A Wider view of Mormonism

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_karl61
_Emeritus
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:29 pm

Post by _karl61 »

Roger Morrison wrote:Hi Guy, you wrote:

I am so gullible: I actually went to amazon to search for the book - LOL.



Your search will be rewarded! PM me your mailing address, ASAP, I leave for your southland end of October :-) and a pre-paid, complimentary copy will be, "in the mail."

Amazon wouldn't handle the book because of the title word, "Copulating". Hard to believe, eh... Warm regards, Roger


Roger,

it's a real book - Okay I will PM you. You should really consider doing the bloggy thing. I would read it.

regards,

thestyleguy
I want to fly!
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

The "blog thing" sounds like a good-idea. Maybe 2? One for the Christian-social critique. The other, the human struggle to succeed in the world of sex, greed, violence, corruption and goodness--sort of the real world. The first, the ideal world. Will ever the twain meet? Of course :-) Would the good Doctor allow two? Wonders Roger
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Post by _moksha »

From David Bokovoy at the MAD forum:

Is there ever a good reason to abandon Mormonism?

Not if one has obtained a spiritual witness from God concerning the truthfulness of the Church. Still, throughout our lives, many of us encounter pieces of doctrinal and/or historical information that appears to indicate that we have been deceived, that in fact Mormonism is not true.

In these moments, perhaps before doubting our spiritual convictions, we should approach our concerns from the perspective of a paradigm shift, meaning a change in the basic assumptions concerning Mormonism that we hold to be true.

In other words, perhaps the only thing that we have encountered that is untrue is our basic assumption concerning the doctrine and/or historical information rather than the Church itself.

Rather than abandoning the Church of Jesus Christ, I believe that every issue that ever troubles our members may simply require a paradigm shift. I could provide many examples that support my view, but the one that comes immediately to mind is an experience that I had with a student who came to the conclusion that the Church cannot be true because of something portrayed in the temple ceremony.

I will not discuss the details of temple worship, but suffice it to say that the student felt troubled over the fact that in D&C 129, the Lord reveals that “when a messenger comes saying he has a message from God,” we should offer him our hand and “request him to shake hands” (v. 4). The revelation states that if the messenger is a spirit of a just man that the angel will not move to shake hands with us, “for it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message” (v. 7).

Without going into details, the student felt that this revelation contradicts part of the ritual portrayal featured in the endowment. The individual felt troubled enough by this “contradiction” that he/or she had come to the conclusion that the Church is not true.

In this instance, I tied to explain that perhaps what is not true is not the Church itself, but rather the paradigm that the student used to interpret the endowment. The student assumed that the ritual presentation provided in the endowment was a literal portrayal of the events that actually occurred in the Garden of Eden.

I explained that since I do not hold that assumption that I have never found the contradiction troubling. Rather than a literal portrayal of actual events, I view the endowment—and the story of Eden for that matter—as a ritual drama intended to covey important doctrine and principles concerning our spiritual journey into the presence of God.

Hence, according to my assumptions the contradiction that troubled the student was simply a symbolic portrayal that the student had misinterpreted.

Of course many other illustrations of paradigm shifts could be provided. I have had to employ a variety of such shifts when faced with new evidence that contradicted my assumptions. Rather than doubting the Church, however, I have always doubted the paradigms I have used to interpret Mormonism.

Speaking personally, I view paradigm shifts as a far superior course of action than abandoning one’s spiritual convictions.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

Elderly men are honored as "high priests."


Crap, that just ruined my day. I'm 42 years old, and he's calling me "elderly."
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

From Moksha, pasting D. B.:

David Bokovoy at the MAD forum:


Quote:
Is there ever a good reason to abandon Mormonism?

Not if one has obtained a spiritual witness from God concerning the truthfulness of the Church. Still, throughout our lives, many of us encounter pieces of doctrinal and/or historical information that appears to indicate that we have been deceived, that in fact Mormonism is not true.

In these moments, perhaps before doubting our spiritual convictions, we should approach our concerns from the perspective of a paradigm shift, meaning a change in the basic assumptions concerning Mormonism that we hold to be true.

In other words, perhaps the only thing that we have encountered that is untrue is our basic assumption concerning the doctrine and/or historical information rather than the Church itself.


I ask, "is there ever a good reason to accept Mormonism?" I answer, "of course for the one accepting it."

That being the case, "of course there are good reasons to abandon Mormonism, for the one abandoning it."

Since DB didn't ask what such "good reasons" might be, but prefers to assume there must not be any, as "he" hasn't found just-cause to do so; i can only wonder, "how sincere is his question?"

Mok, maybe ya can relay back?? Warm regards, Roger
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Post by _moksha »

Roger, there is a thread on the Terrestrial forum by Runtu, in which David Bokovoy is taking part in under the name Enuma Elish.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

Runtu wrote:
Elderly men are honored as "high priests."


Crap, that just ruined my day. I'm 42 years old, and he's calling me "elderly."


Hey, I'm 43. We don't get older....we're like fine wine, my friend. We get better.

;)
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

liz3564 wrote:
Runtu wrote:
Elderly men are honored as "high priests."


Crap, that just ruined my day. I'm 42 years old, and he's calling me "elderly."


Hey, I'm 43. We don't get older....we're like fine wine, my friend. We get better.

;)


Not to 1-up-person ya, Liz, but at 75... da wine is even finer. Hang in der kid! ;-) Warm regards, Roger
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

Roger Morrison wrote:
liz3564 wrote:
Runtu wrote:
Elderly men are honored as "high priests."


Crap, that just ruined my day. I'm 42 years old, and he's calling me "elderly."


Hey, I'm 43. We don't get older....we're like fine wine, my friend. We get better.

;)


Not to 1-up-person ya, Liz, but at 75... da wine is even finer. Hang in der kid! ;-) Warm regards, Roger


Roger, you're 75? I thought you were much younger.

;)
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Thanks! I owe ya :-) Warm regards, Roger XXOO ;-)
Post Reply