Converts to Limnor's Book of Mormon Origins?

[Doctor Steuss]

Where have your assumptions led you in regard to religious and/or metaphysical belief? I think I hear you saying that it's a 'lost cause' to try and make the/any attempt?

Regards,
MG

My assumptions originally led me to think that there was a God who sacrificed his Son to cleanse some kind of metaphysical force that He was incapable of cleansing on His own (because of some eternal laws that God is powerless against). That God was incapable of preserving the correct way to believe and access the rituals necessary to access the cosmic powers to cleanse the metaphysical force from our souls, so He had to "restore" it. The need for these rituals and beliefs is because, for some reason, God's home is incapable of having people around who are tainted by that force, and thus He has to punish them for eternity if they fail to access the cosmic powers through the proscribed beliefs and rituals. They also led me to believe in things like protective underclothing, mystical powers I could call upon as a man, because other men imbued with those powers by putting their hands on my head and did the requisite incantation. And so on.

I don't think it's a lost cause at all. I think there's a lot of positive things that people can gain from religious belief and practice. We are a very social species, and our brains like to categorize things. Religion often provides a framework to satisfy those needs incredibly well. There are a lot of moral, ethical, and spiritual (for lack of a better term) teachings that can be found within religions which can assist one in better understanding themselves and being more beneficial to their fellow humans in maximizing joy and fulfillment. Next to my bed right now is a copy of the Pirkei Avot, the teachings of Buddha, select speeches of Krishnamurti, and Ferguson's "Backgrounds of Christianity" (fantastic summaries of various philosophical beliefs around the 1st century). There's also a copy of Kim Foster's "Meth Lunches" -- kind of a religious experience in its own right. I've read many of the Sagas that are the foundation of much of Norse Paganism. I've made it through the entirety of Jordon's "Encyclopedia of the Gods" (birthday present from a dear friend). My father gave me a copy of Smith's "The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions" in my early 20s, when I began questioning Mormonism. I've got English translations of the Tanakh, the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, and a few of Elaine Pagels' translations of gnostic texts. I've read Neihardt's "Black Elk Speaks," and Fenton's "Old Canaan in a New World."

If Mormonism makes someone a better person than they'd be without it, that is anything but a "lost cause." As an example, Dr. Peterson regularly notes that he can't imagine there being any morals without religious belief. If someone can't control themselves from murdering and raping with impunity, without belief that a deity said "thou shalt not," then I am all for them clinging to that belief for the sake of themselves and society. For me though, the more I've delved into other wisdom and faith traditions, the more I've found the waters of Mormonism to be incredibly shallow and unfulfilling to me.

[MG 2.0]

If you would, please explain and or comment on the part of my previous post that I have underlined for you to look at again.

I agree that the theological fingerprints, especially the anti-infant-baptism arguments, the focus on primitive Christianity, and the restoration of spiritual gifts, are unmistakably Rigdonian. Adamson Bentley explained Rigdon predicted a book would come forth to prove his assertions.

But it doesn’t have to be ventriloquism. The text itself explains that bridge.

Again, there is compelling internal evidence of Rigdon’s theological concepts within the book, though I agree there is no contemporaneous historical evidence that places Rigdon near the smiths prior to 1830. All we have are late accounts, and those are questionable.

But that gap doesn’t erase the similarity.

What it does is force us to ask how Rigdon’s theology showed up in the book.

Within the text itself, the figure of Ammon is that connection, linking Rigdon as king Mosiah in Zarahemla/Western Reserve with Limhi/Martin Harris near Palmyra, where they discussed the plates. See Mosiah 7-8. Ammon had been sent to check on the status, after having been “wearied by teasings”

Parley P. Pratt actually moved between Rigdon’s circle in Ohio and the Smiths’ world in New York.

Pratt’s own Autobiography records that in the late 1820s he worked and preached along the Erie Canal corridor, traversing western and central New York—including Rochester, Canandaigua, and Palmyra—before his conversion (Pratt, Autobiography, 1874, pp. 9–18).

Family connections also linked him to the area: the Pratt family lived in nearby Wayne and Erie Counties, and his brother Orson was residing in New York prior to their shared conversion.

These overlapping geographies place Parley P Pratt within the same regional and theological stream as both Rigdon’s Reformed Baptist ministry in northern Ohio and the Smiths’ locale.

Pratt actually physically moved between Rigdon’s and Smith’s locales, and, as Ammon, brought “news” from Rigdon/Mosiah to Limhi/Martin Harris.

