New Revelations in the Last Days and Restored Truths

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It’s when scholarly evaluations of religious experiencal beliefs is used as a mechanism of proving or disproving the validity of those religious beliefs then I see a problem happening.  Scholarly evaluation of subjective beliefs can tell us things about behaviors and human nature, but it can’t tell us whether or not the people holding those beliefs are experiencing truth and beauty from their perspective or not.  

So you agree that we must not confuse subjective personal beliefs (religion, ideology) on the one hand with logical operations (science, math) on the other hand designed to evaluate the basis of those beliefs.  For example, if I personally believe that I can go to Casino Royale and win big there, you might justifiably consider my belief false.  In fact, if I spent all my time at the Casino and continued to lose everything, you might even consider me addicted to gambling.  Science might even agree with your evaluation -- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-brain-gets-addicted-to-gambling/ .

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Whether a pumpkin seed planted bears the good fruit of a healthy pumpkin tells a farmer whether or not the seed and the materials used to cultivate and care for that seed are good.  However it wouldn’t tell the farmer if pumpkins are the truth, or which seeds the farmer should plant in his field.

 The Alma 32 method can be applied very narrowly.  Unfortunately what often happens and what I think is analogous to this point I’m making about a category error, is that religious practitioners often make a mistake by thinking that a healthy pumpkin grown from a good seed tells them that pumpkins are the true vegetables and that God has endorsed their farm as well.

The only category mistake here seems to be yours.  You are confusing science and religion, and I am separating them.

The County Agricultural agent doesn't really care about God or your personal feelings about the new GMO pumpkin seeds.  He is merely offering them to you to be empirically tested.  A good secular farmer can readily see whether he gets a good yield, without getting hung up on subjective personal feelings.  Science and the experimental method have given us excellent yields in a host of such areas.  The same applies to any scientific endeavor -- including archeological testing of religious claims -- such as that the Bible contains real history.

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You can’t plant the seed of a religion, no such seed exists it is too broad a category with too many variables, and confirmation bias along with many other logical fallacies confused the experiment.  I can’t plant the seed of the BoM to tell me whether ancient Nephites actually existed.

Praying about whether the Book of Mormon is true is not a scientific operation.  It is subjective.

Doing archeological examination of Book of Mormon claims is science, and it is objective.  Science doesn't use confirmation bias or logical fallacies because those are anti-scientific operations.  Those are the distinctions you need to carefully make.

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 I agree with you that secular learning and the religious intersect and always will as long as people on both sides don’t get confused about the limitations of their methods of knowledge and confuse the two.  Scholarship can’t prove or disprove whether a religion is “true” in a philosophical sense.  

Science and scholarship  rarely are concerned with proving anything.  What they usually do instead is to help clarify which direction of research confirms or denies certain applications of evidence.  In some cases they make the probabilities clear.  That is what makes them so useful to secular inquiry.

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, then I know (from personal spiritual witness) that there is much in the current and past temple ceremonies that is flawed and uninspired and offensive to my spirit and the spirit of the divine.  Will you support my personal revelation as legitimate for me or will you try and minimize it in the same way that typically happens?  The typical church response is that a person can ask God for answers about questions, but the only acceptable answers are those that agree with ecclesiastical authorities.  Any other answers by default are uninspired if they contradict the official opinions of the leaders.  Its complicated because of how the church tries to tightly control the experiences of members.  

Obviously I can only go by what I have revealed. My guess is that you'll then use that to say it is untrustworthy, but if you think it is untrustworthy (assuming you make that move) are you sure it was the spirit talking to you? I don't know of course. All I know are my experiences so I'm in absolutely no position to judge yours. Certainly I don't think answers always agree with ecclesiastic authorities. Nor do I think every single item in the endowment is inspired. (Indeed I think I've made several comments to the contrary when discussing elements that were removed)experiences

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't see value in this ancient origins claim.  I also don't see how they can prove it, but if the church continues to make this claim, which is in the arena of historical scholarship, then they need to find evidence to support the claim. 

Again though, you've just stated as a matter of principle such evidence is impossible. So how could it be the arena of scholarship? If it's the arena of scholarship then it seems it's not impossible.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The narrative of continuity throughout history is a nice package that has little basis in reality.  Have you read the Standing Apart historical treatment of the apostasy narrative in the church?  I highly recommend it, its very informative and well written and deconstructs apostasy narrative in a very friendly and well researched way.    https://www.amazon.com/Standing-Apart-Historical-Consciousness-Apostasy/dp/0199348146/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510094529&sr=8-1&keywords=standing+apart

I've not read that book so I can't comment on it.

I certainly disagree with many overly simplified views of apostasy. I'm more than happy to discuss that although I can't refer to the essays in that book. I suspect there's a lot of different opinions if it is like similar books.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm a Mormon, so when you say something applies to "Mormons" I consider myself part of that club, and the experiences of "Mormons" is vast and varied as the human experience.  I'm talking about evaluating the traditions of the past and constructing traditions that work for us today, this seems like a very Joseph Smith kind of thing to do, so in that sense I feel like it is very Mormon of me to talk about.  

My apologies. I have a hard time keeping track of everyone's position. Typically when I say "Mormon" I'm referring to the normative behaviors and beliefs but not a claim of every individual Mormon. I certainly recognize a lot of diversity.

This last claim seems somewhat different. The problem then is how to tie continuity to a rapidly changing culture. I agree that's quite difficult and is, if anything, even more difficult with a combination of rapid cultural shifts and a radically bifurcating culture.

Edited November 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

I follow my heart.  Is that the wrong answer?  

At least I answer your questions instead of avoiding them, as you have done.

Yep.  You nailed it!  If you are looking for something more than that...good luck to ya!

 If you happen to find objective proof for faith claims that everybody agrees on, let me know when you find it!

I don’t need to communicate my uncertainty.  I know what I believe, and I am not concerned if you, or others, snub me for sounding confident in my beliefs. 

 

Pogi,

I respect your beliefs, and if that's what you want to share is the traditional narrative without some more critical thinking about it, then that seems like its not much of a conversation.  When we have thoughtful Mormon studies participants like Richard Bushman saying the dominant narrative is no longer true, or Patrick Mason saying that we need to redefine what it means to be a prophet (I'm paraphrasing, but could find the quotes if you'd like), then I think its worthwhile to discuss where the traditional approach isn't working as well and why.  

As for confidence, I try to sound confident too, but I continue to find out as I get older just how much I really don't know.  

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you agree that we must not confuse subjective personal beliefs (religion, ideology) on the one hand with logical operations (science, math) on the other hand designed to evaluate the basis of those beliefs.  For example, if I personally believe that I can go to Casino Royale and win big there, you might justifiably consider my belief false.  In fact, if I spent all my time at the Casino and continued to lose everything, you might even consider me addicted to gambling.  Science might even agree with your evaluation -- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-brain-gets-addicted-to-gambling/ .

