Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain

[Rivendale]

I can see where continuing revelation or doctrine being more clearly defined over time could be acceptable. Or even “mystery.” But it’s not clear to me how one could be comfortable with complete reversals of previous teachings, or complete revisions of previous “revelations”—like the differences between the Book of Commandments and the later Doctrine and Covenants, or flexible doctrine depending on circumstances pass the sniff test for foundational, grounding authority claims. Doc’s analogy works well here.

Many believers think Mormonism is a living breathing communication from god where different groups of people need different ecclesiastical information. Despite the overlap of generations.

[Gadianton]

Mormonism is always in a quantum state and doesn’t take a form until the observer gives it form.

- Doc

I think it fits. Mormons know they are right about everything especially the stuff they don't know about. If Brigham were alive today he'd claim ownership of every superposition.

[Gadianton]

I can see where continuing revelation or doctrine being more clearly defined over time could be acceptable. Or even “mystery.” But it’s not clear to me how one could be comfortable with complete reversals of previous teachings, or complete revisions of previous “revelations”—like the differences between the Book of Commandments and the later Doctrine and Covenants, or flexible doctrine depending on circumstances pass the sniff test for foundational, grounding authority claims. Doc’s analogy works well here.

Well, they don't know about any of that stuff, for one. They don't think there has been any changes.

But the way I look at it, the corporate church is a hedge fund pretending to be a church. I think the membership has moved on into its own land of mythology that's untethered to what the church is actually doing. I think long ago. That's why Snuffer and Meldrum get such great footholds is because they present the members with a semblance of the religion that they believe in.

[Limnor]

I can see where continuing revelation or doctrine being more clearly defined over time could be acceptable. Or even “mystery.” But it’s not clear to me how one could be comfortable with complete reversals of previous teachings, or complete revisions of previous “revelations”—like the differences between the Book of Commandments and the later Doctrine and Covenants, or flexible doctrine depending on circumstances pass the sniff test for foundational, grounding authority claims. Doc’s analogy works well here.

Well, they don't know about any of that stuff, for one. They don't think there has been any changes.

But the way I look at it, the corporate church is a hedge fund pretending to be a church. I think the membership has moved on into its own land of mythology that's untethered to what the church is actually doing. I think long ago. That's why Snuffer and Meldrum get such great footholds is because they present the members with a semblance of the religion that they believe in.

I think the phrase “despite the overlap of generations” from Rivendale is the part that raises the hardest questions. If different instructions are given to different groups, but those groups exist at the same time, you’d think they would include some sort of time-phased implementation with expiration dates. What’s interesting to me is the timeframe of the initial changes to revelation in 1835.

Sometimes I wonder whether the expansion of priesthood offices in the 1830s and reflected in the changes to revelation served two purposes at once—allowing authority to spread through the church while also cementing Joseph’s central role. Most interesting in that timeline is the story of the tar and feathering. I’ve read that the perpetrators were in the pews at the next meeting—did they use the situation to gain power for themselves? Were the beginnings much like today—corporate structure pretending to be a church? There may have always been a central core seeking authority and power while those not in the inner circle were attracted to the appeal similar to that of Snuffer or Meldrum.

I’ve imagined—admittedly speculatively—the “binding” of several characters in the book, both the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, as reflecting Joseph’s early followers “binding” him to produce “revelation” that would empower them. If that’s so, the practice seems to have reduced significantly today. Or maybe it’s just not as visible.

Apologies for the derail. I’m remembering theories lol

[Limnor]

Bringing it all together—your idea about an ungrounded chain of gods makes me wonder about early authority, growth and development. If authority rests in a chain rather than a fixed grounding, it would make sense that authority structures expand outward while still reinforcing the central source of revelation—just like Joseph and his early followers. That might explain why the 1830s saw both rapid institutional development and revisions to earlier revelations.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Mormons know they are right about everything especially the stuff they don't know about.

That’d make such a nice little sig line.

- Doc

[Gadianton]

I think the phrase “despite the overlap of generations” from Rivendale is the part that raises the hardest questions. If different instructions are given to different groups, but those groups exist at the same time, you’d think they would include some sort of time-phased implementation with expiration dates. What’s interesting to me is the timeframe of the initial changes to revelation in 1835.

Well, part of my thinking here, and it expands beyond how Mormons think, is that there's what's being taught in church explicitly, and what goes viral with the members themselves are two different things. there could be a core stability in what members pass around. The stability could be a function of the suppression itself by leaders. Suppression is usually interpreted as not wrong, but "too sacred" to talk about. And suppression might slow the development of ideas. You get these nuggets of ideas along with a "shhhh!" don't tell just anyone.

