Can we discuss D&C 8-9? Revelation?

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I think many of us are clinically crazy to some degree

Heber13 wrote:

I don’t like to have this thread start to take on the flavor that our religion was based on the mind of a madman. I don’t think Joseph was insane, or a liar.

This is a remarkably important thread — I don’t have time to comment right now. You both are on to something about the nature of the mind.

Speculating: Suppose for a moment that the unconscious is truly our pre-mortal self with all of its memories and ‘programming’, but our conscious mind is that we are born with. Let’s say that the spirit mind is also plagued with a partner, the ‘enemy of god’. Sanity is when the conscious mind only receives orderly, well thought out messages from the spiritual mind, and where the message of the enemy of god — the oppposition in all things — has done its job to clarify the right thing to do. I’m not making sense, but it’s in the general idea of a type of speculation where the unconscious mind is informed of all things spiritual.

NOw, to the idea of insanity. Perhaps insanity is that the normal barriers between the conscious mind and the spirit mind are broken down, such that unprocessed messages come up into consciousness. Schizophrenia (if I can ever spell that word) is this broken down barrier. In some respects, there is some real spiritual manifestation — visions, glorious things that the human mind cannot see. Yet at the same time, there is also a view of the enemy of god — the opposition in all things — and these two aspects fight hard now not under the covers, but openly. this could be a way of reconciling insanity with demonic posession.

So now to the idea of a prophet: The prophet is not insane, but the boundary between the conscious mind and the good, spiritual mind is mayby more transparent. Selective schizophrenia, but not insanity.

If I believe that our spiritual minds are the fully mature, knowledgable mind from the premortal existence, then by virtue of birth, this knowledge is veiled by the conscious/subconscious barrier.

I really don’t have time to lay out a more thoughtful reply, but I think between Ray and Heber, I’ve seen some really interesting ideas. more later.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I don’t think Joseph was insane, or a liar … I believe he believed every word of what he said …

Well, then there is a very fine line between insanity/lying on the one hand and sanely telling the “truth” on the other. How are we to judge which is which? For example, either a sword-wielding angel threatened Joseph’s life if he refused to institutionalize polygyny, or he/she/it didn’t. I can’t bring myself to accept that it happened in that way, so I am forced into one of the following conclusions: either Joseph made the whole thing up (he lied), or he was delusional (insane is probably not the right word, but close enough). Or are we to ignore the most egregious examples before we make judgement?

To put it another way, would anyone here want to date someone like that?

Quote:

I don’t like to have this thread start to take on the flavor that our religion was based on the mind of a madman.

Does it matter, and if so, why? Are/were there any religions that were the result of madness? And how do we tell the difference? Cannot “mad” people be inspired? Cleary the usual or obvious methods of distinguishing the one from the other are not applicable.

[Anonymous]

doug, those are great questions, and my own answer, personally, again as pure speculation and conjecture, is that the angel with the sword incident very well might have been an example of why his name would be had for good and evil in the future. I actually love that statement, largely because I interpret it so differently than most members do.

To take the view I currently take, I have to (and I mean simply must) accept that there could have been instances where his “visions” were not “of God” – that he was way more complex than a one-dimensional, flat caricature. Frankly, it makes him so much more “real” for me – and, in being more real, much more inspirational. It makes him capable of being an incredibly humble egomaniac, for example – and it gives me hope in my own complexity that God can speak to/in me, even as my bad self speaks all too often. It can make the concept of a redemption and an atonement relative to ME (my real, inner “I am”) – that, at some point in the future, my split personality can become “one” (and have it be the one I desire it to be).

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

Speculating: Suppose for a moment that the unconscious is truly our pre-mortal self with all of its memories and ‘programming’, but our conscious mind is that we are born with.

Keep it commin’ man. You’re opening my eyes to ideas never before considered.

doug wrote:

Are/were there any religions that were the result of madness? And how do we tell the difference?

Let’s see, if you ask to shake their hand and they shake but you can’t feel their hand, they are a false spirit … oh wait…that’s a different test 😆

Actually, not to mock, you ask good questions that I am interested in discussing seriously doug. So how do we tell the difference? I’m not sure if the person is mad or not, perhaps it doesn’t matter. One could take the pragmatic approach, and just say if what they said works…then go with it. If it is non-sense, ignore it. It seemed much of Joseph Smith’s stuff worked enough to move people, which established an organization, which produced others who had other ideas to morph it into something today…and it seems to work for me, even though studying Joseph seems to make me feel like Ray says, a complex individual.

I guess what I’m saying is, judge it by what he is saying (God is our Exalted Father of Flesh and Bone = this works for me!; We must enter into a celestial marriage defined as polygamy = this is crazy!), rather then accept if he is a prophet, then I must accept EVERYTHING he says.

cwald wrote:

The Mormon Expression podcast D&C 8-9 For Dummies…was VERY VERY good – and fair in my opinion.

