The Consiglieris Must Be Crazy!

[Guest]

Maybe what do you get when you mix Methodists, Masons and Magic in the early 1800's?

Mormonism.

Then, the Mormons got cornered on the nature of an apostasy in early Christianity. They turned to Irenaeus' Against Heresies and Clement's Stromata. They decided to resurrect the gnostic heresies, which fit in nicely with magic. Then you get chaos, with power-hungry prophets claiming knowedge to which others have no access. Mormons just need to assert their gnostic freedom to think and question for themselves.

Not quite the way I would state it.

But the line between the Spirit filled revivals of American Methodism, fueled in at least some locations by African religion preserved by African-Americans, and magic was somewhere between thin and non-existant.

Did you know that one of the first Mormon believers in Ohio was a revivalistic African American known as Black Pete?

The leader of the "being slain in the spirit" was a woman, Lucy Stanton. Joseph Smith quickly wrung out her brand of Mormonism and she disappears from the record as far as I know.

[_Abaddon]

Curious...if they ask you how to do a *specific* handshake and ask for a demonstration, would you do it? I'm guessing it could come up as innocently as "my pastor's wife said they do secret handshakes in the temple, can you show us what that is?"

There is an awful lot I can say about the temple without going into subjects I have promised to not disclose.

I would not demonstrate a specific handgrip or sign or anything, but I would certainly talk about the fact that they exist. That seems fair.

Or I could say, "Hello, McFly! Why do you think they call it a secret handshake? Next question!"

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Haha. True 'dat!

[_MCB]

Not quite the way I would state it.

But the line between the Spirit filled revivals of American Methodism, fueled in at least some locations by African religion preserved by African-Americans, and magic was somewhere between thin and non-existant.

Did you know that one of the first Mormon believers in Ohio was a revivalistic African American known as Black Pete?

The leader of the "being slain in the spirit" was a woman, Lucy Stanton. Joseph Smith quickly wrung out her brand of Mormonism and she disappears from the record as far as I know.[/color]

You are talking about Kirtland Mormonism. I am talking about Nauvoo Mormonism. Two totally different religions.

[_lulu]

Not quite the way I would state it.

But the line between the Spirit filled revivals of American Methodism, fueled in at least some locations by African religion preserved by African-Americans, and magic was somewhere between thin and non-existant.

Did you know that one of the first Mormon believers in Ohio was a revivalistic African American known as Black Pete?

The leader of the "being slain in the spirit" was a woman, Lucy Stanton. Joseph Smith quickly wrung out her brand of Mormonism and she disappears from the record as far as I know.[/color]

You are talking about Kirtland Mormonism. I am talking about Nauvoo Mormonism. Two totally different religions.

No, not 2 completely separate religions. Nauvoo and upstate NY were related.

Since I've been curious about it, and found myself thinking about the issue last night from our posts, let me throw some skeet in the air for everyone to shoot at (it won't be as exciting as shooting at DCP I'm sure)

The Smiths, Harrises, Knights and Whitmers were very interested in the magic, that's what they had in common, not that the restorationist issues were missing.

But as people began to convert magic became less important & as the church moved into OH it became more Restorationist. There was still a fine line between what was magic and what was the Spirit and Joseph Smith had to put in some controls. Speaking in tongues OK, being slain in the Spirit not OK and nobody but Joseph Smith got a seer stone.

But as it grew in OH, Restorationist elements were added to and we started to get things like "the First Presidency" and Whitmer et al drop out. Section 96 comes out which is not Restorationist and which alot of people who were more purely Restorationist had problems with. But Section 96 related back to magic and hermeticism.

OK, so I'm leaving out MO here, and using megic and hermeticism too generally, shoot me as well as the skeet.

In Nauvoo the church comes back around to the magic, hermeticism, Mason, temple, King Foulette sermon stuff, Section 96 becomes more acceptable. Restorationism doesn't completely disappear. While different from the initial magic in upstate NY, Nauvoo Mormonism was not unrelated. I think Quinn's Early Mormonism and Brooke's Refiner's Fire would back me up on this.

Fire away, I have my helmet and flack jacket on and I'm belly crawling to my bunker.

[_MCB]

I'm not into shooting skeet. DCP set himself up for it, and he is probably getting everything he deserves. I am a nothing to him, therefore he is a nothing to me.

OK, I am exploring http://www.gnosis.org/library.html Since you mention hermeticism, that is probably the area I ought to concentrate on. Any other recommendations?

Yes, I was sending up a clay pigeon in saying it was totally different, it is just that the fever to please God was especially intense in Nauvoo, because of the fevers. Therefore, the blending of the various fibers was more pronounced. As Dan Vogel says, it was an effort to contrive a religion which would please all subscribers. The patchwork needed to be rearranged.

So when was speaking in tongues forbidden?

I now have a copy of EMMWV, but am taking a brief vacation before returning to the project. Will get into it more intensely later. Will order Refiner's Fire tomorrow.

I probably would see the evolution in a consecutive reading of D & C.

My concentration is on Nauvoo (of course), but I also take the broader view-- necessary.

