Sunday, January 25, 2015

Know Your Religion

Previously: Correct Me If I'm Wrong

You want a challenge? Try getting a decent handle on Mormon theology today. The gospel of Christ is supposed to be simple enough for any of us to understand as long as we are willing to put in a bit of effort. Why then do we have such trouble separating the pure teachings of our religion (those that come from the revealed word of God) from later collections of rumors, myths, opinions, and speculation? 

Author Adam S. Miller acknowledged how convoluted the search for religious knowledge has become when he aptly titled his book on Mormon theology Rube Goldberg Machines:
"Doing theology is like building a comically circuitous
Rube Goldberg machine: you spend your time tinkering together an unnecessarily complicated, impractical, and ingenious apparatus for doing things that are, in themselves, simple...Engaged in this work, theology has only one definitive strength: it can make simple things difficult." (Rube Goldberg Machines: Essays In Mormon Theology)
As it happens, in recent weeks two remarkable books have been published that will serve to make the difficult things simple again, and it's these books I wish to write about today.  The first is Paul Toscano's The Serpent and the Dove: Messianic Mysteries of the Mormon Temple 

This is a thin volume consisting of only three short chapters and an epilogue. It takes up all of 178 pages, yet it's packed with more valuable information than anything in memory.  A book this short I could usually finish in an hour or two, but I kept finding myself stopping to think long and hard about what I was learning.  This is the kind of book that will have you exclaiming, "Whoa, Dude!" and staring off into space while you let what you just learned try to wrap itself around your brain. I was only part way through the first chapter when I realized this was the most amazing book on Mormon theology I had ever read in my life. And I am not exaggerating. 

One area of LDS teaching that has long confused me is the Book of Mormon's description of the attributes of God.  In numerous places the Book of Mormon makes it quite clear that Jesus Christ is not only the Son of God, but he is also the Eternal Father as well. At least that's the way it reads throughout the original 1830 edition. Here are some examples taken just from First Nephi:
"And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh." (verse 11:18)
"And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father! " (verse 11:21)
". . . And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world..." (verse 11:32)
"...and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world . . . " (verse 13:40)
I was 21 years old before I bothered to read the Book of Mormon straight through (I went on my mission when I was nearly 22), and I think the only reason I was finally getting around to it then was because I found an 1830 replica edition at Deseret Book for 30 dollars and thought it looked and felt kinda cool. So I started in reading, and found that narrative version more readable than my modern seminary edition that was all broken up by verse. But you can imagine my confusion when the original translation seemed to contradict what I had learned growing up in the church. God the Father did not sacrifice himself, I had been taught. He sent his son Jesus to perform that mission.

So I stuck with what I had been taught by my teachers, especially after being told Joseph Smith obviously had translated those verses incorrectly.  Seemed a bit unlikely that the prophet would inadvertently make mistakes like that one after the other, but I accepted that explanation.  After all, Church committees hard at work since then have updated our modern editions and set it all right by inserting the words "son of" every place they rightly belonged. Here's how those verses read in my modern Triple Com:
"And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh."
"And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! . . . "
" . . . And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world . . . "
 " . . . and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the World..."
Problem solved!

Or was it?

I wasn't certain, because Abinadi delivered a very lengthy dissertation on the topic so involved that it could not so easily be explained away, beginning with this statement:
"I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people." (Mosiah 15:1, emphasis mine)
I continued to believe what I was taught at church, though it didn't sit well with me, and not just because my teachers contradicted the scriptures.  It didn't sit well with me because it didn't seem to me like much of a sacrifice for an all-powerful God to send his Son (who, let's be honest, we consider to be a personage of lesser rank than the father) to be killed in his place, even if the Son was willing.

Well, as it happens, it was not a lesser God who takes the hit. It actually is God the Father who sacrifices himself. As Toscano writes:
It is the Eternal God, not some lesser deity, who does the work of salvation. The dual nature of this God is then revealed and explained:
"And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son— The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—and they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." (Mosiah 15:2-4)
Toscano continues:
"On the nature of God there is, perhaps, no more concise or confusing statement in the Mormon canon.  These verses present Jesus Christ as God, a single being who is both the Father and Son -the Son because of the flesh and the Father because he was 'conceived by the power of God.'  If the phrase 'conceived by the power of God' means only that Christ was conceived in the flesh by and with godly powers, it does not explain how Christ is the Father.  If, however, the phrase means that Christ as the Father was conceived by no power outside his own, then this verse tells us that Christ as Father had no progenitor, but was the uncreated and pre-existed creation as the self-existent divine Supreme Being."
Are you lost yet?  Don't be. Toscano provides a complete explanation of how and why this seeming dichotomy can exist and still make sense. And he doesn't just pull the explanation out of thin air, either. Joseph Smith tried to teach these things to the people in the months prior to his death, and we have numerous instances where he lamented the Saint's inability to comprehend such wonderful concepts. Toscano provides us with the prophet's own words as he tried get the Saints to understand the mysteries of godliness.

Such truths may, on the surface, seem incredible, but they are not incomprehensible. They can be understood. It does, however, take some personal effort in order to gain understanding of the greater things. Apparently it was easier for Joseph Smith's contemporaries to simply assume the prophet himself was confused. It was whispered about in some quarters by this time that Brother Joseph had become a fallen prophet, so it was easier to ignore his ramblings than to pray and ask for a witness. And so rather than embrace the wondrous doctrines, they dismissed them and wished them away. As Toscano puts it,
"Joseph Smith's godhead statements, which by his death achieved the intricacy of an invention by J.S. Bach, were reduced by the 20th century LDS Church to the simplicity of a Lawrence Welk polka."
The Mysteries Of Godliness
More important than the how of the condescension of God, is the why. This is covered in chapters two and three of Toscano's book, where the endowment ceremony is discussed and explained in detail. I should note here that many members feel that a discussion of any part of the temple ceremony outside those walls is strictly forbidden, but that isn't so. It is only in three short places that we covenant to secrecy at all, and as will be shown below, it is quite doubtful that Joseph Smith ever intended for any of the ritual to be so secret. It's unfortunate that so many assume nothing at all is up for discussion. Perhaps this reluctance to talk about the meaning of this important ordinance is the very reason we understand so little about the things God would have us know.

Nevertheless, I'm not going to go into any of that, except to point out that the overriding message of the temple is that the Eternal God, (Jesus Christ, Jehovah, the Supreme Being), being so filled with infinite love for his creations,chose not to remain on his throne and lord it over the rest of us, but instead to join us, to become one with us, to make us all His equals. 
"The endowment presents the Garden of Eden as the symbolic place where the Gods descend into mortality. This condescension is referred to in 1 Nephi 11 of the Book of Mormon, where the text presents an angel who asks Nephi, "knowest thou the condescension of God?" When Nephi answers no, the angel opens to him a vision of the virgin Mary, the mortal portal through which the male aspect of Jehovah is incarnated as the mortal Jesus."
"The condescension of Jehovah is not a show or sham. It is not temporary. It is permanent. God becomes one with the angels, and the angels become one with God."
The endowment, when properly performed and understood, is symbolic of God's infinite, unrestricted, and unconditional love for his children.

But it doesn't appear that way today, largely because the ritual has been twisted and corrupted into an instrument of control. Whatever Joseph Smith originally intended for the temple ritual, the Messianic interpretation was subverted and obscured following the prophet's untimely death. Toscano writes:
"It is subverted by competing similar rituals of both Masonry and Wicca. It is obscured by the temple narrative itself.  It is distorted by placing women in subjugation to their husbands, by allowing a husband to play the Lord to his wife prior to their being sealed in marriage. It is distorted by the relentless emphasis on obedience, by the oaths of secrecy, by the former connection of the penalties with threats of punishment and revenge. These distortions resulted in part from Brigham Young's narrative of retribution, his desire to punish apostates, his insistence on avenging the murders of the prophet and patriarch, and his objective of preventing with threats further betrayals of the Saints by members of the LDS Church."
The Church of Jesus Christ was never intended by its founder to be governed by an all-male hierarchy. An essential element of the temple ceremony was the Quorum of the Anointed, which already consisted of both males and females acting in equal authority. These quorums, to be spread among the various stakes and branches, would come together during general conference to govern and conduct the affairs of the church.  But look what happened just a year after Joseph's death:
"In December of 1845, the meetings of the Quorum of the Anointed were suspended and thenceforth women were prohibited from participation in the theocratic activities of the church.  This act constituted the first death blow to Joseph Smith's revelation of Messianic priesthood fullness."
"The Second blow to priesthood fulness and the Holy Order also occurred in December of 1845, when the language of the second anointing was changed so that women were no longer anointed 'priestesses unto God,' but rather 'priestesses unto their husbands.'  During Joseph Smith's lifetime, beginning with the second anointing of the first female, women had been anointed priestesses and men had been anointed priests unto God."
"The Third blow to priesthood fulness and the priesthood order was dealt by Brigham Young when he suspended for 23 years the meetings and operation of the Relief Society, an institution intended by Joseph Smith to serve as a female priesthood organization, a 'kingdom of priestesses.' Eventually, the Relief Society was reconstituted, but not as an organization of female priests. It was organized as an independent women's organization.
It's worth remembering that Brigham Young had never been ordained of God. He had no authority to change the everlasting ordinances that the prophet Joseph had put in place.  He did not even claim the mantle of the Prophet, but saw himself as placeholder until Joseph's son came of age to take the reins of the church.  Still, it didn't seem to bother him to undo Joseph's sacred work.