I highly recommend it.

I’m working my way through it cwald. So far, I’ve enjoyed their discussion. I noticed they spent time talking about the problem the church has with sharing pictures like the one in my OP, rather than the “real” way the revelation came about. BTW, that picture I attached came straight from the Institute Manual. It is what the students are shown, no other images of that process.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

I don’t think Joseph was insane, or a liar … I believe he believed every word of what he said …

Well, then there is a very fine line between insanity/lying on the one hand and sanely telling the “truth” on the other. How are we to judge which is which? For example, either a sword-wielding angel threatened Joseph’s life if he refused to institutionalize polygyny, or he/she/it didn’t. I can’t bring myself to accept that it happened in that way, so I am forced into one of the following conclusions: either Joseph made the whole thing up (he lied), or he was delusional (insane is probably not the right word, but close enough). Or are we to ignore the most egregious examples before we make judgement?

to anyone who believes that god fully controls the prophetic utterance, I don’t think there is any other conclusion than to say if the Prophet did a single thing that is inconsistent with what a prophet should do, then we must reject that prophet.

The syllogism is as follows:

A. God will not allow the Prophet to lead the people astray. (proof: self-justifying statement of General Authorities – DOGMA).

B. Joseph Smith required the practice of polygamy and used prophetic utterance to entice young or married women to marry him.(proof: historical evidence)

C. Enticing young or married women to marry you is morally and ethically wrong and is leading people (at least the women, that is) ‘astray’. (proof: virtual consensus of all moral and ethical systems)

Therefore:

D. Joseph Smith led people astray by B and C.

E. Joseph Smith is not a prophet because D negates A.

Solving this problem, we can do one of three things:

1. Reject B, by hiding the actual history from view so that people don’t make these conclusions (the LDS church position and policy).

2. Reject C. The policy of Brigham Young and John Taylor, and the position of the FLDS.

3. Reject A. The consensus position of almost all non-LDS, all non-TBM LDS, and of many TBM LDS.

I just don’t see any logical way around this.

But as we embrace the meaning of D&C 8-9, then the idea that revelation is precise must be rejected, because as humans, the filter of human bias is too prevalent to believe otherwise.

We cannot know Joseph Smith’s mind as he manipulated Helen Mar Kimball or Zina Jacobs to join him in celestial, plural marriage. We have only the evidence that it happened, and reports of the words used to convince this girl and married woman to go along with it. Did he have a revelation from God? highly, highly unlikely, and if so, I would not worship such a god. Did Joseph Smith feel that it was a revelation from god? Was he intentionally and willfully manipulative? Was he insane? No one will ever know. It is clear that he believed at some level that his cognitive processes were giving him revelation, for he accurately describes the method without having the modern tools to understand this process. But what he probably did not know was that such ‘inspiration’ can also come from dark places in the human soul, driving us to do things that are beyond the moral compass.

We have seen perfectly good people do some really nasty things. There is a dark place in our souls, and perhaps I am speaking of myself here, so bear with me. Knowing my dark place, having it creep into my thoughts and potential actions once or twice in my life, scares the living daylights out of me. I have not ‘sinned’ in the sense that I completed what my mind was telling me to do, but I know that I am capable of some pretty bad stuff. Maybe this is my own insanity. Maybe I really am a bad person pretending to be good. I have no idea. But I guess that most people have the potential for evil, but the desire to be good and thus use a moral compass to stay morally good. We try.

Imagine, though, that a person, gifted with amazing visions and truly getting a lot of things right as Joseph Smith in my opinion really did. That person with gifts is charismatic, and is surrounded with worshipful admirers. He can do no wrong. At what point does he believe his own delusion?

Lord Acton, Historical Essays and Studies (1907) wrote:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.

tendency. human nature. the way of nature is all about tendency. laws of nature speak of tendency. Lord Acton’s famous statement is a ‘true’ representation of the nature of authority. Even Joseph Smith said the same thing in Section 121 50 years before Lord Acton penned it in a letter in 1887. “It is the nature and disposition of all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they presume…”

I believe that Joseph Smith did not overcome this aspect of his own human nature. He drank deeply from his own flavor-aid. As we look at the sheer narcissism of the Nauvoo period, the acceleration of the “principle” of polygamy went along with the military general, 33rd degree mason, and presidential aspirations. We have people speaking of Joseph Smith as the very god in some cases. It was out of control, entirely, in my opinion.

I am not here trying to criticize Joseph Smith, for I believe he was a prophet in the same imperfect mold as moses, abraham, and david (no not a prophet, but an ‘annointed one’). I believe that he did what the prophets did of old, he brought forth scripture by the gift and power of god as reflected in his mind and heart. The results of his revelation exist: the existential value of the Book of Mormon is that it testifies faithfully of Christ and therefore ‘true’ to its purpose. the existential value of the church is that it saves lives (through inherently improved quality of life) and points people to a singularly divine principle of personal and corporate revelation. Its core purposes are divine and ‘true’, but its implementation is an inherently flawed human institution.

