Bardman wrote:We all know the idea that religion began as a way to explain the unexplainable, to give comfort in a vast and frightening world.
What if it also began as a way for old men and women to retain their worth to the tribe by becoming shamans. Rather than rely on charity as they began to age, they took up the mantle of authority on things beyond human sight. What if it was a way to maintain relevance and keep from being abandoned as they became more of a burden on the younger members?
Anybody?
I read somewhere that most religions are started up by men in their 30's.
Bardman wrote:We all know the idea that religion began as a way to explain the unexplainable, to give comfort in a vast and frightening world.
What if it also began as a way for old men and women to retain their worth to the tribe by becoming shamans. Rather than rely on charity as they began to age, they took up the mantle of authority on things beyond human sight. What if it was a way to maintain relevance and keep from being abandoned as they became more of a burden on the younger members?
Anybody?
It looks like an attractive career path to me if you get the breaks to be called as one of the Brethren. Can you think of a better job? The pay seems competitive with the upper middle class. It doesn't really require any investment in education and training. Would you say it's stressful work? If it is, I don't see it. They look pretty peaceful to me. They certaily lived a long time. What were the downsides to the career paths of President Hinckley and President Monson besides the fact that they were lucky to be chosen to such a position?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
ajax18 wrote: My question is, "What do the current brethren believe and what do you suspect they know to be false?"
I think none of them has ever seen God or anything out of the ordinary. We know Pres Hinckley didn't, and there's no reason to believe any of the others have either. That doesn't mean they know what they teach is false. That means they are in the same boat as everyone else.
My second question is, "Who in the Church's past, all the way back to Moses, if you will, knew they were telling a falsehood, and how did they justify it?"
Men lie. What else is new?
I mean, if the supernatural turns out not to really exist as we've been told, somebody along the way had to know they were lying.
They did the best they could with what they were given or what they observed. No mystery in that.
Joseph Smith knew he was lying. I think his intents were amoral. South Park might have captured him best, as a kid living out a fantasy he doesn't really believe but at the same time doesn't really question.
Leaders since him I think are a mixed bag. I don't think Monson really believes it. I don't think Oaks believes it. I think Eyring believes to the letter. I think Packer could go either way, I think he doubts deep down, but it's the only way he knows to convict the world.
They did the best they could with what they were given or what they observed. No mystery in that.
I guess I just have a hard time seeing any long term good in dishonesty, especially a dishonesty that goes on for so long throughout time.
I suppose I just prefer my own pleasant fiction and find other peoples fictions, not so pleasant. At the same time, I don't purposely make it up as a means to do whatever I want whenever I want. I don't think Joseph Smith did either. I think he possessed more self control, conviction, and a sense of justice than you guys opine. I'd much rather work for Joseph Smith than I would for Brigham Young.
Nevertheless, lying would be inexcusable to me. I guess that would go for Jesus too.
And if what you're saying is that the Brethren have no more evidence than the "spirit," who starts all these supernatural myths about Jesus ccoming through this door to the Salt Lake temple etc. etc. and why don't the Brethren come out and say, "Hey this isn't true." Isn't it kind of deceitful to not do so? Sometimes I get the impression that the Brethren like these kind of myths to be floating around. I can't tell you how many times I was told that Church leaders saw Jesus face to face in the temple.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
This is an intriguing question that I've never quite figured out. In regards to the current leaders, I tend to think that most of them really believe, just like my parents and many other real life Mormons I know in real life. Mormonism is a self perpetuating system, in that it's set up with lots of reinforcements to believe and is a powerful social system. Usually it takes an event of some sort - like suddenly discovering something about church history you didn't know beforehand - to create a situation where doubt can begin to flourish. Lots of people can go through their lives without having such an event occur. I don't automatically assume, for example, that church leaders really DO know a lot about church history. Now some obviously do, like Packer, otherwise his statement about "not all truths are useful" wouldn't make sense. He knows. Given his general personality, I think he's probably a True Believer due to his dogged devotion to his own wisdom.
In regards to church founders, I have mixed feelings. I believe Sidney Rigdon was heavily involved in the founding of the church (and writing the Book of Mormon), and he definitely was a True Believer. He likely suffered from bipolar religious delusions. I have long considered that Joseph Smith may have also had bipolar. He often manifested grandiosity (a classic sign of mania) and had some times of gloominess. People with bipolar can have hallucinations, and when they do, they are often religious in nature. But I do believe he was also deliberately deceptive. So while I believe he likely just made up the First Vision, I think it's possible that he later did have some experiences (perhaps caused by bipolar, perhaps not) that convinced him that God approved of what he was doing. But I am far less certain of that conclusion than I am of my Sidney Rigdon conclusion. However, I think Joseph Smith, by the end of his life, did strongly manifest symptoms of delusional grandeur - having himself crowned King, running for president, marrying several young women in a very short period. He appeared to be going off the rails in his later life, and that would be consistent with untreated bipolar. And one of his sons, David, definitely had bipolar and had to be institutionalized. Since bipolar is hereditary, I think that is a strong argument for bipolar in Joseph Smith as well.
The thing to remember is that we human beings are mixed bags, and we tend to even deceive ourselves.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
ajax18 wrote:I thought Beastie once made a very good point that it's possible the current Church leaders do believe in the supernatural and every other part of the Church's teachings. I think she's right about this, though I may not be stating it in the necessary detail with my simplistic summary. My question is, "What do the current brethren believe and what do you suspect they know to be false?" My second question is, "Who in the Church's past, all the way back to Moses, if you will, knew they were telling a falsehood, and how did they justify it?" I mean, if the supernatural turns out not to really exist as we've been told, somebody along the way had to know they were lying.
It started when Joseph Smith began telling wild stories to his family. It began with him and his family tricking people into finding buried treasure on their properties. Joseph Smith and his family had history in cheating and stealing. He just perfected it as he grew older.
The thing to remember is that we human beings are mixed bags, and we tend to even deceive ourselves.
Alma 30:16 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a afrenzied mind (bipolar disorder); and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.
Gee wiz these scriptures really take on a different light sometimes.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
ajax18 wrote:I thought Beastie once made a very good point that it's possible the current Church leaders do believe in the supernatural and every other part of the Church's teachings. I think she's right about this, though I may not be stating it in the necessary detail with my simplistic summary. My question is, "What do the current brethren believe and what do you suspect they know to be false?" My second question is, "Who in the Church's past, all the way back to Moses, if you will, knew they were telling a falsehood, and how did they justify it?" I mean, if the supernatural turns out not to really exist as we've been told, somebody along the way had to know they were lying.
It started when Joseph Smith began telling wild stories to his family. It began with him and his family tricking people into finding buried treasure on their properties. Joseph Smith and his family had history in cheating and stealing. He just perfected it as he grew older.
You know, I find comments like this rather interesting. So please explain, if Joseph Smith and his family were liars why is it that everyone believed that Joseph had the plates? Were all of the people in the town they lived in stupid? If his family was so well known for cheating and stealing why is it that they were never put in jail and convicted for such crimes? Something to think about isn't it.
RockHeaded
"… Do you believe Jesus Christ and the gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship. I am just as ready to die defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination." Joseph Smith jr. Sermon, 1843