As depressing as it is to see how bad things have gotten, I'm convinced it's not too late to repent.  Near the end of the third and final chapter of his book, Brother Toscano provides "a blueprint for Zion." For those of us who still hold out hope, this plan follows the requirements the Lord would have us follow.  Whatever you want to call the growing awakening taking place within the church today, Toscano must certainly be considered the grandfather of the movement. As former Associate Editor at the Ensign magazine, Paul Toscano was the first prominent church member back in the early '90s to recognize things were slipping.  (Paul is probably best known for his influential essay entitled All Is Not Well In Zion: False Teachings of the True Church, which you can read for free here.)  We would all do well to consider his proposals as to what we as individuals can do to bring about Zion in our own lives without waiting for the institutional Church to come around.  Remember, Zion is not a Church; it isn't necessarily even a place. Zion is "the pure in heart."  We need not wait around for official instructions. We already have them in our scriptures.

The Serpent and the Dove is essential reading. I don't usually insist this adamantly that my readers buy a specific book (unless it's mine, of course!), but believe me when I tell you, you need to get this book, and you need to get it now.

O Say, What Is Truth?
While Paul Toscano's book is the size of a small handbook at a mere .3 of an inch thick, Bret Corbridge's 77 Truths has the heft of a big city White Pages. For those seeking a comprehensive guide to the essential doctrines of our faith, this is the absolute best one volume reference I know of (and I own a lot of Church reference books). Most importantly, it will walk you through the steps necessary to contribute to a Zion society.  Laid out under 77 key principles of the gospel, this book contains all the scriptures and statements of the prophets you will ever need to assist you in following the Savior's will.  It's divided into 77 separate sections, each section with its own header statement outlining a single doctrinal principal or "truth."  This is followed in each instance by several pages of scriptures, analysis, and quotations to back up and thoroughly explain that principle.

This book has already become my chief gospel reference of late; when I'm looking for a needed scripture or quotation, this is now the source I now go to first.  But a reference book is not even its intended first use. This book is designed to be used as a sort of "Gospel Textbook," starting at the front and working your way through one principle at a time. It's ideal for family night teaching, or daily or weekly devotionals, or even as a couple's study. And if you're like me and slept through all four years of Seminary, this book is your second chance to get that Gospel G.E.D.

I'll go further than that. This book, along with Paul Toscano's The Serpent and the Dove, will provide you with your Master's Degree in Mormon Theology. If I had to go live out my days on a desert Island and was forced to pack light, I'd take these two books and my scriptures, and I could make do.*
______________________________

*However, the edition of the Book of Mormon I would want to bring with me would be Daymon Smith's The Abridging Works: The Epic and Historic Book of Mormon Arranged in Sequence of Composition, which is far superior to the one in my Triple Combination. 

Mormons And War 
At the beginning of this piece I said I was going to recommend two books on Mormon Theology, but a third book has just crossed my desk which begs to be included here, since it covers the doctrine surrounding a topic that a great majority of latter-day Saints are woefully ignorant about. The book is War: A Book Of Mormon Perspective, by Kendal Anderson.

I have spent only a few minutes skimming through the pages thus far, but it looks like a very promising read, and a much needed antidote to the false teachings so prevalent throughout the church today. Long-time readers may recall that last Memorial day I nearly gave myself an aneurism after watching an official Church video that completely misrepresented the Lord's teachings on war, and had this book been available then, I might have shut up and just told you to read this book.

War: A Book of Mormon Perspective is not the first book to address this important topic, but it is the most comprehensive. Three years ago,  War and Peace In Our Time: Mormon Perspectives was favorably reviewed by me here, and although I recommend it, this recent publication seems to hold the promise of providing more accurate and comprehensive theology on the topic overall. The final third of the book contains two sections of apendices, and like Corbridge and Toscano's books, this one is heavily footnoted.

As Anderson reminds us in his chapter on the misunderstood Captain Moroni, Warfare is the number two theme in the entire Book of Mormon, and since it is both the most important and the most ignored doctrinal issue of our day, it would behoove us to make certain we are on the Lord's side on this before we thoughtlessly jump into battle.

So now you have three books as your assigned reading. If you still have some of that Christmas money grandma gave you last month, head on over to Amazon and start spending it, quick. Here are the links:

The Serpent and the Dove: Messianic Mysteries of the Mormon Temple by Paul Toscano

77 Truths by Bret L. Corbridge

War: A Book of Mormon Perspective by Kendal Anderson

Announcements:
As first announced last month, plans are being made for a Remnant Family Reunion to be held in May on Colorado's Grand Mesa, about a five hour drive from Salt Lake City.  This will be a FREE opportunity to gather and get to know like-minded latter-day Saints. I'm happy to announce that the venues have been obtained and all details have been hammered out, so if the Lord inspires you to come join us, I hope you will. I'm very excited to meet many of you in person.  If you are at all considering joining us, please hie over to Adrian Larsen's website, To The Remnant right now, and click on the flyer to download the pdf file where you'll find the schedule, maps, information, and places you can buy your groceries for the potluck meal.

And remember, this event is FREE.  I hope to see you there!
    
                                                          *****

Rules For Commening: I again remind those who wish to comment that posting only as "Anonymous" has not been working for us. You do not have to use your real name, but if you insist on choosing "Anonymous" from the drop-down menu, you must invent a username and place that either at the top or bottom of your comment so that readers can tell you apart from the many others who for some reason keep choosing to post under the "anonymous" option.   If you have a Google registration, use that one, otherwise it's best if you check the box that says "Name/URL", place your preferred username in in the "name" box, and ignore the box that asks for a URL. That way you can still remain anonymous if you so wish, but then other readers have a handle to address you with when responding. Comments missing any kind of identifying moniker are at risk of being deleted. I have to be strict about this because too many people posting as "anonymous" has resulted in chaos in the past.


318 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 318 of 318
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jared Livesey said...

When you express Schadenfreude, you reveal a heart at variance with the Lord.

Ezekiel 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

Abusing others, and rejoicing at the discomfiture of those whom you deem your enemies, or even whom you deem the enemies of God, reveals much.

Hence, this.

19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.


That is the Lord's way.

Jared Livesey said...

Why settle for being a sinner? Believe the Lord.

16 ¶Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;

17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.


As for saving souls, that's part of why I'm here.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jared Livesey said...

The thief on the cross was indeed with Jesus in Paradise - not because he sought to abuse Jesus's crucifiers.

If you want to be separated from the people here, just don't come here. All it takes is self-control. That's your escape route, if you really want to escape.

Not only have I read your words, I understand them. Have you read my words? Do you understand what I'm saying?

God has not, to my knowledge, asked us to avenge his honor, nor the honor of his servants, and has asked us not to avenge our own honor.

51 ¶And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,

52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.

53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.

54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.


Again - just as you will not listen to those who abuse you, neither will those you abuse listen to you. If you're trying to change their minds, you have chosen a way that will almost certainly have the opposite effect. If you're trying to avenge the Church's honor, or the honor of the priestly class, or compel obeisance to them, then you are not on God's errand at all, for God invites and does not compel.

Do these things not matter to you?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Log said...

Look, Tuck - let me be as plain as I can be.

I've been a sinner, and I've been a saint. I infinitely prefer the latter. I prefer peace to strife, and inner peace to remorse of conscience. I prefer love to hate, and I prefer faith to fear.

There was a long time where instead of purifying myself, feeding the hungry, visiting the sick and afflicted, and doing the things that the Lord actually asked me to do in the Sermon on the Mount, I argued and fought with those who I thought were enemies to God, the Church, and the leadership. I got very good at arguing and contending, but nobody was ever persuaded, and my heart was dead and I had no peace nor light, and all I could feel was negative stuff.

