Polygamy

[Friendly Post-Mo]

Book of Abraham?

[Commander Keen]

Edit: nm

[Craig Jessop]

Book of Abraham?

I'm going to quote straight from Richard Bushman's Mormonism: A Very Brief Introduction here:

Smith's claims to be translating came under criticism in 1966, when fragments of the Abrahamic scrolls, lost in the confusion following his death, were discovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. Moder Egyptologists immediately set to work on the scrolls and found nothing remotely like Smith's Book of Abraham. They were a conventional breathing permit, a common document (called sen-sen in Egyptian) issued to an Egyptian notable at death to help him live in the afterlife. Critics of Smith's fabulous stories immediately felt vindicated, while orthodox Mormons had to reconsider the nature of the translations.

Translation of the scrolls brought the idea of a close correspondence between the Egyptian text and the translated book into question. Some Mormon scholars maintained that since only scraps were found at the Metropolitan Museum, the actual Abraham text had not yet been recovered; others theorized that the scrolls were an occasion for a revelation about Abraham rather than the actual writings by the ancient patriarch. More significant than the translation process, they said, were the similarities between Smith's Abraham and the many pseudepigraphic writings about the patriarch that had come down from antiquity. Although unfamiliar with any of these ancient texts at the time, Smith presented themes and stories resembling the ancient Abrahamic literature.

I feel that this explains the Book of Abraham adequately. If you want another, more fleshed out defense of it, check out this book review: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... um=1&id=93

[TheBlackSheep]

Black Sheep, it's an homage to you!

Let's... leave any homages to me out of this conversation.

[Whistler]

I think Gimgimno's answer was fine. I just feel like I don't understand the doctrine of polygamy at all.

[Friendly Post-Mo]

Would anyone agree with this?

There is so much evidence both attempting to prove and disprove certain claims (for example, the book quoted in Jessop's answer was not written by an Egyptologist. Here's an LDS Egyptologist's perspective on the book: http://www.irr.org/mit/thompson.html) that one inevitably feels pulled to either believe or not believe. I would even go so far as to say there is no way to prove or disprove the veracity of a religion. It seems the scriptures would agree with this as it is said that faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of something. Perhaps God is testing people to see if they will side with him even when presented with potentially damning evidence. Tests of faith are prevalent in canonized scripture. Perhaps God throws roadblocks in our path to fortify our minds against the temptations of the Adversary. Perhaps everything written which throws doubts upon the church is wrong - either by chance or by tricks of the Adversary. These are all possibilities. Built into LDS theology is a clause which allows one to ask if the Church is true and then be reassured by the Holy Spirit.

So, would it be safe to say that it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the activities of the members in the early Church were God's will? Would it also be safe to say that in order to maintain a strong testimony when presented with evidence which might throw the Church into a negative light one will first revert to their relationship with the Holy Spirit. Would you agree that most faithful LDS members base their testimonies off of their spiritual relationship rather than historical analysis as the analysis can go both ways? Can it finally be said that most LDS members do not feel the need to prove or disprove Joseph Smith's intentions on some hairier subjects as the modern LDS church is focused in a different direction?

[Friendly Post-Mo]

Oh, sorry, I forgot the main point!

Would it be true to say that one cannot have a firm testimony of the truthfulness without a divine confirmation? Does anyone think that Mormonism could be proved without the Spirit?

Maybe I'm going about this the wrong way. Does anyone feel that Mormonism need not be proved in order to be a testimony-holding member (THM?)? Sorry that this has diverged quite a bit from my initial comment!

[Dragon Lady]

In October's conference Elder Bednar said:

In December of 1839, while in Washington, D.C., to seek redress for the wrongs done to the Missouri Saints, Joseph Smith and Elias Higbee wrote to Hyrum Smith: “In our interview with the President [of the United States], he interrogated us wherein we differed in our religion from the other religions of the day. Brother Joseph said we differed in mode of baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. We considered that all other considerations were contained in the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 97).

I think that it's very fair to say that one cannot have a firm testimony of the gospel without the Spirit, nor do I think it could be proven to anyone without it.

[Whistler]

Exactly. I think even if we had a definitive source (assuming a fantasy world where one exists) that a prophet sinned greatly, a member with a testimony of the church could still have a testimony ("my thoughts are not your thoughts" or "sinned this way to keep this commandment" kind of things).

[Tao]

Does anyone think that Mormonism could be proved without the Spirit?

