Sister Mary Lisa wrote:I'm not talking about wayward daughters. I'm asking straight up: what does the eternal celestial reward for women in LDS theology offer us as women? Really. I'm curious what you truly think about this, and you can put aside your admirable husband-who-adores-his-wife-and-wants-to-make-her-happy answers this time. I don't want to really hear the pat "it'll work itself out in the millenium" stuff, either. Half the population of the church is expected to embrace and strive for an eternal celestial reward that seems to leave much to be desired. Do YOU think the celestial fate of women is as rosy and perfect as The Nehor seems to think it will be for the sisters?
Don't despair Sister Mary. In Mormon cosmology, space and time do not exist for the righteous priesthood holder. Yes, he will have many wives, and you will be one of them (if you are faithful). However, absent space/time, your husband will simultaneously be able to fulfill the fantasies of each and every bride in his harem. You too will have romantic walks on the beach with your husband whenever you desire. There is nothing he cannot provide you. You will feel that all of his attention will be focused on you.
Did I mention cuddling?
So do you suspect heavenly mother actually *wanted* her husband to never mention her or include her in his guidance and commandments and omnipotence toward their children? (The cuddling and romance and fantasy fulfilment does indeed sound nice. That's what I'm totally saying is missing from the dangled carrot).
ROFL, Abman. I love it. "No, I don't have to make excuses for all these different aspects of LDS theology and history. I just put them on the shelf."
You know full well that the method by which you "know" that the LDS church is true cannot withstand scrutiny. You know that billions of other people also are convinced of the truthfulness of their beliefs, and yet are wrong. You know there's really no reliable, consistent, or even sensible way to continue justifying your own surety in this wider context. And yet you persist, because the belief system, as part of its defense mechanisms, has declared it a virtue to be stubborn in this way.
It's not a virtue. Putting all that stuff on the shelf isn't a virtue. Faith in something that's wrong is not a virtue. Stubbornly holding onto a set of beliefs which are untenable in the face of a harsh reality is not a virtue. I don't mean to sound too harsh, Abman, but your faith is not a virtue. Your faith is really just a form of loyalty, but loyalty to a set of false ideas, and loyalty toward usurpers who claim authority over you which they don't deserve, is not a virtue.
Bottom line is that you know as well as I do that the Mormon claim of revelation from God to the individual is simply a farce. It's not just a farce because it's unreliable and inconsistent. It's unreliable and inconsistent because the very source and origin of these "revelations" is so varied, and so fickle, ie: the minds of millions of different individuals. Of course Mormon "revelation" is so hard to pin down, when it's made up by millions of different members according to their own desires and wants, and understanding, on the fly! How could it not be so inconsistent?
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote:Faith in something that's wrong is not a virtue.
Agreed. In fact, the church teaches as much. Of course, faith can only be faith in things that are true.
Your faith is really just a form of loyalty, but loyalty to a set of false ideas, and loyalty toward usurpers who claim authority over you which they don't deserve, is not a virtue.
You really think the current LDS leaders are usurpers? I don't see it. Even if you could convince me that the church were true, there is no way I could ever consider these men as anything other than sincere. They dedicate their whole lives to the church and have done so before they knew they'd be called into big leadership positions.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Sethbag wrote:Faith in something that's wrong is not a virtue.
Agreed. In fact, the church teaches as much. Of course, faith can only be faith in things that are true.
Your faith is really just a form of loyalty, but loyalty to a set of false ideas, and loyalty toward usurpers who claim authority over you which they don't deserve, is not a virtue.
You really think the current LDS leaders are usurpers? I don't see it. Even if you could convince me that the church were true, there is no way I could ever consider these men as anything other than sincere. They dedicate their whole lives to the church and have done so before they knew they'd be called into big leadership positions.
Let's say you decide the church is not true. Let's say you decide that these leaders are just men, not having the ear of God and weekly meetings with Christ as the head of this church, as we all now assume. That thought alone makes me question the sincerity and motives of the leaders at the top. They are very sincere in trying to keep the corporation a success, that much is obvious. They are very sincere in growing their real estate ventures and keeping membership faithful tithe payers. If they are not receiving revelation as Joseph Smith seemed to get constantly, then they have other motives to keep us believing that they are still talking openly with God.
