Sergg

of course.

Interesting... But other christians believe that is just the opposite: that what is extremely naive is to posit -in arbitrary fashion- a Middle Ages that did not need such test. And an most profound problem is that of acceptig 'people' speaking to 'mormons' from outside. For, which status do they hold? How can they speak to the 'elected' while they themselves are'nt? I am of the opinion -to borrow your phrase-, that such statement coming from lds members is a genuine one but hopelessly untrue. This is, a felt conviction rather than a principle that has weight in its Theology or Doctrine of salvation. For although it be said, truth is, nobody can seriously point to a particular someone who actually fits the category. If done, it would create almost inmediately a contradicted reaction within the membership. The only way I can give serious credit to such a claim , is if a President of the Church starts recognizing and extending value to such abstract persons who 'talk' to the Church. Being that only the Presidency is the Criteria of the membership to judge such things.

This is an article of an lds historian, titled "I dont have a testimony of the history of the Church", and when I was going through your phase, I read iti, and it made a lot of sense to me. It didnt rescue, but delayed (a lot) my final 'leaving'. It explains how having a testimony of the church is not the same as having a testimony of its history. I hope that it does you good, if what you want is to believe the Church, as you yourself said. I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church

Well that's not for a historian to answer, but for a preacher with a peculiar view of history. As long as I can extend judgement without irresponsibly committing to either mormonism or antimormonism, I can acknowledge changes in historical, theological, and political Europe from 100 a.c.e. and 1500 a.c.e. But I cannot reasonably adscribe a CAUSE or PURPOSE to this. History encloses no purpose. And periods of great 'turning-back' happen throughout all historical development since the upper paleolithic. Two similar periods occured during the Mesolithic and Neolithic era. But again, you pretend that those cultures either didnt existed or were not part of our 35,000-years-ago residence on earth: for you believe (or am I wrong?) in creation at 4000a.e.c.(so it can add to a whole 7 dispensation periods of 1000years each- at least, thats your 'Church manuals' theology). And no, neither Egypt nor the Mayas ( coming rather lately in mesoamerican development, you may have meant the Toltects or if we streatch it a bit, the Incas) did not know such things as 'wave lenthes of light'. What ancient cultures did know, remains in the most obscure by the paradoxical absense of documentation but simultaneous presence of great archeological works. What does remain, speaks of great observance of the skies, especially in the Inca tradition. Great meassurings of calendar-purposes(as in the Maya), great advances in engineering(Romans), great thought(Greeks), great coming-to-politics(Sumer), etc. But most of these episodes did not coincide as to make it a 'stable development of mankind suddenly interrupted by a most 'spoken-about' disposition of a G-d'. The only series of great transformations that coincided in time were those described by Armstrong in The Great Transformation among others of lesser repercusion. Nobody took a sabbatical at knowledge. Mostly because knowledge is a social phenomenon, and varies. But second and most importantly because bewteen , say, 200a.c.e. and 500 a.c.e., I dont know if you know, but the whole of Roman Empire was going through invasions that actually resulted in its decadence and fall. And meanwhile, at such politcial times of peril, WHY whould have ANY empire turn itself to 'right thinking'? We might as well mention how the Mayas(so romantically believed by mormons) at various times out of nothing and suddenly stopped every development,m dispersed and abandones and burned their own cities, going back to tribal experience, just to a 100 years later come back again together and build a brillian Empire again! This also happens in Sumer. The fact is, that between 100 and 500 a.e.c. there was a political disturbance in Europe, that resulted in the dispersion of a great Empire. A thing to take into notice, when judging the 'desire for truth' of people needing to survive. A similar thing also happens 1500 b.c.e. with the Thera explosion; one that itself eliminates civilizations and rearranges evrything in the Mediterranean circumsference. It actually starts the nomadic movements with which will also join the hebrews. And, at any rate, your Church manuals and doctrine(and most reknowned apostle-writers) do not think that the great Apostasy lasted between 40a.c.e. and 800 a.c.e., but almost two thousand years, from 100 a.c.e. to 1822a.c.e. Joseph Smith believed that not only the upper classic period(300-800) but the whole medieval era(500-1400), the renascense(1300-1600), the Reformation(1500), the Enlightment(1600-1800) ALL with their coming into truths, were part of an Apostasy. And with that I most certainly disagree. For none of those periods were periods of 'absence of progress', but to the contrary. But on no historical basis do we seriously agree on human 'historical development' being uniform, sublime, 'ever-reaching-new-knowledge', 'progressive', up to such christian 'predicted' 'Apostasy'. To reach that conclusion we would have to already agree on believing Lds theology, or any other external and faith-required criteria as to guide(lets not say 'cloud', for although almost always it becomes that, sometimes it actually sheds light) our judgement while doing research. Now, just accept the fact that between us two, only you have taken that second step; and the fact that I do not, doesnt mean that I 'miss' things, but that you see more things there where neither i nor anyone that hasnt taken the second step does.