Being right is cold comfort when there is no joy.

I had to turn away from it all to begin to feel anything positive again. I had to pray mightily for a long time to soften my heart which had been hardened through contention.

I've been there and done that. It doesn't work. The Lord's way, however, does work - and the first person it changes is ourselves.

Insanity, I'm told by some wit, is continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gaybob Spongebath said...

Man, I am almost sorry Rock doesn't leave those comments up longer for others to enjoy because it is a study in the way a truly fevered mind operates. But I understand Rock must keep his promise to delete that man's vomit, not only because he promised his readers he would, but he also made that promise to Friar Tuck.

Interesting that Friar Tuck brings up "insanity." His constantly changing and conflicting rationalizations reveal someone both mentally and emotionally troubled. I wouldn't even stir the pot by bringing up the obvious, because this sort of thing just infuriates him further, but he keeps bringing the criticism upon himself because he just can't stop.

Someone earlier said that if we ignore him he will go away. That has been tried many times in the past, and sweet brother Tuck not only has to have the last word, but if no one challenges him on his last word he keeps coming back again and again, eventually using profanity to get the attention he craves.

The only solution has been that Rock calmly and without comment deletes his comments whenever they appear. That has kept things quiet around here until Tuck discovered Rock was too sick to check in.

As Log has said, no one would be picking on him were he not here picking on us in the first place.

I had vowed to not add fuel to this fire, and I realize my comments will only bring more insane ranting from that poor demon-possessed soul, but I will add just this: The internet is a very big place, Friar Tuck. Rock has suggested you start your own blog to counteract this one. Why don't you do that? You want to act the bully? Go build your own playground. The things you write here are not being read now anyway. Why not create your own forum where no one can delete your words? Who knows, maybe you'll make a convert or two.

What you are doing is not working for you, and you yourself admit it isn't scoring you any points in heaven, so why continue to keep doing the same thing expecting different results?

Oh yeah. I forgot. Insanity.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I am so glad you are improved some, Rock! We will keep up the prayers for you and Connie. One of my kids when they were 6 months old wound up in the hospital with croup. The croup was a scary
experience! I remember bringing her home with albuterol. I dreaded her treatments in the middle of the night, because I knew she would be wired for the next couple of hours! There goes any thought of sleep! Praying that your and Connie's recoveries go smoothly and quickly! Homeschool Mom

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Homeschool Mom,
That has indeed been the worst part being so wired from the medication that sleep is nearly impossible. Then no sooner was I ready to fall asleep than my lungs screamed for another treatment.

All that is behind me now, as I'm now getting three hours sleep at a time.

Luxury!

Jared Livesey said...

Gaybob - Everything I said to Tuck cuts both ways. The word of the Lord is a two-edged sword.

Anonymous said...

http://ldsmag.com/what-if-nehor-and-korihor-had-a-blog/


XYZ

Anonymous said...

I hope those precious hours of sleep continue to increase in length. It is so hard to heal without adequate sleep!
Homeschool Mom

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Nope. Still sitting here sucking on the nebulizer. Seems that's still all I do, although now I have moved the machine to my desk so as to stop disturbing Connie so much.

You and I seem to be keeping the same hours, Homeschool Mom. You don't have a newborn do you?

Anonymous said...

No, no newborn. But an extra two year old and 4 year old have been staying with us the last 4 days. I am exhausted! and then I decided to get strep throat on top of it. I have been really feverish and have a hard time falling into a deep sleep. Moms shouldn't be allowed to be sick! My sickness sounds petty compared to yours! How is Connie doing? Homeschool Mom

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Yikes, now I'm praying for you.

There are no petty sicknesses. Don't envy you strep throat. I can't imagine I would trade with you. I just learned fevers and whooping cough are becoming quite the thing here in Sacramento. So Connie is not alone. Though I only hear that "whoop" thing occasionally, so fingers crossed. She and our youngest had it together many years ago, and the cough was much worse then.

I hear what you say about Moms and illness. They don't seem to work together very well. I count my blessings we don't have youngun's to care for anymore during such a time as we've been going through.

Well, you can take solace in the realization that the days when the children are young lasts only for a moment.

The downside of that is that the days when the children are young lasts only for a moment.

Anonymous said...

We had whooping cough go through our area a couple years ago. Vaccinated and unvaccinated alike came down with it. My sister's family came down with it first. It was a MISERABLE experience for them. I don't like to use antibiotics alot, but that time we went in and got them. If the antibiotics are used at the right time it can make a huge difference in the symptoms. My sister gave me a blow by blow account of staying up all night with her kids to make sure they didn't strangle on their coughing and vomit. I knew we had been exposed so at the sign of the first symptoms I went for antibiotics! Our experience was much more uneventful than my sister's!
Thanks for the prayers, Rock. The extra kids went home this morning and I actually had a nice long nap! I am feeling a little more normal. Tell Connie I am sorry she has the whooping cough! What else could you two possibly come down with? I heard the measles are going around! Actually that's not very funny ! I certainly hope you avoid any future illnesses! Homeschool Mom

Jared Livesey said...

You want a challenge? Try getting a decent handle on Mormon theology today. The gospel of Christ is supposed to be simple enough for any of us to understand as long as we are willing to put in a bit of effort. Why then do we have such trouble separating the pure teachings of our religion (those that come from the revealed word of God) from later collections of rumors, myths, opinions, and speculation?

Well, might it be because instead of mighty prayer and continual good works that we might purify ourselves before God and be admitted into his presence to learn all things (re: D&C 76), we instead accept the rumors, myths, opinions, and speculations of others and use "truthiness" as our standard of acceptability?

The irony is that encouraging the second path is the main theme and purpose of the post. What value can there possibly be in speculative theology, which can only be the philosophies of men mingled with scripture? The number of answers which go and lead astray is literally infinite, while the number of answers which neither lead nor go astray is absolutely few.

Are we really willing to settle for stories, myths, fables, theories, opinions, rumors, superstitions, cleverly crafted certitudes, or whatnot, in place of truth? As Joseph said, you would know more by gazing into heaven for 5 minutes than you would by reading everything that was ever written on the subject - meaning, as I take it, no amount of reading will give someone knowledge.

I want the genuine article (knowledge), not the counterfeit - how about you?

Robin Hood said...

Rock,
Glad to see you're on the mend mate. Don't get stressed and you'll heal quicker.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Thanks, Robin. That's good advice about avoiding stress, but something I have really struggled with. I do believe the stress and worry of what I went through actually blocked the healing prayers and energy from getting through to me. Fear serves to prevent love from getting through.
So it was a rough go.

At the same time, it was awfully tough not to be fearful when in such discomfort. I found myself more self absorbed than I have been in a long time, instead of being outward focused as Jesus would have us be. That's the challenge of this existence, isn't it? To submerge the ego so that the spirit can operate uninhibited.

I'm still self-absorbed. That seems to be the nature of discomfort; keeps us thinking about ourselves when we should be operating outside ourselves.

Good to hear from you too, Mate! Hope all is well on your side of the pond.

Kevin said...

So good to see you back in any shape, Rock. Our prayers continue for you and Connie and now Homeschool Mom. Good heavens, we must be slogging through mortality.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Kevin. I appreciate it. Maybe that is why I am improving! (From prayer) Unfortunately, my kids are coming down with it now. Its starting to feel like we will never leave this house again! At least I am feeling well enough again to care for the sick ones. That is a real blessing! Homeschool Mom

Anonymous said...

Just checking in for an update and very happy to see Rock posting. Will include Connie in prayer. Blessings to you both. Please make sure you are shielding yourselves as well.
-Rebecca C.

Irven said...

Rock,

Glad to see you back. You had me worried for a bit. I got your message on Facebook, but was to late to respond before your lungs got out of hand.

Have you read Morgan Deane's book, all the way through? I don't think I could. I have read his papers and watched one of his presentations. He may be the worst salesman of his books and position that I have ever seen. I think Bill Kristol could offer a more compelling argument for preemptive war than Deane.

Sorry to hijack your blog over that earlier.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I have not yet gotten around to reading all the comments here, Irven, but I have been impressed with those arguments you've posted that I have read so far. You and the others who have taken on Brother Deane's views have not hijacked my blog, you have enhanced it.

Morgan is aware that he and I will never come to a meeting of the minds on this issue of war and the Book of Mormon. I have not bought his book, but I have read quite a bit of his blog, so I think I understand his position quite clearly. When I read his words, I'm reminded of the way some protestant Evangelicals feel about the bible, that "every word of the bible is true," and therefore the Lord condones every act in the Old Testament, even when those actions are included as warnings intended to show us where the Israelites departed from God's will.

