Question about LDS Church after Smith's death.

[Deleted member 848]

That wasn't an attempt to support that point. As a move, it was a backing up, followed by a re-iteration of my initial claim. I realize that I haven't provided evidence; I've only gestured that there's a mound of historical evidence over there to support my claim. Maybe I'll give it another go....

Nothing polices the boundaries of meaning and truth like Gods. And nothing narrows the catchment of meanings further than ONE GOD. (My favorite example of this is the oft-repeated Islamic tautology "There is no God but God!").

The early Roman empire was polytheistic, and, generally speaking, policed the boundary between public and private more than it did the boundary between True and False. You could publicly worship whatever god you wanted, ascribe to it whatever demonstrable forces and signs you saw fit, but common sense dictated that approval from that god depended on accurate observance of rituals. This, at minimum, required that the god have an image and a public alter or temple. Requests/prayers were presented to the god in terms of a trade. A priestly cast emerged to oversee these things, which were very much a part of the State, and gave those trades the force of contract/law. Historians agree that, relative to the way we think about things today, the view of religion was very practical: if you asked the gods for something, and it happened, then you owed a debt (food, wine, animal sacrifice, etc). On the private side, you had the power of the paterfamilias, which, by today's standards, had an extreme grip on the expression of family life. The father oversaw private worship, and the public judiciaries had no power to intervene. Families were microcosms of the State. Theoretically the father had the power to execute family members.

You'd be correct in pointing out that the seeds of fascism are everywhere in this "cultural backdrop"; the insistence on publicity did narrow the catchment of possible practices and thus possible meanings/truths. But, vis-a-vis monotheism, people nevertheless had much more conceptual latitude for framing the essences of humanity and nature. Every single judicial history of a monotheistic State backs that point up. In early Rome, as long as you "registered" your meaning, then everything was cool (one of the most subversive things about early Christianity was it's insistence on meeting in private, and for not playing the game of images).

EDIT (TO CLARIFY): In terms of freedom/persecution, Roman questions about religion and meaning were dominated by the hows of worship. In monotheisms, the questions are dominated by the hows, whys, and whats. You can feel the difference.

Good points, and a good example to boot. However, I think that euro-Middle Eastern polytheism is a bit different from Asian polytheism. For example, Hinduism is certainly different than fragmented polytheistic pre-Abrahamic pagan belief. Something like Hinduism would be much, much for focused on the whats, whys, and hows. Maybe it's just a symptom of whenever a religious movement becomes canonized and a source of identity-- and it's something that can happen to all faiths, regardless of the nature of the diety. That's where I think I stand.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Just out of curiosity I want to ask some questions to get input from whoever is interested by it.

There are common story types/ themes throughout the various mythologies/beliefs out there.

Many have creation stories (stories may not be the correct term, but that's what I'm using here), flood stories, sacrifice stories, dying/coming to life again stories (dying God?), hero stories, world tree/joining of worlds stories, younger Gods and elder Gods, one supreme being/God, giant or titanic beings.

Do they all have a single origin and then branch out from there to the various versions?
Did all of the stories come on their own and just happen to have some similarities based on common questions about life and a need to explain it?

Thoughts?

 

[NAOS]

Good points, and a good example to boot. However, I think that euro-Middle Eastern polytheism is a bit different from Asian polytheism. For example, Hinduism is certainly different than fragmented polytheistic pre-Abrahamic pagan belief. Something like Hinduism would be much, much for focused on the whats, whys, and hows. Maybe it's just a symptom of whenever a religious movement becomes canonized and a source of identity-- and it's something that can happen to all faiths, regardless of the nature of the diety. That's where I think I stand.

It seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
Of course they're different. Differences are everywhere. Equivalences are fictions. The question is whether they are significantly different vis-a-vis theories of truth.

This seems like a preposterous claim to me. "Hinduism" is a sloppy term coined by the English to refer to the dizzying diversity of "religious" practices performed by dem Hindus they were colonizing. The fact that there were over 300 dialects spoken on the subcontinent is evidence enough that the Meaning Police were of the soft-spoken variety. When you add the fact that the only homespun attempt to unite the entire subcontinent into a single empire was at the hands of a Buddhist-who-acted-like-a-monotheist, then your point becomes even more preposterous.

So, what's your point?

 

[Deleted member 848]

It seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
Of course they're different. Differences are everywhere. Equivalences are fictions. The question is whether they are significantly different vis-a-vis theories of truth.

I don't think I am, really.