Whose posts have you been reading? I stated clearly that such fundamental changes did happen. But again, they were originally multiple changes (directions, communities behind them, etc.) and not 'a catholic change', as many mormon missionaries devoid of history proclaim. Between 40 a.c.e. and 325 a.c.e. there occur a lot of political, scriptural, and philosophical changes within and outside of christendom. And I suggested books that actually (as any serious book on it) goes on exploring it clearly. But what neither I, nor many authors subscribe to (even Nibley!) was that there -as documents shed light- existed One True Theology of Christ that lasted (say what? 20-50 years according to the particular christian historical whim) little and suddenly a mass of bad, 'built-in-agenda-scribes' tainted with what later on became Catholicism took Scripture to alter it, and only it did all damage. That all first and second century 'heresies' (long before any catholicism) were diverted and misreadings of Christ and that -although they did damage-, it was the even larger Church of Catholicism that ultimately threw a shadow to the world of truth that lasted two millenia (of course, with 'G-d' having a purpose on it). Now, that this occurs, does not mean that the changes were bad or 'false' in themselves. As you wouldnt call the Veda writters a misreading and heresy of the Upanishads. You would only call them that if you already -and aside of all historical consideration-, subscribed to one of them (as you do with lds theology). I recognize the changes; I do not recognize(how could I?) your description of it being a "going farther away from a christian Truth, that resembles 'almost certainly' nowadays mormon doctrine". To that, I cannot subscribe. And yes, I -or any other, can study a topic historically , or philosophically, or theologically, even if we do not subscribe to it. For we wouldnt be making claims on it from within(as a believer does) but from without. As such, it becomes even clearer. For , each time we find a 'hole' or a 'gap', we dont have to fill it with 'obscurity' or 'purpose'. We just underline the gap 'till another more bright and with more resources figures it out. Its called discipline and intellectual honesty. To be unready to always have a response for every difficulty. But I insist, I do not want to be dragged to your conversation. Yours goes around the 'question' of whether it*(the process) can be identified with the epic that corresponds to your Church's doctrine. That, is of no interest to me, but the fun and documentation of history.

I win nothing by arguing with you about who's got 'new testament doctrine' more right. That's a fight that you, along with your church, have been entertaining with the rest of the christiandom. If you see it won by your side it is because you already take it for granted. Remember it was not by mere study but by spirit that 'witness' came to you of these things. Now, I am not operating on such dimension. For hermeneutical purposes, 'revelation' or 'witness of spirit' cannot take a role as historical criteria. it would be compromising and irresponsible. And I am neither. Now, though even most serious and famous comentators on Paul's work disagree (or agree) over the possibility of a complete coherence of teachings and concepts in his work, we will take notice of New testament discordance. Peter already warns members of Paul's obscure and complicated way of teaching. Paul's core teachings, like for example, Romans 2, borrow from contemporary philosophical ethical thesis such as those of Stoicism. The theology of Paul is not from judaism. Nor was Paul's gospel 'the gospel', for insesantly he insists on preaching 'this gospel', 'his gospel', the 'gospel as delivered unto him' by a grace that older apostles did not entertain, because already at his time, and among the very bishops(see Acts, and the epistles of John) communities believed different 'gospels'. In fact, the most prominent exegetical proof that most of the early christian communities(let us not forget that there was not 'a' Church, but a system of varying communities, separate both in time and cultures) already believed at the start diverted theologies(for, accept it, even Paul's was still on the making) is that most letters of Paul are precisely attacks, reminders, and corrections because of some 'heresy' or 'bad work' entertained by the community in question. The work of Nibley is admirable regarding this. Of all lds authors I know, he has been the most scholarly and objective. Knowing that is time that vindicates truth and not animosity. Mass-doctrine is suited for the convert. Historians, evidently, cannot be satisfied at that. If that were so, we would not have excavated Greece, or Israel, or Irak, to see if there was a flood, or residues of a 'Solomon's Temple', etc. We would have stoped at 'bearing witness to spirit' and write books based on that. Middle ages, again. But to do the contrary, is precisely to leave aside such conceptions(even if we hold them dear) in order to see things for what they are. And although 'things as what they are' is but objectivist illusion, a prudent detachment from preconceptions have always resulted in positive results. Again, the modality of truth is evidence (I am not only saying 'positive' evidence, but even in the sense of 'inner' consonance or witness as you takek it to be), and animosity binds it to a fall. So, lets not confuse, that what i represent, over here, is the interest for historical, and hermeneutical excercise. Not that of 'truth-search' for the most compelling interpretation of christianity within the frame of the problem itself.