The war chapters in the Book of Mormon are included as warnings to us in our day NOT to make the same mistakes the Nephites did. Morgan seems to believe they are put there so that we will emulate them. He feels God approves of the motivations and actions of the Nephite, and that we should therefore emulate them. It seems obvious to me that Mormon is warning the reader that the actions of the Nephites in wartime is what led directly to their annihilation. Brother Deane misses that lesson, even when Mormon comes right out and states it categorically.

It may very well be that the sections on strategy and weaponry in Deane's book could be of interest, but in my opinion the book is tainted by the author's overall message, which is that attacking another people within the borders of their lands is permitted and encouraged. Taking the battle within the borders of another people is, of course, clearly forbidden by God (I believe Log quoted God's very words in D&C 98 to that effect), but that is not the lesson Brother Deane takes away from his reading of it. I have been particularly struck by his constant flaunting of his academic credentials, as if his degrees have given him superior wisdom and qualify him somehow as an expert. "Ever learning, yet never coming to a knowledge of the truth" comes to mind.

For my own part, I have chosen not to belabor the issue or argue further with Brother Deane on this topic. In my post "How To Argue With A Mormon and Win" I conclude that sometimes simply understanding where the other person is coming from is the best we can hope for. Not everyone can be converted.

Morgan Deane appears intent on interpreting the message of the Book of Mormon as he wishes that message to be. That view is shared by many other members with a military background, so he is not alone. (See my post, "Vengeance and the Latter-day Saint" for a discussion on how elements within the Church hierarchy have also taught these false doctrines concerning war.)

My understanding of the war chapters of the Book of Mormon is that they were included as a warning to our day so we would avoid the mistakes of the Nephites that led to their annihilation; Morgan Deane interprets them as a series of strategies we are expected to implement. I'm afraid that puts us at a stalemate.

Rebecca said...

Rock,
I was so happy to see some recent comments from you. I hope this means you are feeling much better?...and your health continues to improve. You and your family are in my thoughts and prayers.
Rebecca S.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Thank you, Rebecca -and everyone else. It's still a long slow climb out, but my breathing has improved I'd say over 60 percent from what it was. For some reason though, I've been coming down with fevers that come and go. But other than that, the recovery is in place. Thank you all for your kind prayers and thoughts.

I don't know when I'll feel like posting again. It's still a bit of an effort to type.

Tiani said...

Sounds interesting. Do we have a record of pre-Brigham Young anywhere? Changes between Smith and Young?

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Tiani,
I don't think there is any record by Joseph Smith regarding the temple ritual, if that's what you're asking about.

We only have Brigham's word that he got the ceremony word for word from Joseph, which I find doubtful. But I do think he did his best, but then folded the symbolism in with a bunch of Masonic mumbo-Jumbo. Brigham was known to be enamored of Masonry.

MarkinPNW said...

In reference to the War Chapters of the Book of Mormon;

I am now reading the Book of Helaman, after reading the Book of Alma, two of the major war books of the Book of Mormon. I am impressed with how when the Lamanites take Zarahemla, the center city of the Nephites for the second time, the Nephite chief judge, named Nephi, totally fails to free the city and get the Lamanites out by military means, but when he gives up on politics and military action, and retires from politics to preach the gospel peacefully, he is able to not only convert the Lamanite army occupying Zarahemla to the Gospel (he reports 8,000 converts among the occupying army), he gets them to voluntarily leave the city to go back to their own lands peacefully.

Another thing that impressed me about these two books (Alma and Helaman), is that the unconverted Lamanites (those who did not become converted and part of the Anti-Lehi-_Nephies, or the people of Ammon), those the Nephite writers kept saying were full of hatred towards the Nephites because of the traditions of their fathers Laman and Lemuel, were always against war, and wanted to stay at peace, and would only reluctantly go to war after much intrigue, deception, cajoling, and propaganda from dissident Nephites who wanted to use conflict between the two groups to advance an agenda of power and control in opposition to the freedom and liberty of both peoples.

Then, there could be a whole Blog post on the underlying cause of all this conflict being iniquity (as a synonym for inequality), first iniquity (inequality) in regard to church positions with Nehor, then iniquity (inequality)in regard to wealth with Zoram and the Zoramites, then iniquity (inequality) in seeking political power with Amlickiah and his secret combinations.

Thanks to Rock for pointing out this definition of iniquity, which enabled me to see more clearly the role it plays in all of the conflict and war described in this part of the Book of Mormon.

Irven said...

MarkinPNW

Thanks for pointing this out. Interesting take on those chapters. Guess I need to do some reading.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alan Rock Waterman said...

Friar Tuck,
I don't know how many times you have to be told: You are not permitted to post here, even when you are copying someone else's words, and especially when trying to sneak back in using an alias.

You have been banished from this blog. You are the only person who has EVER been banned from commenting here, and you know the reasons: You were repeatedly insulting and vulgar to the other guests over a period of many months, to the point that others demanded you be blocked from returning. I am honoring their requests, and will continue to do so by deleting your comments every time you sneak back onto this site.

You may consider your banishment a "badge of honor" as you declared elsewhere, but anyone with a modicum of introspection would come to a different conclusion and attempt to improve his manners. Please try to gather up enough maturity to refrain from attempting future shenanigans.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jared Livesey said...

So, Rock -

I guess this means you could have answered my question, but you don't wish to. That is, of course, your prerogative. ;)

Secondly, you might give thought to eliminating the "Name/URL" and "Anonymous" options for commenting. Or, find a commenting app that allows banning by IP address.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jared Livesey said...

Brother Tuck,

It so happens Rock has other rules, that aren't stated, as well, like common courtesy.

Rock can ban anyone from his blog he likes for any reason that strikes his fancy; it's not a public forum. Rather like the Church can ban anyone it likes, too, even when all the posted rules are honored (like Will Carter, Denver Snuffer, Adrian Larsen, Brett Whats-His-Face, and others).

Gaybob Spongebath said...

"You are one of the most dangerous and deceitful people that I have ever crossed paths with," said the guy who has deceitfully changed his username THREE TIMES in an attempt to not be recognized, and who now attempts to post under a fourth, signing his name as "A Brother" while acting in a decidedly non brotherly manner.

Hey Friar Tuck, here's a suggestion: if you don't enjoy "crossing paths" with Rock and the rest of us, why don't you just stop coming back here? It was us readers who demanded you be blocked from posting here. Rock resisted for a long time because he wanted this to be an open forum, but eventually you went too far with your vulgar insults. Multiple times.

Others come here and disagree, not just with Rock but with each other, yet no one except you has ever been banished. That should tell you something about YOURSELF. Open your eyes. If being banned from this place were a badge of honor as you declared on Jana Reiss's blog (in a silly attempt to make yourself look heroic), you would not have been the only one to ever attain that "honor." Many, many others have been disagreeable, yet only you managed to be banned. Why do you suppose that is, because you defend the church? Rock defends the church. So do many of the people you quarreled against. Our problem with the leaders is that they have forgotten their place is to serve the church of Christ, not convert it into a corporation subject to influence and control by the State.

This is a safe place for people to disagree. It is not a safe place for vulgar, immature trolls to come and spew their demonic insults.

To paraphrase Gordon B. Hinckley, "People can leave Rock's blog, but some people just can't leave it alone."

Move along now, little one. Go and find a place where you'll be more comfortable. You would probably feel right at home on any Youtube comment thread.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jared Livesey said...

Brother Tuck,

You are not entitled to a trial in a private forum.

The cowardly hypocrisy that I see is that you are willing to dish it out to Rock, who has no obligation to follow any rule whatsoever in deciding who to ban, but are unwilling to dish it out to the Church, which actually does have an obligation to follow certain rules before it bans people, and is to cast nobody out of the synagogue (3 Nephi 18:30-34). (Comapare with this.)

A coward is someone who picks on the weak, who cannot strike back. Whatever else you may say about him, the man who strikes at the powerful is not a coward.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jared Livesey said...

Brother Tuck,

Publicly declaring and substantiating the fact that the rules are not being, and have not been, followed, is no sin.

I am aware of nothing in the scriptures which requires the victimized to be silent about their victimization. You may do me a service by showing me where silence is required on the part of the victim.

It is painfully obvious how silence serves the victimizers.

"23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?"

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Unknown said...

I appreciate the honesty of your posts

Jared Livesey said...

Brother Tuck,

You have not answered my question, and I will assert that it is because you cannot answer me from the scriptures.

