DiscussMormonism.com

I am trying a thought experiment with Joseph Smith Jr. as a case study. What is mythmaking? Why is it so common the world over? Could it be that gold nuggets of truth are hidden between the lies of literalism? What if you don't take it literally but see it as a story, a fairy tale? Do fairy tales have truth to them? My argument is yes they do, and that Joseph Smith Jr really was a prophet, but like I see in pattern with others, the archetype of the fool. He was fooled by spirits, he was lied to and passed lies to others. So what? How is this any different from any other religious myth on earth?

So, then it's a myth, throw the baby out with the bath right? It's worthless! Not so is my argument.

I have my own personal spiritual experiences that I am still seeking a scientific or in other words logical explanation for. I'm a spirit medium, and have experience with both the miraculous and also the deception involved working with other dimensions.

I see Joseph Smith Jr. as having similar weakness as myself in this regard. I can't deny that my own paranormal experiences are real, but how I interpret them is the real question. I get both true and false prophecies, synchronicity is the key to understanding how prophecy works, the prophecy is like unto the vision, but not literal. So it is with religion, the truth is like unto what is written, or the myth, but it's not literal. When you see the truth or have a gnosis experience on your own, it is like, oh, I remember a story about this! Not a true story but a story none the less. The truth is hidden in the fiction. The teaching, not the literalism. Why the literalism? Not sure, but perhaps truth and lie have to balance out somehow, and the lie filters out those unworthy of the deeper mysteries. To them it is not given. In fact religion in general could be categorized as to those it is not given, instead they are given lies and fairy tales that only allude to the mystery, not the mystery itself. So the unworthy can strain at the gnat of literalism and swallow a camel of lies by rejecting the deeper esoteric meaning.

The weakness in my argument perhaps could be the argument that he was a downright charlatan, compulsive liar. He didn't have visions. I am saying for sake of the Devil's advocate, he did have visions. He had true prophetic visions that were undeniable like I have, only true and false prophecy seem to mix. I have prophetic visions on a regular basis, but they are usually riddles. Lies, absurdities. When the time comes and what was being alluded to happens, it is very obvious that I had a vision in that category earlier. Sometimes the visions are quite clear, sometimes it is really hard to guess the riddle. I see a vision and think, that's not really how it is! Then something happens synchronistically that the vision alluded to. Then it's like, ok I get it. Riddle solved.

So look at the Mormon myth as a riddle. Most if not all the teachings are symbolic. In my experience the riddles are tests. The spirit is testing your gullibility, which if you pass, you get a mystery. Jesus hardly taught a lick of truth, he always went around the issue with a story or what seems vague teaching, not saying really how it is. The truth is the solution to the riddle. Eat my flesh and drink my blood. Really? Vore is the truth? Well maybe the deeper meaning is the ouroboros. Perhaps take the position of Smith being a real magician, whose magic worked a lot of the time and was quite convincing. The burning in the bosom, I have had this. I would say that it's magic, spirits can do all kinds of tricks. Miracles are real. healings are real. The context of interpreting them to fit in the Mormon theological bubble of the traditional literal view is what the problem is. I can scry similar to Joseph Smith Jr with his head in a hat. I also get why he needed a scribe, not because he was illiterate, but because of the difficulty of not snapping out of trance and loosing the vision. It takes quite a bit of concentration. He didn't have a microphone so a scribe had to do.

I'm not a believer in the traditional sense, just a mystic trying to make sense out of religion in general. I'm not a member. I have an unbiased outsider's perspective. I love debate and am considering writing a book on this topic, so I want to strength test my ideas with some peer review, provided it is mature and logical.

Welcome.

Esaias wrote:I'm not a member. I have an unbiased outsider's perspective.

I am a member and have an unbiased insider's perspective.

Fence Sitter wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 11, 2024 10:15 pm

Welcome.

Esaias wrote:I'm not a member. I have an unbiased outsider's perspective.

I am a member and have an unbiased insider's perspective.

Great my first nitpicker! You're right. Everyone has bias. Hence this being so useful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate

Your self description as a believer, I wonder what this means? We really have to be clear about semantics. Like a contract, the Terms and Definitions part, For the sake of the argument/contract. This means thus in proper context.