1) I do not have an inability to 'see' a 'need' of prophets; I just do not have to accept such criteria (ultimately non hermeneutical), for I do not believe in 'G-d' nor his 'prophets'. I just see, and study this as a historical development, as nothing else. Hence my presupositions differ from yours. Mine stick around historiographical and hermeneutical criteria, yours around authority, revelation, and truth. The heterogeneity of my presupositions regarding yours does not constitute an 'inability', least of all a 'complete' inability to look seriously at this historical problem. 2) The teachings of a man that did not write anything at all, and whose teachings as early as his own time were seriously obscure(even to the apostles about whom Scripture much often repeats 'and they did not understand the meaning of this...') and further more between the last part of the 1st and 2nd centuries, many unreconcilable forms of christianity, with no more external (to the text) criteria than the internal fights over power, cannot, responsibly be called 'universal'. Please. 3) If indeed you think such things as that there exists documentation that proves your LDS teaching, bring it forth , or write a scholarly book. I'll be glad to read it, as I have been so glad to read many others in such respect. 4) As long as you speak of 'orthodoxy' as a proxy term of mine that can only be true of "Christ's truth" taken to the gentiles, and so forth, I can only tell you, that I wont go in there: you are not doing history anymore(which I am doing), you are doing mass-doctrine, in favour of the 'truth' of your Church. Therefore, my conclusions are not wrong because they are historically incorrect, but theologically wrong because they contradict your doctrinal standpoint. But I never intended(nor do) to enter a discussion on 'which' doctrine or christian point of view concerning this period is the 'true' one, for I do not believe in Christ nor a Church. I only care for the interesting and serious considerations of historical plausibility. And your doctrinal claim, in its content, is historically false. Though its spirit, is historically right. There is no original -documented- 'christian' doctrine, innocent, pure, and later 'corrupted'. But early corruptions that later became even more corrupted. I have already given some of my bibliography. It speaks better than I. I cannot undergo here what took such books to communicate. It would not be responsible. There was a 'falling away' from an original experience. The thing is that it was right there while Christ was already alive.

But it would be silly of me to state that every communal christian faith(especifically the independent ones under the vague flag of Protestantism), in its acceptance of Athanasius Creed, proceeded out of actual and presently fear and threat. But it was, in , say, Foucault's terms, a force nonetheless. For as you yourself recognize, it was a fear(or uneasyness, or whatever you may call it), a threat at being lost and suddenly cut-off from traditional christian sense(regarding the Trinity) that actually prompted your forefathers to produce, engage in, and attempt at getting it 'right' amidst all that heretical "Oneness"; presently in the modalities of the 'Jesus Only'). That threat responded to an already established habit-belief in the Trinity, even, if vague. Anyways, we cant take up the case of such people here, for all is hear-say and lost in time. Also, their contact with traditional text was obviously colored by their most intuitive appeal to tradition, believe it or not. It is always criteria that guide exegesis; interpretation never on its own 'finds' truths in texts. This is even known from cognitive operations, be them visual, of memory, or of creativity. Just as creativity, 'discoverings' also happen within limits; those set by the mix of both cultural (internalized) 'already-done-so' phenomenons and volition/imagination. But I guess that we see hermeneutical experience from two different angles; you see it through Reformation's claim of 'freedom' of exegetical authority(this is, a spirit 'that inhabits any man disregarding status'), indeed, paradoxical in respect of later considerations such as the Erasmus/Luther-Calvin fight over freedom properly stated. My hermeneutical approach comes from the tradition of Agustin, Wittgenstein, Gadamer, Ricoeour, Blumenberg, Derrida. Yours derives from traditional concepts of 'looking and finding' through 'inspiration'. Fine. No deal there.I cant nor will proceed to call it or argument against it as contextually 'disparate'. For it is, after all, part of the legacy that gave form to current democratic experience. I only intervene in things as historical fact, non-justified claims concerning things I do can deconstruct or at shouts that unjustly proclaim 'superiority' without being argumentative at least. The other part, that of the Athanasius position being clear and simple, is of course, a hardly-true claim to accept. For the very intellectuals at Nicea, argued insesantly against not only its unscriptural (in fact, lets accept: unjudean origin), but its factual nonsese*. And through the ages, it did not get any clearer. It received the worst attacks coming from either side: philosophical thought, scientific thought, even mythological thought. For a truth to be so universal and evident, we must hold fast to Paul's own metaphor in Hebrews, that finally has God spoken clearly and fully through the Son. For, all in all, everything was shadow. Precisely because the platonic-aristotelian notion of the Trinity is heterogeneous to traditional thought. Nor myths, or posterior conceptions of Occidental thought have constructed suh abstraction. It is a Creed only to subscribe to, for it is plainly, non understandable. That is why, elevated people such as Agustin proclaimed 'believing before understanding'. Not playing there. So we may dilucidate and analyse the composition of the classical Trinity Creed, but it will not be reaviling as to its truth, but as to its historical and traditional causations. Neither the hebrew tradition, nor mythological thought before up to the neolithic, can understand suh concept. It is only found in the Bible, through a particular (compromised -and hey, being compromised is nothing wrong, just not to acknowledge it is) exegesis. But hey, I am all for it. I know it to have undergone supreme additions and work, by many theologians (on both sides). I only underline its contingency as an interpretation; your Creed is not an obvious reading coming from early christian tradition in its magnitude of ramifications. It was a process resulting in a political event.