I will repeat the question: where in the scriptures is it required that anyone in the Church is required to keep silent about the rules not being followed - regardless of the calling or title of the one not following the rules?

Jared Livesey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jared Livesey said...

Brother Tuck,

I will be frank. If you cannot answer me from the scriptures, then your position against Rock crumbles to dust.

I will note you left off a relevant citation to the matter of Church discipline - section 102, which says, in part: Should the parties or either of them be dissatisfied with the decision of said council, they may appeal to the high council of the seat of the First Presidency of the Church, and have a re-hearing, which case shall there be conducted, according to the former pattern written, as though no such decision had been made.

But that's actually not relevant to the question I asked, as your citation to D&C 107 is irrelevant to that question.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jared Livesey said...

Brother Tuck,

The answer to my question is not there. In fact, as I asserted, my question cannot be answered by reference to the scriptures.

There is no law that the victims must be silent, or that one must not publicize rulebreaking.

You therefore have no case against Rock - at least, not by reference to publicly stated rules that are binding upon him because he's agreed to them.

Rock hasn't been tried for his membership.

You haven't established that he's lied about anything.

And if Rock hasn't lied (quibbling over petty disagreements such as whether there is such a thing as a non-GA Seventy aside), then that puts us in this territory.

1 And now it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had made an end of speaking to my brethren, behold they said unto me: Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear.

2 And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.

3 And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us.


Do you understand? Telling the truth is not, and never can be, a sin. If you don't like the truth, that is because you are not righteous.

28 And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall.

Do you hear?

D&C 93:24-25
24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.


Therefore, revile not against the truth, neither those who tell it.

Gaybob Spongebath said...

As I have told you before, Friar Tuck, I am neither gay, nor do I take spongebaths. The nickname was chosen after my own young son mispronounced Spongebob Squarepants as he was being placed in the tub. Your continued aspersions even when you know the truth is typical of your desire to always look for something in others to denigrate.

For example, your constant lies that Rock, or anyone else here is interested in influencing the Church leaders or changing the direction of the corporation. We think that's a hopeless case, with no chance of success than influencing Annas and Caiaphas in Jesus' day. I personally don't think they will change, so the proper response is to let them continue on their path to destruction while the rest of us focus on Christ and the scriptures. As Log points out, Rock voices where Church leaders are in open disobedience to the commandments given them by God. He has not called for them to be tried in Church courts. His position, as he has repeatedly stated, is that unless they are delivering direct revelations, their statements that contradict the scriptures can be safely ignored.

Many of us are concerned that a number of members hang on their every word and worship them for their titles, and place their words above the words of Christ as revealed in the Book of Mormon and D&C. You don't have to call them up for judgment before the body of the church to make that observation. All you have to do is observe it, and let them continue to fumble.

Some, like you, will continue to follow the arm of flesh. Others will follow Christ and ignore the opinions of men when they contradict the scriptural mandates of Christ. It's as simple as that. No one is calling for their heads on a platter. In the meantime they are free to voice their opinions in public, even when they are in error. So is Rock.

So are you. Just not here.

I was one of the most adamant to insist that someone like you who adds nothing to the conversation other than to interrupt it, should be blocked from continuing to do so. Rock finally listened and has even suggested you start your own "I hate Rock" blog. So why don't you? I'm sure you'll get two or three readers before even they realize you don't know what you're making nothing but straw man arguments.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gaybob Spongebath said...

Friar Tuck said, "Rabbi Gamaliel told Paul to quit persecuting the Christians because if their message was false, it would come to nought, but if it were true, no power on Earth could stop it"

Precisely! So why do you keep coming on here persecuting Christians? Log just challenged you as much. If our message comes to naught, it will unravel. Leave us be to succeed or fail on the merits of our faith, which is in Christ alone and Him crucified.

We just want to be left alone to follow the Lord. You keep coming back and telling us we can't function without the men in the hierarchy of the Church, yet most of us would tell you we are doing better than ever now that we have let go of the arm of flesh. Go away and leave us be. I, Rock, and many others once put all our faith in the Church, until we learned God never instructed us to do that.

You want to continue to worship at the feet of men, fine, go ahead. Just know that we are focusing our devotion to the Lord and him only. As Log challenged you, find something doctrinally incorrect that Rock has stated here. That is Rock's open invitation. Show him where he has been in error and he will correct it.

Your glaring problem is that you constantly chafe without ever saying anything meaningful. If Rock posts something that contradicts the word of God, point it out. Otherwise what good are you accomplishing?

There are plenty of other forums where you will find kindred spirits, where others follow the same false religion as you. You won't find converts here because we worship the one true God, and we want none of your nonsense that would have us back away from Christ Jesus and go back to our old ways that were filled with the kind of errors you advocate.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alan Rock Waterman said...

Log,
Would you please repeat the question you asked me which you say I have not answered in your earlier post today? I must have overlooked it.

As for deleting the "Anonymous" option, I sought a way to do that some months ago but was not successful. The Help section on the Blogspot platform has not been of much help. Ditto on the tracking of specific URL's. If you know of a way, please give me a call.

Jared Livesey said...

Rock,

It was in my comment on Feb. 12, 2015, which should be on the same page as this comment. I don't know anything about the blogspot platform but you know what, Tim Malone knows a lot of stuff about this, doesn't he?

Alan Rock Waterman said...

If I have the right comment, Log, you are asking "What value can there possibly be in speculative theology, which can only be the philosophies of men mingled with scripture?"

I take it you assume all theology is speculative. I think you have assumed by my brief review that the books I recommend are filled with speculation. They are not. Bret's book may contain quotations from past general authorities, but their words are consistent with scripture. Most of the book is quotations from scripture, which I don't consider speculative.

Paul's book is largely a description of the teachings of the Prophet which serve to better explain the symbolism of the temple ritual. Kendal's book is likewise chock full of doctrine to back up his position. Since you are not familiar with any of these books other than what you've read in my brief review, what speculations are you referring to? I'd have to know what your specific objections are before I can answer your question.

My belief is that what Joseph taught was not speculative, but based upon a better knowledge than what most of us have. That's why when Joseph has something to say, even when he is not directly quoting the Lord, I think his words are worth heeding. He knows his subject way better than I do.

You continue: "As Joseph said, you would know more by gazing into heaven for 5 minutes than you would by reading everything that was ever written on the subject - meaning, as I take it, no amount of reading will give someone knowledge."

I agree with what Joseph said, but disagree with your conclusion that "no amount of reading will give someone knowledge."

No amount of reading can compare to the knowledge obtained by gazing into heaven for five minutes, but for those of us who have not been privileged to gaze into heaven for even five seconds, reading the words of those who have is certainly preferable to remaining ignorant.

I suppose some theology is speculative, but so what? It's only harmful if it's false and someone follows it without allowing the spirit to confirm the truth or falsehood of it.

The Church is full of people willing to accept without question the words of men who act in ways not in accordance with God's will. Is it harmful to the church? I'd say so. For instance, I've seen people engaging in all sorts of rationalizing in an attempt to justify the building of the City Creek Center in downtown "
Salt Lake as somehow fulfilling God's purposes. To the extent they continue to believe that, they will remain darkened in their minds because the motivation for convincing themselves of their position is that the president of the Church would not have initiated that project without instruction from God. They cannot conceive of a Church in which leaders act on their own initiative, and may have erred.

The harm in the "follow the prophet" mentality is that the closer one clings to the arm of flesh, the more distant one gets from God. I see this all the time, and I'm sure you do, too. I'd call that "presumptive theology" by which I mean that simply because Joseph Smith was a prophet, they presume everything spoken or performed by the leaders who came after him is as valid as if it was introduced by Joseph Smith himself.

Speculating is one thing. Leaping to the assumption that because Joseph Smith founded a church, the LDS Church in it's present form is no different from the one he founded, is unwarranted.

Jared Livesey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jared Livesey said...

Rock,

In this case, a good offense, which is what you're providing, is not a good defense against the issue I raised.

If you are willing to settle for "truthy" speculations, then that's what you get - but hey, we already have that; it's called the traditions of men; we have a Church full of them.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Well, as I said, I have not yet been privileged to look into heaven, so in the meantime I like reading the thoughts, insights, and opinions of others who have at least put forth the effort to understand the greater things that tend to stymy me.

Reading other's works does not require me to accept as true everything they write, but I have become much more edified by the insights provided me by Truman Madsen, Hugh Nibley, Paul Toscano, JJ Dewey, and others than I would be if left to sort things out without their able assistance.

