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

[bill4long]

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

With the Brighamites (the Utah-based sect, "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"), to be sure.

Read the sermonizing of the Book of Mormon "Jesus" in 3 Nephi. The punch line:

"And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil," (3 Nephi 11:40)

You're not going to find Joseph Smith's later doctrines anywhere in the Book of Mormon. Baptism for the dead, polygamy, eternal marriage and sealings, washing and anointing, the "endowment", the "word of wisdom", the "three heavens", "men can become gods just like our god", "our god became a god", etc.

There are other sects that accept that Book of Mormon as scripture (Temple Lot, Bickertonites, Community of Christ) that do not accept Joe's later doctrines. If you haven't read David Whitmer's (one of the three Book of Mormon witnesses, and in whose house Joe was living during most of the Book of Mormon production) An Address to All Believers in Christ , you might read it. It's a hoot.

The apologist arguments regarding all of this is beyond hilarious.

[Limnor]

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

With the Brighamites (the Utah-based sect, "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"), to be sure.

Read the sermonizing of the Book of Mormon "Jesus" in 3 Nephi. The punch line:

"And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil," (3 Nephi 11:40)

You're not going to find Joseph Smith's later doctrines anywhere in the Book of Mormon. Baptism for the dead, polygamy, eternal marriage and sealings, washing and anointing, the "endowment", the "word of wisdom", the "three heavens", "men can become gods just like our god", "our god became a god", etc.

There are other sects that accept that Book of Mormon as scripture (Temple Lot, Bickertonites, Community of Christ) that do not accept Joe's later doctrines. If you haven't read David Whitmer's (one of the three Book of Mormon witnesses, and in whose house Joe was living during most of the Book of Mormon production) An Address to All Believers in Christ , you might read it. It's a hoot.

The apologist arguments regarding all of this is beyond hilarious.

I had started a study in the David Whitmer’s address and reflections of his thoughts within the Book of Mormon but hit the pause button before completion. Initial thoughts below:

When I read David Whitmer’s Address alongside Alma’s narrative, I hear the voice of the Amulek figure looking back over a long, painful lesson. In Alma 10–11, Amulek admits he “was called many times” and refused to listen until an angel finally stopped him in his tracks and sent him to feed Alma. From that point on, Amulek’s job is to stand next to Alma and say awkward things out loud: to tell Zeezrom, “O thou child of hell, why tempt ye me?” when power and money dress themselves up in religious language.

In an allegorical framework, Alma represents Oliver and Amulek represents Whitmer—the two-man team whose partnership supports the emerging story. Zeezrom and other dissenters, of course, represent Joseph and Rigdon, specifically over this theological tension.

When expanded, it looks like the Book of Mormon deliberately sets up that struggle between two models: the priestcraft of Nehor and others and the seeds of Joseph/Rigdon’s hierarchical priesthood (among other things) in 3 Nephi, and Oliver/Whitmer’s anti-priestcraft, anti–clergy model in Alma. Those aren’t just theological tensions—they mirror the real-life split between those men.

A reconstruction of Oliver Cowdery’s letters to David Whitmer reflect the Alma–Amulek relationship in the Book of Mormon: a receptive outsider (Cowdery/Alma) joins a dissenting movement after rejecting a corrupt system, and his work depends on a local householder-witness (Whitmer/Amulek) whose home and loyalty legitimize the new record. Cowdery cites Whitmer as the protector of the translation, just as Alma depends on Amulek for support.

Whitmer plays a similar role in his old age. He still insists that the Book of Mormon came from God, but he uses Joseph’s own stone-revelation—“Some revelations are of God; some … of man; some … of the devil”—to argue that the later priesthood system and polygamy belong in the man/devil column, not the God column. Christ, for Whitmer, is the last great high priest “after the order of Melchisedec,” and the Book of Mormon and New Testament are the fixed covenant; everything that contradicts that covenant is, in Alma’s terms, the work of the adversary rather than the Spirit.