Yes, I agree with this.  

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The only category mistake here seems to be yours.  You are confusing science and religion, and I am separating them.

The County Agricultural agent doesn't really care about God or your personal feelings about the new GMO pumpkin seeds.  He is merely offering them to you to be empirically tested.  A good secular farmer can readily see whether he gets a good yield, without getting hung up on subjective personal feelings.  Science and the experimental method have given us excellent yields in a host of such areas.  The same applies to any scientific endeavor -- including archeological testing of religious claims -- such as that the Bible contains real history.

My example was probably poor then, because I was attempting to show the exact same thing, that you shouldn't confuse the two, and you should keep these ways of knowing separate.  I agree with everything you've stated here.  

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Praying about whether the Book of Mormon is true is not a scientific operation.  It is subjective.

Doing archeological examination of Book of Mormon claims is science, and it is objective.  Science doesn't use confirmation bias or logical fallacies because those are anti-scientific operations.  Those are the distinctions you need to carefully make.

Ugh...  I totally agree with you.  I think my example was a poor analogy.  The problem I see in religion is that people believe that their subjective experience with the BoM is proof that the book must be historical, that there must actually be archaeological evidence to support the book because they prayed and God said the book was true, therefore there must be scientific evidence that supports their subjective religious experience.  Often they gravitate towards believing in psuedoscientific apologetics to support their faith conviction.  They are getting the categories mixed up.   

Now that doesn't mean that we can't ask science to try and determine if there is any evidence in the fields of archaeology or biblical studies to determine authorship, or any number of disciplines that cross into the religious, those are all legitimate efforts.  However, they can't ever tell someone if the religion is "true" from a subjective religious experiential perspective.  

 

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Obviously I can only go by what I have revealed. My guess is that you'll then use that to say it is untrustworthy, but if you think it is untrustworthy (assuming you make that move) are you sure it was the spirit talking to you? I don't know of course. All I know are my experiences so I'm in absolutely no position to judge yours. Certainly I don't think answers always agree with ecclesiastic authorities. Nor do I think every single item in the endowment is inspired. (Indeed I think I've made several comments to the contrary when discussing elements that were removed)experiences

I'm not sure I understand your distinction here with the term untrustworthy.  I said I believe they are uninspired, thats pretty much the same as untrustworthy to me.  Perhaps you can clarify.  I will thank you for not doing what I often see which would be judging my perspective as invalid or heretical.  There are elements of my temple experiences I have great fondness for, its complicated for me and very emotionally raw.  

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again though, you've just stated as a matter of principle such evidence is impossible. So how could it be the arena of scholarship? If it's the arena of scholarship then it seems it's not impossible.

Its in the arena of scholarship, specifically the fields of archaeology, history, anthropology, biblical studies, etc.  I don't expect them to find any evidence to support because I haven't seen anything compelling to date, but if they do find evidence for the early Christians practicing an endowment type ceremony, then I would be very intrigued and follow that evidence where it leads.  

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/7/2017 at 11:03 AM, cinepro said:

Don't feel bad about not being able to see any obvious "new truths."  Even the people who were tasked with writing the Sunday School lesson on "Continuing Revelation" couldn't find anything even  remotely impressive.  The best they could come up with as examples were...

1. Church Correlation

2. Revelation on the Priesthood

3. Publication of the LDS Editions of the Scriptures

4. New Quorums of the 70

Some dispensations get Prophets that use their power to call down fire upon the pagan priests.  Others get Prophets that reveal reorganized leadership Quorums and better footnotes for the scriptures.  I guess you get what you get.

Most of those, except #2, seem to be application of secular organizing standards to a church, something which is done regularly within many religious organizations -- as well they should.  Probably, the manuals would have been better written and more applicable if Duane Boyce had been tasked with that job:

Boyce, “A Lengthening Shadow: Is Quality of Thought Deteriorating in LDS Scholarly Discourse Regarding Prophets and Revelation? Part One,” Interpreter, 26 (2017): 1-48, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-lengthening-shadow-is-quality-of-thought-deteriorating-in-lds-scholarly-discourse-regarding-prophets-and-revelation-part-one/ .  Two other parts are available, but part one is crucial to the notion of "continuing revelation."

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Pogi,

I respect your beliefs, and if that's what you want to share is the traditional narrative without some more critical thinking about it, then that seems like its not much of a conversation.  When we have thoughtful Mormon studies participants like Richard Bushman saying the dominant narrative is no longer true, or Patrick Mason saying that we need to redefine what it means to be a prophet (I'm paraphrasing, but could find the quotes if you'd like), then I think its worthwhile to discuss where the traditional approach isn't working as well and why.  

As for confidence, I try to sound confident too, but I continue to find out as I get older just how much I really don't know.  

If you think that I am just blindly eating what is being spoon fed to me without serious critical thinking (and more importantly - prayer), then you are very much mistaken.  Hope, you make it sound as if there is no need for prophets; that to accept their counsel is blind faith in the arm of flesh; that to view them as the mouthpiece for God to his people, is to place an unnecessary intermediary between man and God.  You don't seem to understand their critical role in the plan of salvation at all.  A little critical thinking would do you some good in understanding that the prophets are responsible for any knowledge that you might have of the plan of salvation.  To sustain the prophets is not to have blind faith.  To trust in them blindly, is to have blind faith.  That is not what I practice.  Not even close. 

Honestly, I would be willing to bet that 99% of your spirituality and knowledge of the gospel and plan of salvation can be credited to the revelations and counsel of prophets.  Give them a little credit, because you owe them more than you realize!  You seem to think that all you need is personal revelation/prayer.  Well, you can credit the prophets for that idea too!  You wouldn't even know who to pray to without the prophets, or that you should pray, or how to pray, etc.  If you strip away all revelations, scriptures, and prophetic counsel, keys, etc. what are you left with exactly?  It seems so blind to not acknowledge their critical role in your own personal relationship with God, and for most of your personal beliefs about God, faith, spirituality, etc. 

In attempting to discredit or devalue the role of the prophets in the plan of salvation, you use sources like Richard Bushman and Patrick Mason who actually sustain prophets and understand and accept their invaluable role in the plan of salvation.  By changing the dominant narrative, Richard Bushman does not support doing away with prophets altogether!  Likewise, in redefining what it means to be a prophet, Patrick Mason is not saying that we should never sustain prophets or view them as the mouthpiece of God, he is simply saying that we should consider them as fallible human beings; and thus the necessity of spiritual self-reliance through personal confirmation via prayer and personal revelation regarding the prophets counsel and words.  In the end, we have to follow our heart after seeking counsel from the Lord.  That is NO DIFFERENT from what I have been saying this whole time! 

These brethren understand the critical role of prophets in the church.  Do you?