This connection is how the Book of Mormon reflects Rigdon’s theology. Not through direct collaboration, but through Parley P Pratt, as Ammon.

I’ve said before the evidence is inferential—from the text—but when you overlay the historical data, the whole picture emerges.

While we don’t see contemporary accounts of Pratt having met the Smiths prior 1828, the book itself shows you that evidence.

So what I think I hear you saying now is that the textual patterns when combined with the historical geography form a compelling circumstantial case that Rigdon's influence made it into the Book of Mormon via Parley P. Pratt. Then Joseph redacted or repurposed Rigdon's material via the bridge of Pratt to put himself into the narrative.

Am I getting that right?

Then you're saying that even though Rigdon never met Smith during the time the Book of Mormon was being translated and published he later finds that his religious exegesis made it into the Book of Mormon and that more or less throws him for a loop.

This on top of the fact that there is no direct evidence that Joseph met Pratt before 1830. There is indirect influence that Pratt could have had upon Joseph, but that is speculative. For him to act as a bridge, he would have had to transmit Rigdon’s theology before the book was completed, without leaving a historical trace.

So we have the logical chain of events which require Pratt to be influenced by Rigdon, to pass that influence to Joseph, and for Joseph to embed it in the Book of Mormon, all without direct collaboration.

Right?

Do your theories of Book of Mormon composition allow for actual 'events on the ground' without taking a great deal of liberty (chronology/location/etc.) inserting character symbolism/parallels into the Book of Mormon? And again, does it allow for the fact that it seems highly unlikely that Joseph would have had the wherewithal to 'keep it all together' except for a few exceptions?

Sounds like a fun hobby, anyway. As you say, some people do gardening. You've picked doing a 'redo' of the Book of Mormon and claiming something for it that it doesn't claim for itself. That's quite a project!

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Where have your assumptions led you in regard to religious and/or metaphysical belief? I think I hear you saying that it's a 'lost cause' to try and make the/any attempt?

Regards,
MG

My assumptions originally led me to think that there was a God who sacrificed his Son to cleanse some kind of metaphysical force that He was incapable of cleansing on His own (because of some eternal laws that God is powerless against). That God was incapable of preserving the correct way to believe and access the rituals necessary to access the cosmic powers to cleanse the metaphysical force from our souls, so He had to "restore" it. The need for these rituals and beliefs is because, for some reason, God's home is incapable of having people around who are tainted by that force, and thus He has to punish them for eternity if they fail to access the cosmic powers through the proscribed beliefs and rituals. They also led me to believe in things like protective underclothing, mystical powers I could call upon as a man, because other men imbued with those powers by putting their hands on my head and did the requisite incantation. And so on.

I don't think it's a lost cause at all. I think there's a lot of positive things that people can gain from religious belief and practice. We are a very social species, and our brains like to categorize things. Religion often provides a framework to satisfy those needs incredibly well. There are a lot of moral, ethical, and spiritual (for lack of a better term) teachings that can be found within religions which can assist one in better understanding themselves and being more beneficial to their fellow humans in maximizing joy and fulfillment. Next to my bed right now is a copy of the Pirkei Avot, the teachings of Buddha, select speeches of Krishnamurti, and Ferguson's "Backgrounds of Christianity" (fantastic summaries of various philosophical beliefs around the 1st century). There's also a copy of Kim Foster's "Meth Lunches" -- kind of a religious experience in its own right. I've read many of the Sagas that are the foundation of much of Norse Paganism. I've made it through the entirety of Jordon's "Encyclopedia of the Gods" (birthday present from a dear friend). My father gave me a copy of Smith's "The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions" in my early 20s, when I began questioning Mormonism. I've got English translations of the Tanakh, the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, and a few of Elaine Pagels' translations of gnostic texts. I've read Neihardt's "Black Elk Speaks," and Fenton's "Old Canaan in a New World."

If Mormonism makes someone a better person than they'd be without it, that is anything but a "lost cause." As an example, Dr. Peterson regularly notes that he can't imagine there being any morals without religious belief. If someone can't control themselves from murdering and raping with impunity, without belief that a deity said "thou shalt not," then I am all for them clinging to that belief for the sake of themselves and society. For me though, the more I've delved into other wisdom and faith traditions, the more I've found the waters of Mormonism to be incredibly shallow and unfulfilling to me.

Thank you SO MUCH for sharing this, Steuss. I wish others were as forthcoming. May I ask you another question or two (three?).

