How Can The Bom Be Inspired But Not Historical

[Robert F. Smith]

Do you really think so??

Maybe. The audacity of hope, you know.

[Robert F. Smith]

I love the transcripts of the early days before the Temples were finished and the Saints were doing their rituals in the midst of the trees and rivers and fields. (I'm a huge William Blake fanboy, for one thing. *grin* "I went to the Garden of Love ...")

I once saw a BBC-TV production of Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream" done by the Royal Shakespeare Company. They performed and filmed the whole thing out in the forest, undoubtedly a park in London -- which has an extraordinary amount of green space. It was wonderful. Almost as good as the 1935 Hollywood version, from which a 2-minute clip here

, and here

.

[Robert F. Smith]

and here

.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Nice clips, man.

And since Faeries (who weren't small until the 17th century AD) = The Fay = The Fates, who take part in the whole Goddess complex shared in the traditions of the Bean Sidhe, the Weird Sisters, the Norns watering the Tree of Yggdrasil, the Völvas, the Three Graces, the Moirai, the Oracle at Delphi/Dolphin-Womb, Athena/Neith, Qudsu/Isis, Asherah/Wisdom, Hathor/Tree of Life, the Deshret Crown, the Wedjat Eye, all of which eventually wind up back at the Bee-Queen of Heaven, I'd say we have some Faerie Rings in our own Temples. Very Shakespearean. Like those Early Christian Prayer Circles which included both men and women -- a nice Restoration of the equal divinity of both genders!

[Robert F. Smith]

Nice clips, man.

And since Faeries (who weren't small until the 17th century AD) = The Fay = The Fates, who take part in the whole Goddess complex shared in the traditions of the Bean Sidhe, the Weird Sisters, the Norns watering the Tree of Yggdrasil, the Völvas, the Three Graces, the Moirai, the Oracle at Delphi/Dolphin-Womb, Athena/Neith, Qudsu/Isis, Asherah/Wisdom, Hathor/Tree of Life, the Deshret Crown, the Wedjat Eye, all of which eventually wind up back at the Bee-Queen of Heaven, I'd say we have some Faerie Rings in our own Temples. Very Shakespearean. Like those Early Christian Prayer Circles which included both men and women -- a nice Restoration of the equal divinity of both genders!

A long time ago, I wrote a poem for Hugh Nibley (for his birthday) in which I celebrated him as a Nibelung Lord with Nornir sword, destined for Valholl, etc. -- partly because a girlfriend had reported to me being in a prayer circle with him and envisioning him there as just such an unlikely warrior. Well, he was a master sergeant in the 101st Airborne Division in combat in WW II. Does that count?

[CASteinman]

Seems, from my perspective, that LDS culture has become too conservative to fully embrace their "weirdness". It started out as very innovative and "liberal" (if I dare say so). But, today, the PR people do seem to want to present a very "mainstream" appearance....which has many members fighting against the stranger aspects of the religion, when confronted. Interesting.

This seems like an unfair criticism.

1. Conservatism has nothing to do with weirdness.

2. Although some unorthodox people like to claim that they are weird, I don't think anyone actually believes that THEY are weird. its other people who are.

3. The "today" you mention has been around for about 100 years at least and might be argued as being right from the start.

[CASteinman]

I had thought to post something here, but this thread seems off from its original purpose and toward teachings that I believe have been disapproved by the Prophets and Apostles.**

** Upon advice I have edited this comment to be -- I hope -- less offensive.

Edited June 7, 2012 by CASteinman

[mfbukowski]

Robert

Maybe. The audacity of hope, you know.

I had thought to post something here, but this thread seems off from its original purpose and has instead become a conversation supporting self-indulgent apostate teachings and and prideful cart steadying.

I rest my case. And I actually like CASteinman's posts and nearly always agree with him.

Edited June 7, 2012 by mfbukowski

[David T]

2. Absolutely, non-members should be able to view marital sealings.

Does this proposal include the couple making their matrimonial handclasp underneath an opaque cloth or fabric? Otherwise, they would be 'revealing' something to non-initiates.

[DBMormon]

I had thought to post something here, but this thread seems off from its original purpose and has instead become a conversation supporting self-indulgent apostate teachings and and prideful cart steadying.

Isn't that the whole puepose all of us participate in a discussion board? so that others may see our point of view and so some of us can release some frustration without it affecting us in the real world?

[mfbukowski]

What there is no room for is saying that one gender is ruler over the other. I think this is actually already present in the Temple ceremony, in which the woman is only counseled to listen to her husband insofar as he is listening to God (and who judges that but her?). It's just that the particular way the phrases are formulated (which, remember, are amenable to change) are awkward and make this point somewhat muddled.

