DKM88
-
Posts
57 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DKM88
-
-
Masonry rituals are derived from that which was done in Solomon's temple. It would make sense to me that we'd still be doing those things in God's temple in this dispensation. My next door neighbor brought this to my attention as well and kept asking me if I wasn't "shocked" by this information. It's actually pretty sensible to me, and I don't understand what's supposed to be so shocking or testimony-shaking about it.
That's erronious information. Freemasons didn't exist until the 1400's or somewhere around there. Joseph Smith was a mason and ascribed to the idea that masonry existed in the days of Adam and were passed down from generation to generation by holy men. Knowing this makes the temple experience actually makes sense. Of course, Joseph Smith was wrong about masonry always existing and masonry accepts this.
You should listen to George Miller. He's an active, TR holding, member of the Church, and he's also a Freemason. Here are some podcasts he's done. They are very informative and enlightening.
-
DKM88
I understand a lot of your position and concerns. Each one has merit. The problem is the answer to each one would take years of learning and experience for you to come to terms with it.
I know there are concepts, statements, doctrine, etc. which our Heavenly Father could place in front of me right now that would try my testimony to the core. I ask Him not to show me these things until I am ready for that reason.
If I were to walk up to a kindergarten student who was just learning math and throw an algebra problem at him with the answer right in front of him and asked him to understand it, would he? No. What if I told him he has to come to an understanding of that algebra problem in order to graduate from kindergarten? Well, he might just quit school altogether and never graduate from high school, never go on to college.
We are in kindergarten when it comes to God's doctrine. Best if we learn math before progressing on to algebra. Just accept the basics, get a testimony of them. Grasp what is in your reach and, yes, "turn it off"
Excellent. So I'm just not quite as advanced as everyone else here in the gospel. That must be it.
The Book of Abraham seems like there's nothing authentic about it. I'll "turn it off."
The blacks ban from the priesthood doesn't appear to be from God. I'll "turn it off."
Joseph's hidden wives and the women he married that were already married to faithful members of the church is shaking my testimony. I'll "turn it off."
Mormons connection to masonry is undeniable, but we deny it. I'll "turn it off."
Thanks.
-
DKM88, I believe I know how you are feeling right now. I have been down the same road for the last 3 years now. I returned from my mission with a firm testamony which I belived would never be shaken. But All that history stuff you mentioned in your posts were just screaming out too loud "How can you still belive?"
It tears you apart to sort of believe in the church but at the same time not to be able to accept major parts of it.
You asked how to deal with it...
First of all: It's the toughest thing I know of so far. It's like fighting yourself. Your core beliefs are taken and ripped apart. There might be family and friends involved. They might not understand. Most TBMs don't understand, how someone can dare to question such a thing as holy scripture.
I've been on the edge of quitting and leaving the church a few times. Partly because of this forum, too. Some of the answers I got just hurt because I didn't have the impression my concerns were taken serious. (I hope you other guys may learn to be a bit more understanding)
Anyway, so I've been dealing with all my questions for about 3 years now. Last week I "made a decision" to believe again. Elder Bednar held a fireside in our stake and I could feel the Spirit so stongly. I prepared for the meeting by asking the Lord in prayer whether E. Bednar was a true and honest apostle or not. And my feelings just didn't leave any doubt. Yes, he is an apostle, a disciple of Jesus Christ.
How could the church he represents possibly have gone astray?
There was another thing, that kept coming to my mind. Something like 'You live now in 2011 and not back in the day 1830' Just let it go.
Ok, that doesn't resolve any of the historic issues I have with the church, but it sets them into perspective. They lost much of their importance. I'D rather focus on the blessings that come from believing in Christ as my Savior. I feel like a huge burden has just been lifted from my shoulders.
I hope this has been of any help to you. I guess, nobody can talk away your concerns. Maybe it will take time to come to terms with the matter.
So what you're saying is you learned to "turn it off?"
-
Best things to do with statements like that, is let them sit there. They say quite a bit about the person making the statement.
