Neutral Scholarship Re: Joseph Smith - Is it Even Possible?

[Navidad]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I really pray that someday you will see our doctrine as I do- and that this impression results from a harsh fundamentalist interpretation of I don't know what.

We preach hope for those who are progressing- and that includes all of us.  I do not believe for one moment, at least from what I know of you and your character, that any of this view you describe above is even remotely "true".  You might actually be a serial murderer though, so who knows

But seriously I do not believe for one minute that what you state above is remotely even close to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.   You are a sincere seeker of God as far as I can tell, and sincere seekers doing their best will qualify for the highest of kingdoms.  That is what I know, not "believe"

I find that you think that we teach that you "will never experience eternity with God"  .

We simply do not believe that.

Yes there may be some here who spout that extreme fundamentalist view just as there are Christians who actually believe that if one was born in China in 1000 BC you will burn in hell forever because you never accepted Jesus.

If that is the way it is- count me out.  I would rather be a Buddhist.  The spirit inside me simply rejects those kinds of views as unqualified..... excrement, preached by harsh people with a harsh sense of values and raised by harsh parents, who see our Father as a parent as harsh as their parents were to Him.

That is not the God that speaks to me- that is not the healer Jesus Christ who came to us so that we could be free of those kind of hateful views.

Please take our view for what it is- that we all can progress forever if we want to do so.   It is the most generous view of God that I think is possible.  It is virtual universalism not only preaching "salvation" and the promise of getting our own cloud so we can strum a harp forever- but that slimy little slugs as we are today can some day grow up to be AS God IS after a few eternities of working on our righteousness.

I cannot imagine a greater blessing!!

Our beliefs now are shadows of a reality we cannot fathom for we see through a distorted mirror.  Why a mirror? because what we actually see is ourselves in a distorted understanding- not as God sees us, but as we see ourselves though a glass darkly

I hope someday I will qualify to have a discussion with you on the other side so I can say "I told you so" in a context where you will see that I have been right all along. 

I wish you could see it as I do, that's all I have to say.   Something is blocking you, and I don't think that block comes from God.  I feel I have to say give up the resentment and accept the image of freedom from guilt that Christ truly provides for those who love him.

His gospel is simple and loving if we simply take upon ourselves his yoke, which is light . Do not be "heavy laden" by these things any more.

Matt 11:

 

I must own having a fundamentalist heritage - not one that was particularly harsh, but fundamentalist to the right of evangelical, at least until I landed in an evangelical college. I am not a serial murderer but I own being a cereal breakfast eater. I'd like to think I am a sincere seeker of God and of Truth (capital T - those rare tidbits of universal Truth). You are right, there are fundamentalists in virtually every religious group. I acknowledge that I also struggle at 71 years of age with the whole harsh Father concept. It does seem to me that the LDS Father is especially harsh; as is the Fundamentalist non-LDS Heavenly Father.  Several weeks ago I attended an outdoor funeral for a wonderful lady in our ward who passed away. The main speaker (not a member of the local hierarchy) looked at her four 30 to 40 year old sons, some of whom have apparently strayed at times from the church and said to them, as best as I can recall it, "Boys, I want you to know how pleased Heavenly Father is that each of you have come back to the church, so that when you have your heavenly family reunion none of you will be responsible for the empty chair at the table!" Wow, that was heavy. I am fairly close to one of the boys and went up afterwards and gave him a hug. I think he needed it! Almost at the same time my wife and I, on the way home asked each other if we noticed that comment and the boys' almost physical reaction to it. There was a certain kind of meanness (I thought- I could just be ignorant) in that statement. A kind of guilt trip thing. My dad was really good at that!