You can't tell me they aren't living pretty nice lifestyles and being taken care of by the church due to their status there. That's pretty good motive. They are revered and treated like celebrities everywhere they go. That's also pretty good motive. Their families are treated with respect and deference as well, which is also good motive. I don't blame them at all for continuing to hold up their special communion with God image vs. admitting they are just men.
Sister Mary Lisa wrote:Let's say you decide the church is not true. Let's say you decide that these leaders are just men, not having the ear of God and weekly meetings with Christ as the head of this church, as we all now assume. That thought alone makes me question the sincerity and motives of the leaders at the top. They are very sincere in trying to keep the corporation a success, that much is obvious. They are very sincere in growing their real estate ventures and keeping membership faithful tithe payers. If they are not receiving revelation as Joseph Smith seemed to get constantly, then they have other motives to keep us believing that they are still talking openly with God.
You can't tell me they aren't living pretty nice lifestyles and being taken care of by the church due to their status there. That's pretty good motive. They are revered and treated like celebrities everywhere they go. That's also pretty good motive. Their families are treated with respect and deference as well, which is also good motive. I don't blame them at all for continuing to hold up their special communion with God image vs. admitting they are just men.
Once they make it to that position, sure they could have less-than-noble motives. My point was that they would never have made it to their positions if they weren't sincere in the first place. They would never have been called, or they would have apostatized or something.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Sister Mary Lisa wrote:Let's say you decide the church is not true. Let's say you decide that these leaders are just men, not having the ear of God and weekly meetings with Christ as the head of this church, as we all now assume. That thought alone makes me question the sincerity and motives of the leaders at the top. They are very sincere in trying to keep the corporation a success, that much is obvious. They are very sincere in growing their real estate ventures and keeping membership faithful tithe payers. If they are not receiving revelation as Joseph Smith seemed to get constantly, then they have other motives to keep us believing that they are still talking openly with God.
You can't tell me they aren't living pretty nice lifestyles and being taken care of by the church due to their status there. That's pretty good motive. They are revered and treated like celebrities everywhere they go. That's also pretty good motive. Their families are treated with respect and deference as well, which is also good motive. I don't blame them at all for continuing to hold up their special communion with God image vs. admitting they are just men.
Once they make it to that position, sure they could have less-than-noble motives. My point was that they would never have made it to their positions if they weren't sincere in the first place. They would never have been called, or they would have apostatized or something.
Fascinating to me is if they get called, expecting some serious "mantle" to happen to them, and then .... ... .. . nada.
Imagine being fully believing and sincere and then getting to the position of Prophet or Apostle and realizing that for YOU, it's not happening. It'd be next to impossible to admit that nothing happens with you when you expect it should, like the prophet who never saw Jesus or God like he expected he would as soon as he became prophet. How do you tell the others who now think you're their prophet? You can't. So you play along, and that's that. And you enjoy the perks that come along with being head of an organization.
I also think that revelation, which we've been discussing so fully here, is something that humans are able to do and have happen to them, only I don't believe that the feelings they are getting are coming from another source besides inside themselves. So the apostles and prophets may be totally sincere in their teaching and talking about their "knowledge," just as sincere and truthful as the faithful Muslim woman who "knows" that Allah is pleased that she's wearing her hijab and praying five times a day and cleansing herself; just as the faithful Baptist feels blessed and special when he pays his tithing and starts seeing blessings in his life "miraculously" happen; just as the Catholic nun is certain that Jesus wants her to give her entire life to him as she is cloistered in a stone building with her sisters for the rest of her life.
As for being called, yes, the same ones calling the men into their beginning stages up the ladder to being prophet are getting "revelation" just as any other poor schmuck in the church who has to pray and try to call people to fill positions. Sometimes we are influenced in our choices by feelings we get and sometimes we feel inspired. And sometimes we are CERTAIN that we are being told by God to call that person, and the bishop thinks otherwise, which hinders our revelation. I have no doubt that this is also how it works at the top as well, complete with traces of who-you-know factored in.
Sethbag wrote:Your faith is really just a form of loyalty, but loyalty to a set of false ideas, and loyalty toward usurpers who claim authority over you which they don't deserve, is not a virtue.
