All Comments (258)

Hiya DP ~

I actually have had many positive experiences at church. I am a people lover, and people are who made my church experience one that was valuable to my growth into who I am today. I still have issue with the other aspects of the church that I feel are wrong, which I've explained already.

Thanks for calling my family blessed to have me. That makes me smile.

SML:
I don't know if you'll wander back to this site, but if you do, I've thought about your comments more and want you to know I have more respect for women's thoughts and opinions expressed, for example, in gospel doctrine classes or sacrament meetings and testimonies than I do men's, precisely because of the compassion and Christ-like-ness of their comments. I wish you could experience a ward or branch like that, where the women are vocal and very articulate and well-respected in their views. I'm not suggesting you need to do that for some "reactivation" issue, but just to at least get one positive experience so the negative experience you seem to have had could be colored by a glimmer of a different feeling. Be that as it may, I've read your comments here and have appreciated them and learned from them. I'm sure your family is blessed (as mine is through my wife) by your nurture as well as by your keen intellect.

Observer wrote, "The church presents the Ideal."

Not my ideal, not by a long shot. Oh, but wait! I'm a woman, so what I think really doesn't matter anyway in that church.

Obviously the "ideal" church didn't practice Christ's method of forgiveness when it dealt with Toscano the way it did. I see no evidence to support that it did.

gotchya D.

This line may be more private than ya think, I think I offended everyone until they ran off. Oops.

Mayan:
I'm speaking on a "private" line here rather than what will soon be the more public line, where I observed your comment. Please, I know you firmly wish to be candid, but consider that those who may listen to your sincere comments on that public line may need more of a nudge (being human) than a cattle prod. Some of your comments on this thread lately have been the type I am speaking about. Just a thought.

Observer,

Go to hell. That was just dumb. Do you think the brother in law would have made the same decision if Toscano was still wearing garments? Gimme a break ya clown.

Many people know the consequences for doing the right is going to be tough or difficult. That knowledge, in advance, doesnt numb the pain. Nor does that knowledge always deter one from doing what is right.

It is not best that Toscano is gone. That is so untrue and you are crazy to suggest it. That there is not a place at the biggest table for someone like Toscano is a shame. It is sad.

The church did not prevent Toscano her from participating in her own sister's funeral, that was a personal choice the idiot brother In Law made. Why is it that people forget even if they're taught forgiveness or other principles, if individuals make the decision to do something else.... it's not the fault of the church. There is still FREE AGENCY. People can choose to do the right or the wrong thing, they have that power.
And asking an LDS church member on a public board to account for decisions made by leadership of the church is like asking a catholic to "go tell the pope to do this or that." It just doesn't happen and I think we're smart enough to realize this as a weak justification. The church presents the Ideal. The people are with flaws as any mortal is with flaws. Toscano was counciled that she should not spread her opinions as gospel doctrine. She KNEW the consequences. She chose to continue therefore she chose the consequences. It's best she be gone anyway if she doesn't believe in the same doctrines. I don't get why she was upset, it appeared to me she wasn't happy and wanted to be done anyway and was obliged.

ON the matter of forgiveness as humans we make mistakes. We repent and try not to make the same major mistakes. Although we should forgive 70x 7 or whatever at what point do YOU stop taking the person seriously? What point does God take us seriously? How much are personal efforts to overcome shortcomings if we know we have a thousand chances so to speak? Are you as serious about the second chance as you are about the last one? At SOME point there needs to be an element of getting serious and really wanting to overcome aspects. People find ways all the time to do and get what they REALLY want. Efforts of overcoming adversity should be met with the same desires.

Mayan ~

You are an amazing person. I admire you so damn much. Your sentiments here touched me deeply.

Mayan -

I must admit Toscano had an influence on me as well. Even if the Church believed she was teaching incorrectly or whatver, to try and prevent her from participating in the funeral process of her own sister - doesn't sound like the love that Jesus spoke about, for that matter even Joseph Smith. It seemed to be a very big contradiction.

I just finished watching the second episode.

Will y'all think I am a lesser elephant if I admit that I cried? It's fine if you think that. It is true. That was brutal to watch. Effing brutal.

I lost it.

Margaret Toscano did me in. I was just amused without seeing anything very interesting, until Toscano came along. Then, it all changed.

It is interesting that this thread began with a response about repentence, forgiveness and redemption. I dont know if there are others on this board that have sat on the jury side of a Mormon church court. I have. I was a High Priest in that church. I was in the seats they pictured in that video, the jury seats. Damnit. There is no redemption for that. None. Not ever. It is part of me now. I dont expect to ever be redeemed for having been a part of one of those courts. I can only hope to be whole, after having made that part of my life experience.

Hearing Toscano tore me to pieces.

The rest of the video was, well, you know, whatever. Who cares? The homosexuailty stuff was predictable. Boyd Packer was just what one would expect, a pig. Whatever. The filmaker was just bizarre. It was sad, but what is the point? Whitney was really dumb to put him on the spot - would you rather have your wife or your son? lame Helen, very lame.

