They lie in wait to deceive

[Suzie]

, or they were ones who didn't listen to the teacher

because they were too busy talking to friends, or hanging out in the halls

, or never attended seminary (or slept through it) etc etc.

You mean, in Church and seminary you heard teachers talking about the plural wives of Joseph Smith? Where is your ward?

[Backroads]

Just this last Thanksgiving my sister-in-law was shocked to hear about Joseph's wives. She had no idea, and she was raised in the Church in St. George, Utah. She's in her late 30s.

Elphaba

Should the church go out of its way to teach stuff like this in place of doctrine, or should individual members who are interested be responsible for figuring it out itself? Or should there be a happy medium where the church is more open with its history?

Both of my brothers had to explain about the plural wives to mission companions.

I tend to find out that church members who are interested in the history know these things.

And I also learned plenty of "horrible" stuff in seminary.

[HiJolly]

You mean, in Church and seminary you heard teachers talking about the plural wives of Joseph Smith? Where is your ward?

I love the history of the Church, so 2 years ago when the Gospel Doctrine lessons were on the D&C, I was delighted to be called to teach the adult class.

And I DID mention Joseph's wives, among a lot of other things (like multiple versions of the First Vision). I had a great time, and so did the class.

That was in West Jordan, UT. Of course, I'm a mystic heretic from Arizona, but, whatever...

HiJolly

P.S. Afterward, a brother (mid 30's?) came up & said he'd never heard of JS & polygamy. I told him JS kept it very quiet. :-)

[Elphaba]

Should the church go out of its way to teach stuff like this in place of doctrine,

No, not in place of doctrine. No one is advocating that.

or should individual members who are interested be responsible for figuring it out itself?

They can't be expected to know there is a difficult hstory to be discovered if they're 1) always taught the whitewashed version, and 2) never told it exists. It's not their fault if they don't know.

Or should there be a happy medium where the church is more open with its history?

Yes, I think there should, and I believe it is.

Both of my brothers had to explain about the plural wives to mission companions.

I believe it.

I tend to find out that church members who are interested in the history know these things.

I agree.

And I also learned plenty of "horrible" stuff in seminary.

It's my impression that your experience is common--the Church is teaching the younger generations a more realistic history in proper venues, like Seminary. That's a good ting.

When I wrote about my SIL, I was responding to bytebear's claim that all Mormons knew about Joseph's wives. That is simply untrue.

I've also observed that some members who do know he practiced polygamy believe he only married widows who needed to be taken care of. My mother is 76, and that's what she believes.

In my opinion, it's just as egregious to beleve in a false history as it is to not know about that hsitory at all.

But, again, I think the Church is addressing this with the younger kids, and I think that's great.

ETA: I'm probably being too limited when I say the "younger kids." I just read HiJolly's post where he taught it in his GD class, and I'm sure that's happening elsewhere as well. It's probably much more common than I realize.

Elphaba

Edited January 9, 2011 by Elphaba
typo typo typo

[Elphaba]

I'm a mystic . . . .

That fascinates me. Some day you're going to have to explain to me what you mean. Maybe we'll still get to sit next to each other at a future get-together.

Elph

[Gramajane]

I was raised in Mesa, Arizona, and had practically perfect attendance all my life, and straight As in Seminary. I have ancestors on my maternal line, both her fathers side and mothers side, who were or had plural wives, and I have some of their testimonies. I also bought books by good church members

about plural marriage, and I have mega church history stuff- both sets of the church history and the whole Journal of Discourses (not that I have read them all ; / -- but I got them as I got frustrated with anti quoting and I didn't have what they were quoting from.

-- I discovered that they quoted out of context AND distorted the meanings too, plus made assumptions that were way beyond etc with sometimes just saying things that were not there at all.

-- I think what is important is what is necessary for salvation.

The rest is interesting and when taken in context supports what is reasonable.

Even the Mountain Meadows Massacre- when seen in full context of the murders of men, women and children done to LDS - time and again, and again, before that, with no protection from the authorities, and then with the US army on its way to wipe them off the face of the earth-- with what was probably post traumatic stress disorder-

**** though it is STILL totally awful horrible and despicable, hard to believe, should never have happened, not authorized by Pres. Young- a terrible disaster and smirch on those MEMBERS of the church--

---it is at least understandable in context.

I applaud the church supporting the recent writing of the book including all the facts (bad and good) that they could find about it. -- It was really heartbreaking to read.

