Myth and Belief

[_Some Schmo]

Nehore
I wish we could wipe away much of the mythology surrounding LDS doctrine.

LOL! There would not be anything left. Its myth built on myth.

Hehe... no doubt. To me, one of the most fascinating aspects of religious culture is how mythology is created to explain away old, outdated forms of mythology. People are constantly making crap up and stating it as truth.

I was talking to this guy at work about the capricious nature of the god he was describing, and he stating all kinds of rationalizations for it. In the middle, I stopped him and said, "Dude, now you're just making stuff up." At first he said, "No..." then thought about it for a second and admitted he was, but tried to rationalize that by implying scripture supported his previous rationalizations.

It's just so amusing to me the pretzel logic a religious person must employ to make all the wacky, illogical crap they believe work. It just goes to show that comfort is way more important to most people than the truth is (although I wonder how many people would be relieved and comforted if only they realized they didn't have to believe a bunch of intellectually dishonest rubbish).

[_zzyzx]

Too many times 'inspired' teachings from the pulpit in General conference is wrong and/or contradicted by others of similar positions in LDS leadership.

B.H. Roberts and James Talmage believed in Pre-Adamite peoples. Many other LDS Leaders do not.

Where is Truth when the leadership gets different answers to their prayers?

[_badseed]

Yes, that is obedience. If, as you say, you SHOULD keep it to yourself that implies that God wants you to keep it to yourself. Hence, it is obedience.

Duh.

I wonder why if one can receive the truth by personal revelation he would need to be obedient to Church leaders in the cases where their "revelations" were less than inspired. If my goal is to get to and live by the truth, this system would for me would be extremely frustrating. God tells me the truth, which I must keep to myself while following others who are proclaiming their own misguided ideas on the topic. Why not just cut out the middleman?

I thought continuing revelation was supposed to clear up the kind of confusion about religion that Joseph Smith went through. Guess not.

In any event I think the process of "checking the prophets and revelations" is virtually non-existent in Mormonism today. Most members do not question what is said, openly or otherwise. They are taught repeatedly to follow the prophet and they do so without flinching.

[_badseed]

Church leaders are ecclesiastical, if you've been to the temple, you should known that the plan is patriarchal (King/Priest/Holy Order based) ... see alma chapter 13

Why would/do you put so much weight on the current "leaders"

In the temple you are ordained to eventually become King, Priest etc. but that is not how things function now. The LDS now is ecclesiastical. It is the Brethren.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOpEhA2kpko

http://www.lds-mormon.com/fourteen.shtml

http://scriptures.LDS.org/en/dc/1/38#38

I do find it funny though how you put the word leaders in quotes. I don't think most LDS would agree with what you imply by that.

But beyond that, the patriarchal authorities in each family are only allowed to function as they agree with the hierarchy. The Church defines what it is to be a worthy priesthood holder and insures that men meet that standard. If one is found out of line with policy authority can be taken away. The ecclesiastical (Brethren) revelations always Trump those of a husband and father.

Also you mentioned the temple but again, ironically, you have to go through the Church to even take part in those ceremonies. The church completely controls these highest ordinances.

Another example of ecclesiastical authority over patriarchal is Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages. The prophet's revelation from God to marry other active worthy men's wives (O. Hyde, Henry Jacobs, etc.) trumped existing family relationships.

[_RockSlider]

…
But beyond that, the patriarchal authorities in each family are only allowed to function as they agree with the hierarchy. The Church defines what it is to be a worthy priesthood holder and insures that men meet that standard. If one is found out of line with policy authority can be taken away. The ecclesiastical (Brethren) revelations always Trump those of a husband and father.

The holy order existed before the church (see Book of Mormon reign of the kings). The church was allowed to be created on the concept, well ok, I suppose it will not hurt and might help.

How could the latter then possibly control/hold authority over the first?

If man were to focus on working out his salvation between God and himself, life would be much less painful.

[_badseed]

The holy order existed before the church (see Book of Mormon reign of the kings). The church was allowed to be created on the concept, well ok, I suppose it will not hurt and might help.

How could the latter then possibly control/hold authority over the first?

I hear what your saying. I've heard it sometimes taught myself— but I have also observed that the reality of things is different. If God's systems is patriarchal over ecclesiastical then it is not realized in the LDS Church. Right or not Mormons see the Church as the Kingdom of God on earth and their main source for revelation. That's the reality. I believe most think patriarchs can receive revelation for their families but they see families as a subset of the kingdom on earth— a kingdom that receives Gods word through the Prophets, Seers and Revelators.

If not then the polygamist "fundamentalists" that practice patriarchal marriage (yes, that's what 19th century LDS sometimes called plural marriage) are justified in still practicing— as the Church was/is not authorized to end the practice. Right?

Anyway, maybe we have to agree to disagree but to me clearly the Church controls power and revelation in Mormonism.

If man were to focus on working out his salvation between God and himself, life would be much less painful.

Agreed. And if certain man were to quit inserting themselves between God (or spirituality of choice) and other men, life would be much less painful.

[_RockSlider]

Badseed:
I respect your answer here (it was not regurgitated party line).

If not then the polygamist "fundamentalists" that practice patriarchal marriage (yes, that's what 19th century LDS sometimes called plural marriage) are justified in still practicing— as the Church was/is not authorized to end the practice. Right?

Yes … to me, but I understand that most would disagree.

[_RockSlider]

A little example:
When I was a kid, my grandfather had a cabin in Woodland, Utah (by Kamas). There was a polygamist that lived on the outskirts of Kamas named Singer. He lived on his compound, .5 miles off the main road up on the hillside. Now I don’t know this for fact, but assume the following:

This man was a righteous man
This man was not marring teenagers or other men’s wife’s.
This man minded his own business.
The state of Utah basically murdered this man over the grievous crime of homeschooling his children.

I think he had things worked out pretty well with God/Family/Land … before the state stuck their nose in it.

[_The Nehor]

Yes, that is obedience. If, as you say, you SHOULD keep it to yourself that implies that God wants you to keep it to yourself. Hence, it is obedience.

Duh.

I wonder why if one can receive the truth by personal revelation he would need to be obedient to Church leaders in the cases where their "revelations" were less than inspired. If my goal is to get to and live by the truth, this system would for me would be extremely frustrating. God tells me the truth, which I must keep to myself while following others who are proclaiming their own misguided ideas on the topic. Why not just cut out the middleman?

As the situation has never come up for me for anything even remotely important, I don't worry about it.