Zoe Murdock's father became interested in polygamy while she was a child. He believed Celestial Marriage involved polygamy and was a law that must be obeyed in order to become a god.
The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.
When the LDS church put a stop to the practice, several polygamous sects broke off, believing the church had become apostate.
"Torn by God: A Family’s Struggle with Polygamy" is a story based on true events as Murdock attempts to understand what her parents went through as her LDS father considered the possibility that those polygamous sects may have been right.
"Torn by God" is told to us through the eyes of 12-year-old Elizabeth Sterling. She watches her father become obsessed with godhood and her mother's subsequent breakdown.
A major theme in the book is that the church teaches and believes in modern revelation, but no one believes Michael Sterling, Beth's father, when he claims to have had a vision. Even the bishop tries to offer the help of a professional counselor. Michael calls this hypocritical and grows increasingly frustrated with a church that believes God can speak, but treats anyone who claims to have a vision with skepticism.
Brother Reuben, a polygamist, believes Michael. He slowly tries to convince him to join their church, and Michael spends more and more time with Brother Reuben. He eventually becomes confident that the LDS church has fallen into apostasy. Beth is confused about how her father could at one time bear testimony that he "knows" the church is true, but now be so confident that the church is wrong. One of these moments of "knowledge" must be wrong. But which? And why? These are the kinds of questions the novel forces the readers to ask themselves.
Sharon, Beth's mother, suffers frightening cognitive dissonance as she simultaneously praises Emma Smith for being against polygamy while still knowing that Emma was wrong for disobeying God's commandment.
Beth raises issues about the status of women when she mentions that only men have the priesthood and so they have a more direct line of communication with God Brother Reuben uses scriptures and LDS temple covenants to emphasize repeatedly that it is the woman’s role to be subservient and to obey her husband, the patriarch and the leader of the family. (Incidentally, those temple covenants were changed in 1990, softening the "pledge of wifely obedience.")
Throughout the novel, prayers often turn into passive-aggressive attacks. By claiming polygamy is God's will, Michael, and Reuben in particular leave
Brother Reuben and Michael see God's pleasure or anger in everything—a classic example of the "projective test". In accordance with their own worldviews, their god offers a constant barrage of rewards, punishments, and tests. Michael especially seems to suffer from "hyper-religiosity," a symptom of some neurological disorders. He fasts so frequently that he loses a startling amount of weight. He spends every possible moment in prayer and neglects his business so that he can study religion. He begins to speak in scripture, quoting verses at people instead of having a conversation. Religion, faith, and his concept of God have overwhelmed him, threatening to destroy him and his family.
I spoke with Murdock about the book:
The novel discusses at least three church doctrines that seem to be rarely, if ever, talked about in LDS churches today:
1. Polygamy in Celestial Marriage, and whether or not it will ever be reinstated or practiced in the
2. The Law of Consecration, and whether it will be practiced again.
3. The belief that we can become gods, and that there are specific things that must be done on earth in order to achieve godhood.
Were all of these teachings more common in the 1950's, when the novel takes place? The Bishop and ward members seemed much more open about these things than seem to be typical today. Is this an accurate portrayal of Mormonism at the time?
I was surprised when I found out, some years ago, that the Mormon Church no longer talks much about these three doctrines. When I was growing up, I heard a lot about them. At one time, my father wanted our family to live the Law of Consecration. He gave us our allowance (which was in the form of real silver dollars) and then he immediately asked us to give it back, saying he would place it in a communal fund that we could borrow from in the future when we were in need. He was very enamored of that doctrine all his life.
We knew all about polygamy. The
I appreciate that you mention this because I was raised in a Mormon family—in
As for the idea that we can become gods, I always knew about that. When I was young, I even thought I could be a god. I forgot to consider that I was a girl and that godhood was reserved for men. The blue notebook in Torn by God is based on actual writings in my father's journal, a journal I discovered after he died. So that aspect of the story is very true. Also, it is true that my father always wanted to talk to God. He was looking for God all his life, even later in his life when he was far into Alzheimer’s.
While I was researching my novel, it seemed obvious that the Mormon Church was trying to move away from some of their more troubling doctrines.
Michael is caught between two religions, both calling the other apostate. Do you think he could have ever considered that they were both wrong? If not, what prevented him from seeing this as a possible option?
I think there are a lot of people who never go back and re-evaluate the religious teachings they were given as children. They accept those teachings as fact. For Michael, and I think for my father, there was never a point where they questioned the fundamental doctrine they learned as children. In fact, that was the problem. My father was born in 1917. His grandfather had three wives and was the man who ran all of Brigham Young’s mills. So, what my father and the father in the novel were questioning was the Church’s changed position regarding fundamental issues like polygamy. They liked the idea that they could be a god, that they could talk to god, that they could have multiple wives in order to populate a planet.
