You Lost Me.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Thanks for making me self-conscious about it now, wondering if I'm violating some manual of style unknowingly. ;-)

No need to worry. I just assumed you'd used it self consciously. My absolute favourite phrase from Derrida, though I know he borrowed it from others.

[Darth_Bill]

Nauvoo-era plural marriage certainly seems a bit messy, which I suspect is why events such as the following one recorded by Eliza Ann Whitney were so important to those involved:

This is precisely the approach I would take if it weren't for one thing: My own experiences suggest that such things really do happen; therefore, I'm inclined to accept that the Whitneys experienced precisely what Eliza Ann described. Either approach--rejecting or accepting--seems to be a projection of ourselves onto the data at hand.

For clarification, your experiences "suggest"....how strong is the "suggest" here? For example, I might be inclined to believe in angels, therefore if someone claims to see an angel, even though it is far beyond my experience, I accept that, OR, I've seen angels and therefore if others see them, I'm fine with it. There is a difference there.

I've had experiences, but I'm just as open to them being manifestations of my own desires as I am that it was a valid manifestation of the spirit. The problem is, I'm finding it hard to distinguish the two. Two years ago, yep, spirit. Today, not so sure. I've learned a lot about myself and I've had similar feelings, like SB, at entirely inappropriate times for it to be the spirit. I take a much more critical eye to my own experiences, as in the end, that is really all we have.

I can still believe in miracles and prophesy, so Joseph Smith holds some mystical qualities for me still. However, I've become much more alienated from the BoM after learning a bit more about the process, the religious climate of the time, and how some people have freaky memories, (after learning how freaky mine can be at times.) I can't explain everything in the BoM, nor do I want to try, but it has become less mystical to me.

[mbh26]

If someone's faith is subject to change when they receive some new (to them) information, they ought to examine what their faith was based on to begin with.

Like when your taking the Mormon missionary discussions and the missionaries share something new (new only to the investigator) with the investigator. Or perhaps when a young Catholic reads James E. Talmage's book, "The Great Apostasy."

[Damien the Leper]

No, indeed. But I have a hard time imagining why a person who has experienced the might and power and glory of the Restored Gospel wouldn't cling to it with a death grip.

Truth, I've realized, was never as simple as that deep, solid, original testimony that I initially had. For me, and I place this statement solely on myself, I grew up and religious idealism and reflections have come in an abundant and live changing out-pouring.

I don't mean for anyone to feel as though they haven't grown up. They have just grown up differently and just as equally sacredly and importantly.

[Damien the Leper]

These have been published in Church magazines more then once. I have attended at least two institute, one seminary, and one Gospel Doctrine class where they were discussed. I imagine many of these complainers DID in fact hear the things they complain about but didn't pay attention. In school

I can sympathize with feeling ignorant. I thought I knew it all when I was young. The difference is that when I realized I was ignorant of many things (What's the Millenium? How did the Creation work? What is up with polygamy?) I started hunting down the answers.

I do not sympathize with the complaint that the Church is "hiding" things. When I seek I find. When I do not my ignorance is on my own head.

I also disagree with the book mentioned if it is an accurate summary of its contents. I think the more serious problem in many churches is they have stopped teaching Christianity. When you have ministers who don't believe in the atonement of Christ or his sacrifice (except maybe as a metaphor), teach worldliness in scriptural languages, and try to reach youth by trying to make the faith about self-esteem or vaguely feeling good are they really surprised so many youth find it unnecessary? On the other hand you have the dogmatic groups that make their inane interpretations of scripture "the word of God" and hold to them in the face of contrary evidence. Or you have those who turn their faith into a weapon and pick some pet project to fight against and make that their faith (gays, abortion, and liberalism seem to be common targets) to the point that the church is primarily useful in supporting the cause. In trying to make the faith palatable many (though not all) Christian faiths have diluted it to an insipid caricature which people rightly ignore.

In the LDS faith at least we (mostly) teach the doctrine. We have a few terrible teachers but we are generally teaching the revealed word. Too many don't pay attention and will run after any silly quasi-LDS teaching that they may like ("Embraced by the Light" is a good example). Others complain they weren't taught everything. What do they expect? A doctorate level knowledge of LDS theology from lessons compressing incredibly rich chapters in the scriptures into 45 minute lessons? A comprehensive knowledge of Church history when we only lightly touch it one year out of four in connection with the Doctrine and Covenants? Do they want Church expanded to 5 or 6 hour blocks? Mandatory exhaustive Institute classes every night? It seems they want knowledge but only if it is spoon-fed to them with as little effort and time as possible needed from them.

