Historic Mormon Conundrums – one sentence thoughts.

[Anonymous]

This’ll be theraputic! I’m pretty open to being wrong about any of these, but here is where I’m at. I like some of the pp’s answers better than a few of mine, though.

Blacks-equal-ban was not inspired-anything else doesn’t stand up to scrutiny

Polygamy-God allowed us a dilusion to believe a lie-It was a hot topic in England, Europe and the east coast before we instituted it. Early missionaries tracted in polygamist communities. Lots of D&C warnings of adultery and whoring spirits. Hmmmm.

The means of translating the BOM-inspired book, troubling that we are deceived, scriptures are full of the “occult” being used by prophets

The 3 witnesses-I’m okay with vision witnesses

The 8 witnesses-dunno

The Pearl of Great Price (that’s a BIG one)-Has inspired spiritual/symbolic lessons

Brigham Young-I don’t think he was a prophet, leader chosen by the will of the people

The Blood Doctrine (Atonement?)-This is what Jesus was for, nobody needs to spill blood!

DNA evidence not aligned with BOM-Eh, I’ll be sad if Moroni is fake, but the symbolic and spiritual messages of the BoM still stand.

re-baptism-My gggggrandpa was rebaptised for healing, cool. I’m open to being rebaptised. It is the inward ordinance/covenants that count.

Homosexuals-Not sure if monogamous marriages would be a sin. Jesus knows. Either way, we need to concentrate on feeding the hungry. Wouldn’t be surprised if we get a “revelation” in the future that repeals the ban (around the time the IRS starts making threats).

Masonry similarities to the Temple-The Kirtland Temple gives us a good idea what a true temple should operate like, IMO. I’m very bothered. I think the new ceremonies came about because of polygamy and the need for secrecy. It probably also stemmed from elitism and binding certain families to eachother. Symbolic of where we are as a people.

The fact that prophets no longer testify of actually talking/seeing/speaking with God-SAD, but I haven’t heard any prophecies recently, either.

Adam-God Theory-Totally confusing! Doesn’t make sense when compared to the scriptures

Mountain Meadows-TRAGIC and wrong. Possibly satanic. Major cover up.

Secret Tunnels-Where else are illegal polygamists gonna hide?

Dannites-Big mistake. Humans are kinda dumb. Nobody read the BoM???

Lafferty Brothers-Wow, horrible and sad. See above.

White Salamander-Random.

The Wave Stone-???

The Sword of Laban-I have major problems with God commanded slayings. Haven’t thought about the actual sword.

Mummies-Yeah, obsession of the 1800’s. Ewww.

Parchment-Mystical in nature? A tool used to inspire? Dunno

Dolemite-???

Zelf-Fun story. No clue if it is inspired, doesn’t matter to me.

Cain-Very good lesson. Note to self: blood oaths are satanic.

Three Nephites-Totally hope they are real and visit me someday!

John the Beloved-Great person.

Jackson County-Needs to be redeemed, still the center stake of Zion My literalist is showing…

Destruction of The Nauvoo Expositor-Bad choice. I think that JS started listening to “wise men” more than God before this.

Kirtland Financial Crisis-Very sad. The whole nation had economic problems at that time. I’m sure people thought they were safe since “inspired men” were in charge. Good lesson on not relying on the arm of the flesh. People should read about it before investing with their bishop!

Spiritual Eyes vs. Actual Vision-Laser vision is cool, too.

Different Accounts of the First Vision-I wish I knew the “truth” since it could make a difference in understanding the nature of God. I’m leaning towards the early version.

The “real” origin of The Word of Wisdom-Eh, it’s good wisdom. We’ve taken it to extremes, while ignoring parts of it, and turned it into a commandment. That isn’t very wise…

Quakers on the Moon-I’ll laugh if there really are and we can only see them with spiritual eyes! 😆

The lost 116 pages-Good lesson. Don’t fear man!!! Flesh is weak.

Solomon Spaulding-We are a product of our environment. That environment produced several books and articles of similar theme.

Philastus Hurlbut-never heard of him

[Anonymous]

Quote:

@Just me-

The means of translating the BOM-inspired book, troubling that we are deceived, scriptures are full of the “occult” being used by prophets

Interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing.

Can you explain where you’re at with the “troubling that we are deceived” part? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Quote:

@Just me-

The means of translating the BOM-inspired book, troubling that we are deceived, scriptures are full of the “occult” being used by prophets

Interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing.

Can you explain where you’re at with the “troubling that we are deceived” part? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

Well, I was raised believing that the church was TRUE and lies are BAD. I even had a testimony of it. So, I naturally assumed that the church always told the truth. To find out that the leaders of the church have lied (or kept truth from us) really rocked my boat. It lead me to question everything I thought I knew. I call it my refiner’s fire.

Now, it actually is freeing to realize that humans (inc. leaders) are imperfect and can make huge mistakes. I know I have to have a one-on-one relationship with God and not rely on the arm of the flesh.

I believe that the BoM is an inspired book. That is why the means of translation/inspiration doesn’t bother me. I find truth in it, but acknowledge that it could be entirely symbolic.

So, yeah, I think it is wrong that we are led to believe that JS sat at a table looking page by page through the gold plates. Or that we try to paint the prophets in this perfect light. Deceit causes too much heartache.

