People of Paradox

[Lamanite]

For some reason I had a lasting obsession with Armand Mauss. It has now been transferred to Terrly Givens.

While reading People of Paradox, a History of Mormon Culture, I came across a few passages that interested me. I'm further into the book now but they keep nagging at me.

QUOTE

"Mormons by and large believe that God's revealing of himself to his prophets is just as literal as it ever was. In the face of such widespread rejection of Old Testament literalism regarding God's interaction with human beings, Mormonism is emphatically regressive. Joseph was inflexible in his insistence that his encounters with Deity involved in literal speech acts between divine persons and himself. The Book of Mormon he produced [i despise the secular use of the word produced] emphasizes as one of its cardinal teachings the urgency of embracing dialogic revelation as the birthright of righteous seekers in all ages. " pg. 14-15

Speaking of both Prophets and "righteous seekers" Terryl emphasizes what I think is one of Mormonisms greatest strengths; namely, the Church's insistence that members speak to God and receive personal revelation for themselves. Whilst the Prophet has always had a responsibility to speak to God and receive answers for the guidance and direction of the Church.

We are a prayerful people. And even more important than our prayerfulness- is that we fully expect to receive answers.

The point of all this is a bit disjointed; but it is these passages and my own personal desire to "become"(in the Maxwell sense of the word) that I find myself at a weird crossroads in my relationship to Mormonism and Apologetics. Simply because my relationship to Modern Prophets and Apostles is shifting more towards that of a submissive role. This submission is always subject to my own relationship and communication with God; but to be honest, I trust them (The Brethren) implicitly.

Within Mormon Apologetics I think there may be a tendency to secularize what cannot be secularized. Example: Why couldn't people of African descent receive the Priesthood? Apologetic Answer: ...once the ban was in place â??whether as a matter of revelation, or as a policy that arose out of the Church's 19th-century originsâ??members and leaders did not feel that they could simply "change" things. Six months ago that was the answer I would have given. However, there now exists a dissonance between my faith in God's Prophets and what I long considered a racist policy. Would God really allow such a racist policy to exist for so long? I think my answer right now may be one of 3:

1. It was a social construct for many different reasons.

2. It was given by God to one holding the office of Prophet and President.

3. I don't know.

#3 is my answer at the present. And so here I am back to saying (about a great many things) "I don't know but I'm praying about it. However, I trust and sustain Brigham Young and every other successive Prophet up to and including Thomas S. Monson, so I am at peace."

Back to People of Paradox:

QUOTE

"The last visitation acknowledged by a modern Mormon prophet was Christ's appearing to the fifth president, Lorenzo Snow, in the Salt Lake Temple in 1898...But what is important is that the heritage of encounters with a physically embodied Deity who speaks his will to a prophet continues to inform Mormon understanding of the prophetic role...As recent president, Ezra Taft Benson, declared, "today in Christ's restored church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, [Christ] is revealing Himself and His will- from the first prophet of the restoration, even Joseph Smith, to the present"ibid pg 14-15

The implications made by his differentiation between Christ revealing his "will" and Christ revealing "Himself" is staggering to me. But it's comforting and awe inspiring. But why should I be awestruck when God has revealed himself to me?

Recently I read a question regarding Biblical archaeology and BoM archaeology. One has more (Bible) and one has less (Book of Mormon); or none for the sake of argument. I answered that both are records of Gods dealings with mankind. As such, both books should be viewed through spiritual eyes. I'm a firm believer in understanding context. But sometimes context and scholarship seem to overwhelm the plain and simple truths. I've heard both John Welch and Robert Millet say similar things.

I like Apologetics. I want to stay involved in Apologetics. I learn a lot from Apologetics. I believe Apologetics has a place within the Church.

I have heard with my own ears President Hinckley declare that Jesus Christ is at the head of this Church. I believe that too.

Are the two previous sentences mutually exclusive. I would say no. But the former can certainly overwhelm the latter to the point of being "past feeling".

So I wonder if I've just reduced my own view of Mormon Apologetics to some weird form of Brain Candy. It tastes good, but it sure isn't the bread of life.

Big UP!

The Lamanite

[Glenn101]

I like Apologetics. I want to stay involved in Apologetics. I learn a lot from Apologetics.

I have heard with my own ears President Hinckley declare that Jesus Christ is at the head of this Church. I believe that too.

Are the two previous sentences mutually exclusive. I wouldn't say so. But the former can certainly overwhelm the latter to the point of being "past feeling".

So I wonder if I've just reduced my own view of Mormon Apologetics to some weird form of Brain Candy. It tastes good, but it sure isn't the bread of life.