1. Using the Anthropic Principle/Fine Tuning as a backdrop and assuming that a cosmic mind of sorts is behind all that we see and observe...do you see yourself and others as being somehow intimately connected with that power(s)...or would you make a claim for deism? That if there is a 'mind' behind all that we see, that mind is more or less not all that interested in what's going on here on planet earth and/or we're here to choose our own adventure and it doesn't matter much what we choose.

2. Associated with number one, if there is a mind/creator that is (play with me here) the 'self-existent force' behind nature and all that is part and parcel of what we experience in/on this world, do you see any logic in that 'mind' communicating with or presenting a 'plan' by which humans might/could have the potential to become closer and/or more like that state of being which might approximate this self-existent cosmic mind?

3. If your answers/thoughts in regard to number one and two are more or less, meh, we can't even come close to approaching that mind and/or whatever that self-existent force/being is, then what do you see as being the purpose for why you're here? Is it just the here and now gaining knowledge/information and experiencing 'life'?

Do you see a hereafter in your story?

I understand some of the 'problems' that seem to be embedded in Christian doctrine and by association Mormon Doctrine. My father, ninety-two years old, and an academic with a Phd. in neuropsychiatry has had a lifelong interest and pursuit in similar veins of exploration as you have. We've had MANY interesting and thought-provoking conversations. He also has foundational concerns about Christian doctrines regarding resurrection, spirit world, yada, yada, yada.

I've been around the block with him a few times.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Right?

Right.

Do your theories of Book of Mormon composition allow for actual 'events on the ground' without taking a great deal of liberty (chronology/location/etc.) inserting character symbolism/parallels into the Book of Mormon?

The biggest challenge is locating the historical parallels. But I’m pretty sure others have not looked at it from this approach, so those parallels may have been staring them (and me) right in the face without recognizing what they are seeing.

One of my purposes for coming here was to see if anyone had thought of it this way and to “expand the search,” so to speak. There may be insights I don’t have in which others’ see candidates for character/real world alignment that I haven’t seen myself.

One of the interesting parallels is the use of code names in the D&C - when you backdate the methodology you can see the methodology playing out within the the Book of Mormon.

Probably the biggest parallels that most see is the similarity between Joseph and Mormon/Nephi.

And again, does it allow for the fact that it seems highly unlikely that Joseph would have had the wherewithal to 'keep it all together' except for a few exceptions?

I don’t see this as unlikely as you, but I can put understand why you see it that way.

What I see are 3-4 sets of “plates,” writings/letters/diaries on a desk that Joseph sorts and redacts over a 5-6 year period, as the book is being assembled through lived experiences and “return and reports.” I see the accounts of translating from “behind a sheet” as when this could occur, but when there is nothing present, it is Joseph speaking about his own personal history - specifically when recounting 1-2 Nephi and the words of Mormon/Mormon. He wouldn’t need notes to do that.

Sounds like a fun hobby, anyway. As you say, some people do gardening. You've picked doing a 'redo' of the Book of Mormon and claiming something for it that it doesn't claim for itself. That's quite a project!

It is, but it is less fun when the reception is negative, though I understand that. Like I’ve said, I’m not trying to destroy anyone’s faith, I’m just proposing alternative views as a discussion.

The Bible has undergone similar textual criticism (the Documentary Hypothesis) - I’m just applying the methodology to the Book of Mormon. It just happens that the Book of Mormon publication is closer in time to historical sources that could have informed the Documentary Hypothesis.

Lastly, the only claim where the book and I differ are the ancient timeline. I believe it is “true,” just not ancient, but I believe the presence of anachronisms, lack of DNA evidence, and lack of archeological evidence bear that out in my favor. Though even saying “in my favor” is not exactly accurate, as I’m not trying to “win,” I’m just talking about a book.

[I Have Questions]

Lastly, the only claim where the book and I differ are the ancient timeline. I believe it is “true,” just not ancient, but I believe the presence of anachronisms, lack of DNA evidence, and lack of archeological evidence bear that out in my favor. Though even saying “in my favor” is not exactly accurate, as I’m not trying to “win,” I’m just talking about a book.

You're quite right. The book was written in the 1830’s and there is zero evidence that it’s any more ancient than that.

[Limnor]

Lastly, the only claim where the book and I differ are the ancient timeline. I believe it is “true,” just not ancient, but I believe the presence of anachronisms, lack of DNA evidence, and lack of archeological evidence bear that out in my favor. Though even saying “in my favor” is not exactly accurate, as I’m not trying to “win,” I’m just talking about a book.