I am now reading Mary Doria Russell's Doc, about Doc Holliday in Dodge City.

Will get back to you once I have taken a look at all that.

Don't you just love mixed metaphors? Your post was a consistent masterpiece.

[_lulu]

OK, I am exploring http://www.gnosis.org/library.html Since you mention hermeticism, that is probably the area I ought to concentrate on. Any other recommendations?

No, unfortunately. The vocabulary is really tricky. What's magic? That's what Quinn thinks he's seeing (and says Masonry is outside of it). Brooke insists that Mormonism is heremeticism and has a definition for that (and says that it includes Masonary). What's gnosticism?(Which Bloom thinks all Americans are including US Catholics) What's mysticism? You can really go cross-eyed.

Yes, I was sending up a clay pigeon in saying it was totally different, it is just that the fever to please God was especially intense in Nauvoo, because of the fevers.

This is new to me, thanks for mentioning it.

Therefore, the blending of the various fibers was more pronounced. As Dan Vogel says, it was an effort to contrive a religion which would please all subscribers.

And that's a trick. Too narrow and you don't have much of a market base. Too broad and you look just like everyone else so why should I buy your soap?

The patchwork needed to be rearranged.

And Bloom would say that this was Joseph Smith's minor genius.

So when was speaking in tongues forbidden?

Well this is one thing that is so interesting. It never gets forbidden. It just dies out. So I wouldn't try it in Fast and Testimony Meeting these days.The last instance I found was in the late 1800's but I was only looking at women. Carol Lynn Pearson's book on early Mormon women has all known references for women cataloged. It can be hard to get a copy. Anything more pentecostal than speaking in tongues was a no-no after Joseph Smith got to OH and no one else could have a seer stone.

Too individualistic/democratic you risk having the centripital forces spin you apart.
Too authoritarian, and most people will run away.

I probably would see the evolution in a consecutive reading of D & C.

This strikes me as a good idea. I've never done it that way.

My concentration is on Nauvoo (of course), but I also take the broader view-- necessary.

IMHO it's real hard to know where to begin. I tend to start with the Big Bang. But that's not a successful approach. I don't recommend it.

Don't you just love mixed metaphors? Your post was a consistent masterpiece.

You're too kind. I thought it was such a jumble I almost took it down.

[_MCB]

Well, I have some new directions to explore. Thanx.

[_Lucifer]

Hi Consig,

Interfaith panels and discussions are one of my small industries on my campus, so I felt compelled to pass on two things I’ve learned.

I hear business is booming.

Expound!

\m/

[_MrStakhanovite]

I hear business is booming.

Expound!

\m/

Get Thee Behind Me

[_thews]

Last evening while mowing the lawn, I felt impressed that I should take steps to begin a community dialogue about Mormonism.

Accordingly, I have drafted the following letter and am mailing it out today to about sixty local churches.

June 20, 2012

Dear Pastor or Minister,

2012 may see the election of the first Mormon president in US history. Public interest in Mormonism is at an all-time high. Your congregants know Mormons in their community, at their jobs and in their schools. I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) for 34-years, served a mission in Japan, and have been married in the temple. I am also an attorney and have been practicing in Hancock County since 1990.

God has placed it upon my heart to reach out in fellowship to local churches with the open invitation to have me speak with your congregation on the subject of Mormonism. This is not an attempt to convert members of your church to Mormonism, nor is it an attempt to persuade anyone that Mormonism is superior your faith. I am not a missionary. I have not received a call by an LDS church leader to issue this invitation. I am acting solely upon the promptings of the Holy Ghost.

I am well qualified to engage in such a public conversation, having studied Mormonism in depth for over three decades, and being quite familiar with all its many aspects. Once again, my purpose is not to convert but to converse.

This discussion would be presented in any manner you deem fit and at the place and time of your choosing. Regardless of the format, I think Q&A is an essential component. The main point is to answer questions your people may have regarding Mormonism, whether about its history, its scriptures or its leaders. I will not shy away from difficult questions, but will answer them frankly, fully and forthrightly. No dodging, no spinning, and no whitewashing.

Many traditional Christians harbor suspicion of Mormons and their motives. I understand this. But I reiterate there is nothing here but an offer to discuss the subject of Mormonism in an open and relaxed atmosphere. There is no hidden plan, no ulterior motive, no strings attached. What I have proposed is all there is. Should you be interested in hosting such a meeting, I guarantee you and your congregation a faithful, honest, respectful and fascinating experience. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours in the bonds of Christ,


Consiglieri

Thoughts?

You take lying to a new level. You squelch your knowledge to believers who think the Urim and Thummim were not seer stones, keeping the truth from them, and now your selective lying now wishes to "educate" Christians? Which parts will you leave out in your concocted hogwash? How a teacher to itching ears sleeps at night is beyond me, but somehow you've rationalized when to lie and how to lie as a productive thing.

http://biblelight.net/false-prophets.htm

2 Pet 2:1 [NIV] But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2 Pet 2:2 [NIV] Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
2 Pet 2:3 [NIV] In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up.