So Whitmer’s Address to All Believers in Christ reads like Amulek’s testimony after the fact: a witness who once trusted the wrong authority structures, then turned back to the earlier Christ-centered message and started warning others that not every “revelation” or “priesthood office” that comes in the name of God actually passes the Alma–Amulek test.

Whitmer never says outright “this book is about our lives,” but everything he does say points toward that conclusion without him ever naming it.

All that to say: even the Beatles broke up over creative differences. To tie it back to the OP.

[huckelberry]

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.

Gadianton, I appreciate your focus though it is a bit painful. There is a fairly broad variety of protestant but what you point out is thriving, perhaps dominate thing. Well it has grotesque subsets like name it claiming get wealthy promises. Is that the inside revelation you make reference to?

Your comment connecting self reliance to Mormonism made me think of a seminary teacher. He was young and enthusiastic. He thought grace was the foundation of self-reliance. Be not conformed to the world but be strong. He slid into obsessing over self-motivational business tapes. From there further and further into John Birch society. I was disappointed in his choice. I have no idea how his business goals fared over time.

[MG 2.0]

As I've mentioned earlier in the thread, back in those days I wasn't familiar and/or listening to some of the things that were taught by the general leadership. I was in High School at this time. As a result, I 'did my own thing' as many others were doing. If you want to call that 'sinning', fine...but I was sinning ignorantly without the light and knowledge that would have made me directly accountable. Even if what I was doing in some respects was stupid and basically a waste of time.

As I've also mentioned, I think in this thread, there are those...especially critics...who hold members accountable for every 'sin' they've committed in their lives even when sinning in ignorance.

My point has been that as one gains further light and knowledge they are THEN accountable for their actions. And when I said "stupid is, stupid does" I am saying, indirectly I suppose, that when we do stupid things...even if unknowingly...and then learn/know better and we continue to do those stupid things, we are in some sense "stupid" for not repenting and moving on to something better.

I think there were/are many from my generation that are still "stupid is, stupid does". A hangover, of sorts, that they never recovered/repented from.

Regards,
MG

I'm a bit puzzled here. You say you did your own thing as many others were doing. Apparently you don't want to call that "sinning". OK with me - I'm not here to accuse or condemn you, or say that what you did was sinning. I'm certainly not holding you accountable for every 'sin' you've committed in your life, especially when "sinning" in ignorance. In any case I am pretty sure that your so-called sins were relatively few and quite innocuous.

But as a baptized member, entitled to the companionship of the holy ghost, you say that you were sinning ignorantly without the light and knowledge that would have made you directly accountable? What then of the idea that the appropriate age for baptism is 8 - the age of accountability? In HS you were well past 8.

I'm just a bit surprised that you seem to be minimising the power of the gift you received shortly after baptism. I've heard this gift, not available to anyone not baptised in the church, talked up as life altering, precious. So are you saying that it really doesn't work, it doesn't give you any great advantage over the "many others", it doesn't help you to avoid sin, it let you down?

I don't think the Holy Ghost can override personal choices to sin against the light. I may have known to some degree that what I did as a teenager was 'wrong' but I did it anyway. There are lots of reasons kids and young adults do stupid things. You seem to be saying that 'sin' isn't a real thing. Well, I think that it is. That being so, sinning can inhibit the whisperings of the Holy Ghost.

The Book of Mormon makes that pretty clear.

Unfortunately, in today's world, the word "sin" is out of fashion and has become almost meaningless. That's what happens in a world of relativism where people are making things up as they go.

Heard of a book called, "Radical Acceptance'? The author of that book, well respected and somewhat famous, pretty much takes the position that one ought to accept oneself, warts and all, without feeling a sense of guilt or shame. That has, in my opinion, caused more harm than good.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

One point that I had in mind, and omitted due to memory failure , is that one effect of the overselling/underdelivery of "features" is the amount of guilt that people may experience when they cannot seem to participate in the results they were told to expect, and that others seem to obtain. A related issue, I believe, it the consequent pressure to "fake it till you make it", whether you ever make it or not. Somewhat related to the "acting" discussion recently on another thread.