You really think the current LDS leaders are usurpers? I don't see it. Even if you could convince me that the church were true, there is no way I could ever consider these men as anything other than sincere. They dedicate their whole lives to the church and have done so before they knew they'd be called into big leadership positions.
The current leadership is a product of the same deception. I believe GBH was sincere, and I believe Thommy Monson is sincere. But they were still usurpers. I'm going on this definition: "to use without authority or right; employ wrongfully". These men claim spiritual authority over you and all members of the church, which they do not deserve or legitimately hold, except inasmuch as the members cede it to them.
If a guy like Boyd K. Packer tells someone that they have to do what he says, because God granted him the authority, but God doesn't even exist, I don't know what else to call this other than a usurpation, even if Packer himself really believes his own claim.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Also, one more thing. The men at the very top have their ways of rationalizing away the lack of Jesus facetime. They all reassure each other that they "know" so thoroughly, and so completely, that the church is true that even if they were to be visited by Jesus that wouldn't improve the rock-solidness of their faith, so it doesn't really matter that they haven't seen him.
They've "felt his presence", as GBH answered in an interview when asked if he'd seen God. But even if he had seen God, we're told, these experiences would have been so sacred that it would be wrong to tell us about it - even though he claimed to be God's Prophet, Seer, and Revelator to the entire Earth, and a Special Witness of Jesus Christ. This is a defense mechanism designed to divert scrutiny or criticism of the lack of God visits.
These rationalizations and excuses are really just the same ones the rank and file use, with specific application to the "have you seen God, oh Special Witness of Jesus Christ?" problem.
I really like the metaphor of "mind virus" as applied to religious faith. It works on so many levels. What's interesting is that the human body has a many-layered defensive regime set up specifically to protect us from invasion by viruses and bacteria. We have our skin, which serves as a physical barrier to entry. We've got enzymes in our mouths and stomachs to break down and disable invaders. We've got the whole white blood cell, antibody, and other immune system things designed to recognize invaders and engulf and disable them, the lymph system to carry these things away and concentrate and eliminate them, etc.
The bacteria and viruses which succeed in sickening us are the ones which have evolved defense mechanisms capable of circumventing or avoiding the obstacles the human body places in their way. I've been reading a book, Justinian's Flea, which is discussing the factors that led to the fatal weakening of the Eastern Roman Empire under the emperor Justinian. The author's thesis is that the bubonic plague contributed enormously to this. The bacterium that causes this plague, y. pestis, has among other things the ability to produce a chemical that neutralizes the chemicals that the white blood cells typically use to kill viruses and bacteria. They successfully engulf the y. pestis bacteria, but fail to kill them, and then concentrate them in the lymph system, where they take off and end up killing their victims.
What's really interesting is that it's like a sort of arms race between the defense mechanisms the body uses to protect itself, and the mechanisms that viruses and bateria use to circumvent the body's defenses. The comparison with faith is an apt one. The justifications and rationalizations, and explanations that believers use to circumvent criticism, "protect" the faithful from recognizing that their beliefs aren't really true, etc. are just like the mechanisms bacteria and viruses use to circumvent the immune system.
So many things make so much sense in light of this comparison. It doesn't take very much serious introspection to begin to recognize a great many mindsets, attitudes, responses, defenses, etc. that members in the church use to dispell doubt, avoid critical examination of their faith, etc. as mere defense mechanisms that their faith has evolved in order to facilitate propogation of the faith. All religious belief systems evolve these same kinds of defense mechanisms, or else they fail. The belief systems that have stood the test of time are the ones that have been successful in their evolution of sufficient defense mechanisms - the unsuccessful ones went away already. It's just like evolution in species. Why are species so good at reproducing? Answer: because the ones bad at reproducing died off a long time ago.
Abman, you're a smart enough guy that you can see and understand these things. You'll have to deal with some defense mechanisms at first which attempt to prevent you from seriously engaging in this kind of introspection, but if you see that this is going on, and deliberately disengage those defenses, it doesn't take that long before it all starts to unravel before your eyes. It becomes pretty obvious what was going on the whole time.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Once they make it to that position, sure they could have less-than-noble motives. My point was that they would never have made it to their positions if they weren't sincere in the first place. They would never have been called, or they would have apostatized or something.
So you think the Popes have known that they aren't what the catholic church claims them to be?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.