This seems like a preposterous claim to me. "Hinduism" is a sloppy term coined by the English to refer to the dizzying diversity of "religious" practices performed by dem Hindus they were colonizing. The fact that there were over 300 dialects spoken on the subcontinent is evidence enough that the Meaning Police were of the soft-spoken variety. When you add the fact that the only homespun attempt to unite the entire subcontinent into a single empire was at the hands of a Buddhist-who-acted-like-a-monotheist, then your point becomes even more preposterous.

So, what's your point?

I don't want to argue because I don't think we're to far apart here, so I'l simplify.


Modern-day Hinduism is a polytheistic faith. On that, we agree.
Modern-day Hinduism is a polytheistic faith that has undergone nationalistic attempts to be homogenous and canonized primarily from British colonial efforts (for various reasons). You proposed this point, and I agree.


You suggest (from my understanding, and maybe I misunderstood) that monotheism intrinsically is a driver towards a monolithic conception of 'truth'. I disagreed here. Primarily because there have been many monotheistic faiths that have avoided our Western conflation of monolithic truths with Abrahamic faiths (think Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Baha'i)-- along with my belief that every religion is contoured and contorted and morphed into a unique interpretation based on the region and the cultural background/backdrop in which they live in.

You seem to be implying (from my understanding) that modern-day polytheism in nations such as India have become more preoccupied with a monolithic conception of truth, because they have been forced unto them by British Colonialism-- which uses this monolithic truth-conception of Christianity to force it onto other controllers. I argue that this monolithic pursuit of faith is characteristic of European monotheism as is presently constituted-- but that there isn't anything intrinsic to polytheistic, or monotheistic faiths that makes them more preoccupied with one single definition of truth, or multiple definitions of truth. This is my point that I'm trying to argue.

Those sorts of things are more representative of leaders trying to ascertain political control of expanding regions, as canonizing heterogenous religious identity into something monolithic will nurture an expanding group identity that rules can exploit. We see this certainly in Islam, a faith which started out very heterogenous but has grown to become growingly monolithic as powerful factions deem their interpretations as the only 'correct ones'

 

[NAOS]

I don't think I am, really.



I don't want to argue because I don't think we're to far apart here, so I'l simplify.


Modern-day Hinduism is a polytheistic faith. On that, we agree.
Modern-day Hinduism is a polytheistic faith that has undergone nationalistic attempts to be homogenous and canonized primarily from British colonial efforts (for various reasons). You proposed this point, and I agree.


You suggest (from my understanding, and maybe I misunderstood) that monotheism intrinsically is a driver towards a monolithic conception of 'truth'. I disagreed here. Primarily because there have been many monotheistic faiths that have avoided our Western conflation of monolithic truths with Abrahamic faiths (think Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Baha'i)-- along with my belief that every religion is contoured and contorted and morphed into a unique interpretation based on the region and the cultural background/backdrop in which they live in.

You seem to be implying (from my understanding) that modern-day polytheism in nations such as India have become more preoccupied with a monolithic conception of truth, because they have been forced unto them by British Colonialism-- which uses this monolithic truth-conception of Christianity to force it onto other controllers. I argue that this monolithic pursuit of faith is characteristic of European monotheism as is presently constituted-- but that there isn't anything intrinsic to polytheistic, or monotheistic faiths that makes them more preoccupied with one single definition of truth, or multiple definitions of truth. This is my point that I'm trying to argue.

Those sorts of things are more representative of leaders trying to ascertain political control of expanding regions, as canonizing heterogenous religious identity into something monolithic will nurture an expanding group identity that rules can exploit. We see this certainly in Islam, a faith which started out very heterogenous but has grown to become growingly monolithic as powerful factions deem their interpretations as the only 'correct ones'

I think we are far apart on the principle argument I've put forward -- mainly because you keep mischaracterizing that argument.

You extrapolate way too much from my comments on Hinduism. That was an example that you put forward and I found preposterous. You've taken my rebuttal and run a really long ways with certain implications in it. I could engage you further on what you said about Hinduism, but I hesitate because it seems that the argument will spin further out of shape.

I don't SUGGEST, I claim quite plainly that monotheisms are intrinsically drivers toward monolithic models of truth. Then I provided an (internet-message-board level) example to support my claim. Without refuting it, you put forward modern-day Hinduism (again), along with the error that religious structures mold themselves to the cultural backdrop in which they find themselves (an argument that wouldn't pass muster in undergraduate social science classes because of its reliance on categorical thinking; religious structures are not categorically distinct/separate from "cultural backdrops"... if you find a story to support this argument, then all you've found is a way to justify the categorical imperative that you started out with).

