Expose of Betty Eadie (Embraced by the Light)
Martin Daniels
My wife recently read the book "Embraced by the Light", by
Betty Eadie. For those of you unfamiliar with the book, it is a story
of Betty's near death experience some years ago. Betty claims to have
been embraced by Christ, to have seen spirits before they came to
earth, and a number of other things associated with this type of
experience.
Her narrative follows very closely what we, as members of the
church, might expect to happen were we to have the same experience,
with a few major differences. One of these differences is that when
she was speaking to Christ he told her that it didn't matter which
church one belonged to.
What really appealed to my wife about the book was this; here
was another person, (not of our faith), who could back up what we
believe to be true.
This book is now the subject of an expose written by Douglas
Beardall, the book is called "Embarrassed by the Light", published by
"L.D.S. Book Publications". In his book Douglas says that Betty Eadie
was a member of our church, (some considerable time ago) and goes
about finding many holes in Betty's claim.
I must admit I have not read either book, but I have read a
few paragraphs here and there and I was troubled by what I read,
particularly Beardall's book. There is no doubt in my mind that if
Eadie was trying to hoax us she fully deserves to be exposed.
Unfortunately for me Beardall raises more questions than he answers.
Let me give you an example of what I mean;
Eadie claims she was embraced by Christ, in a physical sense
Beardall responds by quoting Exodus 33;20 "Thou canst not see
My face for there shall no man see Me and live" so how can
Betty claim to have been embraced?.
My question is; Didn't Joseph Smith, amongst others, see Heavenly
Father and Jesus Christ, and live. What's the difference?
again
Eadie claims to have seen spirits before they went into the mothers
womb, and some were choosing to come to earth handicapped.
Beardall responds by saying who in their right mind would choose to
come to this earth handicapped?
My question is; Would a loving parent be prepared to take away the
suffering of their child by taking upon themselves the pain,
or handicap. To me it's not so hard to believe, after all
weren't the handicapped the ones who were valiant
in the pre existence?
As I mentioned previously if Betty Eadie was a member of our church
then she deserves to be exposed and I also know that many of the
things she claims in her book are not true, but the expose rather
shocked me because I've never known a church publication to be so
aggressive,( Is L.D.S. Publications a church sponsored company).
The other thing that made me suspicious of Beardall's book is that I
could not find any disclaimer from the church, "The views of the
author are not necessarily the views of th church", that type of
thing. Can any one put me straight.
Interested in any responses
Martin
Rob Pannoni
Martin:
I've read Eadie's book and many others on near death experiences,
including a few incidents reported by Mormons. The experiences Eadie
recounts are not unusual for the genre, although she is a a little more
specific than some. While most near death experiences mirror LDS
doctrine to a large extent, I know of no case where someone reported
that earthly religious affiliation was an issue in their afterlife
experiences. Obviously, this is very upsetting to most church members
since it implicitly challenges one of the fundamental assumptions of
contemporary mormonism--that church membership is vital to eternal
salvation.
As far as I know, Eadie has neither tried to advertise nor hide her LDS
roots. My guess is that she considers it a non-issue. I haven't read
Beardall's book, but from your account, it doesn't sound very credible.
Discounting someone else's experience because it doesn't match your
interpretation of the scriptures or the way you imagine things should be
is hardly a compelling critique. Since Eadie's book is so similar to
other accounts of NDEs, you really have to consider how you feel about
this type of experience, not just her. It can be faith promoting or
faith destroying, depending on your perspective. Personally, I have
found these accounts to be very inspirational, although I don't assume
that they are accurate in every detail.
As a side note, it is rumored that Hugh Nibley has had a near death
experience, which is supposedly a factor in his unwillingness to accept
any church calling other than sunday school teacher. I can't vouch for
the accuracy of that rumor, but it does make you wonder. . .
--Rob Pannoni
Blain Nelson
Rob Pannoni wrote:
>
> Martin:
>
> I've read Eadie's book and many others on near death experiences,
> including a few incidents reported by Mormons. The experiences Eadie
> recounts are not unusual for the genre, although she is a a little more
> specific than some. While most near death experiences mirror LDS
> doctrine to a large extent, I know of no case where someone reported
> that earthly religious affiliation was an issue in their afterlife
> experiences. Obviously, this is very upsetting to most church members
> since it implicitly challenges one of the fundamental assumptions of
> contemporary mormonism--that church membership is vital to eternal
> salvation.
