Reorganized LDS

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by scottie

Seattle,

When you look back, what was the first thing that gave you a serious doubt about the LDS church and your testimony? I'm sure you've previously posted that, but I do want to search thru all of your posts.

Scottie

There was no "first thing," no moment of epiphany per se. I would say very generally that during college I became alienated from the LDS Church. If you're getting what you're supposed to get out of college two things happen:

First, you come away with an outlook of approaching the world with an uncompromisingly critical eye. Over two thousand years ago the Roman Lucretius wrote, "Our terrors and our darkness of mind must be dispelled by insight into nature and a scheme of systematic study." Korihor is a good example of someone with this outlook, and Joseph Smith was certainly aware of it. Socrates also had it. Lucretius noted that he learned his philosphy from the Greeks. The first one was Socrates, who said, "All I know is that I know nothing," and "the unexamined life is not worth living." That is what I am talking about, and this mindset very much appealed to me; I remember when I was hardly more than a tot (had to be before I was six, because we still lived overseas), and this wierd feeling would come over me that really mommy and daddy didn't, in fact couldn't have, the slightest idea about the cosmos. In other words, as a child instinct told me things weren't nearly as pat as mommy and daddy pretended. At these moments I'd get an intensely pleasurable sensation, and I remember gazing at my hand. So I was born a skeptic, and loved my college experience for introducing me into that culture.

Second, you develop an enhanced appreciation for high culture, everything from music, to art, to literature, to philosphy.

Ultimately, though, for me it was a value judgment. The values I learned in college have given me sublime spiritual satisfaction and release. But I've seen that the first value is at war with Mormonism, and the second is partially at war with it and much of the balance separated from Mormonism by a gulf. That is how I feel, anyway, in my marrow. Nobody is going to change my mind at this point.

In short, I decided I couldn't be happy in the Church because of what it was at a cellular level. Again, this is a personal value judgment and not anything anyone can really argue with me about. In order for the Church to appeal to me it would have to be something completely different from what it is. Of course I know many people who are just wired differently, and that's fine. Many of them see the same things I do but they ignore the Church's origins and stay with it because it makes them happy; for whatever reason the Church makes them happy though it has detracted from my happiness.

Bound up in what makes people happy in the Church may be familial and even career motivations, or psychological issues. I'm also willing to allow for something mysterious and sublime that just hasn't reached me. I've found that special mysterious thing elsewhere, in fact, that the Church just interferes with my accessing it. But that's just me.

By the way, as I've written before, I didn't even know about the Book of Abraham papyrus until long after I separated from the LDS Church; the same is true for when I read Brodie's book. My rejection of the Church is about who I am at a deep level.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

No apostate ever admits, "well, I was really horny and it didn't fit well with my value system to go hump a lot of gals, so out of a desire to laid more often, and so I could feel good about having a few beers, I just kinda gave it up."

This is as simple minded as if someone said all religious people are uneductated or lack the capacity to think critically or are responding to peer pressure or have a screw loose.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

There was no "first thing," no moment of epiphany per se. I would say very generally that during college I became alienated from the LDS Church. If you're getting what you're supposed to get out of college two things happen:

First, you come away with an outlook of approaching the world with an uncompromisingly critical eye. Over two thousand years ago the Roman Lucretius wrote, "Our terrors and our darkness of mind must be dispelled by insight into nature and a scheme of systematic study." Korihor is a good example of someone with this outlook, and Joseph Smith was certainly aware of it. Socrates also had it. Lucretius noted that he learned his philosphy from the Greeks. The first one was Socrates, who said, "All I know is that I know nothing," and "the unexamined life is not worth living." That is what I am talking about, and this mindset very much appealed to me; I remember when I was hardly more than a tot (had to be before I was six, because we still lived overseas), and this wierd feeling would come over me that really mommy and daddy didn't, in fact couldn't have, the slightest idea about the cosmos. In other words, as a child instinct told me things weren't nearly as pat as mommy and daddy pretended. At these moments I'd get an intensely pleasurable sensation, and I remember gazing at my hand. So I was born a skeptic, and loved my college experience for introducing me into that culture.

Second, you develop an enhanced appreciation for high culture, everything from music, to art, to literature, to philosphy.

Ultimately, though, for me it was a value judgment. The values I learned in college have given me sublime spiritual satisfaction and release. But I've seen that the first value is at war with Mormonism, and the second is partially at war with it and much of the balance separated from Mormonism by a gulf. That is how I feel, anyway, in my marrow. Nobody is going to change my mind at this point.