Our beliefs are certainly shadows of a reality we cannot fathom for we see through a distorted mirror. I couldn't agree more with you - of course I have been polluted by having lived in California three different times in my life!  Ha! The reality of your statement intrigues me as quite literally Biblical and as antithetical to the absolute certainty many of your LDS colleagues on this forum have, about almost everything. I think that kind of certainty is as you said "a mean distortion perhaps delivered to you by the Father of lies instead of our Father in heaven." I don't think I would go that far, but it sure seems to me as antithetical to faith. I am not sure how absolute certainty and faith can comfortably coexist. I would be happy to have that conversation with you on the other side where I can say to you, "Hey, Mark it isn't quite so dark anymore. I understand so much better now! We were both right all along!" Of course that must sound like blasphemy to some of your colleagues on this forum. I appreciate your asking me to experience freedom from guilt. I need that. I would only add that I think when God made the earth, from pre-existing material of course -- He had seven bags of guilt. He used three on the Mennonites, three on the Mormons, and one on everyone else! The LDS folks, especially the ladies really seem to struggle with guilt. Just an observation, not a criticism. In many ways it reminds me of my home church. I am still heavy laden. I have to leave this forum every six months or so to heal. There is a psychological and spiritual oppression here that I just haven't quite figured out.  Thanks for the wonderful post.
 

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

Is there a list somewhere? Let's see, I said Billy Graham - that ought to have done it! Ha!

Not that I know of. When it happens to me I am usually able to hit the back button and get back.

I know some discussions of p orn and g ambling have triggered it for me. Usually if you scan you can find a word of phrase you suspect might be on the list and I just change it or put a space in the word.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I must own having a fundamentalist heritage - not one that was particularly harsh, but fundamentalist to the right of evangelical, at least until I landed in an evangelical college. I am not a serial murderer but I own being a cereal breakfast eater. I'd like to think I am a sincere seeker of God and of Truth (capital T - those rare tidbits of universal Truth). You are right, there are fundamentalists in virtually every religious group. I acknowledge that I also struggle at 71 years of age with the whole harsh Father concept. It does seem to me that the LDS Father is especially harsh; as is the Fundamentalist non-LDS Heavenly Father.  Several weeks ago I attended an outdoor funeral for a wonderful lady in our ward who passed away. The main speaker (not a member of the local hierarchy) looked at her four 30 to 40 year old sons, some of whom have apparently strayed at times from the church and said to them, as best as I can recall it, "Boys, I want you to know how pleased Heavenly Father is that each of you have come back to the church, so that when you have your heavenly family reunion none of you will be responsible for the empty chair at the table!" Wow, that was heavy. I am fairly close to one of the boys and went up afterwards and gave him a hug. I think he needed it! Almost at the same time my wife and I, on the way home asked each other if we noticed that comment and the boys' almost physical reaction to it. There was a certain kind of meanness (I thought- I could just be ignorant) in that statement. A kind of guilt trip thing. My dad was really good at that!

Our beliefs are certainly shadows of a reality we cannot fathom for we see through a distorted mirror. I couldn't agree more with you - of course I have been polluted by having lived in California three different times in my life!  Ha! The reality of your statement intrigues me as quite literally Biblical and as antithetical to the absolute certainty many of your LDS colleagues on this forum have, about almost everything. I think that kind of certainty is as you said "a mean distortion perhaps delivered to you by the Father of lies instead of our Father in heaven." I don't think I would go that far, but it sure seems to me as antithetical to faith. I am not sure how absolute certainty and faith can comfortably coexist. I would be happy to have that conversation with you on the other side where I can say to you, "Hey, Mark it isn't quite so dark anymore. I understand so much better now! We were both right all along!" Of course that must sound like blasphemy to some of your colleagues on this forum. I appreciate your asking me to experience freedom from guilt. I need that. I would only add that I think when God made the earth, from pre-existing material of course -- He had seven bags of guilt. He used three on the Mennonites, three on the Mormons, and one on everyone else! The LDS folks, especially the ladies really seem to struggle with guilt. Just an observation, not a criticism. In many ways it reminds me of my home church. I am still heavy laden. I have to leave this forum every six months or so to heal. There is a psychological and spiritual oppression here that I just haven't quite figured out.  Thanks for the wonderful post.
 

I have said this before but I believe it is probably worth saying again, a little differently

I think the Lord leads us individually to the best path that our silly little human brains can fathom which will bring us back to Him.   This notion of course is as I see it , completely compatible with my instrumentalist views (I am switching from "pragmatic" views to "instrumentalist" views because I think the very word "pragmatism" leads novices in these areas to think that what I am advocating is "whatever works for you, dude, I mean there ain't no real truth out there anyhow"

That is the farthest thing from what I really mean.