Reminds me some of a worse Bible story, where like to take revenge on their sister being raped, they go wipe out the whole village of the perp- though he asked to marry her (afterwards! ,

and all the village men in accordance with the families demand- were circumsized to show their support of the marriage and THEN when the men are all wounded- the brothers go and wipe out the whole village! --- again, sorry, I don't have the ref. for this. (I am lazy- up in the night, wishing I were asleep!)-- also on my husbands computer, which I barely get around on, so I don't have an easy way to go get the references. sigh.-- mine won't connect to the internet -- and of course it did that the day after my husband left the state work for a week or more! (Murpheys law?)

It is actually amazing to me like the "wise crack"

"The church must be true or the ________ (supply any organization here- like the Elders, or Rel. Soc.)

would have ruined it by now. "

I'm so thankful for the peace and joy I recieve from the gospel. I don't know how I could stand to be in the world if it were not for the help from the Ensign, and leaders etc.

I think I would want to flee into the desert as Abraham and Lehi with their families etc!

[HiJolly]

I was raised in Mesa, Arizona, and had practically perfect attendance all my life, and straight As in Seminary.

Me too! Except my grandparents were *all* raised as children in the Mexican (polygamous) colonies.

I'm so thankful for the peace and joy I recieve from the gospel.

Me too. Thanks for your post.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

That fascinates me. Some day you're going to have to explain to me what you mean. Maybe we'll still get to sit next to each other at a future get-together.

Elph

You're on!

It's a very long story, though. Mormon mystics are kind of oxymorons in that the Church has on occasion considered mystics as oppositional to prophets. This viewpoint is erroneous, but when you've got Bro. Hugh Nibley (Time Vindicates the Prophets) supporting that view in the 50's, what can you do? Thankfully he changed his opinion over time...

When God touched me, I sought understanding of the experience. And there wasn't a lot to find, in the Church, about it (pre-internet days). The Church is very cautious about these sorts of things, so much so that I believe there are many mystics in the Church that have no idea of it, per se. Anyway, I had to go beyond the Church to learn about my experiences. Ultimately, it was the Holy Ghost that helped me really contextualize it, but the info gleaned in the meantime from other traditions was VERY helpful.

The Muslims have their mystics, as do the Catholics, Hindus, Occultists, Pagans, Buddhists, Jews and undoubtedly more. Actually, we are everywhere, but where the tradition is de-emphasized or non-existent, you hear little-to-nothing about it.

Now that I know what I'm about and such, I find that the Church really does have a great deal of supporting information & doctrine on the practice of being a mystic, but it is veiled and not discussed openly. One has to know what to look for to see it, intellectually speaking. Spiritually speaking, I was always drawn to the things that were helpful, but going by faith there was a great deal of uncertainty (more than usual! ). But the practices embraced withing the Church & temple support mystical experience in spades.

It's just hard to see it if you don't know what to look for. I think the Church is generally in the right to handle it this way. In hindsight. But 20 or 30 years ago, I would not have agreed. I was quite frustrated.

More later, if you'd like.

HiJolly

[Elphaba]

More later, if you'd like.

Yes, I would like. :)

Can you give an example of something you've discerned through your mystic abilities?

Elph

[HiJolly]

Yes, I would like. :)

Can you give an example of something you've discerned through your mystic abilities?

Elph

Elphie, I'd be happy to give an example or two, BUT... I can tell right off that we may have differing understandings concerning the nature of mysticism. And you may be somewhat disappointed with my examples. So I'm hoping that for how we can talk about it a bit, and see if we can come to mutual understanding on the topic.

Part of this has to do with what a mystery is. Have you considered the 'why' of how something can be or is considered to be a "mystery"? What would make it a mystery? My opinion is that a 'mystery' is something that can only be understood by the power or influence of God. God indwelling, many would say. Feel free to toss your thoughts in, Elph.

2 Ne. 32 is a good read re: mysteries. Scriptures Search Results

Mystery is extra-rational in nature. People like to say they are 'rational minded', but ultimately we are not. Some cannot accept this, but I believe the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of human irrationality. As shown, by example, by Dr. Burton's recent book On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not . But I'm not talking about mysticism as being irrational, I'm saying it's EXTRA-rational. There is a difference.

Have you read The End of Faith by Sam Harris? If so, what did you think about the last chapter on mysticism? He surprised me by saying a lot of positive things about it. (IMO, his book was fatally flawed by not dealing with 'faith' as it is defined in the scriptures, but then, he doesn't believe in them so I guess it makes sense, sort of...)

For many folks, a 'mystic' is an ascetic who never really does anything but sit around and contemplate and think and maybe say 'ohm' a lot.