I’m one of those people who believe we are living in the last days. But, again, that could just be symbolic, too. I read Jacob 5 and the D&C and I see our people fulfilling the prophecies. God promised to send us a delusion that we would believe a lie. What better way then by our own leaders?

I’m not sure if that answers your question or not. Let me know if I missed the mark. LOL

[Anonymous]

I loved it just me. You bring some good thoughts to the temple. I especially loved the remark about homosexuals, I think you’re right on target on that one.

Re the BoM. I tend to fall into your camp on the deception bit. Some people on this forum have helped soften me some when it comes to directly blaming the leaders. Many have called it “white-washing,” “faith-promoting,” “positive spinning,” etc. I believe there are nuanced meanings in these different labels for what is done, and I can see where they are coming from. For me, while I no longer directly blame the leaders, I do think it is institutionalized deception, and I think if we were a corporation engaged in the same sort of thing we would have long since been sued, and probably gone under.

Re your symbolic ideas. Those ideas are what I have latched onto, not that I am discouraging your literalist ideas. The symbolic ideas help me to understand why civilization after civilization from the dawn of humankind have had nearly identical stories, prophecies, and symbolism. Keep sharing with us, I am really enjoying your ideas.

[Anonymous]

Thanks jmb275, it is so refreshing to be in a community of people who can share different ideas without being threatened. And it does feel like there are similar understandings here.

I like to think that at least some of the scripture stories are literal. I especially choose to believe in a literal Christ. But, I have decided that I really don’t understand the true nature of God so I am open to further light and knowledge.

I do believe that a symbolic (spiritual) understanding of the scriptures is what is important. The literal is meant to confuse and cause people to search deeper.

It is with a symbolic understanding that we start looking inward. What do these stories mean to me? God does not command people to literally kill other people. What a relief! Yet, most of Judeo-Christiandom think he does.

I think it is ironic that I feel a more firm foundation by admitting things could be totally different from how I used to think. I won’t be rocked when science proves this or that or when the Q15 decide to allow same-sex marriage. I hope we don’t have to wait 100 years for the latter.

Probably some here would totally disagree with my feeling on the leadership and the temple. I mean, the guys today are pretty much just going along with what has always been done. But, BY et al made the decision to change and hide things. They added to the history, hid journals, etc. This knowledge made me mourn. I guess I also see financial corruption and that makes me sad. I don’t have a problem questioning what the leadership does-it doesn’t come from anger. I’m a truth seeker.

[Anonymous]

just me wrote:

I do believe that a symbolic (spiritual) understanding of the scriptures is what is important. The literal is meant to confuse and cause people to search deeper.

Great quote, just me. I think there is great wisdom in that statement. The smaller plates were translated for the spiritual content, not the historical, fact based content, and so we are left to discern with our spirits what is of value and what is not. Literalists can interpret and try to prove things, and miss the true meaning of God’s gift to His children with spiritual lessons that help me find out in my life what I should do, not because I own a Liahona literally like Lehi was reported to have found, but simply the symbolism of finding my way in the wilderness can be similar to that of others who go through life searching for direction.

I also would say I disagree with you on many other points you’ve raised…and for that I thank you for sharing your thoughts openly in this forum. It is good for me to hear your pespectives, and then decide which I feel I share views with you, and which I have my own opinions of. Either way, I am better off by sharing ideas and hearing others’ perspectives.

I think I lean a little softer on the deception. I can see there have been things in church history the leaders have not brought to the public’s eye, but I also think we live in an information age where we expect access to all information, good or bad. My grandfather who died of cancer had a different philosophy he lived by, and he would always draw my attention to the good things he was thankful for, and didn’t want me dwelling on the controversial because it didn’t help me. Certainly that point can be debated, but our generations see more value in that than older generations, IMO.

I will post this question in the other thread on deception.

[Anonymous]

just me wrote:

It is with a symbolic understanding that we start looking inward. What do these stories mean to me? God does not command people to literally kill other people. What a relief! Yet, most of Judeo-Christiandom think he does.

I think it is ironic that I feel a more firm foundation by admitting things could be totally different from how I used to think. I won’t be rocked when science proves this or that or when the Q15 decide to allow same-sex marriage. I hope we don’t have to wait 100 years for the latter.

Yes, this is how I felt once I started letting go of the literal things.

1. dismiss the literal interpretation of the creation in 6 days – phew, don’t have to battle against science (since science always wins those battles)

2. dismiss polygamy – phew, don’t have to worry about whether this will really be implemented in the millenium or afterlife.

3. dismiss that the LDS church is the only true and living church on earth – phew, that means not everyone else is wrong, and many others might have information I ought to consider that might help me

4. dismiss priesthood as an actual external power of God – phew, don’t have to believe that something magic happens when I get a blessing

5. dismiss the idea that homosexuals are “struggling with sin” – phew, don’t have to vote yes on 8, don’t have to see them as sinners, etc.

The point is, many things like this started being much less important to me as I started dismissing literal interpretations, and started seeing more nuanced explanations. Very good thoughts, I love it.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

@Tom Haws

I have never felt like I had an unmistakable witness that the church is true.

Hope you don’t mind me jumping in here…

jmb, me too. I think God knew my personal definition of ‘true’ wouldn’t allow for it.

jmb275 wrote:

When I make decisions, I make them using rational thought. I have always prayed over them, but virtually never had any divine manifestation of what I should choose. So I end up choosing what I think is best.

