Accepting Explanations Of Mysteries

[JLHPROF]

So I've been thinking a lot about truth lately, and one of the things that I love best about the restored gospel is all the increased knowledge available to those that believe.  We don't have to accept an "unknowable" God and Joseph Smith taught that we should study the mysteries.

 

In the grand record of all Mormonism, from "official" canonical teachings, down through folklore and prophetic opinion, there is an answer for virtually every question contained in the gospel.

The problem is, the evidence backing up many of these ideas is sketchy, or not accepted by everyone.

So here is my discussion question: In the absence of any revealed absolute truth from heaven, is it really harmful to accept the only available explanation contained within Mormon teachings?

 

Some possible examples to spark discussion:

 

1. How was Christ conceived?  Some would say it hasn't been revealed.  Brigham Young taught it was in the same old sexual intercourse between God and Mary as every other child is conceived by.  (Yes, the conversation on conceiving spirit children in another thread sparked this one).

 

2. Does exaltation to Godhood mean becoming exactly as our Heavenly Father is?  Some like to use the small "g"od explanation.  Some don't accept this as canon.  Joseph taught in the King Follett that God was once exactly like we are now.

 

3. Was Christ married?  Some think not.  Some think probably but we don't know.  Several apostles have clearly named Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene as his wives.

 

Can I reasonably choose to believe EVERY teaching of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the other prophets that haven't:

A. Been contradicted by new revelation or fully understood available information or

B. Been shown to not be accurately recorded?

 

Is it better to say "we don't know and that was just their opinion" about things that haven't been canonized or to go on faith until further revelation is given?

 

So to conclude, yes we don't have all the answers revealed with 100% clarity.  But in the absence of a better, more reliable revelation, does it really hurt anything to believe the only available explanations from prophets?  It makes us look weird and different to the outsiders, but for the faithful, where's the harm?

 

 

 

[cinepro]

If something is the only explanation for something, it could be because the theorizer had a unique source of knowledge that isn't available to others.  Or they might have been really creative. 

 

But as you point out, in most cases believing such unfalsifiable things is totally harmless.  Unless it isn't.

[Calm]

"Joseph taught in the King Follett that God was once exactly like we are now"

 

CFR that Joseph used the adverb "exactly".  He also taught iirc that Jesus followed in the footsteps of his Father and we know that while we are like Jesus, we are not exactly like Jesus.

Edited December 28, 2014 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

Here's a great example of a piece of Mormon folklore - I personally choose to believe it because 1. it doesn't contradict any established teaching I know of and 2. I like it.

So, is it harmful to believe such a story?  Does it matter that it hasn't been verified doctrinally by the leadership?  Why can't I believe what it teaches about resurrection until further light is revealed?

 

 

 

Experience of Zeke Blanding

I have been requested to relate an experience I had in 1908 [or] 1909 in San Juan County. I was just making a home in Blanding and the whole county there was covered with trees and sagebrush. I was working hard to clear the ground to plant a few acres of corn. We had five acres cleared and [we] started to plant the corn. My little boy Roy, [seven] or [eight] years old[,] was there to help me plant the corn. I'd plow around the piece and then he'd plant the furrow with the corn. Then I'd cover it and plow again. While I was plowing on that piece of ground, I discovered there were ancient houses there, that is[,] the remnant of them.

As I was plowing around I noticed that my plow had turned out the skeleton of a small child[--]the skull and the backbone[. M]ost of the the bones[,] of course[,] were decayed and gone. Part of the skeleton was there, so I stopped immediately as my plow had passed it a little. I turned and looked back against the bar of the plow between the handles. As I was looking at that little skeleton that I had plowed out[,] and wondering, all of a sudden to my surprise[,] I saw the bones begin to wiggle[. T]hey began to change position and to take on [a] different color[. W]ithin a minute there lay a beautiful little skeleton. It was a perfect little skeleton.

Then I saw the inner parts of the natural body coming in--the entrails, etc. I saw the flesh coming on and I saw the skin come on the body [after] the inner parts of the body [were] complete. A beautiful head of hair adorned the top of the head[. I]n about a half a minute after the hair was on the head, it had a beautiful crystal decoration in the hair. It was combed beautifully and parted on one side. In about a half a minute after the hair was on the head, the child raised up on her feet. She was lying a little on her left side with her back toward me. Because of this I wasn't able to discern the sex of the child, but as she raised up, a beautiful robe came down over her left shoulder and I saw it must be a girl.

