Apostasy and pride.

[SeattleUte]

I think the charge that apostates are prideful is basically right, and I don't understand why Robin is so offended by it. What this board demonstrates is that all of us here are reasonably intelligent and we know the same things--the gaps and holes in Joseph's story, "smoking guns" such as the B of A scrolls and absense of horse evidence in the Americans and so on, the shameful priesthood ban, the icky polygamous past, striking similarities between the Masonic and Temple rites, the nauseating jello salad culture, the Kinderhook plates and so on and so forth; going beyond Mormonism, even chain of custody problems with Jesus' biography and authorship of the Gospels, overwhelming evidence of natural selection belieing the Adam and Eve story, etc.; it's all out there, laid bear.

Some of us see all of this, and perhaps more importantly, some of us based on life experience, decide that God, if there is one, just does not transact business with His children via angels, gold books, etc. Others of us choose to go on believing. It's a choice. There's no cover up. We all know the problems, and we're all intelligent people. Nor is it reason that leads some to believe; on the contrary, it defies reason.

To me, the choice to believe requires humility. A type of humility that I simply lack. One could ask, if there is a basis to the belief, why is God such a trickster, erecting this house of mirrors, planting false smoking guns and allowing the leaders of his only true church to pander to members of such church's racism, and so on? Good question. I guess if I were one of the believers I'd say that the purpose is to teach humility; to teach people to to believe in the face of all the problems, in the face of the apostates' derisive laughter, because they choose to do so, and just because of that, and to God there is intrinsic value in that kind of humility. I guess that's the only part of it that makes any sense to me. So I'll have to give the believers their due on the apostasy=pridefulness point.

[El Guapo]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think the charge that apostates are prideful is basically right, and I don't understand why Robin is so offended by it. What this board demonstrates is that all of us here are reasonably intelligent and we know the same things--the gaps and holes in Joseph's story, "smoking guns" such as the B of A scrolls and absense of horse evidence in the Americans and so on, the shameful priesthood ban, the icky polygamous past, striking similarities between the Masonic and Temple rites, the nauseating jello salad culture, the Kinderhook plates and so on and so forth; going beyond Mormonism, even chain of custody problems with Jesus' biography and authorship of the Gospels, overwhelming evidence of natural selection belying the Adam and Eve story, etc.; it's all out there, laid bear.

Some of us see all of this, and perhaps more importantly, some of us based on life experience, decide that God, if there is one, just does not transact business with His children via angels, gold books, etc. Others of us choose to go on believing. It's a choice. There's no cover up. We all know the problems, and we're all intelligent people. Nor is it reason that leads some to believe; on the contrary, it defies reason.

To me, the choice to believe requires humility. A type of humility that I simply lack. One could ask, if there is a basis to the belief, why is God such a trickster, erecting this house of mirrors, planting false smoking guns and allowing the leaders of his only true church to pander to members of such church's racism, and so on? Good question. I guess if I were one of the believers I'd say that the purpose is to teach humility; to teach people to to believe in the face of all the problems, in the face of the apostates' derisive laughter, because they choose to do so, and just because of that, and to God there is intrinsic value in that kind of humility. I guess that's the only part of it that makes any sense to me. So I'll have to give the believers their due on the apostasy=pridefulness point.

I don't actually have any problem with the things you listed. I begin with faith that it is true, and then work to figure out how it makes sense (which I think it should since truth should make sense, I presume).

Take, for example, the striking similarities between the masonic and LDS temple rights. Odd, given that masons didn't really form until around the
1700s and there is almost no chance they had passed the solomonic temple rights down before that. So why the similarities?

In my belief, the gospel is too vast for us to comprehend fully on Earth. God knows we can't comprehend it. Nevertheless, there are a few things we can comprehend, and those things are revealed to us. God allows us to fill in the gaps where needed to help us understand things. So, Joseph Smith was given revelations about vital information we could understand. As a human, he then began processing the new information within the framework of his experience and understanding. His brother was a mason, and Smith undoubtedly was familiar with the masonic ceremony. That made sense to him. So, he took portions of that ceremony and included within them the information God had provided. The end result is a ceremony that contains the information we need, along with some other aspects that are simply gap fillers to help us understand the necessary information in a meaningful way.

