Truly Sorry? Change Your Ways

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 :) ).

JD1 -

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

Mayan Elephant -

I quite enjoy your posts and don't mind the intentional interuption. I think one of the great obvious short comings in the Mormon faith is the treatment of outsider's. Especially in former members. Again I realize many Mormons will disagree because they don't see it that way but there do tend to be many stories supporting this case.

I too have a problem with the not being able to go into the Temple and all that. It is another of my perplexing questions that maybe someday will make sense, or someone on here will post an answer to. Of course I have had it turned around on me and said well you Catholic's do let others go to communion in your Church - sure but we don't keep you out of the Vatican either.

Of course I know a lot of great Mormon's and have respect for their ability to get more people to actually practice what they claim to believe - thus my interest in the questions on here. But I can speak from personal experience that some Mormon's definately shun outsiders and I think the statistics of rates of suicide in Utah women also indicate there is definately a problem that needs to be dealt with. --- Making no claim that the Catholic Church isn't without its problems as well.

"You mention that you don't believe in natural theology. Do you not think that if God created the world that his creation reveals something about him? I would agree we might not be able to learn everything about God in nature but I don't think they should contradict.

Is that your thought - you seem to be okay if they contradict."

Let me just point out that most Mormons probably believe that belief in God is compelled by nature; because of my feild of study I don't see things that way.

The only faith I can believe in, is a faith that depends largely on direct revelation from God. Observation without revelation, only leaves me with ambiguity about the existence of the Divine. Without my palpable relationship with God, I can only be agnostic.

Though an Ex Mormon, I called and complained when Stephen Prothero said on the BBC that Mormon beliefs were "incredible." I said. ALL religious beliefs are "incredible", in the sense of supernatural.

Believers and non believers alike acknowledge that, as Bloom notes, all "religions" are founded on the supernatural.

The Virgin Birth isn't any more incredible than the Angel Moroni.

As far as "demystifying Christinaity," especially in light of the above observation,
we could disagree about whether that is a good or a bad thing.

In one sense, the value of Christianity, or any religion, is in its "mystifying." The mystery, as the Catholics might say.

One is free to accept or reject the "mystifying," but it does seem a necessary elememt of supernatural religion.

AND, it evokes the mystic's personal relationship with "God."

Literary ruminations, I admit. But what do you expect from me?

John -

I thought you were more scientifically rationale then Buddhist. Not to say you can't be both of course.

I think the nature of truth is there can only be one. There either is a God or there is not a God. The way to find the truth can definately take many paths - of course I am on the right one though :)

Why would the truth be indescribable if there isn't a God? If God doesn't exist and humans are the highest form of being (of course I don't believe that is exactly Buddhist but follow me) shouldn't in time we be able to comprehend everything as many atheist would like to believe?

BigD,

I dont mean to interrupt your conversation here, well, thats not true, I am interrupting.

My most fantastic wife was recently visiting another country with her friend. Together, they went to visit an historic Catholic Cathedral. My wife is Mormon by birth, but is more in line with the beliefs of our dear Betty James. Her friend is Catholic by birth, and while she is not a declared atheist, she is very much removed from the core beliefs of Catholicism.

In the cathedral, the Catholic friend participated in all the traditional rituals as if she was a diehard follower. After all, this was her tribe, the sanctuary of the religion of her youth, and she belonged there despite her 'inactivity' or, as she puts it, being a 'non-practicing' Catholic.

My wife noticed a real contrast. As a Mormon, those sanctuaries and rituals are lost. The price of dissent or disagreement in the Mormon Church is complete abandonment of all rituals and rites that we may have once cherished. Those rites are only for those that self-declare their loyalty outwardly. I cannot attend the temple wedding of my siblings, even though I was once married in the same temple.

Another sharp contrast is in the quantification of membership. Mormons, and you can read Ottersons rational on his website, count every member whether you like it or not. They brag and publish their statistics. Much like Joseph Smith was boasting about all he had done, the same is done every year by the current 'Mope' (yeah yeah yeah, i stole the 'Mormon Pope' line from pop culture).

Catholics have created a tribe for families that can often bridge the divisions for different levels of belief, not perfectly and not universally. But, in at least the case of our friend, it works for her. Mormons, on the other hand - its all or nothing. All true or all a fraud. All faithful or Anti-Mormon. There is no home for those that live in the paradox that is wholeness rather than perfection.

My wife has given me permission to return before we watch "The Mormons" on PBS tonight:)

Hi Big D, You said:

"Follow my logic and see if you agree. If a Catholic believes that science and reason fully reconcile with faith. The Mormon believes that there can and are contradictions. What takes more faith? Of course I am not minimizing the faith of Catholics I am making more of a theoretical idea."

I am guessing this is purely theoretical (starting with yours or James's assumptions), because many Mormons believe their faith is reconcilable with science and reason. Many well educated Mormons are hard at work to demonstrate just that.

Many non-Mormons think it is not, which is not a surprise. As you might suspect many would say that about religion as whole. To asses the intellectual credibility of my faith, I hope people will look at the best and most informed representations of it.

My position is that belief (any theistic belief) is not compelled by evidence and rationality, but it is certainly allowed. I think because of this, seeking divine truth requires direct communion with God.

James said:

"Harold Bloom rightly says that the origins of Mormonism are NO more incredible than the origins of Christianity or Islam or Judaism."

Thanks James, that is an observation that can most easily be made by an atheist, or in Bloom‘s case, a Gnostic.

In-fact this is one of the reasons so many people found and find us so obnoxious, as Terryl Givens said in his book Viper on the Hearth:

"By serving as the conduit for a putative restoration of Christianity, [Joseph Smith] reenacted its origins…Detractors could fume and shout and label him imposter and charlatan, but the unavoidable features of religion making were there for everyone to see.”

Givens claimed that by doing this, Mormons demystified Christianity.

JD1 -

There are many fundamental differences in the Catholic and Mormon faith. As you point out a difference.

You mention that you don't believe in natural theology. Do you not think that if God created the world that his creation reveals something about him? I would agree we might not be able to learn everything about God in nature but I don't think they should contradict.

Is that your thought - you seem to be okay if they contradict.

BigD

I know you Catholics value modesty, so I don't want to compliment you too much,

but, that being said.

and I know this may invalidate what I am about to say, but...

like my brother Henry, I am an atheist,
but I think I can recognize a good person whether they are a believer or not a believer,

and I perceive you as a seeker of truth, and one who realizes how daunting that search must be, and that your Catholicism is not used by you to demean or reduce others but to aid you in your search.

Though I take a different path, I admire your questing: most literally, your ability and inclination to keep at the questions and try to perfect your understanding, which you and I realize will always be imperfect.

There is one place where a concept of God as the embodiment of Infinite Understanding illuminates our human condition.

Thomas Mann said that a religious sensibility most centrally consisted in "having a taste for the infinite." The Catholic tradition has been one of the richest in expanding that taste.

Betty James -

Why don't you post more often? :)

Of course as humble as I am its hard to accept your all to true insights. :)

BigD

You are such a Catholic!!! (i mean that in a nice way).

Ahhhhh, the nature of Truth. Is it singular, or is it multifaceted, multi-representable. Bring on the Jesuits.

Catholics DO tend to think there is ONE truth.

Buddhists like me tend to think that the truth is indescribable, and that many views of that truth are valid, and the ONE Truth is that to approach it, one must struggle and PRACTICE and get attuned.

This approach does NOT contradict Catholicism. That would be too reductive.

And the PRACTice of Catholic struggling for truth is completely compatible with the Buddhist struggle. except where it isn't . One wise man said GOD is in the Paradox. The Mystery, you
Catholics might say.

Concerned -

Not really sure why I bother since I think most people on here would agree with my view of the Jesus Seminar. But here is some more quotes:

"Jesus Seminar, a group of scholars and others (including film director Paul Verhoeven, who made such religious classics as Basic Instinct and Showgirls)" -- These movies definatly give him credentials on New Testament Scholarship.

"In the years since 1985, it has become the consensus among mainline Biblical scholars that
the Jesus Seminar, far from being a defender of the truth about the historical Jesus, practices
questionable scholarship and has influenced Christianity in the United States in adverse ways.5 In
the words of Luke Timothy Johnson, their scholarship is “the purest poppycock.”6
Exactly what is going on here? How can one group of scholars come to conclusions that are so
disparate from orthodox Biblical scholarship? It should be noted that, contrary to popular reports,
the 74 “scholars” of the Jesus Seminar do not represent the mainstream of Biblical scholarship.
According to Luke Johnson,7 “only fourteen members of the Seminar qualify, including scholars
like John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg. Twenty others are recognizable names in the field.
One quarter of the group, though, are complete unknowns (one is a movie producer), and half of
them come from a cluster of three ultra-liberal schools: Harvard, Claremont, and Vanderbilt.”

Pure poppycock - couldn't say it much better myself.

Henry -

What round are we in now? I lost track somewhere.

I tend to think along your lines Henry. I think it takes a whole lot of fatih to believe in the Mormon faith. I guess I can't hold great faith against anyone though.

On your return to the not so nice things. Do you really believe its faith that is the cause? I think at best sometimes people in-appropriately use faith to justify bad actions.

As far as the Book of Mormon insights I have heard all of those. Mostly the plagerism comparisons. I have also hear soemthing about the original text of the first part being stolen then having to be re-written. I think you are on the right track though. If I read it I would be looking at it from a very different persepective then the practicing LDS.

Now on to the two big questions.

1 - Is my faith as big. While I like to think I do have a fair amount of faith I am not sure on a relative scale a Catholic could have as much fatih. Follow my logic and see if you agree. If a Catholic believes that science and reason fully reconcile with faith. The Mormon believes that there can and are contradictions. What takes more faith? Of course I am not minimizing the faith of Catholics I am making more of a theoretical idea.

2 - Why is it important to be right? I think this is one of your more profound questions you have posed on here. Albeit a simple question. My take from looking at is yes it has a lot to do with acting right in relation to God in this life. Much less to do with acting right in relation to fellow man. Not in the belief itself but lets face it most major religions pretty much advocate the same treatment of one another.

For me being right is simply a matter of seeking the truth. I believe there must be one truth. After all that is kind of the definition of truth right. This and that can't be right - only one thing can be true. Further truth doesn't change overtime. Gravity is the same today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow. Same for all truths. (Lets not get into the earth changing its physical composition :) ).

It is also about finding the right way to live with God, fellow man and myself. A big part of my journey has been in finding what makes people truly happy.

Well - I have others to respond to now. Talk more shortly.

Wow go to dinner and look how far behind I am - give me a few minutes everyone and I'll slowly catch up.

Yeah. I guess that if you had enough tapirs, you could pull a chariot. How many do you think it would require?

Of course the elephants were more useful. Imagine all you could do with a Mayan Elephant, especially if the competition was on a tapir-drawn chariot.

And with that, I shall retreat to a sacred space to repent of my sarcasm. Also, I will repent for having slipped up and placed armies of men, covered with steel armor, on tapirs/horses. You caught me on that one, and I should have known better.

M E,

FYI: though horses are mentioned several times in the Book of Mormon, they are never mentioned in the context of an individual riding them -- the closest we get to even that is that they are used once with chariots. There is never a mention of them being used in any battle either.

It does say in one instance that the elephants were more especially useful ;)

The Mormons on PBS
an Interim Report

My guess after 20 minutes, is that, hearing the supernatural and outlandish history of Mormonism,

Angels appearing in Smith's bedroom
God and Jesus appearing in the Grove

the people sound crazy. Hinckley: "yes sir, I actually believe that. our whole strength depends on the validity of that vision."

If you believe Smith's vision, I have some swanp land in Florida for you.

It is SO incredible, it MUST be true, right.

Harold Bloom rightly says that the origins of Mormonism are NO more incredible than the origins of Christianity or Islam or Judaism.

He is right.

Group delusion, perhaps, reinforced by social pressure?

The PBS audience will think "these people are crazy." Good people, but crazy.

Smith WAS a genius. That is also for sure.

There are so many parallels between his career and that of Ron Hubbard.

BIGD:
I know much water has been passing under the bridge in the above discussion, so my addition here may not fit in at the moment, but here goes--first, what a refreshing perspective you provide! 100% honest to the core--I think we readers can all feel it. No sarcasm, no innuendos. Thanks!

As to Joseph Smith being boastful, a pretty good comparison is when Moses said "Must we fetch you water out of this rock?" (Numbers 19:10) and as a result he got to "see" the promised land but didn't get to bring the children of Israel into it--Joshua did. I believe God does His perfect work (as it will finally play out) through imperfect people, except for the one perfect exemplar--Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith was under intense pressure from many issues at the time he is quoted in those words, and I would suppose that he was trying to defend himself in words, and encourage the members of the church that the church was going to survive after he would be killed, having a premonition that he would be.

To understand the context of the "apostasy" from LDS perspective, one has to be pretty familiar with the Old Testament--both prophecies and historical considerations. I could write pages on this subject, but to be brief you could read from the Book of Mormon just 10 pages, Jacob chapters 4-6, and find an allegory from a prophet among the Jews (Zenos) that gives insight about the LDS view of the workings of God with covenant people, planting them in hidden ways all over the world as "scatttered Israel" who will one day eventually "hear" the good shepherd's voice and be drawn to Him. There are hundreds of Old Testament verses that play on this same theme, and for us it becomes like a symphony where all the notes from history and all the instruments playing their part fit together in the masterpiece that is the Lord's work. The Old Testament and New Testament then fit together as one complete book that has a full story which is still being played out.

At the same time, God works in wonderful ways through all people who are trying to do good, and their contributions are every bit as important to His plan for His children. It all connects.

Great peace, love, and joy to you, our friend.

OK, OK, enough of this sentimental fol-de-ral.

BigD, you have heard me say many very complimentary things about Catholicism and my Catholic friends.

With all this "Beautiful" talk, we mustn't forget,
addicted as we all are to Guilt,

that there have been, and continue to be, significant problems that have been caused for human beings by our faiths along with all the sweet wonderful comforting things.

My lovely Catholic friends here in Boston have BIG issues with the Archdiocese, and with many doctrines of the Church. While there is justification for, for instance, Catholics being against the use of Condoms to fight AIDS in Africa, it is a BIG moral problem that many people of good will think is a Genocidal policy.

So lets not get too comfortable in the sweetness and light of the relationship between Faith and the Intractable problems of human existence.

I know you don't , BigD, and I admire your questing and searching and unflinching pursuit of truth, justice, and goodness.

JD1,

livelihood shmivelihood, right? :)

You said, "In the end my conception of my faith changes with evidence, as any conception of the world changes with evidence."

I think that is very profound. It applies to most of the posters on this board and it is a philosophy that is not unique to mormons, former mormons or any other religion. Unfortunately, I think there is evidence that religions, in general, do not apply this at the top or as a whole. And more, there is a lack of change of actions or doctrine when evidence defies the status quo. The advancement in 1978 where the Mormons granted equal status to all races was an example where there was such a change. However, much more needs to change, based on new evidence.

Thanks for ignoring your livelihood JD1, I think we are all better for it.

There is a controversy surrounding the Book of Mormon and whether it squares well with what we know of the ancient world.

Many books in the Link deal with this from the Mormon side. This is, of course, nonsense for ex-Mormons on this forum. They have some good arguments, but I think the Mormon side has some good arguments too. I wouldn't rely on descriptions given here.

Terryl Givens, in "By the Hand of Mormon" published by Oxford University Press gives a nice synopsis of the controversy, and why well trained individuals on both sides of it have so much confidence in their position.

BTW, I remember thinking non-theism could be very beatiful while listening to lecture on the evolutionary origins of qualia. That kind of thinking, coupled with the categorical imperative, makes for something beautiful. So I agree with you Betty.

All right, I could put off work, but I can't put off family night. Good bye everyone.

Oh the heck with livelihood...

James said:

"JD, what are you talking about. I knew EXACTLY what you would say. Revelation is your final guide, and no "evidence" could shake your conviction received from the Spirit."

I do take a bit of exception to your characterization. I think my position is that my theology is a revealed theology not natural theology. Natural theology is dependent on evidence and the notion that theological principles are obvious in nature. I disagree with this position. I think with natural observation, one can go either way (theism or non-theism).

Revealed theology is based on the premise that its principles are hidden, and must be revealed by God.

The question of apostasy or not apostasy is really based on God's approbation: by what "objective" criteria can one determine this? Any criteria will be based on prejudice.

I believe with Mormonism one can go either way: Joseph's revelations can be seen as a work of natural genius or a revelation from God. It depends on your assumptions. If you have a close encounter with God wherein He reveals to you that it is a revelation, you are likely to opt for the latter in your general worldview.

In the end my conception of my faith changes with evidence, as any conception of the world changes with evidence.

From HJ:

"Many non Mormons believe it is plagiarized, filled with inaccuracies (animals and plants that did not exist in N America during the time period, no archeological evidence of what was supposed to be a great civilization)."

Like what, HJ, elephants? Horses? Remember, those people at BYU said that horses were really tapirs. Bwahahahahaha. Can you imagine all those hundreds of thousands of men, with steel armor, riding around on tapirs? Or better, riding in chariots that are pulled by tapirs? It's possible, just as possible as having a bunch of men riding the Wump of Gump into battle, I suppose.

BigD

John the Dabtist finds your faith in Catholicism "very beautiful."

Since we are handing out accolades,
I find my Brother Henry's
Faith in Secular Humanism very beautiful as well.

He has such a high value on loving kindness towards his fellows, such a sense of wonder at the beauties of the world and the universe, such a reverence for Creation, by both Man and Nature, such sympathy for the suffering of others, such disdain for the exploitation of the weak by the powerful, so concerned with the social injustices of the world, as Jesus was, and such a connection with powers greater than his own.

I think you do too, BigD. And you are probably not as pudgy as Henry, so in a strict aesthetic sense, probably more beautiful.

BigD

JD advises you to read the BoM.

You may be interested to do so, given your comparative religion interests.