I do not believe in such Great Apostasy, because, after careful consideration of early forms of christianity -or later developments-, it results that no actual orthodoxy existed in its 'own right' first of all. The interpretation and experience of Christ's teachings, were diverse from the very early stages in his own disciples. The very new testament, and the exegetical fights therein -among the very apostles-, is a topic in itself. The developments of the 2nd and 3rd centuries , new heresies, early fathers, greek fathers, latin fathers, up to Nicea and the Milan Edict, show how diverse the representation of Christ was. Only if one already privileges a surviving(or presently overdeveolped) sect or Church, does one find its 'traces back to original apodicticity'. The truth is that texts such as The Closing of the Western Mind (Freeman), When Jesus became god (Rubenstein), or Aristotle's children (Rubenstein also), The orthodox corruption of Scripture, or a reading of the early fathers, shows, not necessarily that a "once clear doctrine" was 'lost', but that many doctrines simultaneously coexisted, and one cannot, again, unless already believing one of them to be true, 'find' an Ariadne's thread through all time past down to its 'origin'. Christ, as historical person, remains a sillhouette and his actual teachings lost. Only what those who heard and listened, and fought and survived, and later on came to be either loosers(heresies pursued) or winners (a powerful empire), remain. Also, the middle ages have been wrongly associated with lowliness, dirt, obscurity, absense of arts , science and inspiration. Jacques LeGoff, a middle-ages historian, among many others (or just see History Channel's documentaries...) have rescued the clear and profound progress and work that was going on through such 'dark' ages; in arquitecture, philosophy, theology, tradition, society, science. Neither Luther, or Leonardo, or Erasmo, or Kepler would have done what they did if not already being on th eshoulders of giants -even if, silent giants. Medieval mentality and subjectivity was not as that of the modern and the enlightment. It was, as Tillich puts it, a communal identity. As Crussi puts it, a 'magical' consciousness. As LeGoff puts it, an 'organical intellectualism', instead of our tales of romantic heroes, revolutions, identity, copy right, and democracy. The first to represent the middle ages as dark, were those of the Enlightment period, with its liberal hatred of religious-state-goverment. A mythology for progress. The 19 century was not the only one which saw the advent of new 'prophets'; nor was mormonism the only attempt at it within it. The decline of the voices and presences of the gods of almost all Near Eastern cultures and empires(more powerful and great than Israel or Rome) had been fading and prepared the way for Christ-characters, magic, oracles and later on, the absense of prophets. It was a cultural phenomenon that clearly starts in 2400 b.c. and goes through climax at 100 a.c., up to this day where the voices of no gods(other than metaohorical calls for revelation and authority) are 'heard'. (see The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of th ebicameral mind, Jaynes).

