Why is it that you’re here, MG?

[Limnor]

Sorry, my friend - this is my usual bit of a jumble that may or may not be answering your question.

I didn’t think of this as a jumble—I think it’s an appropriate critique of the “institutional” model of revelation. Once “speaking as a man” only ever shows up after failure you can be sure some sort of damage control is underway, and it’s unreasonable to blame that on the listener.

I’m still trying to understand the default to the Mormon definition of God over, let’s say “creedal,” God, following exit from the system. If it’s clear that Joseph falsely portrayed revelation, is there room for true revelation?

[malkie]

Sorry, my friend - this is my usual bit of a jumble that may or may not be answering your question.

I didn’t think of this as a jumble—I think it’s an appropriate critique of the “institutional” model of revelation. Once “speaking as a man” only ever shows up after failure you can be sure some sort of damage control is underway, and it’s unreasonable to blame that on the listener.

I’m still trying to understand the default to the Mormon definition of God over, let’s say “creedal,” God, following exit from the system. If it’s clear that Joseph falsely portrayed revelation, is there room for true revelation?

I'm not sure if you're asking me about my usage, or just remarking on exmos' tendencies.

For me, I try to make it clear when I'm talking about the specific characteristics claimed by Mormons for their god, or just a generic god entity, or generic Christian god. I see the Mormon and creedal versions as quite distinct, due to Mormonism's peculiar version of the gods. When other Christians say that Mormonism is not a Christian religion, they are often referring to the large discrepancy between the Mormon god and the relatively uniform biblical god they jointly sort of agree on, and the fact that several GAs have said clearly that Mormon Jesus is not the same as generic Christianity's Jesus:

Fifteenth President Gordon B. Hinckley agreed with Brockbank:

In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints “do not believe in the traditional Christ.” “No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages”

10 Reasons Why the Jesus of Mormonism is Not the Same as the Jesus of the Bible

[huckelberry]

Delete fragment posted in error

[huckelberry]

...Dr W thread about experiments has some value to my thinking yet I also think it overly reductive. There was some sort of tin hat and electrodes which made people feel all spiritual, whatever that is...

I will have to strongly disagree wth this summarization of DwW's presentation. I particularly do not recall any "tin hat and electrodes" portion of his discussion.

...Yet it is true that none of my internal experiences have no connection to external influences.they are all interaction. I should therefore be asking what external sources are a part of my spiritual experience, not simply being satisfied that they happen inside of me...

I don't understand at all why you conclude "I should therefore be asking what external sources are a part..." Could you expound more on how you concluded that?

Marcus, we could be thinking of different threads, it was a few years back. I am remembering experiments with a head covering supplying stimulation and recording. It's material may well have not been tin.

I thought my comment about outside sources was pretty simple. Considering patriarchal blessing outside sources are important. It is a special moment , moment time individual understood as sacred. The hands on head are neureologically powerful. The words though somewhat standardized have both individual and social meaning. These are all inputs contributing to creating a spiritual experience.

[Marcus]

..I thought my comment about outside sources was pretty simple. Considering patriarchal blessing outside sources are important. It is a special moment , moment time individual understood as sacred. The hands on head are neureologically powerful. The words though somewhat standardized have both individual and social meaning. These are all inputs contributing to creating a spiritual experience.

This is exactly what DrW was talking about when he was describing human experiences and responses generated inside one's brain as being NOT supernaturally caused. A patriarchal blessing in the LDS church comes from another human being, and the hands on the head are only 'neurologically powerful' if you are indoctrinated to think that. The term 'external' is being used in this case to mean originating from outside human sources. A group delusion doesn't qualify.

And speaking of patriarchal blessings, 'standardized' doesn't even begin to explain their generic words and structure. A horoscope published in a newspaper for one's astrological sign has as much meaning as an LDS patriarchal blessing, if one is so inclined to interpret it that way. If it was a special moment for you, i can respect that, but it doesn't mean it came from a source external to human experience. In my opinion, it is part and parcel of the human response DrW referred to--not a supernatural input.

One more comment about the 'social meaning' in patriarchal blessings. Yes, in mine also there is considerable 'social meaning,' wrapped in the politely but stiflingly sexist blueprint of how Mormons expect genders to behave, based on the stereotypes of the religion. This 'social meaning' is not comforting nor supportive for those who don't fit the stereotypes the LDS would like to impose, and hopefully not for anyone who recognizes the inappropriateness of the stereotyping.

[I Have Questions]

..I thought my comment about outside sources was pretty simple. Considering patriarchal blessing outside sources are important. It is a special moment , moment time individual understood as sacred. The hands on head are neureologically powerful. The words though somewhat standardized have both individual and social meaning. These are all inputs contributing to creating a spiritual experience.

This is exactly what DrW was talking about when he was describing human experiences and responses generated inside one's brain as being NOT supernaturally caused. A patriarchal blessing in the LDS church comes from another human being, and the hands on the head are only 'neurologically powerful' if you are indoctrinated to think that. The term 'external' is being used in this case to mean originating from outside human sources. A group delusion doesn't qualify.

And speaking of patriarchal blessings, 'standardized' doesn't even begin to explain their generic words and structure. A horoscope published in a newspaper for one's astrological sign has as much meaning as an LDS patriarchal blessing, if one is so inclined to interpret it that way. If it was a special moment for you, i can respect that, but it doesn't mean it came from a source external to human experience. In my opinion, it is part and parcel of the human response DrW referred to--not a supernatural input.