Actually, it is that the saving ordinances (which happen to provide Church
Membership) are vital for exhaltation, but you're close.
>
> As far as I know, Eadie has neither tried to advertise nor hide her LDS
> roots. My guess is that she considers it a non-issue. I haven't read
> Beardall's book, but from your account, it doesn't sound very credible.
> Discounting someone else's experience because it doesn't match your
> interpretation of the scriptures or the way you imagine things should be
> is hardly a compelling critique. Since Eadie's book is so similar to
> other accounts of NDEs, you really have to consider how you feel about
> this type of experience, not just her. It can be faith promoting or
> faith destroying, depending on your perspective. Personally, I have
> found these accounts to be very inspirational, although I don't assume
> that they are accurate in every detail.
A couple years ago I met Betty Eadie's daughter (she briefly dated a friend of
mine) at an EQ Social. She wasn't in any hurry to identify herself as such or
the business she and her mother were in, but it became pretty obvious who she
had to be some time before she said the words. She was very nice, but did point
out that they tried not to connect what they are doing (meaning, the books on
NDEs that they were putting forward from various sources) with the Church.
Whether this was just the impression I got or she actually said it explicitly I
don't recall anymore, but the impression I got was that they were able to reach
certain audiences with their messages which they didn't think they would if this
became a Mormon thing. When EBTL is sold at LDS book stores, I understand, they
have a sticker that goes on dust cover that identifies her as a Mormon, but the
standard dust cover doesn't make any such mention.
Personally, I have no interest in reading the book, and I'm a little
uncomfortable with some of the things I've read excerpted from it. However, I
did find the lady I met to be very nice. The timing of it was actually kinda
funny -- I had just sent an introduction of myself to lds-net that day in which
I disclosed that I didn't believe that Betty Eadie was entitled to receive
revelation for anyone outside of her immediate family.
> --Rob Pannoni
Take care,
Blain
--
Wanted: Blain Nelson aka bla...@pacificrim.net aka Rahab the Tyrant
aka anon-...@anon.twwells.com aka My Kids' Dad aka not-Kristi
Subject is considered armed and legged. Persecutors will be violated.
http://www.pacificrim.net/~blainn/ My hat says "It's Irony"
Clarke Echols
Martin Daniels (mar...@tempest.com.au) wrote:
<snip>
: with a few major differences. One of these differences is that when
: she was speaking to Christ he told her that it didn't matter which
: church one belonged to.
I have read the book. There are some doctrinal inconsistencies, but
I didn't consider them to be severe.
: This book is now the subject of an expose written by Douglas
: Beardall, the book is called "Embarrassed by the Light", published by
: "L.D.S. Book Publications".
I've never heard of that company.
: In his book Douglas says that Betty Eadie
: was a member of our church, (some considerable time ago) and goes
: about finding many holes in Betty's claim.
: Unfortunately for me Beardall raises more questions than he answers.
: Let me give you an example of what I mean;
: Eadie claims she was embraced by Christ, in a physical sense
: Beardall responds by quoting Exodus 33;20 "Thou canst not see
: My face for there shall no man see Me and live" so how can
: Betty claim to have been embraced?.
This pertains to the mortal man in a physical body standing in the
presence of God without the intervention/shielding of the Holy
Ghost.
: My question is; Didn't Joseph Smith, amongst others, see Heavenly
: Father and Jesus Christ, and live. What's the difference?
In a near-death experience, the spirit is not in the body. It is
elsewhere. Exodus 33:20 does not apply in such cases. I have
several friends who have had NDEs, and the book is not inconsistent
with those people's accounts.
: Eadie claims to have seen spirits before they went into the mothers
: womb, and some were choosing to come to earth handicapped.
Here I would use the word "consent" rather than "choose". However,
lacking any first-hand experience, I abstain from further comment
except to say the when we are sent here, the Lord determines the
challenges we face in combination with the imperfections of the
flesh. In some cases, the handicap may be arranged by the Lord.
In other cases, it may not be. Lacking any formal statement from
the prophets, it is hazardous for anyone else to set forth any
specifics on the subject.
: Beardall responds by saying who in their right mind would choose to
: come to this earth handicapped?
It sounds to me like Beardall is speculating and lacks sufficient
doctrinal understanding to carry any credibility; particularly
given his use of Exodus above.