If people cannot see the absolute trauma that is in those courts, and the heinousness of it all, the little goofy snippets of the choir or some businessman that serves cake in his own home with his suit and tie, are not relevent. Really.

This church judges its own. This church divides families on earth. They use courts to divide families. They use the temple to divide families. They use volunteerism to divide families. Oh, and they do all this, in the name of forever families.

On one hand, I saw Toscano, and I knew she would sit in that chair, and take the bullet for me, for my local leaders, for my mission companions, for my wife and kids, for all women, for Mormons. She could do it because she loved Mormons. Does anyone get that? She loves that community.

And then, Jensen speaks, Boyd Packer speaks, and I realize those men want me gone. They want me silenced. They want me to no longer be a part of the tribe or community that once included Toscano, and many other women like her that they are busy telling to shut up.

Toscano, being denied the chance to dress her sister, is unreal. You who read this and claim families are forever, remember that image, of a sister, divided from her family, her heritage and ritual.

Honestly, I want to see someone in the bloggernaccle scream in all caps with lots of smilies and bold font that what happened to Toscano was out of line. I want Otterson to finally join us, and admit that it was wrong, out of line, egregious, and the entire community is worse because of it. Until they do, I will continue to try and convince myself that it was not a tribe that I left, but a cult.

Tribes and families take care of their own. Cults threaten their own and brainwash them to think its a blessing.

This is not what my people gave their lives for, the current version is why people lose their lives, every day.

David in Oz and Mike Booth,
Thanks for your meaningful and true-to-the-core posts. Also, thanks JD1 for always being right on in explaining. I'm bidding adieu to this project (not with violins in the background), grateful to have encountered thoughtful dialogue and more grateful to know with more conviction than ever before that the gospel of Christ and the Book of Mormon contain the truths that can bring mankind out of the darkness of skepticism and intellectualism that is characteristic of our age. Thanks, all.

Mayan -

I was able to catch the second half of the documentary tonight. From my ousiders persepctive I must agree with you. It seems very little of Mormonism has remained the same.

I also see it in posts on here some of the references of the move to go more mainstream and focus on the Bible and Jesus much more than was done in the past.

It was quite illuminating. I can definately see how peole would be drawn to it. Its very comforting to think of being with your family and having that be the center of eternity. They also have many beliefs I whole heartedly agree with. One thought though - isn't eternity supposed to be more about the relationship with God then with your family? In the documentary none of the people made anything but fainte references to being with God in eternity they were much more focused on being with their families.

Anyway I found it quite interesting and have a deeper respect and skepticism of the Mormon faith.

JD1:

Regarding this friend of yours... the "man with a PHD in Anthropology at the University of Chicago". Has he published or written a book on his findings or dissertation? I would be very interested in reading this.

If not, I can ascertain from the caliber of your posts, you are more than qualified to do the same. Perhaps it would interest you to embark on such an assignment?

You are correct about this blog being very addictive. I frequently ponder on why I continue to return...

Great posts BTW!

The longer the blog goes on, the longer the blogs get, it seems.
Taking personal responsibility for actions that cause damage is a pre-requisite for change and fixing things up.
Corporate and government organisations (from countries down to SME's) can only take that course if enough of their leaders feel the need to do so.
Here in Australia we have a Prime Minister who doesn't want his government to apologise to the Aboriginal Nations for the henious misdeeds of previous governments because of the potential for legal redress. Yet the people of Australia almost overwhelmingly feel to express their sorrow for the misdeeds of former generations - to which the majority are not related by blood.
I see parallels to Mountain Meadows in that. The Church is not a person, it is a special-purpose organisation. It is folly to blame the Church for what some of its members did - no matter that antipathy to the Church featured large in the pre-history of the situation and its leaders appear implicated one way or another in what played out so badly.
One day we will know in detail what happened and if the Church actively played a part through its leaders or not.
Even then, can we blame the Church or should we look to the involved leaders as people for accountability?
The Church moved on over the bodies of its dead members, its dead leaders, and the Mountain Meadows massacre.
I am glad it has become vibrant and is filling its mission. It blesses my life.
Too many clouds hang over Mountain Meadows for us to see the past clearly. Only the present is clear to us, and the future to a point.
Let everyone everywhere accept the needs of the Mountain Meadows descendants for closure, and help them achieve it with dignity. And in our own proxy-remorse let us undertake to never participate in such violence as took place at Mountain Meadows, or My Lai, or Abu Graib, or Nanjing, or Tolpuddle, or Illinois and Missouri and New England, or Eureka, or Bosnia, or Cambodia or any other such saddened place.
And let us face manfully up to our own wrongdoings and try to fix them up and retrieve our happiness, and enocourage others to do likewise, and move on.

Wasn't the question ". . . what is the relationship of apology (repentance) to forgiveness?"

This how I see it from downunder . .

For us:

Inseperable, if we place conditions on our forgiveness.

or,

Irrelevant, if we forgive all people as Christ commanded.

However, even in forgiving unconditionally, we still exercise the caution that is earned by hard experience. For example, we'd never again allow a child molestor who has 'offended our little ones' near our kids unsupervised, if at all.