Anyway, those are the two points of disagreement that we found early on in this discussion. And we still have them.

I've never said that monotheisms are the ONLY drivers toward monolithic models of truth... and it seems like you want to paint me into that corner. Nor have I said that monotheisms produce static models of truth. You're getting the wrong impression if you think I see them as spitting out one static truth that is consciously understood by its adherents. I've said that the catchment for possible truths is exceptionally small. I'll go further and say that monotheism's adherents -- through practice -- are unconsciously induced to sense and then (re)derive possible truths. These possible truths are under constant variation (like everything), but the catchment remains small and inductions remain highly derivative.

 

[babe]

/thread


#shotsfired

So I just read this note in the thread from days ago.

According to Joseph Smith, in his "Inspired" KJV revision, God knows us pretty good. The parable is given about The Kingdom being left to stewards, and after many days God sends his servants to reap the harvest, but the stewards run them out of the "vineyard", thinking to keep the "Kingdom" in their own hands. After killing and/or running off many servants, God finally decides to send His Son, thinking perhaps the stewards will reverence His Son. But the stewards conspire, saying "this is the heir, let's kill Him and everything will be ours", and do. Jesus told this parable to the chief priests and leaders of the Jewish faith in His days, and it made them mad, and they really did kill Him.
But the parable doesn't end there, it alludes to the same sequence of events recurring in the last days, and the Kingdom again being reorganized by God. So whatever "church" there is, with whatever authorities it might have, is apparently a sort of addictive power trip for humans given this stewardship, and God knows He'll need to do something about it all at some critical point in time.

I think the story is a caution about idolatry with organized churches and statist human management generally. . . . .Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Our convictions and ideals have somewhat the same character when we substitute our understanding for the actual being who is God.

Cliff Note version: There is a reason why "faith" amid valid uncertainties is the best way for us to make our way in life. It's really the only mode where God can teach us and lead us. And it makes it pretty clear that if we do choose to try to believe in God and do the best we know, it is because we do in the most fundamental sense just love God "for loves' sake only", as Elizabeth Barrett Browning penned her poem about true love.

 

[Dr. Jones]

So I just read this note in the thread from days ago.

According to Joseph Smith, in his "Inspired" KJV revision, God knows us pretty good. The parable is given about The Kingdom being left to stewards, and after many days God sends his servants to reap the harvest, but the stewards run them out of the "vineyard", thinking to keep the "Kingdom" in their own hands. After killing and/or running off many servants, God finally decides to send His Son, thinking perhaps the stewards will reverence His Son. But the stewards conspire, saying "this is the heir, let's kill Him and everything will be ours", and do. Jesus told this parable to the chief priests and leaders of the Jewish faith in His days, and it made them mad, and they really did kill Him.
But the parable doesn't end there, it alludes to the same sequence of events recurring in the last days, and the Kingdom again being reorganized by God. So whatever "church" there is, with whatever authorities it might have, is apparently a sort of addictive power trip for humans given this stewardship, and God knows He'll need to do something about it all at some critical point in time.

I think the story is a caution about idolatry with organized churches and statist human management generally. . . . .Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Our convictions and ideals have somewhat the same character when we substitute our understanding for the actual being who is God.

Cliff Note version: There is a reason why "faith" amid valid uncertainties is the best way for us to make our way in life. It's really the only mode where God can teach us and lead us. And it makes it pretty clear that if we do choose to try to believe in God and do the best we know, it is because we do in the most fundamental sense just love God "for loves' sake only", as Elizabeth Barrett Browning penned her poem about true love.

I'm confused. Does the LDS church have their own revised KJV of the Bible? I know you said it but I was unaware.
Also, from where are you quoting the parable?

 

[babe]

I'm confused. Does the LDS church have their own revised KJV of the Bible? I know you said it but I was unaware.
Also, from where are you quoting the parable?

Yes, but it doesn't get much attention anymore. Joseph Smith made a major project of it, though. I'd have to look up the chapter and verse. The parable I refer to is several verses, and most of it is in your Bible. It occurs very late in the Gospels, a few days maybe a week at most before the death of Jesus, about the time of Lazarus' illness. Luke 9:9-19; Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12. Joseph Smith added two verses clearly stating that there would be a parallel event in the last days.

