NY Times blog piece on FLDS and LDS

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

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?

I certainly agree that people do the things you described, but I think they are saying "I don't feel like doing that" rather than "the church is wrong." To the extent there is a point to be made here, I think it is not that people go haywire with core doctrines as much as it is that they go haywire applying them and deducing fantastic things from basic things.

I also agree that Joseph subjected himself to common consent in theory. But keep in mind that by the time the saints reached Nauvoo in 1839 Oliver had been excommunicated, Sidney Rigdon had been released from the first presidency, Martin Harris had started his own church, David Whitmer had been excommunicated together with all the living members of his family who comprised five of the eight witnesses (the other three were Joseph's brothers and dad), Thomas B. Marsh (apostle) had been excommunicated, Lyman Johnson (apostle) has been excommunicated, W.W.Phelps (scribe, Hymnist) had been excommunicated, William M'Lellin (apostle) had been excommunicated, Luke S. Johnson (apostle) had been excommunicated, and John F. Boyton (apostle) had been excommunicated. Almost all were over criticism directed at Joseph over polygamy and/or the failure of the Kirkland Bank. Once in Nauvoo Orson Pratt, also an apostle, is excommunicated because upon returning from the British Isles his wife tells him that Joseph has propositioned her and, believing her, he accuses Joseph.

The point of that list is just to demonstrate that Joseph was not governed by the consent of any of his contemporaries and and dissent was not really tolerated. That is no normative judgment on my part, but I think your idea that Joseph was subject to anyone on earth might be one you have formed without the benefit of all the facts.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

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.

Thank you.

In the 70s it was heavily "suggested" that we were the chosen generation, the most valiant spirits from the pre-existence who were preparing for the return of the Savior. "Where much is given, much is expected." Saturday's Warriors. And for our Indian Placement Program friends & aquaintances, there was the Lamanite Generation. (I never went to see that.)

Sunday school teachers, priesthood quorum advisors, seminary teachers... "get ready, get your life in order, it will be happening soon, certainly before the year 2000". I was pretty wrapped up in this thinking, and every adult I queried basically agreed the end days were very close, maybe quite soon, maybe a few years, possibly 20 years, but definitely before 2000.

As for other curious transfers of knowledge to the younger generation, I had a seminary teacher who taught us that seminary was by far the most important class, that learning science really wasn't necessary, since we'd know all there was to know about science and much, much more in the CK.

Tithing is "fire insurance" so you won't burn in the firestorm that will engulf the earth in the end days, before the millenium.

Another seminary teacher showed us a photograph where in a corner an angel was inadvertantly caught rising from the St. George temple on the way to the heavens.

Yet another seminary teacher (why did I keep going to seminary anyway?) concocted a fake news report of a nerve gas leak from Tooele Army Depot that was headed toward Bountiful, a lesson to "shock" us into taking our salvations seriously, to prepare ourselves & our families for the unexpected. (I knew something was up when a couple of girls from the period just before my class were bawling, being consoled by the teacher as we walked in, "I didn't mean to upset you", before he went through the same skit with my class.)

Sunday School teacher suggesting that a trucker strike might lead to civil unrest as the supply of food could be cut off. (This was during the serious days of food storage prepardness education).

When we got around to the teachings about blacks being "less valiant" or undecided in the pre-existence whether to follow Satan's plan or Jesus', that's when I began to have serious doubts about these weighty topics.

This stuff happened, Mike. Where are you from, anyway? I agree, though, Utah is not a typical place to grow up.

[Archaea]

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.

My words are not lofty, Krakauer is an average writer, his book Banner is boring and makes no salient point. It was so boring I couldn't finish it. Perhaps his history was so off base, perhaps his failure to finish the deed or perhaps because he showed no signs of professionalism. I simply disagree with Krakauer as a writer.

His mountaineering book is poor, cheap theatre.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

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)

Utah has a beautiful geography, but Utah culture sucks.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Thank you.

In the 70s it was heavily "suggested" that we were the chosen generation, the most valiant spirits from the pre-existence who were preparing for the return of the Savior. "Where much is given, much is expected." Saturday's Warriors. And for our Indian Placement Program friends & aquaintances, there was the Lamanite Generation. (I never went to see that.)