For me all language gives us is a "tool" and even a school of tools to accomplish jobs.   Scientific language is a tool to express scientifically observable data, but not so good a tool for religious understanding.   It's like using a sledge hammer to tune a piano instead of a fine little wrench which fits the pegs to be tuned.

Theoretically a sledge hammer will move those pegs all right- but their use would complete tear apart the entire reason for a piano- to produce subtle variations of tone, which give rise to delicate emotions as we listen to say, classical music.

On the other hand if you want to tear out a section of concrete in a sidewalk, one would find useless the tiny little specialized wrench used for piano tuning.

Different tools for different jobs!

The models we create for understanding God I think are somewhat like that- some of us may actually need a spiritual "sledge hammer" to get them closer to God and others just need a little tweak with a special wrench.

So perhaps one person may need something considered "harsh" by another to reach their understanding, while others sensibilities may be offended by the same tool which reaches into the hearts of others.   Some may need to have the bejeebies  scared out of them, and others just need a nudge.  (Those are arcane theological ideas used only by professional theologians incidentally) 

So I do not mean to "put down" fundamentalism because some need that.   And I would not put down universalism, because some may need that instead.  Or maybe we need both at different times in our lives- only God Himself knows what we need and when we need it, and I think he puts us where we need to be to find what we need.   I am not saying he gives us all the answers necessarily but I am firmly convinced he can steer us toward the right tool box, but we have to open it and find the tool for ourselves, and go to work with the best tool we can find.

I know of parents in our church who beat their kids with boards and others who never laid a hand upon them, and used persuasion, and in each case the children either stayed faithful or went the other way, with no apparent correlation to how they were raised.

But God, I think is the perfect parent who knows perfectly what we need.  I am positive that were I raised LDS, I never would have had the philosophy background I needed to see God rationally and logically and therefore become again a "believer"

Every paradigm is a tool- an instrument which if used by the right hands- can move mountains

But I also believe that there are paradigms which fit for more people than others and present us with truths not contained in others.   And that is why I am LDS and not something else.   It is the key which fits my lock perfectly, to open my conception of what is needed to open the doors of heaven.

But I am a difficult case because I created LDS beliefs in my mind before I found the church.  I have never had to "convert", I just had to sign up for what I already believed.

But I admit my version is a little different than Sunday School.    Just close enough to get and keep a temple recommend while remaining perfectly frank, or perhaps more accurately, perfectly Mark. 

So it's been pretty easy for me!!

 

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Not that I know of. When it happens to me I am usually able to hit the back button and get back.

I know some discussions of p orn and g ambling have triggered it for me. Usually if you scan you can find a word of phrase you suspect might be on the list and I just change it or put a space in the word.

Also drug names...basically think of stuff that often is seen on spam adverts for online pharmacies, gam bling, and p orn.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Ahab said:

We all have God-given rights, which we refer to as inalienable rights, but God-given rights are not universally accepted by all of mankind and some of the rights that are upheld by some of mankind are not what God wants us to choose to do.

We all have agency/the power to choose to murder someone, for example, or to commit some other type of sin,but the fact that we have the power to choose to do that doesn't mean that is something God wants us to do.

And everything is always up for debate, with people on both sides either approving or opposing any or all of the many things that we have the power to choose to do.

Which has nothing to do with voting on rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.  I don't have the slightest idea why you responded to my post with this.

[Tacenda]

Not sure if this fits, unable to post topics. But wanted to bring it up because I feel a bit vindicated. In the past we've discussed who exactly the Holy Ghost is and if it's another personage. I've always thought it was the Saviour's spirit to be with us. Well, I was half right according to Denver Snuffer. I listened to a podcast called, "Gospel Tangents". https://gospeltangents.com/ Is Trinity in Lectures on Faith/Book of Mormon? (Part 2 of 7) Denver has produced a volume of scripture, and restored the Lectures On Faith in them. 