As a Catholic and a questioner, your reading would be even more interesting.

Many Mormons believe it is an inspiring and divine book (my father, a 4-th generation mormon, thought it was a bunch of bunk).

Many non Mormons believe it is plagiarized, filled with inaccuracies (animals and plants that did not exist in N America during the time period, no archeological evidence of what was supposed to be a great civilization).

It is a classic example of True Believer phenomena:

If one reads it to see if one can "feel the spirit", many people get carried away by its inspiration.

If you read it in a literary sense, as I can. you see how deriviative and pedestrian it is.

If you read it as a scientist, you see that all the evidence discredits it and none of the evidence supports it.

So, as the great Marxist philosopher Groucho said, who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes.

BIGD,

The creditials of the On Faith Panelists who are or have been members of the Jesus Seminar.

Very Impressive!!!

Former president, Anglican Association of Biblical Scholars
Marcus J. Borg holds the Hundere Chair in Religion and Culture in the Philosophy Department at Oregon State University. A fellow of the Jesus Seminar, he has served as national chair of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical Literature and co-chair of its International New Testament Program Committee, and is past president of the Anglican Association of Biblical Scholars see more on the bio site.

:Lecturer and professor emeritus, DePaul University
Irish-born John Dominic Crossan is a professor emeritus in the religious studies department at DePaul University in Chicago. Between 1950 and 1969, he was a member of a 13th-century Roman Catholic religious order, the Servites, and remained an ordained priest from 1957 to 1969. He has delivered lectures to secular and lay audiences from Scandinavia to Australia to Japan to South Africa. The On Faith panelist has authored 23 books and his writings have been translated into 11 languages see more on the bio site

Author and Aurelio Professor of Scripture, Boston University
Paula Fredriksen is the Aurelio Professor of Scripture at Boston University. The "On Faith" panelist previously held teaching positions at the University of Pittsburgh, University of California -- Berkeley, Stanford and Princeton. She has also taught at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv University. Fredriksen earned her doctorate in the history of religions (ancient Christianity, Graeco-Roman religions) at Princeton, writing her dissertation on "Augustine's Early Interpretations of Paul." She has published widely on the social and intellectual history of ancient Christianity from the late Second Temple period to the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. Her books include From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus (1988 and 2000), for which she won the 1988 Yale Press Governors' Award for Best Book, and Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity (1999), for which she won a National Jewish Book Award. Together with Adele Reinhartz, she edited and contributed to Jesus, Judaism, and Christian Anti-Judaism: Reading the New Testament After the Holocaust (2002). She also edited and contributed to On 'The Passion of the Christ' (2005), a collection of essays about Mel Gibson's controversial film. Her latest book, Augustine and the Jews, is set for publication in 2007.

With respect to the "pretty wingy thingies aka known as nighty flybys",

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm
"This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

Just a side note Big D, I am glad you are a faithful believing Catholic, and I think your faith is very beautiful. I have defended it against those who want to define it by negatives in history and in the media. We have much in common and both suffered persecution in America for similar reasons: claim to exclusive Divine Authority.

If you want to know more about why Mormons believe the way they do, read the Book of Mormon. That book has been, and continues to be, the primary reason Mormons believe in Joseph Smith's divine calling.

thank you AGAIN BigD

I like the way you think.
(totally seriously).
for the same reason i have always enjoyed discussing theology more with my catholic friends than with those from other faiths: because there is a disciplined tradition of philosophical/theological dialog aimed at precision, elaboration, exe-Jesus.

And I TRULY am interested in how important, and in what sense, it is to you and other Catholics (and Mormons) that their Church be the ONLY "right" one.

If it has to do with finding the "most true way" to act towards your brothers and your God in this life, I think it is highly motivated.

The rewards and punishments of the afterlife a la Dante, to the extent that they are motivations for Right Action (I being a Buddhist) reduce the level of Moral action to a lower level. In my experience, serious Catholics have a great devotion to what their duty is in being a good person, but I am always interested in, to what extent, the Chosen People phenomenon is salient.

Us vs them in the world, in tribalism and nationalism vs a "family of man" view, has usually been a detriment to high moral action, causing wars and genocides and hatred. And like anything else, it's a tradeoff.

So yes, finally, after all the wind, how important is it to you or John or me whether we are "right" or not. Whether we have the Only Truth, or the Best Truth.? On a scale of 1 to 10

My friend and confessor JD the First
makes an interesting typo:
"f so, can he (the pope) add to the Cannon? "

How many battalions does the Pope have, someone famously asked.

As institutions get older, they get more political, though they don't always develop literal armies.

JD, what are you talking about. I knew EXACTLY what you would say. Revelation is your final guide, and no "evidence" could shake your conviction received from the Spirit. You said just what I said you would say. I know you man. I love you man. You're beautiful

How bout you BigD. Is your faith that strong? Remember, this is a Catholicism vs. Mormonism Prize Fight. 10 rounds. tonite at 9. Public Broadcasting.

Henry -

A pleasure as always :) On to your question.

Nope I wouldn't say any lead better lives. Actually I would say on the whole Mormon's lead some of the best. Of course there are not very many compared to the numbers of Catholic's or the number of Muslim.

I would say thought that when I went from being a Catholic by name only and went to actually believing the faith because of my own education and searching I began living a much better life. I would venture a guess this probably holds true in all faiths.

The reward for being on the One True Path is a double edge sword. Both an easier path to the hereafter and a harder one. After all if I have the whole truth wouldn't God expect more of me? And if I am sorely mis-lead and don't take the initative to find the truth myself then isn't it my fault - of course that's if you believe.

And that is why if you are making the point that is it worth arguing about these things I don't really have an insight either way. But I am profoundly interested in why others believe what they do.

Peace and Love.

James has got me somewhat right, the apostasy, resurrection, “wingie thingies” etc are not subject to verification or falsification, he knows my post-modern heart.

I believe, ultimately, these things can only be known through personal revelation from the Spirit.

But what I think you are asking is, how important is the apostasy to my faith?

Quite important as a foundational principle I’d say. Only a loss of authority would require the resurrected Peter to return and ordain Joseph Smith an Apostle and Restore the church.

Let me ask you a question: Do you believe the Pope is a Prophet in the Biblical sense? If so, can he add to the Cannon? Could there be an Apocalypse of Benedict put next to the Apocalypse of John the Beloved?

If not, that would point to a fundamental difference between a Catholic and Mormon conception of the modern functions of Divine Authority.

Best to you!!

BigD
JD! has flown, so I will answer for him, as I guarantee you that I know what is in his heart.

NOTHING could prove that Smith's "revelation" was wrong, and that the Catholic Church maintained legitimate Priesthood Authority up til the present time.

I suppose Jesus coming back might do it. But how would we know it was Jesus? Will he look like his pictures? Short of Jesus's word, you Catholics can go to You Know Where (just joking, buddy).

As you know, I don't believe Catholicism or any Church posseses the true word of God, because I don't believe there is a God.

Eternal damnation aside, do you think that Catholics lead better lives, are more blessed, more something else, than, say, Hindus, Jews, Jains, etc

or is the "reward" for being on the Only True Path purely in the hereafter.

Yours in Sin,
Henry

JD1 -

So let me ask this. If the Apostosy was proved not to have happend (not that I am saying I think it can be to your satisfaction or that I am going to try and do that) would that cause you any problems as a Mormon? For example if you held in your hands a document that showed the successor of each apostle through all generations to the present day Catholic Church (don't worry this document doesn't exist) would that cause any problems for you in your faith?

Henry James -

Thanks for the insight - I would agree with you. I'll even allow that you could be right. Both Churches definately make that case.

Personally for me it boils down to either the Catholic Church is right or you are right. From the research I have done not much else holds up under serious analysis.

But I always like to learn more about other faiths because of course I am not infallible.

Concerned -

Read the articles - read about the founder. I don't care that they are on here - they let lots of wackos post stuff on here including the likes of you and me. Just because I (or the Jesus Seminar) may or may not have any credentials doesn't mean I don't have an agenda. If you look less then half of them actually have valid credentials of any merit.

You can not believe in Angels if you like but I am quite confident they exist despite your personal beliefs. If God created people - why wouldn't he create Angels. Come on if God exists he didn't need to create anything out of any need -- only out of desire to do so would he. Most would say a desire to share his love with those willing to accept it.

And just because I am pretty sure you'll hate it I am going to pray that your guardian angel protect you - from yourself not least of all.

BigD

In sixth grade, my Catholic friend Bobby and I used to engage in long discussions to prove that the other was going to hell because our Church was the official one and the other was invalid.

Though I am completely mature now, I still think Bobby and I had accurately framed the issue:

Either the Catholic Church is God's authorized church and the Mormon Church isn't
or
Vice Versa.

Both churches do say "we are right, and everyone else is not as right as we are." Agree?

(Since I don't believe in God anymore, I will cede to you that the Catholic Church wins).

BIGD,

Please check the creditials of the Jesus Seminar members. Very impressive and three of them are On Faith panelists.

Also, the Jesus Seminarians have not addressed the issue of "pretty wingy thingies". Common sense and an appreciation of reality deletes these "godly messengers" from any religious consideration i.e. simply myths analogous to today's mythical "tinker bells", UFOs and fairies.

And think about God the Singularity, the all powerful, the everlasting Mighty One "before, now and forever". He or She or It by definition would not have offsprings or messengers.

Hi Big D.,

Its great discussing with you, here are my responses:

1. There may not be any thing in the Bible that mirrors Joseph's boasting exactly, but there is evidence of Jesus followers behaving in a less than Christian manner, i.e. denying Jesus three times, and arguing about who will be the greatest in the Kingdom (which is similar in Spirit to boasting). I still think Paul boasting that Christ is in him, is not necessarily the most humble sounding expression. If I said "I boast that Christ is with me", I don't think meek would be first expression you might use to describe me. Joseph is recorded to have often admitted his human weakness and frailty.

In any event, I am relieved that God call a Prophet who slips into boasting, that means maybe he could use me in my imperfections. As Christians we are at war with the flesh (Romans 7:3), and we trust in Christ that despite our imperfections we can serve him and will be saved in the end.

2. The debate is between two lay people, sorry about that. I thought it would provide a good comnparison between perspectives. I don't think anyone really wins.

I don't know of any trained scholars who are really interested in the question of Mormon authority vs. Catholic Authority. The best work I know of by trained Mormon Scholars addressing the Apostasy is the work I cited. Here is link where you can read it online:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/booksmain.php

Even in this work, they aren't interested in disproving Catholicism, but providing historical context for LDS beliefs.

I think the verse you cited could be interpreted various ways. Whether the authority was never lost, or the authority regained in the last Days, in both instances, the gates of Hell did not overcome God's church. LDS look to various New Testament verses as evidence of the apostacy. One is 2 Thes 2:3, which states the 2nd coming will not occure until falling away, rebellion or apostacy occures (depending on translation) many other verses are cited in the debate I provided a link for and book I cited.

3). I can see how that can be confusing. Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon is the translation of an ancient record delivered to Joseph by the Angel Moroni. That's how it can prophecy of something that already happened.

Thanks Big D for the exchange. As a Mormon, it’s always nice to have someone interested in my beliefs and religion. For the sake of livelihood I must sign off for now.

JD1

Oh, I see. Excuse me while I vomit just a bit.

So, until you meet someone that was there, it never happened.

Or, if it happened, then the leaders are not responsible, it was the acts of a rogue individual.

Gimme an effing break and kill me deader than Elvis, wouldya?

You sure as hell didnt need an answer from me to come to those conclusions. And obviously, you are going to assign the actions to someone that can take the fall, after all, the mantle of the priesthood prevents the leaders from doing anything wrong.

It didnt need to be publicly sanctioned by the Quorum of the Fifteen for them to take responsibility for what happened.

Your logic makes about as much sense as saying that the Exxon Valdez disaster didnt happen, because I wasnt there. And further, if it did happen, the CEO of Exxon is not responsible because he didnt condone the wreck. And further, Exxon is not liable to repair the coastline because this was simply the act of a drunk captain.

Further, whether or not you intended to offend is irrelevant. Really. It was offensive.

Mormons are absolutely not taught to do as Jesus would do, in all cases. Absolutely NOT. NO WAY. That is not even close to the truth. In fact, its a lie a lie a lie.

Mormons do not treat Homosexuals the same as they would treat all people. If you dont believe me, read Ottersons co-rant he did with Wickman and Oaks. That piece of work is linked now at LDS Family Services. It is the furthest thing from treating people as Jesus would.

Further more. If Mormons lead according to what they say Jesus would do, they would publicly acknowledge what happened on that campus and fix it. Rather than have people like you, who is likely a very good person, excuse or dismiss their nonsense and tortures.

Mayan E -

I did not wish to offend, I only wanted to try and determine the validity of the claim that these occurrances even took place. Mormons are taught to do as Jesus would do - love one another.

That said, why do parents who claim to love their children beat them and abuse them?

Mayan E -

I asked if you were a student that endured despicable behavior against homosexual men on BYU campus because I find your claims unbelievable. But, I know that people have done, since the beginning of time and will continue to do, despicable things to one another. To believe that this supposed atrocity was committed on the BYU campus and was sanctioned or condoned by the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints speaks towards ignorance regarding the nature of humankind. We - as members of mankind - are imperfect. We all make mistakes. We are all living our lives in accordance with what we believe is true. We make choices in accordance with our inner truth. We are all born with a moral compass, a light, a moral center - we all know "right from wrong".

If the atrocity on BYU campus occurred, I am confident it was an action that was committed by individuals who acted abhorantly - without endorsement from LDS church leaders. Ultimately, we are responsible for our own actions and we must not blame our individual choices upon someone or something other than ourselves. Everyone will one day "face the music" and see themselves for what they are - measured by eternal truth.

arbw,

I dont know the purpose of your question. I have no clue what use a yes or no answer would be to you or anyone reading this. So, let me ask you this in return - Why do you ask? And what do you plan to do with that information? Just so you know, those are not original questions. I stole those questions from Howard Stern. Those are the exact questions that Howard asked his father in-law when the FIL had asked how much the Thanksgiving turkey weighed before they stuffed it and cooked it. So, if you dont want to answer my question, perhaps you could just respond with a story about making pickles, or explain the possible applications for the pre-stuffed-cooked weight of a Thanksgiving turkey.

That said, let me steal some words from someone that I respect, Sean Weakland. He said the following:

"I am not gay. I am happily married, straight, and have two kids. I say that not to indicate that straights are somehow better than gays but so that some of the audience reading this won't feel as though I am harboring some ill feelings towards the Mormon church because of the sexual preference I was born with (since I was born with the only sexual preference the church smiles upon).

I think some of these stories should make it to a more public forum where non-gay (or gay) LDS may be able to see them. I'm hoping that a few lights will go off in the heads of some members who have been brainwashed into thinking that non-heterosexual people are somehow less than human. The excerpts below do not tell the story as well as the actual documentary. It is much more meaningful to hear it from the mouths of these four honest, respectable individuals that appear in the film than to merely read their words.

I should also say that to my knowledge, the church no longer condones these aversion therapy activities. However, the church is still very anti-homosexual as can be witnessed by several recent proclamations and articles by apostles and the "prophet".

As an aside, a half hour after viewing "legacies" for the first time (in 1996), I went to my Sunday church meetings where petitions were being passed around in church (this is practically illegal by the way as the church is a tax-exempt entity and thus not supposed to act as a PAC) to protest the county's passing of an ordinance to allow equal rights to gays. I wanted to tear the petitions (and there were many being passed around) up as they came to me. It is amazing that a church can speak love and family values out of one side of its mouth and hate and intolerance out of the other half. "

(end of quote)

Let me add. I think your public question is offensive. Fortunately, I dont live a life where the answer, yes or no, would complicate even one day. I find it damn peculiar that you would find any value in the answer.

John D Numero Uno -

Thanks for the responses.

1 - The response link did not really provide any more insight other than what you said. While Paul boasts - he is boasting about Jesus being in him -- not himself. I give great credit to Joseph Smith for creating such an organization as the LDS Church and he has every right to brag about that --- But I don't see that in any other recognized follower of Jesus -- they always give the credit to Jesus and to God. I would agree with MAYAN that it goes with being a great leader -- but I don't see it as going with being a follower of Jesus. I am not saying he wasn't I am just saying it seems to contradict all other accepted followers of Jesus.

2 - The debate you cited is between two untrained lay people. I would much rather have evidence of a debate between two good debaters highly trained in their faith. Otherwise who ever is a better debater is pretty much going to win.

I understand you accept it as a matter of faith and I am not trying to change that. I am just trying to get a greater insight. You say it is prohesied in the Book of Mormon -- wasn't this written after the Bible as we know it today, or is it a belief that this existed before?

BigD asked: "Does anyone find it odd that I am not aware of any other accepted Church figure in Christian or Mormon tradition that in any writing ever boasts. In the Gospels we find nothing but humility and the opposite of boasting. In most cases all aspects of boasting are deemed to be very non-Christian. This stri[ke]s me as quite odd."

Odd? I would say - Sorta. He was a leader of a movement, and that sort of confidence was appealing and necessary for the motivation of those that were joining him. All great leaders used their skills and talents to motivate others. Boasting and undettered confidence were part of what he was. Just as gentleness and charity were part of Jesus' toolbox of skills and attributes.

Hey, if you think this is odd, you may enjoy reading about Brigham Young. Brigham Young really liked Brigham Young.

Once again, thanks for questions.

1. LDS believe boasting is Unchristian also, so this bothers Mormons too. Though I believe Joseph was a Prophet of God, he was not perfect.

Here is an apologetic response to your question:

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/greater.htm

Here is a boastful quote from Pual, who I also believe was an imperfect man and Apostle and Seer of the Lord:

"As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia." (2 Corinthians 11: 10).

2. I am no expert on Christian history, that's why I deferred to that book, but here is an interesting debate on the subject btwn a Catholic and Mormon apologist:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/rc_dex.html

About changing the Biblical text, I believe our earliest manuscripts only go back to the 3rd century. Erhman's "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" is a popular account of changes in the Biblical text.