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Hope, you make it sound as if there is no need for prophets; that to accept their counsel is blind faith in the arm of flesh; that to view them as the mouthpiece for God to his people, is to place an unnecessary intermediary between man and God.  You don't seem to understand their critical role in the plan of salvation at all.  A little critical thinking would do you some good in understanding that the prophets are responsible for any knowledge that you might have of the plan of salvation.  To sustain the prophets is not to have blind faith.  To trust in them blindly, is to have blind faith.  That is not what I practice.  Not even close. 

I hope you don't take offense, but I think that the emphasis on prophets is largely a poc hoc construction for the purposes of legitimizing institutional authority for the church.  I really don't see evidence that prophets are critical or that they are the source of all this knowledge about God's plan.  The plan is much simplier and i would argue that most of what prophets have brought to the conversation has been around power dynamics and regulating affairs that actually have nothing to do with the gospel.  To me, the gospel can be boiled down to the two great commandments in the NT.  Love God and Love your Neighbor.  And I believe loving God just means that we love creation and life and goodness.  That is God to me.  So, everything else is in some cases window dressing and in other cases is gross distraction and focusing beyond the mark.  

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

Honestly, I would be willing to bet that 99% of your spirituality and knowledge of the gospel and plan of salvation can be credited to the revelations and counsel of prophets.  Give them a little credit, because you owe them more than you realize!  You seem to think that all you need is personal revelation/prayer.  Well, you can credit the prophets for that idea too!  You wouldn't even know who to pray to without the prophets, or that you should pray, or how to pray, etc.  If you strip away all revelations, scriptures, and prophetic counsel, keys, etc. what are you left with exactly?  It seems so blind to not acknowledge their critical role in your own personal relationship with God, and for most of your personal beliefs about God, faith, spirituality, etc. 

Prayer, not really important to me.  Connecting to our inner conscience can happen through multiple means, prayer being only one of them.  Keys, revelations, authority, none of it essential, I would throw those away.  Faith is a broad principle, but I don't think we learn much about it without experiencing it, and there are so many that emphasize faith in an institution or faith in a leader, that they completely miss the mark on what faith is about, its about trust and its not trust in humans or human created mechanisms.  Its trust in God.  

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

In attempting to discredit or devalue the role of the prophets in the plan of salvation, you use sources like Richard Bushman and Patrick Mason who actually sustain prophets and understand and accept their invaluable role in the plan of salvation.  By changing the dominant narrative, Richard Bushman does not support doing away with prophets altogether!  Likewise, in redefining what it means to be a prophet, Patrick Mason is not saying that we should never sustain prophets or view them as the mouthpiece of God, he is simply saying that we should consider them as fallible human beings; and thus the necessity of spiritual self-reliance through personal confirmation via prayer and personal revelation regarding the prophets counsel and words.  In the end, we have to follow our heart after seeking counsel from the Lord.  That is NO DIFFERENT from what I have been saying this whole time! 

These brethren understand the critical role of prophets in the church.  Do you?

It sounds like you respect Bushman and Mason, but that you don't understand the implications of what they are saying.  I think you're interested in loyalty and order first and foremost, both good values that have their place.  You believe Bushman and Mason are loyal actors, so you assume the implications of what they say have specific limits that meet your criteria for what it means to be loyal to the church.  

For me, I don't have any boundaries to maintain, no employment by the church, no public esteem that has to be maintained to keep professional clout in tact.  Bushman and Mason's statements have broader implications, and if you explore those ideas further without placing limits on those ideas, you begin to recognize that fallible humans that don't prophesy anything of substance, are just like everybody else, they have good advice and wise counsel, but they don't have any special powers.  They have the authority of their position in the church, and we respect the position as members, but the mystique about their abilities is lost.  Also their role as being a necessary component for a personal relationship with God is also lost.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I hope you don't take offense, but I think that the emphasis on prophets is largely a poc hoc construction for the purposes of legitimizing institutional authority for the church.  I really don't see evidence that prophets are critical or that they are the source of all this knowledge about God's plan.  The plan is much simplier and i would argue that most of what prophets have brought to the conversation has been around power dynamics and regulating affairs that actually have nothing to do with the gospel.  To me, the gospel can be boiled down to the two great commandments in the NT.  Love God and Love your Neighbor.  And I believe loving God just means that we love creation and life and goodness.  That is God to me.  So, everything else is in some cases window dressing and in other cases is gross distraction and focusing beyond the mark.  

Ok, so you are a bit more bare bones than I expected.  Just to clarify, are you a pantheist then, like Gray?

First, who was Jesus Christ to you?  If you don't accept Him as God, or the son of God, do you at least accept Him as a prophet?  He certainly viewed himself as a prophet (Mark 6:4), and other's viewed him as a prophet too (Matt 21:11; Luke 7:16; John 4:19).  He certainly filled the role of a prophet as a mouthpiece for God: 

“My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me” (John 7:16).

He spoke “just what the Father has taught me” (John 8:28).

 In prayer, Jesus said “I gave them the words you gave me” (John 17:8).

I am establishing Jesus as a prophet to show that even within your simplistic paradigm, all credit for what you know about the gospel belongs to a prophet.  You are no different from me in that respect.  Even in your paradigm, a prophet is essential! 

I am also curious.  Do you only accept those words that Christ spoke and reject all others?  Because in the passage that you accept as the only legitimate version of the gospel, Jesus himself testified that from those two great commands, "hang all the law and the prophets".

Here is what you have to come to terms with.  Jesus believes that he only spoke and taught what God the Father taught Him.  Who gave him the words "love God and love thy neighbor"?  He claims that this teaching was not his own. Then who's was it?  Who is this God that Jesus prayed to and gave him what to teach?  Jesus doesn't take credit.  Was he delusional then?  If Jesus was delusional (as your paradigm would imply), why would you place such great importance on his words?  To what end?  Why does it matter?  Do you not believe in the plan of salvation?  An after life?  If not, then why does it matter what some delusional dude from 2000 years ago thought?  If there is NOTHING else, then why not let your gospel be simply this: "do what makes you happy".  

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

It sounds like you respect Bushman and Mason, but that you don't understand the implications of what they are saying.  I think you're interested in loyalty and order first and foremost, both good values that have their place.  You believe Bushman and Mason are loyal actors, so you assume the implications of what they say have specific limits that meet your criteria for what it means to be loyal to the church.  

For me, I don't have any boundaries to maintain, no employment by the church, no public esteem that has to be maintained to keep professional clout in tact.  Bushman and Mason's statements have broader implications, and if you explore those ideas further without placing limits on those ideas, you begin to recognize that fallible humans that don't prophesy anything of substance, are just like everybody else, they have good advice and wise counsel, but they don't have any special powers.  They have the authority of their position in the church, and we respect the position as members, but the mystique about their abilities is lost.  Also their role as being a necessary component for a personal relationship with God is also lost.  