Maybe I'm going about this the wrong way. Does anyone feel that Mormonism need not be proved in order to be a testimony-holding member (THM?)? Sorry that this has diverged quite a bit from my initial comment!

Sorry I'm late to the game, final week and all.

I'm a little intrigued by this thread. Are we looking for Cartesian knowledge of the veracity of the church? I believe that was thoroughly shot down by the time of Hume. Even the assumption that reason alone can prove or disprove deity was fairly completely put down by Kant half a century later. From Heidegger to Heisenberg, bright minds of the past century have put such certainty beyond the grasp of mortal man.

And yet in the end such academic understanding of uncertainty tips the scales not at all; for all it rules out a rational set proof of God's existence, so too does it sound the death knell for the proofs against, for those willing enough to listen. There are evidences of the divine that cannot be reasoned away, and religious questions that cannot be adequately answered. Just as was the case 2000 years ago, and 2000 years before that, faith is the determining factor.

And such faith is requisite for any religious order of note, not just the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Marduk]

Exactly Tao. If it were possible to prove God's existence it would not be necessary to exercise faith in Him.

[Friendly Post-Mo]

When I was trying to be TBM, I knew some of the history and decided that none of it mattered as long as God wanted me to be part of the one true church. Hell, if the LDS church provides the one way to eternal salvation, nothing else should matter. I'll admit that I underwent some serious cognitive dissonance to hold on to this idea.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (I'll reiterate that I, despite some users' beliefs, did not come in here to be belligerent but just to gain some perspective) but it seems that you are all supporting that cognitive dissonance must be undertaken in order to keep a testimony. Take whistler's idea of a "fantasy world." Well, that world exists but no matter what evidence is presented, those with testimonies go immediately to the side which would throw such evidence into doubt. So no matter what contrary evidence is shown, it is always either pushed aside, justified away, or put on a shelf. Dragon Lady, Tao, and Marduk seem to agree with this as they say that there is no way to prove or disprove their religion as faith is the most elemental virtue needed to have a testimony and faith is not to have a pure knowledge of things. I guess that one could similarly say that I have faith that there is no god. That's totally fair; as an agnostic atheist I'll fully admit that there is no way to be sure of the existence of god but personal experience, lots of research, heart-felt prayer, and scripture reading would suggest that god does not exist.

So is cognitive dissonance necessary for religion if we define cognitive dissonance as accepting a certain reality despite evidence to the contrary? It would seem that almost any firm belief in a deity would require cognitive dissonance as I could suggest pure atheists are as firm in their beliefs as strong christians or muslims, etc.

I guess the most educated mindset would be to be open to all theological possibilities. But this seems impossible as almost every religion claims to be the only one and most religions contradict each other greatly.

I'll say, I both admire and envy strong believing Mormons; especially since I think many things in my life would be easier if I had a testimony (telling a family of LDS members and temple workers that I'm having my name removed is one of the hardest things...I would imagine this is how it feels to come out of the closet). Since leaving, I've been fascinated by religion in general. I'll reiterate that I think such pure faith is admirable. So, from what I've observed, here is what seems to happen when a TBM is faced with evidence which might contradict their established view of their faith: (Let's call this evidence Evidence A)

1. Find evidence which undermines Evidence A
2. Ignore Evidence A by putting it "on their shelf" (does everyone know what I'm talking about when I say "put it on one's shelf"?)
3. Justify Evidence A by saying it was necessary for the greater good of the church
4. Declare Evidence A as moot; it isn't within the realm of things necessary for eternal salvation
5. Pray about Evidence A and (hope) to be told an answer which fits in one's established understanding of the LDS faith (I'm throwing this one in here based on my personal experience. It didn't work for me but perhaps it works for others.)

It seems that if one follows all of these steps, and gets the answer they hope for in #5, nothing could possibly undermine one's faith in the church.

[Marduk]

...if we define cognitive dissonance as accepting a certain reality despite evidence to the contrary?

I'm not ready to accept this as a definition for cognitive dissonance; it is unnecessarily broad. Under this definition, absolutely everyone has cognitive dissonance. As you admit, atheism requires that cognitive dissonance. Young earth folks have cognitive dissonance, as do those who believe in a Godless evolution (meaning, an evolution that posits that it was not caused by a God.) Global warming believers have dissonance, as do the folks who say it doesn't exist or isn't caused by man. The nature of every evidence that exists for absolutely everything is that there is some portion of evidence that doesn't quite seem to fit with our given understanding of that thing. This is the nature of "knowledge."

