Perspectives

[_Inconceivable]

This is one major beef I have with Bushman's book. He knows all this history that is really the history..
But instead of then coming to the rational and logical conclusion, he finds a way, any way, to somehow tie all of these things in to the notion that Joseph really was a true prophet..

Exactly.

I have little respect for those individuals that definitively call good evil and evil good. Namely apologists.

No passes for the founders. No passes for me.

The institution (as well as it's apologists) lost my respect when I discovered that standards of decency are variable for The Chosen Few. The notion of double standards, exceptions to the rules or "alternative sets of commandments" (as BKP coined in referring to gays justifying their lifestyle 15 years ago) for only the hierarchy did nothing but dilute the structural integrity of the church's crumbling foundation.

Eventually we need to understand that trust and respect must be earned. It is not an entitlement of leaders, rulers or even Gods.

An integral part of this foundation of trust and respect must be equity and consistancy.

[_Sethbag]

This is one major beef I have with Bushman's book. He knows all this history that is really the history of a guy pretending to be a prophet, who created a church, and who abused his position within that church to amass a private, secret harem of women who would sleep with him, etc. He knows about the treasure seeking, the peepstone, and all the rest. But instead of then coming to the rational and logical conclusion, he finds a way, any way, to somehow tie all of these things in to the notion that Joseph really was a true prophet. It's completely bogus.

Oh I see. Because he comes to a different conclusion than you it is bogus.

No, it's bogus because his conclusion is wrong, and it's obvious that it's wrong, and he really ought to know better. I think he's consciously trying to give members a way to rationalize away all of the evidence so they can keep believing that the church is true. I think that Bushman believes in belief, and so he supports a position that supports belief.

Jason, it's obvious that Joseph Smith was really just a particularly noteworthy example, from a long line throughout history, of charismatic religious founders who amassed a flock willing to believe some incredible claims, and whom he sometimes abused for his own benefit. This is an exceedingly common pattern in human history. Nothing could be more obvious. But it's only obvious to everyone else in the entire world who isn't already committed, emotionally and otherwise, to belief in the LDS church. And to these people it seems exactly the opposite of obvious that this is true. Why do you think that is?

[_Gazelam]

I don't think that's right. Shades - were you thinking of grant palmer?

Darn it! Yes, I was thinking of Grant Palmer, since (If I recall correctly) he, too, was interviewed by MormonStories.

I apologize for the misinformaion, Gazelam.

Phew ! The final interview spoke about how they thought it was risky for Bushman to be fielding answers like he was since he can be seen as a sort of authority for the church. I wondered if he had cught some heat or something for doing the interview or something similar to it.
Glad to hear hes ok.

[_Gazelam]

Gaz, have you listened to the podcasts with:
Dr. Ted Lyon,
Darius Gray and Margaret Young,
and Grant Palmer?

Ill have to check those out. I got like 68 different talks for free off itunes. Im really loving the roundtable discussion the BYU proffesors are having about the Pearl of Great Price. Theres some really incredible insights being shared, and since my old mission president is involved its extra special to me.

I will check those out next time im on itunes.

[_Gazelam]

I was thinking at work today about why people leave the church when they run into the whole polygamy thing or something similarly difficult. I know in the early days of the church people often left every time some new doctrine arose.

"King Follet discource? that's not my God, im outta here...."

I was considering this in relationship to how Peter taught the gospel as an Apostle after Christ left. We get a glimpse of this in the Clemintine Recognitions. "The mysteries of the faith are not to be disclosed indiscriminately to everyone, since not all are ready to receive them."

And this from Peter: "The teaching of all doctrine has to have a certain order: there are some things which must be delivered first, others in the second place, and others in the third, and so on, everything in its order. If these things be delivered in their order they become plain; but if they are brought forward out of order, they will seem to be spoken against reason."

I am reminded of Joseph Smiths statement to Brigham Young "I could tell you all Brigham, but You would leave me." to which Brigham responded, "then don't tell me."

And position in the church is not really a standard when dealing with spiritual teachings. Joseph revealed polygamy to those who could bear the knowledge. Oliver Cowdery was in the First Presidency but was not told of polygamy until later. And even then he was not ready to know.

that's what makes these types of boards difficult for the new member or investigating member. There is a great deal of basic doctrine that needs to be set up as a theological foundation before the "mysteries" are discovered and studied. While the internet for some can be a greta tool, for others it can be a stony field to attempt to grow a tree of faith in.

[_truth dancer]

Gaz, do you realize how really ridiculous the, "milk before meat" excuse is?

Think about it for a sec...

What you are really saying is that once one becomes a "TRUE BELIEVER" he/she will believe ANYTHING.

Did you hear about the perverted man who kept his daughter prisoner in his cellar for 24 years, raping her and fathering her seven children?