She looked at me and I looked at her, and for a quarter of a minute we just looked at each other smiling. Then [in] my ambition to get a hold of her, I [said,] "oh, you beautiful child," and I reached out as if I would embrace her and she disappeared.

That was all I saw, and I stood there and I wondered and I thought for a few minutes. My little boy was wondering why I was there because he was down at the other end of the row[,] anxious to come and plant the corn. Now, I couldn't tell that story to anyone because it was so mysterious to me and such. Why should I have such a miraculous experience[?] I couldn't feature a human being in such a condition as to accidentally plow that little body out and see it come alive. A body of a child about five to seven years old, I'd say.

I couldn't tell that story to anyone until finally one day I met a dear friend of mine, Stake Patriarch Wayne H. Redd of Blanding. He stopped me on the street and [said], "Zeke, you have had an experience on this mesa you won't tell[.] I want you to tell it to me." Well, I told it to him. Then he had me tell it to other friends and since then I have told it in four temples in the United States and many meeting houses and many socials, fast meeting, and a conference times.

I wondered, and it worried me for years[,] as to why [...] was I, just a common [uneducated] man, allowed to see such a marvelous manifestation of God's power.

One day as I was walking alone with my hoe on my shoulder going to hoe some corn, something said, "Stop under the shade of that tree for a few minutes and rest." This just came to me and I thought I would, so I stopped there and [the following] was given to me.

It was in answer to my prayer. I prayed incessantly for an answer as to why I was privileged to see that resurrection. I was told why. When the child was buried there, it was either in time of war with the different tribes or it was winter time when the ground was frozen and they had no tools to dig deep graves. If it were during time of war they couldn't possibly take time to dig a deep grave. They just planted that little body as deep as they could under the circumstances. When it was done the sorrowing mother knew that it was such a shallow grave, that in her sorrow she cried out to the little group that was present, "That little shallow grave, the first beast that comes along will smell her body and will dig her up and scatter her to the four winds. Her bones will be scattered all over these flats.["] There just happened to be a man present holding the priesthood (a Nephite or a Jaredite, I don't know which because they had both been in this country. I've been in their houses and know it.) The man said, "Sister, calm your sorrows. Whenever that little body is disturbed or uncovered, the Lord will call her up and she will live. Since that time, I have taken great comfort, great cheer and consolation and satisfaction, with praise in my heart and soul, until I haven't the words to express it, that it was I that uncovered that little body.

[Calm]

"But in the absence of a better, more reliable revelation, does it really hurt anything to believe the only available explanations from prophets?  It makes us look weird and different to the outsiders, but for the faithful, where's the harm?"

 

Depends on what is implied and taught in my opinion.  I think there was great harm in teaching that the black race was deprived of the Priesthood because they were not as good in the Preexistence, imo.

 

I can think of some other revelations that it is better to go with "we don't know" than "well, we have this one explanation from back in the 19th century" or "one or two apostles taught this but no one else has confirmed it".  Some of them have to do with explanations that have become popular for dealing with plural marriage and the implications of what it means about women.

[JLHPROF]

"Joseph taught in the King Follett that God was once exactly like we are now"

 

CFR that Joseph used the adverb "exactly".  He also taught iirc that Jesus followed in the footsteps of his Father and we know that while we are like Jesus, we are not exactly like Jesus.

 

No, he didn't use the word exactly.  I merely meant that he was as human as we and Christ were.  He may well have been perfect like Christ, the Christ of his creation.  But either we accept that Christ was as mortal as we are or we don't.

[Calm]

No, he didn't use the word exactly.  I merely meant that he was as human as we and Christ were.  He may well have been perfect like Christ, the Christ of his creation.  But either we accept that Christ was as mortal as we are or we don't.

I have no problem with that position as it is my own (except maybe the Christ of his creation…I have not received personal revelation on that so have no opinion), but know too many assume that we mean God must have been sinful like we are so I think we should be extracareful not to give out excuses to misread us.

[strappinglad]

I have heard that story before from a person who was present at a telling by Bro. Blanding. I don't have a bone to pick with the story. ( Oh, that was bad) . I can , however, imagine the confusion that will arise on the day of resurrection when the stacks of bones in the catacombs need to find their original connections.

Personally I think that it is the eternal elements which are gathered from our remains to form an immortal body.