And we are constantly hearing that women and men are equal partners and if anyone uses authority in an overbearing way, "Amen to the priesthood" of that man.

Here's the deal, and you know I love you- if this is the basis for your insistence on doing away with patriarchy, I would say you are on shaky ground. You already acknowledge the temple passage above- so as far as I can see, it's a distinction without a difference!

I guess what I am saying is that I agree with what you are saying above, but even if I acknowledge that it IS "somewhat muddled" for purposes of argument (I don't think it actually is muddled) that is no basis for alienating vast portions of the church by doing away with patriarchy- for what?

I agree with my perhaps imaginary "vast portions of the church" that there is no problem as long as the points in your quote above are actually followed and lived , and indeed I see the General Authorities repeatedly advising us to do just exactly what you are saying above.

So where's the beef? (uh oh, maybe I am showing my age)

[mfbukowski]

Incidentally, I think it would be disastrous to open the sealing ceremonies to non-members.

Honestly- imagine that ceremony, with the clothing worn, the words that are said, and what non-members would feel or not feel. Think of the scummiest biker dude you can and be sure to invite him to your daughter's sealing.

Not me.

The sealing is the pinnacle of the endowment and cannot be understood without it. It speaks of the sublime blessings of kingship, queenship and godhood.

No way do I want my daughter's fiance's ex-roomate biker ex-mormon there, while I watch his face through the whole ceremony.

THAT is the reality of what is being proposed. Everyone just thinks about grandma and grandpa who are wonderful people who cannot see their granddaughter married. That's nice, but that's NOT the reality of what would happen.

But that is my opinion and I really don't feel like arguing about it.

[Libs]

This seems like an unfair criticism.

It wasn't really intended as a criticism. Just an observation from my perspective.

1. Conservatism has nothing to do with weirdness.

No, it doesn't. That was kind of the point. Conservatives are usually protectors of the status quo. Not "weird" at all. Very mainstream. I don't think you could describe Joseph Smith that way. He was a mover and a shaker. He was all about change. Change was the very foundation of his message. And, many people, outside the religion, considered him very "weird". Mormons used to embrace their "weirdness" (a peculiar people), but seem to want to be seen as more mainstream, today.

2. Although some unorthodox people like to claim that they are weird, I don't think anyone actually believes that THEY are weird. its other people who are.

That's the paradox, sort of... Most LDS people are very conservative in their everyday beliefs and lifestyle, and yet the doctrine of the church is actually very different from mainstream...very unorthodox, in many ways.

3. The "today" you mention has been around for about 100 years at least and might be argued as being right from the start.

Perhaps....but, I think the saints, a hundred years ago, were more apt or willing to embrace their "peculiarity", than most saints, today.

[Libs]

Mf, since sealing rooms are quite small, I don't think having to invite every Tom, **** or Harry would really be a problem. It would just be nice, if the parents (grandparents) and immediate family could attend. I have an aunt and uncle who went through this, with their convert son, and it was very painful.

[mnn727]

To me when I say the BoM is not historical, means to me that it was written by someone with their point of view of the events that happened.

We can get a clear historical view of (for example) the Civil War because thousands of people wrote about it when it happened we can piece together real events, but for the (for example) Stripling Warriors we get only one point of view from only one person writing of it at the time it happened, thus to me it can not be considered historical. That's not saying it didn't happen, just that you can not count on what we were told about it as being an actual historical account.

I really don't consider much of the Bible to be historical either. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in either or that we can't get spiritual truths out of either the Bible or the BoM.

- - -

Elder Dunn told many faith promoting stories that taught many good lessons, they just turned out to be non-historical.

Many events in both the Bible and the BoM could be the same -- I personally don't believe Job is a historical story, though many people do. I can still find Spiritual messages in Job however even though I consider it to be a faith promoting fable.

Edited June 7, 2012 by mnn727

[CASteinman]

I think two things strongly mitigate against the idea that the Book of Mormon is not "historical".

1. Anthon Manuscript.

2. Testimony of the Witnesses including Joseph Smith.

I put the word "historical" in quotes because I believe that though accounts may record things that transpired, this is not to say that they always literally occurred as described. In particular, I am thinking of Genesis where I think things are actual and true history, but not told in the same way that we think of history as being -- a recitation of time by time facts.