Ditto. And sometimes I’m wrong. Like 2 years ago when I lost all my money in a business deal gone bad.

jmb275 wrote:

So do you believe Joseph was the prophet of the restoration, and the prophet we claim he was in the church, or was he a talented mystic?

In my opinion, a prophet is a mystic that is told to share his experiences, is given a ‘mission’, if you will. Otherwise, I see no difference.

jmb275 wrote:

Or is this issue simply not that black and white for you? I must confess that at this stage of my life I see too much psychology in our “revelations” to really buy too much into the idea that they’re from God. That is to say, I believe and have witnessed powerful spiritual experiences, but I do not believe they are some avenue to transcendent truth from God. They are more likely spiritual avenues to help us in our journey, to become one with nature, to reach “nirvana” as it were.

Hmmm…

Ok, so to understand more clearly, are you saying that the only experiences you’ve had with God were profound (perhaps emotionally) yet intellectually or informationally ambiguous? Can you clarify? It kinda sounds like you liken the transcendent God as the god of the mystics, which I would agree with; But would you agree that the manifest God, then, is the God of the prophets, who gives more precise or exact ‘revelation’? That is how I see it. And psychology is interwoven through it all to a powerful degree. IMO.

I personally find psychology (I lean towards Jung, as I am a Mormon mystic) very interesting. Actually, I am both a mystic and a scientifically-minded man. I have received the ‘baptism of Fire’, the ‘immersion in Love’ and the ‘piercing of Joy’, all three. Looking forward to the ‘machinery of the Universe’, too. We can talk a lot more about these if you’d like. What I find fascinating is that my involvement in the Church situationally sparked these experiences, even though they had everything to do with God and nothing to do (directly) with the Church itself.

OTOH, I also ‘know’ (LoL) that evolution is ‘true’, that there was no global flood, that gender orientation has a profound biological basis, etc.

So I have a lot of fun talking to myself.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

Hmmmm, I don’t know what I was saying at that point. I will say this. When I first started posting on this forum, I was definitely at an angry, black and white place. I have grown a lot since then (although it wasn’t that long ago (1.5 months perhaps)). I am not so angry, and feel I have moved past black and white. I still have most of the opinions I have expressed, but am not nearly as attached to them.

So let me try to work this through.

HiJolly wrote:

Ok, so to understand more clearly, are you saying that the only experiences you’ve had with God were profound (perhaps emotionally) yet intellectually or informationally ambiguous? Can you clarify? It kinda sounds like you liken the transcendent God as the god of the mystics, which I would agree with; But would you agree that the manifest God, then, is the God of the prophets, who gives more precise or exact ‘revelation’? That is how I see it. And psychology is interwoven through it all to a powerful degree. IMO.

Yes, I’ve had spiritual experiences. Most of the very profound ones come during great emotional duress. I do not think this is coincidental, and I personally don’t believe that it is because there is some external force providing answers. Most likely, in my mind, this is the subconscious mind proposing possible alternatives to provide relief from the emotional pain (which the brain doesn’t like). Often these alternatives go unchecked against the cognitive mind and we end up believing all kinds of nonsense. So to me, spiritual experiences are profound emotionally, but yes, they lack information (see Pascal Boyer for more information on this). I would definitely NOT say they lack ANY information, but for me, it is not a reliable source of information. As for the God part, I think I need more explanation. What do you mean “god of the mystics” and “god of the prophets.” To me, like you said, a prophet is just a mystic who tells his story. But we are all mystics and prophets in this sense (well at least those of us who share spiritual things). But in this same sense, the UFO abductee has just as much reliable information as the traditional prophet. They just have different manifestations of the “spiritual experience.”

HiJolly wrote:

I personally find psychology (I lean towards Jung, as I am a Mormon mystic) very interesting. Actually, I am both a mystic and a scientifically-minded man. I have received the ‘baptism of Fire’, the ‘immersion in Love’ and the ‘piercing of Joy’, all three. Looking forward to the ‘machinery of the Universe’, too. We can talk a lot more about these if you’d like. What I find fascinating is that my involvement in the Church situationally sparked these experiences, even though they had everything to do with God and nothing to do (directly) with the Church itself.

I would probably not classify myself as a mystic. I am an engineer/scientist and greatly revere the scientific method (although modern day science does not always reflect this method). Mystics, in my mind, seek to find truth about ultimate reality, God, through experience, or intuition. I simply don’t worry too much about ultimate realities anymore. I don’t feel that I can know that information with any degree of certainty, and am extremely skeptical of people who do claim to know this information through what I consider to be “unreliable means.” Critical thinking (the baloney detection kit according to Carl Sagan) is a good recipe for characterizing reality. This doesn’t mean it is the answer to everything, but when it comes to choosing in what to believe, I put my trust there.

I would love to discuss this more. I am not opposed to, or seek to convince others who don’t agree with me on this, but for me, there is little reliable evidence indicating that mystics are good at characterizing ultimate reality. This is largely why I don’t really believe Joseph Smith’s prophecies, revelations represent an external reality.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

…I am not so angry, and feel I have moved past black and white. I still have most of the opinions I have expressed, but am not nearly as attached to them.

