Originally posted by Indy Coug
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
NY Times Article on Dissaffected Swedish Area Authority
Collapse
X
-
"Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf
-
On a road trip to Vegas and then on my run today, I listened to the Dehlin interview with Mattsson:
http://mormonstories.org/hans-mattsson/
Yes, it's a little long, but a really interesting look into what it's like to be a Swedish and then General Authority. You can sense how kind and loving both he and his wife are and just how devastating his faith crisis was. To claim that he was disingenuous about either what he knew or about his crisis is absurd, and worse, remarkably uncharitable. It's worth a listen if you have a long road trip ahead.At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
-Berry Trammel, 12/3/10
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwestcoug View PostOne wonders why God's revelation needs editing in the first place...
Now - maybe if God wrote, edited, published, printed, and then delivered the book printed and all ready to read in each person's language...then you could fault Him if there were mistakes.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Harry Tic View PostYou'd have to have some incredibly restrictive views on what counts as revelation to think that genuine revelation excludes the possibility of editorial changes. When you're talking about rendering in human language something which presumably exceeds language, it would be more surprising if you didn't need to edit and revise."Friendship is the grand fundamental principle of Mormonism" - Joseph Smith Jr.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Moliere View PostThere's a pretty big difference (at least in the current church) between the PH and a divining rod. I'm not sure that's just a matter of rendering, or at least it's not the way we are instructed in revelation today.
That's not even the biggest editing issue pertaining to the PH in the D&C. Isn't there a revelation that now contains a reference to the appearance of Peter James and John, which reference didn't exist in 1833?Awesomeness now has a name. Let me introduce myself.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Moliere View PostThere's a pretty big difference (at least in the current church) between the PH and a divining rod. I'm not sure that's just a matter of rendering, or at least it's not the way we are instructed in revelation today.
Originally posted by Sullyute View PostWhich raises the question (hat tip to AA) which revelations are still in need of editing to come in line with what God was trying to communicate in the first place?Nothing lasts, but nothing is lost.
--William Blake, via Shpongle
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sullyute View PostWhich raises the question (hat tip to AA) which revelations are still in need of editing to come in line with what God was trying to communicate in the first place?
Edit: Harry Tic beat me to it.“Not the victory but the action. Not the goal but the game. In the deed the glory.”
"All things are measured against Nebraska." falafel
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pheidippides View PostI believe that the word Priesthood was not even used until 1835. Don't quote me on that."There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster
Comment
-
Originally posted by Moliere View PostThat could have been because of the limitations of the Reformed Egyptian language.Dio perdona tante cose per un’opera di misericordia
God forgives many things for an act of mercyAlessandro Manzoni
Knock it off. This board has enough problems without a dose of middle-age lechery.
pelagius
Comment
-
Originally posted by Harry Tic View PostMG asks a very interesting question. Why should some uncomfortable historical detail about JS trump one's testimony of the BoM? If the BoM is what it claims to be, any biographical details about JS would appear to be irrelevant. While I think the reasoning is sound, I don't think it captures how testimonies actually work as an empirical matter. Testimonies generally involve buying into a narrative of some sort, a cluster of claims about JS, the First Vision, the BoM, and so on, that coalesce into a story which we tell ourselves and tell others. The story as a whole is edifying and faith-promoting. A robust faith narrative can accommodate a few anomalies here and there--they can be explained away as long as the big picture is left intact. To borrow an analogy popular in sports, we tend to evaluate JS's "body of work" and either find it inspired or not. A strong body of work does not imply perfection.
But when the number of anomalies grows and reaches critical mass (this is apparently what precipitated the crisis among Swedish members), we come to realize that there are other possible narratives in which the uncomfortable historical details are not a bug, but a feature. In these narratives, JS becomes a charlatan, or a dirty old man (well, young), or a delusional type, or whatever. Once the narrative is flipped, even details that once appeared innocuous or immaterial (JS's money-digging past) come to appear sinister and foreboding.
I tend to think that it's possible to reclaim a more robust and inspiring version of Joseph Smith and, oddly enough, I have tended to find non-Mormon authors writing about JS more interesting than Mormon ones (Harold Bloom, Simon Critchley).