[mfbukowski]

Mf, since sealing rooms are quite small, I don't think having to invite every Tom, **** or Harry would really be a problem. It would just be nice, if the parents (grandparents) and immediate family could attend. I have an aunt and uncle who went through this, with their convert son, and it was very painful.

Tell me about it. My own mother was unable to attend my sealing. I am sorry she missed me getting "married" but I am glad she did not see the sealing ceremony because she would have thought it weird and have not understood any part of it. She would not have seen it as a sacred ordinance but would just have seen a bunch of people dressed strangely saying very strange things about becoming like god.

But this is a digression from the subject of the thread

Edited June 7, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Libs]

Tell me about it. My own mother was unable to attend my sealing. I am sorry she missed me getting "married" but I am glad she did not see the sealing ceremony because she would have thought it weird and have not understood any part of it. She would not have seen it as a sacred ordinance but would just have seen a bunch of people dressed strangely saying very strange things about becoming like god.

But this is a digression from the subject of the thread

Yes, it is a digression...apologies to the thread owner!

You, probably, make a good point, Mf. But, I'm not sure that being excluded really makes it any better. My aunt just took to reading a lot of anti-Mormon books, and her being excluded only served to justify believing every "weird" thing she reads about the church.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, it is a digression...apologies to the thread owner!

You, probably, make a good point, Mf. But, I'm not sure that being excluded really makes it any better. My aunt just took to reading a lot of anti-Mormon books, and her being excluded only served to justify believing every "weird" thing she reads about the church.

So you think that if she had been there, it would have been different? I cannot speak for you, but I am sure that in the case of others it might have made matters worse.

As a convert who joined relatively late in life after seeing much of the world before I even knew what a Mormon was, I would have not understood one thing and would have found it profoundly peculiar.

[mnn727]

As a convert who joined relatively late in life after seeing much of the world before I even knew what a Mormon was, I would have not understood one thing and would have found it profoundly peculiar.

Same for me - I almost left the Church right after going through my endowment.

[Robert F. Smith]

Libs, on 05 June 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:

Seems, from my perspective, that LDS culture has become too conservative to fully embrace their "weirdness". It started out as very innovative and "liberal" (if I dare say so). But, today, the PR people do seem to want to present a very "mainstream" appearance....which has many members fighting against the stranger aspects of the religion, when confronted. Interesting.

This seems like an unfair criticism.

1. Conservatism has nothing to do with weirdness.

2. Although some unorthodox people like to claim that they are weird, I don't think anyone actually believes that THEY are weird. its other people who are.

3. The "today" you mention has been around for about 100 years at least and might be argued as being right from the start.

It might be well to point out the position of the rabbis in Judaism, who discouraged focus on the mysteries (such as merkaba mysticism) in favor of the more important traditions. Not that the mysteries were completely off limits, but only that they were out of reach of, and even dangerous for the unprepared hoi polloi.

[CASteinman]

It might be well to point out the position of the rabbis in Judaism, who discouraged focus on the mysteries (such as merkaba mysticism) in favor of the more important traditions. Not that the mysteries were completely off limits, but only that they were out of reach of, and even dangerous for the unprepared hoi polloi.

I don't understand what you are getting at. I feel thick. Can you clarify?

[CASteinman]

Mf, since sealing rooms are quite small, I don't think having to invite every Tom, **** or Harry would really be a problem. It would just be nice, if the parents (grandparents) and immediate family could attend. I have an aunt and uncle who went through this, with their convert son, and it was very painful.

Probably would be "nice". But it's not our House.

[CASteinman]

To me when I say the BoM is not historical, means to me that it was written by someone with their point of view of the events that happened.

That's a strange perspective. All histories are written from a point of view. It is impossible to write any other way.

Do you really think that when Josephus is the only source for something, that makes his words to cease to be history?

Elder Dunn told many faith promoting stories that taught many good lessons, they just turned out to be non-historical.

This makes me think you are confusing the word "historical" with something like "accurate" or "truthful" or "reliable".

Edited June 8, 2012 by CASteinman

[Robert F. Smith]

Elder Dunn told many faith promoting stories that taught many good lessons, they just turned out to be non-historical.

Many events in both the Bible and the BoM could be the same -- I personally don't believe Job is a historical story, though many people do. I can still find Spiritual messages in Job however even though I consider it to be a faith promoting fable.

You are discussing two very separate issues here. One is a legitimate historiographical problem. The other is the issue of blatant lying, which has been dealt with variously (1) via the Stolen Valor Act (which the Supreme Court will either uphold or strike down soon), and (2) an act now being considered by Congress to make it a felony to profit from lying about one's military record. The two issues must not be confused.