Ah, non-attachment. An excellent pain avoidance technique.

jmb275 wrote:

Yes, I’ve had spiritual experiences. Most of the very profound ones come during great emotional duress. I do not think this is coincidental, and I personally don’t believe that it is because there is some external force providing answers.

Exactly. Most often these experiences come as a result of intense emotional states. I have had them both in bliss and in pain. The commonality is an active will and deep receptiveness of mind. OTOH, I wasn’t in much of an emotional state IMO when I was filled with the living Fire of God, yet my Dad had just spoken the words “receive the Holy Ghost”. As an A.D.D. 8 y.o. I was just ‘happy’. And I believed. Right place, right time sorta thing, I suppose.

As for “external force”, if there isn’t, then you may as well admit that you are (a) God, which I believe you are. You just don’t know it. New Agers call it the “higher Self”. As a mystic, I am not a monotheist. Nor am I a polytheist, nor a pantheist. Most accurate label would probably be a panentheist. To understand my view you’d have to hear me talk about the Creation… at length…

jmb275 wrote:

Most likely, in my mind, this is the subconscious mind proposing possible alternatives to provide relief from the emotional pain (which the brain doesn’t like).

From previous comments, I’m sure you’ve read up on the subconscious mind. The interplay between the conscious, subconscious, and ‘higher’ mind is amazing indeed. Science has done some amazing work in the last 30 years or so on the biological mind (brain); has gained somewhat in understanding elements of consciousness and the subconscious mind; cannot say one word on anything like the Light of Christ or the Spirit or God, except perhaps that many people are deluding themselves to one extent or another, in various ways, on those subjects. To an extent, I believe this delusion is measurable. I truly believe psychology has emerged from the sheer behavioralism of the past into some fascinating hard data. I need to read up, though — I haven’t kept up like I would have liked to.

At the same time, since we have not yet the instrumentation or methodology to measure or observe the influence or presence of God (Light of Christ, et al.), we cannot scientifically say one way or the other, anything on the topic. It still remains in the realm of faith.

jmb275 wrote:

Often these alternatives go unchecked against the cognitive mind and we end up believing all kinds of nonsense.

I agree. For many years I interpreted my ‘baptism of Fire’ as confirmation that everything I’d ever been told about the Church was proven 100% true, right then & there. When I first realized that this was not the case, I was a bit upset. But I’ve since come to see that it was all good. My misunderstanding caused me to have great confidence in the Church, which was a good thing all through my youth. Helped me avoid all sorts of mischief. I now know that God ALLOWS us to misunderstand on purpose. It’s a ‘teaching tool’, and a rather effective one at that. If we don’t like that, it is good evidence that we lack humility, IMO.

jmb275 wrote:

So to me, spiritual experiences are profound emotionally, but yes, they lack information (see Pascal Boyer for more information on this).

Right. This is what caused me (well, that and my disagreement with JFS on his book “Man, His Origin and Destiny” 😈 ) to seek more information on my experiences. Like parenthood, they didn’t come with a manual!

jmb275 wrote:

I would definitely NOT say they lack ANY information, but for me, it is not a reliable source of information.

Balance, my brother. Balance is the key. Allow for the possibility.

jmb275 wrote:

As for the God part, I think I need more explanation. What do you mean “god of the mystics” and “god of the prophets.” To me, like you said, a prophet is just a mystic who tells his story. But we are all mystics and prophets in this sense (well at least those of us who share spiritual things).

Well, this could get long… Essentially, God is thought of in two different ways. The God who is “big enough to fill the universe and small enough to dwell in your heart”; and the God who appeared to Moses and Joseph Smith, who is described as have 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. This former is the “transcendent” God; the latter is the “manifest” God. Mormonism only deals with the latter, with only a few exceptions (D&C88, D&C93, King Follett Sermon, etc.). Not only do we not generally deal with the transcendent God, we actually used to ridicule that conception of God , in the temples and elsewhere.

I have come to know for myself that both views are real (I shy at saying “the Truth”). ❗

jmb275 wrote:

But in this same sense, the UFO abductee has just as much reliable information as the traditional prophet. They just have different manifestations of the “spiritual experience.”

Wow. You have a VERY broad brush, there, jmb. You take my breath away! So no prophet ever knew anything ‘real’ or factual, in your view? Ouch.

jmb275 wrote:

I would probably not classify myself as a mystic. I am an engineer/scientist and greatly revere the scientific method (although modern day science does not always reflect this method). Mystics, in my mind, seek to find truth about ultimate reality, God, through experience, or intuition. I simply don’t worry too much about ultimate realities anymore. I don’t feel that I can know that information with any degree of certainty, and am extremely skeptical of people who do claim to know this information through what I consider to be “unreliable means.” Critical thinking (the baloney detection kit according to Carl Sagan) is a good recipe for characterizing reality. This doesn’t mean it is the answer to everything, but when it comes to choosing in what to believe, I put my trust there.

If your scope of inquiry and interest begins and ends with the five senses, then that’s where you should be. But there’s SO much more to life, IMO. The very fact that you have any trust at all, proves the point. All cogitation is subjective.

I have a fun lecture on the topic of logic but I’ve already made this too long…

jmb275 wrote:

I would love to discuss this more. I am not opposed to, or seek to convince others who don’t agree with me on this, but for me, there is little reliable evidence indicating that mystics are good at characterizing ultimate reality. This is largely why I don’t really believe Joseph Smith’s prophecies, revelations represent an external reality.