In my "inactive" state, I still grasp at some hope or reason to swollow the blue pill and return to the matrix.
So... I am trying to look at this high level and evaluate the full body of work and not get overly hung up on the details.
However, I think we need to face reality. something I assume most of the brethren do, but they know they can't publicly take this stance which is:
If you really think that an angel of God stood before Joseph with a flaming sword and commanded him to jump in the 16 year old panties of his house maid Fanny, then lie about it and hide these trysts from his first wife (not to mention lying about these relationships for years to most of the members) ; then I would like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
So, for those of us that can see through the bullshit, is this a lesson on how God can still work through profoundly flawed people; and that the atonement is purifying even for the most vile of sinners (I should not cast stones), or was all this evidence of many ulterior motives and a carefully crafted fraud which was laid out with the end goal being the same as that, which all charlatans through history of strived for. Money and sex. Or in this case would seem to be sex and money with the former being the overwhelming primary driver.
Flame away.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mr Bean View PostLoved this response. Sorry for resurrecting this old thread, but I found it fascinating.
In my "inactive" state, I still grasp at some hope or reason to swollow the blue pill and return to the matrix.
So... I am trying to look at this high level and evaluate the full body of work and not get overly hung up on the details.
However, I think we need to face reality. something I assume most of the brethren do, but they know they can't publicly take this stance which is:
If you really think that an angel of God stood before Joseph with a flaming sword and commanded him to jump in the 16 year old panties of his house maid Fanny, then lie about it and hide these trysts from his first wife (not to mention lying about these relationships for years to most of the members) ; then I would like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
So, for those of us that can see through the bullshit, is this a lesson on how God can still work through profoundly flawed people; and that the atonement is purifying even for the most vile of sinners (I should not cast stones), or was all this evidence of many ulterior motives and a carefully crafted fraud which was laid out with the end goal being the same as that, which all charlatans through history of strived for. Money and sex. Or in this case would seem to be sex and money with the former being the overwhelming primary driver.
Flame away.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mr Bean View PostLoved this response. Sorry for resurrecting this old thread, but I found it fascinating.
In my "inactive" state, I still grasp at some hope or reason to swollow the blue pill and return to the matrix.
So... I am trying to look at this high level and evaluate the full body of work and not get overly hung up on the details.
However, I think we need to face reality. something I assume most of the brethren do, but they know they can't publicly take this stance which is:
If you really think that an angel of God stood before Joseph with a flaming sword and commanded him to jump in the 16 year old panties of his house maid Fanny, then lie about it and hide these trysts from his first wife (not to mention lying about these relationships for years to most of the members) ; then I would like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
So, for those of us that can see through the bullshit, is this a lesson on how God can still work through profoundly flawed people; and that the atonement is purifying even for the most vile of sinners (I should not cast stones), or was all this evidence of many ulterior motives and a carefully crafted fraud which was laid out with the end goal being the same as that, which all charlatans through history of strived for. Money and sex. Or in this case would seem to be sex and money with the former being the overwhelming primary driver.
Flame away.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jay santos View PostI like the idea of evaluating the "full body of work" and not the details. But I suggest you take it a step further. Evaluate the "full body" of the lived experience not the historical record.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jay santos View PostI like the idea of evaluating the "full body of work" and not the details. But I suggest you take it a step further. Evaluate the "full body" of the lived experience not the historical record.
I have a testimony of principled living, but not necessarily of the church because of the history. That might change I suppose, but I can't bring myself to swollow the troubled history just because living a Mormon lifestyle shows positive fruit (I think any religion has principles that when lived improve life)
Comment
-
Originally posted by tooblue View PostBut then he wouldn't be cleverer than the rest of us and able to see through the bullshit. He'd have to wade through it, albeit, only and exclusively, through the lens of his own lived experience. That's messy business.
I call bs on it which clearly means I'm not partaking if the tree of life. Or like my home teacher who feels that clearly it's because I have a porn problem..
That's just my lived experience, you can have your own and declare your own bullshit of the fact that I'm not a supporter of religious authority leveraged pedfelia. But to each his own
Comment
Comment