In any event, I accept that there were changes in the Biblical text first and foremost as an article of faith (it's prophesied in the Book of Mormon). From what I know (which isn't much)it is also possible to accept that the Bible generally well preserved. I wouldn't want to dispute your faith in that, just give my perspective, which is a bit different.

http://www.ovrlnd.com/FalseTeaching/jesusseminar.html

I'll stop now but my point remains. I am not nor ever hope to be the greatest scholar in any area - but I don know bad scholarship when I see it.

More Links about the Jesus Seminar:

http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~echong/pubs/apologetics/jesus-seminar.pdf

http://seminary.cbs.edu/content/events/nlc/1999/papers/The-Jesus-Seminar.pdf

Concerned -

I am not sure if your postings follow logical sequence to others but to me you seem to jump onto something totally different sicne we were talking about the accuracy of the Bible.

Anyway I now see where your coming from much more clearly. You seem to have a whole hearted belief in the Jesus Seminar where many of your references come from. I have discussed in other posts that the Jesus Seminar has basically been shown by the vast majority of actual biblical scholars and theologians have all bet complelty discredited their work. Take a look I'll post a couple links in a row:

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/unmaskingthejesus.htm

John D the First -

Were these Mormon scripture reference from before or after the transition from polygamy to monogomy? If before, why was polygymy accepted?

John D the First wrote, "Sometimes when a man is widowed and remarries, he is sealed to his second wife."

Sometimes when a man is divorced civilly to his first wife, but is still sealed to her in the church's estimation, (because the church and man wouldn't grant the first wife the temple divorce she so strongly desired), he is then sealed to his second wife.

Yes, I'm describing my parents. Oy.

All -

Thank you for the answers and insights. I find it quite interesting.

After reading all of the responses two main questions arise:

1 - Mayan E quoted Joseph Smith as:

"I have more to boast of than any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I (History of the Church, Vol.6, pp. 408-09)."

Does anyone find it odd that I am not aware of any other accepted Church figure in Christian or Mormon tradition that in any writing ever boasts. In the Gospels we find nothing but humility and the opposite of boasting. In most cases all aspects of boasting are deemed to be very non-Christian. This stricks me as quite odd.

2 - The Apostasy - There seem to be a few stories in regards to this. My two questions in this issue would be as follows: A) Jesus is recorded in the Bible as passing on his Authority to Peter (which seems acceptable by everyone that posted a response) and when he does this he says that the "Gate's of hell shall not prevail against it." So was Jesus wrong or did he not know about the Apostasy?

Second every ordained Catholic Priest and Deacon can actually trace the lineage of their ordination process all the way back to Peter. This sacrament has always included the laying on of hands and is recorded from the earliest times. So thus there were new "apostles" ordained at the passing of every leader of the Church. So I don't see where they could have got it wrong if that is the basis for the Apostasy - if it is in the Bible translation there are many, many works and studies indicating that the Bible is as historically well perserved in its original form as any known historical document that we accept today. While translations lend small variations the version we have today is still very much what was originally recorded according to the best scholarship I have read.

Finally, was Paul an Aposotle according to the Mormon tradition? I am just wondering since so much of the New testament is attributed to him.

Again thank you all for the insight I find it very enlightening.

In contemperary Mormonism it is understood that monogamy is the rule for God's children, where plurality is the exception. This has support in LDS scriptures.

Book of Mormon:

"Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none." Jacob 2:27

"Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation." D&C 49:16

Mayan Elephant

Were you one of the students that was a victim of "the atrocities and tortures that BYU committed in the basement of the Wilkinson Center"?

On Plural Marriage...

The only condition under which one can say Mormon Doctrine indicates the practice of Plural Marriage in the next life, is when more than one woman is sealed to a man by preisthood authority in Temple. This has not occured when both women are alive for over a century. (Sometimes when a man is widowed and remarries, he is sealed to his second wife.)

I don't know of any doctrine which claims that when this has not occured, one will still practice plurality after the resurrection. There may be popular notions of this, but no doctrine.

Church doctrine states, in accordence with Jesus' statement as quoted by Big D, all marriage arrangements must take place before the resurrection.

Women who do not marry are promised families in the next life by church leaders. To say the families will be polygamous, is to read more into these statements than is warrented.

BIGD,

Edward Schillebeeckx is a Catholic priest/theologian. He definitely knows more about Catholicism than most including yourself.

With repect to Matt 22: 29-30 (; 262-. On the Resurrection: (1) Mark 12:18-27 = Matt 22:23-33 = Luke 20:27-40;) many contemporary NT scholars have concluded that this was a later embellishment and not a statement of the historical Jesus. See Professor Crossan's book The Historical Jesus for more details.

And there are no "pretty wingie thingies" , aka angels, in Heaven or elsewhere adding extra attestation to the passage not being of the historical Jesus.

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "
http://www.heart7.net/spirit/at.html

Moroni's (Moroni being another "pretty wingy thingie") visits to Joe Smith are simply more hallucinations by the founders of the major religions i.e.

1. Abraham founder of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian sects.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, possibly hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

BIGD:
Very thoughtful, sincere and complex questions. The following are fairly summary answers, for which conciseness I apologize.

1) As a father aware of my own family's heritage and from a struggle my wife's brother has had in his own life in this area, I am very grateful that the LDS church teaching makes it clear to its members that abstinence from alcohol and use of tobacco will yield "health in their navel and marrow to their bones" and "great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures;" for cases of alcoholism are heart-rending for all-too-many families in our world. I am also grateful for the tremendous good done by such organizations as Alcoholics Anonymous in helping with recovery processes.

2) For Biblical background that is very in line with LDS teachings (though not written by an LDS author) on the particular passage you have cited, you could read: members.aol.com/johnodhner/Marriageinheaven.html
I know it would seem to us that the Savior would have wanted to let there be no mistake about what he was really saying, but I think if you'll do some research the idea of celibate priests did not begin in the Catholic Church at the time of the apostles--much later. Marriage brings a learning and "perfecting" process and a counseling process that I personally am so very grateful for--I am much too task-driven and quick-to-jump-to-conclusions. The idea of those vital husband/wife processes continuing in both the spirit world (right after we die) and the resurrected state makes logical sense as well as Biblical sense.

3) The LDS belief certainly does recognize that plural marriage for some who have had those marriages when authorized under the specific direction of the living prophet at the time (for example, Nathan at the time of David) will be a part of the Celestial Kingdom if they have been faithful to their covenants; but specifically does not state that it will be a requirement of that Kingdom, only that celestial marriage will be (meaning having an authorized priesthood sealing ordinance of the marriage).

4) I and many others are very grateful that the Catholic Church has maintained strong positions on the sanctity of traditional marriage and the sanctity of life. I admire the recent popes I have read about, and their wonderful teachings fostering peace and the brotherhood of mankind. The "apostasy" is a very complex subject, because it implies firstly that there is a "pure truth" such that there can be a "corruption" (meaning impurity arising from within or without) of that "pure truth". The Old Testament warns the House of Israel repeatedly about not yielding to corrupting influences, and prophesies of the scattering (Diaspora) and last-day gathering of the tribes of Israel.

The apostasy was gradual. The apostles "had it right" but there needed to be new apostles ordained when any one of them died, and they were in various places teaching the gospel, so their apostolic counsel evidently could not meet together often enough to preserve the sanctity of the doctrine and of the organization. Also, with new converts came new ideas, including some from their own "Gentile" backgrounds--in a similar way that the Old Testament "House of Israel" were influenced by the beliefs and customs of other cultures around them, and warned against this happening.
(Note: You could also write questions to askgramps.org and get pretty straightforward answers, if you have hesitated using LDS.org to read about these topics.)
Again, Godspeed

Big D.,

Sorry for jumping into the conversation. You asked such good questions, I wanted to give my take on it. Of course I do not think to convince you, since we come at this with very different assumptions, but I do appreciate the opportunity to share my perspective. So here it is:

“1 - So why should I not be allowed to drink alcohol if I am quite capable of limiting myself? Especially if I were to do it say in my own home?”

From what I understand is that the Word of Wisdom does not reveal that drinking alcohol is a universal sin, but it gives a special commandment for the covenant people of God. Here is an exerpt from the revelation dealing with it:

“Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.” D&C 89:3

So some Saints may be able to drink in moderation and be fine, while others are more prone to suffer negative consequences of alcohol consumption. We all make the sacrifice “for the weak and the weakest of all Saints.”

Just a note, the requirement of complete abstinence was not enacted until prohibition was repealed and the then Prophet Heber J. Grant foresaw many alcohol related social problems.

The revelation prohibiting alcohol and tobacco also indicates that certain conditions will exits in the Last Days that make the W of W especially relevant:

"Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—" D&C 89: 4

When I read this, I think of advertising campaigns of the Tobacco and Alcohol industry, especially the Tobacco industry. So it is a commandment given for this time, for this people, not necessarily indicative of a universal sin.

I personally think in the Millennium and/or in the afterlife (which ever comes first) this requirement will be lifted.

“A new question that I have also wondered about. Correct me if I am wrong. But the premise of Joseph Smith and the reason God came to him was because all the religions of the earth were corrupt? Correct. When do Mormon's believe Christianity was corrupted? Is there a fine or specific line somewhere or is it just the aposoltes just never got it right?”

The best Latter Day Saint treatment on the apostasy I have read is “Early Christians in Disarray – Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy “ which is a collection of essays by Mormon Scholars. The assessment there is that a loss of Divine authority was lost from the early Christian church by the end of the First century, presumable at the death of John the Beloved. The primary loss for Christians in the first century was the Prophetic office, which carries authority to add revelation to the canon. Since there is no one after the First century who is recognized by Christendom as having authority to add to the Bible, I think most Christians would agree that we did lose the prophetic office in the Biblical sense. We disagree with our Christian brothers and sisters in asserting that God wanted this office restored.

About further corruptions, the above work notes the corruption of the Biblical text in the second century, and following that, the incorporation of Hellenistic Philosophy into the Christian concept of God. These changes resulted from the initial loss of Prophetic authority.

Despite our belief in the ancient apostasy, most Latter Day Saints view Christians through the centuries as generally good people who through their attempts to please God paved the way for God to restore His church.

“While I agree with the trapping of the Pharisees (that is what they always did) Jesus made a very specific statement: "You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaved." Matthew 22:29-30. That seems pretty clear to me. I would think if the first would be his wife then Jesus would have said that. To me it seems like one of the limited things we do know about heaven is that there won't be husbands and wifes.”

From a Latter Day Saint perspective the exclusion of Eternal Marriage from the Bible could largely be accounted for by 2nd century corruption of the Biblical text. Since in Platonic philosophy sex was viewed as quite opposite of the Divine, it is not a surprise that the modern Bible reads as though sexual relationships are completely done away with in Heaven.

Also, Mormons believe that there is no marriage in the next life except for those who are sealed by Priesthood authority, so Jesus’ statement here holds for all except those sealed by the authority of God. Some LDS have pointed out that there is no evidence that any individual in the scenario Jesus was referring to were sealed by Priesthood authority; so even from an LDS perspective Jesus’ words in this context don’t really pose a problem.

I personally think it makes sense that with the resurrection of the physical body, we will enjoy all that we currently experience as good, uplifting and ennobling in Eternity, that is, accompanied with the Fullness of God's Glory. I believe this will include my wife, as my wife, and my children as my children.

HJ,

below is the explanation from the official source. www.mormon.org. According to this version, the apostacy began instantly when the last Apostle was killed. Like you, I have sometimes thought that there could have been an extended period where the organization that Jesus started kept going in its original form.

Keep this quote in mind, from Joseph Smith:

"I have more to boast of than any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I (History of the Church, Vol.6, pp. 408-09)."

I would not go so far as to say that Joseph Smith was implying that he is greater than Christ, though some have taken that as an interpretation. My take on this is that Smith was simply speaking about keeping the Church together and was comparing his quantitative success in his short life to that of Jesus and Paul. Though, it is relevant to note that he considered the growth after Paul, Peter, John and the others as growth that could not be credited to Christ, due to this apostacy. This may be the source for using the deaths of the apostles as T0 for the Apostacy.

here is the explanation from www.mormon.org

Following the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted and killed many Church members and other Church members drifted from the principles taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. The Apostles were killed and the priesthood authority – including the keys to direct and receive revelation for the Church – was taken from the earth ( 2 Thessalonians 2:1–3). Because the Church was no longer led by priesthood authority, error crept into Church teachings. Good people and much truth remained, but the gospel as established by Jesus Christ was lost, resulting in a period called the Great Apostasy.

Apostasy
1. A condition of spiritual withdrawal from our Father in Heaven.
2. A period of time when the priesthood and the gospel of Jesus Christ in its fulness were not on the earth.

Wine and Drunkenness

the Bible warns against Drunkenness a number of times (Romans 13:13 for instance).

Saying the wine was weaker so it was ok to drink it
is like saying today,

oh, I used to drink a quart of whiskey a day

but now I just drink 3 bottles of wine, which is OK because the alcohol level is so much lower.

It was clearly possible to get drunk in Christ's time. The alcohol level is just a matter of how much you have to drink to get there.

BigD
answers to your questions from a Non Mormon literary critic.

1. Wine: the answer is that the God who countenanced the Jews and Jesus drinking wine decided to limit man's free will in regards to the sin of overindulging in alcohol in 1830. It requires what critics of Mormonism call "mental gymnastics" to come up with an explanation. There are no good explanations, but the Mormons feel that Talmadge's explanation is better than none, and people who are not taught to question too much say, "oh, ok."

2. Same answer as number 1.

3. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the first two PRophets of God, both taught multiple times that there would be plural marriage in heaven. They didn't say "there MIGHT be plural marriage". and one has to assume they didnj't make random comments about the nature of heaven as opposed to acting in their roles as prophets when speaking on such matters.. DP either "can't recall" or screens it out of his consciousness as we all screen many things we don't like to think about.

4. Though Mormons today are too polite to come out and say it plainly, the Catholic Church clearly had the Priesthood authority from God through Jesus and Peter. But some time in the middle ages they "lost the true way" and God took the authority away. He clearly didn't announce this to the Catholics. He only told Joseph Smith

D Parker -

Thank you for your answers I truly appreciate them. If you don't mind here are some follow ups:

1 - So why should I not be allowed to drink alcohol if I am quite capable of limiting myself? Especially if I were to do it say in my own home?

2 - While I agree with the trapping of the Pharisees (that is what they always did) Jesus made a very specific statement: "You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaved." Matthew 22:29-30. That seems pretty clear to me. I would think if the first would be his wife then Jesus would have said that. To me it seems like one of the limited things we do know about heaven is that there won't be husbands and wifes.

3 - That is interesting to know on your view of single wife. Is that the official view of the LDS Church? Is there a way to find out?

4 - A new question that I have also wondered about. Correct me if I am wrong. But the premise of Joseph Smith and the reason God came to him was because all the religions of the earth were corrupt? Correct. When do Mormon's believe Christianity was corrupted? Is there a fine or specific line somewhere or is it just the aposoltes just never got it right?

Again thanks for your answers - I really do appreciate them and look forward to learning more.

Concerned ... -

You have a very limited view of the teaching on God at least as far as Catholicsm goes. God can be omniscient and still allow free will. Just because he knows what is going to happen doesn't mean we still can't choose. It is a rather complex concept but once again if you are going to believe God exists then there are some supernatural things that can't be explained to complete satisfaction by a non-supernatural being. But there are many who have researched this and come up with good explinations. Knowing the future or even prophesy about it (if it is true and fiathful) does nothing to limit free will.

"Old time" Mormonism as well as "old time" Catholicism, Islam and Judaism relied and rely on prophets and prophecies (for profit?).

Taking the modern view that includes reality and common sense, the correct term would be Mormonism as well as Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism relied and rely on fortune ($$$$$?) telling (for profit?).

Theologically speaking, these religious fortune tellers require that God knows the future i.e. if God does not know the future (is not omniscient) then no human knew or knows the future.

As per the famous contemporary theologian, Edward Schillebeeckx, God is not omniscient. Please read, pause and contemplate the following by Schillebeeckx:

Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians (et al) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history."

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God, otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

i.e. No one, not even God can prophesy since that would violate the God-given gifts of Free Will and Future.

BIGD:
You have asked at least three very good, sincere questions and although I am not an offical answerer of such questions, I can offer the following insights.

1. On the wine question, James Talmage who wrote a book about Christ says the wine of that time and place was the "weak product of the local vineyards" and the common drink used by the people. Joseph Smith didn't say "wine has never been acceptable," but he foresaw that "evil and conspiring men" (with the profit motive) in then and upcoming times would make it necessary to have what could be viewed as a strict health code, to protect against what we have seen has become rampant alcoholism in some parts of the world, and the many social costs of that.

2. On the "marriage in heaven" question, Talmage says the first husband would be the only one for whom the marriage would have been considered to endure beyond this life, so the Savior was referring to the other six brothers, knowing also that the Pharisees were really just trying to set him up with a "trapping" kind of question. "Neither the man without the woman neither the woman without the man in the Lord" is a pretty clear statement about marriage.

3. On the question of plural marriage in heaven, I only expect to have one wife there, so I suppose some of those who think they understand Mormon doctrine and talk about "infinite wives" have a different "doctrine" in mind than I do(perhaps having gotten it from a mixed up parent or Sunday School teacher or a mixed up friend who didn't understand it either). I've studied LDS doctrine for 42 years, more or less, and dearly love the Bible--wish more would read it, cover to cover.

Good questions. (Talmage's book is "Jesus the Christ"). Godspeed.

Joseph K -

Marriage was part of the Mosiac law. Jesus was specifically asked about this. He did nothing to refute it. Further his first miracle was perfromed at a wedding feast. There are plenty of other references to marriage that make it clear that Jesus had no problem with the concept of marriage.