 

[colton]

I'm confused. Does the LDS church have their own revised KJV of the Bible? I know you said it but I was unaware.
Also, from where are you quoting the parable?

Joseph Smith started a "translation" of the Bible, but didn't finish it before he died. I put "translation" I quotes because although it's often called the Joseph Smith Translation (or JST), he wasn't really translating it from source material. It is sometimes also called an "inspired version", which I think is a better description. Most of the changes from KJV are adding or switching words here or there in order to better fit doctrine. For example, in the Old Testament where it says the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, Joseph Smith changed it to read that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. The official LDS church published scriptures uses the regular KJV text but has selections from Smith's inspired version as footnotes and an appendix.

Mixed in with that type of thing are a couple of items that came about during his translation, that we accept as full revelations, and those are included in the Pearl of Great Price (small canonical book of scripture in case your are unfamiliar worth it, kind of a supplement to the Doctrine and Covenants). Those include more info on Moses and more info on Matthew 24.

 

[NAOS]

So I just read this note in the thread from days ago.

According to Joseph Smith, in his "Inspired" KJV revision, God knows us pretty good. The parable is given about The Kingdom being left to stewards, and after many days God sends his servants to reap the harvest, but the stewards run them out of the "vineyard", thinking to keep the "Kingdom" in their own hands. After killing and/or running off many servants, God finally decides to send His Son, thinking perhaps the stewards will reverence His Son. But the stewards conspire, saying "this is the heir, let's kill Him and everything will be ours", and do. Jesus told this parable to the chief priests and leaders of the Jewish faith in His days, and it made them mad, and they really did kill Him.
But the parable doesn't end there, it alludes to the same sequence of events recurring in the last days, and the Kingdom again being reorganized by God. So whatever "church" there is, with whatever authorities it might have, is apparently a sort of addictive power trip for humans given this stewardship, and God knows He'll need to do something about it all at some critical point in time.

I think the story is a caution about idolatry with organized churches and statist human management generally. . . . .Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Our convictions and ideals have somewhat the same character when we substitute our understanding for the actual being who is God.

Cliff Note version: There is a reason why "faith" amid valid uncertainties is the best way for us to make our way in life. It's really the only mode where God can teach us and lead us. And it makes it pretty clear that if we do choose to try to believe in God and do the best we know, it is because we do in the most fundamental sense just love God "for loves' sake only", as Elizabeth Barrett Browning penned her poem about true love.

This is one of the best uses of a religious text for an argument against the over-rationalization of God/creation that I've read in a while. Transcendental-Pastoral Mormonism... babe at his best. About as far as this board gets, while staying with Christian affects, from Hantlers and his transitive property.

My favorite thing about how some sweat lodges are run is after you've poured water and made your incantations to the ancestors (etc., etc.), is at the end, when you have a moment of silence dedicated to the great mystery of creation.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Joseph Smith started a "translation" of the Bible, but didn't finish it before he died. I put "translation" I quotes because although it's often called the Joseph Smith Translation (or JST), he wasn't really translating it from source material. It is sometimes also called an "inspired version", which I think is a better description. Most of the changes from KJV are adding or switching words here or there in order to better fit doctrine. For example, in the Old Testament where it says the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, Joseph Smith changed it to read that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. The official LDS church published scriptures uses the regular KJV text but has selections from Smith's inspired version as footnotes and an appendix.

Mixed in with that type of thing are a couple of items that came about during his translation, that we accept as full revelations, and those are included in the Pearl of Great Price (small canonical book of scripture in case your are unfamiliar worth it, kind of a supplement to the Doctrine and Covenants). Those include more info on Moses and more info on Matthew 24.

Thanks, C.

So with all the "a translation of a translation of a translation" that I always hear from LDS folks, is this different because JS was inspired and everyone else wasn't? (Of course I mean from the LDS perspective.)

 

[Dr. Jones]

This is one of the best uses of a religious text for an argument against the over-rationalization of God/creation that I've read in a while. Transcendental-Pastoral Mormonism... babe at his best. About as far as this board gets, while staying with Christian affects, from Hantlers and his transitive property.

My favorite thing about how some sweat lodges are run is after you've poured water and made your incantations to the ancestors (etc., etc.), is at the end, when you have a moment of silence dedicated to the great mystery of creation.

Seems like an odd response to a post that basically said have faith for the sake of having faith and believing what you will with or without evidence.
Without this obvious tenet what use is even having the word faith as part of our language?
Is there any language that exists that lacks this word/ideal from its normal course of life?