Angels from the Realms of Glory (Christmas song)

Sages, leave your contemplations

Brighter visions beam afar

Seek the great Desire of nations

Ye have seen his natal star.

You know, "Get off your butt and get real!" --

And to be honest, there is ground for a lot of justified criticism along these sorts of lines. It's one reason Mormonism & mysticsm don't seem to fit well - the Church is much too 'active'. But this is a misconception, from my POV.

You know how there are lots of different kinds of Mormons. Well, there's lots of different ways to be mystic, too. Some folks like the idea of being a mystic, and so work mentally to achieve a mystic state of being within themselves.

To accomplish this, most seek to squelch the left side of the brain with its time-centric, practically ordered and rational skepticism. And, it does work, for those who manage it. St. John of the Cross used love as the tool to do this in his book Ascent of Mt. Carmel.

Others, like the Jewish mystics and many within the Western Mystery Tradition use color, number and sound to order the mind into ecstatic states that results in visions and so forth. This works as well.

In the Church, we talk incessantly about 'worthiness' and 'righteousness' and about prayer & fasting and revelation and faith and charity and more. This also works!

This also points out a different 'type' of mystic -- one who, through following unknown or unrecognized rules and methods, stumbles into it without prior thought of *being* a mystic. This can be very confusing!

One thing all mystics have to deal with is incipient alienation from the 'real world' and subsequent delusions. It is not easy to keep everything in proper perspective and context. A couple of keys to controlling this are found in the Bible:

Deut. 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

Psalms 24:3Who may ascend the hill of the Lord?

Who may stand in his holy place?

4He who has clean hands and a pure heart,

who does not lift up his soul to an idol

or swear by what is false.a

5He will receive blessing from the Lord

and vindication from God his Savior.

6Such is the generation of those who seek him,

who seek your face, O God of Jacob.b

Selah

Why is this helpful? Well. Let's just say that "know thyself" is good advice.

More later.

HiJolly

Edited January 11, 2011 by HiJolly

[JohnnyRudick]

Elphie, I'd be happy to give an example or two, BUT... I can tell right off that we may have differing understandings concerning the nature of mysticism. And you may be somewhat disappointed with my examples. So I'm hoping that for how we can talk about it a bit, and see if we can come to mutual understanding on the topic.

Part of this has to do with what a mystery is. Have you considered the 'why' of how something can be or is considered to be a "mystery"? What would make it a mystery? My opinion is that a 'mystery' is something that can only be understood by the power or influence of God. God indwelling, many would say. Feel free to toss your thoughts in, Elph.

2 Ne. 32 is a good read re: mysteries. Scriptures Search Results

Mystery is extra-rational in nature. People like to say they are 'rational minded', but ultimately we are not. Some cannot accept this, but I believe the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of human irrationality. As shown, by example, by Dr. Burton's recent book On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not . But I'm not talking about mysticism as being irrational, I'm saying it's EXTRA-rational. There is a difference.

Have you read The End of Faith by Sam Harris? If so, what did you think about the last chapter on mysticism? He surprised me by saying a lot of positive things about it. (IMO, his book was fatally flawed by not dealing with 'faith' as it is defined in the scriptures, but then, he doesn't believe in them so I guess it makes sense, sort of...)

For many folks, a 'mystic' is an ascetic who never really does anything but sit around and contemplate and think and maybe say 'ohm' a lot.

You know, "Get off your butt and get real!" --

And to be honest, there is ground for a lot of justified criticism along these sorts of lines. It's one reason Mormonism & mysticsm don't seem to fit well - the Church is much too 'active'. But this is a misconception, from my POV.

You know how there are lots of different kinds of Mormons. Well, there's lots of different ways to be mystic, too. Some folks like the idea of being a mystic, and so work mentally to achieve a mystic state of being within themselves.

To accomplish this, most seek to squelch the left side of the brain with its time-centric, practically ordered and rational skepticism. And, it does work, for those who manage it. St. John of the Cross used love as the tool to do this in his book Ascent of Mt. Carmel.

Others, like the Jewish mystics and many within the Western Mystery Tradition use color, number and sound to order the mind into ecstatic states that results in visions and so forth. This works as well.

In the Church, we talk incessantly about 'worthiness' and 'righteousness' and about prayer & fasting and revelation and faith and charity and more. This also works!

This also points out a different 'type' of mystic -- one who, through following unknown or unrecognized rules and methods, stumbles into it without prior thought of *being* a mystic. This can be very confusing!