Whether you agree with the book or not is irrelevent. As stated in the OP, it was based on statistical and testimonial analysis by the author and a very large number of contributors. Whether you agree with the opinions and deep and raw emotions tied to the theological reflections of the thousands that were interviewed is further irrelevent.

I believe that LDS members should be responsible for knowing the faith promoting side just as equally as the not so proud moments. In my experience, it has deepened my love for the church, its history and its theology by knowing a much broader spectrum of its origin, heritage and general religious experience.

For me, Christianity is no longer simply defined based on creedal statements (Nicene, Apostles, AoF), scripture, ECF teachings, modern revelation. I echo again Marcus Borg in that scripture is the human response to God (including latter-day scripture). Doctrine is subject to criticism and scrutiny based on how it relates to our very real world. I also find that paradoxes are ever prevalent within the Christian worldview and sphere. I appreciate Paul Toscano stating in his speech The Sacrament of Doubt, "If Jesus was not the Christ, he should have been. If he is not God, he should be." Doubt and dissent are just as sacred and sacramental to the religious experience and development as faith. IMO, certainty can in some cases be the enemy of God.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

Like when your taking the Mormon missionary discussions and the missionaries share something new (new only to the investigator) with the investigator. Or perhaps when a young Catholic reads James E. Talmage's book, "The Great Apostasy."

Agreed.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I might be inclined to believe in angels, therefore if someone claims to see an angel, even though it is far beyond my experience, I accept that, OR, I've seen angels and therefore if others see them, I'm fine with it. There is a difference there.

I've had experiences, but I'm just as open to them being manifestations of my own desires as I am that it was a valid manifestation of the spirit. The problem is, I'm finding it hard to distinguish the two.

Mate, angels are absolutely real, but they can also just be dreams. So, if an angel tells you to go to a certain hill and pry up a certain rock, and you'll find engraved plates underneath, you should definitely go to the hill and pry up the rock. If there are plates underneath, the angel was probably the real kind.

If you hear a voice telling you to go back into the train station because there's someone there who needs you, and you end up saving a life that had literally been discarded, that was probably the voice of the Spirit.

If the same voice interrupts you in the giving of a blessing and instructs you to promise the recipient his sight, you should speak the promise. If the sight returns, the likelihood that it was the voice of the Spirit increases even more.

Revelation works, but that means we have to act on it to know it. In my opinion, this is the prime reason why faith without works is dead.

I say unto you, I would that ye should remember to retain the name written always in your hearts, that ye are not found on the left hand of God, but that ye hear and know the voice by which ye shall be called, and also, the name by which he shall call you. For how knoweth a man the master whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart?

Edited December 31, 2011 by Hamba Tuhan

[Sethbag]

Nauvoo-era plural marriage certainly seems a bit messy, which I suspect is why events such as the following one recorded by Eliza Ann Whitney were so important to those involved:

Of course, one could conclude that it was the Whitneys' desire for a 'special manifestation' which led them to think falsely that they'd actually received one...and that Eliza Ann felt the need to embellish what she'd thought she'd experienced over time in order to justify herself, her husband, their daughter, and the Prophet.

Well, certainly the consequences for her mental and emotional health of deciding that she was wrong would have been very high indeed. She and Newel gave their daughter away to the Prophet, after he told them it was God's will, and they believed him. It doesn't take much imagination to appreciate the incentive their was in their minds to see this confirmed. Not to mention, if I recall correctly, Joseph Smith promised eternal life to the entire family, both old and young, if they would give Smith their daughter. Again, a pretty strong incentive to receive a spiritual confirmation, or be

convinced in our own minds".

I'm not saying that because this makes sense it must be correct. I do think the general tenor of the whole polygamy and polyandry thing, as Joseph practiced it, stinks to high heavens. It also fits with a pattern of religious movement founders/leaders taking advantage of their positions to gain sexual access to their flock. I ask myself what makes more sense, that out of, say, a dozen religious founders who used their positions to gain sexual access to their flock, one of them really was authorized by God to do so, and the rest were merely saying so? Or that they all were merely saying so? This one, to me, falls into the "looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" category.

This is precisely the approach I would take if it weren't for one thing: My own experiences suggest that such things really do happen; therefore, I'm inclined to accept that the Whitneys experienced precisely what Eliza Ann described. Either approach--rejecting or accepting--seems to be a projection of ourselves onto the data at hand.

It's quite possible you are right. I will add that my own experiences suggest that such things don't really happen outside of purely natural, human psychological experience. My own experience of believing I'd actually healed that old woman using the priesthood is a good example of where I honestly thought I'd witnessed a miracle, but because a healed woman is different than a non-healed woman, the reality of this was subject to scrutiny and verification, whereas whether it was right to marry off their daughter to Joseph Smith was really not subject to that same kind of scrutiny or verification.