For God:

Essential, because he has promised to forgive us all, conditionally. We are required to accept Christ as our Saviour.

With all that though, a precursor to sincere apology (repentance) and then forgiveness, is a clear understanding that something wrong has been done. I suspect that's one of the reasons it is always best for us to forgive all unconditionally - we simply do not know what's going on in someone else's mind. Maybe it's not wrong for them.

I think this is the reason that harbouring grudges and nurturing revenge is a cancer of the soul. Forgiveness is at first a personal release from a self-induced prison of misery.

But it's really a mirror of what's best in all of us, which is the Divine.

So for me, apology helps, but forgiving is the key. It's just so hard some times!

Yes, there are accounts that Brigham Young appeared to be Joseph Smith. There are also accounts that Brigham Young had Samuel Smith poisoned to get him out of the way.

You cannot cover every aspect of Mormon history in two hours. There is too much.

Yeah, Thankful, I agree that the dancing thing was outlandish and goofy and unecessary. Also, It's a shame to have not mentioned Pratt. He was an icon in the Church.

Like you, I liked the first hour. I had a similar reaction to the first hour. During that hour I just wanted to scream out at the screen - "Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamnit. Can't anyone see what is so inspiring about this?"

I wouldnt say it is the trademarked spirit that was getting to me. It's more like the draw it would be to have been on the Mayflower, or to have travelled with Lewis and Clark.

Joseph Smith, with all his flaws, was a leader. His followers were a strong community. The comparison of Smith to Henry Ford was very moving and profound. He wanted every person to have miracles and revelation. When Brigham Young said he wanted to be a prophet, Smith embraced it. Smith overpromised and overextended himself to the point of extreme consequence. That too was part of his charm. In all that, he was on a roll and his people were inspired enough by him to create a massive movement and identity.

Look at Smith. Look how fast he was moving. Can you see him stacking his Fortune 100 insitution with old dudes that worry about earings, pickles, masturbation or poker and then just sitting back and waiting to see who lives the longest? Hell no. He may have 476 wives if he lived as long as Hinckley, but I gaurandamntee ya he would not have yanked their money, priestess authority or curiculum away from them. Sure, inside, the guy was a devil of sorts. But, still, even devils can be fun.

That is what I mourn.

The Hinckley church is the exact opposite of Smith's. Smith wouldn't recognize this instition. Smith's strangeness has been replaced with a strange reverence, aptly captured by the description of him as the 'Mormon Alpha and Omega.'

No longer is this an institution of adventurists and a community that takes in the bold, those willing to fight for their own benefit as well as future generations. Now, it is a snitch state on a treadmill with a Mope that is trying to mainstream the joint while maintaining his antique social views.

Nothing, Nothing, Nothing could have better contrasted the first hour, and its incredible metaphors and events, with the current church, than Oaks' smirked remark. Oaks should be forced to eat nothing but cucumbers and drink only pickle juice until the morning of the 7th resurrection for that crap.

Perhaps Gibbon's, however beautifully poetic, long commentary on dancing as a metaphor for LDS theology on the body that was given so much time could have been cut down a bit to include the reports of the early saints who testify to actually getting "the Model T Fords" of revelation Smith had promised which is what they say compelled them to do all those whacky crazy things.

Put the whacky into the contextual reasons in which they saw themselves motivated by -- go ahead and refute thier testimonies, say it's implausable, unbelievable, unsubstantiated, a hoax whatever and give a balanced view while your at it, just don't ignore that the ferver of Mormonism included whole hearted accounts from the people that they say that they got that Model T.

Yeah, a TON is left out but the narratives of the Mormon people is what concerned me the most. I don't think people will truly understand why Mormons endured what they did without at least attempting to look at what they felt had been written on thier hearts in various ways by the divine.

Nope, I didn't hear Parly mentioned by name either and no Relief Society too -- now you know they got it wrong :) but now that I've vented a bit, I have to say I mostly enjoyed the first hour or so of it and am looking forward to tonight once agian.

Mayan,

I guess you can't please everybody with such short time and resources.

When learning about a religion I am most interested in contributors to self conception. In that case, we may have dealt more with spiritual experiences of members, converts and Leaders and less with cold historical details, and controversies. As interesting as controversies are, they do not define a movement. They do help define the relationship of a group to outsiders, which is probably why they focused on them.

This documentary didn't so much focus on what was important to Mormon identity, but what was significant about Mormon history to modern concerns. That's why I think in wake of 9/11, so much time was spent on the MMM.

This is a valid way to tell a story, but I don't think it is the best way to communicate why people in Mormon history found the faith meaningful and compelling. I think it waned in communicating that to its audience.

But it appears understanding the depth of Mormon self understanding wasn't really the purpose of the film. If it were to be dealt with appropriately, your right that it might not leave room for anything else.

Just to clarify, I think this film was great for the Mormon membership. This is stuff they need to know about. Just not an adequate Mormonism 101 for the uninformed who want to understand Mormons as real, sincere, rational people in history.

Now get back to work Mayan and I'll do the same. What is it about this forum that is so addicting?