However when presented with a parable asking whose wife a widow would be in heaven, Jesus specifically states there is no marriage in heaven. And this is found in the King James Version of the Bible that Mormon's attest to believe in.

Further Jesus' first miracle was to turn water into wine. Jesus himself is later quoted as saying that the Jewish leaders call him a drunkard, indicating he at least drank some alcohol.

So my simple question is how do Mormon's reconcile this belief? I am not in anyway trying to say anything about the Mormon faith or discredit it - I really want to know.

BIGD, HENRY JAMES -

"How do you reconcile Jesus's drinking of wine in the Bible with the belief that we should not drink wine?"

How do you reconcile Jesus's not having married with the Christian belief that it is all right to marry?

BigD, my friend,

I have been out of the Faith for 35 years, but I doubt that any Official Explanation exists within the Church for either the
wine contradiction
or the Plural Wives in Heaven/marriage in heaven contradiction.

Maybe the Mormons need to borrow a few Jesuits to figure out an explanation.

You are right about Betty. She is my sister, so I know her pretty well. She knew that you would take her "warning" with good humor, but put it out there to see who would take the bait.

I value your colloquy. Glad I got to know you better.

Peace.
Henry

Henry -

That is my insight on the Mormon beliefs too but I was hoping someone might be able to give me a better (meaning a logical official teaching) explination - but I have been waiting for sometime from other areas I have posed such questions.

Suprisingly I haven't seen you post anything anti-Mormon. I think leaving the Mormon faith, from second hand sources, is probably one of the hardest transitions to make, probably making it easy to carry resentment. But I haven't seen anything anti from you.

Betty is quite clever - for some reason some people have to take the slightest reference to anything as being a homophobe -- I didn't think that at all from her post.

If you read the article you'll notice that part of Pope John Paul II reason for rexploring the whole incident was to try and reconcile that rift from the 1700's. I think that would be a great achievement and a worthy goal.

As always we will catch up with you somewhere else in the blogosphere.

Mayan Elephant, you Beast YOu

Don't be so self-deprecatory. Though Henry and I agree with Phaedrus that Jihadist has been a humane and intelligent contributor to many threads here,

you should not criticise yourself unduly for giving us your reactions.

This is a dialog, not a "ready-for-prime-time" publication, so don't censor yourself unduly. That would cut in to your production of your always provocative insights, which are also brilliant with more frequency than the average Pachyderm on this blog.

BigD
Thanks for the reference. You know that I have often credited the Catholic Church as being the greatest influence for intellectual advancement in the Western World from 200-1700 AD. The conflicts ARE interesting though, and illuminate the dialectic.

And I as a Music Lover owe the Church a great debt for the advancement of that art. Powerful institutions inspire both admiration and criticism: the Catholic Church is no different in this regard, it "comes with the Vatican".

I sincerely and truly admire the Catholic tradition of identifying and probing the mysteries. That tradition has added great richness to western spiritual life.

You know I am a Non-Mormon (the mormons call me an
anti-mormon, as in anti-catholic.) so my answers to your questions are heretical.

1. Wine: it makes no sense that God/Jesus son of God would drink wine, but that modern people shouldn't. The mormon doctrine is a human outgrowth of the common currents of 1839. there was probably an article in the new york times that joseph smith read.
As far as wives in heaven vs the Bible: maybe God thought the women of 1830 were more attractive than the women in Moses' time (another smart aleck remark - there is no way to reconcile the two).

Glad you weren't averted by Betty's crack about my tendencies. Anyone who knows me knows that I have no seductive capability, except perhaps intellectually. But Betty is not a homophobe - quite the contrary in fact.

Pheadrus,

Thanks for the information. I will refrain, though albeit at times unseccsfully, from premature judgment.

Thanks again.

Phaedrus -

While I hold it to be one way to show an example I want to clarify its not the reason I believe in God. I believe that through many means and rationale exploration that God is infinetly more likely to exist than not. I fully understand why others come to different conclusions but for me the many arguments lead to God - but not just because of the gaps.

Henry -

As far as Galileo here is a great article that discuss the whole thing and its implications. Says it far better than I can.

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/GalileoAffair.html

It does a good job illustrating the point also that fatih and science can't contradict and that the Catholic Church historically was one of the greatest supporters of scientific advancement the world has ever known.

So a couple other Mormon questions for you or any Mormon's reading the blog?

How do you reconcile Jesus's drinking of wine in the Bible with the belief that we should not drink wine?

How do you reconcile the belief in many wives in heaven with the Bible that clearly states there is no marriage in heaven?

Big D:

I understand your not being overly impressed with the evolutionary aspects of what we refer to as "morality." Perhaps it is the teleological approach necessitated by the time scales involved. Henry has referred you to excellent reference materials, and I would add Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene" to the list. You may also consider a book called "The Moral Animal," but I cannot recall the author's name at this instant. Some of the material supports for the evolution of morality are wonderful examples of the surprisingly clever machinations of natural selection, and for this reason alone, are worth looking into in my opinion.

As for the "god of the gaps" approach, I am actually comfortable with that. Some wag once quipped that "God is what science has not explained yet." The thought pattern you describe in your dialogue with the capable Mr. James, is in that same vein, though I do not want to be overly presumptuous. The reason that I am comfortable with the "god of the gaps" concept is that the gaps shrink everyday. As one who is concerned about the influence of religious thinking on real politick, that is a good thing in my view.

Mayan: The "jihad"to which "Jihadist's" name refers is the "greater jihad," which regards the internal struggle of a Muslim to live within the dicates of their religious dogma. The "lesser Jihad" refers to holy war. Our "Jihadist" is actually a thoughtful and non-fundie Muslim, who can generally be counted on for wit and insight. Now, as for the other poster, I have no clue.

Betty -

Thanks for the warning. There are many things to wonder about Henry - but his conversations are always good. Of course he doesn't really know that I am a Guy for sure so maybe he should be careful :) By the way I didn't get the impression you were a homophobe. Being alone online with him is enough for me :)

Betty James,

You're really being an interloper and officious intermeddler to "warn" BigD about being alone with Henry James.

What are you, a homophobe?

For all you know, BigD might LOVE to be alone with Henry.

BigD

You seem like a nice guy, so a word of warning:

I notice my brother is now addressing you as "Big Guy."

There are rumors about Henry's preferences, if you know what I mean.

So if I were you, I'd be careful about being alone in the same room with him.

Very nice guy, but a little swishy.

Bets

Hello Big Guy

I must shamefacedly admit that I was being a Smart A$$ in saying that maybe God didn't realize yet that wine was harmful. If God is omniscient, he must have realized it, right? Just like, if God is all powerful can he make a rock so heavy that not even he can lift it.

One conclusion we can draw from the Galileo case is:

Science is dedicated to finding the truth, no matter who is proved wrong (even Einstein)

whereas

Churches in General, Catholic, Mormon, most of them, are dedicated to propping up their dogmas, and if facts come to light that threaten their dogma, the fact-bearer has to be discredited or done away with.

It is just what the Bush Administration did with Joe Wilson when Joe said the Bushies knew the Nuclear Saddam story was a hoax: they tried to kill the messenger, not reveal the truth.

It is very Dangerous to tell the truth. Always has been. Can get you killed.

Luv
Henry

"In heaven, good mormon men get to take other wives in ADDITION to the one they were sealed to in the earthly Temple marriage. Want to convert?"

Henry, I think you meant to say 'Infinite Wives,' no?

Oh my oh my. That is perhaps the most heinous of doctrines in the church. Sadly, it is most commonly used to *comfort* unmarried women in the church. In effect, it reduces the real value of women, especially an unmarried woman, for the duration of her life.

This is wildly off-topic as it relates to the original question and Otterson's response. However, until Otterson and his employer choose to change the communication to women and offer clarification on the doctrine, they deserve to have it highlighted.

It would be appropriate for Otterson, and his employer, to clarify this point of doctrine regarding polygamy as a means of repairing the the pain they constantly inflict on women within the church. I suppose this is what it means to repent or repair. Is Otterson and his band of 15 apostles up for it? Hell no. Not a chance. Not a snowball's chance in Hell.

Henry -

I always enjoy the conversation.

I will agree with you in so far as some scientists do a good job of this. On these posts though that is in the great minority - at least from my biased view.

I am not really trying to act on any prejudice or explain Moral theory in a long way. Hauser may well be good and maybe I'll add it into my reading schedule.

Yes I have a schedule other wise I buy too many books and don't read them all.

Sure his persecution was bad - but again its my point that people (not you) use it as an example of science being always right and the Church is always wrong. As you know and seem to accept I believe both are true - Faith and Reason in my world coexist and the loads of evidence science has doesn't disuade me from believing anything in my faith. I am a Biology and Chem major so I went down that road already. Many times they prove things that the Church teaches that others don't want to believe.

No I don't want to convert - One wife is plenty for me :)

Is the wine thing with God not knowing actually something taught or spoken about or is that just your insight? Fascinating.

Always a pleasure.

Big man
let's start with the things we agree on.

You have every right to believe God is behind morals and evolution. I think it is not provable either way, and you are entitled to your Faith.

Science Does NOT know everything. In fact, sciencists ALWAYS talk about what they don't know, and of the need for continuing fact finding and experimentation.

It is in fact the True Believers who are SURE they know everything about how the universe started: God was responsible, even though there is NO evidence for that belief.

Scientists at least have loads of evidence, and argue from facts and observations that are verified by hundreds of others.

On Moral Behavior, please read someone like Hauser. He KNOWS a lot about how humans and other animals actually behave: he is not just guessing or operating out of prejudices or "common sense."

The point with Galileo was NOT whether he was "right", but that he was persecuted for seeking the truth because it contradicted Catholic Dogma. Do you approve of the persecution he suffered?

In heaven, good mormon men get to take other wives in ADDITION to the one they were sealed to in the earthly Temple marriage. Want to convert?

Maybe Wine was made of different substances in Jesus's time, or maybe God didn't realize yet that it was harmful.

Love
Henry

Henry,

You are obviously more rational than me and would make a much better guest at the James Family Reunion. I suppose I simply take offense at the name Jihadist, just as others do with my name and its obvious refence to the book of Ether. Also, calling out Muslims without any context or point seems a bit much to me.

Do tell, is this the pot calling the kettle black?

As for the other poster, I think it is the lack of coherence and references made that cause me to arrive at my conclusion. My bad? probably.

Carry on.....

Henry -

Yes I am using very simple examples that I didn't expound on in detail. And yes there is much more research out there. I tend to think my posts get to long though so I was trying to be as quick as possible.

For the record I don't have a problem with evolution. I just don't think it adequately explains everything. Much like is discussed in the Einstein thread I tend to think such theory's lead us close to explinations but that there is something behind them that completes the theory - for me its God.

I do have a problem though when people who promote these theory's do not acknowledge that they do not explain everything and there are still gaps. Too often believers are taken to task for not being able to explain the absolute detail of a belief such as the Trinity. But yet these same people won't acknowledge that there is still a long way for science to go for it to hope to explain everything. Using the Galielo example that is often used against the Catholic Church -- most of "science" at the time supported the view of the Church as well and not Galielo. Even today did you know that calculations of astronomical events have a fudge factor in them - its been awhile but I think its called dark matter or something like that.

So in a short form: I just don't believe science or its theories adequately explain everything including the basis for moral behavior. As a matter of point some morals I don't think are in our genetics at all and are more learned -- young children for example have no concept that stealing is wrong.

Anyway - you didn't answer my question of the wives - here is another if you care to humor me. Mormon's claim to believe in the KJ Bible which clearly indicates that Jesus drank wine. How do they reconcile the belief in not drinking wine? For any current Mormon's on here I am not trying to do anything with these questions other than answer a few of my own curiousities.

Mayan

I guess i don't see what you see in Jihadist's post. I don't think i see what her tone or point is, and i don't see the racist part either. Where do you read it?

I never understand Jozevz's posts, not one word of them.

Admittedly, I am perhaps the most egregious clown on this board. In a semi-anonymous space, I enjoy pushing things and exploring boundaries. In doing so, I try, albeit often unsuccessfully, to make a valid point.

In that light, I really despise the Jihadist and Jozevz posts. Call me simple if you like. I dont 'get' them, and I really dislike the racist/antisemitic undertones of the posts. or, is it just me?

Jacob Jozevz et al my friend,

Yes, life is beautiful indeed if we can forgive, repent, and move on.

On a lighter side, we can try the following in trying to get forgiveness:

If one is a believer looking for excuses:
"The devil made me do it."

If one is a believer with a sense of personal responsibility:
"The devil in me made me do it."

If a Muslim succumbing to excuses and not taking personal responsibility"
"Shaitan tempted me to do it."

If a non-believer:
"I had a momentary lapse of reason when I did it."

Anymore to add apart from "The dog ate my homework!" (as a child)?

And, as an adult, when caught in the act with another not one's spouse, "It's not what you think!"?

Betty,

Unbelievable. Better than the actual material you were critiquing. So fun. You must have a helluva family/gang.

If the James gang were to ever have a reunion, I would love to come try the potato salad, with or without pickles.

Big D
thanks for clarifying on the Mormon catholic example

there i think you are right.

mormons are a very tightly organized organization with lots of discipline.

kind of like the green berets or a SWAT team
as opposed to
a
bunch of hippies.

As far as the morality of the Green Berets
vs
the Hippies,

it might be harder to put one above the other.
Peace and Love
vs.
Search and Destroy.

Big D
On your evolution ideas:

you say regarding Murder: "it wouldn't be that absolute of a stance and there would be more occasions that we would think it was justifiable."

The US has, over the last 4 years, caused the murder of 400,000 Iraqis to occur, though Americans did not commit them all: they could not have happened without us, and we should have foreseen their occurance.

But our nations' mourning over the deaths of 33 Americans causes a national weeping and wailing.
Are 33 American deaths more of a tragedy than 400,000 Iraqi deaths? In the eyes of what kind of God.

Evolution is clearly compatible with genocide, with wiping out the other tribe or species, as long as their genes are different enough from us.

Your Stealing example is simpllistic. Yes, the strongest Ape can steal girls from the wimps. So can Bill Clinton. Apes who steal food get ostracised by the herd.

Actually READ Moral Minds by a scientist from Harvard who knows what he is talking about when he explores morality and its relation to evolution. So far, you are b$ll-spreading off the top of your head. There are loads of expert books about this from people who actually understand the field.

Evolution for Everyone is a good place to start. By Wilson

Henry -

Thanks for the further insight on the Mormon belief. So what happens then if you are married in the temple so that you have your wife in eternity - which women do you get then in heaven in addition to your eternal one?

Henry -

Very fair to take me to task on that one. Not what I meant though - but it did seem that way.

I fully acknowledege that anyone of any faith or non-faith can be more moral than anyone else. You could very well be much more moral as a non-believer than I am as a believer.

My point should have been that; in my opinion Mormon's seem to do a better job of getting a greater percentage of their followers to actually follow their teachings. You find a lower % of Mormon's out drinking alcohol then you do say Catholic's using contraception.

Tonight's Theatre Critic

Since Henry's plays were such a flop in London, as I warned him they would be, he sheepishly asked me to stand in for him and give the James Gang official opinion on the Mayan Flashlight team's ambitious new satire, "Otterson's Pickle".

It seems to us that Mayan's portion of the script highlighted the obvious PR tactic common in Otterson's posts: make Mormonism seem like an enlightened, cuddly, benign, inclusive faith that you and your family will be nice and cozy with. Unless your family has any gays, women, blacks who were born before 1978, people who like facts, or people who object being treated like children or lied to.

And if any of those groups feel wronged by us LDSers, well, unfortunately you have anger-management problems, and therefore we see no need to apologize, or repent.

We are glad to repent when we eat too many pickles at the family outing, however, as long as we don't eat watermelon.

Flashlight is to be commended for trying to revive a limp form, and he shows some indications that he has an inkling of what effective satire might be. But it needs work, and more pickles.

Kaufman and Hart, you are safe. Though Hart may be riding into his next opening on a Pachyderm.

SML-

I will try to make some simple examples of why I don't believe that morals being part of evolution is totaly plausibile. While morals can help to some extent some are not inline with the basis of evolution.

So lets start with the basic premise that evolution leads to the survival of the fittest because they are better adapted and thus get to pass on their genes and the less well adept get left out.

Then lets look at some big moral issues (that most would agree are a moral issue and most would agree on). Murder: most people recognize that murder is intrinsically not moral. In today's world murder is generally justifiable only to save another persons life and in just war causes. Outside of that murder is recognized as pretty much out of line.

Well in the world of evolution not murdering can obviously help the species survive to some extent. But in nature our closest relatives, according to evolution, routinely murder and on occasion even cannablize. They do so after defending their territory and killing some of their enemies. Now evolutionary this makes sense so that they can pass on their genes and the defeated tribe can not. In human terms we usually call this genocide and find it totally against any sort of moral standard. Now most evolutionary theories currently put our seperaion from some of these lines of ancestory at 5,000 - 15,000 years past. In evolution terms a blink of an eye and far too short of a time for any big changes to occur to take us from thinking this is okay to thinking its not.

I would make the argument that if our moral understanding of murder came from evolution that we would in general be adverse to it, but it wouldn't be that absolute of a stance and there would be more occasions that we would think it was justifiable.

Now let's look at Stealing. Again most what agree stealing is wrong unless someone's life depends upon it. We do not find this in the animal kingdom though. Outside of parents taking care of young stealing food is pretty much the norm. Strongest wins and this makes sense in an evolution sense.

Even in the earliest human records we do not see examples of this type of stealing, outside occasional wars and plundering. Again it would help society to some extent develop if we were adverse to stealing but not as a near absolute. One can make the argument that we have adapted since in large parts of the world there isn't a need to steal food. But in actuallity there are more areas of the world that are impoverished and stealing food from others would be a viable option - yet we don't see this even in the most primitive societies.

So with just these two quick - albeit very simple - illustrations maybe you can see my point. While morals can to some extent be an evolutionary trait - I think that an evolutionary explaination falls short of explaining the full extent of our generally accepted moral codes.