Hope, I don't know why you paint me out to be this way.  My primary loyalty is to God.  If I ever felt God steering me away from the church, I would leave.  I am only a member today for one reason.  It is not because I am certain the church is true, or because of an unbreakable loyalty to the church and brethren, it is simply because I know one thing better than I probably know anything, it is this 1) God loves me, and 2) God is happy with the path that I am on.  If God ever tells me to turn right or left, I will turn right or left.  That has not yet happened...and I have brought it up often.  Being a member does not always come easy for me.  I have questions.  I have non-orthodox beliefs myself.  But for me, my personal relationship with God through prayer/meditation is the most sacred and holy door by which I feel the divine presence in my life.  I thank the prophets for teaching me how to pray.  

Edited November 8, 2017 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure I understand your distinction here with the term untrustworthy.  I said I believe they are uninspired, thats pretty much the same as untrustworthy to me.  Perhaps you can clarify.  I will thank you for not doing what I often see which would be judging my perspective as invalid or heretical.  There are elements of my temple experiences I have great fondness for, its complicated for me and very emotionally raw.  

Its in the arena of scholarship, specifically the fields of archaeology, history, anthropology, biblical studies, etc.  I don't expect them to find any evidence to support because I haven't seen anything compelling to date, but if they do find evidence for the early Christians practicing an endowment type ceremony, then I would be very intrigued and follow that evidence where it leads.  

Rereading that paragraph it wasn't terribly well written. I should never write before bed.

To the point I took you to be inherently wanting a contradiction. Making a criteria such that there's no possible way to verify it then demanding verification. Again the issue is just how similar do you need it? That seems a pretty subjective criteria. Again if the issue is heavenly ascents, passing angels, sacred garments, robes, signs, tokens, and secret names, then there's tons of scholarly stuff on that in peer reviewed journals. Now as to comparing rites of different eras that gets more controversial. But this is an established issue not just in Mormonism but also broader issues of theurgical platonism or Jewish mysticism. Not everyone thinks one should attempt to compare even 12th century and 1st century practices, let alone 15th or 19th century ones. There are scholars who are more willing to make such comparisons although it was much more popular during the era of structuralism (Mircea Eliade and company) and the phenomenology of religion. 

While it's a bit dated and is from that more structuralist era, Gershom Scholem's Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism is still a well regarded book. It goes through the history of merkabah and hekhalot literature and it's relationship to later works such as Kabbalism. While not everyone agrees with how he puts the causality with gnosticism it still is a deeply influential scholarly text. Most scholars in the field have to grapple with it in some ways. Likewise for the connection of ancient texts to the renaissance on up to the origin of masonry Francis Yates is the classic scholarly treatment. Again it's dated but remains a good way to get oriented in the field. You can then find more recent papers on the subjects in scholarly peer reviewed journals.

[hope_for_things]

44 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ok, so you are a bit more bare bones than I expected.  Just to clarify, are you a pantheist then, like Gray?

Sometimes I feel like I identify as a panentheist which is similar but slightly different.  

Quote

the belief or doctrine that God is greater than the universe and includes and interpenetrates it.

But at the same time I think God is more about the experiential, its part of the way our brains have evolved to experience and interpret existence and our consciousness.  I don't think of God as a person or even an entity that is external to myself.  Describing God in language terms seems difficult for me, because God isn't something I feel like I can put the limits of words around.  God is goodness, life, sadness, death, creation, evolution, finite and infinite. 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

First, who was Jesus Christ to you?  If you don't accept Him as God, or the son of God, do you at least accept Him as a prophet?  He certainly viewed himself as a prophet (Mark 6:4), and other's viewed him as a prophet too (Matt 21:11; Luke 7:16; John 4:19).  He certainly filled the role of a prophet as a mouthpiece for God: 

“My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me” (John 7:16).

He spoke “just what the Father has taught me” (John 8:28).

 In prayer, Jesus said “I gave them the words you gave me” (John 17:8).

I am establishing Jesus as a prophet to show that even within your simplistic paradigm, all credit for what you know about the gospel belongs to a prophet.  You are no different from me in that respect.  Even in your paradigm, a prophet is essential! 

The historical Jesus was a person that lived and taught some amazing things that I find inspirational.  The Jesus of Christianity is more than that, this Jesus represents elements of the gospel that I want to aspire too, forgiveness, love, radical acceptance of the marginalized, charity towards the afflicted, the breaking of antiquated traditions, the focus on people, all of these things are symbolic and may or may not have been part of what the historical Jesus taught, but either way they are part of the Christian tradition that has inspired and shaped my life and I find great value in much of it and am inspired by it still today.  

I have a hard time putting labels on people because I think people are more complex than what just one label can describe.  This idea that person is a prophet I just don't like at all.  I don't like saying Noah or Jonah or Joseph or Moses, or Nephi, were prophets.  I'm much more comfortable calling some act or some teaching attributed to these people as a prophetic act or a prophetic teaching, but I think if we focus on a person being a prophet then we have to start making excuses for all the dumb things that person did that weren't inspired and that run contrary to gospel principles.  People aren't prophets.  Things are inspired and prophetic, but people aren't.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I am also curious.  Do you only accept those words that Christ spoke and reject all others?  Because in the passage that you accept as the only legitimate version of the gospel, Jesus himself testified that from those two great commands, "hang all the law and the prophets".

Here is what you have to come to terms with.  Jesus believes that he only spoke and taught what God the Father taught Him.  Who gave him the words "love God and love thy neighbor"?  He claims that this teaching was not his own. Then who's was it?  Who is this God that Jesus prayed to and gave him what to teach?  Jesus doesn't take credit.  Was he delusional then?  If Jesus was delusional (as your paradigm would imply), why would you place such great importance on his words?  To what end?  Why does it matter?  Do you not believe in the plan of salvation?  An after life?  If not, then why does it matter what some delusional dude from 2000 years ago thought?  If there is NOTHING else, then why not let your gospel be simply this: "do what makes you happy". 

I'm trying to be a student of the best biblical scholarship out there, and as I've read and tried to learn about the bible, one thing I've come to understand is that our best scholarship shows that there is very little confidence that we have any of the actual words of Jesus.  I assume you are familiar with the Jesus Seminar, but if not, check out the link below.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

Whether or not the words in the NT are the actual words of Jesus or not really doesn't matter to me ultimately.  I find inspiration in principles that speak to my mind and heart as morally and ethically valuable principles that are tried and true.  It doesn't matter the source, the content is what matters, and the idea of testing these principles using a method similar to Alma 32 is a way we can learn that they are of value.  