Some might say that the novel criticizes a "shallow" faith, believing something only because it has been told to you, and that this is a straw man argument against religion. They could say that it is possible to have a deeper and more personal experience, through study and prayer, that confirms the truth of something. How would you respond to that?
I think it is possible to have a deep and personal religious experience that transcends reason. I consider myself to be a spiritual person. The issue I am concerned about in Torn by God is that when we learn religious doctrine as children, from the minute we are born, the doctrine is hard-wired into our brains in the same way language or any basic knowledge of the world is hard-wired. We take these early religious teachings to be as true as the physical reality around us.
My concern is that if a person never stops to examine those early beliefs, they won’t see when they are being controlled by those who want to use those beliefs for their own purposes. As we all know, terrible things have often been done in the name of God. Maybe we can say being controlled by religious beliefs is benign, maybe even positive, but those who strap bombs to their chest to blow themselves and others up must have also been taught not to question their religious beliefs.
Because the main character is 12 years old, I found Beth's questions about faith to be very direct and honest. But some might argue that she is too immature or that she doesn't yet grasp some of the subtleties of faith. Do you feel that seeing religion through the eyes of a 12 year old is a useful thing, or does it create another kind of straw man criticism of religion?
I chose a 12-year old narrator because I wanted to go back to that time in my life when my father was exploring polygamy. Since most of what happened was behind closed doors, I wanted to position myself in that time and space so I could look through my child eyes to see what I could learn. That was my first motivation for creating Beth as a twelve year old, and I learned a great deal from writing the story from that point of view.
Then, as I wrote the story and developed the characters, I realized that in terms of their belief in Church doctrine, the parents, and really all the members of the community, were in the same place as Beth in terms of their sophistication and objectivity about Church doctrine. I don’t think many people I knew as a child had examined their beliefs to achieve that “deeper and more personal” experience you mentioned in the previous question. There is this idea in the Mormon Church that “I am a child of God” and that concept is true for children as well as adults. As a result, I think there is a certain innocence and naivety in many Mormons, especially the ones that don’t ask questions and try to live righteously and faithfully.
In this sense, Beth and the father and the mother and Mikey are all innocents, following the beliefs they learned when they were very young. And I don’t mean to be disrespectful of practicing Mormons; I think this acceptance of what we learned early on is built into all religions. Acceptance is part of what constitutes being “a good Mormon.”
When and why did you leave the LDS church? How would you describe your beliefs now?
I stopped attending Church pretty much when I left home at nineteen, but it wasn’t until I started attending the
Having experienced this, I know it can be very difficult when you start re-evaluating the beliefs given to you as a child. Many people just aren’t willing to do it. But what I discovered was that the world opened up in a wonderful way when I was able to look at all human consciousness and value the amazing variety of beliefs and cultures equally. Through reasoning, I discovered we are all gods. We become gods when we use our powers of imagination and perception to create a world we want to live in. Then we truly have free will and we are not susceptible to manipulation by others.
Zoe Murdock will be visiting Utah this week. You can meet her and listen to her read from her book:
Thursday, September 24th, 6:00 p.m.
The Book Cellar
130 N Main St Suite C
St. George, Utah
Saturday, September 26th, 2:00 p.m.
The King's English Bookshop
1511 S 1500 E
Salt Lake City, Utah
More information about these events is available here.
You can read more about the book at Zoe Murdock's website, order the book from Amazon, or download it to a Kindle. You can also read the first four chapters for free online.
(Photo credit: Scott Smith)
Email Jonathan: slcfreethinking@gmail.com
Read Jonathan's other articles on science and religion
Comments
(Part 2)
[3] Godhood: The only requirement for life to be on the path to godhood is the covenant of baptism and living by it. From there it becomes a matter of God’s judgment. For most, the New and Everlasting covenant of marriage (either polygamous or monogamous).
What I find most interesting about these polygamy groups is that there is no justification in LDS doctrine for 1) a polygamy break away, 2) the restoration of lost priesthood keys because of an LDS apostasy, and 3)
Indeed, there is no tenable position for polygamous breakoffs according to the writings of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.
Plural marriage without priesthood keys is adultery. Adultery and the Celestial glory are not compatible.
It’s literally that plain and that simple.
(Part 1)
Boy, today is Zoe’s and Jonathan’s lucky day. The long awaited answers to these mysteries are available:
[1] Plural marriage in heaven: To my knowledge none of the LDS plural marriages were canceled that were performed previously, meaning those individuals could practice plural marriage in heaven. Those who don’t want to live it would lose the blessings of it. As a side note, there are many degrees in the Celestial glory that are non-polygamous. You can be 1) an inhabitant of the Celestial glory and 2) be monogamous. Thousands of such marriages were solemnized in LDS temples, even in Brigham Young’s time.