One thing all mystics have to deal with is incipient alienation from the 'real world' and subsequent delusions. It is not easy to keep everything in proper perspective and context. A couple of keys to controlling this are found in the Bible:

Why is this helpful? Well. Let's just say that "know thyself" is good advice.

More later.

HiJolly

I love to see this put out there in these words.

Thanks^_^

[HiJolly]

Ok, let's talk a bit more about some things I've previously just touched upon. I already said some things about what a mystery is, because a mystic deals with mysteries. No mystery, no mystic.

So, what is a mystic, really? And who says so?

This web page is pretty good:

What is a mystic? "The mystic is really anybody who seeks to experience above all else, the direct expression of God/Source/Being in one’s life."

This article by Ms. LaRue is pretty good, and certainly is thorough. I disagree with her in a few points, which really isn't bad, considering all she had to say.

Another (better, I think) web page is here: What is a Mystic?

And of course, there is the exhaustive definition here at Wikipedia: Mysticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From Wiki:

"Theistic, pantheistic, and panentheistic metaphysical systems most often understand mystical experience as individual communion with God. One can receive these very subjective experiences as visions, miracles, dreams, revelations, or prophecies, for example."

I agree completely with that. I myself am a panentheist.

I think it is important to note that while these experiences are 99.999% 'subjective', that does not mean that they cannot be externally verifiable. I think that is an important point for skeptics, rationalists, and materialists to realize. They may not agree, but this is their subjective POV. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. My opinion, though, is based on personal experience, not the lack of it. :-)

Please note that not everyone who is a mystic, has actually experienced oneness with God.

This has a parallel in the Mormon Church. Not everyone who is baptized has been born again. Not everyone who holds the priesthood is actually given the spiritual power to act in the name of God, though they may be entirely authorized to exercise their priesthood within the Church organization. Not everyone sealed in the temple has the 'seal' of the Holy Spirit of Promise. The exoteric is not equal to the esoteric!

I am a mystic that claims to have had many mystical experiences. It was the process of realizing the congruence of my experiences with a well-known, if not well explained, mystic tradition that took so much time for me, and that I never would have found had I limited my study within the Church.

On a totally random but nevertheless fascinating aside, I know of at least one man, Dick Richardson in the UK, that claims to be an athiest mystic, which is even more oxymoronic than a Mormon mystic, since he has actually has been caught up into the 3rd heaven. His story is fascinating! The discernment of such tales as delusion, fantasy or reality is typically within the abilities of a mystic, just in case you were wondering. It is a by-product of both having mystical experiences, and learning to keep oneself from delusion.

I think maybe that's enough for this post. More for later, unless I've lost everyone. This thread *is* kinda embedded in another, basically non-related thread...

Elph, are you still with me? Johnny, thanks.

HiJolly

Edited January 12, 2011 by HiJolly

[Backroads]

I've met several Mormon mystics (working in the BSA you meet everyone), and personally love the idea (as I believe I would be pagan if I were not Mormon). I've also heard the term of "New Age Mormons". Would you consider that in the same category?

Edited January 12, 2011 by Backroads
Removed lengthy quote

[HiJolly]

I've met several Mormon mystics (working in the BSA you meet everyone), and personally love the idea (as I believe I would be pagan if I were not Mormon).

Pagans are not fools, for the most part. Abraham knew it. I find it fascinating to study the actual history and beliefs of traditions and religions that we typically think are 'evil' or somehow bad. You've gotta have discernment & the guidance of God, though.

I've also heard the term of "New Age Mormons". Would you consider that in the same category?

We-e-e-e-ll, not really. But that's just me. Are you sure you're not thinking of "New Order Mormons"?

New Age as a label has a lot of ambiguity. To me, it means people who are not willing to be restricted to the 'Christian' or 'Muslim' or whatever traditional beliefs that have existed for a long time, and instead are following 'spirit guides', 'energies' from space or the earth or whatever, experimenting with entheogens, meditations, crystals, and so forth with basically little restraint. To be clear, I'm not saying that I believe these things to be automatically intrinsically bad, per se, but they can lead to trouble, I've seen it happen.

And yes, there are mystics that do these things as well. But I'm not one of them. I prefer a more restrained, Temple Mormonized Kabbalistic approach. I don't do "practical magick" or anything like it, though when I exercise my priesthood I do realize that by strict definition, it is a type of 'magic', as is any religious ordinance. Mormon, Baptist, Catholic or otherwise...

[Backroads]

We-e-e-e-ll, not really. But that's just me. Are you sure you're not thinking of "New Order Mormons"?

