NY Times blog piece on FLDS and LDS

[Solon]

Waters, you're being retarded. Under the Banner of Heaven was a really interesting book. It actually takes a stab at interpreting the LDS church's associations with violence - both aggressive and defensive - through its history. While I don't think Krakauer is a very good writer stylistically, he makes a really valid point. The LDS church is historically a violent church. (although this is as much a result of its 19th century roots as anything else, IMO).

Your hyperbolic dismissal of any usefulness in his book betrays a hint of that fanaticism you so often mock on this board.

[fusnik11]

I spoke with Krakauer shortly after publication of Under the Banner of Heaven in SLC.

He struggles as a writer in telling complete stories. He's a wonderful story teller and has written the most popular, celebrated and possibly controversial mountaineering book of all time. Now, nobody has the ability to write a book without an extremely biased viewpoint, but he particularly, struggles removing his personal feelings and viewpoints from a 'research piece.' Thus his works, Into Thin Air, Into the Wild, UBOF are more like movie scripts than bona fide pieces of research pieces.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Solon

Waters, you're being retarded. Under the Banner of Heaven was a really interesting book. It actually takes a stab at interpreting the LDS church's associations with violence - both aggressive and defensive - through its history. While I don't think Krakauer is a very good writer stylistically, he makes a really valid point. The LDS church is historically a violent church. (although this is as much a result of its 19th century roots as anything else, IMO).

Your hyperbolic dismissal of any usefulness in his book betrays a hint of that fanaticism you so often mock on this board.

actually my conclusion is the opposite. He is a good writer, but he didn't make a convincing point.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

How about here:

I guess "just about everywhere else" and "a lot of others" can be considered qualifying language, but taken in context, you are implying that LDS are fairly unique in this world on personal revelation. Considering the disparity in sheer numbers between LDS and Evangelicals as well as many other religions (Christian or not) that allow for Godly inspiration, I think you are wrong.

I think this is a matter of degrees, perhaps. "Godly inspiration" can easily mean nice feelings from sitting on a hill thinking about God, perhaps even a confirmation on a question posed along the lines of "Lord is this the right decision for me?"

I'm referring to the historic LDS D&C revelation 'format' the Laffertys and others in the School of the Prophets used.

"Thus sayeth the Lord..."

This phraseology implies direct, unambiguous communication from the Almighty (in English, no less), with a certainty not really open to dispute. This is the sort of revelation Krakauer referred to (I believe), not the more innocuous sort.

What other religious groups in America today use such strident language? Even the LDS church no longer uses "Thus sayeth the Lord..." and Krakauer's book was about the more fundamentalist strain of LDS, wasn't it?

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

I think this is a matter of degrees, perhaps. "Godly inspiration" can easily mean nice feelings from sitting on a hill thinking about God, perhaps even a confirmation on a question posed along the lines of "Lord is this the right decision for me?"

I'm referring to the historic LDS D&C revelation 'format' the Laffertys and others in the School of the Prophets used.

"Thus sayeth the Lord..."

This phraseology implies direct, unambiguous communication from the Almighty (in English, no less), with a certainty not really open to dispute. This is the sort of revelation Krakauer referred to (I believe), not the more innocuous sort.

What other religious groups in America today use such strident language? Even the LDS church no longer uses "Thus sayeth the Lord..." and Krakauer's book was about the more fundamentalist strain of LDS, wasn't it?

What is the more fundamentalist strain of which you speak? More conservative folks within the mainstream or those who are outside of The Church a la FLDS? I'm sure who you are talking about.

Growing up and throughout my life in The Church confirming for oneself commands or revelations from authorities was been a strong message. This has been compounded by emphasis on where one's stewardship begins and ends (I can receive inspiration/revelation for me, my family, my calling but not beyond that). Hence when Sister Ostler came to our home one day with a special revelation she had receive for my mother, my parents quickly dismissed Sister Ostler as the kook that she was (although the experience was a bit disconcerting).

Look, I don't know how things are done in the church you currently attend, but around here it is common for people to talk of being called to a certain task. This goes beyond "nice feelings." Indeed, the whole initial born again experience is a tangible, unambiguous physical/emotional communication from God that is so impactful that people recall the specific date on which this revelation was received. Not to do so can be evidence of lack of sincerity or even authenticity.

We're not alone in our belief and acceptance of Heavenly communication. We just manage it much better.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Growing up and throughout my life in The Church confirming for oneself commands or revelations from authorities was been a strong message.