Edited December 28, 2014 by strappinglad

[janderich]

Our problem is not that we believe too much but that we believe too little. We hear a new truth and we immediately cut it off because it does not fit our paradigm. We do not ask the Lord, nor do we search with the light of the spirit. Joseph once said, "When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief" (HC 5:529-530). What if I believe something that I find later turns out to be false? Well then I drop it and thank the Lord that I have now found the truth. The problem occurs when we are not open minded. When we clamp down on a false belief and will not let it go. Such stubbornness of heart will prevent a person from progressing. 

[Senator]

 

So to conclude, yes we don't have all the answers revealed with 100% clarity.  But in the absence of a better, more reliable revelation, does it really hurt anything to believe the only available explanations from prophets?  It makes us look weird and different to the outsiders, but for the faithful, where's the harm?

 

Go for it!

[JLHPROF]

Our problem is not that we believe too much but that we believe too little. We hear a new truth and we immediately cut it off because it does not fit our paradigm. We do not ask the Lord, nor do we search with the light of the spirit. Joseph once said, "When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief" (HC 5:529-530). What if I believe something that I find later turns out to be false? Well then I drop it and thank the Lord that I have now found the truth. The problem occurs when we are not open minded. When we clamp down on a false belief and will not let it go. Such stubbornness of heart will prevent a person from progressing. 

 

This is exactly what I am getting at.

We may not KNOW whether the pearly gates swing inward or outward, but if there is a unoffical non-revelatory quote from Joseph Smith saying they swing inward, why not accept it until official doctrine is canonized.

 

Someone once suggested that maybe Nephi in III Nephi 1:3 was actually one of the three wise men.  Why not?  Do we know their identities?

 

How about the location of the ten lost tribes.  In the absence of absolute truth, why not go with one of the speculations attributed to Joseph Smith.  I like the star near the big dipper story.

 

I know this thread is speculation of the wildest kind, but I of the mind that I will take the word of the prophets until God chooses to reveal a better, more direct truth.

[cinepro]

This is exactly what I am getting at.

We may not KNOW whether the pearly gates swing inward or outward, but if there is a unoffical non-revelatory quote from Joseph Smith saying they swing inward, why not accept it until official doctrine is canonized.

 

Someone once suggested that maybe Nephi in III Nephi 1:3 was actually one of the three wise men.  Why not?  Do we know their identities?

 

How about the location of the ten lost tribes.  In the absence of absolute truth, why not go with one of the speculations attributed to Joseph Smith.  I like the star near the big dipper story.

 

I know this thread is speculation of the wildest kind, but I of the mind that I will take the word of the prophets until God chooses to reveal a better, more direct truth.

 

How did you go from "available explanations from prophets" in the first post to "someone once suggested"?

 

As I pointed out earlier, there are many things that are truly meaningless speculation and it makes no difference whether you believe it or not (as long as you are comfortable believing something for no good reason).  But there are also times when such speculation leads to (or is invoked to explain) extremely consequential outcomes, such as the priesthood ban.  You seem pretty confident that you distinguish between the two, but I don't think we can always be so sure, and so perhaps prudence is the best course.

[pogi]

So here is my discussion question: In the absence of any revealed absolute truth from heaven, is it really harmful to accept the only available explanation contained within Mormon teachings?

 

I think you will find that there is always more than one explanation.  It is not harmful to fill in the gaps with your own beliefs, but you must acknowledge that they are your own beliefs, and should remain open to further light and knowledge.  You very well may receive personal revelation on some of the "mysteries", but it is "personal", until revealed by the prophet.

[JLHPROF]

How did you go from "available explanations from prophets" in the first post to "someone once suggested"?

 

As I pointed out earlier, there are many things that are truly meaningless speculation and it makes no difference whether you believe it or not (as long as you are comfortable believing something for no good reason).  But there are also times when such speculation leads to (or is invoked to explain) extremely consequential outcomes, such as the priesthood ban.  You seem pretty confident that you distinguish between the two, but I don't think we can always be so sure, and so perhaps prudence is the best course.

 

I think you will find that there is always more than one explanation.  It is not harmful to fill in the gaps with your own beliefs, but you must acknowledge that they are your own beliefs, and should remain open to further light and knowledge.  You very well may receive personal revelation on some of the "mysteries", but it is "personal", until revealed by the prophet.