I respect you for being able to assess God's word on your own, Log, but not all of us are blessed with an abundance of the spirit showing us the truth of all things. The rest of us require guides and teachers to point out those things in scripture that we tend to overlook.

Until I get an epiphany from heaven of the type you apparently experience on a regular basis, I would prefer to stand on the shoulders of giants than depend on my own feeble intellect. I'm just not smart enough to figure these things out on my own. I find teachers to be quite useful. I don't see them as a hindrance to my spiritual and intellectual progress whatsoever.

Jared Livesey said...

Rock - it's as simple as rejecting everything you have not been told by God, and doing everything you have been told by God, and praying mightily for whatever you want until you get it.

You have to choose to stand alone, without regard to what anyone else says.

Is there another way? Has anyone ever been mothered into being baptized by fire, or into the presence of God?

Jared Livesey said...

And yes, that means waiting a long time, sometimes, for answers from heaven. But that's the price.

"There will be many willing to preach to you the philosophies of men... mingled with scripture."

BK said...

Everyone preaches some truth and some error. No one on earth teaches 100% truth (except Christ, assuming we really have his exact words) and no one teaches 100% falsehoods, not even the Devil (who uses lots of truth mixed with error to sound good).

Though the 'right' Spirit is a teacher of truth, anyone else around us can also be a teacher of truth, of things they have either learned by the Spirit or by study or experience.

It's like a huge bonus when we can learn truth through another person instead of having to figure every little thing out ourselves.

The test is being able to tell the difference between truth & error from all the different voices, even from the so called 'Spirit's voice', for no one is above being deceived by false Spirits.

Thus why Christ said to 'test' the Spirits and 'test' everyone, especially those who profess to be prophets, to see if what they say is true (by comparing it to what Christ taught) and to see if they themselves are keeping the commandments of Christ.

I believe I have learned much truth not only from the Spirit and Christ's words but also from Rock's opinions & insights, and from countless others around me, who have taken the time to study & share things I haven't been able to study yet.

We grow much faster in light & knowledge if we help each other by sharing our insights, even if we error somewhat in doing so, as long as we keep Christ as our ultimate measuring stick.

If we were left to ourselves to discover everything it would probably take far more then a lifetime to come to truly understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Pride causes us to close down and not feel the need to listen to or consider other's viewpoints, assuming they are wrong and we know better or that we can learn everything on our own, which might be true in the long run but it will take us much much longer and maybe too long before we run out of time to repent.

I know many people who are so overcome by pride & closed-mindedness that they have become past feeling and have thus seemingly lost the ability to learn & repent in this life.

While those who are humble, teachable & open minded are grateful for & welcome other's insights & opinions, and thus they will learn, grow, perfect themselves & figure things much faster and in time to repent before it's everlastingly too late.

Tammy said...

May I enter a comment about learning from books versus heaven? I prayed to God about what I should know and do and he told me to read the words of Joseph Smith. That seems to encompass both thoughts. God's message was to read!

Jared Livesey said...

Reading has a function. Its function, however, is not to transmit knowledge, for that is impossible - knowledge is the memory of firsthand experience (that's a definition) - books can at best transmit reports of memories of firsthand experience.

What I am speaking of is attaining to knowledge. I'm tired of reports of knowledge, and things which are less than reports of knowledge - fables, speculations, myths, traditions, and so on.

But, then, I'm tired of a great many things others have quite the taste for. I've had my fill of authority, of hierarchy, of leadership, of dogma, of theologies, of doctrinal treatises, of inequality, of iniquity, of abuse.

Where is the family of God? Where is the society of equals, where nobody pulls rank because all are one?

That's what I seek. I think it's called "Zion" or something.

Tammy said...

You seek for something that doesn't exist. The closest you'll come is your own pure heart becoming one with God.

LJn said...

I came on here to see how Rock was doing and saw that vermin had crawled out from under a rock.

I'm glad you're doing well enough to post comments, Rock. Some of us were worried about you.

It's good that the troll posts were deleted on the 2nd page of comments. Now, to delete the vitriol on the first page.

Rock said, "As for deleting the "Anonymous" option, I sought a way to do that some months ago but was not successful. The Help section on the Blogspot platform has not been of much help."

Rock, click on "settings" on your blog dashboard, then click on "posts and comments". Next to "Who can comment," there is a list that says:
Anyone - includes Anonymous Users
Registered User - includes OpenID
User with Google Accounts
Only members of this blog

And if you changed it, some of your commenters maybe would have to get google accounts or OpenID accounts (I'm not sure what OpenID is).

In any case, I'm glad to see you are well enough to post. How are you and Connie doing now?

LJn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alan Rock Waterman said...

Oh man, LjN, you mean I've missed some? A blog administrator's work is never done. Guess I'll have to finish reading all the comments here sooner rather than later.

I have been aware of that option for deleting Anonymous altogether, but if I did that, some people, such as Homeschool Mom would be unable to post, as for some reason she and a few others are unable to create usernames in the "Name/URL" option. I know her privately, and will ask her specifically what the problem is, and if we can overcome it, I believe I'll delete the option to post anonymously.

Connie and I are both recovering quite nicely, and are very much appreciative of all the prayers and good wishes.

Anonymous said...

@Sandy: Thank you for the info on how to help Rock and Connie.

Jared Livesey said...

I have had cause to rethink something.

Mandating that only God should be trusted

1. Is self-contradictory unless the one saying it is God, and such a message would not come from God because

2. It denies one's absolute freedom of self-determination, or agency, and

3. It violates the Golden Rule, whereas trusting others does not violate the Golden Rule.

4. It is nowhere commanded.

5. It implies a person is or ought to be immune to change through dialogue or interaction with other humans and therefore

6. It undercuts and undermines the process of experience by which we gain wisdom and knowledge.

7. Explicit permission to trust others in certain circumstances is given in the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 23:14).

8. Explicit permission to trust others may well be given by direct revelation without contradicting any scripture.

I have in the past counseled my children that they should believe nothing except the Spirit bears witness to it. I have had to clarify that this evening by saying that was my counsel, and that they are free to believe what or whom they will.

Unknown said...

Log,

Thank you for making those eight points here.

Point seven, regarding Mosiah 23:14 was particularly interesting as I don't think I ever really read it before (and if I did read it, I must have read over it.)

Thank you.

Unknown said...

I think point 3 is based on your premise that the golden rule requires all requests be granted, and I really think that's a misinterpretation.

If king Midas comes to you, and asks that everything he touches be turned to gold, and you have the power to grant this request, and the foreknowledge to see that he will eventually embrace his daughter and she will be turned into a lifeless statue of gold (or just the wisdom to know he will eventually touch a relative, friend, or pet who will be so effected, and that this will bring him great sadness), is it in keeping with the golden rule for you to grant his request?

With his limited knowledge, and his lack of wisdom or foresight, he certainly wants you to grant his request (or he wouldn't have made it), but would you really want such a request granted?

Would you be doing unto him as you would have him do unto you if you just gave him what he thought he wanted (and asked for)?

I don't think so (but that's just my interpretation.)

Anonymous said...

Rock, how are you and Connie doing? I hope much improved. We are finally over the strep throat here! I am ready to have a life again and do something that doesn't have to do with doctoring my family!
Praying and Hoping that you both are feeling better!
Homeschool Mom

Anonymous said...

I am sorry, Rock. I just saw the other comments. I am glad you and Connie are doing better. I read the comment about posting anonymously. I really just haven't taken time to figure out the name/url option. I will see if I can figure it out. I will let you know if I am successful. Homeschool Mom

BK said...

Log,

I don't believe anyone can be trusted completely. For not even prophets prove worthy of complete trust, for it seems they all teach both truth and falsehoods and most even fall or prove themselves fallen or false prophets.

And we can't even trust 'the Spirit', for no one can tell if it's the right Spirit and not the Adversary. Thus why people in every religion feel just as confident and sure that their religion is right & that God has manifested it to them. It seems that everyone is deceived by false Spirits all the time. So that is clearly not a way to test truth.

That is why Christ said to test even 'Spirit's' as well as test prophets or anyone else, & watch if they really keep all his commandments or not. What prophet can pass that test? None that I know of.

So it does seem that God & Christ are the only one's we can trust. And the only words we have from God are Christ's few words found in the 4 Gospels. All other words in supposed scripture are just the words of very fallible men, no matter what they claim.

Jared Livesey said...

BK,

Trustworthiness is a value judgement, or a value proposition, and it is properly left to each individual to make the determination as to what or who is or is not trustworthy based on their own goals and values through experience. This is part of our agency, which I understand to be our absolute right of self-determination.

