Is there any contemporary evidence that something akin to “near beer” was brewed for general consumption at the time of the Word of Wisdom?
Screw the scientology comparisons, are we sure that the Mormons aren’t trying to awaken an Old One or summon shoggoths or something? Was H.P. Lovecraft an LDS prophet?
I have read the JoS and like I said, me and BY wouldn’t have gotten along so well. I love being part of a Church which is able to debate and amend through council and discourse and prayer. More churches should be like that. If the greatest criticism any of you can come up with is that the Church has evolved and changed over time, how is that bad? Then on the other hand some of you say it should be criticized for changing or not changing enough. Which one is it? The Church is bad for changing or not changing, because it can’t possibly be both.
The problem is, in my opinion, either way it can’t win – but for different reasons. If it changes then the Immutable Perfect Word of God™ is clearly not immutable or perfect, because it occasionally needs to be changed. If it stays the same, then it preaches outdated ethics and ideas that are harmful to society. It’s the same problem with any religion that preaches the word of a “perfect” God. At least with Shinto or Greek Mythology I know the gods can get fickle, be plain assholes, or are playing their own games so I can accept their teachings change with time.
Maybe if the LDS taught that the prophets are sometimes wrong in interpreting a revelation, but they never seem to go that way. I’d accept it a lot more if they simple said Joseph Smith or whatever was wrong in interpreting a revelation, instead of just saying there’s a new revelation that overrides the old one.
And I am the one being condescending. It’s no fun to argue with nice people, oh and let’s laugh at the convert who doesn’t know as much as we do. How fun!
God is perfect, people are not. There is so much we just won’t get or understand in this life. There is nothing the Church can do to shake my faith, and if it ever becomes necessary for me to reconsider my membership I leave that possibility open. It is what keeps my testimony strong. I can be offended by a speech giving from the pulpit, or a bishop, a relief society president, or whoever, but I am never offended by my Lord or My Savior.
An organization is “bad” if it has bad doctrines. And a church that used to have bad doctrines dictated by God via prophets, then the credibility of the prophets and the church is low.
Bummer of a catch-22. If they keep the bad doctrines, they are bad. If they discard the bad doctrines, they are admitting to being false.
ETA: If only they had access to revelation from an unchanging God, they wouldn’t be in this dilemma.
April R, I feel as though you are calling me out over the garment thing. Yours isn’t the only spiritual tradition that calls for the wearing of amulets, robes, jewelry, scarves, hats, etc that serve to remind the wearer of some tenet or other, or promises to ward off evil and protect the wearer. Magic is a fitting name for such accoutrements, and Mormon’s garments happen to be worn under clothing. I realize you and others take offense when outsiders refer to the garment, but until or unless you regard the magical accoutrements of other religions with the highest degree of respect, you are in no position to expect others to tiptoe round your sacred cow. I will gladly apologize for offending you personally, but my opinion of a confining, unnecessary, and ritualistic habit that forces the wearer to associate nudity, sex, and masturbation with deep shame will not change.
I laugh at you for calling me ignorant and accusing me of lying. Don’t push your luck.
Sorry I said that. I really am. I was admittedly defensive. It didn’t help me come up with a very productive discussion. But, you were being just as condescending, not to me, but to those you deem “too nice” to argue with. What does that mean exactly?
garments are anything but confining! Most comfortable undergarments I have every worn. How can garments be more confining than tighty whiteys or regular panties? The garment were never presented to me as a shame device. Sex isn’t shameful, and I have never been taught that either in the church or by my non member mother. Now my non member father is a different story, but he has no room to talk when he cheated on all his ex wives and has been married 4 times. The only “magic” contained in anything you wear or do is the power of faith and your demonstration of that faith through keeping promises with Heavenly Father. The garments are a symbol of those promises and faith.
I respect others “sacred cows” as you call them, as much as my own. I am a cultural anthropologist, so I do “regard the magical accoutrements of other religions with the highest degree of respect.” At least more respect than you do mine.
Do you believe that the magical devices of other cultures have magical powers?
She often participates in threads about Mormonism. And she’s always nice and never turns it into a pissing contest. I like her and her posts a lot. But she’s never made a “near-beer” level gaffe while insulting another poster. So there’s less to chuckle about. (I assume the poster is female, but I don’t remember what basis I have for that assumption.) How is this condescending toward her??
I believe they are imbued with whatever power the faithful believe it does. It is not my job to make value judgements on their beliefs. There is much in this life we do not fully understand.
I don’t think my garments have magical powers, if that is what you are getting at. I too have heard the stories about and testimony from members who believed that the garments saved them from one type of injury or another because they were scared and the wearer was faithful; one in particular was a military guy I knew who was convinced that they helped him when his helicopter crashed and he wasn’t severely burned although the whole aircraft was on fire. It is not up to me to doubt him. He may have been protected. That is his own personal experience. I don’t belittle or dismiss it just because it isn’t something I have personally experienced.
That is what I needed clarification on.
And you have yet to prove that near-beer is a gaff. It may not be a complete answer, but it is just as much a possibility as regular beer or barely tea. And knowing that the early Saints may have drank beer isn’t a testimony killing revelation anyway. Jesus drank wine, but I don’t get upset about it.
I appreciate your perspective, thank you for sharing that. As a cultural anthropologist, I assume you’ve studied a bit of psychology? If so, you read a chapter or two on cults. Rituals such as secret ceremonies, amulets, secret names, and yes: the hand shakes serve to reinforce a sense of belonging and obligation. Do you see those rituals as necessary to shore up your faith?
But how do you know your Lord and Savior beyond the information you have gathered from other people–those who have spoken to you directly or through the midst of time in text? None of us have first-hand experience with God. We have experiences that we perceive as divine, but those perceptions rest purely on faith and belief. Not fact. Since humans are the ones who have codified the complexities of your religion, including the very concept of Lord and Savior, your faith isn’t really in God. It’s on humans. If your institution showed itself to be a fraud, how would you decide doctrines to let go off and what to continue to believe in?
Ritual is necessary in any organized belief system, as a reinforcement of social obligation, belonging, and strengthening relationships.
That doesn’t lessen the significance of belief.
And yes, regular rituals like prayer, meeting attendance, scripture reading all help shore up my faith. Nothing is maintained or improved without exercising it and testing it. Either physically or spiritually.
That is a fantastic question. One which I have yet to face, but if I ever have to I will know the answer then.
The “Whatever” the church did was to put these words in the Utah constitution:
And that was after 7 or so previous attempts at statehood, what it is clear is that whoever continued to organize marriages they did so without the approval of the law and the majority of the people of Utah.