One more comment about the 'social meaning' in patriarchal blessings. Yes, in mine also there is considerable 'social meaning,' wrapped in the politely but stiflingly sexist blueprint of how Mormons expect genders to behave, based on the stereotypes of the religion. This 'social meaning' is not comforting nor supportive for those who don't fit the stereotypes the LDS would like to impose, and hopefully not for anyone who recognizes the inappropriateness of the stereotyping.

I recall a very stern instruction to young people to not share the content of their patriarchal blessing with anyone else. When the social media age happened people started sharing their patriarchal blessings and it was seen that they are all remarkably similar. As if the people giving the blessings were following the exact same script.

[malkie]

...
I recall a very stern instruction to young people to not share the content of their patriarchal blessing with anyone else. When the social media age happened people started sharing their patriarchal blessings and it was seen that they are all remarkably similar. As if the people giving the blessings were following the exact same script.

Not all Patriarchal Blessings are formulaic. I've seen one that would raise some eyebrows. But a lot - perhaps the vast majority - are.

If you'd like to see some actual examples, with a bit of content analysis, there's almost 400 at: Patriarchal Blessing Revelator This will confirm the high degree of similarity in many "individual" blessings. Common expressions should not be surprising, considering that (at least 20+ years ago) it's been part of the "training" for new patriarchs to study blessings given by their predecessors.

Blessings are usually recorded and transcribed, and a copy sent to HQ.

Generally once in their lifetime each Mormon receives a special blessing from an ordained patriarch. This website is an attempt to collect as many of these blessing as possible, compare them with each other, and assess trends. To obtain a copy of your patriarchal blessing and that of your deceased ancestors you need to have an account at churchofjesuschrist.org.

However, my ex-wife & I, and several people we knew, each received two: after we were given our blessings, the stake patriarch left the church and refused to return the tapes and transcripts. Looking back (and looking at the transcript of my second blessing ), I wonder if I "broke" the poor guy's abilities.

You could ask an AI to generate one for you. In fact, I'm going to do that later today, and see if it lines up at all.

[Limnor]

I'm not sure if you're asking me about my usage, or just remarking on exmos' tendencies.

Both. I’m not sure if it’s an “automatic-ish” byproduct and want to explore and think through those impacts and implications.

[Limnor]

..I thought my comment about outside sources was pretty simple. Considering patriarchal blessing outside sources are important. It is a special moment , moment time individual understood as sacred. The hands on head are neureologically powerful. The words though somewhat standardized have both individual and social meaning. These are all inputs contributing to creating a spiritual experience.

This is exactly what DrW was talking about when he was describing human experiences and responses generated inside one's brain as being NOT supernaturally caused. A patriarchal blessing in the LDS church comes from another human being, and the hands on the head are only 'neurologically powerful' if you are indoctrinated to think that. The term 'external' is being used in this case to mean originating from outside human sources. A group delusion doesn't qualify.

And speaking of patriarchal blessings, 'standardized' doesn't even begin to explain their generic words and structure. A horoscope published in a newspaper for one's astrological sign has as much meaning as an LDS patriarchal blessing, if one is so inclined to interpret it that way. If it was a special moment for you, i can respect that, but it doesn't mean it came from a source external to human experience. In my opinion, it is part and parcel of the human response DrW referred to--not a supernatural input.

One more comment about the 'social meaning' in patriarchal blessings. Yes, in mine also there is considerable 'social meaning,' wrapped in the politely but stiflingly sexist blueprint of how Mormons expect genders to behave, based on the stereotypes of the religion. This 'social meaning' is not comforting nor supportive for those who don't fit the stereotypes the LDS would like to impose, and hopefully not for anyone who recognizes the inappropriateness of the stereotyping.

This is fascinating

[I Have Questions]

...
I recall a very stern instruction to young people to not share the content of their patriarchal blessing with anyone else. When the social media age happened people started sharing their patriarchal blessings and it was seen that they are all remarkably similar. As if the people giving the blessings were following the exact same script.

Not all Patriarchal Blessings are formulaic. I've seen one that would raise some eyebrows. But a lot - perhaps the vast majority - are.

If you'd like to see some actual examples, with a bit of content analysis, there's almost 400 at: Patriarchal Blessing Revelator This will confirm the high degree of similarity in many "individual" blessings. Common expressions should not be surprising, considering that (at least 20+ years ago) it's been part of the "training" for new patriarchs to study blessings given by their predecessors.

Blessings are usually recorded and transcribed, and a copy sent to HQ.

Generally once in their lifetime each Mormon receives a special blessing from an ordained patriarch. This website is an attempt to collect as many of these blessing as possible, compare them with each other, and assess trends. To obtain a copy of your patriarchal blessing and that of your deceased ancestors you need to have an account at churchofjesuschrist.org.

However, my ex-wife & I, and several people we knew, each received two: after we were given our blessings, the stake patriarch left the church and refused to return the tapes and transcripts. Looking back (and looking at the transcript of my second blessing ), I wonder if I "broke" the poor guy's abilities.

You could ask an AI to generate one for you. In fact, I'm going to do that later today, and see if it lines up at all.

I love the two little, but all encompassing caveats that are found within the 2016 Instructions to Patriarchs from your link malkie

Although a patriarchal blessing is a sacred guideline from the Lord to help a person through life, a person should not expect it to outline all that will happen or to answer all questions. If a possible future development, such as a mission or marriage, is not stated in a patriarchal blessing, that does not mean it will not occur.

A patriarchal blessing should be viewed from an eternal perspective. Blessings that are promised may not be fulfilled in this life but may be realized in eternity. The Lord will fulfill them in the time and manner that will be for the person's greatest benefit and that is consistent with a faithful life.