New Age as a label has a lot of ambiguity. To me, it means people who are not willing to be restricted to the 'Christian' or 'Muslim' or whatever traditional beliefs that have existed for a long time, and instead are following 'spirit guides', 'energies' from space or the earth or whatever, experimenting with entheogens, meditations, crystals, and so forth with basically little restraint. To be clear, I'm not saying that I believe these things to be automatically intrinsically bad, per se, but they can lead to trouble, I've seen it happen.

And yes, there are mystics that do these things as well. But I'm not one of them. I prefer a more restrained, Temple Mormonized Kabbalistic approach. I don't do "practical magick" or anything like it, though when I exercise my priesthood I do realize that by strict definition, it is a type of 'magic', as is any religious ordinance. Mormon, Baptist, Catholic or otherwise...

No, definitely not confusing it with New Order Mormons. That's something else entirely.

Thanks for the information.

[JohnnyRudick]

Pagans are not fools, for the most part. Abraham knew it. I find it fascinating to study the actual history and beliefs of traditions and religions that we typically think are 'evil' or somehow bad. You've gotta have discernment & the guidance of God, though.

We-e-e-e-ll, not really. But that's just me. Are you sure you're not thinking of "New Order Mormons"?

New Age as a label has a lot of ambiguity. To me, it means people who are not willing to be restricted to the 'Christian' or 'Muslim' or whatever traditional beliefs that have existed for a long time, and instead are following 'spirit guides', 'energies' from space or the earth or whatever, experimenting with entheogens, meditations, crystals, and so forth with basically little restraint. To be clear, I'm not saying that I believe these things to be automatically intrinsically bad, per se, but they can lead to trouble, I've seen it happen.

And yes, there are mystics that do these things as well. But I'm not one of them. I prefer a more restrained, Temple Mormonized Kabbalistic approach. I don't do "practical magick" or anything like it, though when I exercise my priesthood I do realize that by strict definition, it is a type of 'magic', as is any religious ordinance. Mormon, Baptist, Catholic or otherwise...

Exactly right:o

Thanks for putting it much better then

I ever could I believe:cool:

[dahlia]

But the growth of the church and the internet also has a counter effect. ... So the message has changed, because the true message is too hard to ignore, and too easy for people to look up. Ignorance is no longer an excuse.

... All I say is if all you can find are 150 year old issues which pretty much condemn the philosophies and ideas of everyone in the 1800s (reminding them that the Southern Baptist Convention was established to fight for the rights of slave ownership), then they really have no room to condemn Mormonism.

Thanks for this. I know that for me, especially not knowing any Mormons, that the internet was central to my being able to learn more about the Church. I could read all the books in our library, but getting online let me get 'up close and personal' with real people and with the Church itself through sites such as Mormon.org. Seeing all the profiles, and finding middle-aged black women just like me was wonderful and comforting (at least if I'm crazy, I'm not the only crazy sistah out there).

And you're right about the issues the antis like to bring up. These things happened in the past. I wish they hadn't, but they did and now those ideas and behaviors have gone into the background of history. I don't pay attention to them and no anti bringing them up is ever going to disabuse me of my faith. I can find out the good and the bad about the Church, I'm not at the mercy of missionaries who may paint too rosy a picture nor of evangelicals who want to tell me how misguided I am.

Just today I saw an interesting video with a prophecy of Pres Hinckley regarding communications:

. I think the evangelicals will have to leave off telling Mormons how misguided they are, because the 'misguided' can simply go to another website and learn the truth on their own. I am grateful for this church and I am grateful for the internet!

[spamlds]

I think this is true of angry anti-Mormons, but not of most anti-Mormons period--at least that's my perception.

My observation is that there is a very vocal anti/ex-Mormon presence but it is mostly on the internet and not terribly large. (I suppose it could be argued that even though it's small, the internet expands its scope beyond its numbers, and I would agree with that.) It consistently attracts other ex-Mormons, but few never-Mormons.

However, the Evangelical anti-Mormon movement is extremely strong both on, and off, the internet, and far surpasses the anti/ex-Mormon presence--it reaches people with no connection to the Church whatsoever.

Again, that's my perception. If you have credible statistics stating otherwise, I'd consider them.

Elphaba

Consider the pattern in the Book of Mormon. The Nephites (read: the Church) frequently had "dissenters" (read: exMormons) who fell away from the Church. When their leaving the Church didn't do enough damage, they would then go over to the Lamanites (read: sectarian Christians) and stirred them up unto anger against the Nephites.

It's the same pattern today.

[Jamie123]

...go over to the Lamanites (read: sectarian Christians).

Don't let anyone tell you the Mormons "don't criticize other religions".