I don't think there were actually Nephites and Lamanites, yet with a mystical liberal stretch I could still go to church as a believer in the myth. With me though, I am too broad a studier in comparative religion to be satisfied in the box of social Mormon, although, for people who's social life depends on it, being Mormon makes sense, despite if it is not as purported. True as in more good than bad, not as in factual. Terms.

I would think some of my arguments would be faith promoting for a believer, just a different perspective.

I have a mystical view of priesthood, for example. I don't think I need it to get to heaven. I think it can baby a person along for a while with delegated spiritual power from a guru like Joseph Jr. Ultimately though, a God doesn't have priesthood over him/her. They are the top of the pyramid. God doesn't hold the priesthood, he offers the priesthood. When a transcendent God yourself you will not need Melchizedek or Jesus telling you what to do, but who knows you may decide to offer a pyramid structure of power delegation yourself someday. Priesthood after the order of you, not some other holy person. My mystical interpretation of Mormonism is equally transcendent. I could be honest in such general terms if I was a member, believing this. Both are true, priesthood as necessary for some who need the babying, and also not necessary ultimately for a transcendent God. I don't think Mormonism can make you a God or Goddess, I think it is a reminder of what you already are and motivation to progress ie evolve to higher status. Exaltation. Evolution's funny way of going about it. Religion has evolved philosophical thought for the better ethically and Mormonism is a contributor. A good one. Strict, with signs that follow. The problem with the signs like in testimony meeting is they are overly general and are simply given a Mormon label. A miracle happened and so the church is true is not logical. A doesn't necessarily imply B. I have a poltergeist. That doesn't mean the church is true, but for me offers extensive research interest. I want to catch it on film.

Welcome to the board Esaias. When you say you have an outsider's perspective, do you mean to say that you've never been Mormon, or that you are an ex-Mormon and hence on the outside now?

Welcome Esiais. This could be some interesting discussions with you. Please keep sharing and hang out with us as we hash things out and learn together.

Esaias wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 11, 2024 10:39 pm

Great my first nitpicker! You're right. Everyone has bias. Hence this being so useful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate

Your self description as a believer, I wonder what this means? We really have to be clear about semantics. Like a contract, the Terms and Definitions part, For the sake of the argument/contract. This means thus in proper context.

Hi Esaias,

I did not say I was a believer, rather I said I was a member. I moved past religious belief in Mormonism and organized religion many years ago. I do, however, still participate socially & culturally within Mormon circles and I have a deep interest intellectually in historical Mormonism.

Esaias wrote: I don't think there were actually Nephites and Lamanites, yet with a mystical liberal stretch I could still go to church as a believer in the myth. With me though, I am too broad a studier in comparative religion to be satisfied in the box of social Mormon, although, for people who's social life depends on it, being Mormon makes sense, despite if it is not as purported. True as in more good than bad, not as in factual. Terms.

I would think some of my arguments would be faith promoting for a believer, just a different perspective.

I have a mystical view of priesthood, for example. I don't think I need it to get to heaven. I think it can baby a person along for a while with delegated spiritual power from a guru like Joseph Jr. Ultimately though, a God doesn't have priesthood over him/her. They are the top of the pyramid. God doesn't hold the priesthood, he offers the priesthood. When a transcendent God yourself you will not need Melchizedek or Jesus telling you what to do, but who knows you may decide to offer a pyramid structure of power delegation yourself someday. Priesthood after the order of you, not some other holy person. My mystical interpretation of Mormonism is equally transcendent. I could be honest in such general terms if I was a member, believing this. Both are true, priesthood as necessary for some who need the babying, and also not necessary ultimately for a transcendent God. I don't think Mormonism can make you a God or Goddess, I think it is a reminder of what you already are and motivation to progress ie evolve to higher status. Exaltation. Evolution's funny way of going about it. Religion has evolved philosophical thought for the better ethically and Mormonism is a contributor. A good one. Strict, with signs that follow. The problem with the signs like in testimony meeting is they are overly general and are simply given a Mormon label. A miracle happened and so the church is true is not logical. A doesn't necessarily imply B. I have a poltergeist. That doesn't mean the church is true, but for me offers extensive research interest. I want to catch it on film.