I am also a believer that God communicates with us when we prepare and then ask Him for answers. For this reason, blacks were not given the priesthood. Not that God didn't want them to have it; IMO He did. Some of our leaders, being human, simply didn't consider it a possibility, or the membership, also human, was sadly unprepared for the transition.

With the Abrahamic scrolls that have been found and don't appear to contain the information Smith said they contained, I also think there is an obvious explanation. The actual scrolls containing the Book of Abraham were no longer in existence or were unavailable to Smith for whatever reason. Nevertheless, the information contained on them was important for us to receive. Smith saw scrolls and immediately thought they might have good information. He asked God about it, and God revealed to Smith the language of the Book of Abraham (and not the language of the actual scroll which was irrelevant in God's plan other than to prompt Smith to inquire about ancient scrolls).

In fact, you could say that the gold plates were unnecessary too, except as something tangible to help Smith (and a few others in the early church) to believe. God worked within the framework of what Smith would understand to reveal things. The Urim and Thummim are an example of this as well. He understood that, so God went that route.

This, to me, is the same thing with horses. Perhaps there was an ancient animal that is now extinct. It has no current name. In Smith's mind, whatever he read could have simply been associated with a horse. Was it a horse really? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? But would God care either how Smith interpreted it? Not as long as the actual message was coming through. It is just like the Book of Revelations. Did John actually see a firebreathing monster, or could it have just been a tank and he had no better way of describing it? Who knows.

In any event, God works with what He has and makes things understandable for us, because our ability to understand is very limited in our temporal state.

Just my thoughts.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by El Guapo

I don't actually have any problem with the things you listed. I begin with faith that it is true, and then work to figure out how it makes sense (which I think it should since truth should make sense, I presume).

Take, for example, the striking similarities between the masonic and LDS temple rights. Odd, given that masons didn't really form until around the
1700s and there is almost no chance they had passed the solomonic temple rights down before that. So why the similarities?

In my belief, the gospel is too vast for us to comprehend fully on Earth. God knows we can't comprehend it. Nevertheless, there are a few things we can comprehend, and those things are revealed to us. God allows us to fill in the gaps where needed to help us understand things. So, Joseph Smith was given revelations about vital information we could understand. As a human, he then began processing the new information within the framework of his experience and understanding. His brother was a mason, and Smith undoubtedly was familiar with the masonic ceremony. That made sense to him. So, he took portions of that ceremony and included within them the information God had provided. The end result is a ceremony that contains the information we need, along with some other aspects that are simply gap fillers to help us understand the necessary information in a meaningful way.

I am also a believer that God communicates with us when we prepare and then ask Him for answers. For this reason, blacks were not given the priesthood. Not that God didn't want them to have it; IMO He did. Some of our leaders, being human, simply didn't consider it a possibility, or the membership, also human, was sadly unprepared for the transition.

With the Abrahamic scrolls that have been found and don't appear to contain the information Smith said they contained, I also think there is an obvious explanation. The actual scrolls containing the Book of Abraham were no longer in existence or were unavailable to Smith for whatever reason. Nevertheless, the information contained on them was important for us to receive. Smith saw scrolls and immediately thought they might have good information. He asked God about it, and God revealed to Smith the language of the Book of Abraham (and not the language of the actual scroll which was irrelevant in God's plan other than to prompt Smith to inquire about ancient scrolls).

In fact, you could say that the gold plates were unnecessary too, except as something tangible to help Smith (and a few others in the early church) to believe. God worked within the framework of what Smith would understand to reveal things. The Urim and Thummim are an example of this as well. He understood that, so God went that route.

This, to me, is the same thing with horses. Perhaps there was an ancient animal that is now extinct. It has no current name. In Smith's mind, whatever he read could have simply been associated with a horse. Was it a horse really? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? But would God care either how Smith interpreted it? Not as long as the actual message was coming through. It is just like the Book of Revelations. Did John actually see a firebreathing monster, or could it have just been a tank and he had no better way of describing it? Who knows.

In any event, God works with what He has and makes things understandable for us, because our ability to understand is very limited in our temporal state.

Just my thoughts.

Very interesting. Makes sense. What about polygamy?

[Archaea]

I haven't thought too much about apostasy, but I have thought about different fields of thought, such as the scientist, who boiled down to it, only requires reproducible results, and everybody else.

Today, while riding my bike, I had a deconstructionist experience, as I was digesting Robin's "Derrida is great" comment. An odd comment.

