colton) wrote:
> Huh? Maybe I missed that thread. Wasn't the Voyage of the Beagle
> published right around the time of Joseph's death?
I suppose so.
> The phrase "natural selection" does not even appear in the text. In
> fact, neither the word, "selection" by itself nor the word "evolution"
> (in this context) appear in the text.
I agree.
The problem is that Mormons who are Creationists wish to interpret Smith's
comments on creation anachronistically as rejections of Evolutionary
theory.
This meshes nicely with the discussion of relative and absolute truth.
For whatever reason, God didn't seem to warn the Prophets that stuff like
Evolution or Quantum Theory or Molecular Biology was coming down the
pipes. God doesn't transform the Prophets into omniscient beings who know
everything about everything. Most likely, there are days when Hinckley
has misplaced his house keys.
Given that any particular Prophet, Smith included, isn't omniscient, it
stands to reason that God's messages to each prophet are not meant to be
all encompassing. Isn't that why the canon isn't closed in the LDS view?
What we already have isn't everything so we should be open to the
reception of more.
Further, even if what God tells a Prophet is the absolute truth, the
prophet because of his finite knowledge will interpret what he is told
consistently with the beliefs he already has. Everything Smith sees of
God is filtered through his cultural preconceptions.
> >The other was on some alleged
> >incident where the Church supposedly suppressed information about a
> >spherical earth.
>
> Which church are you talking about?
I wish I knew. You see, it wasn't my claim, but a Mormon claimed the
Church taught the earth was flat. That's why I issued the CFR and why I
am still waiting.
As I mentioned at the time, many Mormons seem to take a rather
unsympathetic and uncharitable view of Medieval Christianity. After all,
it is simply "apostate and corrupt" so why bother to study it or come to
terms with it?
> Even in Columbus's day, most
> people knew that the Earth was spherical.
Even before that. Dante knew. Chaucer knew.
> >What shall we say when Mormons themselves play by win-at-any-cost tactics?
>
> You could say "shame, shame"?
Indeed.
I think it changes your view of anti-mormons quite a bit once you realize
that at times they are mirror images of the Mormons themselves. Perhaps
not always, but at times.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Raymond Bingham
[snip]
>For whatever reason, God didn't seem to warn the Prophets that stuff like
>Evolution or Quantum Theory or Molecular Biology was coming down the
>pipes. God doesn't transform the Prophets into omniscient beings who know
>everything about everything. Most likely, there are days when Hinckley
>has misplaced his house keys.
I like this. I think that in general many mormons, content with their
testimonies and, by human nature, a bit lazy, would rather have the
prophet do all the thinking for them. Pres. Hinckley (in his last book
this is quite clear, which was good, I might add) is admittedly a
student and avid to learn all sorts of new things everyday. You would
think we could learn from that example and put it as part of our own
nature--that of an attitude of teachableness (is that a word?).
Now of course there is another component to this which is the whole "anti"
thing. And perhaps it is Mormon fault that this tendency occurs, when
jaded members take the premise that the prophet SHOULD know all things,
and they cannot accept the fact that a prophet could be a man too.
I can see some members becoming disillusioned by this almost instinctual
current in the church to never question the prophet on anything, thus leading
some to create unusually strange preconceptions about what the prophet should
be. When they don't live up to that preconception they become angered
stilted and desire to now beat the crap out of their image of what the
prophet should be.
There is a similar current in orthodox christianity, when it comes to
prophets. They are viewed not as men, but as being above men with supernatural
powers and virtue beyond reproach. It is very seldom that these religions
examine said prophets and saints from a strictly human perspective, and as
a result, they create a mythology which could never possibly have existed
on earth in reality. (Like the Noah Mythos, for example.) And hence
we run full circle into the creationists. This undercurrent of being
devout by being mindless unquestionable followers of these beings we
consider without flaw is perhaps part of the driving force. We don't deal
well with uncertainty when faith is on the line... cuz faith is about
stepping up and doing something about your uncertainty. And it is easier
to exert faith (or at least this might be the subconscious motivator and
reasoning behind the notion of this) when one is unquestioning and so
convinced of their righteousness that they needn't fear failure. They
are right before they try...
And has a man ever exerted faith in a good thing only to fail?
Well, historically, this has occurred in the church. The establishment
of Zion among the LDS is such a goal. It is the pinnacle of the LDS
community and was a collossal failure. And men have come and gone and
have believed and exerted faith and have failed in their attempts. That's
a very discomforting thing for some people, and as a result, some members
fell away and saw Joseph and Brigham Young and others as fallen prophets
because the world didn't instantly snap into their preconception of
what it "should've" been like.
>Given that any particular Prophet, Smith included, isn't omniscient, it
>stands to reason that God's messages to each prophet are not meant to be
>all encompassing. Isn't that why the canon isn't closed in the LDS view?
>What we already have isn't everything so we should be open to the
>reception of more.
Certainly. In fact, I think even less scriptural and more down-to-earth
practical is the example of prophets. Were we scriptural purists we might
have never embraced new technologies which allow us to send our voice to
all parts of the world. Why? Because the prophet Joseph Smith never
talked about electronic radios, video broadcast facilities and enterprise.