These are interesting views, but I am not sure who you think your audience within Mormonism might be. Orthodox Mormonism requires God to be a priesthood holder and Nephites and Lamanites actually existed for those that believe. I doubt anything you have offered so far would be faith promoting for believer.

By the way, on this board, you will find those who are very knowledgeable about Mormonism, but very few of them actually believe in it.

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 11, 2024 10:42 pm

Welcome to the board Esaias. When you say you have an outsider's perspective, do you mean to say that you've never been Mormon, or that you are an ex-Mormon and hence on the outside now?

Cat's out of the bag I'm an ex-mo. Family is still Mormon hence the interest. I haven't gone to church in over a decade so I am far removed from Mormon, but the intellectual interest is still there. I love what we used to call deep doctrine, like the one where we all participated in the creation in the pre-existence. I don't see that written anywhere but I remember it from childhood.

People seem to go atheist or evangelical when they leave. I went more agnostic mystic. I like science, evolution, quantum mysteries. I see and feel auras, astral project, get in people's dreams, and portal. I have the magical experiences, now its just a matter of making sense of them. They seem to fit so nicely into religion don't they, but beware of what Robert Lifton calls mystical manipulation. It all means the church is true doesn't it? What if it's all part of nature and needs to be studied scientifically? I like that approach. I think Smith fits the charismatic mystic fortune teller archetype, and this pops up in society all the time. I compare with my own experiences. How is he better than me? Mystic contest. Mysticism is the realm of dreams. In that sense everyone is a mystic somewhat. I'm particularly interested in Jr.s practice of magic and his successes and failures. Magicians use slight of hand, deception. He seemed to have no qualm about lying. Or covering up information. Perhaps there were no plates. he lied. Does this mean he doesn't have any psychic or spiritual ability? No. That's the problem these psychics don't have to be ethical. I think his money digging was his form of water witching. So they didn't hit water so to speak. No money. He probably had a lot of successful tries as well.

I've heard warnings about utilizing your spiritual powers for self aggrandizement on the path to guru hood. The pursuit of siddhis. Controlling others with them. Smith may not have been warned. Typical grandiose megalomania. The Rameumptom is my favorite story, with each Mormon going up there on testimony meeting. God I am grateful that I am better than everyone else. We have the only truth.

These are interesting views, but I am not sure who you think your audience within Mormonism might be. Orthodox Mormonism requires God to be a priesthood holder and Nephites and Lamanites actually existed for those that believe. I doubt anything you have offered so far would be faith promoting for believer.

By the way, on this board, you will find those who are very knowledgeable about Mormonism, but very few of them actually believe in it.

I went through my own transition trying to rationalize my staying in the church for various reasons and ended up a non literalist. I wonder how strict the rules are regarding orthodoxy. I see orthodoxy as the Santa Clause story for the kids and when they grow up they get the esoteric meanings but let go of literally believing in flying reindeer.

I wonder, I see the Word of Wisdom as a riddle and think the spirit guiding the church is a trickster, and put us all to the test. Moderation is the main point. So, I drink, tea, coffee, beer, moderately. I believe I am obeying the word of wisdom, to the point where I would say so in a temple interview.
How much orthodoxy is mere opinion of people too scared to screw up so going above and beyond and shooting beyond the mark?

I'm probably too apostate to be rebaptized. I can't say Smith is the only authority. It is no greater than my own.

I also see the Bible as incredibly racist claiming some other family is holier than mine and the chosen people of the Lord. It's all a because I said so, because of some miracle, you need to submit to my reign. This is really bossy. I can't stand it.

Esaias wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 11, 2024 10:39 pm

I don't think there were actually Nephites and Lamanites, yet with a mystical liberal stretch I could still go to church as a believer in the myth.

If you don't think there were actually Nephites and Lamanites, then you aren't a believer in the myth.

When you talk about Joseph Smith Jr, which Joseph smith are you referring to? Are you talking about the LDS church or the FLDS church?