The Long and Winding Road (To Ruin) or Eight Days a Week (Of Woe): Mormon Apostle Blames the Beatles for Society's Ills

[Shulem]

But even now, I can see that some, Ok, a lot, of the music from the sixties and seventies/eighties did have some redeeming value.

Stairway to Heaven was released one month after Benson gave that horrible talk. Do you think he would have found any redeeming value in that song? Do you think he would have played it in his home? No! Benson was a cult-leader and his only aim was to control people through fear and guilt. Obey the Mormon system at all cost.

[Limnor]

The foundational claim of the Church is continuing revelation. The core of Judeo-Christianity is revelation. If the revelation boils down to, "hey man, just do your best, use your freedom and do what works for you" then Judeo-Christianity is an offshoot of Confucianism. Why do we need a hundred thousand missionaries to flood the earth with the Book of Mormon when nothing about it is essential or critical to salvation? What is the urgency of the Church's mission in your brother's and parents' interpretation? Why would it matter to your family if somebody converts to Mormonism or stays Catholic or Hindu, if they are happy?

I think I get where they are coming form. What you're describing to me about your family is the situation most families are in: born into Mormonism, saddled with these huge claims and big expectations, and they've got to figure out how to make it through life everyday. Most members have done that by simply not taking it that seriously. Yeah, it's the only true church on the face of the earth and we are a peculiar people, now let's go out and have some fun!

My point is, Huck, there is a fundamental tension between claims such as "the only true church with the one true living prophet on this earth today" and "we just do our best and follow what makes sense to us." If you want to say the rubric of Mormonism as your family practiced it doesn't emphasize exclusivity claims, and most churches are equally good, then fine. Where I would find myself in endless arguments with your family is not in "using their freedom to interpret principals they think are correct" but in "using their freedom to interpret principals they think are correct" while at the same time insisting the President of the Church is the one true and living prophet, all other churches are steeped in apostasy, and the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on the face of the earth.

I’d extend that tension a bit, Dean. While “continuing revelation” versus “interpreting for yourself” exists, there is also a tension between “what” gets revealed in the biblical tradition versus what revelation turns into in Mormonism.

In the biblical core, the great revelation isn’t a new policy or handbook, the big idea is reconciliation and salvation from the impossible expectation of perfection by self-effort. Those parts are downplayed—even removed completely—from Mormon practice.

Mormonism claims to extend revelation, but in practice it reduces it. The “big reveal” becomes administrative: priesthood keys, ordinances, worthiness interviews, correlated programs, and a highly managed bureaucracy. Revelation becomes an additional set of requirements, without providing the means to satisfy them.

[huckelberry]

The kind of absolutist across the board demand for obedience remains quite strange to me. I should consider Gadianton's point. I did not go on a mission as my belief ended my senior year of high school. That also means I did not swear obedience in a temple.

Even so my idea is a bit influenced by a younger brother who did go on a mission. In some conversation after he thought important to distinguish things determined to be scripture not every thought a leader might say. I can hear that different leaders and times color that idea differently. I remember some people noting different approaches to guidance. Some people are iron rod, others use their freedom to interpret correct principles. My parents were the second.

The foundational claim of the Church is continuing revelation. The core of Judeo-Christianity is revelation. If the revelation boils down to, "hey man, just do your best, use your freedom and do what works for you" then Judeo-Christianity is an offshoot of Confucianism. Why do we need a hundred thousand missionaries to flood the earth with the Book of Mormon when nothing about it is essential or critical to salvation? What is the urgency of the Church's mission in your brother's and parents' interpretation? Why would it matter to your family if somebody converts to Mormonism or stays Catholic or Hindu, if they are happy?

I think I get where they are coming form. What you're describing to me about your family is the situation most families are in: born into Mormonism, saddled with these huge claims and big expectations, and they've got to figure out how to make it through life everyday. Most members have done that by simply not taking it that seriously. Yeah, it's the only true church on the face of the earth and we are a peculiar people, now let's go out and have some fun!

My point is, Huck, there is a fundamental tension between claims such as "the only true church with the one true living prophet on this earth today" and "we just do our best and follow what makes sense to us." If you want to say the rubric of Mormonism as your family practiced it doesn't emphasize exclusivity claims, and most churches are equally good, then fine. Where I would find myself in endless arguments with your family is not in "using their freedom to interpret principals they think are correct" but in "using their freedom to interpret principals they think are correct" while at the same time insisting the President of the Church is the one true and living prophet, all other churches are steeped in apostasy, and the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on the face of the earth.

Gadianton, I can see the conflict you are pointing to but I see rational middle ground, at least to an extent. I can try to clarify about my family. I did not hear a view that all churches are just as good. There is a lot of room to see value in other churches and believe LDS has authority and revelation others lack. Go out and have fun. Of course the church included fun. My mother, strong believer from a large Mormon family going back to handcarts loved to play bridge, can be family affair as with others. My brother whom I mentioned did not intend to be lax in prioritizing scripture. He is finishing a senior mission, has been a Bishop, and to my view has taken his faith seriously all his life.