: My question is; Would a loving parent be prepared to take away the
: suffering of their child by taking upon themselves the pain,
: or handicap. To me it's not so hard to believe, after all
: weren't the handicapped the ones who were valiant
: in the pre existence?
We don't have any specific doctrine in this regard. Every situation
is different and mortals are not in a position to judge the cause or
reason unless revealed for the particular instance in question.
: As I mentioned previously if Betty Eadie was a member of our church
: then she deserves to be exposed and I also know that many of the
: things she claims in her book are not true, but the expose rather
: shocked me because I've never known a church publication to be so
: aggressive,( Is L.D.S. Publications a church sponsored company).
: ( Is L.D.S. Publications a church sponsored company).
No, it is not.
: The other thing that made me suspicious of Beardall's book is that I
: could not find any disclaimer from the church, "The views of the
: author are not necessarily the views of th church", that type of
: thing. Can any one put me straight.
: Interested in any responses
I'm inclined to conclude that Beardall is an opportunist trying to
make a buck on the back of someone else's work, much like the
purveyors of anti-LDS literature. They're trying to file a niche
market with a questionable product.
Spencer Shellman
[Moderator's Note: Please make sure responses deal with this in the
context of Mormonism]
I have problems with some of the near-death experience books on the
market.
1. They all look so much alike. ("Embraced by the Light", "Saved by
the Light", "Transformed by the Light", "Given a Big Wet One on the
Cheek by the Light", etc.)
2. They make so much money. Could it be that the authors are only in
it for profit?
3. It's the easiest thing in the world for an author to research the
beliefs of a religion and then write a "near-death experience" book that
happens to dovetail nicely with those beliefs, so that members of those
religion will be encouraged to buy it. After all, researching is what
authors do all the time.
4. If a person were to really have a near-death experience and visit
the spirit world, would not that person's spirit, upon coming back into
the body, pass again through the "veil of forgetfulness" and forget
everything that happened? Of course, that depends on how you see the
veil. If you consider the veil to be something that happens to us only
when we're born, then it should be possible to have a NDE and remember
it. If, on the other hand, you consider the veil to be an effect of the
limitations of our mortal bodies, rather than memories being extracted
from our minds when we're born, then it would seem that a person who has
an NDE would not be able to recall what happened upon awaking.
Here's my theory: The reason we "can't remember" the premortal life is
that our mortal minds only process physical memories. In the premortal
life we had no physical senses and therefore could not accumulate
physical memories. All of our memories of the premortal life are
spiritual, and only our spiritual minds can process them. Of course,
one needs to be in the right frame of mind in order for this to happen.
This is one reason why the missionary work is so successful. People who
are ready for the gospel, when they hear it, remember it as something
they have always known.
--
Spencer D. Shellman
"Conspiracy (con-spi'-ra-cy): A group of politicians who have set aside
their differences."
"The government wants to manage health care! The government wants to
manage education! The government wants to manage the Internet! The
government..."
"Mr. President, have you ever heard of the private sector?"
"Oh, yes. The government wants to manage that, too."
Rob Pannoni
As I've been reading this thread, it really struck me how peculiarly
Mormon this whole conversation is. While many people might treat an
empirical experience like an NDE as a source of information to be
intergrated into their understanding of how things work, many Mormons
move the other direction. They judge the validity of the empirical
experience by church doctrine, or more precisely, by their current
understanding and beliefs about church doctrine. This idea that
abstract principles are more true than personal experience strikes me as
characteristically Mormon. And the great irony is that the Mormon idea
of conversion is based on direct experience (personal revelation).
I don't mean this as a criticism of any particular person's views. It's
just a deeply-ingrained aspect of Mormon culture. Ignoring things that
don't match our perspective is an inevitable part of human nature, but
Mormons have raised it to an art form. While it may help insulate us
from being tossed around by every new idea or conjecture that comes
around, it also makes us a pretty intransigent bunch. We talk about
eternal progress as a core belief, but we often define progress as an
increasing ability to withstand challenges to our beliefs. It's sort of
odd when you think about it.
I should say that I don't think this attribute of Mormonism is
doctrinal, but rather a product of culture. It's self-reinforcing
because the conservativeness of Mormon culture draws mostly new members
who are sympathetic to this perspective. I often wonder what Mormonism
would look like if you could strip away the conservativism that
permeates it.
--Rob Pannoni
Rob Pannoni
[Moderator's Note: Please make sure replies are related to Mormonism]
Spencer Shellman wrote:
>
> I have problems with some of the near-death experience books on the
> market.