Big UP!

I have learned more about the restored gospel and gained more insights since my forays into the apologetic arena than at any time before in my life. I am a person who cannot fathom the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints not being what Joseph Smith and every other prophet since claims it to be. I come here because I find challenges that I would never find in a Sunday School or Priesthood class. Not challenges to my faith but to my understanding. And hopefully I can present some challenges to others to help them in their own quest for understanding.

In other words, apologetics and faith are not mutually exclusive.

Glenn

[Tabitha]

For some reason I had a lasting obsession with Armand Mauss. It has now been transferred to Terrly Givens.

While reading People of Paradox, a History of Mormon Culture, I came across a few passages that interested me. I'm further into the book now but they keep nagging at me.

Speaking of both Prophets and "righteous seekers" Terryl emphasizes what I think is one of Mormonisms greatest strengths; namely, the Church's insistence that members speak to God and receive personal revelation for themselves and the Prophet has always had a responsibility to speak to God and receive answers for the guidance and direction of the Church.

We are a prayerful people. And even more important than our prayerfulness- is that we fully expect to receive answers.

The point of all this is a bit disjointed; but it is these passages and my own personal desire to "become"(in the Maxwell sense of the word) that I find myself at a weird crossroads in my relationship to Mormonism and Apologetics. Simply because my relationship to Modern Prophets and Apostles is shifting towards more of a submissive role. This submission is always subject to my own relationship and communication with God; but to be honest, I trust them implicitly.

Within Mormon Apologetics I think there may be a tendency to secularize what cannot be secularized. Example: Why couldn't people of African descent receive the Priesthood? Apologetic Answer: ...once the ban was in place â??whether as a matter of revelation, or as a policy that arose out of the Church's 19th-century originsâ??members and leaders did not feel that they could simply "change" things. Six months ago that was the answer I would have given. However, there now exists a dissonance between my faith in God's Prophets and what I long considered a racist policy. Would God really allow such a racist policy to exist for so long? I think my answers may be one of 3:

1. It was a social construct for many different reasons.

2. It was given by God to one holding the office of Prophet and President.

3. I don't know.

And now I'm back to saying (about a great many things) "I don't know but I'm praying about it. However, I trust and sustain Brigham Young and every other successive Prophet up to and including Thomas S. Monson."

Back to People of Paradox:

The implications made by his differentiation between Christ revealing his "will" and Christ revealing "Himself" is staggering to me. But it's comforting and awe inspiring. But why should I be awestruck when I have experienced God reveal himself to me?

Recently I read a question regarding Biblical archaeology and BoM archaeology. One has more (Bible) and one has less (Book of Mormon); or none for the sake of argument. I answered that both are records of Gods dealings with mankind. As such, both books should be viewed through spiritual eyes. I'm a firm believer in understanding context. But sometimes context and scholarship seem to overwhelm the plain and simple truths. I've heard both John Welch and Robert Millet say similar things.

I like Apologetics. I want to stay involved in Apologetics. I learn a lot from Apologetics.

I have heard with my own ears President Hinckley declare that Jesus Christ is at the head of this Church. I believe that too.

Are the two previous sentences mutually exclusive. I wouldn't say so. But the former can certainly overwhelm the latter to the point of being "past feeling".

So I wonder if I've just reduced my own view of Mormon Apologetics to some weird form of Brain Candy. It tastes good, but it sure isn't the bread of life.

Big UP!

Lamanite, that was well said. You echo my feelings as well.

[Lamanite]

I have learned more about the restored gospel and gained more insights since my forays into the apologetic arena than at any time before in my life. I am a person who cannot fathom the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints not being what Joseph Smith and every other prophet since claims it to be. I come here because I find challenges that I would never find in a Sunday School or Priesthood class. Not challenges to my faith but to my understanding. And hopefully I can present some challenges to others to help them in their own quest for understanding.

In other words, apologetics and faith are not mutually exclusive.

Glenn

As I stated, I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive. So we agree. I also agree that Apologetics can and does compliment The Gospel of Jesus Christ. Speaking personally, I just need to make sure I live within the Gospel and not out on the fringes of scholarship. I don't want to wake up 10 years from now and realize I've been looking past the mark. If you ever hear me say Joseph "produced" the BoM, please punch me in the mouth. He dictated it under the direction and Power of God Often times we'll use a word like "translated", which to me implies the former description.