So you may choose to trust only in Christ, and distrust the Spirit of God and other people as well. That is given to you to choose. It is also given to you to attempt to persuade others to distrust anyone except God; you have that right.

Distrust and mistrust is a product of both having been betrayed, and fear of future betrayal. Fear is a tool of the devil.

BK said...

Log,

I did not say I distrusted the 'Spirit of God' but that we must follow Christ and have a general distrust of all Spirit's & thus 'test' them, until we know for sure that it really is the Spirit of God and not a Spirit of Satan or our own mind.

Distrust is wisdom, born of experience. Satan would have us trust everyone and every Spirit.

Distrust does not always mean we fear something, but that we show reserve, wisdom and judgement 'before' trusting someone or something.

Christ taught us to distrust, question & test everything and everyone, he knew how easy it is for everyone to be deceived by what they think is right or of God.

Though I don't trust anyone completely, for everyone is far from perfect, including me (for I know how easy I myself & everyone I know have been deceived, by those I even thought were prophets), but that doesn't mean I can't learn truth from others amid their falsehoods, once I determine if they are in fact teaching truth that is in harmony with Christ's teachings.

Christ said to only trust him and view everyone & everything else through his teachings. Only then can we be safe from being deceived.

Linda said...

CALL FOR ASSISTANCE

Most families outside of the rich and famous are temporarily strapped for cash when an illness strikes. In Rock's case, with he and Connie both ill, the extra expenses just seem to stack up quickly.

Now, I have just learned that Rock's car has a blown head-gasket; no repairing it.

So, guys he needs a car.

Surely there is someone in California who has a 2nd or third car they could donate to Rock and his sweet bride so he doesn't have to grovel for a car loan.

If you know of a decent used car that you could give to him, please do so.

He does so much for us totally free of charge, that it would be a shame for him to be without transportation.

Linda

Jared Livesey said...

Well, BK, I know if I have no fear of something, I don't take precautions against it, and in my experience, that's how people who have no fear of something behave.

I don't recall Christ teaching us to distrust anyone or anything; I don't recall Christ saying to only trust him.

You would do me a service by producing a citation to somewhere in the Gospels where Christ said those things.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jared Livesey said...

Matt,

Who do you know that is holy? What kinds of problems do your holy peers have? What is the number of problems that divides your holy peers from your unholy peers? Is it like 5? 20? 0?

I'm kinda curious now.

Gaybob Spongebath said...

We may finally be getting closer to learning Friar Tuck's real name. Unless "Matt" is also a pseudonym, which I suspect it is.

"I can't think of anyone else that is so holy yet has so many problems."

How about Joseph Smith, Matt? He had problems that would dwarf those of Rock and all the rest of us combined, yet I'd say he was "tight with Jesus" if anyone was.

Your veiled inference is that Rock must have gained disfavor with God because of the tests and trials he is currently experiencing. That's the reasoning of a fool.

Jared Livesey said...

7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
Hebrews 12:7-8

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/heb/12?lang=eng

Anonymous said...

Jesus Christ never preached a gospel of prosperity. I don't recall Him ever saying that blessed are those that have it all together or never have to mourn. He said"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." There is nothing like "problems" to make us poor in spirit. I am sure Jesus will hook Rock and Connie up with another car and who is to say how the Lord will work. It may very well be through the readers of this blog. The Lord longs to have each one of us belong to Him. It is often through our problems and becoming broken in spirit that He draws us to Him. It is not through a prosperity gospel that God calls us closer to Him.
Homeschool Mom

Gaybob Spongebath said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gaybob Spongebath said...

Looks like our old nemesis Friar Tuck is becoming more insidious than ever before. I Did NOT post that comment regarding Korihor at 6:42. Someone is using my identity to express views I do not agree with.

Of course, the phony Gaybob Spongebath is trying to assert that anyone begging for food is an antiChrist, someone we know Rock is not, and neither were all the beggars who sat outside the temple in Jesus' day. Korihor brought some very bad luck upon himself. But not everyone who has bad luck is inherently bad.

That's very poor arguing, but I suppose Friar Tuck has never been in need. When that day comes, and it comes to many of us, I wonder if he will suppose he brought that misfortune upon himself by fighting so viciously and wickedly against one of God's chosen.

Rock, when you come back on here, you know what to do with that comment. It's a fake. Please delete it.

Gaybob Spongebath said...

I suppose the fake Gaybob (cough cough *Friar Tuck*) feels that anyone who approaches his bishop for help with food from the storehouse is a Korihor. Isn't that begging? I've done that kind of begging, but it wasn't door to door, and it was not thought by anyone that I was not worthy to receive. Come to think of it, I don't recall Rock ever begging anyone to lend him a hand, whether door to door like Korihor, or on this blog. He has only taught the principal of giving to others. He has graciously accepted offers of help when they have been extended to him and his wife, but he has never asked for help outright. Rock is known for his generosity to others, and for teaching us about the joys of giving, not for having his own hand outstretched.

Judging from the attitude his bishop has toward him, he can't even ask for food from the bishop's storehouse, knowing he is not considered a viable member in some eyes.

I realize it isn't Christlike to say this about our visiting troll, but I'll keep saying it because I'm sick of his underhanded ways. Whatever name he chooses to adopt, Friar Tuck is very wicked, and he is a fool. May God have mercy when his time for judgment comes. He has piled upon himself sin after sin after sin, and he always does it thinking he is doing God a favor.

Wouldn't want to be him at the judgment bar. He's in for an unhappy surprise.

Gaybob Spongebath said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jared Livesey said...

Rock,

You'll have to eliminate the Anonymous AND Name/URL options.

Gaybob Spongebath said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jared Livesey said...

@Friar Tuck,

I don't understand. You're not trying to score points with God, having accepted that you're going to hell, unless I mistake you, and you're not trying to score points with the Church - therefore, are you motivated purely out of spite for Rock?

Gaybob Spongebath said...

Rock,
The last two comments attributed to my name were NOT writtten by me, but obviously by Friar Tuck. Please delete them.

The one at 8:20 PM was lifted word for word from ACLU.org. I'm sure you can tell the comment at 8:45 is obviously a fake just from its contents.



Gaybob Spongebath said...

Correction, The comment at 8:43 attributed to me is a fake; I accidentally wrote 8:45. It is 8:43.

Log has hit the nail on the head. Friar Tuck is obviously motivated only by pure hatred for Rock. Everything he pretends about championing the Church has now been exposed as a lie. He has no agenda other than a personal vendetta against the author of this blog.

There are ways to track him down from your end to determine the URL he has been writing from, and I can assist you with that. He has left quite a trail over the past year or more that will provide plenty of proof, and now that he has used another person's username in a deliberate attempt to defame by fraud, he can be prosecuted. I say we go after him and end this once and for all. We also know he is one of your Facebook "friends" as he has has been stalking you on that forum following threads under your name and repeating your comments on other forums.

I will be emailing you privately to help get you started.

Robin Hood said...

I check in here from time to time and, especially just lately, every post appears to be about Friar Tuck in some way.
Would this not please him?

Jared Livesey said...

Well, I'm not entirely sure it would be a sound principle to engage in a course of action with the intent to displease Friar Tuck.

That would seem to break the Golden Rule.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Although I am recovering nicely from my recent bout with the grim reaper, I have not checked back here regularly as I usually do. I was here only long enough to delete the posts from our perennial troll, and I was puzzled by his accusations comparing me to Korihor, who was reduced to going door to door begging for food. I hadn't the slightest idea what motivated those comments, but I delete his comments as a matter of course, and didn't give them any further thought. I've now seen the commment from Linda from March 1st, which solves the riddle.

I will admit to being a little uncomfortable upon reading Linda's Call for Assistance on announcing that our car is kaput and asking if anyone had a spare they could provide us with.

I suppose what I'm really feeling is embarrassment. I've just gotten off the phone with Linda thanking her for her concerns, but I confess also to feeling a little embarrassment. Not because of what she wrote, but because of the way I fear some folks might read her concern. Almost three years ago, several readers to this blog already came to our rescue when the junker we were driving then went kablooie from the same disease as our current one-a blown head gasket (what is it about me and head gaskets?!). The last thing I want is to appear to be putting out another, similar call for help, as though somehow it is expected that my readers rescue us from the same dilemma once again. I am grateful to Linda for her kind concern, but we seek no such thing for ourselves.

Our current car was 27 years old and served us well for nearly three years, so we can't complain. The one we had before was an old one near its time, but it lasted five or more years, and was also worth the little bit of money it cost us ($1600.00 -a bargain for the amount of use we got from it.) That's just the way it goes with older cars. We don't expect them to last forever.