Man is that he might have Joy, jmb. Happiness is the object and design of our existence. These are not just platitudes. In my subjective opinion, of course…

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

HiJolly wrote:

jmb275 wrote:

…I am not so angry, and feel I have moved past black and white. I still have most of the opinions I have expressed, but am not nearly as attached to them.

Ah, non-attachment. An excellent pain avoidance technique.

I’m not sure what you mean here. I don’t think I’m avoiding any pain. Rather I have worked through the pain. I have been in pain for nearly a year. My non-attachment to my ideas is an admission of uncertainty, not of apathy.

HiJolly wrote:

As for “external force”, if there isn’t, then you may as well admit that you are (a) God, which I believe you are. You just don’t know it. New Agers call it the “higher Self”. As a mystic, I am not a monotheist. Nor am I a polytheist, nor a pantheist. Most accurate label would probably be a panentheist.

Okay, I’ll go for that. Honestly, it just isn’t that important to me. I don’t feel like I will reliably know one way or the other, and there is plenty of reality around me to appreciate that I have ignored while I was too busy worrying about the celestial kingdom and whether or not I would be worthy to inherit it. I think it’s fun to discuss God, afterlife, etc. but since, to me, it’s all speculation (from the myriad of voices who claim various things, and since I personally have no “unmistakable witness” to indicate some primordial truth) I would much rather focus on the practical life. My family, great art, music, science, etc. are all areas of life in which there is much to explore.

HiJolly wrote:

To understand my view you’d have to hear me talk about the Creation… at length…

I really would love to hear it. I love hearing other people’s points of view. I believe it helps me grow and sort out my own views and biases. If you would like to send me an email or something maybe we could discuss this. I really am interested. Send me a PM and we can discuss.

HiJolly wrote:

At the same time, since we have not yet the instrumentation or methodology to measure or observe the influence or presence of God (Light of Christ, et al.), we cannot scientifically say one way or the other, anything on the topic. It still remains in the realm of faith.

Indeed. I suspect that it always will be. As soon as science thinks it has developed instrumentation to measure this, I suspect that religion will quickly come up with some other untestable hypothesis. It will always remain in the realm of faith. That fine, and I think that faith has a place in my life. My view is just not a traditional one.

HiJolly wrote:

jmb275 wrote:

I would definitely NOT say they lack ANY information, but for me, it is not a reliable source of information.

Balance, my brother. Balance is the key. Allow for the possibility.

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Admittedly this part of my response was poorly worded. What I was trying to say is that these spiritual experiences have some information, I just don’t think it’s a reliable method for determining external, universal truth.

HiJolly wrote:

Well, this could get long… Essentially, God is thought of in two different ways. The God who is “big enough to fill the universe and small enough to dwell in your heart”; and the God who appeared to Moses and Joseph Smith, who is described as have 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. This former is the “transcendent” God; the latter is the “manifest” God. Mormonism only deals with the latter, with only a few exceptions (D&C88, D&C93, King Follett Sermon, etc.). Not only do we not generally deal with the transcendent God, we actually used to ridicule that conception of God , in the temples and elsewhere.

I see what you’re saying. Yes, the transcendent God is one I definitely can, and probably do believe in. If you have ever read up on Einstein’s views of God, I can very much relate to them. Do a google search for “einstein theology quotes” and you will get some good ones.

HiJolly wrote:

jmb275 wrote:

But in this same sense, the UFO abductee has just as much reliable information as the traditional prophet. They just have different manifestations of the “spiritual experience.”

Wow. You have a VERY broad brush, there, jmb. You take my breath away! So no prophet ever knew anything ‘real’ or factual, in your view? Ouch.

Well, I think you’re putting words in my mouth. Have you ever had a UFO abduction experience, or read about them? From my research they are very similar to angelic visitations. Why does the subject of the “spiritual experience” determine it’s “reality” or “factuality”? Why is God a more realistic subject than aliens? Furthermore, I never said “no prophet ever knew anything ‘real’ or factual.” I said they have just as much reliable information. This is different than whether or not the information is valuable. I absolutely think that many prophets have revealed wonderful things for humanity. I also didn’t say anything about the value of the information received through UFO abduction experiences vs. spiritual experiences. Arguably, for me personally, the spiritual experiences have more value. But, in my mind, that’s not because they represent an external reality, but because they provide hope, love, and tender emotions. In contrast, many UFO abduction stories are more about sexual manipulation (oddly enough).

Joseph Campbell often talked about our spiritual experiences as transcending the physical. UFO abduction stories fit this description just like angelic visitations. If I had to hazard a guess, I would guess that many UFO abductees are “transcending the physical” in the same way, just with different images, words, and stories.

HiJolly wrote:

If your scope of inquiry and interest begins and ends with the five senses, then that’s where you should be. But there’s SO much more to life, IMO. The very fact that you have any trust at all, proves the point. All cogitation is subjective.

Well, once again you’re either putting words in my mouth, or I have misrepresented my position. I hope I’m not coming across this way, because that’s not how I feel. I highly value, and treasure spiritual experiences. I relish the opportunity to connect with my fellows on a spiritual level. I just am not convinced that spiritual experiences are evidence of external realities. Maybe they are in some cases. If so, then God has made it so difficult to determine which ones are that it seems highly improbable (at least for me) to determine which one is correct.