 

Completely fair observations.  There is a huge difference between accepting random theories and accepting an uncanonized teaching of a prophet.

"As someone suggested" should not (and does not with me either) carry the same weight as the anecdotal teaching of Joseph Smith that the ten tribes are near the north star.

 

Thank you for pointing out this disparity.  I still think that I will take the opinions of the prophets until God chooses to reveal a better, more direct truth, but that doesn't apply equally to every rumour or theory bouncing around in Mormonism.

[thesometimesaint]

This is exactly what I am getting at.

We may not KNOW whether the pearly gates swing inward or outward, but if there is a unoffical non-revelatory quote from Joseph Smith saying they swing inward, why not accept it until official doctrine is canonized.

 

Someone once suggested that maybe Nephi in III Nephi 1:3 was actually one of the three wise men.  Why not?  Do we know their identities?

 

How about the location of the ten lost tribes.  In the absence of absolute truth, why not go with one of the speculations attributed to Joseph Smith.  I like the star near the big dipper story.

 

I know this thread is speculation of the wildest kind, but I of the mind that I will take the word of the prophets until God chooses to reveal a better, more direct truth.

 

Appeals to Authority aren't real useful.

SEE http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

[janderich]

This is exactly what I am getting at.

We may not KNOW whether the pearly gates swing inward or outward, but if there is a unoffical non-revelatory quote from Joseph Smith saying they swing inward, why not accept it until official doctrine is canonized.

 

Someone once suggested that maybe Nephi in III Nephi 1:3 was actually one of the three wise men.  Why not?  Do we know their identities?

 

How about the location of the ten lost tribes.  In the absence of absolute truth, why not go with one of the speculations attributed to Joseph Smith.  I like the star near the big dipper story.

 

I know this thread is speculation of the wildest kind, but I of the mind that I will take the word of the prophets until God chooses to reveal a better, more direct truth.

Yes, this applies to simple facts but also truth's of great importance. Moreover, I would say that at some point we need to trust in the revelatory power of the Holy Ghost. We should be able to uncover truths this way. Moroni says we can know the truth of all things by this power. Yet sometimes I think we don't believe him. 

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, this applies to simple facts but also truth's of great importance. Moreover, I would say that at some point we need to trust in the revelatory power of the Holy Ghost. We should be able to uncover truths this way. Moroni says we can know the truth of all things by this power. Yet sometimes I think we don't believe him. 

 

I have no problem with God. I have plenty of problems with what mortals clam God said.

[ERayR]

I have no problem with God. I have plenty of problems with what mortals clam God said.

 

And you know for sure they are wrong?

[ERayR]

Personal revelation is the key to knowing the mysteries but what is given to one in personal revelation is usually not for public publication but to be treasured by he who receives and their family

[janderich]

I have no problem with God. I have plenty of problems with what mortals clam God said.

All the more reason to search in the light of the Christ. We must learn to discern truth from error. If we cannot we will find ourselves following a man or a group of men and not God.

[mfbukowski]

So I've been thinking a lot about truth lately, and one of the things that I love best about the restored gospel is all the increased knowledge available to those that believe.  We don't have to accept an "unknowable" God and Joseph Smith taught that we should study the mysteries.

 

In the grand record of all Mormonism, from "official" canonical teachings, down through folklore and prophetic opinion, there is an answer for virtually every question contained in the gospel.

The problem is, the evidence backing up many of these ideas is sketchy, or not accepted by everyone.

So here is my discussion question: In the absence of any revealed absolute truth from heaven, is it really harmful to accept the only available explanation contained within Mormon teachings?

 

Some possible examples to spark discussion:

 

1. How was Christ conceived?  Some would say it hasn't been revealed.  Brigham Young taught it was in the same old sexual intercourse between God and Mary as every other child is conceived by.  (Yes, the conversation on conceiving spirit children in another thread sparked this one).

 

2. Does exaltation to Godhood mean becoming exactly as our Heavenly Father is?  Some like to use the small "g"od explanation.  Some don't accept this as canon.  Joseph taught in the King Follett that God was once exactly like we are now.

 

3. Was Christ married?  Some think not.  Some think probably but we don't know.  Several apostles have clearly named Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene as his wives.

 

Can I reasonably choose to believe EVERY teaching of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the other prophets that haven't:

A. Been contradicted by new revelation or fully understood available information or

B. Been shown to not be accurately recorded?

 

Is it better to say "we don't know and that was just their opinion" about things that haven't been canonized or to go on faith until further revelation is given?