Very nice. You are insinuating that because Mormon women are educated that there must be a lack of oppression. Just because a woman has a BA or MA doesn't mean things are magically equal. It means she's probably more able to critically think her way to understanding that things aren't exactly peachy in Mormondom. Some women are fine living in patriarchal societies and organizations and never fighting for anything. That's fine if they're like that. But not all women are.
Your insinuations say a lot about you. Good job.
-
Behind on equality? Not sure how you get that. There was a study a while ago comparing the LDS church to other major denominations in the US. We topped the list for female levels of education and income. Additionally, you can barely go six months without hearing our leaders talk about zero tolerance policies regarding abusive husbands and fathers, and how anyone who does that is in serious jeopardy of losing their preisthood and their family too, and we'd better take immediate action to fix things.
Maybe we have different definitions about what equality means?
The whole idea of polygamy treats women like cattle. And even though we have outlawed it, it's still practiced in the temple and is assumed to be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom. Sorry, but I have daughters and I would NEVER expect them to accept that.
The idea that women are educated has absolutely nothing to do with equality. It means that women went to school. That doesn't mean that when they go to Church or in their homes they are treated as equals. The man presides in the home and at Church. The woman must listen to the man as he listens to God. If I were a woman I'd take that as my father in heaven doesn't want to communicate with me directly. How sad is that?
Women are equal in the Church if they learn to accept their roles. That's what it really boils down to.
-
Don't believe EVERYTHING science says would be my answer. I doubt that anyone person can totally interpret ancient Egyptian. Many of the brightest minds have been incorrect in many things. Hawking recently said that we no longer need God in science. The Big Bang theory is a load of garbage. They even admit that there are many parts of the story that are left blank and that "we can't explain this part". Science has a lot of A,B,C and no L,M,N,O,P. I didn't evolve from cro-magnum man.
If you have doubts but still believe in God, look how the rest of Christianity teaches the Bible. It is honestly horrible how they interpret it. Joseph Smith interpreted and explained the Bible better than any man. His words make sense and "taste good". Know that Satan is active and uses man to be deceptive. The Church offers you so much. What does the world have to offer you?
So we should be skeptical with science but not with religion? That doesn't make any sense.
Are you saying that Hawking is wrong about saying we no longer need God in science? Are you more right than he is? Are you qualified to make that statement?
What evidence do you have that you didn't "evolve" from a lower form of human? Everybody knows that the idea of Adam and Eve, two people, used to populate a whole planet is impossible. You learn that in Biology 100 at BYU. There have been many apostles pre-Joseph Fielding Smith & McConkie that believed in evolution and that the Adam & Eve story was a metaphor for our separation from God. It's impossible that the story is true, as we understand the physical and biological world.
Are you ok with the idea that we evolved from single celled organisms but we, the children of God, inhabited human bodies once they were deemed "evolved enough" to house our spirits?
-
ok so i'm not following your logic here-
you start off with someones claim that women will not be 3rd class in heaven... then stop and go right to a perception of how women are in the world today without connecting the two ideas. and whats polygamy to do with either? We have three incomplete ideas here, with extremely little context, even after regoing over the last few series of posts.
this world is certainly not the same as what heaven will be.
Ok. Scott said they wouldn't be "third class" citizens. What does that tell you? I didn't want to harp on it, so I left it at that. But since you insist...why didn't he say second class citizens? I find it funny. Sure, maybe he simply misspoke, but it's still funny that people were complaining that women weren't treated as equals and he said "hey, you won't be third class in heaven" (so maybe second class?)
Point is, we are behind on equality between sexes in the Church.
-
I believe Dr. Gee makes a strong case, while his "predecessor" has an obvious bone to pick and is employed by anti-Mormons. That should speak volumes. Have you read Dr. Gee's work? Dr. Muhlstein? Dr. Hauglid? They have made some very interesting points that cannot be dismissed by the wave of a hand. Before you dismiss the book of Abraham all together, read up on what modern scholarship is saying about the issue, it may surprise you.