It seems utterly ridiculous to me, as I have admitted, and my apologies if you find this offensive or presumptuous, to assume that any given state of affairs only has the possible conclusion that you have come to. "Evidence" is a very relative term; it means we've come up with a hypothesis and this is not disproven by what we have seen. This "evidence" could very easily, in any given circumstance, support dozens of other hypotheses; even massive amounts of evidence allow for this.

When I was trying to be TBM, I knew some of the history and decided that none of it mattered as long as God wanted me to be part of the one true church.

I think there's a definition for cognitive dissonance that we can find to be much more satisfactory, and it is found within this statement. Anyone who decides that they believe a different hypothesis than the one they have been given will struggle when they feel it conflicts with what they understand from the evidence. In other words, "I see evidence A, which may support hypothesis X, but could also be hypothesis Y. Y seems more plausible to me" is not cognitive dissonance. "I see evidence A. Hypothesis X must be true. I'm going to believe hypothesis Y anyways (for whatever reason.)" That is cognitive dissonance.

[melbabi]

I decided to google cognitive dissonance so I was getting a better picture of what it meant. Here's the link I found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance Yes, it is from wikipedia so keep that in mind when reading it. But I found it very helpful.

[Friendly Post-Mo]

Marduk, I agree entirely about your definition of cognitive dissonance. However, I still see quite a bit of this in the church. If you refer to the list I put above, #'s 2-4 call for some level of cognitive dissonance. In fact Sister Kimball said the following:

I’ve always had an inquiring mind. I’m not satisfied just to accept things. I like to follow through and study things out. I learned early to put aside those gospel questions that I couldn’t answer. I had a shelf of things I didn’t understand, but as I’ve grown older and studied and prayed and thought about each problem, one by one I’ve been able to better understand them.

Even though she tries to understand, there still seems to be some sort of acceptance that there will always be aspects of a theological system which can't be understood. Putting things on a shelf - i.e. ignoring them because they would suggest one's understanding is in error - seems to be the very definition of cognitive dissonance.

But, still, it seems ubiquitous in most faiths. And, it seems like most faiths encourage their members to believe in spite of contrary evidence. Take creationists for example. Despite a mountain of evidence suggesting the earth is older than the Bible would suggest, they cling to mistranslations of fables in the Old Testament for fear of divine retribution.

[Yellow]

My experience has been that I've got two of these shelves. There's a set of things that I don't understand about my religion given the scientific evidence at hand. But there's also a set of things I don't understand about scientific knowledge given my own spiritual experiences. The fact that I have unanswered questions on both sides provides a kind of balance; the times I need to exercise faith in my religious belief are balanced by the times that I need to exercise belief in my understanding of science despite my evidence to the contrary.

An example of the first: The religious account of the creation seems to imply that there wasn't death before the Fall. This doesn't match up well with either the physical evidence we have or our basic understanding of how life works. I've heard various explanations of how these issues could be resolved from some people whose spiritual knowledge I highly respect. Though none of those is completely satisfactory to me, I'm willing to believe that it can be resolved and put my concern about the specific answer "on the shelf." I don't throw out my religious belief despite things that I don't understand.

An example of the second: Scientists generally agree (as I understand it) that life consists entirely of biological processes, and that there's no evidence of a intelligent immortal soul that continues on beyond death. This doesn't match up well with experiences I've had, and experience that a number of people close to me have had, that strongly lead me to believe in the continuation of life after death. I've heard some explanations of how this might be resolved (e.g. 'intelligences' being a form of subatomic particle), but none of these explanations is completely satisfactory to me. I'm willing to believe, though, that these things can be resolved, and I put my specific concern about science's apparent lack "on the shelf." I don't throw out my belief in science, despite things I don't understand.

Note: I'm not looking for resolutions of either of these concerns. My point is that there's room for cognitive dissonance on both sides of the line.

[Portia]

I've gotten to a point where I'm pretty okay with it. If you're southern, you have slaveholding ancestors. If you're rich, you probably have ancestors who maltreated the poor and acquired disgusting amounts of capital. If you're like me and have hippie grandparents, well, let's just say there's probably a whole lot more booze, drugs, and smokes in your past than might be seemly. So my sixth-great-grandfather slept with a couple women at the same time: so what? My grandfather managed to do that, WITHOUT consent, and without supporting the one kid he had to any reasonable degree.