Jim A and JD1,

How do you think it would have been recieved, or presented, if the transfiguration had been given time in this documentary?

Also, there was an allowance for the first vision and the translation. Those events, also fantastical, are significantly more meaningful to the mormon movement, no?

Given the constraints of time and money, what would you have discarded in order to present testimonies of people from the periods discussed. Tonight addresses the contemporary church, last night addressed the history, legacy of Smith and the foundational events of the church. So, again, how would you change this to allow for more of the personal miracles of the day.

One side note. Did anyone notice if Parley P. Pratt was mentioned by name, or was he simply referred to as a revered member? His death is also very significant to the MMM. I found it curious that I was unable to hear his name, despite the reference to him.

There is amazing parallel to his story and Joseph Smith. Smith's life was shortened after proposing to Law's wife, and Law exposed his secrets which lead to the incarceration.

Pratt was killed by the husband of one of his wives. The husband of Pratts wife left California and followed Pratt to Arkansas and killed him.

I think that parallel was somewhat lost in the documentary.

"In personal revelation how do you know the source of the revelation? I assume that you must also believe that the Devil and other fallen angels also have the power to send messages to people. Do you have a discernment process? I also assume that your answers are not always answers as in a spoken or written word. Is that accurate?"

Thanks for the question Big D. Paul teaches consistently that the grace of Christ creates within one a new creature. It increases patience, meekness, and faith; it takes away malice, envy and lust. Revelation from God is a profound, unique and penetrating communication of intelligence and understanding; I know it is from Christ when it is accompanied by an inner sanctification and sense of endowment with His attributes and inclinations.

JD1, as always, a very thoughtful and articulate response from you. Thanks for contributing.

"The journals I have were penned decades, even many decades after the event's alleged date. There are no reports of any such event, in any journal, that was authored near the alleged date. Why, because it never happened."

Now Mayan I must intercede here. The Journals you have? Well those are just a small portion of the journals in which this event was recorded. I highly doubt the records of this event are as tenuous as you suggest.

Why? I am deferring to one person I know and trust. One is a man with a PHD in Anthropology at the University of Chicago who did his dissertation on the concept of the City of Zion in church history. He is an expert on that period in the church and quick to debunk any unsupported myths. I learned of many historical unpleasantries from him.

He was giving me a kind of tour of the museum of church history and explaining some of the debunked myths portrayed in 19th century LDS art. During the tour, I asked him about the transfiguration of BY he told me that was well substantiated in the historical records.

He said it was a shame that there are so many myths, that well founded "faith promoting" stories are often dismissed.

Though it is kind of sloppy to defer to "some smart guy I know", I think if this guy thinks it has historical support, the events under question are probably not any more dismissible than any miraculous events in church history. Just had to say that, no real reason to be believe me, it is just an anecdote. It does make me want to look at the sources myself however.

“Perhaps the biggest issue with the stories behind this transfiguration, besides being overly fantastical, is that there are too many witness accounts. More people claimed to have been there than could possibly have attended. That is a hoot, eh? Everyone wanted to claim the spiritual experience that convinced them to follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, dont go astra-ay.“
I don’t see how this is related. There is always a question mark connected to any testimony, but just because some people claim to have been there that couldn’t have been, it doesn’t de-validate the testimony of those who actually were there.

If I claim I was at a ball game, and some guy down the street claims to have been at a ball game, and that guy was shown to have not been there, does that mean I was not at the ball game?

I guess this does raise some questions, but if this is the “biggest issue”, the issues must not be very big.

“If this event were to have happened, then the whole church fell into an extended period of apostacy at the very instant of the event. Now, while you may think that extreme. It was a year after Smith died that Young was sustained as President. I would bet you never knew that. I dont think he was sustained by the body of the church until they were well established in Utah, though, I dont have the date handy. Regardless, it was not done instantly. There was no immediate passing of the torch. So, even if we assume that the events happened, there really is no option but to fault those that refused to accept the meaning of such an (imaginary) event, other than, disobedience and apostacy. “

I knew that! Actually if you read Brigham Young’s address at the time of the purported transfiguration he was not testifying of his exclusive Prophetic mantel, but was testifying that the Keys of the Kingdom were with the twelve. So there is not contradiction between this fantastical experience and the later sustaining of Brigham as Prophet, Seer and Revelator.

Whether you believe it was mass delusion or a genuine spiritual experience, it does help explain why, with so many competing for leadership, the majority chose to follow Brigham Young.

I think Thankful’s critique is valid. Though I found the documentary interesting and appreciated the how even-handed it was, some of the defining revelatory experiences of church history were absent (of both leaders, converts and practicing members).

One leaves thinking that the appeal of Mormonism was reducible to Smith’s charisma. That is probably the most comfortable conclusion for a modern world.

Mayan,

I see your point, and let's assume for a minute that Brigham Young did not take on the countenance and voice of Joseph Smith.

Thankful's point is that the documentary fails to mention the many, many miraculous events that did occur. Perhaps these are easily dismissed also. But to those involved, whether it was a simple conversion story, a healing, or some other special manifestation, we can't sit back and say that none of these things ever happened. And these events are an important part of Mormon history.