You're quite right. The book was written in the 1830’s and there is zero evidence that it’s any more ancient than that.

That’s just it, isn’t it? There is no need to describe every detail about the book’s origins if there is no there, there.

I just think it’s a fascinating hobby.

[Doctor Steuss]

1. Using the Anthropic Principle/Fine Tuning as a backdrop and assuming that a cosmic mind of sorts is behind all that we see and observe...do you see yourself and others as being somehow intimately connected with that power(s)...or would you make a claim for deism? That if there is a 'mind' behind all that we see, that mind is more or less not all that interested in what's going on here on planet earth and/or we're here to choose our own adventure and it doesn't matter much what we choose.

First and foremost, I feel it important to disclose/note that I’m agnostic (at least currently – who knows what tomorrow will bring). So, this does require me to imagine a mindset that isn’t necessarily my own.

That said, I’d see it more that we are all the cosmic mind. It can’t be separated from us, anymore than we can be separated from it. Kind of a blend of the omnipresence of the God of the Vedas and most modern Bible-based traditions, but that omnipresence is absolute and cannot be separated nor divided from “creation.” Meaning that God is just as much a part of us, as we are a part of God. Sort of a variation of the (often misattributed) Namaskaram of acknowledging the sight and perception of seeing the God in you hailing the God in me. That said, it’d ultimately lean towards a kind of deistic model, or one that didn’t incorporate some of the other “omnis” (like omnipotent). Too many little philosophical and ethical hurdles for my noggin’ to clear once things like omnipotence are added into a theistic model.

2. Associated with number one, if there is a mind/creator that is (play with me here) the 'self-existent force' behind nature and all that is part and parcel of what we experience in/on this world, do you see any logic in that 'mind' communicating with or presenting a 'plan' by which humans might/could have the potential to become closer and/or more like that state of being which might approximate this self-existent cosmic mind?

Probably not. If there were such an entity, our “creation” and existence to it would likely be like my creation of individual molecules by combining two elements. How could I ever expect to communicate with, or expect each molecule to be aware of my presence, or understand the things that I try to communicate to it? The barrier between creator and creation would be insurmountable. With a true omnipotence, we'd naturally get to where I could create something with the same cognition as me, but that obviously runs afoul of every belief system and the ineffectual nature of divine communication. There's a myriad of problems that would also arise if a creator were able to create at a level where effective communication could take place, but then chose to create at a level where it was sloppy, unreliable, and resulted in a million different people saying they received a million differing commutations from the "creator." Which gets us back to all of the potential mud to wade through with theistic models, and how the creator then becomes bound to act less logically and morally than the supposed creations.

3. If your answers/thoughts in regard to number one and two are more or less, meh, we can't even come close to approaching that mind and/or whatever that self-existent force/being is, then what do you see as being the purpose for why you're here? Is it just the here and now gaining knowledge/information and experiencing 'life'?

As I’ve sat here giving this some brief thought, my mind keeps wandering to the question “do I really need a purpose?” If I had some kind of stated purpose, or stated reason for existing, I can’t imagine it altering the way I’m living my life currently. I find joy in being a dad. It’s not my “purpose” to be a dad… I just am one, and It’s awesome. I don’t need learning new things, and making new memories, to be driven by a purpose. Doing those things simply for their own sake seems to be enough reason. I guess if I had to ascribe some kind of purpose to why I’m here, it’d be to maximize happiness and joy for those who are in my life (which, thanks to how I’m wired, brings me immense joy). Alleviating the suffering of others, bringing them happiness, sharing knowledge -- these are all things that I love doing just for the sake of doing them. I don’t know that ascribing a purpose or not would change that at all.

Do you see a hereafter in your story?

Probably not. I think when I die, my consciousness will simply cease to exist once the neurons and chemicals responsible for my consciousness fade. The thought can be a little scary on rare occasions, but then I’ll realize just how absurd it is to be scared about something I will have absolutely no knowledge or experience of.

There’s a romantic pull to think that my relationships with those I love don’t have an expiration date, but try as I might, I just don’t see my feelings altering reality. Maybe when I die I'll end up in the Fields of Aaru, or sitting on the banks of the RIver Styx, or looking out on Folkvangr, or walking into the fields of Tir Tairngire, or find myself in Sheol, or Heaven, or reincarnated (or finally freed from reincarnation, and attained eternal bliss), or joining the ancestors, or attaining apotheosis of some sort, or chilling in The Summerland, or crossing the Chinvat bridge. Or, maybe I'll die and discover that I'm inside a giant cosmic Reece's cup.