HiJolly wrote:

I have a fun lecture on the topic of logic but I’ve already made this too long…

I would love to read it. Can you send it to me? Like I said before, I love to learn from other people’s opinions. Send me a PM if you can.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

HiJolly wrote:

jmb275 wrote:

…I am not so angry, and feel I have moved past black and white. I still have most of the opinions I have expressed, but am not nearly as attached to them.

Ah, non-attachment. An excellent pain avoidance technique.

I’m not sure what you mean here. I don’t think I’m avoiding any pain. Rather I have worked through the pain. I have been in pain for nearly a year. My non-attachment to my ideas is an admission of uncertainty, not of apathy.

Sorry, I guess my buddhist side didn’t have an equivilent in you. And that’s ok, except it led to misunderstanding. I was not accusing you of anything, jmb. And you nailed the down-side of Buddhist practice — that often the inexpert practitioner will adopt more of an apathic approach to life, rather than true non-attachment. In Buddhism, the whole point and aim of their belief is to assist the body & mind in their desire to avoid pain. At least, that’s how it starts. There is, or course, much more there than what first meets the eye.

jmb275 wrote:

HiJolly wrote:

As for “external force”, if there isn’t, then you may as well admit that you are (a) God, which I believe you are. You just don’t know it. New Agers call it the “higher Self”. As a mystic, I am not a monotheist. Nor am I a polytheist, nor a pantheist. Most accurate label would probably be a panentheist.

Okay, I’ll go for that. Honestly, it just isn’t that important to me. I don’t feel like I will reliably know one way or the other, and there is plenty of reality around me to appreciate that I have ignored while I was too busy worrying about the celestial kingdom and whether or not I would be worthy to inherit it. I think it’s fun to discuss God, afterlife, etc. but since, to me, it’s all speculation (from the myriad of voices who claim various things, and since I personally have no “unmistakable witness” to indicate some primordial truth) I would much rather focus on the practical life. My family, great art, music, science, etc. are all areas of life in which there is much to explore.

You say you have faith, yet these comments leave me a bit confused. I’m not sure what to think.

jmb275 wrote:

HiJolly wrote:

To understand my view you’d have to hear me talk about the Creation… at length…

I really would love to hear it. I love hearing other people’s points of view. I believe it helps me grow and sort out my own views and biases. If you would like to send me an email or something maybe we could discuss this. I really am interested. Send me a PM and we can discuss.

Maybe I should wait until I have the ‘machinery of the universe’ mystical experience…

jmb275 wrote:

Indeed. I suspect that it always will be. As soon as science thinks it has developed instrumentation to measure this, I suspect that religion will quickly come up with some other untestable hypothesis.

That sounds a tad cynical. I think science as been chipping away at merely the borders of a huge pantheon of religious “untestable hypothesis”, and that religion has NO NEED to “quickly come up with” anything at all.

jmb275 wrote:

It will always remain in the realm of faith. That fine, and I think that faith has a place in my life. My view is just not a traditional one.

I see faith as a principle of action and of power, just as Joseph taught. God knows all things, yet in *faith* he said “let there be light”. How do you see faith?

jmb275 wrote:

HiJolly wrote:

Well, this could get long… Essentially, God is thought of in two different ways. The God who is “big enough to fill the universe and small enough to dwell in your heart”; and the God who appeared to Moses and Joseph Smith, who is described as have 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. This former is the “transcendent” God; the latter is the “manifest” God. Mormonism only deals with the latter, with only a few exceptions (D&C88, D&C93, King Follett Sermon, etc.). Not only do we not generally deal with the transcendent God, we actually used to ridicule that conception of God , in the temples and elsewhere.

I see what you’re saying. Yes, the transcendent God is one I definitely can, and probably do believe in. If you have ever read up on Einstein’s views of God, I can very much relate to them. Do a google search for “einstein theology quotes” and you will get some good ones.

I think that the transcendent God is the first view we perceive and experience, and the immanent one is much, much more difficult to experience. It requires a perfect mix of righteousness, faith, action and, of course, psychology.

jmb275 wrote:

HiJolly wrote:

jmb275 wrote:

But in this same sense, the UFO abductee has just as much reliable information as the traditional prophet. They just have different manifestations of the “spiritual experience.”

Wow. You have a VERY broad brush, there, jmb. You take my breath away! So no prophet ever knew anything ‘real’ or factual, in your view? Ouch.

Well, I think you’re putting words in my mouth. Have you ever had a UFO abduction experience, or read about them?

You’re right. Sorry. Emotionally speaking, it’s somewhat difficult for me to hear of God’s revelation spoken of as synonymous with UFO abduction experiences. Primarily, I think, not because of my ‘faith’ in LDS or scriptural prophets, but because of my own prophetic experiences. OTOH, perhaps it would not be so if I had experienced the whole UFO thing myself, as I have the other. Food for thought. Thanks. One more thought, though. I’m going to assume that you’ve had neither of these experiences, which would mean (to me, anyway) that you have no experential basis nor justification for comparing the two. In your mind you’ve drawn a parallel, but it may be completely bankrupt, and you’d not know it. Is this possible?

jmb275 wrote:

From my research they are very similar to angelic visitations. Why does the subject of the “spiritual experience” determine it’s “reality” or “factuality”? Why is God a more realistic subject than aliens? Furthermore, I never said “no prophet ever knew anything ‘real’ or factual.” I said they have just as much reliable information. This is different than whether or not the information is valuable. I absolutely think that many prophets have revealed wonderful things for humanity. I also didn’t say anything about the value of the information received through UFO abduction experiences vs. spiritual experiences. Arguably, for me personally, the spiritual experiences have more value. But, in my mind, that’s not because they represent an external reality, but because they provide hope, love, and tender emotions. In contrast, many UFO abduction stories are more about sexual manipulation (oddly enough).