Denver:  Well, let me see if I can find the language. The Lecture that talks about who God is. See, one of my problems is that I just got this on the 25^th, and this is the 28^th. I haven’t gotten to Lectures on Faith to look at it just yet. There’s a definition given of who God is, in Lectures on Faith, and it says that there is God the Father who is a personage of spirit, power, glory, and then there’s God the Son. And he’s a personage, and then there’s the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is the mind of the Father and the Son. That is very Nauvoo-era doctrinally correct.

Any answers to this would be great. Hope this doesn't veer off the topic. Was thinking it fits in with the subject, hopefully.

Edited September 7, 2020 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Denver Snuffer has pretty much reinterpreted the Gospel and created his own Church and set of scriptures.  He declared the Church apostate not after Joseph, not after anything he calls false doctrine, but only on the day of his own excommunication were they finally in apostasy and no longer God's Church.  I don't see that claim as inspired by anything but pride.  Excommunicating him! was the ultimate rejection of God!

 And yet he claims he is not trying to be a prophet, create a church or many other things...but he does get ticked off when women expect him to listen to them according to the rules he set up himself ( a women's council judges whether it is appropriate for a man to exercise his Priesthood outside his home).

I have not been impressed by anything I have read by him.  

Another way of interpreting it:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_What_does_Lecture_5_of_the_Lectures_on_Faith_say_about_the_nature_of_God%3F

The Lectures were not revelations from God even if originally included in the D&C.  I look on them as more like lesson manuals that are written with the understanding of the time, using some revelation, some reasoning, and some speculation.

Quote

The Lectures on Faith are seven lessons on theology delivered by the presiding officers of the Church to the School of the Elders at Kirtland, Ohio, in late 1834. The lectures are organized in the form of a catechism, with each lecture starting with instructions on doctrine, and the first five lectures concluding with a question-and-answer section to check class participants for understanding. Scholarship seems to indicate that the lectures were mostly written by Sidney Rigdon with some oversight of Joseph Smith. [1]

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/God_is_a_Spirit/Lecture_of_Faith_5_teaches_the_Father_is_"a_personage_of_spirit"#Question:_What_are_the_Lectures_on_Faith.3F

Edited September 7, 2020 by Calm

[InCognitus]

Re:  Lectures on Faith

I enjoyed the LDS Perspectives podcast on this topic when it came out in 2017:  Mystery Solved: Who Wrote the Lectures on Faith? - Noel Reynolds

In that podcast, Noel Reynolds lays out very clear evidence that Sydney Rigdon is the author of the Lectures on Faith, and at the time of that podcast he hadn't found any evidence that Joseph Smith ever quoted them or referred to them.

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Re:  Lectures on Faith

I enjoyed the LDS Perspectives podcast on this topic when it came out in 2017:  Mystery Solved: Who Wrote the Lectures on Faith? - Noel Reynolds

In that podcast, Noel Reynolds lays out very clear evidence that Sydney Rigdon is the author of the Lectures on Faith, and at the time of that podcast he hadn't found any evidence that Joseph Smith ever quoted them or referred to them.

 

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Denver Snuffer has pretty much reinterpreted the Gospel and created his own Church and set of scriptures.  He declared the Church apostate not after Joseph, not after anything he calls false doctrine, but only on the day of his own excommunication were they finally in apostasy and no longer God's Church.  I don't see that claim as inspired by anything but pride.  Excommunicating him! was the ultimate rejection of God!

 And yet he claims he is not trying to be a prophet, create a church or many other things...but he does get ticked off when women expect him to listen to them according to the rules he set up himself ( a women's council judges whether it is appropriate for a man to exercise his Priesthood outside his home).

I have not been impressed by anything I have read by him.  

Another way of interpreting it:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_What_does_Lecture_5_of_the_Lectures_on_Faith_say_about_the_nature_of_God%3F

The Lectures were not revelations from God even if originally included in the D&C.  I look on them as more like lesson manuals that are written with the understanding of the time, using some revelation, some reasoning, and some speculation.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/God_is_a_Spirit/Lecture_of_Faith_5_teaches_the_Father_is_"a_personage_of_spirit"#Question:_What_are_the_Lectures_on_Faith.3F

Thanks you two!