Or nothing. Probably nothing.

[Limnor]

Or, maybe I'll die and discover that I'm inside a giant cosmic Reece's cup.

Mmmmm heaven

[MG 2.0]

1. Using the Anthropic Principle/Fine Tuning as a backdrop and assuming that a cosmic mind of sorts is behind all that we see and observe...do you see yourself and others as being somehow intimately connected with that power(s)...or would you make a claim for deism? That if there is a 'mind' behind all that we see, that mind is more or less not all that interested in what's going on here on planet earth and/or we're here to choose our own adventure and it doesn't matter much what we choose.

First and foremost, I feel it important to disclose/note that I’m agnostic (at least currently – who knows what tomorrow will bring). So, this does require me to imagine a mindset that isn’t necessarily my own.

That said, I’d see it more that we are all the cosmic mind. It can’t be separated from us, anymore than we can be separated from it. Kind of a blend of the omnipresence of the God of the Vedas and most modern Bible-based traditions, but that omnipresence is absolute and cannot be separated nor divided from “creation.” Meaning that God is just as much a part of us, as we are a part of God. Sort of a variation of the (often misattributed) Namaskaram of acknowledging the sight and perception of seeing the God in you hailing the God in me. That said, it’d ultimately lean towards a kind of deistic model, or one that didn’t incorporate some of the other “omnis” (like omnipotent). Too many little philosophical and ethical hurdles for my noggin’ to clear once things like omnipotence are added into a theistic model.

2. Associated with number one, if there is a mind/creator that is (play with me here) the 'self-existent force' behind nature and all that is part and parcel of what we experience in/on this world, do you see any logic in that 'mind' communicating with or presenting a 'plan' by which humans might/could have the potential to become closer and/or more like that state of being which might approximate this self-existent cosmic mind?

Probably not. If there were such an entity, our “creation” and existence to it would likely be like my creation of individual molecules by combining two elements. How could I ever expect to communicate with, or expect each molecule to be aware of my presence, or understand the things that I try to communicate to it? The barrier between creator and creation would be insurmountable. With a true omnipotence, we'd naturally get to where I could create something with the same cognition as me, but that obviously runs afoul of every belief system and the ineffectual nature of divine communication. There's a myriad of problems that would also arise if a creator were able to create at a level where effective communication could take place, but then chose to create at a level where it was sloppy, unreliable, and resulted in a million different people saying they received a million differing commutations from the "creator." Which gets us back to all of the potential mud to wade through with theistic models, and how the creator then becomes bound to act less logically and morally than the supposed creations.

3. If your answers/thoughts in regard to number one and two are more or less, meh, we can't even come close to approaching that mind and/or whatever that self-existent force/being is, then what do you see as being the purpose for why you're here? Is it just the here and now gaining knowledge/information and experiencing 'life'?

As I’ve sat here giving this some brief thought, my mind keeps wandering to the question “do I really need a purpose?” If I had some kind of stated purpose, or stated reason for existing, I can’t imagine it altering the way I’m living my life currently. I find joy in being a dad. It’s not my “purpose” to be a dad… I just am one, and It’s awesome. I don’t need learning new things, and making new memories, to be driven by a purpose. Doing those things simply for their own sake seems to be enough reason. I guess if I had to ascribe some kind of purpose to why I’m here, it’d be to maximize happiness and joy for those who are in my life (which, thanks to how I’m wired, brings me immense joy). Alleviating the suffering of others, bringing them happiness, sharing knowledge -- these are all things that I love doing just for the sake of doing them. I don’t know that ascribing a purpose or not would change that at all.

Do you see a hereafter in your story?

Probably not. I think when I die, my consciousness will simply cease to exist once the neurons and chemicals responsible for my consciousness fade. The thought can be a little scary on rare occasions, but then I’ll realize just how absurd it is to be scared about something I will have absolutely no knowledge or experience of.

There’s a romantic pull to think that my relationships with those I love don’t have an expiration date, but try as I might, I just don’t see my feelings altering reality. Maybe when I die I'll end up in the Fields of Aaru, or sitting on the banks of the RIver Styx, or looking out on Folkvangr, or walking into the fields of Tir Tairngire, or find myself in Sheol, or Heaven, or reincarnated (or finally freed from reincarnation, and attained eternal bliss), or joining the ancestors, or attaining apotheosis of some sort, or chilling in The Summerland, or crossing the Chinvat bridge. Or, maybe I'll die and discover that I'm inside a giant cosmic Reece's cup.