I won't bother to cite the exact scripture, but I love the reference in Moroni 7 that talks about miracles, and that if it appears that miracles have ceased, it is only because of our unbelief.

BigD

On the resurrection: someone who "witnessed" it would consider it amazing.

For those of us who didn't, many of us consider the evidence that it Actually Happened unreliable, just as many myths are unreliable (George Washington chopping down the cherry tree).

To non christians, the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection are Myth, Science Fiction, as unbelievable as Smith seeing an Angel in his bedroom and having a vision of God and Jesus in the grove.

As for conformity: I think that the amount of conformity that the Mormon Church is excessive. it certainly was for me. People vary widely in their tastes for conformity. Some love it. Some hate it. I suppose we need both types.

I don't think Mormons are better people than, say, Unitarians. I ACTUALLY think Unitarians are better people, and certainly more interesting, not that mormons are not good people.

And some of my best friends are lapsed Catholics.

Mayan: BigD are using "Anti-Mormon" in heavy quotes, realizing it is a copout Mormons use to delegitimize criticism.

Like, JD1, I need to tend to life. But, I cant resist one last thing.

Let me start with this:

OTTERSON IS AN EGREGIOUS SPINNER AND A LIAR!

How is that for subtle? Did you like that? I thought you would not.

The following is from LDS.org:

"Under the banner of American Experience, a popular documentary series, the two-hour program dealt mostly with historical aspects of the Church and some of its defining people and doctrines, including Joseph Smith, the visions which gave rise to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the physical nature of God, Joseph Smith's martyrdom and the move of the Church to the West. Elements of *UTAH* [Emphasis added] history, including the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the practice of polygamy, were treated at length."

Mike, shame shame shame. That is, again, beyond the pale.

Polygamy is not a part of Utah History. It is part of *Mormon* History and should not have been excluded from the other items you listed. Polygamy was started by Smith, who never set foot in the Utah territory. Smith was married to 34 women, none of those marriages happened in Utah. Smith was later sealed to additional wives, posthumously, in Utah. This spinning effort to disassociate polygamy with the doctrine and history of the church is bizarre.

Additionally. Polygamy, even in its current form, is very much the legacy of Joseph Smith. How can the Brighamites, or the LDS version of the Church, lay exclusive claim to some products of Smith and discredit the other surviving aspects of his visions and creations. Hell, his own children and first wife went another direction, that too is part of Smith's legacy. It may not fit into the mainstreaming agenda of some Mormons, but still, it is his legacy and one that shouldn't simply be brushed aside as a *Utah* thang.

Oh dangit all to heck, Thankful.

You have no clue how much I hoped this wouldnt come up again.

"Many individuals report that after Joseph's death, when Brigham YOung spoke to that congregation -- his countenanace actually changed appearing as Joseph's and his voice became as Joseph's as well, confirming to them he should be the successive prophet. "

This is one of the funniest things in the history of the church. So damn funny. Superdy duperdy funny. For this reason - It never happened! And yet, people like you continue to repeat the story as if it is factual.

I have the journals of my ancestors saying they too witnessed the 'transfiguration of Brigham Young' at the 1844 gathering. They describe it similarly to your description. But again - it didnt happen.

The journals I have were penned decades, even many decades after the event's alleged date. There are no reports of any such event, in any journal, that was authored near the alleged date. Why, because it never happened.

If this event were to have happened, then the whole church fell into an extended period of apostacy at the very instant of the event. Now, while you may think that extreme. It was a year after Smith died that Young was sustained as President. I would bet you never knew that. I dont think he was sustained by the body of the church until they were well established in Utah, though, I dont have the date handy. Regardless, it was not done instantly. There was no immediate passing of the torch. So, even if we assume that the events happened, there really is no option but to fault those that refused to accept the meaning of such an (imaginary) event, other than, disobedience and apostacy.

Perhaps the biggest issue with the stories behind this transfiguration, besides being overly fantastical, is that there are too many witness accounts. More people claimed to have been there than could possibly have attended. That is a hoot, eh? Everyone wanted to claim the spiritual experience that convinced them to follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, dont go astra-ay.

Sorta reminds me of current mormons. "Yeah, I felt that too. Yeah. I felt the Spirit."

Before you discard my comments or call me anti, I have to admit that the documentary renewed the profound respect I have for my ancestors and saddened me deeply that I have, in some way, forsaken that part of me.

I loved what they said about Smith, he was the Henry Ford of revelation. I loved that. He was a helluva dude. One helluva guy. He lived at breakneck speed and often with wreckless abandon. While, he imagined a lot of shtuff, he wanted to inspire all people. He wanted to put personal revelation in every home, just as Ford too went after the masses. The Smith that is revered in Mormonism is nothing like the guy that started an American religion. He was flawed. He was a jerk at times. He was arrogant as hell. But, he started a movement and inspired people. I miss that enthusiasm. It is a sharp contrast to the coersion and snitchiness of the current institution.