Ok, so the comparison is intellectual. And I see what you mean in your comparison of personal subjective experiences. And I have to admit I have not studied UFO abduction experiences, myself. I once considered *magic” to be as whacked as I now see UFO experiences, yet when I studied that, I found I was woefully misinformed and mistaken; there was truly much of great value to be found in ‘magic’. So, perhaps I should withhold all judgment concerning UFO experiences.

jmb275 wrote:

HiJolly wrote:

If your scope of inquiry and interest begins and ends with the five senses, then that’s where you should be. But there’s SO much more to life, IMO. The very fact that you have any trust at all, proves the point. All cogitation is subjective.

Well, once again you’re either putting words in my mouth, or I have misrepresented my position. I hope I’m not coming across this way, because that’s not how I feel. I highly value, and treasure spiritual experiences. I relish the opportunity to connect with my fellows on a spiritual level. I just am not convinced that spiritual experiences are evidence of external realities. Maybe they are in some cases. If so, then God has made it so difficult to determine which ones are that it seems highly improbable (at least for me) to determine which one is correct.

Ok, that helps me understand your view much better. I would still like to hear more from you on what you see faith as, in your life. I get the feeling it is indeed a radical departure from the typical view (which I know you’ve already said as much).

jmb275 wrote:

HiJolly wrote:

I have a fun lecture on the topic of logic but I’ve already made this too long…

I would love to read it. Can you send it to me? Like I said before, I love to learn from other people’s opinions. Send me a PM if you can.

It’s solely verbal, at this point. I studied logic and philosophy both in college, though they were not my major. I totally loved my mathematical logic class, though I had to stick to the algebra and couldn’t proceed to the calculus, since I hadn’t taken calc yet at that point.

Thanks for the discussion.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

HiJolly wrote:

Sorry, I guess my buddhist side didn’t have an equivilent in you. And that’s ok, except it led to misunderstanding. I was not accusing you of anything, jmb. And you nailed the down-side of Buddhist practice — that often the inexpert practitioner will adopt more of an apathic approach to life, rather than true non-attachment. In Buddhism, the whole point and aim of their belief is to assist the body & mind in their desire to avoid pain. At least, that’s how it starts. There is, or course, much more there than what first meets the eye.

Maybe my ignorance is what led to my misunderstanding. I am only beginning the process of expanding my worldview (after all only within the last year have I departed from orthodox Mormonism). I am not intimately familiar with Buddhism at this point, although I am deeply attracted to what I do know, and I try to meditate daily.

HiJolly wrote:

You say you have faith, yet these comments leave me a bit confused. I’m not sure what to think.

Yes, sorry about that. I have never really felt like my ideas, views, and opinions fit in a traditional box of any kind. I have often referred to myself as an “alien Mormon,” “alien Republican,” and more recently an “alien agnostic.” So I myself don’t really know how to categorize myself. There a few traditional boxes from which I pull more things than others, but that’s about the extent of it.

HiJolly wrote:

Maybe I should wait until I have the ‘machinery of the universe’ mystical experience…

Let me know when you’ve gotten it together, I’d love to read it.

HiJolly wrote:

jmb275 wrote:

Indeed. I suspect that it always will be. As soon as science thinks it has developed instrumentation to measure this, I suspect that religion will quickly come up with some other untestable hypothesis.

That sounds a tad cynical. I think science as been chipping away at merely the borders of a huge pantheon of religious “untestable hypothesis”, and that religion has NO NEED to “quickly come up with” anything at all.

Yes, I realize it came across this way. Let me explain. For thousands of years religious folk of all stripes have used their “holy” books, and spiritual experiences to pontificate truths about external realities (e.g. flat earth, earth center of universe, Quakers on the moon, man never reaching the moon since it’s a celestial body, etc. etc. etc.). As we advance in science, these claims move from being untestable hypotheses into the testable realm. In those cases, science (as nearly as I can tell) always wins. When I say science is reliable, this is what I mean. There is still a flat earth society (see here http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm). Now, science cannot prove with 100% certainty (everything in science has an error associated with it) that the earth is round. But we have sufficient evidence such that most of us consider it so likely that it has surpassed “highly probable” status to near certainty. In this light, smart religions have had to reinvent their claims to focus more and more on the untestable hypotheses, and admit ignorance on the testable. The LDS church is a great example. Some of our prophets have opined about various things (I iterated at least two above) which were shown to be false. The LDS church learned from this, and aside from Joseph Fielding Smith, the church at large claimed ignorance with regard to Evolution, carbon dating, and the age of the earth. Hence, now, the church leaves science where it is, and opines on the untestable things of life. Any religion can say whatever they want about eschatology, pre-existence, God, atonement, demons, the Holy Ghost etc. and no one can prove them wrong.