> 1. They all look so much alike. ("Embraced by the Light", "Saved by
> the Light", "Transformed by the Light", "Given a Big Wet One on the
> Cheek by the Light", etc.)
> 2. They make so much money. Could it be that the authors are only in
> it for profit?
There are accounts of NDEs that go back throughout history. They vary
in details, but many of the fundamental experiences are the same
(watching events from above, feeling the "lightness" of not having a
body, the tunnel with a light at the end, seeing relatives, having a
guide, feeling an overwhelming sense of love...). While it might be
possible for an individual to "fake" such an experience for money, it's
unlikely that the entire literature of NDEs is fake. Note that I'm
saying only that the subjective experience is genuine, not that it
accurately represents what happens when you die "for real". In fact,
there was a documentary on the Discovery Channel not long ago that
showed how scientists can now induce something resembling an NDE by
stimulating a certain portion of the brain. Some people might consider
that an indictment of the NDE experience. For me, it's just an
interesting tidbit about the fascinating interaction between our
physical bodies and our human experience.
Neither the similarities or differences among NDE accounts should be
surprising. Personal experience and culture would naturally enter into
the interpretation of the experience (i.e. a Mormon will interpret the
experience through the lens of Mormonism). Many of the visions and
revelations in the Bible and in modern revelation clearly show this
effect as well. We each have both a personal and a social lens on the
world that dictates what we can conceive and how we interpret
things--even if the thing being interpreted is divinely inspired.
As for the veil of memory, it seems to me this is more likely related to
the experience of being an infant.
--Rob Pannoni
Mike Roberts
Clarke Echols Sent a Sub-Space message to All Concerning:
Re: Expose of Betty Eadie (Embraced by the Light).....
Is Ms. Eadie the women who died outside a Bank and then had an NDE, and
returned to live again. I do remember hearing her story on Radio, not
too long ago. She tried to hide the fact she used to be a Mormon, until
someone asked her directly. I was just wondering if this was the same
women.
.. Oxymoron: Klingon diplomacy.
*X-Newsreader: The Blue Wave Offline Mail Reader v2.20
Sandi
Rob Pannoni wrote:
> As a side note, it is rumored that Hugh Nibley has had a near death
> experience, which is supposedly a factor in his unwillingness to accept
> any church calling other than sunday school teacher. I can't vouch for
> the accuracy of that rumor, but it does make you wonder. . .
>
> --Rob Pannoni
Since my DH is such a devotee of Nibley's writings I asked him about this
one and was told yes he did have one, a near death exp. It happened when he
was having surgery and swallowed his tongue. It was after that when he
started accepting only the Sunday School teacher positions. Do you think
maybe the Lord was trying to give him a message by the manner in which this
experience happened? (swallowing the tongue) *G*
--
Sandi * "A true friend loves you even when you act like yourself"
***************************************************************
Ann Porter
>Is Ms. Eadie the women who died outside a Bank and then had an NDE, and
>returned to live again. I do remember hearing her story on Radio, not
>too long ago. She tried to hide the fact she used to be a Mormon, until
>someone asked her directly. I was just wondering if this was the same
>women.
It was my understanding that she joined the church AFTER her NDE. I could
be wrong.
I enjoyed the book. It was a little hokey in some places, but I didn't
really see anything doctrinally inconsistent about it. It didn't even touch
on post-resurrection life (how could it?)
Best,
Ann
Mark Crego
Sandi <san...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Rob Pannoni wrote:
>> As a side note, it is rumored that Hugh Nibley has had a near death
>> experience, which is supposedly a factor in his unwillingness to accept
>> any church calling other than sunday school teacher.
> Since my DH is such a devotee of Nibley's writings I asked him about this
>one and was told yes he did have one, a near death exp.
What is a 'DH'?
>It happened when he
>was having surgery and swallowed his tongue. It was after that when he
>started accepting only the Sunday School teacher positions. Do you think
>maybe the Lord was trying to give him a message by the manner in which this
>experience happened? (swallowing the tongue) *G*
When we were in the Provo 9th ward, my wife had a near-death
experience each Sunday attending Nibley's Gospel Doctrine class.
Consequently, she indulged in child abuse by pinching our daughter
to make her cry so that she had an excuse to leave.
Fortunately for my family's salvation, they established an
alternative, "conventional" Sunday School class. Even Dallin
Oaks preferred the conventional one.