[2] The Law of Consecration: Currently, active members of the Church who keep their Temple covenants are LIVING the Law of Consecration now. The giving of time, talents, tithing, and life of service to the Church. Zoe is confuses the pioneer “United Order” with the more abstract concept of “Law of Consecration.”
thanks for a fascinating article and interview!
Fantastic questions, which provide honest insightful answers, thank you!
"It seems like a significant fact about the founder of the religion and something that should have been more openly discussed."
Yeah... it's very important for Jews, Muslims, and Christians to discuss the polygamous relationships of Abraham, and his grandson Jacob and the long tradition of polygamy in Israel for hundreds of years prior to Jesus' birth and during his lifetime and after his death within the Judeo-Christian tradition.
[Part 2]
Source: Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 9 vols., ed., Scott G. Kenny (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 7:31; journal entry dated 24 September 1871
Jonathan, according to Brigham Young, Mormons during his lifetime and during anytime since the manifesto can still become gods and goddesses without practicing plural marriage.
Why didn’t you include these quotes in your article, or better yet ask Zoe Murdock why her novel doesn’t address them?
Is that too much freethinking for you?
[Part 1]
Jonathan quoted Brigham Young out of context above. Below is the correction:
“I attended the school of the prophets. Brother John Holeman made a long speech upon the subject of Poligamy. He Contended that no person Could have a Celestial glory unless He had a plurality of wives. Speeches were made By L. E. Harrington O Pratt Erastus Snow, D Evans J. F. Smith Lorenzo Young. Presidet Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with many wives & with No wife at all.”
Source: Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 9 vols., ed., Scott G. Kenny (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 6:527; journal entry dated 12 February 1870.
“Then Presidt Young spoke 58 Minuts. He said a Man may Embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart & not take the Second wife & be justified before the Lord.”
This article is poorly written and poorly researched. The interviewer didn't ask any hard questions at all.
In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote:
Question 4: Is plural or celestial marriage essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come?
Answer: Celestial marriage is essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come, as explained in the revelation concerning it; but it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential. . . . These questions are answered, so that it may not be truthfully claimed that we avoid them. . . . [
Source: “Charles W. Penrose, Improvement Era, vol. 15, no. 11, September 1912, 1042.”
Mystery solved! Perhaps Zoe didn’t do her research using the internet?
Tom - what you write in your comments is a clear illustration of the author's comments about unexamined childhood beliefs. Your explanations bear weight only if a person buys in to the doctrine. I've found that as I've examined the belifs of childhood with the rational mind of an adult, I can no longer accept the magical thinking and fantastical theology that is the basis of the mormon (and perhaps all) religion. I find these stories to challenge all logic. Continuing to believe is akin to a child holding on to a belief in Santa Clause when all reason denies his existence.
What you define as "answers" are merely hopes and beliefs. No one can truely know what, if anything, lies beyond this life. You may say that you are certain - but that is not the same as knowledge and no one has that knowledge because there is no way for anyone who is still living to know what comes next.
Zoe - the book is great, as is this interview!
JSM:
You wrote:
"I've found that as I've examined the belifs of childhood with the rational mind of an adult, I can no longer accept the magical thinking and fantastical theology that is the basis of the mormon (and perhaps all) religion."
There are millions of LDS members who were born into the faith who have examined their "childhood" beliefs and found that they are reasonable and rational based on evidence in the real world.
I am curious however, please explain the "magical thinking" that either childhood Mormons or adult Mormons employ and how it differs from any other thought process in reality.
The reason why I for this explanation is because I think you're making it up in your head, or adopting the language of others who believe that all faith is grounded in immaterial substance.
It seems that the author of the article and Mrs. Murdock are just recycling old arguments of polygamist sects who broke off from the LDS Church decades ago.
The article says that the book discusses three obscure doctrines but you can go online and do a search and find many quotes by the LDS Church, Church historians, or other LDS authors (some faithful and some not) who have covered these questions ad infinitum (well almost).
If there is anything new here, you've hidden it far better than Mrs. Murdock says that the LDS Church hides polygamy, Consecretion, and godhood.
The scriptures are full of magical stories - wine turned into water, thousands of people fed with only a few loaves of bread and a few fish, waters of the Red Sea parting, virgin births, etc., etc., etc.