Or nothing. Probably nothing.

I suppose you might shrink wrap all of that into a few pithy aphorisms. We’re here to create. We’re here to love. We’re here to experience joy/pain. We’re here to learn how to get along.

Most if not all religious systems or systems of metaphysical and even new age belief involve an initial and ongoing ‘creation’. More often than not they employ beliefs/practices of love, overcoming and dealing with pain and ways/means to experience joy, looking for beauty, and rules/principles of behavior to help one another get along rather than fight. Essentially, trying to create an ideal world in the midst of pain and suffering and world that often seems cold and rather heartless…finding meaning in the here and now.

I would guess you’re more or less on board with these little mini aphorisms.

I’ve often wondered if that’s the overall and all encompassing purpose for living, no matter where and how one finds themselves in the world, that is, to live life according to these basic and uncomplicated aphorisms.

And sitting on top of all that is the overarching experience we are having where we learn how to accept others. THAT may be what it’s all about at the end of the day. That’s one of the reasons I’m having to ‘scale back’ from some of the previous ‘experiences’ I’ve played a part in on this board running around in circles consisting of ‘he said/she said’.

Some of us are slow learners.

I MUCH appreciate your thoughts. I too find joy in my family relationships. I feel lucky to have those close connections as I’m sure you do also.

Best wishes in your continued search for meaning. Thanks for sharing.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

Where have your assumptions led you in regard to religious and/or metaphysical belief? I think I hear you saying that it's a 'lost cause' to try and make the/any attempt?

Regards,
MG

My assumptions originally led me to think that there was a God who sacrificed his Son to cleanse some kind of metaphysical force that He was incapable of cleansing on His own (because of some eternal laws that God is powerless against). That God was incapable of preserving the correct way to believe and access the rituals necessary to access the cosmic powers to cleanse the metaphysical force from our souls, so He had to "restore" it. The need for these rituals and beliefs is because, for some reason, God's home is incapable of having people around who are tainted by that force, and thus He has to punish them for eternity if they fail to access the cosmic powers through the proscribed beliefs and rituals. They also led me to believe in things like protective underclothing, mystical powers I could call upon as a man, because other men imbued with those powers by putting their hands on my head and did the requisite incantation. And so on.

I don't think it's a lost cause at all. I think there's a lot of positive things that people can gain from religious belief and practice. We are a very social species, and our brains like to categorize things. Religion often provides a framework to satisfy those needs incredibly well. There are a lot of moral, ethical, and spiritual (for lack of a better term) teachings that can be found within religions which can assist one in better understanding themselves and being more beneficial to their fellow humans in maximizing joy and fulfillment. Next to my bed right now is a copy of the Pirkei Avot, the teachings of Buddha, select speeches of Krishnamurti, and Ferguson's "Backgrounds of Christianity" (fantastic summaries of various philosophical beliefs around the 1st century). There's also a copy of Kim Foster's "Meth Lunches" -- kind of a religious experience in its own right. I've read many of the Sagas that are the foundation of much of Norse Paganism. I've made it through the entirety of Jordon's "Encyclopedia of the Gods" (birthday present from a dear friend). My father gave me a copy of Smith's "The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions" in my early 20s, when I began questioning Mormonism. I've got English translations of the Tanakh, the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, and a few of Elaine Pagels' translations of gnostic texts. I've read Neihardt's "Black Elk Speaks," and Fenton's "Old Canaan in a New World."

If Mormonism makes someone a better person than they'd be without it, that is anything but a "lost cause." As an example, Dr. Peterson regularly notes that he can't imagine there being any morals without religious belief. If someone can't control themselves from murdering and raping with impunity, without belief that a deity said "thou shalt not," then I am all for them clinging to that belief for the sake of themselves and society. For me though, the more I've delved into other wisdom and faith traditions, the more I've found the waters of Mormonism to be incredibly shallow and unfulfilling to me.

being bumped from Mormonism can open doors to curiosity about many people's experience. I enjoyed Black Elks observations and thoughts. He is catholic as well as a traditional healer. I think in making comparison between atonement and sun dance he is a bit closer to understanding Christian atonement than the rather awful version you reference. I am just making suggestion a person might consider further material from Black Elk.