-mark.
David Bowie
Sandi wrote in message <6lr4g8$j0a$1...@supernews.com>...
:Rob Pannoni wrote:
:> As a side note, it is rumored that Hugh Nibley has had a near death
:> experience, which is supposedly a factor in his unwillingness to
:> accept any church calling other than sunday school teacher. I can't
:> vouch for the accuracy of that rumor, but it does make you wonder...
:Since my DH is such a devotee of Nibley's writings I asked him about
:this one and was told yes he did have one, a near death exp. It
:happened when he was having surgery and swallowed his tongue. It was
:after that when he started accepting only the Sunday School teacher
:positions. Do you think maybe the Lord was trying to give him a
:message by the manner in which this experience happened? (swallowing
:the tongue) *G*
Well, folks, i knew that Hugh Nibley had had a NDE, but i'd never heard the
rest of this--so i forwarded this to a friend of mine, Boyd Peterson, who
just happens to be one of HN's sons-in-law and is in the process of
collecting biographical information from him. I'm allowed to post his
responses to debunk false urban legends about HN, so here's the relevant
part of Boyd's response:
===begin included response===
It is true that Nibley did have a near death experience. He described it in
some detail in the film "Faith of an Observer." However, it is not true
that after that he only accepted callings of Sunday School teacher. The
fact is, he has never been called to any major positions within the Church.
He was a counselor in his ward's Seventies presidency when they existed, but
for the most part he has been nothing but a Sunday school teacher. I think
this is more because Bishops and Stake Presidents know that he'd be fairly
lousy at any administrative position and he's very interesting and
entertaining as a Gospel Doctrine teacher.
Anyway, that's the straight dope.
===end forwarded response===
David, hoping a secondary source is enough for this one
--
Remove the % from my e-mail address to reply
David Bowie http://babel.ling.upenn.edu/~bowie
dbowie@mail%.sas.upenn.edu PhD student in Sociolinguistics
And yes, that actually *is* my real name!
Sandi
Mark Crego wrote:
> What is a 'DH'?
>
DH = Dear, or Devoted or D*$& Husband. I personally prefer the dear or devoted
part. *G*
> When we were in the Provo 9th ward, my wife had a near-death
> experience each Sunday attending Nibley's Gospel Doctrine class.
> Consequently, she indulged in child abuse by pinching our daughter
> to make her cry so that she had an excuse to leave.
>
> Fortunately for my family's salvation, they established an
> alternative, "conventional" Sunday School class. Even Dallin
> Oaks preferred the conventional one.
>
> -mark.
I don't doubt that your wife felt that way. I would probably do the same
thing. But there are a few people out there, including my husband, who would be
extremely grateful to be able to learn from Nibley. Once when he was in Provo
on training for the Army he met Mr. Nibley at the book store on campus and was
able to speak with him for quite some time. He came home happy as a clam. I
guess it all is just how the individual feels about things.
Jay Talbot
> Since my DH is such a devotee of Nibley's writings I asked him about this
> one and was told yes he did have one, a near death exp. It happened when he
> was having surgery and swallowed his tongue. It was after that when he
> started accepting only the Sunday School teacher positions. Do you think
> maybe the Lord was trying to give him a message by the manner in which this
> experience happened? (swallowing the tongue) *G*
>
No, why should I? And what message would that be? To stop blaspheming? Hugh
Nibley's conversations with the Almighty are pertinant to him only. I am
possitive he does not go around trying to interpolate "the Lord's messages" to
you when you have surgery, or spill your salt shaker, or whatever. I don't mean
to offend and am sorry if I have, but seeing as how it happened to Nibley and
not Hinckley, I doubt that any message delivered to Nibley is any of our
business to speculate on. It doesn't concern us until he says it does.
Woody Brison
Martin Daniels wrote:
: ...One of these differences is that when
: she was speaking to Christ he told her that it didn't matter which
: church one belonged to.
Christ sends revelations to his Church by ordained witnesses. Who is
this lady? Former member? Hmmm. Maybe she misheard what Christ told
her. Maybe he told her that it didn't matter which WARD one belonged
to.
Clarke Echols wrote:
> I have read the book. There are some doctrinal inconsistencies, but
> I didn't consider them to be severe.
I would have to call this one severe. When you step across the
threshold, having made the sacred covenant of baptism and kept it,
there is an immediate difference between you and the next guy in
line behind you. Your probation is over and you have won. That
isn't a minor doctrinal difference but an awful gulf, which
separates the wicked from the saints of God and the tree of life.