Big Man

Just after sending my last post, I see you write to DP
" I also think they do a better job then many in educating their followers and holding to a good moral code."

Your statement clearly implies that Mormons are better at following a "good moral code" than are my atheist Harvard Professor friends.

The evidence, whether using Mormons or Catholics or Hindus in comparison with my Harvard Professor atheist friends,

just does not support this kind of conclusion.

Bellievers are no more moral, are no better at following what virtually all humans agree is a "good moral code," than atheists.

You prove my point.

Doesn't have any bearing on whether God exists or whether God invented moral reasoning (which he would have had to have done before inventing religion).

BigD

Yes, Mormons no longer allow polygamy IN THIS WORLD.

But the doctrine has been that in the NEXT WORLD, in the highest heaven, worthy Mormon men like I could have been will have many wives and populate whole worlds.

Again, on morals, the more important point is that
MANY (most?) religious people STILL believe people can't be moral without belief in God.

Dostoevsky, that great theologian, is often quoted
"without belief in God, anything is possible."

And I would wager that 90% of Christians and Jews think the 10 Commandments actually added something to the moral reasoning and values of humans.

So don't underestimate the change that this new research is indicating is needed.

D Parker -

Wouldn't you say all religions have gone through such persecution? I know Christianity sure did. I am not really sure about the Islam faith -- though some may argue that in some ways its being persecuted now. I am not sure that justifies shunning outsiders.

Don't get me wrong. While I believe the Mormon faith is not correct, in general I do not have anything against it. Most Mormons I know are wonderful people. I also think they do a better job then many in educating their followers and holding to a good moral code. Some of the areas I have lived in that are heavily Mormon are some of the nicest places I have ever been. The types of towns where you can still leave your door unlocked for the most part.

But when some Mormons seemingly go out of your way to ignore you (we have had neighbors like this) after they find out your not Mormon. I think a bit more work needs to be done. While no religion can be held accountable for the actions of all it's individual members. The amount of times you hear about this type of behaviour, its overwhelmingly involving Mormons then any other major faith.

Henry -

Thanks for the insight - I had heard that the Eternal Progression was something that wasn't taught until later on. Something that required a greater understanding of the faith before it was introduced. That is why I was curios --- common now only the fundamentalist believe in polygymy :) At least for the last 100 or so years.

I basically agree with your insight into this argument. It seems obvious to me this doesn't make much of an argument - other than you can say Catholics or Mormons didn't inevent morals. But I don't think most reasoned faiths would claim they invented them -- but I am sure some might. But faiths can still claim morals come from God whether they believe they were put into the human heart as part of creation or some other way since the beginning of time.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

The following wit was brought to you by a bright Flashlight:

"FRED: Ain't forgiveness grand?
GINGER: Absolutely. I'm so grateful for the Savior...
SHERP: The great 17th century philospher, Hidalgo, often wrote...
BOB: Yeah, but Joseph Smith used peep stones.
GEORGE: You anti-mormons are so stupid.
JANET: Why are we always called anti-mormons? I thought you got rid of anti-this-and-that in your Book of Mormon.
MUTWOMBO: I must needs help. My name is Mutwombo Rhiholja and I got $6,000,000 me must transfer to someone in America!!!! Can u help me, kind friend????????

GINGER: Weren't we talking about repentance?"

Ya know, I have to admit here, this is a really really really good parady of the otters-on-faith experiment.

Though, it really misses the funnest part of the whole thing. Back it up just a bit, can we?

ON FAITH: Question du jour - Does God Like Baseball more than Cricket?
OTTERSON: One day I was playing Cricket, and a man offered me a pickle, and I was so touched that he would consider sharing a pickle with me, after all, a pickle was once a cucumber. In my faith, and according to official sources, all cucumbers that become pickles are delicious.
LAVERLE: I love Baseball and I am so happy to know that Heavenly Father loves American Baseball and Pickles and that we can all know that Baseball is as true as Pickles. Pickles can be together forever, but Cucumbers can't.
CURELOM: Oh for crying out loud, God doesnt care about sports, just ask Paul H. Dunn. Pickles are disgusting.
TEANCUM: You antis should go away, this is an LDS forum. Curelom, why cant you leave the church alone? I hope you find what you are looking for - somewhere else.

now..... carry on Flashlight, you were on a roll.

I forgive you for omitting the personal anecdote, contemporary metaphor, slow cadence, pause before saying "I know", stare into the camera, pastel suit, and "amen". Really, I forgive you. And, I loved the creative writing. I cant wait for a qualified critic to come along and opine. Henry?

Flashlight

Yes, the internet is interesting, isn't it.

One item of interest is how different personality types value Coherence and "Staying on Topic" in a discussion like this.

Clearly there is a wide variation of preferences. And it is usually impossible to stay precisely on topic without a moderator/screener.

Staying "on topic" can often be deadly, in my opinion

and Philosophically, as my brother William reminds me, defining exactly what the "topic"s boundaries are is extremely problematic.

Finally, speaking neutrally and as America's greatest literary critics, many Mormons have lots to learn from the often breathtaking insights of the likes of Phaedrus and Huff and that Mayan Pachyderm, who in my humble opinion are three of the most illuminating voices on this entire web site.

But what do I know?

"Driven out" is the wrong term.

Many LDS people would love to come to a forum where they could read and share expressions about forgiveness and repentance. Here at this blog, those people find:

FRED: Ain't forgiveness grand?
GINGER: Absolutely. I'm so grateful for the Savior...
SHERP: The great 17th century philospher, Hidalgo, often wrote...
BOB: Yeah, but Joseph Smith used peep stones.
GEORGE: You anti-mormons are so stupid.
JANET: Why are we always called anti-mormons? I thought you got rid of anti-this-and-that in your Book of Mormon.
MUTWOMBO: I must needs help. My name is Mutwombo Rhiholja and I got $6,000,000 me must transfer to someone in America!!!! Can u help me, kind friend????????

GINGER: Weren't we talking about repentance?

So they may not be driven out, but many find a forum they're not interested in.

But the post wasn't intended to measure the appropriateness or quality of the blog or the community. It is what it is--people can choose to participate or not.

I'm very interested in the evolution of the Internet as a place to express feelings, talk, and learn about Church stuff in varied contexts.

Flashlight ~

You wrote, "But this forum drives out a whole category of people--people like Thankful, RTC and Joy."

I don't think anyone has been "driven out" of this forum. Why do you think they have been? They are as free as I am to come on here and comment again if they wish.

||It would be much easier to find what we were looking for if
||we had a brighter flashlight, no?

Oh, and in the spirit of being topical, I forgive you for implying I'm dim.

*Flaghlight dries an eye*

:)

||It would be much easier to find what we were looking for if
||we had a brighter flashlight, no?

No circa 2000BC fossilized flashlights have yet been found. But I'm confident they will be.

Hello DP

I appreciate your summarizing your understanding of my "journey." One thing I would add is that my move from being a Mormon to being a Non Mormon was not *just* based on logic. It was even more connected, as you intimate perceptively, with my feeling of commonality and equality with ALL humans, not just Mormons. But again, thanks for our sympathetic reading.

Regarding your question, "why blame everything about the LDS church on its leaders?"

You are right: problems in any institution/country are due to the *relationship* between the leaders and the *followers/citizens*.

As Thomas Jefferson says, the citizens must, from time to time, stand up to the injustices of their system and try to change it.

Leaders tend to resist such changes, because the leaders generally have so much more to lose: to wit, their power.

Look at the Catholic Church rather than the Mormon Church. The people of Boston are once again clamoring for a change in attitude in the archdiocese, and the leaders are digging in their heals, because they don't want to give up their power. It has very little to do with Jesus.

Any established Church very quickly becomes a political institution. And any institution has failings that people should work to correct. And when the people in power STAY in power because of those failings (restricted access to information etc), the people in power are to blame. The citizens are to blame too, to the extent they accept the injustices.

Flashlight,

It would be much easier to find what we were looking for if we had a brighter flashlight, no?

Oh, and I hope you all find what you're looking for...

My, this is a meandering forum.

Stories of Christ
Mountain Meadows Massacre
Dissertations on Joy's Salutations
Buddhism and Mormonism
Animal Spirituality

All in this thread on forgiveness and repentance.

The ability of the Internet to draw together people with such varied interests and to allow or even facilitate such discussion is bittersweet.

The power that the net gives individuals to express themselves in any way they choose is inspirational. The difficulty of, well, censorship makes it harder for people to find venues they consistently enjoy.

I enjoy this forum. I like hearing from people who genuinely express their feelings of faith. I like hearing from people who are compelled to "educate" mormons--particularly those who who were formerly mormon and feel like they've stepped outside and see in current mormons a world-view they themselves once held. And reading the rhetoric is the best fun of all.

But this forum drives out a whole category of people--people like Thankful, RTC and Joy. That's not good or bad, in my view, it just is. You can control the tone of your dinner discussion by choosing who you invite to dinner. You can't do that in an open forum. To be honest, I'm surprised they're still here. But I'm glad they are. :)

It will be interesting to see how/if the Church begins to provide forums for all kinds of discussions in the future. Or if it will leave it up to the bloggernacle, as currently constituted.

BigD:
You made some insightful observations that I'd like to comment on. Remembering that the Mormon culture went through a period of what the culture itself perceived (though others have disagreed) as persecution, the culture did what could be expected--it developed a "group think" that was suspicious of outsiders. Think of how hard that kind of cultural "group think" is to overcome. Many families try, and many leaders (including, I think, President Hinckley) try to be culturally accepting and embracing, within the limits of their own personal moral standards. So I think the Mormon culture may over future generations get better at not continuing that unfortunate persecution complex--but it would be quite illogical to expect such a change to happen in one or two or three generations.

My perception is that Henry James logically rejected the failings he saw in his familial roots, saw atheism as more embracing of what he saw as the truth about humankind and science, and loving the truth of that approach to life more, has jumped in with all his heart. (I know that was a very simplistic explanation, and apologize for oversimplifying a very complex subject.)

A final still-simplistic thought: why blame everything about the LDS church on its leaders? Henry, you obviously don't blame Karl Marx's behavior on atheism. The culture has done what it has done because individuals have done what they have done as individuals, and families have carried on whatever cultural beliefs--many wrong ones they got from their forebears--they have chosen for their survival or their perceived happiness. Since the main subject here is change for the better, those reading this needn't think the LDS think they have "arrived" or are culturally elite--they are struggling to "get it right" as individuals and families just like everyone else, and change is part of the process.

Big Man

I agree that argument is somewhat hollow, which is why I don't make it.

My argument is simply this.

1. Some religions claim to have "invented" morals. Christians for instance present the 10 Commandments as a new revelation from God, before which man did not possess this level of moral law or reasoning.

2. This is clearly false. Religion DID NOT invent moral behavior. It observed how humans had been behaving for centuries, and presented it as if it were an innovation of religion.

3. Many religionists today believe that human beings can't be moral unless they believe in God, and that countries will "Go to Hades" if they lose their belief in God.
Both of these beliefs are also clearly false, and you seem to agree that they are false.

That's all I am saying.
I am NOT saying that this PROVES that God doesn't exist.
It does prove that belief in God is not necessary for a people or a society to be moral.

Mormons teach in their Plan of Salvation and Eternal Progression that
God was once a man like me.
That if I continue to perfect myself, I can become a God, and populate worlds of my own, along with my bevy of Polygamous wives.

I knew/understood that from the time I was 8 or 9.

Henry -

I wasn't trying to make a point that atheist couldn't be moral without a God. I don't have any problem with that argument. My problem is the argument that morals have existed longer then organized religion, so therefore religion stole all of their morals, and God doesn't exist. That argument is pretty hollow if you ask me.

Interesting on the Mormon insight. Did you always know you were on the path to becom another god or did you learn that after being a Mormon for a while? Just curious.

SML -

I will post some specific examples this afternoon - right now I got to run.

Hello, Dear Henry ~

That's really interesting. I appreciate your answer. I still need to grow in my knowledge of morality beyond what I learned at the LDS church, obviously.

:) SML

Hello SML

Animals may or may not "have morals"
but many animal species, especially higher primates,
*behave* just as morally as humans who follow the ten commandments (only 5 of which have anything to do with morality).

The smartest scientists now believe that our moral sense evolved in the same way that our ability to use and understand language evolved.

It seems that even Slime consider Sloth to be a moral failing, a failing which causes the guilty slime cell to be ostracised by his peers.

the New Book Evolution for everyone is an engaging look at this and other evolutionary issues.

Yours in morality,
Henry

BigD ~

You wrote, "Second, morals don't reconcile that well with evolution and natural selection. Yes to some extent some morals help in the survival of the species but many common ones do not. In fact some aspects of morality would be quite contrary to survival of the fittest."

I'm curious to hear what aspects of morality in your opinion are contrary to survival of the fittest.

I always tend to think of animals when I hear the words evolution, natural selection, and survival of the fittest. I do recognize that humans have evolved as well, it's just that I don't often think of them in terms of natural selection and survival of the fittest, even thought they have been part of all of it as well. I don't think animals have "morals."

Anyway, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts about morals being contrary to survival of the fittest.

Hello BigD, Nice to See You

I was the only Mormon in the town I grew up in. I of course had friends who were non mormons, but I knew, for instance, that if i didn't marry a mormon in the temple, I would not go to the highest level of heaven,
and I was taught that the major purpose of Mormonism was to do that, "be all I could be", another God.

So I kept a psychic distance with these non mormons, to not allow them to sway me from the true path.

On Evolution and Morality: do some reading. there are hundreds of good books out there.
Moral Minds, by Marc Hauser of Harvard.
The Science of Good and Evil, by Schermer.

Religious leaders tell us that
Unless people believe in One God (rather than Pagan gods)
Society will fall apart
because people can not be moral without belief in God.

All the research shows EXACTLY
THE OPPOSITE.
Atheists are just as moral as believers, and that morality developed long before religion.

This does NOT prove that there is no god.

It just proves that people don't have to believe in one to be moral.

I agree with Mr. Ottersons comments and wonder when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints will follow his words:*First, there has to be recognition that an action is wrong* in regard to their past treatment of gays, specifically the use of reorientation therapy using electrical voltages as adversion. Otterson and the Church have done a good job of convincing their flock to ignore the issue completely including refusing to comment on it.

To paraphrase John Connolley above:

What the Church should do:

Acknowledge that the Church was involved.

Make any relevant information in the Church archives public.

Do anything they can to reconnect the gay victims with their original families.

Then apologize.

Mountain Meadow Massacre:

I think an apology for this incident would be empty words: It happened a long time ago. No one living was involved in it. Mormon policy (I hope) would no longer support such behavior. An apology for mass murder it utterly inadequate.

What the Church should do:

Acknowledge that the Church was involved.

Make any relevant information in the Church archives public.

Do anything they can to reconnect the descendants of the kidnapped children with their original families.

Then apologize.

Henry -

You wrote:

"... my attitude towards non-mormons was that they were a corrupting influence and though i should be polite to them, (so as not to get shot), i shouldn't get too involved...."

My question is how did this attitude develop? Having lived in many places in the country and not being Mormon I have only noticed this where there were large numbers of Mormon's. I kind of figured it was more of a Group Think type thing, or me just feeling like an outsider -- so I am just curious.

All Atheists on Here -

Many times on these posts you often make the claim that the evidence of moral acting predates any curent organized religion. Don't you think this is a weak argument?

First, for those of us that believe in God obviously we believe God has always existed, even before certain religions had a name, so therefore of course morals have always been around.

Second, morals don't reconcile that well with evolution and natural selection. Yes to some extent some morals help in the survival of the species but many common ones do not. In fact some aspects of morality would be quite contrary to survival of the fittest.

I can understand many of your arguments but this one to me seems very weak. But maybe you can enlighten me :)

DP

I know a number of people who work with Energy blockages and flows in their healing and therapeutic work.

It often involves physical work such as massage, and related modalities.

And there is clear medical evidence of the relation between brain states and effectiveness of the immune system.

"The Relaxation Response" by Herb Benson of Harvard medical School demonstrated that engaging regularly in meditation or prayer (which are pretty much the same physical process) was good for one's immune system and therefore helped prevent disease and accelerate healing.

This whole research area demonstrates over and over again the efficacy of Buddhist practices and philosophies, which have been increasingly validated by science over the past 50 years, in distinction to many fundamentalist religious beliefs which have been increasingly IN-validated by expanding human knowledge.

So
be a Buddhist AND a Mormon.

to Henry James:
please call home, or, in this case, check your email.

Betty Neiditz

Phaedrus:
Good to read your fascinating writing again. I am such a novice in the area that I don't know the medical terms, but I have a sister who has become involved successfully (based on results I've seen in my own family) in a form of (I think I can call it) kinesiology, identifying energy flow blockages and then seeking to identify root causes (often, a need to forgive someone is part a root cause of the blockage). I have a neighbor who is involved in developing some medical tchnology to detect the presence of lung cancer in its initial stage in the body, through finding an energy blockage that is detectable.

The "aura" many see in the countenance of some who are passionately involved in doing good among mankind, such as was described about Mother Teresa, may not be measurable by science, but I think it is visible to discerning people. I make connections between these types of things that others may not make, but I am convinced that people who forgive others are as a general rule healthier than people who hold grudges, as implied in the statement of the doctor quoted by Elder Packer in the article cited above. I think that spiritual health does have a connection to physical health and to quickness of recovery from surgeries, etc. Does that spiritual health have to be theistic? No. But I don't think being a theist hurts the process, and may help provide a framework for spiritual enlightenment that is helpful to many.

Phaedrus, your writing shows what I would call a spiritual sensitivity and inner peace that I suspect is both displayed in your work-life and arises from your work-life, because your work directly helps people and because you have worked out an inner peace through much thought and reflection. I am glad to have met the part of you I have met through your writing.

DP: Nice to "see" you again. Love and salutations.