Can you verify that his predecessor is employed by "anti-Mormons?" Oftentimes we consider people searching for verifiable facts to be uninspired or anti.
I also encourage you to read what scholars say on the subject. You may be surprised (although not pleasantly).
-
Today I spoke to a very close friend who is a Muslim. In this thread and among members in general, there seems to be a consensus that people of other faiths can feel the spirit selectively but only active members of the LDS church have the constant companion of it. Also, LDS members are the only people in the world that pray to know the truth of things from the Holy Spirit, ie. The Book of Mormon. However, this is NOT true. My Muslim friend discussed that it is openly encouraged to seek guidance, truth, and answers, which is given freely to those who ask it. So, if I were to study Islam, have faith in the Qur'an and pray with faith in Allah that he WILL answer my question then there is no reason why he wouldn't. And if I got the answer that Islam was not true or didn't receive anything, it could be said that I lack faith. The overall point was to get away from Bigfoot and show that from real people, answers can and do get answered to belong to other religions all day, every day. So, why would anyone believe the LDS claims when one can receive the same answer with every other religion? I am not being contentious, but if you are seeking truth, it is a good topic to discuss with your friends of other faiths. What do you believe and more importantly why do you believe it?
Excellent point.
-
DKM:
I invite you not to offer over-the-top mock scenarios about receiving personal witnesses, as that area is sacred to those on this forum. I still really don't care to read all of this thread, but I again ask: have you looked into the history of the manuscript itself and the surviving pieces?
I don't see how my scenario was mocking and over the top. I was making a point. And I believe the point was made. Which was that MANY members of the Church believe that since they have the full truth, the holy spirit would never reveal any truth to anyone else, and if anyone claimed to have an experience with the holy spirit they are simply wrong. In other words, WE, the Mormons, are the judge of whether an experience was from God from a non-member.
I have looked into it, and I find it less than convincing. Joseph was 100% wrong on the manuscript that we have. So it's safe to assume that the rest wasn't magically 100% correct. I'm sure you have read Dr. Gee's work on this. You also should know that his predecessor has basically discredited him in a respectful way and completely disagrees with his findings. Although, recently Dr. Gee gave a speech that was published by the Church where he basically said that the truthfulness of the Church doesn't rest of whether the Book of Abraham is legit or not. So it seems that the Church is moving in the direction of phasing out the legitimacy of the book, and for good reason.
Here are some points to consider when attempting to determine what sources may have been used in the production of the Book of Abraham:
• Abraham 1; Facsimile #1, #3: Abraham’s biographical information in Abraham 1 and Smith’s claim of what these two Facsimile pictures portray comes from The Works of Flavius Josephus. Smith owned an 1830 edition of this book. Smith’s detailed explanations for the individual Egyptian characters on these two Facsimiles in the Book of Abraham have been thoroughly discredited by Egyptologists.
• Abraham 2, 4-5: Eighty-six percent of the verses in these three chapters came from Genesis, 1, 2, 12, and 11:28-29. This material came from a 1769 edition or later printing of the KJV, including its errors.
• Abraham 3; Facsimile 2: The text of Abraham 3 and Facsimile 2 has some remarkable resemblances to the astronomical concepts, phrases, and other motifs found in Thomas Dick’s, Philosophy of a Future State. Smith owned an 1830 copy of this book.
• Abraham 3; Facsimile 2: Thomas Taylor’s 1816 book, The Six Books of Proclus on the Theology of Plato, especially volume 2, also has most of the motifs in Abraham 3 and Facsimile 2. **** and Taylor both contain a number of exact phrases found in Abraham 3 and Facsimile 2. Importantly, Smith’s Newtonian astronomy concepts, mechanics, and model of the universe that he borrowed from these Newtonian books have been thoroughly discredited by Einstein’s twentieth-century model of the universe.
• Strange names: The few Hebrew names and phrases found in the Book of Abraham reflect Smith’s study with Hebrew scholar Joshua Seixas during the winter of 1835-36, in Ohio.