And even before you leave this life, with the gifts that come with
baptism in the Lord's real church, you can become a tremendous
benefit to your fellow humans.
Rob Pannoni wrote:
= As I've been reading this thread, it really struck me how peculiarly
= Mormon this whole conversation is. While many people might treat an
= empirical experience like an NDE as a source of information to be
= intergrated into their understanding of how things work, many Mormons
= move the other direction.
Right! I sort of feel odd hearing about Eadie's book. Experience has
taught me that in the underselected and overcooked ideas of the world
I can expect to find beauty and truth as gems lost in the clutter, not
major systems of truth better than the gospel.
=...They judge the validity of the empirical
= experience by church doctrine, or more precisely, by their current
= understanding and beliefs about church doctrine. This idea that
= abstract principles are more true than personal experience strikes me
as
= characteristically Mormon.
Isaiah had the same idea tho: "To the law and the testimony; if they
speak not according to this word, there is no light in them."
Intellectual inquiry is like looking around by the light of an
old AAA battery in a dime flashlight. Personal revelation is like
seeing by the light of the beautiful sun shining.
=...And the great irony is that the Mormon idea
= of conversion is based on direct experience (personal revelation).
But that's the whole point. We don't go by every revelation that
comes along, because some are false.
= I don't mean this as a criticism of any particular person's views.
It's
= just a deeply-ingrained aspect of Mormon culture. Ignoring things
that
= don't match our perspective is an inevitable part of human nature, but
= Mormons have raised it to an art form. While it may help insulate us
= from being tossed around by every new idea or conjecture that comes
= around, it also makes us a pretty intransigent bunch.
Intransigent means refusing to moderate an especially extreme position.
That doesn't really apply to us. When people get to know the Latter-
Day Saints they usually see that we are a very reasonable bunch. We
like cleanliness, kindness, faithfulness, truth, good conversation,
happy laughter, good food, comfortable clothes, safety for our families,
good books, good music, and all kinds of stuff like that. It's the
world
that holds the extreme position, things just look reversed sometimes.
Wood
Bill Polhemus
The problem with your argument is, that you're assuming "personal
revelation" is more than "personal."
In Elder's Quorum instruction this past Sunday, we were talking about
"personal revelation" and how it relates to Church doctrine in general.
Someone paraphrased a comment from a Church leader (don't remember who,
sorry): "The reason individual members of the Church don't receive MORE
revelation than they do at present, is because we can't keep our mouths
shut!"
In other words: Personal revelation isn't meant as a topic for parlor
discussion. It is "personal."
Betty Eadie represents HER personal revelation as universal truth for
all mankind. The problem is, much of what she described in her book
flies in the face of revelations that HAVE been received, by proper
authorities, FOR the Church and the world in general. If she is to be
believed, she, like Hiram Page, has to pit HER words against those of
the prophets.
Also, while it's true that conversion to the Church is "personal," it
leads inevitably to the same result: baptism and confirmation in the
Church of Jesus Christ. How valid would we take the testimony of an
individual who, claiming to have come to a knowledge of the truth of the
restored Gospel, then announces he is forming his own branch of the
Church, with himself as president?
That, I think, is where your analogy collapses.
Rob Pannoni wrote:
> As I've been reading this thread, it really struck me how peculiarly
> Mormon this whole conversation is. While many people might treat an
> empirical experience like an NDE as a source of information to be
> intergrated into their understanding of how things work, many Mormons
> move the other direction. They judge the validity of the empirical
> experience by church doctrine, or more precisely, by their current
> understanding and beliefs about church doctrine. This idea that
> abstract principles are more true than personal experience strikes me
> as
> characteristically Mormon. And the great irony is that the Mormon
> idea
> of conversion is based on direct experience (personal revelation).
[SNIP]
> We talk about
> eternal progress as a core belief, but we often define progress as an
> increasing ability to withstand challenges to our beliefs. It's sort
> of
> odd when you think about it.
It is odd that I've never thought about "personal progress" in that way
at all. To me, it is the increasing ability to incorporate the truths
found in the gospel in my daily life, in the way I conduct ALL my
affairs, and in my relationships with others. It is becoming more
Christ-like.