This inherently cognitively dissonant paradox is tough to navigate. Thank god we have people here and elsewhere who are trying to navigate that together. We don’t always agree, but we can, here, express the full scope of that paradox as we try to stayLDS.

[Anonymous]

To follow-up on wayfarer’s D&C 121 reference, remember that it came very near the end for Joseph – and he said “WE have learned by SAD experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost ALL men . . .”

I really believe he more fully realized it about himself after his plea in jail for God to come down and wipe out the enemies of the Church and was met with, in essence, “Peace. Be still. Let me teach you something about human nature – including yourself.” I think it was too late to change him fundamentally, if it was possible in the first place, but I take great comfort in that simple statement – and what I believe was the focus of it.

[Anonymous]

Wayfarer, the cog dis paradox is tough to navigate, and difficult to explain, or to teach. Maybe it is almost impossible for the church to teach this. Maybe it was difficult to explain to Oliver.

These concepts are so important. The entire faith is built upon revelations and visions. There is much here for me to ponder, but this is an important topic for me. Thanks for taking time to respond.

I am now thinking through the implications of everything in the scriptures coming from internal sources.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Wayfarer, the cog dis paradox is tough to navigate, and difficult to explain, or to teach. Maybe it is almost impossible for the church to teach this. Maybe it was difficult to explain to Oliver.

I doubt it would make any sense to anyone who hasn’t spent a lot of time fretting about the issues. It barely makes any sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Very good discussion. Wayfarer, this is profound! I agree with so many points you have made. I believe we all can receive our own personal revelation also. I cannot deny the spiritual experiences or “delusions” I have had. That is part of why I can look past “junk” and stay engaged.

Heber13, I have had confusion over the same subject you brought up, but could never have been so articulate in expressing my confusion. I am looking forward to reading more comments on this post. :clap:

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

I doubt it would make any sense to anyone who hasn’t spent a lot of time fretting about the issues. It barely makes any sense to me.

Ya, but they don’t teach it in any advanced classes or in university…they just don’t teach it. Spending time with it individually, wrestling with the spirit as they say, can provide some interesting insights to add to personal experience.

afterall wrote:

Very good discussion. Wayfarer, this is profound! I agree with so many points you have made. I believe we all can receive our own personal revelation also. I cannot deny the spiritual experiences or “delusions” I have had. That is part of why I can look past “junk” and stay engaged.

well said. Those personal experiences are pretty impressionable, huh? Hard to dismiss. Instead of dismissing, we can just find ways to make them work with new paradigms, I think.

[Anonymous]

So, if these sections are good lessons in how God reveals truth to prophets, and to all of us, this then makes me wonder about other revelations and visions.

So, does this “formula” for how God reveals truth apply to the First Vision?

1. Joseph studied things out in his mind, reading scriptures and attending churches.

2. He went to inquire which was right, partial to the Merhodists.

3. The power overcoming him was an internal darkness, making him feel bound all over his body and inability for the brain to cause the body to function or the tongue to speak. This is a plausible explanation, that the internal struggle was taking place.

4. The light that descended upon him was brighter than the sun according to Joseph, and could very well be seen with “his mind’s eye”, releasing his internal struggle and regaining the ability to feel in control of the body again. This light might not have been seen by another person standing right next to Joseph, because it could be all in Joseph’s mind.

5. Joseph recorded in the version we have in the PoGP, that “for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all we’re wrong”. Therefore, a new idea was given to him. This was not a Yes/No answer or burning in the bosom, but a new inspiration of an idea that he might have had in the subconscious that needed to be brought forward to the conscious.

In short, like the other revelations to bring forth the Book of Mormon or D&C revelations, it could all be in Joseph’s mind. As such, all goes through the prophet’s capacity to process what is revealed, just like answers to my prayers must pass through my ability to process and interpret them, but that does not mean the things revealed are not valid or new truths to be understood. It might just be different than how the church tries to portray them in paintings or media (movies).

Are there problems with this?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I doubt it would make any sense to anyone who hasn’t spent a lot of time fretting about the issues. It barely makes any sense to me.

There is a great and profound message in what doug wrote above. That statement is true of SO many things that bother (or perplex) people like us – and it is the primary reason I choose not to weigh down others with my own concerns or views along these lines. It’s not my job to blow people’s mental / spiritual / intellectual / whatever gaskets over this sort of stuff. It’s not my job to burden them un-necessarily – to leave them worse off after talking with me than they were before our conversation started. Venting to those who probably will be harmed by it is selfish – and it’s really important we recognize that, imo.

[Author]

Posts