RWW - This one's for you!

... and for the rest of those who have been wanting to hear from me again. Thank you all for your concern, your prayers, and your support. For better or for worse, I have found that blogging specifically to a Mormon audience is utterly not worthwhile. The Mormonism of today has its truth already, and is not looking for any innovation whatsoever. Innovation would separate it from mainstream Christianity, and favor with mainstream Christianity is that which the Saints of today most deeply covet. Strong words, perhaps, but true: If not individually, then collectively.

I am forever the heretic because I believe that Jehovah is the Father, as Joseph Smith did, and because I side with Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff on certain issues which, according to Bruce R. McConkie, implies that I "have the intellect of an ant and the understanding of a clod of miry clay in a primordial swamp" and that I "do not deserve to be saved." Why won't "our" apologists apologize for statements such as this?

(Side note: 2,555,000,000 years old. Hmm.)

And yet I believe! Well, I believe in something, and my beliefs are deeply intertwined with Mormonism. They may not be the Orthodox religion, but they are Godly, or, if they are not, then I have been deceived. But, I choose to believe that the Holy Ghost I have felt is real, that the answers to prayer I received about Joseph Smith are true. But I am not part of mainstream Mormon culture. They look at me funny. I scare some of them. They just don't know how to deal with me. And the more I endure, the more sick I feel when I hear their teachings. I mean their pet teachings, their naive teachings, not the truth. When they preach the truth it is still sweet, but the other things, the naive assumptions and philosophies of some of their most prominent men which they have blended with the gospel offends my spirit in subtle ways, and I would rather be in an environment more facilitative of my spiritual growth.

Is this selfish of me? I'd like to help them grow. I'd like to pitch in and teach, but I can't. My teachings are not permitted. So I feel saddened by it all.

If you like my posts, my thoughts, and want to hear more from me, or speak with me, please consider reading and commenting on my Masonic blog: Lodgical. Nearly everything I write there and elsewhere has personal religious significance to me. Even the articles I write for other organizations. If you have comments or questions to share with me of an overtly Mormon nature, or just want to chat, please contact me directly by email at jeffREMOVE_THIS_PART@storago.com

I want to talk. I have very little religious fellowship now. I am currently accepted as a sort of sojourner ("on the path") in the Jewish community, but that is not a place to deeply discuss my Latter-day Saint beliefs.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

In response to a post on "By Common Consent"

How to Give a Sacrament Meeting Talk - An Open Letter to Converts

This is in response to comment #44 on this above mentioned post, whose comments have been closed for some time: Ronan asked: "'Can someone tell me whether “talk” is an American-ism or a Mormon-ism in this context? Do business people or academics “give talks”?'

I can give the answer to this: This is one of hundreds of little administrational/organizational things that Mormonism has inherited from the rich heritage of Freemasonry. When a person is assigned to speak in a Masonic meeting it is termed a "Talk." We also have "Short Talks" which are talked designed to be 5 minutes or less, which has in modern times ultimately resulted in the widely circulated "Short Talk Bulletin" which I presume was originally used to provide a filler talk that can be used when one has not been prepared, but currently is just interesting in its own right.

The reason the Freemasons use the word "talk" is because of this: As Masonry is not a religion or a church, the statements cannot really be termed a Sermon, although talks may often involve biblical symbolism, etc.

Judeo-Christian Tetragrammaton

Sometimes it is useful to pull our heads out of the sand of our own culture and see what everyone else has to say. Here are two encyclopedia articles, one on the Tetragrammaton, and one on the divine name Yahweh/Jehovah. Yes, they're both on the same topic, with slightly different focus.

Enjoy!

Mormon Kabbalah

The The Tree of Happiness, a Missionary "Flip-Chart" to help convert all your Mystic non-Mormon friends:

(You can buy this as a shirt)

God wants us to eat MEAT!

1 Timothy 4:1-5

1. ¶ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2. Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3. Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5. For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

God wants us to eat meat. People teaching to abstain from meat is here listed as kin to the doctrines of the devils. I have sometimes joked that the system I see ordained by God was the esablishing of a giant communal barbecue grill (in the Tabernacle of Moses), but maybe there's something to this, after all. The objection was raised to me that "meat" in Biblical language can refer to any type of food, but it is made clear in verse 4 that it is creatures that are referred to here. How does this sit with our own Latter-day Saint D&C 89...

D&C 89:12-13

Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

This gives a bit of a mixed message. How could they be ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving, and yet it be pleasing unto God (or Jesus, or Joseph? Verse 5 refers to the Father third person) that they should not be used only (meaning, except) in times of winter, or of cold, or famine. Notice those are all ors. In winter and cold times we are to use meats. So we are actually given instruction here on WHEN to eat meat.

I'm interested in finding Seventh-day Adventist points of view on this, because of their own interesting dietary code, so I'll be looking that up later.

Rape and Abortion - Changing with the Times?

Spencer W. Kimball said:

"In the case of rape, if a woman becomes pregnant, she MUST NOT have an abortion. If she does she commits a greater sin than the one who raped her" (1975 film, "Very Much Alive").

The 1987 Relief Society Manual said on page 290:

"If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a
field, because a man's house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought
surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it
has come to light."

"... Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. ... he that killeth shall die." (D&C
42:18-19)

"Abortion is not defined as murder"
--1989 General Handbook of Instructions from the First Presidency, pg. 10-3

"a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion"
--General Handbook of Instructions, pg. 11-4

Have we become so anxious to be "politically correct", to love and forgive grave sins in recent times only because they are not perceived by the world population at large as morally wrong? I am surprised by the diverse counsel and mixed messages found on this issue in Church history. I am also shocked to consider that a young woman could commit such a serious sin, and be admitted into full fellowship and engage in Temple activity in such a short period of time (I'm guessing a year or less). Bloodshed was the very thing that disqualified David FOR LIFE from being able to participate in the erection, dedication, or practices of the Temple, and necessitated that his Son, King Solomon, instead be the one to perform this important task.

Please try to keep so-called "feminist" and political banter to a minimum here, I'm interested in primarily a doctrinal and historical discussion on this subject.

Are we more apt to embrace the foreign?

Just an observation: I think Mormons are more comfortable exploring spiritual things perceived as "foreign", or using them as positive examples such as: Eastern Religion, Yoga, Meditation, Islam and even Astrology. As an experiment, read over that list again. Add a few things to it yourself. I have a hunch you will feel very little animosity towards the items in that list, unless you are racist or have some other personal prejudice against it.

When the spiritual elements hit closer to home, we tend to go on the defensive. The Trinity, Baptist hymns, Muslim polygamy, seer stones, family altars, Pentecostals speaking in tongues, stories of revelations or visitations of heavenly beings, baptisms. Items on this list may be more of a mixed bag of feelings. We may find some of them extremely positive, others extremely negative. This is because we are culturally closer to these practices, and therefore we become more critical of them. What is seen as a deviant form of Christianity is always more offensive to the Christian than a deviant form of Buddhism would be, for example.

Is this good or bad? Should we train ourselves to be equally leery of the foreign practices, or should we be try to be equally accepting of those domestic practices similar to ours? From who do we learn more? and is it because their information is better, or because our minds do not close up to what they have to say?