I think modern Mormons have a rather unrealistic expectation of 100% sexual monogamy and chastity, which is nice, but somehow just doesn't fit it with the whole "Wild West" reality, you know? My grandma's grandfather was a respected businessman, married to one woman his whole life, and was socially popular. He also knocked up a Laurel, and got into barfights, and never joined the Church. I guess I just try to empathize with someone born 120 years before me: it's' actually extremely fascinating to me to think about what it might have been like to have perhaps lost a father to the Civil War, to pick up your bags and move to Utah, a town of a thousand, to read about his baseball games and masquerade balls. Maybe it is the writer in me: I'm always looking for a good story, and the inner life of the polygamist is nothing if not interesting to think about.

Who's to say what makes one woman's choice right for her or wrong for her? (Because it's always the women we fret about, how could they possibly put up with this?) Look, I am well aware of how incredibly emotionally and sexually devastating this could be, especially for the first wife, if she had little say--but guess what, that still happens all the time with dudes' "kept women"! I find hypocritical affairs more morally revolting than open polygamy.

It seems to me that message boards are teeming with exhausted young mothers who aren't interested in sex, like, at all. I'm not one of these women, but hey, maybe at that time, it wouldn't have been all bad! Some people still have "open relationships" today. I find the patriarchal one-sidedness of it all more stupid than anything. But wow, what a shocker, 19th century America being patriarchal-ha.

It's also funny to me the Utah Mormons that fret about this coming back. It's not. Any church that spends so much time, money, and PR capital fighting non-heterosexual marriage ain't just going to come out with some grand "revelation" along those lines in our lifetimes!

More likely:

-Women holding priesthood positions
-Dropping KJV for a newer translation
-Allowing tank tops and facial hair at BYU
-Allowing coffee & tea

BYU has greater chance of winning the basketball, football, and, hey, baseball, nationl championships all in one year than polygamy being officially re-sanctioned. So I think the distressed masses (Mormon and Gentile) should rest their little minds about that. (More's the pity if you're a bisexual woman, I suppose?)

[Portia]

Marduk, I agree entirely about your definition of cognitive dissonance. However, I still see quite a bit of this in the church. If you refer to the list I put above, #'s 2-4 call for some level of cognitive dissonance. In fact Sister Kimball said the following:

I’ve always had an inquiring mind. I’m not satisfied just to accept things. I like to follow through and study things out. I learned early to put aside those gospel questions that I couldn’t answer. I had a shelf of things I didn’t understand, but as I’ve grown older and studied and prayed and thought about each problem, one by one I’ve been able to better understand them.

Even though she tries to understand, there still seems to be some sort of acceptance that there will always be aspects of a theological system which can't be understood. Putting things on a shelf - i.e. ignoring them because they would suggest one's understanding is in error - seems to be the very definition of cognitive dissonance.

But, still, it seems ubiquitous in most faiths. And, it seems like most faiths encourage their members to believe in spite of contrary evidence. Take creationists for example. Despite a mountain of evidence suggesting the earth is older than the Bible would suggest, they cling to mistranslations of fables in the Old Testament for fear of divine retribution.

This isn't really a post-Mormon group; considering they all attend BYU, they all would stand to lose a lot by disassociating themselves from the LDS Church. It's like going to a vegetarian message board and extolling the virtues of tritip: what's the point? Sure, some might come to see the carnivorous light, but isn't it more likely that they'll defend and stick with their beliefs and practices?

If you want to evangelize for Secular Humanism, I think you need to find (A) a more marginal group of Mormons, rather than probably the upper 2% in terms of both personal niceness and religious faith, and (B) a topic more relevant to their lives.

All of the board writers tend to be monogamous, thoughtful, and pretty well-adjusted. If they decide to not be Mormon any more, well, I don't think some Internet post is going to do it.

You know what's cognitively dissonant? Going to the Mariners baseball games, day in, and day out. It's cold, no one comes, they lose. But it's something greater than myself, it's a ritual, there's a chance it might be better than I was expecting. I'd rather be friends with one of these fine people, believer in Golden Plates or not, than most the self-righteous, selfish, "enlightened" people I find myself surrounded with now. I'm sick of all these Internet manifestoes about how much better life is without the Church. Whatever, these people have good lives and are doing great things. If they think God lives on a planet called Kolob and wear unflattering underwear and want half a dozen kids, WHO CARES? I don't even go to Church, ever, but I still think your argument is both weak and obnoxious.

[/rant]

[Craig Jessop]

Portia, that post was really patronizing. Just sayin'.

[Marduk]

Also, "they all attend BYU" is patently false.