Mayan Elephant and Henry James:
I take back what I commented about sarcasm. You two create some very funny reading material. Your family reunions must be a hoot. You could out-Johnny Carson that good old Tonight Show host.

BIGD:
Briefly, the LDS belief in personal revelation is as you had guessed, mostly felt in the heart after reflecting on ideas in the mind, and JS definitely cautioned the members several times about false spirits and "false" revelation sources. The scriptures become the standard for judging if what one believes to be a "personal revelation" is really that or is wishful thinking. That's one reason members are encouraged to study the scriptures often if not daily.

By the way, if LDS members study about the ten commandments and then the "lesser law," they realize that the only reason Jehovah commanded the wiping out of surrounding peoples and their cultures is that the children of Israel were given the opportunity to live the "higher law" of love of all mankind, but they weren't ready as a people to live by that higher law and would have been assimilated into the pagan cultures around them. It hurts my brain to think about the logic of it, but I have to look at the whole story of the "mission" of the twelve tribes and how they needed a good starting point in history.

My main thought on Helen Whitney's first half of "The Mormons"

The thing that saddened me the most after watching last night was the absence of the narritives of the early Mormon converts and people themselves. Some of thier behaviour was explored, some of thier environment and situations were explored but rarely made mention were the actual experiences that they report drove thier choices to live this faith.

Forgotten with the exception of the bit on the Kirtland temple dedication heavenly visitations and witnessings -- were the heavenly manifestations and miracles that these indiviuals testify occured before thier own eyes and in thier own hearts and confirmed to them that Joseph's reported manifestations were true.

Many early Mormon converts report having visions and dreams and manifestations of the spirit and angels confirming to them that this was Christ's restored church.

Many women who became Joseph's plural wives have also documented and testified that angels visited them and confirmed to them Joseph's request that they become such was indeed God's will.

Many individuals report that after Joseph's death, when Brigham YOung spoke to that congregation -- his countenanace actually changed appearing as Joseph's and his voice became as Joseph's as well, confirming to them he should be the successive prophet.

On and on, this film looses the revelatory and miraculous narrative reported by the people who lived it and thus characterizes Mormons not as a people reporting having an experience with diety and his prophet but as a people having an experience with no more than charismatic leaders be it Joseph or Brigham, as the drive and motivation of thier faith.

Such is the popular notion but this is not the story or reasons they have told for why they did and beleived as they did and it makes this portrayal of LDS history lacking and hollow.

As I appreciate JD1 stating in similar words earlier. Mormonism has always come with the begging invitation to come to know for yourself by really studying what has been restored in this church and asking God directly for yourself -- that is exactly what these early converts claimed to have done and I would much rather see a portrayal of a people having mass hallucinations that they believed and experienced as tangible and as real as they reported them than the portrayal I saw in the first half of this "documentary" in which heavenly manifestations almost exclusively start and end with Joseph.

No, this is not the story of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I hope tonight's second half will be an improvement.

Here's hoping,

Thankful

BigD,

I dont know that Henry would really say that. But, technically you are correct. I am a former Mormon.

I left for many reasons. The biggest factor was that I have young children, including a fantastic daughter. I have a tremendously talented and beautiful wife. The prospect of putting my daughter on the difficult and unequal path of being a girl or woman in the church caused me to inspect many many many things. Ultimately, it lead me away from the Mormon church. The specific factors are too many and too non-topical to detail here. Suffice it to say, that I was motivated by the phase of my family, and left with multiple justifications.

I will add though. I am still a Mormon in many ways. It is my heritage. My ancestors did as much to build up that organization as anyone. They were at Hauns Mill. The settled the west. They lived Polygamy. They enlisted in the Mormon Battalion. They were part of the exciting new frontier and energy of the early church. However, I doubt that they would recognize the church today. Adventure is no longer a foundation of the community. In fact, community has been replaced with comformity, sadly. I think that would dissapoint them, but what do i know? I have only their journals to measure who they were and what were their motivations.

Mayan Elephant -

I am not 100% sure but I think you are a former Mormon correct - not a current one? What brought you out of the faith or as Henry would say made you into an anti-Mormon?

Henry --

So if (hypothetical) the goal of religion and converting people to your faith were to make them better people, in the aspect of relating to one another in the world. Is it then justifiable to demand such conformity? I think we would both agree the Catholic Church is quite lax in enforcing or regulating the conformity of their followers.

BigD,

"Do they really require that kind of unquestioning obedience?"

That is a great question BigD. There is not a simple answer. The easiest answer is - No. But, lets go beyond that. They dont really require it of all people, because it is impossible to enforce. And more, its just dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. The church publicly criticized Paul H. Dunn. He was a leader that was a chronic liar. The criticism was merited. The church excommunicated George P. Lee. He was a leader. Also, disagreement is normal and common and part of politicing within any organisation. This is a huge organisation and will demand much politics and dissent to meet the needs of many people.

That said, another answer is - Yes. Oaks said it because he believes it. He expects it. He will use that position to bully subordinates.