May I say, that most denomionations do not 'come' to believe such things as the theological points debated at Nicea; they are required to believe them already in order to enter the very panoramic space of christianity itself and enjoy debates and edifying theological wondering. Denominations have had to believe it in order to enter the very space they ought first to define by debate! It was Constantine's sword that drove out of Rome those arrian bishops(most* of the bishops at that time of Nicea) just after the edict of Athanasius' win. It was not a peaceful matter of 'agreed upon' exegetical excercise; it was a polemic, and one that resulted in one of the most famous obnubilations and exclusions of Western history. The 'making' of Heresies in both antiquity and modernity, has been a sociological phenomenon that exceeds mere appeal to 'come to believe by scripture'. From the early fathers and their internal borrowings of traditions and internal fights, to the most important Councils(including Carthago, ironically, one that protestantism does nto subscribe to -as it was the one who designated Mary as 'theotokos', or 'god-bearer'), to the heat of protestant disputes, to the Galileo affair(a scriptural and ecclesial matter more than a 'science vs. religion' issue, as most genuinely -but wrongly- believe), it has been 'other-making', 'demonization' and making caricatures out of heterodoxical postures that has been at work behind the 'evolution' of christianity in general and its theological development. It is not to say, of course, that all change responded to mere 'want of exclusion' or 'hatred', but to insist that every act that was discriminatory -excluded in its motivation, from such hatred of heresy,- ultimately, resulted in an implementing of a feeling of disgust and hatred for optional readings. This is, you come to 'find it scriptural' after you already 'come believe it'. That's the appropiate order, for me. So, after so long a road, and bloody -lets not forget (for exegetical sins, were also paid with life, in a sense)- we cannot genuinely believe that the changes and fights over 'right' renderings of theological truth come to be reduced to that epithet of Luther (ignorant of true hermeneutics and history and tradition) "Sola Scriptura'. Indeed, a reading of both Luther and Calvin (especially the latter) result in great pleasure. But it nevertheless shows how much a political affair was to 'render' a bible 'right' than a merely 'advance of comprehension', least of all a 'communal comprehension' between denominations of the 20th century. So we may take for granted, the use and acceptance of the creeds of the Councils before 430 a.c.e.(in the case of main-stream Protestantism), but we can't just let the analysis of such beliefs slip through such a gratuitous claim as 'we came to it by communal enlightment', 'you are the ones(mormons) who result in disagreement'(a heretical one, on top of all). The question is, more than a mere revision and expansion of the Nicea event(overrated, for me, as many know), the ethical question at the heart of christianity which comes after the reading of a scripture quoted above, regarding Jesus and his acceptance of others who claimed authority in his name without having even met him(this, without he himself dying, the very thing which would for the first time assure such phenomenon), and practiced a 'christianism'(lets invent that term): Who are those who are 'not against us'(this is, natural, inherited, orthodox christianity) and yet are with us who (by what criteria!) are still able (and hold a right to it according to Christ, or at least, his not-condemning it constitutes the extension of a new right) to proclaim Christ in the absense of his actual teachings, indeed in the very absense of his blessing, presence and comunion!?? Because the preocupation of the disciples, and their reasoning are exactly representative of orthodox (nowadays) christianity regarding heresies. I , for one, bet (a lot!) that if this passage of scripture had not been found in integrity within the gospel(s), or existed at all, Protestantism would faint and deny any possibility of a true-Jesus-like-statement at the posing of it by any other -nowadays- 'christianisms'(lets keep the invented term, for, heretical 'christianities' are more considered isms than the former). I love Levinas' view that every epistemological phenomenon begs the question as to an ethical relationship. So, that would be the question, for which, I expect serious answers (and as you see, i can easily differenciate between them bad and good so dont pull anything, lol...). You choose: we may go down the historical road, or down the ethical road...

The Mormon Archives are not open to 'everybody-just-anybody'. And respecting the obscurity of documents, I reffer to those that have been invented by antimormons, or 'rescued' as 'secondary' sources. If I hear (or read) a claim, i go check it up. If it comes back with no original document whatsoever, then i proceed to a)analyze the probabilities and 'soundness' of it as plausible* b)neglect it and consider it gratuious nonsense The rumor of the divorce practices of Young I consider a 'b' option. But for historical reasons, not 'faith' reasons. I treat mormonism and its history as any other topic of serious discussion.

But all its being discussed here is whether -factually or not- JS did practice poligamy in ways that exceed the traditional 'plural-wives' manner. It is interesting though, and that was the reason i brought up the article from Fairlds.org, that mormonism -criticized and all-, has been (as much as I know) the only religion of north american origin (and christian) that has allowed poliginy even if as byproduct of poligamy. The obscure and 'wicked' practices beside that is of no interest to me whatsoever on this topic. I recall reading a copy(because the original 'had'nt survived') of a journal written by elders attending one of Brigham Young's 'conferences' in Utah. It explained how Young was stating the new laws concerning divorce. Women were -allegedly in this document- allowed to be divorced only if a)her husband repudiated her b) a higher leader from the Church approached the husband and asked to haver as a wife But such practcies (even if true), remain in a very closed and unaccesible past. No real documents survive on such things. That paper I read so long ago came from a site that wasnt mormon-friendly. And the lies that antimormonism add to real-fact-events in the mormon past, affects and diminishes the value of great factically-true conversations on events whether bad or good. So as long as to this topic is concerned, it was -I think-, a historical question regarding a historical answer. It was given.

Dont worry, I am an atheist. Its just that I didnt want to let you get away with it; just as I would not let anyone get away with something similar against your faith. For me, attacks and 'name-calling' (though fun) ought to come from somewhere(source, reasoning, a paper, etc.), but not gratuitous. It becomes a 'habit' and later on it substitutes good thinking and actual discussion (some people, after much time, stop having discussions and start-or end up- madly repeating what they read or is taught to them.

Please state your sources. Pay attention to the sources and not to the mere opinions: Here is one good article on it (from Fairlds.org, apologetics for your Church) http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Here is a compendium of sources (again, read only the testimonies) http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Later,

Interesting.

In fact, two things: 1) Oliver Cowdery was unfairly excomunicated by Smith when he by the 1827's tried to stop Smith from practicing what Oliver knew* he was practicing with a young woman satying at his and Emma's place. Later on, Smith received the 'revelation' of poligamy (a revelation curiously not the same as that of D&C). It was in the manner of a threat coming from an angel of god with a sword. 2) A consecuence out of Smith's practice of poligamy(even if as 'statutory'-which it was not the case for all) was that of some of the women practicing poliginy. For some of the women married to Smith by the Temple were also married at the same time. There is a tale of Pratt's own departure from the Church when he got rumors Smith was coming for his wife, then Smith recanted(Pratt was an intellectual resource); or another member of the Quorum whose girl Smith asked just to 'test' him. Bu throughout all his public life he denied this. But the 'lie' was 'justified' as being a 'not-throwing-pearls-to-pigs' .