Apologetics and FAIR specifically has taught me a great many things. But I know I'm off base when I'm reading the NT and I think "Oooh that would make a great thread". At that point I'm reading for the wrong reasons. Now, that doesn't mean I shouldn't share insights and listen to others and learn from them. It just means that I may need to take a personal spiritual inventory on my motives in reading the scriptures and am I learning to "Become" or am I reading to be "lauded". Difficult questions, at least for me.

Big UP!

[krose]

Hey mon, what did you mean by this:

The implications made by his differentiation between Christ revealing his "will" and Christ revealing "Himself" is staggering to me. But it's comforting and awe inspiring. But why should I be awestruck when I have experienced God reveal himself to me?

Do you mean the same way Joseph Smith did?

[Lamanite]

Hey mon, what did you mean by this:

Do you mean the same way Joseph Smith did?

Between 1820-1844 Joseph had many divine manifestations of differing types. I'm going to assume that you're referring to his vision in 1820. That answer would be no, I have not seen God.

This would be an applicable scripture:

And lo, the Lord passed by. There was a great and mighty wind, splitting mountains and shattering rocks by the power of the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind -- an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake -- fire; but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire -- a still, small voice.

This would be a good explanation of my dealings with God on the whole.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[JLFuller]

For some reason I had a lasting obsession with Armand Mauss. It has now been transferred to Terrly Givens.

While reading People of Paradox, a History of Mormon Culture, I came across a few passages that interested me. I'm further into the book now but they keep nagging at me.

Speaking of both Prophets and "righteous seekers" Terryl emphasizes what I think is one of Mormonisms greatest strengths; namely, the Church's insistence that members speak to God and receive personal revelation for themselves. Whilst the Prophet has always had a responsibility to speak to God and receive answers for the guidance and direction of the Church.

We are a prayerful people. And even more important than our prayerfulness- is that we fully expect to receive answers.

The point of all this is a bit disjointed; but it is these passages and my own personal desire to "become"(in the Maxwell sense of the word) that I find myself at a weird crossroads in my relationship to Mormonism and Apologetics. Simply because my relationship to Modern Prophets and Apostles is shifting more towards that of a submissive role. This submission is always subject to my own relationship and communication with God; but to be honest, I trust them (The Brethren) implicitly.

Within Mormon Apologetics I think there may be a tendency to secularize what cannot be secularized. Example: Why couldn't people of African descent receive the Priesthood? Apologetic Answer: ...once the ban was in place —whether as a matter of revelation, or as a policy that arose out of the Church's 19th-century origins—members and leaders did not feel that they could simply "change" things. Six months ago that was the answer I would have given. However, there now exists a dissonance between my faith in God's Prophets and what I long considered a racist policy. Would God really allow such a racist policy to exist for so long? I think my answer right now may be one of 3:

1. It was a social construct for many different reasons.

2. It was given by God to one holding the office of Prophet and President.

3. I don't know.

#3 is my answer at the present. And so here I am back to saying (about a great many things) "I don't know but I'm praying about it. However, I trust and sustain Brigham Young and every other successive Prophet up to and including Thomas S. Monson, so I am at peace."

Back to People of Paradox:

The implications made by his differentiation between Christ revealing his "will" and Christ revealing "Himself" is staggering to me. But it's comforting and awe inspiring. But why should I be awestruck when God has revealed himself to me?

Recently I read a question regarding Biblical archaeology and BoM archaeology. One has more (Bible) and one has less (Book of Mormon); or none for the sake of argument. I answered that both are records of Gods dealings with mankind. As such, both books should be viewed through spiritual eyes. I'm a firm believer in understanding context. But sometimes context and scholarship seem to overwhelm the plain and simple truths. I've heard both John Welch and Robert Millet say similar things.

I like Apologetics. I want to stay involved in Apologetics. I learn a lot from Apologetics. I believe Apologetics has a place within the Church.

I have heard with my own ears President Hinckley declare that Jesus Christ is at the head of this Church. I believe that too.

Are the two previous sentences mutually exclusive. I would say no. But the former can certainly overwhelm the latter to the point of being "past feeling".

So I wonder if I've just reduced my own view of Mormon Apologetics to some weird form of Brain Candy. It tastes good, but it sure isn't the bread of life.

Big UP!

The Lamanite

"So I wonder if I've just reduced my own view of Mormon Apologetics to some weird form of Brain Candy. It tastes good, but it sure isn't the bread of life"

So it is. Without the ordinances and constant work on the fundamentals - faith building, Christian service, repentance, temple worship and so forth - all this discussion of the "dark mysteries of the universe" is useless. We will just be very knowledgeable people looking in from the outside. Our words will be our condemnation. Like refined white sugar, it will be sweet but having no nutrition.