HiJolly wrote:

I see faith as a principle of action and of power, just as Joseph taught. God knows all things, yet in *faith* he said “let there be light”. How do you see faith?

Well, I am still developing my thoughts, but I recently wrote a post at a blog about this. Look here: http://mormonmatters.org/2009/05/29/intellectualism-and-faith-a-would-be-marriage/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/05/29/intellectualism-and-faith-a-would-be-marriage/.

Ultimately, I agree, faith is a motivating principle. In this sense, I don’t see the need to have faith in external realities. If I believe Jesus, Joseph’s experiences, God, and other spiritual things are just metaphorical, having faith in them still motivates me to action – and that’s the point.

I’m not saying I fully believe that those things are strictly metaphorical, I’m just arguing that if they are, I don’t see that it destroys faith.

HiJolly wrote:

One more thought, though. I’m going to assume that you’ve had neither of these experiences, which would mean (to me, anyway) that you have no experential basis nor justification for comparing the two. In your mind you’ve drawn a parallel, but it may be completely bankrupt, and you’d not know it. Is this possible?

Good thoughts. Yes, it is possible. In a comment in another thread (http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=317&start=30” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=317&start=30) I mentioned the whole “unmistakable witness” idea. I have not had one. I have had powerful spiritual experiences, even a spiritually powerful vision/dream (if I’m being honest), but not something that was externally “unmistakable.” I have not seen Jesus, or an angel, with my natural eyes. And I’ve never been abducted by aliens either. And yes, the parallel may be completely bankrupt, but for me, the correlation is quite high between the two. And when you couple these concepts with other psychologically similar ones like demons, witch hunts, ghosts, healings, raptures, etc. I start to seek another explanation rather than that they are all authentic. Sleep paralysis is just one area where we might continue research in this regard.

HiJolly wrote:

Ok, that helps me understand your view much better. I would still like to hear more from you on what you see faith as, in your life. I get the feeling it is indeed a radical departure from the typical view (which I know you’ve already said as much).

I referenced it above. But enough about my views, I’d rather hear about your views. What do you think about faith, science, etc.? (Moderator, if you want to move this discussion to another thread, I think we have gone way off topic here)

HiJolly wrote:

It’s solely verbal, at this point.

Well, I’d love to read it if you ever get it written down.

HiJolly wrote:

I studied logic and philosophy both in college, though they were not my major. I totally loved my mathematical logic class, though I had to stick to the algebra and couldn’t proceed to the calculus, since I hadn’t taken calc yet at that point.

[edit]

#215789

[Anonymous]

OK..I’ll bite from a fundamentalist view:

Blacks..I don’t pretend to know why they are denied the priesthood in this life…The bottom line is, they are.

Polygamy..alive and well

The means of translating the BOM.. peepstones in a hat as I understand. The Lord used something that Joseph could understand.

The 3 witnesses..credible men

The 8 witnesses..more credible men

The Pearl of Great Price (that’s a BIG one)..I don’t see a problem with it.

Brigham Young..a wonderful prophet, inspired by God and able to expand on Joseph Smith’s teachings due to his closeness with him.

The Blood Doctrine..It’s called capital punishment…no problem here.

DNA evidence not aligned with BOM.. Still, no problem. “Principle” ancestors could simply mean “most important”.

re-baptism..Brigham Young was baptised about 7 times (I think) If you need to be rebaptised, go for it.

Homosexuals..homosexuality is not a sin…homosexual sex is. We all have our crosses to bear.

Masonry similarities to the Temple.. So the Masons had some of the same things revealed to them earlier, what’s the problem?

The fact that prophets no longer testify of actually talking/seeing/speaking with God.. it’s because they don’t..the heavens were shut due to such atrocities as the Manifesto. Revelation is still being received by those with the proper keys however.

Adam-God Theory.. I agree with Eliza Snow. A beautiful doctrine. However, if you’re going to deny the necessity for plural marriage, you have to deny the Adam-God doctine as well…they go hand in hand.

Mountain Meadows.. A great tragedy.

Secret Tunnels..?

Dannites.. neccessary at the time.

Lafferty Brothers.. kooks

White Salamander.. a fraud of course

The Wave Stone..?

The Sword of Laban..?

Mummies..?

Parchment..?

Dolemite..?

Zelf..exactly who Joseph Smith said he was.

Cain..father of the Black race.

Three Nephites..still around somewhere.

John the Beloved..?

Jackson County.. we’ll be there when it’s time.

Destruction of The Nauvoo Expositor..understandable

Kirtland Financial Crisis..those things happen

Spiritual Eyes vs. Actual Vision..I’m not sure there is a difference

Different Accounts of the First Vision..I would give you different accounts of what I did yesterday depending on the part of the day I was trying to describe…I’ve never seen a problem with that.

The “real” origin of The Word of Wisdom..people spitting tobacco on the floor. Many revelations need a “prompting” for them to come forth.

Quakers on the Moon..Joseph speaking as a man of the times and not a prophet.

The lost 116 pages..we’ll receive them when/if they are necessary.

Solomon Spaulding..?

Philastus Hurlbutdaniel .. ?

Posts: 5

Joined: 20 Feb 2009, 13:27

Private message

[Author]

Posts