I do not think governing oneself on the basis of correct principles would make revelation irrelevant. Revelation and leadership could assist understanding, point out blind spots, provide inspiration and encouragement. It can help hold a group of different people together for help, encouragement, and friendship.

[huckelberry]

The foundational claim of the Church is continuing revelation. The core of Judeo-Christianity is revelation. If the revelation boils down to, "hey man, just do your best, use your freedom and do what works for you" then Judeo-Christianity is an offshoot of Confucianism. Why do we need a hundred thousand missionaries to flood the earth with the Book of Mormon when nothing about it is essential or critical to salvation? What is the urgency of the Church's mission in your brother's and parents' interpretation? Why would it matter to your family if somebody converts to Mormonism or stays Catholic or Hindu, if they are happy?

I think I get where they are coming form. What you're describing to me about your family is the situation most families are in: born into Mormonism, saddled with these huge claims and big expectations, and they've got to figure out how to make it through life everyday. Most members have done that by simply not taking it that seriously. Yeah, it's the only true church on the face of the earth and we are a peculiar people, now let's go out and have some fun!

My point is, Huck, there is a fundamental tension between claims such as "the only true church with the one true living prophet on this earth today" and "we just do our best and follow what makes sense to us." If you want to say the rubric of Mormonism as your family practiced it doesn't emphasize exclusivity claims, and most churches are equally good, then fine. Where I would find myself in endless arguments with your family is not in "using their freedom to interpret principals they think are correct" but in "using their freedom to interpret principals they think are correct" while at the same time insisting the President of the Church is the one true and living prophet, all other churches are steeped in apostasy, and the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on the face of the earth.

I’d extend that tension a bit, Dean. While “continuing revelation” versus “interpreting for yourself” exists, there is also a tension between “what” gets revealed in the biblical tradition versus what revelation turns into in Mormonism.

In the biblical core, the great revelation isn’t a new policy or handbook, the big idea is reconciliation and salvation from the impossible expectation of perfection by self-effort. Those parts are downplayed—even removed completely—from Mormon practice.

Mormonism claims to extend revelation, but in practice it reduces it. The “big reveal” becomes administrative: priesthood keys, ordinances, worthiness interviews, correlated programs, and a highly managed bureaucracy. Revelation becomes an additional set of requirements, without providing the means to satisfy them.

Limnor and Gadianton, I incline to add a bit to Limnor's point. I think the New Testament as a whole but Paul most directly sees love in action as superior to obedience to details of law. Paul sees a complete replacement and is horrified by efforts to put rules back on top.

Mormon habit wants to see Paul's insight as inferior and so replace it with their system. When I presented a view of faith more flexible than fundamentalist Mormonism I believe I am pointing to a stronger and more faithful approach.

[Limnor]

Limnor and Gadianton, I incline to add a bit to Limnor's point. I think the New Testament as a whole but Paul most directly sees love in action as superior to obedience to details of law. Paul sees a complete replacement and is horrified by efforts to put rules back on top.

Mormon habit wants to see Paul's insight as inferior and so replace it with their system. When I presented a view of faith more flexible than fundamentalist Mormonism I believe I am pointing to a stronger and more faithful approach.

I’d describe the issue as more than just “love over law.” In the New Testament the claim is that God “is” love. So Paul wouldn’t necessarily be horrified because people like commandments—he’d be horrified if someone tried to rebuild a system after explaining that system was designed to show the reason for the law in the first place.

If I understand Gad, having read enough of his posts and arguments, the problem with that view is reconciling the concept of God “being” love with the Old Testament description of God. And it’s not even that those two views can’t be reconciled—it’s that the reconciliation usually requires redefining one side to match the other.

[huckelberry]

Limnor and Gadianton, I incline to add a bit to Limnor's point. I think the New Testament as a whole but Paul most directly sees love in action as superior to obedience to details of law. Paul sees a complete replacement and is horrified by efforts to put rules back on top.

Mormon habit wants to see Paul's insight as inferior and so replace it with their system. When I presented a view of faith more flexible than fundamentalist Mormonism I believe I am pointing to a stronger and more faithful approach.

I’d describe the issue as more than just “love over law.” In the New Testament the claim is that God “is” love. So Paul wouldn’t necessarily be horrified because people like commandments—he’d be horrified if someone tried to rebuild a system after explaining that system was designed to show the reason for the law in the first place.

If I understand Gad, having read enough of his posts and arguments, the problem with that view is reconciling the concept of God “being” love with the Old Testament description of God. And it’s not even that those two views can’t be reconciled—it’s that the reconciliation usually requires redefining one side to match the other.

Limnor. You remind me of how much my love or law comment oversimplified things. Unless a person is substituting personal desire as the meaning of love (I love such and such equals I want such and such), even basic respect for others involves respect for law. I do not see a clear equation to solve all the details. There are different views of God within both old and new Testaments. They both try to deal with how we should love and respect others.