In a limited respect, there is similarity between a certain political party in power and the mythology built around a certain leader that has nothing to do with the actual leader, and isn't a function of intentional propaganda by the party. Like, thousands of people showing up to an event where they're shocked when JFK doesn't show up.

Sometimes I wonder whether the expansion of priesthood offices in the 1830s and reflected in the changes to revelation served two purposes at once—allowing authority to spread through the church while also cementing Joseph’s central role. Most interesting in that timeline is the story of the tar and feathering. I’ve read that the perpetrators were in the pews at the next meeting—did they use the situation to gain power for themselves? Were the beginnings much like today—corporate structure pretending to be a church? There may have always been a central core seeking authority and power while those not in the inner circle were attracted to the appeal similar to that of Snuffer or Meldrum.

I had no idea that the guilty parties were in church the next day. I don't know what to make of that but your interpretation seems reasonable. I think there is a clear difference between the leadership mindset and the member mindset as you say. Those with the ideal member mindset are clearly dupes and the best leaders are talented exploiters. A guilt ridden member may pay 12% in tithing and still get chewed out at settlement, where a savvy leader might get away with 2% and move up the chain precisely due to his pragmatism. But, I think the difference is, Joseph and many early leaders were absolutely dreamers and obsessed with big ideas and religious themes. They were perhaps like rock stars who made it big with a combination of varying degrees of talent and personal performance, and lots of luck, with the times being right for someone to come along with their skill set. The current leaders are like the big record labels, exploiting not just the members, but the music itself without really caring about music. In fact, being a fan of the music could be a major liability. Bruce R. McConkie may have been the last leader/scholar who was likely a total prick as a leader, but who was still legitimately obsessed with the music, and seriously interested in the big questions about eternity. His famous book wasn't received well by his peers, and its popularity with members was due mostly to lack of competition in the space.

[Limnor]

But, I think the difference is, Joseph and many early leaders were absolutely dreamers and obsessed with big ideas and religious themes.

I’m not sure I see the early leaders primarily as dreamers. Maybe Rigdon and Cowdery. It sometimes looks more like a situation where someone running a confidence game gets in over his head. Once other people understand the mechanics of the game, they gain leverage. At that point the founder can be both perpetrator and victim—still directing things publicly, but privately vulnerable to the people who know how it works.

[Gadianton]

I’m not sure I see the early leaders primarily as dreamers. Maybe Rigdon and Cowdery. It sometimes looks more like a situation where someone running a confidence game gets in over his head. Once other people understand the mechanics of the game, they gain leverage. At that point the founder can be both perpetrator and victim—still directing things publicly, but privately vulnerable to the people who know how it works.

I'm going by Joseph Smith having having been a "storyteller" from the time he was a kid. I suppose I see him like L. Ron Hubbard. It's hard to imagine Hubbard wrote all that sci-fi without any interest in sci-fi ideas, and purely as a way to start a cult based on sci-fi ideas to get rich. I'll grant though that I think Joseph Smith and Hubbard were sociopaths and maybe people wired like that shouldn't be said to be dreamers in the same way dupes are.

[Physics Guy]

I know that the OA is serious philosophy, but I cannot get my head around the idea that you can argue or imagine something into existence - especially a god.

You shouldn't sell yourself short, malkie, because your point here is precisely one of the main philosophical positions on the Ontological Argument. It's Immanuel Kant's point. The fancy-sounding way to state the point is to say that "existence is not a predicate", meaning precisely that whether or not something actually exists is just not something that can be part of its definition, let alone of how "great" it is. As Kant put it, a hundred purely hypothetical dollars are not even a single cent less as a sum of dollars than a hundred actual dollars. What the hypothetical dollars lack, in comparison to the real dollars, is not the same kind of thing as the ten bucks by which ninety actual dollars are short of one hundred actual dollars.

For my money, Kant nailed the problem with the ontological argument, but I have to admit that the issue may not really be settled. Kant introduced the financial metaphor, but what it suggests nowadays is that maybe there is a way to translate degree of probability of existence into degree of greatness, because a lot of a modern economy is precisely about discounting sums of money in proportion to risk. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

So I'm also just following this discussion at a distance to see where it goes. You don't have to even do that if it doesn't interest you, obviously, but don't think that it's all just going over your head. You're probably tracking it fine.