Where you will see this used most forcefully and with the gravest consequence is among missionaries and youth. I was one lucky dude. I had a great Mission President that changed my life in many great ways. If there is a God/Godess that hears the zany thoughts I pass through this elephant brain, I hope she passes along the good vibes to my Mission President. There are plenty of Mission Presidents that are not like him, or at least, like he was for me. Some are complete asshats and expect the exact obedience from the young missionaries that Oaks describes. There is another PBS documentary about missionaries that describes this process in great detail. The 'Perfect Obedience' message is hammered into the missionaries, over and over and over and over again. I was a teacher at the Training Center, it was a core part of our teaching strategy as well.

Mark this Elephant's words - That quote will be the single most referenced piece from this documentary. It is the most damning comment by a general authority in a long time. It makes the Pickle Parable look like a harmless Dr. Suess rhyme.

The Oaks comment goes way beyond the challenge by Hinckley that it is all true or all a fraud. Oaks amps that up well beyond the Spinal Tap Amplifier allowance of 11.

Any prospective convert, when faced with that challenge by Oaks, will be forced to consider just how much they are willing to forsake agency to bow to these 16 men.

Ugh. I could go on forever. I will pass the torch, and let the others comment on the Oaks quote.

BigD

You have expressed your admiriation for the discipline and consistency of LDS members.

Necessary for that is a high level of conformity, unity of belief.

Mormons are very highly educated and very good students, so they investigate and write widely.

But at the same time, the Church is quick to excommunicate BYU scholars who don't teach the accepted slant on history.

And the Church members are not like the Jews, where a gathering of 5 members will bring 10 different opinions on theological and doctrinal issues.

You can be smart, but you better buy that Joseph was the prophet and revelator.

JD1 -

Thanks for the insight. I'd never make any claim that personal revelation isn't valid and a good reason to follow something. I also think you are probably quite accurate most conversion stories of Catholics are from people who do a lot of research and seeking to find the most accurate historical and analytical accuracies. Of course many join the Church for other reasons and are not likely to publish their accounts of conversion.

In personal revelation how do you know the source of the revelation? I assume that you must also believe that the Devil and other fallen angels also have the power to send messages to people. Do you have a discernment process? I also assume that your answers are not always answers as in a spoken or written word. Is that accurate?

Henry and JD1 -

Unfortunately I missed the show - was it fairly accurate in its portrayal - was it fair and balanced? Does anyone know if it is coming on again?

Do they really require that kind of unquestioning obedience? JD1 - would you agree with the earlier post that you are not supposed to question the Church? Henry was that your impression as a Mormon?

Henry - If the aposotles actually witnessed Jesus's death and resurrection - what then would be science fiction-y about it? Other than from our perspective 2,000 years later resurrection seeming that way? One thing that has always struck me and is often cited as credit to the accuracy of the faith (not that I am trying to bring up that argument here). Is the portrayal of the aposotles as scared, non-believing cowards right after Jesus's death. Their own reports show their weaknesses and unbeliefs -- they didn't make themselves out to be much of anything until after they reported and all had seen the resurrected Jesus. Good old Thomas the Doubter - how can you not like him?

SML -

I don't think it proves God exists either. But I do think that it is rather odd that some how through evolution we would have a trait that makes us have this need -- if in fact there is no God and no need for that trait. Just a random thought. I don't think it proves or disproves anything.

BigD ~

You wrote to my friend Betty,

"You mention a taste for the infinite. Are you speaking in the sense or theory that we are all born with this need to believe in something higher than ourselves or are you speaking otherwise?

If you are how as an atheist do you see this? Why is this part of our nature if there is no God? Many atheist argue this is the only reason we believe there is a God because its in our nature (well that and all the corrupt religions forcing it on us :) )."

I feel that it's a human condition to need to explain things that confuse or confound us. That is why I think that different civilizations and societies and people throughout history have created different Gods for themselves. It makes humans feel better to have a "reason" for things that are not explainable. I'm not sure we have a need to believe in something, rather we have a need to have a reason for something.

I don't think that just because we have the innate desire to make sense of our world and to find reasons for the unexplainable that that proves that God exists. I think it's simply a product of our evolutionary ability to reason.

Brother Otterson: Repentance is not just one incident, one point in time that concludes an issue where a wrong has been done. Repentance is a process, a beginning. In my experience repentance is the first step in the process of taking responsibility for wrongs (perceived or real) that have been done. It is the actual personal recognition that something one has done has caused damage to another and reparations need to be made. It is the first step in seeking forgiveness and the process by which one may begin to forgive self.
The key to repentance is the recognition that something one has done was wrong or perceived as such and requires some action to correct the wrong. Repenting is not the same thing as appologizing, however appologizing is usually a part of the repentance process.
Repentance requires sincere feelings of remorse and a true desire to set things right. But with this it also requires the desire and willingness to DO something to make things right, whether that means appologizing for, reparing,and/or replacing what was damaged.
Repentance is not always done in the public eye, but here it depends on what was done, to whom, and where.
Repentance is a means for beginning the process that brings peace to the one repenting and to those who ultimately forgive the repentant.