In short, I decided I couldn't be happy in the Church because of what it was at a cellular level. Again, this is a personal value judgment and not anything anyone can really argue with me about. In order for the Church to appeal me it would have to be something completely different from what it is. Of course I know many people who are just wired differently, and that's fine. Many of them see the same things I do but they ignore the Church's origins and stay with it because it makes them happy; for whatever reason the Church makes them happy though it has detracted from my happiness.

Bound up in what makes people happy in the Church may be familial and even career motivations, or psychological issues. I'm also willing to allow for something mysterious and sublime that just hasn't reached me. I've found that special mysterious thing elsewhere, in fact, that the Church just interferes with my accessing it. But that's just me.

By the way, as I've written before, I didn't even know about the Book of Abraham papyrus until long after I separated from the LDS Church; the same is true for when I read Brodie's book. My rejection of the Church is about who I am at a deep level.

An honest, serious reposnse, it appears (although even so you take a dig at believers by stating that the basis for their belief includes a decison to 'ignore' the origin of the church, but that's another matter), which is very interesting. The issue of 'wiring' is one that I wonder about sometimes and would be worth discussing at some point. However, in reading your response the question that comes to my mind (and we have discussed this before) in light of your world view is why you choose to spend your time with so many believers? Don't misunderstand, I don't object and I enjoy your contributions (usually) here, but why are you here?

[All-American]

Here goes nothing.

I am intrigued by Fusnik’s shot:

Originally Posted by Fusnik

I think those that stay in the church after realizing that the facsimiles are Osiris and not Abraham demonstrate large amounts of faith.

If you ever show a Catholic a picture of a bearded man holding keys and/or a pastoral staff, they will immediately inform you that the man is St. Peter. If he is holding a sword, the man is indisputably Paul. These symbols stand out as unique identifiers, and are used for various purposes. Among these is the obvious one: an uneducated, illiterate public could immediately identify the man without having to read his name. More importantly, they stood as physical reminders of an important aspect of the man who held them. Peter’s keys, for example, reminded Christians that he had received the keys of the kingdom from Christ, while Paul’s sword hinted at his future martyrdom by beheading.

To make things interesting, we note that such symbols are not exclusively limited to those single individuals, even when the connotations and meanings are the same. The pastoral staff used by St. Peter was also used as part of the papal vestments, and at times Peter himself is depicted wearing papal robes. This interchanging of symbols is not meant to confuse characters, nor does anybody insist that any person shown holding keys is by necessity St. Peter. The similarities are meant to show just that: similarities, whether they be of office or of characteristics. (Regarding the symbolic nature of the facsimiles, the fact that pictures are included when an apparently legible text is also included hints at information being transferred to a people that was not necessarily expected to be able to read it.)

This is nothing new, of course, especially not for a religious people. Religious imagery is one of the most utilized methods of capturing interest. Uncle Tom gave up his life to save others, converting two sinners as he died—obviously, he is acting as a Christ figure, though none would mistake him for Jesus Himself. Mormons are especially notorious for drawing upon religious themes: temples, the exodus, the Jordan River, the Tabernacle, and so forth. Neither is this necessarily exclusively the work of religionists; one could write entire books on the religious imagery used in Star Wars, The Matrix, Superman, or any other popular media.

Fusnik says that the facsimile is of Osiris, and not of Abraham. Egyptologists state this belief (quite correctly, by the way) because he is doing all of the things that Osiris should be doing. The picture of Osiris shows his typical headdress or crown and his arms are placed in a typical position in which he holds a sceptre and a flail. Writing on Facsimile 3 has also been translated by Egyptologists who find the name of Osiris, and not Abraham. So, yes, this is Osiris.

The question Mormon apologists then throw out is this: is the facsimile Osiris and Osiris alone? Here is where we begin falling into the mental gymnastics that we were warned about earlier, and so the point will be briefly stated. The question cannot be definitely proven, but Occam’s razor is certainly unkind to the Mormons. When all indications are that the figure is Osiris, the simplest explanation for the system is that it is, indeed, Osiris, and is no more Abraham from the book of Genesis than it is Abraham Lincoln.