Sunday school teachers, priesthood quorum advisors, seminary teachers... "get ready, get your life in order, it will be happening soon, certainly before the year 2000". I was pretty wrapped up in this thinking, and every adult I queried basically agreed the end days were very close, maybe quite soon, maybe a few years, possibly 20 years, but definitely before 2000.

As for other curious transfers of knowledge to the younger generation, I had a seminary teacher who taught us that seminary was by far the most important class, that learning science really wasn't necessary, since we'd know all there was to know about science and much, much more in the CK.

Tithing is "fire insurance" so you won't burn in the firestorm that will engulf the earth in the end days, before the millenium.

Another seminary teacher showed us a photograph where in a corner an angel was inadvertantly caught rising from the St. George temple on the way to the heavens.

Yet another seminary teacher (why did I keep going to seminary anyway?) concocted a fake news report of a nerve gas leak from Tooele Army Depot that was headed toward Bountiful, a lesson to "shock" us into taking our salvations seriously, to prepare ourselves & our families for the unexpected. (I knew something was up when a couple of girls from the period just before my class were bawling, being consoled by the teacher as we walked in, "I didn't mean to upset you", before he went through the same skit with my class.)

Sunday School teacher suggesting that a trucker strike might lead to civil unrest as the supply of food could be cut off. (This was during the serious days of food storage prepardness education).

When we got around to the teachings about blacks being "less valiant" or undecided in the pre-existence whether to follow Satan's plan or Jesus', that's when I began to have serious doubts about these weighty topics.

This stuff happened, Mike. Where are you from, anyway? I agree, though, Utah is not a typical place to grow up.

I am younger than you are an my seminary experience was during the late 80's early 90's, but it is funny that you keep mentioning seminary over and over. As I think about it, and again, different generation, most of the things I heard that I now recognize as being out on a doctrinal limb I heard either in seminary or at EFY. Not so much at church.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I am younger than you are an my seminary experience was during the late 80's early 90's, but it is funny that you keep mentioning seminary over and over. As I think about it, and again, different generation, most of the things I heard that I now recognize as being out on a doctrinal limb I heard either in seminary or at EFY. Not so much at church.

Good thing I never attended seminary then. Brother Nibley's advice was sound.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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

He's not a good writer, but he is a compelling writer. He knows how to identify a good story and he does an above job in spinning it -- kind of like John Grisham. I enjoyed UBOF, but not for it's take on Mormonism -- I'd heard all the swipes at early Mormonism before. I enjoyed it because at the time I was unfamiliar with the story of the Lafferty Brothers. And it was a fascinating story. That Krakauer aired some of the Church's dirty laundry on a national stage was bound to upset many in the Church, but the book wasn't about the Mormon Church, it was about a couple of crazy murderers who were religious fundamentalists.

Krakauer's underlying thesis is that religious fundamentalism ultimately leads to violence. If his real goal was to demonstrate that point, he would have been better served writing a book about Muslim fundamentalism. But then he would have written a book that nobody would care about and that nobody would buy. Instead he wrote a book about religion run amok in America's heartland. It might not be completely honest, but it is quite compelling.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

It might not be completely honest, but it is quite compelling.

Good post, but I don't agree about the not "completely honest" part. Krakauer's take on early LDS history seemed to me to be completely defensible, although (obviously) unpopular with certain groups. If he messed up some facts, fair enough, but these are cosmetic flaws. His overall thesis is solid (IMO).

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Solon

Good post, but I don't agree about the not "completely honest" part. Krakauer's take on early LDS history seemed to me to be completely defensible, although (obviously) unpopular with certain groups. If he messed up some facts, fair enough, but these are cosmetic flaws. His overall thesis is solid (IMO).

again, my opinion is the opposite. Ok in facts, wrong in thesis (because of the facts he purposely omitted).

That's what makes it dishonest.

[SeattleUte]

Krakauer's book is sensationalist popular non-fiction. It's not a history book and it's very derivative of Brodie and others and not as well written as No Man nor as original. The true murder story angle of course is what makes it unique, but I agree with Waters that his thesis is a stretch. The Mormon Church has become if anything a hell of banality and unimaginative redundancy. Seriously, its biggest flaw is its anti-intellecutalism and that it puts its members to sleep and its oppression of women. I don't blame mainstream LDS faith for the Lafferty murders. Krakauer gives mainstream LDS culture way too much credit. Banner gets way too much attention and in ten years it will be hardly remembered, somewhat like Blind Faith by Joe McGinnis.