Anybody who has struggle through parts of deconstructionism, will understand that this approach or outlook helps one to delimit oneself, whereas the Enlightement Approach is the scientific method which rejects anything which is not reproducible in a laboratory. The strength of the approach is also its weakness. It does not account for variability of results.

The apostate appears to take the Enlightenment approach, of been-there, done-that, saw flaws, so it's all wrohg attitude, rejecting the baby with the bathwater. The believer and even nonbeliever accepts the possibilty inconsistent results on the basis of variability of results. Now I submit if we could view the calculus of the cosmos, maybe the variability would be consistent.

Many apostates take the approach, I reject this because "God would not do this and this," thereby limiting intellectually the realm of possibilities how other beings act.

I apologize for this horrific effort to inject deconstructionism, as it has been horribly done, given my rush to a meeting. Nonetheless, the apostate, as opposed to the nonbeliever, falls into the world of binary opposition, believing in the superiority of concepts.

[Robin]

Wow SU, I guess we really are different flavors of apostate. In this case I am on the same page as El Guapo. It is easy for me to imagine that had God attempted to set up a single church organization with THE 'authority,' that it could have all of the problems that you point out, but nonetheless be an institution established by God.

While I suppose pondering those issues may have caused me to reflect on the nature of God, as long as I was a believer they felt more like an invitation to examine my beliefs and readjust them to fit the circumstances, much like El Guapo has done here. As long as one accepts the idea that God is filtering his truth through imperfect beings, one can accept a LOT of inconsistency without losing a testimony.

My brand of apostasy is more epistemological. I question whether or not people have the real tools necessary to know the kinds of truths that the church calls essential. Upon deep personal reflection I feel like I have the tools to understand some kinds of truth, but not the absolutes the church holds as the gospel. In my view the church has simply over reached. I am more comfortable guiding my spirituality along paths of other thinkers who recognize the human limitations of contemplating and understanding ultimate truth.

So in my view, JS may have been a prophet, but not in the way he claims to be. The church might be true, but not in the way it claims. I accept the possibility that in spite of their weaknesses, there could be a God who channels spiritual feelings and understanding through the LDS faith, and I hope that anyone who chooses that path will find happiness and meaning there.

But for me, the dogmatic nature of the LDS gospel and commandments, and the claim to unique authority and truth, all of this didn't seem to fit the personal understanding I have of my own limited capability to know truth.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Very interesting. Makes sense. What about polygamy?

I have a similar way of thinking about the gospel as guapo. Polygamy for me is just as easy as any of those other issues.

Possibility: When a cute girl walked by, Joseph Smith's heart twitterpated, and he got that feeling mixed up with the spirit. Before you know it, polygamy is introduced. This was of course very popular with other red blooded men in church leadership, so the concept was validating in a couple ways to Joseph, despite it's unpopularity among other fronts. Over time, the Lord straightened out the problem like He does with anything else in the church.

Another possibility: nobody really knows the facts, so you can assume Joseph was as pure as pure can be, and there's more to the story we don't understand--either in the way of God's purpose or in the way of what actually happened historically.

Since neither one bothers my testimony any, it's not a big deal to me.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by El Guapo

I don't actually have any problem with the things you listed. I begin with faith that it is true, and then work to figure out how it makes sense (which I think it should since truth should make sense, I presume).

Take, for example, the striking similarities between the masonic and LDS temple rights. Odd, given that masons didn't really form until around the
1700s and there is almost no chance they had passed the solomonic temple rights down before that. So why the similarities?

In my belief, the gospel is too vast for us to comprehend fully on Earth. God knows we can't comprehend it. Nevertheless, there are a few things we can comprehend, and those things are revealed to us. God allows us to fill in the gaps where needed to help us understand things. So, Joseph Smith was given revelations about vital information we could understand. As a human, he then began processing the new information within the framework of his experience and understanding. His brother was a mason, and Smith undoubtedly was familiar with the masonic ceremony. That made sense to him. So, he took portions of that ceremony and included within them the information God had provided. The end result is a ceremony that contains the information we need, along with some other aspects that are simply gap fillers to help us understand the necessary information in a meaningful way.

I am also a believer that God communicates with us when we prepare and then ask Him for answers. For this reason, blacks were not given the priesthood. Not that God didn't want them to have it; IMO He did. Some of our leaders, being human, simply didn't consider it a possibility, or the membership, also human, was sadly unprepared for the transition.