-
Also, how does my statement about how men can become Gods dishonest? Are you a member of the Church?
Finally, do you believe it was God's view that polygamy should be an institution of the Church? More importantly, do you believe God sanctioned polyandry? I don't. I can sort of wrap my head around polygamy, but I don't believe in a God that would sanction polyandry...not for one second.
-
Like burning bushes, angels with gold plates, casting out demons, and a lynched man suddenly springing back to life don't "sound kind of funny."
Personally, I'm not worried about "sounding funny." If I were, I wouldn't be religious.
Doubtful. Most here understand that the beliefs of others don't coincide at all points with our own, and are happy to live and let live without flinging accusations of idiocy.
Your point is not well taken on many counts, the most obvious of which is this: We claim revelation from heaven directly to our souls when we say we "know" this or that. Other religious folks base their "knowledge" on their interpretation, or exegesis, or gloss, of scripture, which is a much different thing.
Maybe because we don't believe that?
How would you know that the Priesthood ban was not God's will? Where do you get the authority to make that determination? Those who held the keys of the kingdom apparently thought it was divinely inspired and commanded. Who are you that your opinion in the matter carries any weight whatsoever?
Maybe because it's false? Women are not and never have been "second-class citizens" in the kingdom of God. This is a lie, pure and simple.
Because that gravely and dishonestly misrepresents the entire issue.
On what do you base this judgment? How do you know God's views on the matter?
No. The problem is that some people just can't discipline themselves to let the anointed leaders of the Church run it according to inspiration. They are forever steadying the ark. Those are the people I blame.
1. I concede your point that most things in religion sound "funny."
2. Do you have any proof that Brigham Young wasn't racist? It's ok that he was! I'm perfectly fine with that. What American wasn't racist at that time?! Is it that hard to believe? Joseph Smith ordained Blacks to the priesthood. Why did God all of the sudden change his mind when Joseph died?! More than likely, Brigham was racist. But I'm cool with that.
3. I believe it was Richard G. Scott that said women won't be "third-class" citizens in heaven. The fact is, in our current world of equality, women are second class. The only way to get around it is to redefine equality. We aren't in the 1800's anymore. Oh, and polygamy...need I say more?
Many of your arguments hearken to the 'pay, pray, and obey' mindset of many members today. Be open! Be truthful! It's a wonderful thing, I promise you.
-
DKM, maybe that isn't the most helpful thing to say in this situation.
Well, in my humble opinion, it's a lot better than hiding the truth in hopes people get baptized, only to go inactive because they feel lied to when they find out the darker history.
-
What's wrong with saying them? Because some of your comments simply aren't true.
According to you? According to the Journal of Discourses? You see, you have to break out of the shell. It's ok to believe that people screw up royally in the Church. It's alot better than saying God did it and we're just too stupid to get it.
-
You don't see and I wouldn't call you a liar. You are free to believe in anything that you wish and worship as you choose and claim "spiritual" experience all you like. But, it is NOT the Holy Spirit.
And YOU are the one that makes the determination for other people?
-
If Bigfoot were your God...any experience that you had that you described as "spiritual" would not be from the Holy Spirit.
I see. And if I claim to have a spiritual experience confirming that Bigfoot is real and I claim that it was the Holy Spirit, or some equivalent, you would call me a liar because only one type of believe is able to receive spiritual confirmation for things?
-
You guys have to realize something. When you start saying things like "this was revealed from God, but we weren't ready, so it was retracted" or "we don't know why, but the Lord guided it all", it's going to sound kind of funny.
What if you asked a JW about blood transfusions and they gave their explanation of why they are evil. You'd probably say they were idiotic. They will claim it's God's will that we get rid of all blood transfusions and that they "know" this is what God wants and it's true. You would say they were a freaking looney toon for saying that. Others outside the Church may say the same about your responses to things that seem a bit "out there."