You are right, but isn't this a bit like Saddam Hussein holding an election? In other words, it is not a test of the command or revelation but of your loyalty and obedience.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

You are right, but isn't this a bit like Saddam Hussein holding an election? In other words, it is not a test of the command or revelation but of your loyalty and obedience.

I concede your point to an extent, but it certainly is not as cut and dried as you portray. How many of our coreligionists have turned down the most basic requirement of obedience (a church calling) because they feel differently? Or opt to skip meetings because they feel they need to take care of something more important? What about all those faithful pioneers that when asked to go off to one of the far edges of Brighams empire decided Salt Lake City was more to their liking? If blind obedience is evidence of a cult, we've got one of the worst ones in history. Asking people to do their own verification acts as a check for unrighteous dominion.

One of the most wonderful things Joseph did was to subject himself to the authority of the church he restored. How many meglomaniacs do that?

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

What is the more fundamentalist strain of which you speak? More conservative folks within the mainstream or those who are outside of The Church a la FLDS? I'm sure who you are talking about.

Growing up and throughout my life in The Church confirming for oneself commands or revelations from authorities was been a strong message. This has been compounded by emphasis on where one's stewardship begins and ends (I can receive inspiration/revelation for me, my family, my calling but not beyond that). Hence when Sister Ostler came to our home one day with a special revelation she had receive for my mother, my parents quickly dismissed Sister Ostler as the kook that she was (although the experience was a bit disconcerting).

Look, I don't know how things are done in the church you currently attend, but around here it is common for people to talk of being called to a certain task. This goes beyond "nice feelings." Indeed, the whole initial born again experience is a tangible, unambiguous physical/emotional communication from God that is so impactful that people recall the specific date on which this revelation was received. Not to do so can be evidence of lack of sincerity or even authenticity.

We're not alone in our belief and acceptance of Heavenly communication. We just manage it much better.

I grew up LDS, decided it didn't make sense for me at about age 16 - it was the blacks & the priesthood issue that just couldn't pass the test of legitimacy. Been through the 20s & 30s where hardened views about things begin to soften, things aren't quite so black & white. I have nothing against the LDS church or Mormons, and there is much to be admired about the LDS culture, people & faith. (I've settled into being an "optimistic agnostic"... I believe in God, in a higher power, probably something we can barely comprehend, but I go to a black baptist church)

That said, I find ideological discussions / debates about LDS theology to be utterly fascinating. Given my cultural, social & historical anchor point - the LDS community - it is fascinating to witness the ideology evolve. Looking backward, it is likewise interesting to see how yesterday's ideology evolved from the thinking of its prior era.

In the early days of this last dispensation prophetic pronouncment was very clear & voluminous, preparing for the imminent return of the Savior. After the first few prophets, things settled down quite a bit, it appears, based on the number of prophecies, revelations & even common thought. When I was a kid all adults who influenced me were adamant that the 2nd coming would occur before the year 2000. That certainty has given way to a much more conservative posture, and the same could be said about the general rate of revelations, prophecies, et al.

What does this mean? Might it mean the foundation for the last days is in place & the Lord's church efficiently works its missionary effort as the plan moves forward? Most Fundies assert the church is in apostacy, witnessed by the dearth of prophecy / revelation, and the fact the church is generally accepted in so many nations around the world. "Satan knows he doesn't have to work so hard because the church is in apostacy, and this is reflected in a generally less hostile world for Mormons."

(Again, very interesting, if nothing else)

[MikeWaters]

I never met a single Mormon who was adamant that the second coming was going to happen before 2000.

How bizarre that for you "all adults" who influenced you believed this.

You are again painting a picture that doesn't exist.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I never met a single Mormon who was adamant that the second coming was going to happen before 2000.

How bizarre that for you "all adults" who influenced you believed this.

You are again painting a picture that doesn't exist.

I can relate to GBU's experience. Growing up in Utah there was a lot of talk of the second coming and signs of the times. I don't know that everyone thought the great event would happen before 2000, but it was surely going to happen at some time shortly before or after.

With that there was a lot of talk of going back to Missouri and that we would probably walk back. I guess it made sense since we walked to Utah.

Originally Posted by KiteRider

Church culture was very different when I was growing up. In my home ward people talked about seeing spirits walking around in the temple, teaching the dead who would then receive our vicarious ordinances. People claimed to see and speak with these people in our temples.

The memory of these stories had me really freaked out the day I received my own endowment, but I'm pretty sure everyone I saw that day were very much alive (spirits don't snore, do they?).

This still goes on. I know two people that have reported seeing spirits in conjunction with doing work for the dead.