[Limnor]

Limnor. You remind me of how much my love or law comment oversimplified things. Unless a person is substituting personal desire as the meaning of love (I love such and such equals I want such and such), even basic respect for others involves respect for law. I do not see a clear equation to solve all the details. There are different views of God within both old and new Testaments. They both try to deal with how we should love and respect others.

There is so much to explore in what you’ve said here, Huck. Even the word “love,” in the original Greek, carries types of love the English doesn’t capture—Jesus uses agapē, but there is also “philio” love. There is an interesting exchange in John, where in the Greek, Jesus asks Peter twice, “Do you agapē me?” And Peter keeps answering, “Lord, I philia you,” basically saying “I’m your friend.” On the third round Jesus drops to Peter’s word: “Do you philia me?” And Peter was grieved.

And when He reinterprets the law (“you’ve heard… but I say unto you”), He keeps pushing it down to the heart—anger instead of murder and lust instead of adultery. Once the law’s demands go all the way down to motives and desires, nobody can “satisfy” it.

The New Testament writers lean into that: the law shows the ideal, but love is what fulfills it, and even that love has to be received. So I agree—there’s no neat equation.

[Gadianton]

It's definitely a plus that your brother went on a senior mission. Not everybody does, EH-HUM (MG). Playing bridge is dicey given the Brethren have revealed the evils of face cards. Again, I'm not a fundamentalist, I just don't see how a revelatory exclusivist religion can be anything else. If I buy a magic 8-ball, I intend to have a real information advantage. If it becomes clear I really don't have an information advantage, I'll downplay it as part of an otherwise balanced life. I see this as MG's online method. Going crazy over the eight-ball, oh everyone has to get one and if they don't, they'll be totally lost, and those who threw out their 8-ball are the worst of the lost. But then he's watching Sean Carrol and all this other stuff and there isn't much indication the 8-ball has ever given him an information advantage; he's not really using it. If you bring that up, he derides you as a fundamentalist and obviously we have to think for ourselves. You can't rely on the 8-ball for everything.

This sort of bait and switch isn't just with Mormonism, a great example is the UFO community. You start with claims of real sightings, maybe video, pictures, and tripping over a dead Gray's body by accident. That's the bait. People want the real UFO, the 8-ball to give them real answers, the prophet to reveal hard, factual things nobody else knows. When real UFOs can't be produced, the switch is taking folks to the desert, holding hands, and communicating with aliens spiritually.

[Gadianton]

I agree, Limnor, that God as love doesn't fit too well with the Old Testament and that the mechanistical revelations of Mormonism -- mostly bureaucratic, doesn't leave us with much. I'm not sure if you and Huck are leaning into the protestant version of grace as the great revelation of the New Testament. I don't think much of protestant Christianity. For one, these same people who shout loudest about grace saving also shout loudest about self-reliance and prosperity and hard work. They are rugged individualist -- they earned every cent of that money and the government has no right to take and redistribute it. Perhaps they should look into Mormonism?

Revealed religion separated the Jews from the rest of the world, at least in the minds of Old Testament authors, and early Christians were also insular. Very tribal. That's the prophetic model. We get our knowledge from the prophet, not the world, and we don't mix much with the world. In rhetoric, Mormons talk about themselves this way. One explanation of Christianity's success I came across not too long ago was that it had an advantage above all the other cults because of it was exclusionary and the cults weren't. You could make an offering to Apollo and Christ also, but if you worship Christ, you eschew Apollo.

[Limnor]

I agree, Limnor, that God as love doesn't fit too well with the Old Testament and that the mechanistical revelations of Mormonism -- mostly bureaucratic, doesn't leave us with much. I'm not sure if you and Huck are leaning into the protestant version of grace as the great revelation of the New Testament. I don't think much of protestant Christianity. For one, these same people who shout loudest about grace saving also shout loudest about self-reliance and prosperity and hard work. They are rugged individualist -- they earned every cent of that money and the government has no right to take and redistribute it. Perhaps they should look into Mormonism?

Revealed religion separated the Jews from the rest of the world, at least in the minds of Old Testament authors, and early Christians were also insular. Very tribal. That's the prophetic model. We get our knowledge from the prophet, not the world, and we don't mix much with the world. In rhetoric, Mormons talk about themselves this way. One explanation of Christianity's success I came across not too long ago was that it had an advantage above all the other cults because of it was exclusionary and the cults weren't. You could make an offering to Apollo and Christ also, but if you worship Christ, you eschew Apollo.

Honestly, I’m really just talking about what the book itself says, much the same as when I read the Book of Mormon text—just the words on the page. There seems to be an inconsistency with the LDS faith—that’s more of what I’m picking at.

I’m not into organized religion. For me, that “God is love” theme reflects the internal logic of the text—at least in the New Testament; I don’t know if I could do justice to a reconciliation between Old Testament and New Testament.

What I don’t see is much Pauline thought—or what Jesus said about vines and branches for that matter—carrying over into the LDS faith, in spite of the claim of some sort of relationship existing.

I’ve often wondered if I had grown up in Iraq would I have been a Muslim, or in Utah a Mormon. I don’t have an answer to that.