What's wrong with saying, "Hey, I know Brigham Young was racist. It wasn't God's will that Blacks didn't receive the priesthood because Joseph Smith ordained blacks to the priesthood. There was even a black seventy in his day. Brigham Young was simply an American with typical racial views. Luckily, it's changed now."
What's wrong with saying, "Yes, women are second class citizens in Mormondom. It's really a throw-back to the 1800's, but it's steadily changing. Slowly but surely."
What's wrong with saying, "Yeah, the Church has always taught that men become Gods. GBH said in an interview that he 'didn't know' if we taught that or not. But it's always been taught, at least in a round about way. It may be strange, but the whole idea of eternal progression is core to our doctrine."
What's wrong with saying, "Polygamy was a disaster. Polyandry was even worse. It's a major black spot for the Church. It was a mistake made by men that probably became a bit overzealous in their leadership roles. It's been discontinued, so there aren't any issues with it anymore."
The problem is we consider the Church to be perfect. The Church is run by men. They make executive decisions all the time that aren't right. So who do you blame? I guess we could just say that the Lord's will was done and we just don't understand it. But I think that's a bit of a cop out.
-
Of course I should. Always seek evidence, always resist assumptions that are unfounded in evidence. I doubt you. That's not necessarily a bad thing, mind. It just means I'm undecided. But as of right now, you are slippery and very dodgy. Example One:
You're like Snow. You have in this very thread denied the faith of several posters here. It's in black & white. And facts? Really? I don't think you understand how difficult it is to know the facts. Even professional historians know they don't have the facts, at least a huge percentage of them as they actually were in the day.
So the pros carefully qualify all their statements and portrayals of 'fact', and the polemicists go to town and make flat blanket assertions that are dubious at best as to accuracy. And here you are, buying into it without any indication that you understand any nuance whatever.
Psychologically we all seek certainty. Some do it by limiting themselves to science (more or less synonymous with materiality). Others do it by couching all belief in conclusive ambiguity or endless philosophical conundrums. Some do it by pinning down a few 'facts' and then emphasizing them over & over, many times in the wrong context or by inappropriate application.
Example two:
"I'm just one of you! What can be wrong with that?" ---is the gist that I'm getting from this statement. Truly, no one can argue that it's bad to follow the facts (whatever you may think them to be) or that God doesn't exist, or that having faith is bad.
But what about my comments, D?
You say I shouldn't doubt you -- why not? Is my doubt well founded? You imply that it is not. Say it directly, please. What do you accept as fact? A vision, perhaps?
In all fairness, D, have you read my testimony about the Church? HiJolly-comes-clean/ Keep in mind that I claim to be a mystic...
How is this a fact? Where did you learn this? What data supports the claim? Why do you believe it? My view is that many of the intellectual excommunications were irrational in their basis. What would cause that to change? Nothing, in my view.
Are you sure you don't have other exceptions? How can you be sure?
I agree, and I believe that much of the change will be more or less forced.
D, what makes me unhappy about your participation here is that you claim to have the facts, but you don't exhibit the evidence that would be expected of one having the facts.
You claim you don't have any evidence that God exists. Wow. That claim is simply unbelievable, particularly for a member of the Church. My guess would be that you don't accept the evidence that you have, because it doesn't fit your idea of what it should be.
HiJolly
My comment about not doubting me was more tongue-in-cheek than anything. Doubt is what keeps up going, oftentimes. It causes learning and carving new paths. I think everyone should be a skeptic.
As far as evidence that God exists, I really have none. I can put together a lot of things and string together a semi-coherent story, and it might make sense that he exists. I have a literal hope that he exists and I attempt to live my life as if he does. If God is up there, I'm not sure he'd be displeased with that.
-
May I ask you to clarify your predictions on how you think the Church will change? Yes, I think it's not completely crazy to predict social view changes--you have given examples of that.
Yet I've seen people who want to claim to be Mormons, yet want the Church to completely change all of its core doctrine.
Not wanting to put words in your mouth but... is that what you are saying? The Church will one day not just change its social actions and maybe a few beliefs here and there that never were core doctrine, but the very beliefs that define the Church?