"Getting religion" is supposed to relieve some of these everyday life experiences, not exacerbate them, is it not?

It seems that the promise really does include those “features,” malkie—the hard sell is “God still speaks and prophets still guide.” But in practice there doesn’t seem to be much clear or consistent guidance as advertised, and when people don’t experience the internal spiritual change they were told to expect, the lack of results can turn inward. A kind of built-in message—“it didn’t work because you didn’t try hard enough, or because something is wrong with you”—gets applied by default.

I admit I don’t understand that inconsistency, because it seems to sit opposite of the scriptural idea of “come unto me, ye weary and heavy-laden,” where faith is supposed to lighten burdens, not add new ones. I think you are speaking to that point as well.

Maybe that’s where the guilt comes from and why many feel pressure to “fake it till they make it,” even when they suspect they may never make it. I don’t think that is something restricted to the LDS faith, but rather is tied to human nature.

Of course, some may set all that aside because their goals are different. Maybe the sense of authority tied to the priesthood, or some other form of belonging, is more important to some than spiritual transformation.

What often gets lost in translation is that perfection is a lifelong pursuit. Some give up on the process/project when things don't happen as fast/soon as they would like. They get discouraged/distracted and fall away.

There could be more emphasis in being patient with oneself.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

It's definitely a plus that your brother went on a senior mission. Not everybody does, EH-HUM (MG).

I'm finding it interesting that this seems to be a reoccurring thing around here even after I have taken the necessary time to explain. Again, I see black/white and either/or thinking manifesting itself.

It's hard to get away from that, isn't it?

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

I'm a bit puzzled here. You say you did your own thing as many others were doing. Apparently you don't want to call that "sinning". OK with me - I'm not here to accuse or condemn you, or say that what you did was sinning. I'm certainly not holding you accountable for every 'sin' you've committed in your life, especially when "sinning" in ignorance. In any case I am pretty sure that your so-called sins were relatively few and quite innocuous.

But as a baptized member, entitled to the companionship of the holy ghost, you say that you were sinning ignorantly without the light and knowledge that would have made you directly accountable? What then of the idea that the appropriate age for baptism is 8 - the age of accountability? In HS you were well past 8.

I'm just a bit surprised that you seem to be minimising the power of the gift you received shortly after baptism. I've heard this gift, not available to anyone not baptised in the church, talked up as life altering, precious. So are you saying that it really doesn't work, it doesn't give you any great advantage over the "many others", it doesn't help you to avoid sin, it let you down?

I don't think the Holy Ghost can override personal choices to sin against the light. I may have known to some degree that what I did as a teenager was 'wrong' but I did it anyway. There are lots of reasons kids and young adults do stupid things. You seem to be saying that 'sin' isn't a real thing. Well, I think that it is. That being so, sinning can inhibit the whisperings of the Holy Ghost.

The Book of Mormon makes that pretty clear.

Unfortunately, in today's world, the word "sin" is out of fashion and has become almost meaningless. That's what happens in a world of relativism where people are making things up as they go.

Heard of a book called, "Radical Acceptance'? The author of that book, well respected and somewhat famous, pretty much takes the position that one ought to accept oneself, warts and all, without feeling a sense of guilt or shame. That has, in my opinion, caused more harm than good.

Regards,
MG

Of course there are lots of reasons people do stupid things. Or not so stupid things. Or just things. But are these things "sins"?

"Sin", in religious terms, I believe to be a matter of definition, and falls into the category you describe as "a world of relativism where people are making things up as they go" - which I believe is sometimes referred to as "revelation". In some religions, dancing is a "sin". In others, drinking anything derived from a specific plant is a "sin". In yet others, speaking to someone who has been cast out from the group is a "sin". Naturally, you subscribe to the view that actions prohibited by your religion of choice are sinful, whereas actions prohibited by other religions but not by yours are not sinful. I see no reason for people who do not follow your religion to consider themselves to be sinners for actions that are only "sins" according to Mormonism's specific rules.