I honestly don't think much about an afterlife anymore, and that gives me a lot of peace.  I try to spend my time focused on this life.  I don't look  at theological concepts about salvation and sin and the atonement as literal and mechanistic.  I see them as one person's way of trying to explain the meaning of life, but I find them to be flawed in various ways.  I believe the gospel can transform us to be more focused on the worth and well being of others.  I believe it can give us a measure of peace and contentment in this life as we seek to bring peace to others.  I hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from.  Much of this is new to me, and sometimes I learn quite a bit about where I'm at just by putting these thoughts down in writing, so thanks for the opportunity to share!  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

To the point I took you to be inherently wanting a contradiction. Making a criteria such that there's no possible way to verify it then demanding verification. Again the issue is just how similar do you need it?

I would say similar enough to say that the earlier practice was source material for the modern practice.  Much of what I've read looks to me like coincidentally similar material, loose parallels that can be explained in the same way that you can say that the people in Egypt and the Mayan's both built pyramids because the dimensions of a pyramid shaped structure just happens to be the best way to build a structure with primitive technology, not because they were sharing technology or even aware of each other.  I can't remember the name for this phenomenon, but there is a scientific term separate cultures developing similar traditions and technology while completely separated from each other.  

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Again if the issue is heavenly ascents, passing angels, sacred garments, robes, signs, tokens, and secret names, then there's tons of scholarly stuff on that in peer reviewed journals. Now as to comparing rites of different eras that gets more controversial. But this is an established issue not just in Mormonism but also broader issues of theurgical platonism or Jewish mysticism. Not everyone thinks one should attempt to compare even 12th century and 1st century practices, let alone 15th or 19th century ones. There are scholars who are more willing to make such comparisons although it was much more popular during the era of structuralism (Mircea Eliade and company) and the phenomenology of religion. 

While it's a bit dated and is from that more structuralist era, Gershom Scholem's Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism is still a well regarded book. It goes through the history of merkabah and hekhalot literature and it's relationship to later works such as Kabbalism. While not everyone agrees with how he puts the causality with gnosticism it still is a deeply influential scholarly text. Most scholars in the field have to grapple with it in some ways. Likewise for the connection of ancient texts to the renaissance on up to the origin of masonry Francis Yates is the classic scholarly treatment. Again it's dated but remains a good way to get oriented in the field. You can then find more recent papers on the subjects in scholarly peer reviewed journals.

I'm interested in comparisons, but I hesitate to make connections based on parallels and say that one is dependent on the other.  Just to find a similar practice doesn't raise that practice to the standard that the church claims about ancient practices being restored today.  Having a similar ancient practice in some place in this vast world that we live in, doesn't meet that criteria.  I want to see where that practice was explicitly practiced in the early Christian tradition since supposedly Jesus established the church in a specific way, that is what is claimed, so the practice must have origins in NT Christianity and it should be similar enough that we can point our modern restored practice directly back to it.  That is the kind of claim being made, otherwise, they ought to change the claim and soften the language, and that was my recommendation.  

 

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Sometimes I feel like I identify as a panentheist which is similar but slightly different.  

But at the same time I think God is more about the experiential, its part of the way our brains have evolved to experience and interpret existence and our consciousness.  I don't think of God as a person or even an entity that is external to myself.  Describing God in language terms seems difficult for me, because God isn't something I feel like I can put the limits of words around.  God is goodness, life, sadness, death, creation, evolution, finite and infinite. 

The historical Jesus was a person that lived and taught some amazing things that I find inspirational.  The Jesus of Christianity is more than that, this Jesus represents elements of the gospel that I want to aspire too, forgiveness, love, radical acceptance of the marginalized, charity towards the afflicted, the breaking of antiquated traditions, the focus on people, all of these things are symbolic and may or may not have been part of what the historical Jesus taught, but either way they are part of the Christian tradition that has inspired and shaped my life and I find great value in much of it and am inspired by it still today.  

I have a hard time putting labels on people because I think people are more complex than what just one label can describe.  This idea that person is a prophet I just don't like at all.  I don't like saying Noah or Jonah or Joseph or Moses, or Nephi, were prophets.  I'm much more comfortable calling some act or some teaching attributed to these people as a prophetic act or a prophetic teaching, but I think if we focus on a person being a prophet then we have to start making excuses for all the dumb things that person did that weren't inspired and that run contrary to gospel principles.  People aren't prophets.  Things are inspired and prophetic, but people aren't.  

I'm trying to be a student of the best biblical scholarship out there, and as I've read and tried to learn about the bible, one thing I've come to understand is that our best scholarship shows that there is very little confidence that we have any of the actual words of Jesus.  I assume you are familiar with the Jesus Seminar, but if not, check out the link below.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

Whether or not the words in the NT are the actual words of Jesus or not really doesn't matter to me ultimately.  I find inspiration in principles that speak to my mind and heart as morally and ethically valuable principles that are tried and true.  It doesn't matter the source, the content is what matters, and the idea of testing these principles using a method similar to Alma 32 is a way we can learn that they are of value.  

I honestly don't think much about an afterlife anymore, and that gives me a lot of peace.  I try to spend my time focused on this life.  I don't look  at theological concepts about salvation and sin and the atonement as literal and mechanistic.  I see them as one person's way of trying to explain the meaning of life, but I find them to be flawed in various ways.  I believe the gospel can transform us to be more focused on the worth and well being of others.  I believe it can give us a measure of peace and contentment in this life as we seek to bring peace to others.  I hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from.  Much of this is new to me, and sometimes I learn quite a bit about where I'm at just by putting these thoughts down in writing, so thanks for the opportunity to share!  

One more question.  You say that Christianity has inspired and shaped your life, but if all of Christianity boils down to "love God and love neighbor", why do you choose Christianity, and why Mormonism specifically?  It is not like these principles are unique to Christianity in general, or Mormonism specifically.  Any sect will teach you the same principles.  It is not like Christ was the first one to say such things.  The earliest version of the golden rule dates back to around 2000 BC Egypt.  It is found in ancient Sanskrit tradition, Tamil, Greece, Persia, ancient Rome, Judaism...  If you reject the Christian and Mormon concept of God and what it actually means to love God (obey the commandments etc.), why do you choose to identify as Christian, and Mormon specifically?

Quote

People aren't prophets.  Things are inspired and prophetic, but people aren't.  

What does that even mean?  Inspired by whom or what exactly, if not a divine being?  What does it mean to be prophetic in your paradigm, and what do you attribute it to exactly?  Obviously the word "prophetic" means something entirely different to me then it does to you.  You obviously don't believe in prophecy of future events as shown by God, and you don't believe in revelation from a divine source.  No speaking for God.  Prophecy kind of losses its meaning. 