Once again, a very generous and humane post from you.

Many of your sentiments make perfect sense to me.

Only an intellectually challenged human would deny that there are hundreds of wisdom traditions in the world with insights and "truths" as profound as what the Mormons or the Jews possess.

I find the same kind of "energizing" effect that you do in reading great books. I certainly include the King James Bible (mostly the Jewish Bible) in the "great" category. I don't put the BoM in that category, but what do I know? I'm just America's greatest literary critic.

Though I think Mountain Meadows was awful and that the Church should make a "mistakes were made" type of worthless hypocritical apology, my opinion of whether the Church was worthwhile would not depend to a very great extent on that abomination. Pope Pius and the Nazis would shake my connection to the Catholic Church a lot more, as would the Priests sexual abuse scandals.

Finally, though I admire your attitude towards non-mormons, for the first 18 years of my life as a practicing mormon my attitude towards
non-mormons was that they were a corrupting influence and though i should be polite to them, (so as not to get shot), i shouldn't get too involved, and I certainly wouldn't want one to marry my daughter,
and
when my oldest sister left the church it was plainly interpreted as a great tragedy for her, and I could generalize from that and the 10,000 other comments I had heard in Church that, if not tantamount to carnal relations with Satan, it sure was a threat to one's salvation to apostasize.

Love you. Peace

Henry

Phaedrus
Your quote reminds me of another from a writer greater than the Summer of 42 author, and even greater than yours truly.

From King Lear:
"As flies to wanton boys, are we to the Gods.
They kill us for their sport."

In the light of Virginia Tech this timeless and incredibly evocative quote gives off new flashes of brilliance and enlightenment, through pain.

Phaedrus ~

I too find that quote beautiful. Thanks for sharing.

Thoughts on sign-offs:

I have followed the last few posts on Joy's sign off to SML with amused interest. I do not believe for a minute that SML is actually offended by the suggestion that she has lost, or is otherwise in a state of missing, something crucial in her life. SML seems far too resilient for that, in my estimation. Perhaps we simply cannot help but take pity on someone else who no longer "has" the thing in our own life that means the most to us, or close to that. For instance, as a runner, I look with enormous pity on people in wheelchairs, because underneath I am tortured internally when I picture myself no longer being able to run. As a person who loves to think deeply, and finds true joy in doing so, I am terrified by the prospect of Alzheimer's, and other dementiating diseases. I show these patients in the hospital in which I work especial kindnesses as a result. These thoughts, emotions, and behaviors say much more about me than they do about anyone else though. So, is there a difference between these scenarios?

I think there clearly is, and the difference lies in the volitional aspect. No one chooses to lose the use of their legs, or to contract a dementiating disease, thus, my pity carries no insult. I am not impugning the stricken person's intellect, by expressing sadness over some poor decision they have made. This is not the case with the theist expressing pity over the newly non-theistic person's current state of "apostacy."

That said, I do not believe that Joy intends to insult. I am persuaded that she is merely doing as I do when I greet the Alzheimers' patients a touch more warmly than others when I make my rounds. But, perhaps this little "analysis" of the issue can help sort things out.

As for graceful sign-offs, I remember in the book, "Summer of 42," (which i stole from the library when I was 10 years old because the lady would not let me check it out. It had "dirty" parts she said- which then meant I had to read it), when the older female with whom the adolescent Hermie had had his intial sexual experience, leaves him a goodbye note. Her sign off to him was as follows: ...."may life spare you all senseless tragedies." I thought that was beautiful even then. Of course, now I think that what was meant by "senseless" was "not of your own making." So, Joy could say this to one of us, and be graceful as all get out, and still express that our decision to leave the church was a mistake. :)

D Parker writes:

"...there is an energizing element within truth that science may not be able to detect very well (though energy flows in the body actually begin to present evidence that is concrete enough for those willing to follow the research in that area). I think one can get energizing truths from reading the Bible--all of it more than once-- and also from reading the Book of Mormon several times."

DP: I want to make certain that I understand this reference, which seems to associate neurochemical activity with truth-detection. Are you referring to PET scan studies here?

Ooops, correction, it was '77 - hope you'll forgive me. :)

Back in '79 I was listening in the evening to a live session of General Conference in the Newcastle-under-Lyme chapel when Elder Packer delivered these words:

If you resent someone for something he has done—or failed to do—forget it.
We call that forgiveness. It is powerful, spiritual medicine. The instructions for its use are found in the scriptures.
I repeat: John, leave it alone. Mary, leave it alone. Purge and cleanse and soothe your soul and your heart and your mind.
It will then be as though a cloudy, dirty film has been erased from the world around you; and though the problem may remain, the sun will come out. The beam will have been lifted from your eyes. There will come a peace that surpasseth understanding.
A great significant message of the gospel of Jesus Christ is exemplified by the title given to Him: the Prince of Peace. If we follow Him, we can have that individually and collectively.
He has said: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” (John 14:27.) Ensign, The Balm of Gilead (see http://tinyurl.com/3csclw)

So, in my experience since, I have found forgiveness really is powerful, spiritual medicine.

Friends,
I've once again enjoyed reading the comments--at least most of them. Glad you're all doing well. 'Really mean that. I don't think any of you are any less happy than I am, and I've caught a feeling of acknowledging that change and trying to do right by people, perhaps falling short sometimes, then trying to make amends, is a healthy approach to life, nor should it be motivated by a religious "fear" or "dogma" or "burning in your bosom." It just is a good way to live.

I'm writing because it is a bit of an intellectual challenge, and I enjoy that. A bit selfish of me, yes, but I'm OK with that.

No, the LDS don't think that if you're not following LDS beliefs you're somehow following Satan. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm going to use a rough-hewn example of a radio transmitter. If I compare that to the light of Christ or the light of truth, then as people follow those transmitted signals they do good things because they are following true principles, even if some of their motivations may be less than perfect, and however they view religion.

As people try to make sense of their lives, they will encounter truths all over the world, in writings of philosophers and preachers and presidents and poets. The LDS have found a set of partial truths that work for them, and, yes, they feel a sense of "mission" because of a conviction that they have been asked by a divine source to share that set of partial truths with the world--whoever may want it. Not everyone will--billions won't, and that won't make them less happy or relegate them to being "followers" of the great immitator/deceiver. It just means they have other truths they like better, plus perhaps some of their own ideas or the ideas of whoever taught them.

For the seven or eight people who will ever read this, most have made up their mind and are merely reading as a sort of freshening up of their inner thoughts, something to bounce those thoughts off of. To the one reader who hasn't gotten a firm conviction of what they believe, my sense is that there is an energizing element within truth that science may not be able to detect very well (though energy flows in the body actually begin to present evidence that is concrete enough for those willing to follow the research in that area). I think one can get energizing truths from reading the Bible--all of it more than once-- and also from reading the Book of Mormon several times.

As a person gets conviction of energizing truths, they become an independent soul not swayed by the opinions or the mistakes of others, whatever the source and whoever the mistake-doer. Thus, I feel badly that the Mountain Meadows atrocity happened, but it doesn't change my conviction about gospel truths one iota. Those men were horribly misguided, and committed despicable crimes under the misguided allowance of their wrong thinking. They answer for it, and I hope they get dealt justice as well as whatever the law of mercy can allow them. Let God be their judge.

Well, I've given some of you good folk another "straw man belief" to philosophize about. Enjoy! Much happiness to you and yours. (By the way, Henry, glad to hear about your niece at BYU. Good for her and those alongside her.)

Joy ~

One more thing I'd like to note about what you wrote to Henry James about your close male family members leaving the church:

"I am deeply saddened by their choices. In their case, this sadness has come about because I love them and want good things to come to them. In their case, I have not seen this happen."

Your words make it obvious that you feel that no good things have come to them due to their choice to leave the church. What if they had stayed in the church but suffered the same exact life of no-good-things-coming-to-them? What would you call that, then? Their personal trial sent by God? And what about any of them who have GOOD things happen to them after they leave the church? Will you sit there and silently watch and wait for the ball to drop so you can say, "See? I knew it wouldn't last. How could it? They weren't on the right path." How will you explain any of their happiness or better lives if such a thing occurs?

This entire attitude toward them is condescending, just as it is toward anyone here whom you feel said sadness for as if they have crappier lives than you simply because they have left the church. I know you will deny that this is what you are doing, but it seems rather obvious that you feel that way about anyone who's left the church. And that's what I find tragic.

I am personally thrilled when someone embraces their life and leads it the way they see fit, staying true to their convictions, inner compass, and morals, no matter which religion (or not) they choose to follow. Especially when their convictions are such that they can also be completely accepting of others enough to let them be who they are without judgement. This to me is admirable.

Hello Joy ~

You did not offend me. Thanks for worrying that you may have. It takes much more than that to offend SML. :) Sometimes I don't feel offense even when I should. That should change soon, though, as I seem to be improving daily in this area.

Hello Henry ~

I have seen instances where men were treated with deference while their wives were treated with disdain in divorce situations at church. It is interesting to witness how blatant it can be sometimes.

Thanks Joy for your note.

i don't think you harbor ill will towards me, or towards SML.

I truly believe that you are a person of very good will, very good intentions, and compassion for your fellow man.

I think the use of the phrase "I hope you find what you are looking for" betrays an attitude, probably unconscious, that includes the assumption that the other person is lost, that to some degree they are a figure to be pitied.

If I were talking to an Islamic friend who related to me how he had left Mormonism and was a very happy Muslim now,
I would say to him
"it's great that Islam works so well for you"
and not
"I hope you find what you're looking for" which would imply that I thought that he HAD NOT found what he was looking for, something I could not possibly know, and that he had not told me.

Just as you could not possibly know that about SML, and that she had not told you.

Again, I don't think you did this willfully or with mean intent. But I think it is inextricably part of your way of thinking, and hence speaking, about SML's situation.

Hello Henry James,

I hope you don't think that it is imossible for me to have genuine feelings of sadness about any person leaving the church. If you are one of these people, then I am sad that you did not find happiness and peace in the teachings of the church. Perhaps I am making an assumption that people who become disenchanted with the church for whatever reason have decided to leave to find peace in another religion or in no religion at all. I do not say to you "I hope you find what you are looking for" in any way to say - "you WILL not find what you are looing for".

I fear that you will always assume that I harbor ill will towards you because you have left the church that I still love. You are mistaken.

Close members of my family have left the church - the church they were raised in - and I do not harbor ill will towards them because of their choice. These are MEN whom I will always love dearly. I am deeply saddened by their choices. In their case, this sadness has come about because I love them and want good things to come to them. In their case, I have not seen this happen.

Is it hard to believe that I would want good things to come to you? Perhaps in expressing it as " I hope you find what you are looking for", I have hit a sensitive nerve somehow. If you are not lacking or not looking for something then I rephrase it as merely - "I hope good things come to you."

Joy
just try this experiment:

try writing to me
|"Henry, I hope you find what you're looking for"
and tell me how it feels when you type those words.

SML

It seems obvious to me as well.

Just as many/most Blacks internalize Racism subconsciously,
"Good" Mormon women internalize the patriarchy, and hence reflexively condemn any woman like you who is "cheeky" enough to say that you don't like being a second-class citizen.

Joy's disdain for you is much more condescending than she would ever dare be to me, a MALE ex-Mormon, just as the Male Mormon bishops are always flabbergasted when a woman speaks her moral mind against male domination, as you did with your husband/permission issue.

Martha Beck writes eloquently about this issue in Leaving the Saints: how her husband was treated with much more respect than she was when they both left the church.

Hello Mary Lisa,

I had to leave for awhile and came back to find that you still feel that I was wrong in my comments to you. My sadness at your leaving the church has nothing to do with you because you are a woman. Merely that I am sad that any person has left the church that has brought peace to me. I am sad that you did not discover the same for yourself. I have said this before on other threads to men as well as to women.

Again, I do not pass judgement on you for many reasons. I do not know your reasons for leaving the church. I am not you, so I cannot understand how these reasons have impacted you personally. I said before that I know many people who are not 'on the path to Satan' who are not members of the Mormon church. Some who were former members of the church as well.

The path I was referring to is the path away from the church. Ultimately I have said nothing to you that was intended to offend or belittle you in any way. If you still feel this way I am sorry.

Hiya HJ ~

I noticed also that the Mormon women (not just Joy) on these various threads do seem more comfortable debating with or admonishing me than they do the men. My theory is that my position as a woman who's 1. married to a non-member, 2. apostate, and 3. outlandishly outspoken or opinionated, therefore not a woman to be admired, is what brings this on. I think too that many of them feel superior to me.

I believe your theory is correct ~ it seems obvious to me.

Jones: I am Not Surprised You have disappeared

when you face such reasoned and wise and unassailable posts as the one Phaedrus just gave us.

You don't care about Truth. You care about being polite, about not being vitriolic (according to your paternalistic definition), you don't care about morality or moral action. Again, behave nicely is what you admonish

Meanwhile Phaedrus outlines the best processes by which humans have, however imperfectly, searched for truth, not feel good answers or Freudian devotion to the illusion that their father, whether earthly or Higher, has the right answers and is an authority to follow blindly.

That is why you are dangerous: dangerous to the survival of humanity, dangerous to a just world, dangerous to the ideal of individual autonomy while being truly repsonsible to the greater community of ALL humans (not just mormons or catholics or romanians).

We who care about the future of humanity must do all we morally can to make your influence disappear.

How Ironic, and you know how I love irony

that Cheney speaks on the day when
our Mormon Hero
Harry Reid
says

I'm not going to get in a p#ssing match with someone with a 9% approval rating.

The Mormon Church stands by their party even when completely surronded by the harbingers of a reverse-Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Great timing.

I am so proud that my BYU student Niece (not Nurse) was one of the leaders of the protest.

Solidarity forever, as the Utahn Joe Hill said.

Tearing down vs building up:

There are two areas of interest I have that keep me tuned in to religion, long after I have given up belief in any deity; the actual truth-claims of a religious system, and the process by which its followers sustain their belief. Some groups of people, of which Jones appears to be one, espouse that to criticize another's religious belief is akin to "tearing it down," and find this objectionable. However, I wonder if they feel the same ire for scientists who attempt to refute the theory of punctuated equilibrium, or the phsysicists who attempt to cast doubt on string theory. These disputes also center around competing truth-claims, but nobody gets killed over them. In fact, when one side establishes enough empirical support for their postion, they are actually joined by the other side! They do not decry the "victorious" theorists for "tearing down" their beloved Newtonian system, or curse a Poincarre for his non-Euclidian geometry.

But, this is preposterous behavior to expect from those with religious differences. I suppose this is primarily due to the fact that there is no way of completely refuting ANY religiously-derived truth-claim. All that can be done is to force greater and greater accommodations within the doctrine itself. This occurs on a near daily basis, as true knowledge of how nature functions puts the lie to supernatural tenets. There is no body of data that suggests that Shia Islam contains more truth than its Sunni counterpart. In fact, there is no more evidence for either of them than there is for Hinduism, Catholicism, Jainism, Wicca, or even, yes, Mormonism. In fact, there is no evidence for any of them that would lead any believer of a competing system to change his/her views. As long as the "evidence" consists of a "burning of the bosom," there is no evidence.

This is why people almost invariably remain in the religion of their parents. If there is no way in which one religion can be rationally found superior to another, then people are free to fight it out for adherents however they may. Even by the point of a sword.

Too bad. Actual data is not especially bloody. Why should an effort to expose falsehood be seen in a negative light, just because that falsehood lies within a set of religious beliefs?

How ironic, HJ, that Mormon-owned BYU just awarded Cheney an Honorary Doctorate of Public Service in connection with his visit to speak at their commencement exercises.

From today's SL Tribune online: "The vice president, in fact, received louder and longer applause than the church's President Gordon B. Hinckley when they entered the Marriott Center together."

We live in a twisted world.

The Enormous Elephant: Bush/Cheney Should Apologize

we are sc*&wing around with Imus and Nifong, and the New York Times today quotes the ex Director of the CIA saying that
the bush administration had no serious discussions about whether Saddam was REALLY a threat
the administration exaggerated and cherry picked intelligence, then blamed bad intelligence for theri incompetence and failures.

America and Bush/Cheney have committed the greatest sin against the World in the last 30 years. They need to Truly apologize, make reparations, and America needs to vow never to make this mistake again.

This Horror dwarfs Imus, bad as his comments were.

Joy : Finding what You're Looking For

Joy, one other thought.

i don't know that you have said to me, an august literary critic and more importantly,
A MAN

"I hope you find what you're looking for."

Would you say it to Albert Einstein?

is part of the reason you feel comfortable saying that it to Sister Mary Lisa
is
that she is a
Woman
and a
Sister

who is supposed to follow the teachings of the Men who run the Church, from the Prophet to the Bishop?

And you think she doesn't have the power to swat you down for your disrespect, as I would, and Albert Einstein would?

Thanks Brother Dylan

I will paint my picture
Paint myself in blue and red and black and gray
All of the beautiful colors are very very meaningful
Grey is my favorite color
I felt so symbolic yesterday
If I knew Picasso
I would buy myself a gray guitar and play

Mr. Jones and me look into the future
Stare at the beautiful women
"She's looking at you.
Uh, I don't think so. She's looking at me."
Standing in the spotlight
I bought myself a gray guitar
When everybody loves me, I will never be lonely

I want to be a lion
Everybody wants to pass as cats
We all want to be big big stars, but we got different reasons for that
Believe in me because I don't believe in anything
and I want to be someone to believe

Mr. Jones and me stumbling through the barrio
Yeah we stare at the beautiful women
"She's perfect for you, Man, there's got to be somebody for me."
I want to be Bob Dylan
Mr. Jones wishes he was someone just a little more funky
When everybody loves you, son, that's just about as funky as you can be

"...and you know something is happening here, but you don't know what it is. Do you, Mr Jones?"

Mr Jones

You seem to think that vitriol is the biggest sin a human can commit.

How dare people be angry when one powerful group oppresses a non-powerful group.