Lol. I forgot to say how historically false this idea in bold from the quote above, is. The very fact is, that if you read (say, a mere 40 pages) Quintin's book Early Mormonism and the Magic Worldview, you will astonishingly see how, not only it was the common practice to see during this 'hot' period a 'god' in person, but how previous (from 1700's through 1820's) accounts actually presented the same patterns of Smith's: a mountain or forest a person praying to be heard amidst all the confusion God the Father besides Jesus in individual form a poem or mystic description a messege (little commanded to build a church; that latter part was an innovation of Smith, though not absolutely his). History, journals, papers, all are there. Smith was* operating within the fabric of the common people's beliefs. That Smith in his official accounts(obviously written much later) only highlighted the bad reception of those 'priests' that didnt believe the common people's assumptions of epiphany, doesnt mean that it all went down like that. The matter is that, the Church built on that perception a whole 'pseudo-historical' representation up to this day. I remember reading in 'Our Legacy' (published by the Church for converts...) that in the first reunion there were just a 'handful' of members (7-25). Whereas in Hinckley's account, a little book also titled somewhat like the later, "The truth"(sor something like it), narrating the same story(but an earlier publication) mentioned the same phrase of 'handful', but misteriously added 'and some forty' more people. Wow! And say we actually look at the real documents and testimonies of th etime and find that even those remarks were not factical enough! But they were (and still are) needed; they stress the 'humble' origins , to conscientusly fulfill the BoM prophecy that 'from the little' the Lord 'brigeth' out the 'greater'. So, the topic of the different roles and focuses of Church production and supression of translations, letters, official statements, whole manuals, etc. is of course, a great and long one.

The case of Smith's translations is curious. I took my time at pondering some issues. For example, although it can be shown(and has) that many 'translations' of Smith (that actually render the verse exactly the same...) , after unearthing some earlier sources have been found to be just as faulty as the regular versions of his time. That case is also that of his 'new testament' 'translations'. But in the case of, say, the Abraham document (Pearl of Great Price), it is astonishing how(if the preserved document contains absolutely nothing of the text as such) at least some words (specially the names of stars) do correspond to some of the images(hieroglyphs). This, before the actual discovery of the meaning of egyptian sources had been cracked. But again, yes, the case of 'Mathew TJS' and 3rd Nephi is just a laughstock -in the sense of it being so obvious to those related to 1800's renderings of the bible...

I bet you would acknowledge the harshness (and also ignorance) of a reply to this sentence of yours as , "It seems that most all Mormondumb declares the Eternally-Incestuous-Chain-of-Men Godhead of Smith's wild and contradictory 'first visions'." So try to be a bit concerned at other Faiths' Creeds. It would be sad trying to see you explain yours away. In fact, it wouldnt look like anything at all for you yourself hold the 'its-enough-for-me' policy respecting any declaration of the Church, so... I am so glad if you have enough with the thinking done for you. Its just the harsh part of making it known to others that i regret.

Yes, Doctrine and Covenants and Temple ordenances seal women also as Priestesses and Queens, goddesses...