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

One more question.  You say that Christianity has inspired and shaped your life, but if all of Christianity boils down to "love God and love neighbor", why do you choose Christianity, and why Mormonism specifically?  It is not like these principles are unique to Christianity in general, or Mormonism specifically.  Any sect will teach you the same principles.  It is not like Christ was the first one to say such things.  The earliest version of the golden rule dates back to around 2000 BC Egypt.  It is found in ancient Sanskrit tradition, Tamil, Greece, Persia, ancient Rome, Judaism...  If you reject the Christian and Mormon concept of God and what it actually means to love God (obey the commandments etc.), why do you choose to identify as Christian, and Mormon specifically?

I didn't choose it originally, I was born into it, it is part of my family and friends and culture that I live in.  I don't believe in the one true religion construct, so no reason to go searching for another denomination.  I try to find truth in many places, religion being just one of them. 

I don't reject the Christian or Mormon concept of God, not sure how you deduced that from my earlier post.  I'm a cafeteria Mormon like everyone is, I just pick and choose different elements than you do. 

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

What does that even mean?  Inspired by whom or what exactly, if not a divine being?  What does it mean to be prophetic in your paradigm, and what do you attribute it to exactly?  Obviously the word "prophetic" means something entirely different to me then it does to you.  You obviously don't believe in prophecy of future events as shown by God, and you don't believe in revelation from a divine source.  No speaking for God.  Prophecy kind of losses its meaning. 

I'm speaking in terms that you probably don't understand, not because you aren't smart, but because we're speaking from very different paradigms, so I apologize.  I tried to explain how God is not a person or an entity to me. God is an experience.  Inspiration is a process and God is part of all processes.  What is inspired is determined using something like the Alma 32 test, its tried and true principles that bear good fruit.  How do we know whether the priesthood ban was inspired or not?  Well, we tried and tested it over way too long a period and then rejected it as uninspired.  The source was cultural racism implemented by church leaders.  How do we know that forgiveness is an inspired principle?  Because it has been tried and found to bear good fruit over the course of history.  Inspiration is not limited to one person's proclamation, there are very few ideas that are actually unique that people come up with.  Its generally an incremental and collective move in a line upon line fashion.  

Your idea of inspiration is a top down approach, a entity up top sending a communication to a human vessel down below.  This narrative is simple for young children to understand as an object lesson, but it has no staying power and conflicts with the evidence.  Inspiration can be gradual realization, it is often grass roots, and it is something that happens organically, not a message from a guy on a throne, its an understanding that comes to people and groups that develops into practices and values often over long periods of time.  There are certainly catalyst events and important moments in the process, and I'd believe God is involved and a part of these processes.  

Lastly you are correct that I don't believe in prophecy about future events in specific.  No evidence I've seen that any person has ever been able to accurately predict specific future events.  

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't reject the Christian or Mormon concept of God, not sure how you deduced that from my earlier post. 

I am surprised that you don't see your version of God as a rejection of the Mormon concept of God. Here is what you said in a previous post:

Quote

And I believe loving God just means that we love creation and life and goodness.  That is God to me.

And you reemphasized your rejection of the Mormon concept of God in the post that you just wrote:

Quote

I tried to explain how God is not a person or an entity to me. God is an experience

That clearly is not the Mormon, or even Christian concept of God.  The Mormon concept of God is a glorified man, our literal Father in heaven.  A person and being that we can commune with in prayer. 

I don't know what "God is an experience" means.  An experience is nothing more than neurochemical reaction.  Are all "good" experiences God?  Is your God named Dopamine?  God is eating cookies?  For some, God could be a bowel movement long overdue...  I don't mean to make fun, I am just trying to conceptualize what you mean exactly, and it just seems so uninspiring and ordinary to me.  

More to say later...

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

I am surprised that you don't see your version of God as a rejection of the Mormon concept of God. Here is what you said in a previous post:

And you reemphasized your rejection of the Mormon concept of God in the post that you just wrote:

That clearly is not the Mormon, or even Christian concept of God.  The Mormon concept of God is a glorified man, our literal Father in heaven.  A person and being that we can commune with in prayer. 

I don't know what "God is an experience" means.  An experience is nothing more than neurochemical reaction.  Are all "good" experiences God?  God is eating cookies?  For some, God could be a bowel movement long overdue...  I don't mean to make fun, I am just trying to conceptualize what you mean exactly, and it just seems so uninspiring and ordinary to me.  

More to say later...

 

I guess I don't think its a rejection, just a picking of the elements that I like cafeteria style, which is what all Mormons and Christians and religionists throughout history have done.  We create our religions based on our experiences and conceptions of God.  I sometimes think of God as a parental figure as well, like I said earlier, I have a hard time limiting God to certain parameters specifically.  

As for a neurochemical reaction, yes you are correct, that is part of the God experience, how else can we experience God but through our mind and heart our mortal body?  Its not limited to that, but that is how we experience God.  I think God can be experienced when eating cookies, sure why not.  I personally don't have that experience, but I'm not limiting God in working with someone that way.  

Try this book on for size if you're interested in a good read.  Its a friendly book for believers and it talks about how people experience God and the science of the brain.  

https://www.amazon.com/How-Changes-Your-Brain-Neuroscientist/dp/0345503422/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1510186214&sr=8-2&keywords=god+and+the+brain

 

[clarkgoble]

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I would say similar enough to say that the earlier practice was source material for the modern practice.

That just pushes the question down one level. How similar is necessary for that?

I should note that for a skeptic I think there's quite reasonable explanations for how such matters could reach Joseph Smith. Most of those ancient texts were rediscovered in the renaissance and had a huge influence on renaissance traditions - particularly with Giodano Bruno. Bruno was one of the main influences on speculative freemasony. Especially in the 18th century freemasonry was expanded by putting in more of these ancient traditions including especially the broad category of theurgical platonism including especially its forms in Kabbalism. However the classic platonists of antiquity were being published in English and French translations. We know Joseph was exposed not just to freemasonry but to its more expansive and speculative forms such as the Scottish Rite. (Main masonry has three degrees - Scottish Rite expands this to 32 or 33 degrees with a lot more symbolism coming partially out of these traditions along with legends of the templars and so forth) We also know that the Enochian traditions were being rediscovered in the 18th century. Exactly how much, if at all, this could have influenced Joseph is debatable but its a plausible influence.

So even if one is Mormon-skeptic, it seems the idea of the endowment as influenced indirectly by these ancient texts is fairly easy to do. Again if one sees the key elements of the endowment what Mormons from Brigham Young up to recent Ensigns have stated (passing by angels, having signs, token, key words / names and a symbolic priestly & kingly ordinantion/enrobing) then it's fairly easy to show how such things were in the 18th century before Joseph.

Now I think such things are true of course. To me it's divine providence that such things were rediscovered from the renaissance through early modernism. To me it's no difference than the divine providence necessary to allow Protestantism to flourish which I also see as a necessary condition for the restoration. It's just that since these renaissance esoteric traditions are less "normatively acceptable" than Protestantism people get more upset at them.