True, we are hit with many challenges, including challenges to what we
believe, but those are just specific examples of how we incorporate
Christ's teachings. Do we stand or fall when presented with
difficulty? Do we find we are unable to drink from the cup?
But I know many in the Church who seeming HAVE no such difficulties, but
are very good examples of Christlike service nevertheless. Our personal
progress is, once again, just that: Personal. I don't think it fits
any particular mold.
> I often wonder what Mormonism
> would look like if you could strip away the conservativism that
> permeates it.
I often wonder why those who continue to claim that Mormons are "so
conservative" don't simply go and try to come up with a better version,
one with which they are more comfortable. Instead, they'd rather perch
themselves in the building standing "as it were in the air," and point
at all those hapless conservatives.
Beverly Hamilton
In article <6mra5j$jdt$1...@supernews.com>, Bill Polhemus
<polh...@insync.net> wrote:
>
> Betty Eadie represents HER personal revelation as universal truth for
> all mankind. The problem is, much of what she described in her book
> flies in the face of revelations that HAVE been received, by proper
> authorities, FOR the Church and the world in general. If she is to be
> believed, she, like Hiram Page, has to pit HER words against those of
> the prophets.
>
Are you sure that you read the same book that I read, "Embraced by the
Light"? My sister and several other LDS friends read her book and were
very moved by the lessons in the book. I found absolutely NOTHING that
was anyway contradictory to the gospel. When I first read it, I thought
"gosh, It sounds so much like our doctrine and she's not even LDS."
Later, I found out that she is LDS and has given many firesides. The part
that you were referring to where she said that God told her that there
were many religions and that they are good, here is the quote from the
book:
"Each of us is at a different level of spititual knowledge. All religions
are necessary because there are people who need what they teach...each
religion is a stepping stone to further knowledge. As an individual raises
his level of understanding about God and his own eternal progress, he
might feel discontented with the teachings of his present church and seek
a different philosophy or religion to feel that void. When this occurs he
has reached another level of understanding and will long for further truth
and knowledge.
I knew that we have no right to criticize any church in anyway. They are
all precious and important in His sight. Very special people with
important missions have been placed in all countries, in all religions, in
each station of life that they might touch others. There _is_ a fullness
of the gospel, but most people will not attain it here. In order to grasp
this truth, we need to listen to the Spirit and let go of our egos."
(_Embraced By the Light_ by Betty Eadie, p.45-46)
She also commented on how, as a Protestant, that she had believed that
God and Jesus were the same being but she saw that they were separate
beings with physical bodies and that the Holy Ghost had no physical body.
Whether her story is "true" or not is not important to me. The book
taught me that to love others as ourselves is the lesson that we must all
learn. I do believe that when my time on this earth is over and I return
to the Father, that I will be more concerned about how I treated others
rather than whether I had a Pepsi for lunch. I really do not mean to make
light of any commandments but to love our Heavenly Father and our
neighbors are the most important commandments and this point was
emphasized more than any other in the book.
Sincerely, Beverly Hamilton
--
email: pha...@icsi.net
Rob Pannoni
Bill Polhemus wrote:
>
> The problem with your argument is, that you're assuming "personal
> revelation" is more than "personal."
>
I agree with everything you said about personal revelation. I just
don't put an NDE in that category. I'm sure your testimony of the
church has profound meaning to you and has made your life better. If
you care about the welfare of others, you will naturally want to share
the good news with others. Betty Eadie apparently had an experience
that had a profound effect for good on her life. She wants to share it
with others. You certainly don't have to believe that her experience
represents the way things really are. But it's pretty hypocritical for
you to condemn her for sharing her experience. Besides, if she really
had the experience, what is she supposed to do--pretend she didn't?
Edit it so that it matches common interpretations of church doctrine?
If she keeps her experience to herself, does that change the nature of
her experience? Make it less real?
> It is odd that I've never thought about "personal progress" in that way
> at all. To me, it is the increasing ability to incorporate the truths
> found in the gospel in my daily life, in the way I conduct ALL my
> affairs, and in my relationships with others. It is becoming more
> Christ-like.
>
Becoming more Christ-like is a great way to think about personal
progress. But you've assumed that you've learned all the truths you
need to know and that now you just need to apply them better. I always
take a pessimistic view of man's ability to understand the things of God
and assume that knowledge also falls in the domain of personal
progress. Your view is exactly the typical mormon view that I was
characterizing. It is conservative in the sense that new experiences
are only considered seriously if they reinforce old views. In my mind,
that makes it pretty difficult to progress in knowledge.