With the Abrahamic scrolls that have been found and don't appear to contain the information Smith said they contained, I also think there is an obvious explanation. The actual scrolls containing the Book of Abraham were no longer in existence or were unavailable to Smith for whatever reason. Nevertheless, the information contained on them was important for us to receive. Smith saw scrolls and immediately thought they might have good information. He asked God about it, and God revealed to Smith the language of the Book of Abraham (and not the language of the actual scroll which was irrelevant in God's plan other than to prompt Smith to inquire about ancient scrolls).

In fact, you could say that the gold plates were unnecessary too, except as something tangible to help Smith (and a few others in the early church) to believe. God worked within the framework of what Smith would understand to reveal things. The Urim and Thummim are an example of this as well. He understood that, so God went that route.

This, to me, is the same thing with horses. Perhaps there was an ancient animal that is now extinct. It has no current name. In Smith's mind, whatever he read could have simply been associated with a horse. Was it a horse really? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? But would God care either how Smith interpreted it? Not as long as the actual message was coming through. It is just like the Book of Revelations. Did John actually see a firebreathing monster, or could it have just been a tank and he had no better way of describing it? Who knows.

In any event, God works with what He has and makes things understandable for us, because our ability to understand is very limited in our temporal state.

Just my thoughts.

Yes. Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain how you work through these issues. I respect what you believe.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think the charge that apostates are prideful is basically right, and I don't understand why Robin is so offended by it. What this board demonstrates is that all of us here are reasonably intelligent and we know the same things--the gaps and holes in Joseph's story, "smoking guns" such as the B of A scrolls and absense of horse evidence in the Americans and so on, the shameful priesthood ban, the icky polygamous past, striking similarities between the Masonic and Temple rites, the nauseating jello salad culture, the Kinderhook plates and so on and so forth; going beyond Mormonism, even chain of custody problems with Jesus' biography and authorship of the Gospels, overwhelming evidence of natural selection belieing the Adam and Eve story, etc.; it's all out there, laid bear.

Some of us see all of this, and perhaps more importantly, some of us based on life experience, decide that God, if there is one, just does not transact business with His children via angels, gold books, etc. Others of us choose to go on believing. It's a choice. There's no cover up. We all know the problems, and we're all intelligent people. Nor is it reason that leads some to believe; on the contrary, it defies reason.

To me, the choice to believe requires humility. A type of humility that I simply lack. One could ask, if there is a basis to the belief, why is God such a trickster, erecting this house of mirrors, planting false smoking guns and allowing the leaders of his only true church to pander to members of such church's racism, and so on? Good question. I guess if I were one of the believers I'd say that the purpose is to teach humility; to teach people to to believe in the face of all the problems, in the face of the apostates' derisive laughter, because they choose to do so, and just because of that, and to God there is intrinsic value in that kind of humility. I guess that's the only part of it that makes any sense to me. So I'll have to give the believers their due on the apostasy=pridefulness point.

Interesting issue.

I would have to side with the view that it's an egocentric view for Mormons to call apostates prideful. Most active Mormons are part of a culture where peer pressure makes leaving the church incredibly difficult. Pride (or fear of man) might keep Mormons in as much as out.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Interesting issue.

I would have to side with the view that it's an egocentric view for Mormons to call apostates prideful. Most active Mormons are part of a culture where peer pressure makes leaving the church incredibly difficult. Pride (or fear of man) might keep Mormons in as much as out.

I have known plenty of closet apostates who have 'come out' to me, but asked that I keep their views private. I think the phenomenon is fairly common.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Interesting issue.

I would have to side with the view that it's an egocentric view for Mormons to call apostates prideful. Most active Mormons are part of a culture where peer pressure makes leaving the church incredibly difficult. Pride (or fear of man) might keep Mormons in as much as out.

It is contained in canon, pride comes before the fall, the circle of pride is the downfall of societies, pride and ignorance lead to gain and ultimately lead to destruction and regression, that's the real reason why you have the egocentric view held by most mormons, it is contained in their scriptures.

Interesting thought, that pride keeps them both in and out, one with which I would agree. I don't know how mormon specific it is as I know plenty of catholics, baptists, etc, who stay because of peer pressure.