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Much of what I've read looks to me like coincidentally similar material, loose parallels that can be explained in the same way that you can say that the people in Egypt and the Mayan's both built pyramids because the dimensions of a pyramid shaped structure just happens to be the best way to build a structure with primitive technology, not because they were sharing technology or even aware of each other.  I can't remember the name for this phenomenon, but there is a scientific term separate cultures developing similar traditions and technology while completely separated from each other.  

I'd disagree but primarily because it's not hard to find the genealogy of such things going back to the original texts. Plus I think the similarities have so many points of contact that it's not similar to pyramid like structure which have obvious environmental and structural reasons incentivizing similar structures. (There's only so many ways to build large structures with primitive technology) I don't want to deny structural issues for religious reasons. So dying & resurrection motives are common throughout the world due to first seasons with plants regrowing but also an obvious fear of death and hope for eternal youth. There are other such things likely due to common environmental or psychological structures. However in these cases I think the parallels go well, well beyond such matters and are actually fairly detailed. Plus, as I said, it doesn't take much reading of renaissance figures or early modern figures to realize they were amazingly fascinate with the ancient world and saw such things as "more true." i.e. the idea of apostasy in a loose sense was fairly ubiquitous. So particularly the hermetic tradition was seen as most ancient and the root of Christianity and Judaism. Usually pushed back to Moses or Abraham or their contemporaries. This was false, btw, it was a tradition in late antiquity arising out of neoplatonism and Egyptian mystery religions in Rome. However even when the late nature of hermeticism was proved, people persisted in their beliefs about how ancient it was. Much of that was an important aspect of the masonic tradition.

Further to my eyes some of the parallels are just ridiculously similar. I mean a mirrored room for marriages off the Holy of Holies where the marriage for eternity was part of becoming a God teaching the people married were gods? That seems hard to attribute to chance.

Edited November 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I guess I don't think its a rejection, just a picking of the elements that I like cafeteria style, which is what all Mormons and Christians and religionists throughout history have done.  We create our religions based on our experiences and conceptions of God.  I sometimes think of God as a parental figure as well, like I said earlier, I have a hard time limiting God to certain parameters specifically.  

As for a neurochemical reaction, yes you are correct, that is part of the God experience, how else can we experience God but through our mind and heart our mortal body?  Its not limited to that, but that is how we experience God.  I think God can be experienced when eating cookies, sure why not.  I personally don't have that experience, but I'm not limiting God in working with someone that way.  

Try this book on for size if you're interested in a good read.  Its a friendly book for believers and it talks about how people experience God and the science of the brain.  

https://www.amazon.com/How-Changes-Your-Brain-Neuroscientist/dp/0345503422/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1510186214&sr=8-2&keywords=god+and+the+brain

You are right that we all are cafeteria Mormons to some degree or another. My point however, is that out all of the things offered to you in the Mormon cafeteria, and out of all the selections that make Mormonism unique, you have only selected items which overlap with just about every religion in the world (not just Christian).  In other words, there is nothing uniquely Mormon about your beliefs.  And yes, by selecting some things and leaving other things behind in the cafeteria, you have essentially rejected those other free offerings.  You have rejected fundamental claims of Mormonism which make Mormonism...Mormonism.  If you were to explain your beliefs to someone that God is not a person but an experience, and that "people are not prophets"; that prophets are a "poc hoc construction to legitimize institutional authority"; that there was no restoration of ancient truths through revelation;  no angelic visitations to bestow priesthood keys; that ordinances are not necessary, that priesthood is not necessary, that sin, salvation are metaphors; that the atonement is not necessary...    would that person be able to identify you as a Mormon?  If you were an investigator, would you even be able to pass the baptismal interview?  I don't think you would.   I am not saying all this to try and push you out or influence you to leave the church.  If you want to self-identify as a Mormon because of your roots, that is fine with me.   But the reason I am going about this is because theologically you more closely resemble something else.  And that is why I am curious about you.  If I was you, I would probably feel too uncomfortable going to church and listening to orthodox teachings that I don't identify with and find to be false claims and lies to "legitimize institutional authority".  That would be a dreadful experience for me.  I would want to be among and identify with people whose beliefs and practices more resemble my own. 

Thanks for the book referral, looks like something I would be interested in. 

 

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That just pushes the question down one level. How similar is necessary for that?

I should note that for a skeptic I think there's quite reasonable explanations for how such matters could reach Joseph Smith. Most of those ancient texts were rediscovered in the renaissance and had a huge influence on renaissance traditions - particularly with Giodano Bruno. Bruno was one of the main influences on speculative freemasony. Especially in the 18th century freemasonry was expanded by putting in more of these ancient traditions including especially the broad category of theurgical platonism including especially its forms in Kabbalism. However the classic platonists of antiquity were being published in English and French translations. We know Joseph was exposed not just to freemasonry but to its more expansive and speculative forms such as the Scottish Rite. (Main masonry has three degrees - Scottish Rite expands this to 32 or 33 degrees with a lot more symbolism coming partially out of these traditions along with legends of the templars and so forth) We also know that the Enochian traditions were being rediscovered in the 18th century. Exactly how much, if at all, this could have influenced Joseph is debatable but its a plausible influence.

So even if one is Mormon-skeptic, it seems the idea of the endowment as influenced indirectly by these ancient texts is fairly easy to do. Again if one sees the key elements of the endowment what Mormons from Brigham Young up to recent Ensigns have stated (passing by angels, having signs, token, key words / names and a symbolic priestly & kingly ordinantion/enrobing) then it's fairly easy to show how such things were in the 18th century before Joseph.

Now I think such things are true of course. To me it's divine providence that such things were rediscovered from the renaissance through early modernism. To me it's no difference than the divine providence necessary to allow Protestantism to flourish which I also see as a necessary condition for the restoration. It's just that since these renaissance esoteric traditions are less "normatively acceptable" than Protestantism people get more upset at them.

I completely respect this, and thanks for pointing it out.  To believe in divine providence using natural means to communicate important truths is something I can completely support intellectually and religiously.  

30 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd disagree but primarily because it's not hard to find the genealogy of such things going back to the original texts. Plus I think the similarities have so many points of contact that it's not similar to pyramid like structure which have obvious environmental and structural reasons incentivizing similar structures. (There's only so many ways to build large structures with primitive technology) I don't want to deny structural issues for religious reasons. So dying & resurrection motives are common throughout the world due to first seasons with plants regrowing but also an obvious fear of death and hope for eternal youth. There are other such things likely due to common environmental or psychological structures. However in these cases I think the parallels go well, well beyond such matters and are actually fairly detailed. Plus, as I said, it doesn't take much reading of renaissance figures or early modern figures to realize they were amazingly fascinate with the ancient world and saw such things as "more true." i.e. the idea of apostasy in a loose sense was fairly ubiquitous. So particularly the hermetic tradition was seen as most ancient and the root of Christianity and Judaism. Usually pushed back to Moses or Abraham or their contemporaries. This was false, btw, it was a tradition in late antiquity arising out of neoplatonism and Egyptian mystery religions in Rome. However even when the late nature of hermeticism was proved, people persisted in their beliefs about how ancient it was. Much of that was an important aspect of the masonic tradition.