But we must nevertheless insist upon two caveats. First, the more it can be shown that the figures are straying from the norm, rather than conforming to it, the greater the possibility that the figures may be drawing upon archetypes rather than being specifically identified with them. We won’t dwell on this one, since admittedly, if it could be shown that there was absolutely zero variation from the archetype, Mormons would not be dissuaded because of the second point, but it is useful to point out, since plenty of scholars have brought it up.

The more important point is this: if the suggested interpretation can be shown to be consistent with behaviors of the characters in the facsimiles, or is supported by other information unavailable to the American Midwest in the 1830’s, there is a lot of explaining to be done. From here on out, I can do little more than plagiarize Nibley’s work in arguing this case, especially in There were Jaredites, Abraham in Egypt and The Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment. Even so, I couldn’t help but notice this quote from Abraham in Egypt:

And to assist them further, we offer at no extra charge another clue, a statement by the great E.A.W. Budge that is all the more revealing for its frank hostility to the Prophet: "... the letter press [of the Book of Abraham] is as idiotic as the pictures, and is clearly based on the Bible, and some of the Old Testament apocryphal histories." (160: XVI, 1913, 342.) As to those apocryphal sources, why have all his other critics overlooked them, insisting that the whole thing is "a pure fabrication," "simply the product of Joseph Smith's imagination"? As we wrote some ten years ago, "What could Joseph Smith have known about Old Testament apocryphal histories? Budge was possibly the greatest authority on apocrypha of his day, but that was because he spent his days in the British Museum among original manuscripts to which no one else had access. There were indeed a number of important apocrypha published in Budge's day—but in the 1830s? Who has access to the apocryphal Abraham materials even today?" (233: Jan. 1969, 27.) Now if Budge insists that the Abraham story in the Pearl of Great Price is clearly based on Old Testament apocryphal histories, it deserves to be treated with some attention. What, the relatively uneducated Joseph Smith using sources of which none of the experts save only Budge, the most prodigally learned and productive Orientalist of his time, was aware? What a flattering accusation!

What has been proven? Nothing, really, especially if anybody insists that they will not be dissuaded from their current stance, whether they be for, against, or wherever Fusnik is. I mean only to show that the case is not yet closed. Frankly, in the vacuum of knowledge that most of us possess regarding ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, an intellectually honest person would probably be best trying to find another argument for or against Mormonism.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

An honest, serious reposnse, it appears (although even so you take a dig at believers by stating that the basis for their belief includes a decison to 'ignore' the origin of the church, but that's another matter), which is very interesting. The issue of 'wiring' is one that I wonder about sometimes and would be worth discussing at some point. However, in reading your response the question that comes to my mind (and we have discussed this before) in light of your world view is why you choose to spend your time with so many believers? Don't misunderstand, I don't object and I enjoy your contributions (usually) here, but why are you here?

I didn't mean to take a dig; I thought I wrote I know some people who were this way. And I do. I've had people say as much to me.

You ask a fair question. Clearly religion, philosphy, etc. are topics that are meaningful to me, and the opportunity to express yourself about such things is pleasurable to some of us. Heck, I wrote a long work of fiction in large measure about religion. For whatever reason, this place at this time is more appealing than, say, the FAIR boards to discuss such issues. There are plenty of places where these discussions go on, many of that have no connection with Mormonism. Maybe I should discover them. Maybe Robin was onto something with the "community" thing. We do share something significant in common here. If you're like me and you've rejected the religion of your youth and been through a nasty divorce and moved around somewhat and played hard in a tough, competitive profession, sometimes you find you've run out of guys to hang out with and just talk about stuff. It's a good break from the drudgery of legal writing.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

There was no "first thing," no moment of epiphany per se. I would say very generally that during college I became alienated from the LDS Church. If you're getting what you're supposed to get out of college two things happen:

First, you come away with an outlook of approaching the world with an uncompromisingly critical eye. Over two thousand years ago the Roman Lucretius wrote, "Our terrors and our darkness of mind must be dispelled by insight into nature and a scheme of systematic study." Korihor is a good example of someone with this outlook, and Joseph Smith was certainly aware of it. Socrates also had it. Lucretius noted that he learned his philosphy from the Greeks. The first one was Socrates, who said, "All I know is that I know nothing," and "the unexamined life is not worth living." That is what I am talking about, and this mindset very much appealed to me; I remember when I was hardly more than a tot (had to be before I was six, because we still lived overseas), and this wierd feeling would come over me that really mommy and daddy didn't, in fact couldn't have, the slightest idea about the cosmos. In other words, as a child instinct told me things weren't nearly as pat as mommy and daddy pretended. At these moments I'd get an intensely pleasurable sensation, and I remember gazing at my hand. So I was born a skeptic, and loved my college experience for introducing me into that culture.