That depends on what you define "core doctrine" as. If you ask the Church, the only things that are doctrine are found within the canonized books. Everything else is opinion, albeit well-informed for the most part.
Some people would consider the concept of Heavenly Mother as core doctrine. Others would consider Adam-God theory as core doctrine. Others would consider polygamy as core doctrine. Others might consider the seed of Cain not receiving the priesthood as core doctrine. You get the point. There have been many things that members have considered "core" doctrine and when it changed their testimonies were shattered. Some doctrines are ignored or denied that were previously very much at the head of the philosophies of the one true church. Brigham Young himself said that Adam was God and that doctrinal fact would never change...whoops.
-
I guess you are referring to something "other" than the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit...a member of the Godhead testifies of Jesus Christ and Heavenly father...it comforts and the experience is Sacred and Holy and shouldn't be debased by comments about receiving a spiritual witness about bigfoot.
But what if Bigfoot was my God? What if I sincerely believed in him, that he exists, that he's going about doing good works? Would you say that I'm not privy to spiritual experiences because I have a different belief than you? I hope you see what I'm getting at here. There's no intent to be disrespectful.
-
As much as you want it to, the Church will NOT change in the ways you suggest and if that DAY does comes, it will have fallen into apostasy.
Many said the same about polygamy, Adam-God theory, blacks in the priesthood, etc. God works in mysterious ways, my friend.
-
ROFL. No nightmares, I and my subconscious mind are happy partners.
Colonias Pacheco, Dublan and Juarez.
HiJolly
Dublan and Juarez here.
-
You accept hard facts but not 'the Spirit'. You think that the papyrii found to date are all there was, ever. This is in direct contradiction to the evidence. Unless the only evidence you will accept is what *you* see, not what the people who *did* see the mummies, papyrii etc. saw.
I doubt you appreciate the distinction. I think that's one dimensional thinking.
You seem to think that he believed that Muslims could not have valid spiritual experiences. That's severely misrepresenting his position. Yes, to the level of straw man attack. I think you're likely a hypocrite as well, since I doubt you think *anyone's* spiritual experience is any kind of valid evidence of fact. I'd love to be misreading you on this. Show me.
Hmm.... and in that context "amazing" meant...
Maybe, but I think that based on my experience that would only be *some* Mormons that feel that way.
A side of the coin that denies our faith. Nice.
How can we take your comments on the Book of Abraham as anything else? Really?
HiJolly
You shouldn't doubt me, HiJolly. I don't deny the faith of anyone. All I've stated is facts. I believe in God. I have faith that he exists. I've seen no evidence that he exists or doesn't exist, so I have to have faith. There are other things, however, that bear evidence that they may not be what they claim to be. I can't deny facts, and it's up to me where they lead me. I choose not to ignore facts but to stay in the Church. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so.
I think the time will come, probably sooner than later, that the Church accepts a lot of things that you all don't accept. The fact that they stopped excommunicating intellectuals for stating facts (fighting against the Church is a different story) shows you that times are changing. The Church no longer claims that homosexuality is a sin or even a choice (except Boyd K. Packer, of course). The Church fought against gay marriage in CA, but were silent in NY. I'm not trying to get too far off the path here, but I think that as science and the dissemination of information becomes more a part of our lives and new generations rise up, the Church will change.
-
Not many on this board have that view. A few, certainly. But not LM nor I believe that.
And anyone who has actually studied their faith will know that truth is out there, everywhere, for all to find, love and live by. At least, that's how *I* see it. And I think the scriptures back me up.
HiJolly
I agree with you completely on the issue of truth. See, we are probably closer to being alike than we think. We just express ourselves differently!
Coming to terms with the Book of Abraham
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted · Edited by estradling75
Links to anti sites not allowed
Honestly, I wouldn't know where to start. There are so many things that it would take too long to discuss them one by one.
Read this and then we can discuss. It outlines the ideas objectively without influence from either side.