- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
Cadence, I actually agree with what you’re saying. However, I’m a social studies teacher by inclination and training – and I only can add that pretty much every religious leader who has had lasting impact in this world (and perhaps every leader of any kind who has had truly lasting impact) has been “bi-polar”, if you will, in that regard. I honestly think it might take someone who is at least a little crazy according to the standards of his/her time to do something of lasting import on a global scale. I honestly think that genius and madness are opposite sides of the exact same coin – and what I honor most about Joseph is that, FOR ME, the genius far outweighed the madness.
That might not be true for you right now – and it might never be true for you. Perhaps the key for you isn’t changing that particular perspective. Perhaps the key might be as simple as acknowledging the madness, allowing it to exist fully and openly – then choosing consciously to focus on emphasizing the genius for the situation in which you personally find yourself.
That’s not an easy task, especially in the earliest stages of the task, and especially when your own personality is not close to that of Joseph – but it’s an incredibly liberating process. (and it’s the exact same process that any Christian has who analyzes the records we have of Jesus of Nazareth, or any Muslim has who looks at the life of Muhammed, or Jews with Moses, or Lutherans with Martin Luther, or Presbyterians with John Calvin, etc.)
I see your point and I have had the same thoughts. Especially about leaders being crazy. It seems to me you could easily say Joseph was bi-polar. The challenge I face is I have a very rational and logical mind. There is no level of mysticism allowed in my thinking. If you do not have empirical evidence, you have no evidence. The world is full of anecdotal evidence of God and why we subscribe to different beliefs. I choose to ignore most of that because it has proven so unreliable in my life. Religious belief is just not set up to cater to my way of thinking. I have always been on the outside of mainstream Mormonism and probably will continue to be so. That being said I do not discount the possibility of anything. I just reserve the right to say “I do not Know” until I have confirming evidence. I just do not like how in Mormonism my viewpoint is considered weak and those basing it purley on faith or emotion are considered strong. It is upside down to me.
Bruce in Montana wrote:It’s my guess that if we did know, we would find these men much more human than our ideals of them portray.
EXACTLY! I know my approach is quite different than most, but this is why I try to look at the teachings of a person, take what resonates with my soul and leave the rest. Personally, I feel the most reliable inspiration we can get is from our own prayers and meditations…seems in my life that has been the most helpful. What others tell me is “right” …well, it often isn’t.
Cadence wrote:The challenge I face is I have a very rational and logical mind. There is no level of mysticism allowed in my thinking. If you do not have empirical evidence, you have no evidence. The world is full of anecdotal evidence of God and why we subscribe to different beliefs. I choose to ignore most of that because it has proven so unreliable in my life. Religious belief is just not set up to cater to my way of thinking.
Cadence, I understand what you’re saying – and to some extent feel much the same way. Physical value is determined by physical evidence – for the most part. I choose to look at spiritual things not for their physical value, but for their spiritual value. How do they interact with my personal sense of love and joy? Parables can have tremendous spiritual value with practically zero physical value.
The question for you may be: how do you gleam the spiritual value (for yourself personally) from Mormonism without having the physical assumptions of the broader membership interfere?
I Quote:t is upside down to me.
I understand that, and recognizing and admitting that is vital. You might never reach the type of reconciliation and peace I have reached, but I believe your own reconciliation and peace can be just as real and powerful. It simply will be different. I can’t take you there, because I’m not there myself – and never have been and don’t want to be. I just am convinced it’s there, since I know people who are there – including, to a degre, some of the other people here.
The practical difficulty with all of this in the present church is the overwhelming white-washing of EVERYTHING. It’s not just that all previous modern prophets are taught as being essentially perfect, but current leadership is allowed to pass as essentially perfect. You never, ever hear a GA speak about personal challenges overcome in adulthood. And, I mean, spiritual/worthiness challenges, not life challenges. My parents grew up in the fifties and they believe that all of the modern prophets were essentially perfect, so either this has changed in their lifetimes and they’ve changed with it or else it’s been like this since at least that time period. They have similar views of the founding fathers: that they were essentially perfect men, called of God, revered much the same way that JS, BY, et al are currently revered in the church.
Having said that, I think that this is at the heart of why Bushman’s concept is almost impossible to embrace from a practical standpoint. While I think it’s a fantastic way to look at anyone, prophet or otherwise, it’s simply not a part of the modern church. At least in the ETB and GBH eras there seemed to be a removal of nuance when it came to personality, growth, perspective, etc. of the previous modern day prophets.
As example, it seems in any discussion of JS, after his 14 yr old vision, he essentially never sinned. I get the paradigm: to a current TBM, the experience of actually seeing God not only means you are perfect in that moment but that you have a perfect knowledge that will never allow you to “go astray”. “How could you possibly sin after seeing God?” I know no one here really agrees with that but I don’t know any TBM’s that disagree with this conceptually.
I get that what I’m saying is a rash generalization but I’m just explaining why I think Bushman’s perspective is not and can not be embraced by the current church, leadership included.
Just wanted to echo what Orson said. Use the right tool for the right job. Fwiw, Joseph can’t be presented as perfect or pure as long as the D&C is part of our canon. 
We do know a few things about Abraham that are questionable. I really think the way he sent Hagar and Ishmael into the desert to die due to the wishes of Sarah was a pretty serious flaw in character. There is this idea especially in the Old Testament that God turns lemons into lemonade sometimes. When we look at Joseph sold to Egypt, and God provided a way to save Israel, it is also interesting that both Abraham and Hagar had visions that Ishmael would one day become a great nation. I don’t know if you are aware, but the pilgrimage to Mecca re-enacts Hagar’s frantic search for water to save Ishmael’s life. Islam has become a great religion, perhaps in answer to this biblical prophecy.
Still, I think Abraham’s treatment of Hagar deserves condemnation, rather than praise. Certainly he was guilty of poor judgment on this case, even if the Bible seems to justify it as “God’s will.”
Remember what happened to Noah – Quote:After the Flood, “Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine.” Noah’s son Ham saw his father naked, and gossiped about this to his brothers,so Noah cursed Ham’s son Canaan, giving his land to Shem
Which sounds a lot like a form of proto-ZIonism, nasty Canaanites get their land handed over to righteous Semites.
Noah is supposed to be Gabriel!!!
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Noah Quote:Noah stands “next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood” (HC 3:386), and “in third position from the Lord” (Petersen, p. 2), and conferred the power of the priesthood on his righteous posterity (D&C 84:14-15).
Then there’s David, apart from the speculation about his relationship with David, and writing the Psalms, murdered Bathsheba’s husband to have her. And Solomon…
Quote:According to 1 Kings 11:4 Solomon’s “wives turned his heart after other gods”, their own national deities, to whom Solomon built temples, thus incurring divine anger and retribution in the form of the division of the kingdom after Solomon’s death. (1 Kings 11:9-13)
Solomon’s linked with sorcery and seems to have liked the ladies as well.
Saul is a mixture of saint and sinner too.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.