So let me try to be simpler. Teancum; 1)Joseph Smith did not hold only one notion of the Godhead throughout his whole(shortlived) prophet-life. That is fact, not speculation. Nor does it point to him being a contradictory 'liar'. It only points to making clear that later developments in Church doctrine(for there have been such*) respond to the very problematic, difficult and often ambiguous treatment of Smith with the traditional notions of the Godhead. If you want, we can point to letters, accounts, scriptures, testimonies, and so on that corroborate this(but it would detract us from real analysis on less obvious facts). 2) The account of my endowments at NY happened. Whether you feel good about it or not. The conversation was an inspirational one for me. Bushman was a Patriarch at that time. You can write to him if you want. I am being honest and taking that situation as an example*. That most Temple content is merely figurative can be proved by many exegetical ways. But you would have to let me bring its contents up, and I am sure you will have trouble with it. So as long as it remains a 'no-attempt-at-analysis' to you, lets keep my story at that (but dont insist on it being somewhat untrue because I will insist on truly proving it...)... 3) It is clear, from a bare and not even applied gaze at Church history, that its doctrines concerning the Godhead have indeed varied. Not in many ways, just in two which up to now hold a tension between them. If you do not notice the contradictory tension they arise, then you live too submerged in them as to notice when two members actually 'agree' but are talking, deeply, of two oposed looks at the relations bewteen members of the Godhead. One holds Father Elohim to be the True God (power distributor, glory distributor, truth distributor, etc...) and Jehova and Holy Ghost(or may I say Michael...) as lesser divinities. The other holds Christ as Truly God , worthy of PRAISE, not mere reverence, of SHOUT, of MUSIC, of VENERATION, not merely of 'admiration' ar his death. 3)Thing is, missionaries do not know much(or anything at all) about theology. Dont get me wrong, I am not diminishing (for I do nto care) their 'labor' or their 'endowment'. I am just saying, that right here right now, I am trying to make points as to historical and theological understandings of the Church which no missionary would be able to fully respond to nor responsably 'making it go away' with manuals. There are no manuals for the serious questions of theological debate within mormon discourse. Only prayer; guess what? Right here right now, I am trying to convey points and push further a conversations, not to 'get in thh eright track' by praying for there is none. Prisionchaplain; Hi its been so long! The answer is no. The mormon Church considers itself Monotheist because they explain they worship One Group of Divinities, Father, Son, Spirit. But that does not answer the question, for the criteria as to whether a religion is monotheistic cant be so gratuitous or unexplained. What definitions, notions, concepts of 'individual', 'substance', 'group', 'power', 'relation', etc., is what we are exacting from thinking mormons, not ready made(unsufficient manual responses). On the other hand, it is not quite right what you hold to be 'monotheistic' religions. If indeed, that may be its definition in any theological, historical, or language dictionary, its historical truth and representation do not hold fast to such erratical description. To mention any book at all, say, Armstrong's A History of God, or Kirsch's The God against the Gods, or Eliade's or Campbell's, etc. You would get the right impression(thesis!) that monotheistic religions grew gradualy out of monarchists pantheons. Whereas much 'pagan' religions do use the conceptions of generation within their explanations of divinity, the very hebrews and muslims at their archaic attempts(and even for longer periods...) believed in a consort of YHWH, or ALAH. Its rapid development to a rough monotheism led it to be forgotten (hidden , say), but ir was there, and it explains the wildest contradictory intuitions and wirtters of the Old testament itself. We have been fed with an image of the Bible origins. It was a wrong ans misled representation. Truth is, most 'pagan' religions ultimately believed in a sort of Ultimate Cause (Caos for the greeks, Nut for the egyptians, etc.) but such gods went out of cultic practice by the mesolithic period and the axial age. But they remained in representations. The fact that they believed that Ultimate Causes came also in pairs (Goddess/God) doesnt affect their monarchist theism. It is only later that lesser divinities become even more important and powerful than the former. They also become more personalistic. The hebrew concept of YHWH is a much later development within the religions of the Near East. It responds wonderfully to those who preceded Him. But analysis of biblical borrowings from other traditions(lets not say stealing...) and its obscure and complicated(often also anacronistic) 'put together' and edition in the 600-500 b.c.e. needs another topic.