Second, you develop an enhanced appreciation for high culture, everything from music, to art, to literature, to philosphy.

Ultimately, though, for me it was a value judgment. The values I learned in college have given me sublime spiritual satisfaction and release. But I've seen that the first value is at war with Mormonism, and the second is partially at war with it and much of the balance separated from Mormonism by a gulf. That is how I feel, anyway, in my marrow. Nobody is going to change my mind at this point.

In short, I decided I couldn't be happy in the Church because of what it was at a cellular level. Again, this is a personal value judgment and not anything anyone can really argue with me about. In order for the Church to appeal me it would have to be something completely different from what it is. Of course I know many people who are just wired differently, and that's fine. Many of them see the same things I do but they ignore the Church's origins and stay with it because it makes them happy; for whatever reason the Church makes them happy though it has detracted from my happiness.

Bound up in what makes people happy in the Church may be familial and even career motivations, or psychological issues. I'm also willing to allow for something mysterious and sublime that just hasn't reached me. I've found that special mysterious thing elsewhere, in fact, that the Church just interferes with my accessing it. But that's just me.

By the way, as I've written before, I didn't even know about the Book of Abraham papyrus until long after I separated from the LDS Church; the same is true for when I read Brodie's book. My rejection of the Church is about who I am at a deep level.

Interesting analysis. You and I think very similarly in many respects. Ironically enough, we are almost diametrically opposed regarding the church. I stay with the church because of its origins, despite the fact that it makes me miserable.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

Interesting analysis. You and I think very similarly in many respects. Ironically enough, we are almost diametrically opposed regarding the church. I stay with the church because of its origins, despite the fact that it makes me miserable.

And your post may be more interesting than mine.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I suppose such a person can fall back on to utilitarian views, which make a lot of sense independent of right and wrong. But once one rejects divinity, how can there be anything more than utilitarianism?

I don't necessarily reject divinity. I just don't see a lot of evidence to support a belief in divinity. I don't follow a moral code because I fear God's wrath, and I don't follow a moral code because I hope to receive some eternal reward. I follow a moral code because I care about other people and because I want to be a good person. It is not utilitarian. I think it is human nature to empathize. It is that empathy that drives people to do good. To my way of thinking, the person that performs good works because he hopes to garner some sort of eternal reward, is the one who is acting in a utilitarian manner.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

I don't necessarily reject divinity. I just don't see a lot of evidence to support a belief in divinity. I don't follow a moral code because I fear God's wrath, and I don't follow a moral code because I hope to receive some eternal reward. I follow a moral code because I care about other people and because I want to be a good person. It is not utilitarian. I think it is human nature to empathize. It is that empathy that drives people to do good. To my way of thinking, the person that performs good works because he hopes to garner some sort of eternal reward, is the one who is acting in a utilitarian manner.

A person who accepts divinity doesn't follow a moral code because of wrath, but to be in line with the universal purpose. You do what's right because it's right. Otherwise one is out of harmony with universal purpose.

If there is no discernible universal purpose, then it doesn't matter what one does.

What is interesting is both Non Seq and SU stated that rejected Mormonism because essentially, it didn't "feel" right. Yes most disbelievers ridicule believers for living according to faith based on "feelings". Isn't that ironic?

And SU sees it as simplistic (and I admit it is simplified for clarifying purposes but I don't think SU gets my point, as he believes I'm saying anybody who isn't Mormon is bad which is NOT what I'm saying), but boiled down to it, how many disbelievers adopt a more restrictive, more regimented moral belief system once they reject Mormonism? No, people may not seek licentious behavior at the outset of the path of disbelief, but ultimately their path leads them to lesss restrictions, fewer enabling restraints. Not everyone falls into that category, but whyis that? One reason is Mormonism is one of the more restrictive belief systems in existence, so anything else is less.

And Non Seq, what belief system is not the least bit utilitarian, except extreme aceticism (sp?)?

Believers ultimately aren't seeking rewards but to be in harmony with the universal flow.

[MikeWaters]

More to the point, how many people lose belief and then adopt a more altruistic posture, versus a more self-absorbed narcissitic posture?

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm just throwing out a question.

By their fruits, you will know them.