Report on "The Mormons"

My Catholic (!) friend this morning said
"their beliefs seem a lot like Science Fiction."

I replied that the Catholic beliefs are pretty science fiction-y, they are just 2,000 years older.

But yes, Religions all depend on Willing Suspension of Disbelief, as Harold Bloom said last night.

Once enough people agree to believe the story, it no longer can be labeled group psychosis and becomes a religion to be respected.

Regarding the Pachyderm's point: my Catholic friend also said that people like Smith run the danger of becoming Jim Jones's. Exactly. And especially if they demand the kind of obedience that Oaks reveres.

As far as the MMM, that doesn't bother me. Didn't God tell the Israelites to go wipe out the Canaanites right after giving the 10 commandments. It's a tribe eat tribe world. (Heavy Irony warning).

Concerned -

I can only hope to aspire to your lofty stature.

BIGD,

Get back to us when you get your PhD in Theology and/or Philosophy. So far all you have is the ability to copy and paste and "Googlize". Oh, yes, and one book in your library.

Oops. Previous comment, 5/1 at 02:35, was by a certain angry pachyderm of central american/lamanite descent.

The most intersting part of "The Mormons" on PBS, came at the end.

Throughout the the episode, there was a running theme - Perfect Obedience. Perfect obedience led to MMM and to the death of an entire Wagon Train and John Lee. Perfect obedience is why Brigham Young embraced polygamy. Perfect obedience was mentioned many many times. It is the backbone of the church and why people walked across the plains. Also, it was the reason that Washington D.C. was concerned about Utah becoming, or being, a theocracy. Given the core value that perfect obedience was to the Mormons, for them to also be theocratic, was a threat.

Then, at the end, there is Elder Oaks, Dallin Headinsand Oaks, smugly and smirkily responding to the camera, "It's wrong to criticize the leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true." (smirk, smirk)

I gotta tell ya. That aint gonna fly further than the overflow section of a Mormon chapel. This is not a country that refrains from criticizing someone because they expect to not be criticized, even if the criticism is true.

That will divide the church from the rest of America. It will divide the church from the rest of the world. It will divide Oaks' generation from every other generation.

That is exactly the sort of mentality, and stupidity, that allows civil leaders to perpetuate senseless wars, inspires fanatics to kill in the name of god and encourages families to discard or dismiss loved ones.

Oaks should come on here and learn about repentence. Perhaps there is an explanation for that quote. I suspect we should allow Otterson a chance to explain it. But, could there possibly be a more significant contrast? Oaks cannot be criticised, where the rest of us, need to repent and obey. He has nothing to repent for as a leader of the church and members cannot express dismay? The fact that there is no outrage to such a comment, speaks volumes about the members of the church. And perhaps it says something about Mitt Romney too.

The initial part of the episode made me proud to be Mormon. Up until Smith was killed, and his faults were ignored in deference to his prophet-ness, the whole thing was sorta inspiring.

"So do you mean personal revelation that you directly experience or revelation through Joseph Smith and others?"

Big D,

To answer your question, revelation experienced by me personally.

Probably the strongest foundation of Mormon belief is divine revelation experienced by the individual.

Just an interesting note, I once wrote a paper comparing Mormon and Catholic conversion narratives. I compared the amount of experiential vs. analytical aspects in each. Mormons placed primary weight on spiritual experiences as the force in their conversion, where Catholics seemed to focus on analysis. Both had components of each, but the divergent focus was telling.

It doesn't necessarily mean that Catholic converts had less spiritual experiences than Mormons, or that Mormon converts engaged less intellectually with Mormonism before conversion: but rather it shows what was most important to their intended audiences.

It all goes back to the First Vision of Joseph Smith. The Latter Day Saint message is that that type of experience with the Divine, where you ask a specific question, and that question gets a specific answer, is available to all.

Henry -

Our good old literary critic. I am starting to think everyone went to sleep already.

As you know I agree that somethings can't be fully explained if in fact they are supernatural. But to me the more that can be explained by science or any other discipline the better.

For example let's look at one of the most controversial positions of the Catholic Church; contraception. Bear with me again Henry as I am using a simple example.

The more science comes out with evidence that in fact birth control has far more affects on women than previosuly thought the better for me and my faith right?

So yes always a mystery and always requiring some faith. But the more reason and science to back it up -- the better. At least as far as getting more of the world to believe in religion goes.

JD1 -

I missed your prior post. Yes it was theoretical. Your clarification makes a lot more sense now. And yes its an obvious attack on most religions. Thus when I read your post to say that you didn't think they agreed I foud it wuite interesting.

Hopefully your wife has given you the ok for a late bed time too -- sometimes I can only get posts in after the rest of the family has went to bed.

Betty J -

You mention a taste for the infinite. Are you speaking in the sense or theory that we are all born with this need tobelieve in something higher than ourselves or are you speaking otherwise?

If you are how as an atheist do you see this? Why is this part of our nature if there is no God? Many atheist argue this is the only reason we believe there is a God because its in our nature (well that and all the corrupt religions forcing it on us :) ).