Now I'll admit, upon finding out we were once again without transportation, I immediately went through a day or two trying not to worry about what we would do next; but then the fog lifted and I got the distinct feeling through the spirit that we will be able to manage this time as well.

The reason we only HAVE to have a car at all is because Connie has constant and varied medical appointments she needs to get to. We don't need a car every single day; just most days. Anyway, these days we have access to Uber and Zip Car, services that were not available before, so I've started looking into whether those will work for us, and I think they will, at least for the time being. Next week Connie has an appointment with one doctor who is only five miles up the street, so I think we can handle that one through Uber, where in the past the cost of a taxi would have been prohibitive. (Unfortunately, there is no one in the ward we can ask for a ride; I am persona non grate there.)

(Continued below)

Alan Rock Waterman said...

(Continued)

Once a month we have to travel almost to Placerville, about a 45 mile trip to have Connie's medtronic device refilled. This is a device that is embedded under her flesh and which shoots a bolus of pain reliever directly into her spine. It gets refilled by injection once a month, and it appears that's when we would require the rental of a Zip Car. Although I would have to take a couple of buses into Sacramento to pick up a Zip Car, it's do-able. I can pick up the car, return home to get Conne, take her out to that pain specialist, and get it all done for whatever it will cost to rent a car for two hours.

As for other needs, I have saddle baskets on my bike and can get groceries and run errands myself that way. So we are not currently in emergency mode. We are able to manage.

As grateful as I am for Linda's concern, the reason I am uncomfortable seeing someone announce that we have a need is because the biggest frustration I am experiencing right now is our inability to lend a hand to others more worthy and much more in need than we are. I would much prefer to be a giver myself than to continue to be on the receiving end of charity.

I see notices from ProtoZion.com requesting assistance for those who are in real, immediate needs of basics like rent, food, and beds for their children, and in the situation we currently find ourselves, we are helpless to assist them. That's what I'd do with any extra funds if I had them, I'd give them to others. So I hope the rest of you will look to those more in need than we are. We are not that bad off in comparison.

(Continued below)

Alan Rock Waterman said...

That having been said, if anyone out there DOES have a spare junker they actually are not currently using, sure, we could put it to very good use, not only in ferrying ourselves, but our grown daughter whose children we tend to transport to where they need to go. So we would be happy to have the loan of someone's extra car if you are not currently using it and would graciously accept such a gift with gratitude and thanksgiving. Otherwise, God seems to be assuring me that he will help us manage for now. I don't feel any fear over this anymore. My feeling is that God has something in the works to provide transportation for us, and it may well be someone will come along with another beater for us to use, or maybe some other solution. The other day I was on the phone with a friend and he expressed to me that he was given that specific prompting as well; that I shouldn't worry, that God will be providing a way for us to replace our broken car with another. So expect all will be well.

Be assured that none of this will keep us from coming to the Remnant Reunion in Colorado in May. At the very time I was first invited to attend that function, someone miraculously offered to provide us with the cost of gas to get there, (we would not have been able to afford such a trip on our own). Yesterday I was able to negotiate the use of a rental car for only 18 dollars a day with free miles. So that's still on. We wouldn't miss that event if I had to walk all the way, pushing Connie in her wheelchair ahead of me.

In fact, when I got the news that my car was irreparable, I was confused as to why such a catastrophe would befall us with Colorado only three months away. I expressed my frustration to the Lord and got the immediate impression that this was God's way of warning me NOT to take this car all the way from California to Colorado. Better the car broke down one half block from home as it did, than stranded somewhere in the Nevada desert.

I have come to have explicit faith in God these days. So although I am very grateful for Linda's kind expression above, I want anyone who is concerned to know that we will be able to manage.

I hope to write another blog post by next weekend, but this illness has put me in a perennial stupor and I just haven't felt smart or ambitious enough to get started on one. Connie and I are both extremely grateful for the many, many prayers that have gone up to heaven for our benefit. I have been told I did indeed come close to death this time, so for better or for worse, you people are directly credited with saving my life. Thank you.

I am back among the living, and actually got on my bike the other day and rode a few blocks to the pharmacy, and though it wasn't easy after being weakened like I was, at least I know I am coming back to life.

Thank you all, and God bless you.

For those who feel inspired to contribute alms to those in need, please send your money to those who really need it:

ProtoZion.com

Annie said...

Regarding @I. Willet deVale 's comment about Section 132:

I just found and read a stylometric analysis that, from my admittedly inexpert opinion, shows pretty darn convincingly that it was indeed written by Brigham Young. Or at the very least, that it's too different from Joseph's personal writings and the rest of D&C for him to have written it (or rather dictated it word-for-word, as William Clayton claimed).

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Annie, can you provide a link to that stylometric analysis? A reader on another post here has asked for information on any scholarly analysis on the authorship of section 132, but in my fog I just can't remember where I've seen one.

Annie said...

Sure, Rock. I thought I had included the link, but apparently I forgot:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/sdqf2jfwp26wqck/LDS%20D%26C%20132%20Writing%20Style%20Analysis%20by%20Enid%20DeBarthe.pdf?dl=0

Annie said...

I should add that that link was made available on the website defendingjoseph.com.

It's a very OLD source; a 1969 master's thesis by Library Science MA Enid Stubbart DeBarthe. I don't know how much stylometric analysis has changed since then; it could be that current formulas wouldn't reach the same result. But the linguistic analysis itself is certainly sound.

Anonymous said...

It strikes me that while these works may have value (most especially to the author and his kin) they may perpetuate the cause of problems with the modern church. Our relationship with our heavenly father is A<->B there is no middle man. He speaks to us through scripture (pure doctrine, not what passes for it) and we speak to him through prayer. We do not need an advocate to hear him or speak to him, and seeking one means we will at best hear a skewed truth. It is so simple and we make it so hard. Bend a knee, open you heart, and speak to God as a loving father who desperately wants to hear from you just as badly (at least) as you want to hear from him.

A foolish man seeks Knowledge, a wise man seeks Understanding

Morgan Deane said...

I'm glad you're doing better Rock. I noticed you were asked about my book, but its tough to give a review on something you haven't read. I could tell because there was at least one item you mentioned that wasn't in my book! Nor did you mention any specifics. I appreciate your reading the blog, but that doesn't mean you know much at all about the content of my book. (Especially since I go through several re writes, peer reviews, and edits before it gets published.)

Luckily several recent reviews have come out from people who have read it:
http://www.modernmormonmen.com/2015/03/you-dont-know-shiz-about-book-of-mormon.html

http://michaelrcollings.blogspot.com/2015/03/morgan-deane-bleached-bones-and-wicked.html

And at the bottom of this page: http://www.amazon.com/Bleached-Bones-Wicked-Serpents-Ancient/dp/1456622862/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1427218183&sr=8-1&keywords=bleached+bones+and+wicked+serpents

You said that understanding a person is sometimes the best for which you can hope. I agree. That process only starts though with interested parties at least reading reviews from people who have read the book, and in best cases have serious and substantive discussions after reading a person's research.

Best wishes.

Unknown said...

Rock (Mr. Waterman): Thanks for your review of Mr. Toscano's book. I really found this interesting.

"If, however, the phrase means that Christ as the Father was conceived by no power outside his own, then this verse tells us that Christ as Father had no progenitor, but was the uncreated and pre-existed creation as the self-existent divine Supreme Being."

Something about that makes sense to me.

I can see how the details could get complicated, but Mr. Toscano is saying that there is a "self-existent divine Supreme Being"?

And you agree with him?

That alone makes you two of the most interesting Mormons I've encountered in my investigation of the Restoration, and I wish you could share more of your understanding of the nature of God here.

Thank you.

Unknown said...

I just ordered Mr. Toscano's book.

Thank you again Mr. Waterman.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Mike Burke,
MY understanding of the nature of God is spotty and incomplete. That's why I enjoy reading the views of others.

Believe me, you don't want to look to me for guidance. I'm a babe in the woods when it comes to the greater mysteries.

Unknown said...

Thank you Mr. Waterman.

But you do think Mr. Toscano has some understanding, and you would still recommend his book?

It is worth reading, isn't it?

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Oh, Absolutely, Mike! Paul has had a firm grip on all this for decades; it's just new to me and I haven't wrapped my mind around it all, that's all.

See also the book he and Margaret wrote, "Strangers in Paradox." It's out of print, but SignatureBooks.com has posted all the chapters on its website. I believe they go deeper into the subject there, as well as covering a lot of other LDS theology.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 318 of 318   Newer› Newest»