One should only say polite and non-confrontive things to the powerful institution.

To protest against treatment of gays, black, and women would be unseemly.

Do you see how atrociously irresponsible, cowardly, and untruthful such an approach would be? I fear you don't, since you have shown no moral value except respect for authority and saying nice things all the time, no matter who does what to whom. That is moral poverty.

Peace and Love to YOu.
Henry

Joy

You know that I have a good deal of good will towards you.

So, let me just weigh in that when you say to SML,
"I hope you find what you're looking for," the unavoidable inference she, or my sister Janet who also left the church, would make, is that you are saying

"you have lost your way, and are seeking for an illusory goal that will bring you despair, and don't say I didn't warn you."

If that is not what you mean, you should adjust your rhetoric. If it IS what you mean, it is quite condescending, and if I were SML or my sister, I would be offended.

Peace and Love
Henry

Jones,

"Do you really want me to repeat all the vitriolic comments that you have made to the 'believers' here and on other topics? Sorry - don't have the time. But you know your intents."

Actually, I would like to see it. I dont mind that sort of stuff at all. You apparently have the time to read, maybe you could carve out a little time to copy and paste what you find.

Remember, the topic here is repentence and forgiveness. Did you remember that? You consider it inappropriate to criticize the church in any way. Maybe we should turn this around a bit. Perhaps you could clarify something for me. Try this:

Hypothetically, if I was at BYU as a student, and while I was there other students had their gonads shocked with electricity while I remained silent. What would you suggest I do to repent for my silence during such torture? How can I acknowldege my role as a silent naive student? How can I fix what happened? How can I make sure that it never happens again? In effect, how can I repent and forgive others on this contemporary event?

Now, how could the professor that attached the electricity to someones scrotum repent?

And, how can the student that turned on the machines repent?

If each of them can repent, why cant the administration repent? Or can they?

And, why in the hell are those professors and the administration still not responsible to the few people that they really screwed up with their little science experiment that was done in the name of god and religion?

How Jones, can all these people repent? And, how is asking that question vitriolic (whatever that means?)

Joy ~

Sure you can pass judgement on me. You already have. It's why you said, "But I am sad that you chose that path." The path you refer to is the path you were taught all apostates tread: the one away from the light of truth into Outer Darkness. The path ruled by Satan.

Otherwise, why would you be so sad for me? I appreciate your feelings but they are misguided in this instance.

I hope you have a nice day too, thanks.

Hello Mary Lisa,

I cannot possibly know who you are following! I hope it is God. I know people who are definitely following God who do not go to the Mormon church. Because I do not know you or your heart, I cannot pass any judgement on you.

Have a great day!

Joy,

I have no doubt that you do not believe people are following Satan. But, it is just plain goofy to suggest that this is not what is taught in your church. C'mon now.

Here is the text from the temple ceremony which is the pinacle of the spiritual rites in the mormon church.

"LUCIFER: Aah! You have looked over my kingdom, and my greatness and glory. Now you want to take possession of the whole of it. (Lucifer turns, and stares into the camera). I have a word to say concerning these people. If they do not walk up to every covenant they make at these altars in this temple this day, they will be in my power!
"

Could it be any more clear than that? The Devil has a prominent role in the temple ceremony and he gets to control all the people that dont obey.

Joy, I agree with you. I think its not true that Satan controls us. But, it is true that the Mormon Church teaches that Satan does control us. Oh, and he controls the water too? Remember that?

Mayan,

Do you really want me to repeat all the vitriolic comments that you have made to the 'believers' here and on other topics? Sorry - don't have the time. But you know your intents.

Besides, I have been chastened by Mary Lisa to build others up!

Joy ~

Would you agree that people are either following God or they are following Satan, according to that which you are taught in the Mormon church? There is no middle ground included in the theology, is there? At least not for one who has learned the Gospel and has followed it and completed the ordinances required for salvation already. Do you agree? Whom would you say I am following?

Hello Mary Lisa,

I guess you can be offended by my sign off if you wish. I was making an assumption that you were making a journey that led you from the religion of your youth to something else based on your previous comments. I made the assumption that you were seeking for something different than what the Mormon church offered and only wished you well in finding it. I apologize if my assumptions were off-base.

Joy ~

I am reminded of Phaedrus' comment made on another post:

"And one more thing; how come believers so often sign off their posts to non theists by wishing us well in finding "what (we) are looking for?" As if we have to be "lost" or "missing something" in our lives? Curious, and amusing, that such people do not see the implicit insult in this."

Hello Mary Lisa,

I wanted to respond to your comment about Mormons being taught that everything that the church teaches is true and that if you don't you are told that you follow Satan. I am so sad to hear that this is what you were taught by the church. I have been a member my entire life. I have never been taught that if I don't believe a point of doctrine then I am following Satan.

In fact, I have always been taught that on every point of doctrine I have not merely the right, but the responsibility to learn of the truthfulness of that doctrine for myself. Finding out the truth is not meant to be an overnight process. I believe that in some cases this will be a life-time process.

I do not know the reasons that you have chosen to be a former member of the church instead of an active member. But I am sad that you chose that path. I hope you find what you are looking for.

Jones ~

It seems that apologies being part of repentance is the theme of Otterson's thread here. So...it becomes obvious to me how easily former Mormons can come to the topic of apologies that seem to be missing from the church in regards to certain groups of people who have been wronged by the church itself. That to me is completely on topic, and makes perfect sense to discuss. I don't see it as tearing down another's beliefs.

Mary Lisa,

Perhaps I am not - except to suggest to those who feel so negatively to try some of the forgiveness medicine that this website was originally discussing. Otherwise I am merely expressing that I do not understand the need of some people to continually rip on the religious beliefs of others here on this site. I have read it from some of these same people in response to other panelists' columns as well on this "On Faith" website.

Jones,

How am I tearing down the church? Do tell. I am not implying that I am not, but, for you to say as much should merit some amount of evidence.

Another may say just the opposite as you. The person that pushes the Church (and it will not be me, believe that) to finally address the atrocities and tortures that BYU committed in the basement of the Wilkinson Center may be the person to save the church. The person that communicates to Otterson and his employers to stop punishing people like Jeffrey Nielsen, will improve BYU and the Church more than the person that is silent when real people are punished or judged inappropriately.

So, perhaps, it is Sister Mary Lisa and Phaedrus that will save the church from the unrepentant likes of Otterson and others? Ever considered that? (whew, how was that for a boomeranging recovery back to the topic?)

Jones ~

"I couldn't understand the use of their energy on tearing down someone else in this way."

I'm having a difficult time feeling exactly how you're BUILDING UP others here...can you help me out a little?

HJ:

Oh man. Oh great man. That really truly made me smile. How do you ever ever ever come up with these references?

Ya know, its a damn shame that you arent priming the minds of many mormons, on any given sunday, with your wit and wisdom. They must miss having a guy like you. And, while you may not admit it, I suspect you miss them too, in small but meaningful ways, no?

Mayan elephant,

I suppose the difference to me about spending time on NASCAR leagues or fantasy sports or whatever, is that here you spend time in a negative pursuit on this website, seeking to tear down someone else's beliefs. Often it is not just ''interesting discussion'. It is active verbage against someone else's religious beliefs. That is not the same thing as wasting time on American Idol or some other pursuit. Whatever your investment in the Mormon church that went sour - I obviously don't know about that. But it just seems like sour grapes to me.

Perhaps the 'obsessive' label hurts because it fits so well - huh?

I have been to churches before that preached from the pulpit against other churches. I couldn't understand the use of their energy on tearing down someone else in this way. I can't understand yours.

Jones,

We seem to have been typing simultaneously, and i clearly missed the point you were making.

You said, "They will believe anything that is said about a church's history as truth (as long as it is negative) and in the same breath do not believe something else that was said by mere mortals about the truthfulness of that same church. "

By citing 'they', you obviously were including me. It is sooo so so so so so NOT true about believing anything about the church that is negative. That is outrageous and beyond the pale.

It is equally outrageous to say that truthfulness is just as easily dismissed. To say 'The Church is True' is to say nothing at all. Give me something truthful, then we can discuss. As we have discussed here many times, the Church is no more true than Major League Baseball. We can discuss events and points of faith but neither gives one institution any more truthiness than another.

Guess what Jones. You fail to realize that many on here are doing just as you, responding to what they see and know in the here and now. This is what is so very interesting about this topic in my opinion. Lets take for example the BYU situation where men were electrically shocked on their testicles until they vomitted or refused any more pain. Some of whom, went on to commit suicide. This happened on campus, in your lifetime and mine.

How will Otterson and his employer deal with that historical event, one that requires some change or repentence on the part of the institution or the individuals involved? If their failure to even acknowledge that the events happened, much less seek to fix what they have done is any indication as to the integrity and merited loyalty to Otterson and his cohorts, is it not reaonable to dismiss much of the other claims the same men are making? If not, why?

Mayan

When Norman Mailer was being as insufferable as Mr Jones on that famous Dick Cavett show, and said to Dick
"why don't you just read your next question off your sheet there?"
Dick answered with the immortal words
"why don't you fold it five ways and stick it where the sun don't shine."

As a literary critic of some note,
I must similarly compliment you on the phrasing of your last paragraph to Mr Jones.
My only criticism would be that you were too polite.

Oh, Mr Jones, have you ever met a novelist and critic, expecially a great one like yours truly, who WASN"T obsessive?

Jones ~

Sorry, I am one of those "obsessive" former Mormons. I recently left the church I was born into and practiced for over 30 years.

You wrote, "As I look into churches, I have the perfect right to choose the opposite. To NOT believe the things that happened or were reported to have happened hundreds of years ago. But instead to look at the things that I CAN witness for myself right now with regards to that church. When I do that, I find a very different picture than the one presented by the 'obsessors' (a name I have mere chosen to describe those people on this website that seem to fit the bill)"

The thing about the Mormon church is that it teaches its membership that all of the things it teaches are TRUE. If one chooses to "NOT believe" any of the things it teaches, then that person risks being judged by his leaders as following Satan. That may be part of the reason that we "obsess."

Jones,

You make a good point, again. Perhaps it is obsessive. Though, it could also just be interesting for some people, like American Idol or the Six O'clock news. I would bet there are significantly more people spending significantly more time with their fantasy NASCAR leagues than we are spending here at On Faith. Not that either is so terrible, rather, it would highlight the insignificance of this very small religion.

Even still, its insignificance based on pure quantifiable measures does not capture the significance to any particular individual that may have invested years, marriage, money and much more for this church.

So, I suppose that is a polite way of saying, take your obesessive label and stick it in the very place you extracted the 'Where were you, mere mortal' line.

Sister Mary Lisa,

From the sounds of it, you are Mormon. Some of these other obsessive ones are self proclaimed 'former Mormons'. Others are athiests or of other religions. And others I think are just of the mind set that they like to argue and ridicule.

On this website everyone seems welcome to voice whatever pops into their heads. I was just curious about those who proclaim to be athiest. I haven't been able to figure out why they would spend so much time here.

As far as questioning the word of mere mortals, as a said before, with regard to history, I suppose we all have to do it to some extent. But I, myself, do this fairly cautiously. This caution comes from experience in the world - things are not always what they seem. History and science are not infallable.

Mary Lisa, you pointed out that all religions come from the words of mere mortals. While this may be a debatable point to some, let us agree on that point for a moment. It seems that those who are questioning the Mormon church are picking and choosing which mere mortals they will believe. They will believe anything that is said about a church's history as truth (as long as it is negative) and in the same breath do not believe something else that was said by mere mortals about the truthfulness of that same church. They have just plain decided that they will believe one thing and not the other. They have the perfect right to do so.

As I look into churches, I have the perfect right to choose the opposite. To NOT believe the things that happened or were reported to have happened hundreds of years ago. But instead to look at the things that I CAN witness for myself right now with regards to that church. When I do that, I find a very different picture than the one presented by the 'obsessors' (a name I have mere chosen to describe those people on this website that seem to fit the bill)

As for my reasons for investigating any church instead of believing as an athiest, I will keep that to myself.

Jones ~

I wish you peace on your journey, whichever path you are on or choose to take. I am sorry I assumed you were Mormon if you aren't. My statement could be true of any person in any religion: all religions originate from the words of mere mortals who claim to have God's direction.

If our journeys seem obsessive to you, that's entirely OK. I have found that the majority of humans I know seem to feel some "obsession" about their own lives as well. We all are, after all, very attuned to ourselves and our thoughts and our own opinions. It's the nature of being human.

If Mormonism is a huge part of some of our lives, it will naturally be expressed during these On Faith discussions, don't you think? That is also natural.

Eh-hem,

I don't recall ever saying that I was Mormon.

I still find that some of you DO have an obsession with your
"irritation" with the Mormon church. I make this judgement based on the inordinate amount of time you spend writing about these 'topics of concern'.

I did not say "you people" because I was talking about 'you - mayan elephant'. Though I could have said 'you people' because after looking again, there are some others of you who also seem to be a bit preoccupied with this obscure religion.

I would be interested to know what religion, if you believe in any, has no history - smistory to be looked into. And if you are all athiests, why do you concern yourselves about topics on a blog called "On Faith"? I have heard it in your other posts - something to the effect - 'to be sure that those who are looking into religion, know what they are getting into' - yadda yadda yadda.

I guess that this reason does not seem to justify to me the amount of time and 'research' that you spend in to doing so. That is why I consider you all (as opposed to 'you people') to be a bit obsessed. That is why I suggested that you try the forgiveness tactic instead.

As for me, I am still figuring it all out. And you can be sure that I am certainly capable of fully investigating a religion before I join, without listening to all the broken record diatribes presented on this website.

Jones ~

You wrote to Mayan, "I say history - smistory. You weren't there. You take the words of mere mortals as proof of your grudging."

How exactly is that different from you taking the written words of a mere mortal (Joseph Smith) as proof of your religion originating straight from God? You weren't there either.

"hmmmm. Very interesting. Doesnt this fly in the face of what Otterson is saying above? On the one hand, we need to repent, repair, fix it up and abandon whatever we did. On the other hand, ahhh whatever, it doesnt really matter, after all if you are happy and you know it clap your hands, if youre happy and you know it clap your hands and dont apologize to anyone about anything."

That is hilarious.

I'm picturing the Church as a retarded middle-aged man, sitting in on the floor with the other sunbeams, gleefully clapping his hands, and everybody is willing to forgive the huge tantrum he just threw during the coloring activity because he's *finally* cooperating.

Oh, and there's a point to that image (beyond mockery) too. Many of us feel that, to the extent the overgrown child has the capacity, he should learn to step away from his own interests, acknowledge the effect his tantrum had on others, and change the way he deals with those situations in the future. For that reason, Mormon history is very relevant--not because it contains a bunch of mockable stories that can be used to embarrass believers, but because the way the current leaders deal with that history helps us assess whether or not they deserve our loyalty. I don't want to spend my life following leaders who won't (or can't) deal maturely with reality or dissent.

I would like to hear from a believer who is willing to explain how the current LDS Church leadership's method of dealing with reality (including historical realities like racism, suppression of dissent, lawlessness, lies, discarded doctrine, plagiarism and evidence of fraud in scripture, and sometimes even murder) demonstrates maturity and circumspection worthy of our loyalty today.

Pardon me, Mr Jones

I meant to write
"it worked well for Imus when he told SHARPTON that "you people..."

Though I AM America's greatest literary critic,
I am NOT inffallible,
unlike the Pope,
or the Prophet.

Dear Mr Jones

A suggestion on your literary style.

Referring to the ex-mormons, You wrote
"I have been reading some of the things that you have posted on other topics."

I suggest that instead of saying "you",
you use the term, "you people"

It worked well for Imus when he told Imus that "you people should leave me alone and realize I am a good guy."

Jones, are you kidding me right now? "I say history - smistory. You weren't there." Wow.

Ever heard of the Book of Mormon? well, dont bother its just fiction smiction. And in fact, you werent really there anyways.

When a mormon, of all people, pulls the history-smistory line of out.... well..... out of a place, let's just say they pulled it out of a place, I cannot help but laugh. The irony.

Keep on clapping Jones. That was good. History smistory, you werent there. I wasnt at the World Series last year either, but I still am quite certain that the Yankees were not invited. But, since I wasnt there, I leave that up to the prophets to declare.

On a more serious note, It's great fun to see a topic like this, about repentence and forgiveness, and then find a Mormon calling out another with the conviction that bad 'Karma' is to befall another.

Jones:

According to your perspective it seems, anyone who happens to actually have a great deal of knowledge about LDS doctrine and practice, and disseminates this knowledge on this, or I suppose any other board, has an "unhealthy obsession." Do you not find this presumptuous? I can think of any number of reasons a person might do such things, none of which indicate any negative character trait.

It might be that people who know better are somewhat irritated by the carefully scrubbed version of Mormonism that the church puts out there for public consumption (which is, was, and always will be marketing). What lies beneath in some key areas is not at all clean cut, wholesome and harmless. ME and others (myself included) point to these things on this board. As for whether anyone changes their minds based on these things, who knows? You seem to imply that you do, but I cannot imagine what that judgement would be based on? None of us have any idea the number of people who pass through here without comment. Were I investigating Mormonism, many of the things written here would give me pause, and send me off to additional material that is cited. I would get a more rational and accurate picture of Mormonism as a result.

As for your "were you there?" challenge to history, funny how I only hear people say that who are unhappy with one of history's particular verdicts.

Ahh, Mayan,

Thank you for again making illustrating what I said before.

I have been reading some of the things that you have posted on other topics. It seems that you have an unhealthy obsession with these Mormons and points of history. Do you really think that your perseveration on these topics has an impact?

I say history - smistory. You weren't there. You take the words of mere mortals as proof of your grudging. I certainly don't want to be in your shoes when all the karma in the universe comes full circle!

Jones,

All very interesting. No doubt this thing took a detour in a jiffy. I cant quite tell if the person who derailed things had the spirit or not. I suspect the person did not have the spirit and was probably sinning when they somehow changed the topic. I hope they repent.