He started off with your more mainstream abuse, then slowly got caught up, and it went further and further until he held her captive. Little by little the the abuse increased and became more disgusting and sick. Finally he just couldn't stop and (in his mind), had no way out.

This is how pretty much EVERYONE moves to engage in behavior that is unacceptabe and cruel.

Think about Scientology. Think about the Nazis. Think about any individual or group who engages in really sick or unhealthy practices and you can be pretty sure that they started out slowly and moved toward the perversion.

The point is, this "line upon line" excuse for engaging in immoral, hurtful, cruel, unhealthy, or perverted behavior is seriously mistaken. It is an sick excuse for blaming people whose moral or personal sense of goodness does not allow them to accept or engage in cruel and hurtful behavior, for not engaging in that disgusting behavior.

Can you step back and think about this for a second?

In other words, you are telling us that we should believe enough in the church and have faith enough in Joseph Smith, that what feels cruel and sick in our hearts and souls will really appear great and holy.

This is the reason the church doesn't work for me.

This elite sense that only the really righteous folks are ready for the truth and can accept the deeper teachings, to anyone outside of the group is more about how to ignore one's innate sense of right and wrong, eliminate one's intuition, and embrace teachings that are completely perverted and cruel.

Again, true believers will believe ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. :-(

I don't think it is a good thing.

Just saying...




~dancer~

[_Gazelam]

Dancing around the Truth,

Your seriously going to compare some guy who locked up and raped his daughter to Joseph Smith and polygamy?

Joseph approached the Father or Elder brothers first and asked permission to ask the girls to marry him. Then he asked them and asked them to receive a personal revelation that it was the right thing to do. Add to this the fact that he was not around as much as he no doubt wished he could have been. No one was locked up, no one was wrongfully compelled. Much of this was done in secret because at the time it needed to be as most of the members were not yet ready to receive it, it had to be brought in gradually. I think it took almost 15 years before it became common knowledge.

I understand how you have a problem with it, I really do. The problem is that you need to understand that this is of God. You need to stop making God into who you want him to be and start trying to bring your own mind into an understanding of who God is and why he would have such a commandment. Seek out what the doctrine and lesson is behind it. Start from the position that you have received a witness of the spirit that the church is true, and operate from that rock of firm foundation.

Go find out all you can in regards to what is entailed in the Abrahamic Covenant. Study out the nature of God and the life he lives.

There is nothing sick and twisted in this.

[_sunstoned]

I was thinking at work today about why people leave the church when they run into the whole polygamy thing or something similarly difficult. I know in the early days of the church people often left every time some new doctrine arose.

"King Follet discource? that's not my God, I'm outta here...."

I was considering this in relationship to how Peter taught the gospel as an Apostle after Christ left. We get a glimpse of this in the Clemintine Recognitions. "The mysteries of the faith are not to be disclosed indiscriminately to everyone, since not all are ready to receive them."

And this from Peter: "The teaching of all doctrine has to have a certain order: there are some things which must be delivered first, others in the second place, and others in the third, and so on, everything in its order. If these things be delivered in their order they become plain; but if they are brought forward out of order, they will seem to be spoken against reason."

I am reminded of Joseph Smiths statement to Brigham Young "I could tell you all Brigham, but You would leave me." to which Brigham responded, "then don't tell me."

And position in the church is not really a standard when dealing with spiritual teachings. Joseph revealed polygamy to those who could bear the knowledge. Oliver Cowdery was in the First Presidency but was not told of polygamy until later. And even then he was not ready to know.

that's what makes these types of boards difficult for the new member or investigating member. There is a great deal of basic doctrine that needs to be set up as a theological foundation before the "mysteries" are discovered and studied. While the internet for some can be a greta tool, for others it can be a stony field to attempt to grow a tree of faith in.

I understand the idea of teaching things in a certain order and laying a foundation before moving unto more complicated teachings. A good example of this is mathematics. Algebra needs to be mastered before moving on to Calculus.

This model does not fit the church. The things that are commonly withheld from new members, or members in general are not complicated doctrine that requires a foundation of knowledge to understand. It is usually plain history. History is not doctrine and there does not need to be any "milk before meat" progression for its understanding. Joseph Smith bedded teenage girls as early as 1832. He lied about it. He lied to his wife, his church, and the press. What truths need to be delivered and learned before moving on to this tidbit of "meat"? This is only one example of many.

[_Jersey Girl]

Gaz,

If this is too off topic, just tell me to take a hike. Regarding "milk before meat" and setting up a theological foundation, so to speak. Do you think that EV's also do this? If so, in what way and why? If not, why don't they?

[_Boaz & Lidia]

LOL, milk and meat from a sacred cow.