Isn't it a pity, for the Mormon who would like to be "good", that at times when s/he most needs the "whisperings of the Holy Ghost", its influence is inhibited? Some friend - abandoning you in your hour of need

I've never heard of "Radical Acceptance", but I'm familiar with the general idea. I don't know enough about it to say I'm totally in favour of it, but neither am I in favour of people beating themselves up due guilt from disobeying religiously-imposed rules for actions that cause no harm, or over fundamental personal characteristics that religionists have decided are against the will of some god. I don't have any doubt that that has caused more harm than good.

Radical acceptance is NOT approval, but rather completely and totally accepting with our mind, body and spirit that we cannot currently change the present facts, even if we do not like them. By choosing to radically accept the things that are out of our control, we prevent ourselves from becoming stuck in unhappiness, bitterness, anger and sadness and we can stop suffering.

Radical Acceptance in a Time of Uncertainty

This seems to me to be potentially a valuable technique to break out of overwhelming guilt and get on with life. Your statement above suggests to me that you perhaps don't know much about it yourself - is that the case? Or are you just not in favour of anything that may help relieve guilt, even temporarily, in order to make personal progress?

By the way, I think that at least some of what you object to as "black/white and either/or thinking" results from people commenting on the way in which religionists (here mostly Mormons) claim to hold certain beliefs while acting as if they don't - in other words, they are pointing out hypocrisy.

Of course, it's a very common failing - many of us, myself included, can be justifiably accused of being hypocrites in some respect or another. It just seems a bit rich sometimes to see it so clearly in those preaching the superiority of their beliefs.

[I Have Questions]

It's definitely a plus that your brother went on a senior mission. Not everybody does, EH-HUM (MG).

I'm finding it interesting that this seems to be a reoccurring thing around here even after I have taken the necessary time to explain. Again, I see black/white and either/or thinking manifesting itself.

It's hard to get away from that, isn't it?

Regards,
MG

You haven’t explained, you listed some excuses for not doing what your Lord has requested from you. You haven’t explained why you don’t trust Him enough to just serve and have faith that He will take care of the other things that you cling on to as reasons not to serve. The fact is you lack the faith to serve a senior mission. And that’s okay.

[Limnor]

"And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil," (3 Nephi 11:40)

You're not going to find Joseph Smith's later doctrines anywhere in the Book of Mormon. Baptism for the dead, polygamy, eternal marriage and sealings, washing and anointing, the "endowment", the "word of wisdom", the "three heavens", "men can become gods just like our god", "our god became a god", etc.

…

The apologist arguments regarding all of this is beyond hilarious.

I searched and read those arguments—they either claim the later doctrines were “in there all along,” or they say the Book of Mormon is just “milk” so Joseph could add all the “meat” later, or they redefine “add nothing” to mean “add everything except the basics.”

Basically they claim the doctrines were there all along, and if you squint hard enough you can see them… but it looks more like mental gymnastics to retrofit later innovations.

[huckelberry]

I'm finding it interesting that this seems to be a reoccurring thing around here even after I have taken the necessary time to explain. Again, I see black/white and either/or thinking manifesting itself.

It's hard to get away from that, isn't it?

Regards,
MG

You haven’t explained, you listed some excuses for not doing what your Lord has requested from you. You haven’t explained why you don’t trust Him enough to just serve and have faith that He will take care of the other things that you cling on to as reasons not to serve. The fact is you lack the faith to serve a senior mission. And that’s okay.

It seems likely to me MG decision is based upon good and sound reasons. Questions you recently complained to MG about him asking some friendly personal question. Your question here is personal and unfriendly.

I am at a loss as to why folks fail to respect his personal decision.