How can you say, however, that a distraction was made by someone that doesnt believe in the Mormon church? That is a bit of a stretch, donchya think.

Ottersons formula is standard material. Straight out of the standard missionary discussions that missionaries give to new converts. As had already been mentioned, he personalized it a bit and then basically cut/paste the missionary discussion regarding repentence. thats all fine.

There really are a couple valid issues here. The day this was published Mr. Otterson responded to reporters in a USA Today article. Including this:

"Still, history causes Mormons to keep reckoning with their past. Oxford University Press will publish a book this year by three church historians who say Mormon prophet Brigham Young didn't authorize the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Meanwhile, critics still ask how polygamy (practiced in the 19th century but denounced since 1890) could have been a holy practice in one century and a sin in the next.

The church declined to comment on either of the new films because leaders haven't seen them. Spokesman Michael Otterson says: "The values we subscribe to — honesty, integrity, education, self-improvement, service — are not at all strange to Americans in concept. Those things make absolutely insignificant these other issues."

hmmmm. Very interesting. Doesnt this fly in the face of what Otterson is saying above? On the one hand, we need to repent, repair, fix it up and abandon whatever we did. On the other hand, ahhh whatever, it doesnt really matter, after all if you are happy and you know it clap your hands, if youre happy and you know it clap your hands and dont apologize to anyone about anything.

I really dont know what an apology would do for the victims of Mountain Meadows, African Americans, Women, and tortured Homosexuals on the BYU campus. I have no clue what each of them would expect. Though, I think its safe to say, there are many that dont appreciate being told to repent while their church refuses to even acknowledge historical facts, let alone acknowledge any amount of responsibility.

If you are thinking that my comment above, regarding the Oath of Vengeance was a detour, you may have a point. I was simply pointing out that there was an Oath that some templed people are unaware of. This Oath may have had a significant role in the slaughtering of many people at Mountain Meadows. Again, I dont know, but I dont think its unreasonable to assume that people making such an Oath, would feel justified in seeking vengeance on behalf of the Prophets. If its not the case, let Otterson explain, rather than simply dismiss it because some mormons are nice.

Finally, about repentence and forgiveness. Sure, they are good things. Christianity has taken that to say that Perfection is THE standard that we must attain and that this repentence process gets us to Perfection/Salvation. Thats a great motivator, I suppose. I think there is also value in wholeness, where people are able to live with the paradox of being imperfect. And where I find a big issue with Mormonism, is that this repentence process is expected, no, demanded by everyone within the family so the family can be a mormon eternal family. The allowance for imperfection and wholeness within the family unit is not so warmly welcomed.

So, I dont think its too much to lean on Otterson here. If he, as a Spokesman for the church, wants to profess how great repentance can be, then what the hell, Repent Otterson. Come clean on the Church's role in key events in its history, and in the lives of those students at BYU. After all, it will bring you peace, right?

Amazing that some of you manage to twist any topic to fit your pet peeves against the Mormon church! Wow! Even the one here about forgiveness and repentance. Obviously you do not believe in the Mormon church. Obviously you do not believe in repenting. Obviously you do not believe in forgiving.

It is easier, I guess, to blame the church for what you 'understand' about Mormon history. It must be easier to blame the church for all the 'wrongs' you perceive having been done to you and yours. If the Mormon church came out and apologized the way you demand for all this stuff that you blame them for, I am sure you would find something else to fault them with. You would find some other way to be disgruntled. Or you would just have a problem with the way they apologized.

Some of the other people on this forum have said how they found peace in forgiving others. You might want to try it.

What is that? ....is that the second token of the melchizedek priesthood, the patriarchal grip, or sure sign of the nail?

No, Silly NGTBF,

This oath:

"You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation."

Nathan C,

Are you talking about this oath: "Health in the navel, marrow in the bones, strength in the loins and in the sinews, power in the priesthood be upon me and upon my posterity through all generations of time and throughout all eternity."

Is this the oath you are talking about?

While we're on the subject of forgiveness, maybe Mr. Otterson can explain why it took the church so long to remove the oath of vengeance from the LDS temple endowment? The one where each mormon promised under penalty of their own death to exact vengeance upon the government of the United States, as well as upon those who killed Joseph Smith? Do you think those blood oaths had anything to do with a bunch of mormons killing all of the adults in a wagon train at Mountain Meadows? Brigham Young gave the order to kill those people, whether it was done in his office in the days prior to their deaths, or in the endowment house many years earlier, it is a moot point.

Otterson,

Why don't you apply the repentance process to your church? First, the church needs to recognize the pain and anguish it has caused countless thousands of people. The lies, the deception, the guilt, the manipulation.

Second, the mormon church needs to seek the forgiveness of all its victims. A public statement would be appropriate if it was sincere, but we know you don't have the courage to do this.

Third, how do you restore the trust, confidence, and family relationships the mormon church has robbed from people?

And yes, fourth, don't repeat it. Stop the lies, deception, and manipulation.

Do you have the courage to do this Otterson as a representative of your church?

I like this passage in Isaiah, "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

Too bad Isaiah didn't know about computers, and the LDS church recording "disciplinary actions" in the permanent electronic record of a member who sins. Apparently, even though sins may become white, they never get erased from the church's database.

Go ask someone who has had LDS church discipline. Even if they get new church leaders, or if they move to a new geographical location, their past sins follow them around as a note on their membership record. Sorry, even if individual mormons can forgive people, the institutional church cannot.

Hello Concerned Christian Now LIb,

I express my ignorance of the Professor Corssan you referenced earlier. I find his comments have distorted the beliefs I have about Jesus Christ. I cannot speak for 'Christians' in this respect. My God was not guilty of filicide (I admit I had to look up this word!). The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is a bit more complicated than that. In every regard and at any time, Christ himself could have changed the outcome of his torture and death.

I understand that if you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ then this all sounds like a ridiculous story or myth. For those of use who are liberated and still Christian, the atonement of Christ is extremely meaningful. His miracles actually occurred (raising from the dead included). Even if you don't believe in His divinity, His example of forgiveness as described by Flashlight, is a good one for all.

JIM A.

Your God would be guilty of filicide. Odd considering this same God created the Universe and wreaked havoc over the Jews, Egyptians et al for misbehaving without the need of sacrificing an offspring. And being an eternal, all-powerful being, this Singularity would have no offspring or need any assistance in reigning over the Universe. Therefore, you might want to reconsider your concept of God.

Right on Henry James!

"YEA!"

Furthermore

If religious people think that they have more meaning in their lives than I and my atheist friends do, they don't know the meaning of "meaning."

And it is tres arrogante' for them to think their meaning is more elevated than my meaning.

Jim A asks
1. Is it possible that repentance and forgiveness are eternal truths and part of a divine design?

2. Is it possible that a Divine Creator placed within us an innate ability to understand these truths?

3. Is it possible that many religions contain truths that give understanding and purpose to life and help many to be more moral than they otherwise would be without any religion?

Answers from the Great Literary Critic:

1. If there IS a God, yes. If there isn't, as I believe, it is still possible that feeling remorse for moral failings and being forgiven by our fellows is part of Nature's design. I think it is.

2. Yes, though the overwhelming evidence is that our innate moral reasoning ability long predates organized religion, and even our species. Religion co-opted the moral behavior and reasoning that humans were already practicing for centuries and pretended it invented the idea. CF the 10 Commandments.

3. All the evidence says THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE. There is not shred of evidence that religions make people more moral, and mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Is Repentance Necessary?

Joy, I think I agree with you, though you don't seem like the kind of person who has ever had much to repent for.

My point is that "repent" is a religious word, which is fine for religious people to use, but that makes no sense to me with my moral scheme (again, I am fine with you using it in your paradigm).

When the conversation is believer to non-believer, as it is with you and me, I prefer to use more neutral terms.
"Forgive" works for me. If I do something bad to you and I sincerely apollogize and make up for it, I hope you will forgive me.

"Repent" is too tied up with "sin" for me. I prefer the term "moral wrong."

cheers to you, good JOy.

After re-reading Mr. Otterson's post, I wonder that someone might make the leap that he is claiming that religion has a corner on repentance. Most of his statement refers to actions that I believe are universal truths about how to have peace and change when I have done something wrong. The last paragraph refers to how he sees this in light of his religous beliefs.

Certainly people who prescribe to no particular religion or who do not believe in God at all can still find peace and change when following the steps outlined by Mr. Otterson.

My belief in these ideas and my belief in Jesus Christ's role in my repentance process go hand in hand. But that does not mean that they have to for any one else.

I believe that regardless of your religous inclinations, life is ultimately better when people choose to repent of wrongs they have committed. I think the world would be a vastly different place if it happened more often.

Our Resident Literary Critic writes:

"Making "repentance" a "Religious virtue" is another case of organized religion co-opting an innate moral understanding that all humans possess..."

I agree completely, and see this as another face of the "all morality must be religiously-derived" delusion. Singer makes this point quite well, as do Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Stegner, and especially Hitchens (great new book, HJ, I see you have been citing it as well.

My suspicion is that most of the people who believe that morality must be god-given to have any meaning, just do not know any better, they are simply part of a culture that tends to propagate this myth. But, some do know better, and simply exploit others by making this false claim.

Henry James:

In response to
We Don't Need Religion for Foregiveness and "Repentence"

Given: there are many good, decent, moral people that don't subscribe to any particular religion

Given: anyone (with or without religion) can repent and forgive others and enjoy the resulting peace

Is it possible that repentance and forgiveness are eternal truths and part of a divine design?

Is it possible that a Divine Creator placed within us an innate ability to understand these truths?

Is it possible that many religions contain truths that give understanding and purpose to life and help many to be more moral than they otherwise would be without any religion?

CTCNL:

Unfortunately we mortal humans often have such a limited perspective that we don't understand God's ways. When we attempt to see things from an eternal perspective and understand that this life is just a small (but not insignificant) blip in our eternal progression, we can then appreciate how God would lovingly allow His Son to give his life for the eternal benefit of all mankind.

Atonement is part of apology and repentance.

The definition:

a·tone·ment (ə-tōn'mənt)
n.
Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation.

Reconciliation or an instance of reconciliation between God and humans.
Atonement Christianity. The reconciliation of God and humans brought about by the redemptive life and death of Jesus.

Professor Crossan's take on the Christian (Mormon?) theology of atonement:

From his book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians (Mormons? my addition) love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians (Mormons? my addition) have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian (Mormons? my addition) stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

We Don't Need Religion for Foregiveness and "Repentence"

There is hosts of scientific evidence that atheists are at least as moral as believers. (read Peter Singer and Marc Hauser).

The most basic tenet of morality is
"don't do bad things to your fellows" the Categorical Imperative

and if you do
Say you are sorry, mean it, and don't do it again.

Making "repentance" a "Religious virtue" is another case of organized religion co-opting an innate moral understanding that all humans possess (except the mentally ill and sociopaths)

and saying you need to subscribe to my religion to expiate your guilt.

We need to grow out of this superstition.

"Only the Prophet can represent the LDS Church and the Prophets long ago put the events [MMM} you mention to rest."

Read Mr Otterson's words again--"Most of us are much better at justifying our actions than assessing them from the viewpoints of others."

Look at those events from the viewpoints of others. Others--including descendants of the victims--are looking for an apology.

But hey, I suppose that because Pres. Hinckley has said we'll never know what happened, those people need to forget it and move on.

Too bad Pres Hinckley can't move on from the events that happened in 1844, and is willing to accept apologies/statements of regret from state legislatures.

What about events that happened not so long ago? Denying blacks the priesthood until 1978? Controversial "treatments" for homosexuality? Urging homosexuals to marry, thus doing nothing but spread misery?

Even now the Mormon Church is doing things for which it may one day be forced to publicly apologize. Just ask gay students at BYU what some of them have been subjected to by way of "therapy."

I, too, find Ottersons post ironic.

I'd like to clarify something I wrote in my previous comment.

When I said "To say the church had nothing to do with Mountain Meadows Massacre would be akin to saying Hitler had nothing to do with the holocasust," I did NOT mean Brigham Young ordered the massacre.

I believe there is evidence that he MAY have: many of his actions certainly created the climate. However, it is not conclusive and we may never know.

What is indisputable is that he was complicit in the resulting coverup, refusing to cooperate with the federal government and stopping any efforts made to discover the truth about the massacre.

Brigham Young's actions in this regard, as well as his fellow Mormons', were heinous, and the reason the church owes the Fancher familys, et al, an apology.

It's very telling that when the soldiers that discovered the bodies the Mormons had left on the ground to rot, they built a rock cairn with a wooden cross, with the words "Vengeance is mine."

When Brigham Young finally visited the site, he read the verse aloud, and altered the text to: "Vengeance is mine with the Lord; I HAVE repaid."

Then he ordered the rock cairn dismantled.

Hmmm....I wonder what he meant?

Jaynee

I agree with Buster.

Obviously he didn't mean Otterson is personally to blame.

His point is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes an apology to the descendants of this horrible massacre wherein 120 people were killed.

These descendants are not appeased by token monuments and memorials. Their ancestors were murdered in cold blood, and it traumatizes them to this day.

To say the church had nothing to do with Mountain Meadows Massacre would be akin to saying Hitler had nothing to do with the holocaust. Seriously.

Therefore, Buster is saying Otterson should apply his own criteria for forgiveness to the church he so fervently believes in.

And the church should heed that call, and apologize for its part in this horrific act of terrorism that brutally took the lives of innocent men, women and children.

Jayneedoe

Buster,

That comment is very much out of context. Otterson responded as an individual only. Reread his opening personal story to see that these are his personal thoughts, if you didn't do so already. His comments are also taught in Scriptures. There is not a need for an individual to repent for sins of another individual. Only the Prophet can represent the LDS Church and the Prophets long ago put the events you mention to rest. You will do well to forgive and repent as well.

"First, there has to be recognition that an action is wrong. That’s not always easy because personal pride and self-justification frequently get in the way. Most of us are much better at justifying our actions than assessing them from the viewpoints of others."

Mr Otterson:

Don't you think that, considering your statements in the above paragraph, that an apology for what happened at Mountain Meadows might be in order?

After all, if we assess what happened there from the viewpoints of others, it becomes clear that, through its priesthood organization in Southern Utah, the LDS church was involved. Brigham Young, at a minimum, then protected the principal parties from prosecution for nearly two decades.

If the argument is that this is all the distant past, why then did the LDS church accept the statement of regret from the Illinois legislature for any role the state might have played in the murder of Joseph Smith?

Thank you for your posting. I have found in my own life that the more I focus on repenting of my own flaws, the easier it is to not focus on others'. The second step you point out, however, can be tough. Swallowing my pride and admitting to myself, and when necessary, to someone else that I goofed up doesn't always come easy. I have found though, that this step is necessary to get real peace.

Great posting by Mr. Otterson, and insightful comments! Thank you!

Personally I am sooo grateful that I have the opportunity to repent and repent again of potentially the same mistake. Whether it is the need to overcome impatience, anger or taking offense, I find that I am a slow learner. If the concept of repentance was a three-strikes you're out principle, I would have been out a long time ago! I agree with you, Richard Miller. For me, and for probably many people, the process of changing our natures is a long and difficult one. It requires work and faith.

I am inspired by Christ's example in the scriptures as well, Flashlight. It is for His nature that I strive.

Flashlight
Thanks for the timely reminder of what scripture actually is -- an aid to us in living well and finding answers. Not a weapon to attack others.

The Savior was a wonderful example to me, not just because he walked on water and confounded people who thought they were smart, but because he taught principles so poignantly. Forgiveness is one of his lessons which resonates with me. On one occasion, Christ forcefully taught his disciplies that people who take offence need a significant change of heart. Peter, who seems to me to be slightly exasperated, asks the Savior how often they're required to forgive their trespassers, "seven times?"

"Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven."

I'm not sure if Peter was being sarcastic or was really looking for some kind of upper bound, but the Savior made it perfectly clear that the answer is infinity. We are to forgive always and continually.

Such a challenge!

How easy is it for us to challenge people's intent when they ask forgiveness or to continue to blame people when they've asked our forgiveness. It's easy to tell yourself "I forgive that person," but hard to make it real.

I feel the sweet peace that comes with complete forgiveness of trespassers far too infrequently. I'm grateful for gentle (and not so gentle) reminders in the scriptures.

To me the attitude that we are unable to stop committing a particular sin is the one that is arrogant. We are not zombie-like automatons in thrall to our worst impulses. We may not be perfect but we owe it to the world and those around us to at least try. "The devil made me do it" defense is a point of comedy because it as such an obvious cop-out. The married man or woman who "can't" resist the charms of another person ("but I loved them both!")is a sad victim of lowered expectations. We live in a society that glorifies these worst impulses in art and culture, but that should be no excuse. At its best, religion should be a support to us in trying to do better.

Another important concept to remember in the repentance process is forgive oneself. There is an excellent article in the Ensign about this (hopefully this link will work): http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=63e50ed1d61e0110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

In case the link doesn't work, the reference is D. Chad Richardson, “Forgiving Oneself,” Ensign, Mar 2007, 30–33

As a Mormon myself, I've encountered some skepticism about the fourth step of repentance -- not repeating the sin. To some people, this tenet of Mormonism sounds arrogant or presumptuous. "How can someone not repeat a sin?" It also seems to put emphasis on "works" over faith.

However, I think this simply underscores the need for continual repentance. As often as we repeat our sins, we must repent. (Like a flow chart, "If Step 4 fails, return to Step 1.") As we do this, our "natures" change and we no longer have desire to sin.

The following quote from Elder Eyring seems to explain the importance of "works" in shaping who we are:

"What we do allows the Atonement of Jesus Christ to change us into what we must be. Our faith in Jesus Christ brings us to repentance and to keeping His commandments. We obey and we resist temptation by following the promptings of the Holy Ghost. In time our natures will change." (As A Child, Ensign, May 2006)