The LDS church often is criticized for being so eager to utilize media,
and practices that are often left to the business world, as if these
practices were dirty, just because a few businesses have a bad name.
Yet, the prophet and apostles and such are always on the look out for
and praying for inspiration on how to better utilize the potential in
techologies for doing Good. This would require inspiration, and often
on the part of thousands of members as well.
It is funny, then, this thing called "change" which is so subject to
criticism and yet so necessary in anything living, including a church.
Mel Walker
(Raymond Bingham) wrote:
> And perhaps it is Mormon fault that this tendency occurs, when
> jaded members take the premise that the prophet SHOULD know all things,
> and they cannot accept the fact that a prophet could be a man too.
If I recall, this was a problem in Joseph Smith's time; people thought
that he should be perfect, since he was the Prophet.
I think he said something like "If they expect me to be perfect, I will
expect it of them, as well."
As well he should. :-) After all, with the Gift of the Holy Ghost, we
can know good from evil just as well as a prophet does.
David Naas
Raymond Bingham <ra...@fc.hp.com> wrote in message
news:NlyX4.335$De2....@news01.micron.net...
> Hedgehog (hedg...@scripps.edu) quipped:
> [snip]
>> Most likely, there are days when Hinckley
> >has misplaced his house keys.
>
> I like this. I think that in general many mormons, content with their
> testimonies and, by human nature, a bit lazy, would rather have the
> prophet do all the thinking for them
Being yet human beings, Mormons will fall into this great trap. If the
glory of God is intelligence, and a person cannot be saved in ignorance, it
should follow that L-d Saints should ( i say should) be constantly checking
things out for themselves. Instead, they will tend to rely on McConike's
Mormon Doctrine rather than praying about something for themselves.( And MD
was his opinion only, after all.)
Somewhere in Discourses of Brigham Young, he is recorded as having
discoursed this point many times, the gist of which was, if you already know
something, and can do it, don't expect the heavens to open up and have
angels with flaming trumptes come down to do it for you. He also said that
the knowledge of how to build a house or plow a field came just as much by
revelation as anything in the D&C. ( paraphrasing here)
"Anti-"s just love the lazy Mormons, because they can easily goad
them on things the lazy one knows only by hearsay. If an individual should
happen to have a Testimony of the work of Joseph Smith, the veracity of the
BoM, or/and the validity of the CoJCoLDS and the current Prophet --- and
stops there-- choosing not to grow or progress, well... What is the term of
which "lack of progress" is the definition?
atwood
> Unfortunately, from what I've observed (and what I classify as truly
> "anti" behavior), this is only a superficial dedication to truth, as
> evidenced by the shoddy, win-at-any-cost, honesty-is-relative,
> dishonest tactics used by the opposition in an attempt to back up
> their arguments.
Can anyone tell me what other religions keep the whole of their temple
rituals secret? My suspicion is that the Mromons do this for two reasons.
One is to mask the similarity with Masonic ritual, and another is because
those rituals are, well, a little over the top, even for a religion.
--
For alternatives to the official LDS church view, see:
R. Craig Harman
>
> Can anyone tell me what other religions keep the whole of their temple
> rituals secret?
Well, tacitly assuming that "temple rituals" may be substituted with
"mysteries of their religion", then might I propose the Druse? My
Druse interlocutor let me know that they learn nothing of the heart
of their religion until they turn 40.
....Craig
Hedgehog
<atw...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Can anyone tell me what other religions keep the whole of their temple
> rituals secret?
Pueblo Indians don't allow outsiders into their ceremonial kivas.
Jews did not allow Gentiles into the Temple itself. There was so much
secrecy about the Holy of Holies that people today aren't really sure
exactly where the Holy of Holies was.
> My suspicion is that the Mromons do this for two reasons.
> One is to mask the similarity with Masonic ritual, and another is because
> those rituals are, well, a little over the top, even for a religion.
Well, the Masons themselves keep their rituals secret. As long as you are
hypothesizing that Mormons simply copied Masons, perhaps the secrecy was
copied too.
Peace,
Hedgehog
David Naas
Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote in message
news:gokZ4.112814$H8.84...@news.easynews.com...
Speaking as a Mason, and Past Master of my Lodge here, I will say that
we keep the rituals secret ( they're not really, thanks to renegades who
broke their voes long ago), is because we jolly well choose to. And that
any moral peeping-tom who wants to know about them is simply venturing
beyond what are considered civilized boundaries.
There is a "tabloid" mentality running rampant among the people today
that smacks of nothing less than vouyerism. For example, what my wife and I
do in the privacy of our bedroom is, IMHO, sacred and holy. We do not
perform those actions in public for the amusement of perverts with an idle
hour on their hands. ( Unlike Tom and Nicole, but I digress.)
In the same manner, Masonic ritual is a private affair, as is the LDS
Temple practices.
How can a person call themself a Christian and desire to know what is
not theirs rightfully to know?
Secondly, if it is judged that LDS Temple rituals are "over the top", I
must ask, How Do YOU Know?
Have you been there? Or do you rely on published accounts? And if so, WHY?