The thing is, that 'purpose' does not in itself constitute or produce 'godliness' and 'sovereignity'. The 'Godhead' concept(one rather Mormon) can be taken to mean various things. Either its meaning is that of a 'structure'(of organization of roles), or is that of a joint status (of recognized power), or is that of an actuality of excercise of power (both joining potentiality and actuality; a power shared), or a nature or substantia (ouosia*; this the mainstream notion), or a relation that engenders power and is fueled by agape(Ostler's notion), or a status aqcuired on the basis of sharing one same characteristic or substance: that of divinity itself(cappadocian fathers). Do they share love, divinity, power, status, relation, nature? Mormons believe (not all the same) they share everything except nature(and hence, are still individual substances), but even while sharing that belief, mormon theology and 'doctrinal fashions' have undergone serious changes. For, even in the present(lets not even go much back!), for many mormons, even power is not completely or equally shared, or status. There is a tension within mormon theology. By one side we have the original Smith-Pratts tradition, that takes (typical 1800's) Christ to be fully God, and fully authoritarian(equal rights and sovereignity with Elohim), fueled by such texts such as the words and epiphany of Christ the Creator of Men(no mention of an Elohim there...) in Ether. And some revealing hymns at church that show him as Ruler-alongside-Father. Or those texts of 3 Nephi which clearly show Christ commanding the disciples to pray and does not stop them from praying to Him(not to the Father), whereas he would pray to the father.'Father' and 'Son' being merely titles suggesting difference and filial relationship rather than power/knowledge differences. On the other side we have the tradition of late-Smith-Young, which (and prevailed) takes the Father to be 'The' Head of the Godhead (beat that irony! a 'Head' within a god-Head) and the most reverence-owed-to Being. This mounted on the texts of most severe biblical monarchism, specially book-of-mormon references to the old testament, and hymns that show Christ as a messenger of lesser divinity or at least, supervised by a Father. One mormon theologian which insisted on this was McConkie. And he was succesful. Even today, in most wards there are radically diferent members who group silently into two sides: those taking the Father to be the only true God, while Christ is but a gifted and now-reveared-by-us child of supreme power soon-to-inherit- everything, and those others who take Christ as an epiphany of the Father himself, taking christ as the example of how heavenly 'generation' differs from that terrestrial in that the relation between fathers and sons can be homologized and united in such a way that such difference makes no sense, for both share equally all glory and reverence. This, of course, a vital matter for many who insist that(contrary to early church practice...) Christ cannot be praised ('for he cannot also be prayed to') when obvious instances of praising equally appear in hymns, or be taken as He-who-listens-to-the-prayer-and-answers-it for only the Father listens and the Son is commanded to act(biblical notion). The proper problem arises from the notion of Christ as commanded* by the Father. This language(old-world metaphors for certain relations otherwise impossible to represent) is but obscure to many. This however, does not become any more clear at the Temple endowments and 'teachings'. It only gets even more complicated. When having my endowments at NY, I remember I talked to Richard Bushman (I had read two of his books on Smith) after getting out of my first session. I asked him concerning the possible 'making-sense-out-of' of some scenes i had seen there that contradicted(or suspiciously added) traditional or cannonical light. Even him, an acclaimed scholar on these matters, agreed with me, that the exact thing we were discussing(which out of respect i wont say here -many regard it as 'holy'), was but metaphor and non-doctrinal. Its purpose pointed elsewhere. So the way I see it, there is no way to really* and seriosuly* defend a 'One-Official-Ever-Concived-Revealed-Believed by leaders-textual' interpretation of the mormon Godhead. But that is not a weakness of mormon thought. It is, precisely, its strenght. It's downside, however, is its 'non-sided' and uneasyness at teaching; for such ambivalence (though fruitful, compared to Main-stream-Christianity's fixed dogmas) produces development but evaporates great apologetics for the actual beliefs of the 'Whole' of the mormon spectre. If there exists such a 'whole'. The mormon notion of the Godhead beats others by much. But philosophically speaking, is of no use if nobody ever makes it a polished and not-so-obscure idea. Other notions of the christian god, do have polished and ready-to-use arguments and studies on them, but lack the movility and profund historical and ethical value of the 'obscure' and 'pagan' regarded belief of the mormons.

But have none of you considered that none of the texts are right? The oportunity to 'choose' is but illusion. No surviving text is in itself the most trustful. Because not all of them record the same things, for example. All text is but shadow to what really happens anywhere. All that happens anywhere is but shadow to the mind through its remembrance. And no coming of a 'spirit' or 'altered state of consciousness' can truly 'represent' what happened, not because its details have to fail at being almost perfect(for, in Hypnosis a profoundly detailed account can be obtained, for example) -though it often happens, but because even a phenomenon as a Spirit that posseses and brings forth a 'complete account'(or a session of Hypnosis), the matter is that all accounts(including that of a God or its Spirit) is a parcial(if perfect) account. And 'partial', is the doome of pretensions as to 'True Accounts'. A True Account, in principle, would be that of All-of-Those-Present Accounts, and even transcending them. Completeness in representation is not possible. And approximation(if profound) speaks of everything but divinity. It is thus, a question of faith, not rational 'reasons' for taking one to be the Best. Rationally, you would only have a 'Next Best Thing'. But such a second-rate option, cann not be amn object of faith, but of sciencie.

The fact that now* the King Follet sermon is not considered doctrine does not necessarily mean that it was never taken to be not only official doctrine, but 'essential' doctrine for salvation. A plain visit(and fruitful one) through the Journal of Discourses reveals its importance to both Young and Smith. As much to both brothers Pratts. It is the same concerning the Lectures on Faith. The fact that now* is not a part of Doctrine and Covenants, does not mean that it was never* part, not only of doctrine but of 'Scriptures'. B.H. Roberts polemical enquiries to the First Presidency of his time, concerning (for example) evolution, if not solve, at least 'reveal' how much of a deal of importance it held by times of Young and Fielding Smith such questions. The same goes for Fielding Smith and his 'Doctrines of Salvation'. By now*(when his writings both in obscurity and historical anacronicity unfit the Leadership's corpus of belief) it may be 'unnecesarry' for salvation and even 'pseudo' doctrine or 'his' old point of view. But th every title reveals of which importance is the entertainment of such concepts by his time! So whatever you 'unearth', LdyBug, concerning this topic, is but of total personal evaluation. Including, the attributing it either 'important' or 'official' adjectives as doctrine. If , an 'official' doctrine is that which a Church unheasitatingly puts forward, or 'lists' in a Creed for the masses and evangelism, well, its not. But that does not prove that it isnt both a secretly official 'supposed' doctrine among the highest leaders, nor that in the past it actually was official.

When I was a latter-day-saint, Blake Ostler's Volumes on the Problem of God, Agape, helped a lot to rise the level of thought a little. A shame, that its great volume on the Godhead came out by the time I stopped believing, lol.