Further to my eyes some of the parallels are just ridiculously similar. I mean a mirrored room for marriages off the Holy of Holies where the marriage for eternity was part of becoming a God teaching the people married were gods? That seems hard to attribute to chance.

Clark,

You are so smart and so well read and have been researching this stuff for so much longer than I have.  I really respect your opinions, but I don't always understand the arguments you're making and the potential motivations behind them.  The traditional orthodox narrative is that Joseph was restoring these ancient traditions through supernatural clairvoyance type revelation, not naturalistic means.  Also, there is a privilege given to the rituals and the theology, not only that they have some ancient antecedent, but that there is something very specific and unique to Mormonism that God communicated to inspired men anciently, subsequently was lost, and that Joseph has now received again from God and this gets implemented in modern Mormonism with great specificity.  These new rituals are unique to Mormonism and are part of the proof that Mormonism is the only denomination guided directly by God, therefore making all other groups and their rituals or traditions that might be similar in many ways, these efforts are not authorized by God, and the Mormon ones are.  

The simple way the church teaches this narrative is completely different than how you're explaining things.  So when I critique the simple narrative, why do you disagree?  The simple narrative isn't accurate in any sense.  I guess I just don't understand what you're trying to do, are you trying to teach me something (I have a lot I still need to learn, so this is probably a good thing for me.)  Or are you trying to defend the honor of the church in an apologetic kind of way.  Or something else entirely?

 

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You are right that we all are cafeteria Mormons to some degree or another. My point however, is that out all of the things offered to you in the Mormon cafeteria, and out of all the selections that make Mormonism unique, you have only selected items which overlap with just about every religion in the world (not just Christian).  In other words, there is nothing uniquely Mormon about your beliefs.  And yes, by selecting some things and leaving other things behind in the cafeteria, you have essentially rejected those other free offerings.  You have rejected fundamental claims of Mormonism which make Mormonism...Mormonism.  If you were to explain your beliefs to someone that God is not a person but an experience, and that "people are not prophets"; that prophets are a "poc hoc construction to legitimize institutional authority"; that there was no restoration of ancient truths through revelation;  no angelic visitations to bestow priesthood keys; that ordinances are not necessary, that priesthood is not necessary, that sin, salvation are metaphors; that the atonement is not necessary...    would that person be able to identify you as a Mormon?  If you were an investigator, would you even be able to pass the baptismal interview?  I don't think you would.   I am not saying all this to try and push you out or influence you to leave the church.  If you want to self-identify as a Mormon because of your roots, that is fine with me.   But the reason I am going about this is because theologically you more closely resemble something else.  And that is why I am curious about you.  If I was you, I would probably feel too uncomfortable going to church and listening to orthodox teachings that I don't identify with and find to be false claims and lies to "legitimize institutional authority".  That would be a dreadful experience for me.  I would want to be among and identify with people whose beliefs and practices more resemble my own. 

Thanks for the book referral, looks like something I would be interested in. 

 

It's not easy being on the fringes of a community especially one that I used to feel so much in common with.  Going to church isn't always easy either, so I don't always go.  I haven't felt like I fit into other religions that I've attended either, but there are elements of others that I admire.   I don't fit into the exmo crowd very well, I'm just not that guy who wants to dwell in negativity and identify myself as someone against something.   I'm not a all interested in starting my own religion so I'm not sure there is any place for me to go.  Mormonism created the product that produced people like me.  I find comfort in communities online and sometimes in person of fellow unorthodox that don't fit the mold any more.  I like what Lindsay Hansen Park is doing with Sunstone and the theme the last couple years has been there is more than one way to Mormon.  I agree with that, but those of us Mormoning in different ways are often looked at as the black sheep and we don't always fit in. 

I'm really quite orthoprax still, I don't even drink caffeinated drinks and I'm a big BYU fan.  I'm very unorthodox, but I'm not an evangelist, so I usually just participate in small ways sharing what I think could benefit the group without trying to ruffle too many feathers.  I look like, dress like, talk like, and act like a Mormon, so I consider myself Mormon.  I love Mormons, even though the mystique of Mormonism is gone and I don't believe in a supernatural God anymore.  I still pray sometimes, and I seek spirituality through mindfulness.  Personally I feel like I'm growing and learning more now that I did in my orthodox Mormon days. 

Edited November 9, 2017 by hope_for_things

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You are so smart and so well read and have been researching this stuff for so much longer than I have.  I really respect your opinions, but I don't always understand the arguments you're making and the potential motivations behind them.

Well I'm not smart on all this. There's lots far smarter and far better read than I. I just know a bit in passing and primarily just because I've been in lots of discussions like this one over the years. I ask questions and challenge, much like you have been, and pick stuff up along the way.

To your second point I'll admit it's a bit frustrating for me. Originally I tried to write to what I took to be the typical reader. That meant adding in lots of asides, references, and explanations. However people who were familiar with such things then became rather frustrated with me. I'm not sure a good way to balance everything. I've been trying to late to just give a brief overview and a few good starting resources for people curious. But I'd be the first to admit it can be a bit frustrating. The alternative are overly long posts people sometimes find insultingly pedantic and patronizing. (Which is never my intent) So my apologies if I don't get the balance quite right. Feel free to ask more pointed questions about particulars and I'll try and answer as best I can.

Scholem and Yates are the classic authors on a lot of this so I usually bring them up. Much like for a focus on meaning rather than origins I'll point to Mircea Eliade's work on ritual especially ANE rites loosely similar to the endowment. All of them are fairly dated so one has to be cautious. But in terms of an introduction to the topics I don't think there are better alternatives despite a lot of much better recent scholarship.

Really all I'm arguing for is that one shouldn't reflexively buy into the view some "new order Mormons" do of simply dismissing the temple as warmed over masonry. I think there's a lot in the rites. However as that pre-modern world becomes more and more alien to us culturally I think we miss more and more. Further with rapidly changing social norms, I think many elements that would have been meaningful and ubiquitous in the ancient world have become alienating and off putting to us today. Some of those can be eliminated (such as covenant curses which really were extremely common even if typically symbolic). Other parts are more difficult to remove without significantly changing the meanings of the rites.

Something I wish the Church would do in their temple prep class is explain the ancient context more so it's not quite as big of a shock to people. While many find it oddly familiar, I fear more and more have experiences like you mentioned you may have had. (Reading between the lines a little on my part, but hopefully not inappropriately so) Whenever I can I always tell people to read some of the main popular works of Eliade. I really think it makes their first experience with the endowment dramatically better.