> I often wonder why those who continue to claim that Mormons are "so
> conservative" don't simply go and try to come up with a better version,
> one with which they are more comfortable. Instead, they'd rather perch
> themselves in the building standing "as it were in the air," and point
> at all those hapless conservatives.
There's nothing inherently conservative about the fundamental principles
of the church. Christ was hardly a conservative figure. Neither was
Joseph Smith. The idea of eternal progress and becoming like God is not
conservative. The church's conservatism is a relatively recent
phenomenon that has historical rather than spiritual roots. However, it
has become so much a part of contemporary mormon culture that anyone who
doesn't share that view of the world might find themselves accused of
being a part of the crowd mocking the faithful . . .
--Rob Pannoni
Bill Polhemus
Rob Pannoni wrote:
> There's nothing inherently conservative about the fundamental principles
> of the church.
In this day and age, there most certainly is.
The moment you speak the words "personal responsibility," the liberal gets
his hat and coat. With the words "consequences of sin," he has left the
building.
> Christ was hardly a conservative figure.
No? Considering that he was there to bust up the "party" that had started up
with the demise of His priesthood leadership, he was considered downright
REACTIONARY.
"Conservatives" don't turn the temple into a den of thieves.
"Conservatives" don't insist on "new interpretations" of scripture, and on
accomodation of religious principle to earthly considerations (e.g. the
Sanhedrin).
It is typical of liberalism to try and claim the moral highground and, once
having been ceded it by the popular media, insist that morality is
irrelevant.
Christ didn't just SPEAK the truth, He insisted upon it. This is NOT
liberalism.
> The church's conservatism is a relatively recent
> phenomenon that has historical rather than spiritual roots.
They are one and the same.
The Church's conservatism is a reaction of dismay at the eroding values all
around us, promulgated by 60s era liberalism.
Although theologically, we have little in common with the so-called Religious
Right in this country, the fact remains that we have MUCH in common with them
as regards the slippery slope this nation finds itself upon (and couldn't
care less, more's the pity!)
The primary reason that so few Mormons are Democrats is that nearly every
plank in the Democratic Party platform is total anathema to those who believe
in moral accountability and righteousness.
> However, it
> has become so much a part of contemporary mormon culture that anyone who
> doesn't share that view of the world might find themselves accused of
> being a part of the crowd mocking the faithful . . .
Then mock on.
Rob Pannoni
[Moderator's Note: Please make sure replies deal more directly with
questions of Mormonism and less with just the
liberal/conservative dichotomy]
Bill Polhemus wrote:
>
> The moment you speak the words "personal responsibility," the liberal gets
> his hat and coat. With the words "consequences of sin," he has left the
> building.
I don't know what "liberals" you talk to, but I certainly believe in
personal responsibility and the consequences of our actions, sinful or
otherwise. In fact, I believe in them so much that I'd rather see the
government preserve our ability to make those moral choices instead of
passing laws that take those choices away.
>
> > Christ was hardly a conservative figure.
>
> No? Considering that he was there to bust up the "party" that had started up
> with the demise of His priesthood leadership, he was considered downright
> REACTIONARY.
>
That's an interesting take on Christ's mission, but as I recall his
primary purpose was to get people to walk away from 6000 years of judaic
tradition to follow a better path. Not exactly a reactionary
proposition.
> It is typical of liberalism to try and claim the moral highground and, once
> having been ceded it by the popular media, insist that morality is
> irrelevant.
>
> Christ didn't just SPEAK the truth, He insisted upon it. This is NOT
> liberalism.
The liberal/conservative debate isn't about speaking the truth, it's
about interpretation and focus. You believe you understand who Christ
was and what he wanted and you judge others by your "truth". But I have
a very different vision of Christ and I am in no way bound by your
particular interpretation. That doesn't mean I'm not speaking THE
truth. It just means I'm not speaking YOUR truth.
>
> The Church's conservatism is a reaction of dismay at the eroding values all
> around us, promulgated by 60s era liberalism.
>
Exactly. The question is was it an appropriate reaction? My problem
with conservatism is that it is a philosophy based on fear--fear of
change, fear of uncertainty, fear of those who are different, fear of
making a mistake. It strikes me as vaguely sad when I see people who
choose to live their life that way. But I respect conservatives' choice
as long as they don't try to impose it on me or claim divine sanction
for their opinions.
--Rob