 

So to conclude, yes we don't have all the answers revealed with 100% clarity.  But in the absence of a better, more reliable revelation, does it really hurt anything to believe the only available explanations from prophets?  It makes us look weird and different to the outsiders, but for the faithful, where's the harm?

If you want evidence, ALL religion is ridiculous.

 

People do not come back from the dead, and one man's death cannot possibly atone for the sins of all mankind.  It makes no sense.

 

All we have is the testimonies in our hearts- and guess what?   THAT is exactly the way it is supposed to be!  Miracles DO happen, Jesus DID come back from the dead, and He is my savior and redeemer.

 

These thoughts give my life meaning and have been confirmed to me by the spirit.  But there's no problem with saying they are "true" - any more than there is a problem saying that murder is wrong, or that we should treat each other as we wish to be treated.

 

How do we know moral principles are true?  Because we feel it in our hearts- no other evidence is possible.

 

So "where's the harm" in believing that human beings can be good, and loving and giving?  Where is the "harm" in helping others?  Where's the "harm" in making humanity into gods?

 

Ask anyone who ever had hopes for mankind, that we can be better, more noble, and rise above our groveling nature to be godlike.

 

Not only do such beliefs contain "no harm"- indeed they are the only hope for humanity.

[mnn727]

1. How was Christ conceived?  Some would say it hasn't been revealed.  Brigham Young taught it was in the same old sexual intercourse between God and Mary as every other child is conceived by.  (Yes, the conversation on conceiving spirit children in another thread sparked this one).

 

Actually, that is not his exact words. Many have claimed it, no one has ever proven it. Please be the first to show me the statement from B.Y. that that specifically states God had sex with Mary 

 

2. Does exaltation to Godhood mean becoming exactly as our Heavenly Father is?  Some like to use the small "g"od explanation.  Some don't accept this as canon.  Joseph taught in the King Follett that God was once exactly like we are now.

 

Again, twisting words: "exactly" was not part of the King Follett discourse

 

3. Was Christ married?  Some think not.  Some think probably but we don't know.  Several apostles have clearly named Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene as his wives.

 

Again, conjecture, I personally believe he was married, just not while he was on this Earth in the meridian of time.

 

 

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (theHoly Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

   

   

Edited December 28, 2014 by mnn727

[mfbukowski]

How did you go from "available explanations from prophets" in the first post to "someone once suggested"?

 

As I pointed out earlier, there are many things that are truly meaningless speculation and it makes no difference whether you believe it or not (as long as you are comfortable believing something for no good reason).  But there are also times when such speculation leads to (or is invoked to explain) extremely consequential outcomes, such as the priesthood ban.  You seem pretty confident that you distinguish between the two, but I don't think we can always be so sure, and so perhaps prudence is the best course.

What is a good reason to believe we should be kind to each other?

 

Yes, it makes for a peaceful life- but do you have "evidence" other than that?  The only evidence is purely pragmatic- that we like peace, and that we like people to be nice to us, so we are nice to others.

 

Yet this is reason enough to believe that it is "true" that we should obey the golden rule,   What other criteria for truth do we have in these cases?

 

If it makes our lives "better" it is "true".

 

The standards for "better" are within us and we all know them.  That is good enough.

[mfbukowski]

I think you will find that there is always more than one explanation.  It is not harmful to fill in the gaps with your own beliefs, but you must acknowledge that they are your own beliefs, and should remain open to further light and knowledge.  You very well may receive personal revelation on some of the "mysteries", but it is "personal", until revealed by the prophet.

I don't disagree at all, but want to ask you how you know THIS principle is true, that we should follow the prophets?

 

In the final analysis, it is your personal belief, and of course mine too, because we personally have a testimony of the principle.

 

In the final analysis, there is nothing more possible.  It is either in your own heart, or it is hearsay, and accepted on the word of others.  That's fine for directions to drive to Milwaukee or how to fix your car- hearsay works just fine.

 

But for you to understand the universe and for you to be sure about your personal salvation, hearsay just doesn't cut it.  It's in your heart or it's nothing.

[mfbukowski]

 

Again, conjecture, I personally believe he was married, just not while he was on this Earth in the meridian of time.

•  

Oh I see.

 

It is conjecture unless you believe it. Of course you have no evidence either way.

 

Interesting.