Faith seem to me to be a suspension of logic. I wonder how many of those mormons that you refer to as having examined their faith have done so by searching ONLY mormon sanctioned materials and information. I see such a narrowness in the culture that discourages the members from reading anything that doesn't come from the church or church sanctioned authors. How does a person examine anything by looking only at one side of the issue?
I do not adopt the language of others...it isn't me who is quoting chapter and verse of other people's opinions and writings. My thoughts are my own.
It seems that the author of the article and Mrs. Murdock are just recycling old arguments of polygamist sects who broke off from the LDS Church decades ago.
The article says that the book discusses three obscure doctrines but you can go online and do a search and find many quotes by the LDS Church, Church historians, or other LDS authors (some faithful and some not) who have covered these questions ad infinitum (well almost).
If there is anything new here, you've hidden it far better than Mrs. Murdock says that the LDS Church hides polygamy, Consecretion, and godhood.
JSM(4)
According to his record, Moroni finished compiling it and buried it in New York around 421 AD, indicating that 1) he had lived longer than any other human in history or 2) that he died and came back to life to show Joseph Smith where he buried it.
What part of the logic don’t you quite understand? My bet is that you follow the logic just fine but you don’t like what the logic reveals.
JSM(3)
However, within Mormonism, faith is qualified by witnesses. Some of these witnesses are human and one of the witnesses is a book: the Book of Mormon.
Recently, archeological evidence was found in south Arabia that is consistent with the predictions made in 1830 about ancient life in 600 BC. This is evidence that Joseph Smith translated a real account of someone who was traveling through south Arabia in 600 BC. It’s evidence that the character Nephi was not a figment of Joseph Smith’s imagination but a real person in real history. This is indirect evidence that 1) Joseph Smith could translate ancient records, 2) that he had an ancient record in his possession, 3) that he translated it very well without knowledge of any other languages except English, and 4) is evidence for another character called Moroni (from whom he received the record.)
JSM(2)
The latter are not “magical” to us anymore because we understand the process of how they can occur in the real world. Who could have predicted that there was such a thing as dark energy and dark matter just a few decades ago? Yet, the unseen phenomena are now detectable to our eyes because of our advanced technology.
For Mormons, there is no such thing has immateriality – which is the basis for all religious faith except Mormonism. Mormons don’t believe in immaterial things. In the 1830s, Joseph Smith revealed as a religious principle, that matter and energy are neither created or made – something Einstein proved 100 years later. For us, faith is the knowledge of things that are unseen or that cannot be proven, but are true. Faith does not answer whether things are true or not – why? Because they are unseen or undetectable or cannot be proven presently.
JSM: (1)
You wrote:
“My thoughts are my own.”
Exactly. Your support for your arguments can only go as far as your knowledge and your limited understanding can take you. For example, it may have never occurred to you that Jesus simply changed the composition of the matter and turned water into wine, or that he multiplied loaves and fishes the same way, or that he has the power to hold back water using the forces of gravity, or that a being of total power and complete knowledge of matter and energy, could cause a human being to conceive without sexual intercourse, etc. etc., etc. A few decades ago, artificial insemination, cloning, or fertility drugs would have been just as “magical”, right? How about laser beams that can cut through steel?
I see TomH is a frequent basher here.
I recommend the book which is a great read! It illustrates the importance of questioning religious practices that are "hard-wired" into us like "language", as the author said in the interview. Fantastic review as well.
Your article and interview provokes far more than intellectual(?) debate (as above). Reflection on all above comments brings me face to face with my own conditioning-aspects that my critical mind had argued out of existence long ago. So, thank you!
JSM-I couldn't have said it better. Well put!
TomH-I see you almost every time I read one of these articles. You are obviously an intelligent and articulate person but I just don't understand why you put so much energy into reading these articles and then attempting to discredit the author. Have you seriously taken this on as a personal quest or are you sub-contentiously so afraid of the truth, that taking an active role in vengeful sabotage of a thread, actually helps you rationalize away the fact that you are not living your life authentically but simply following the ideas which were hard-wired as a child. This is a forum in which people bounce ideas and theories off of each other. So, please. Stop being so angry and take a look at your constant jabs at people for not being "free-thinking" enough. Go post on an official LDS website, where people of like mind can actually find some of the things that you have to say..useful..instead of just coming off as the guy throwing a tantru
TomH is back for more logic beat downs...
"archeological evidence was found in south Arabia that is consistent with the predictions made in 1830 about ancient life in 600 BC."
Haha, please... Jonathan wrote a great article on that stretch already:
/x-8829-Salt-Lake-City-Freethinking-Examiner~y2009m8d20-Evidence-for-the-Book-of-Mormon
The problem with TomH's points are that he assumes Jesus had technology that exists today. Laser beams... lol
The whole notion of the atonement is flawed. Sorry to break it.
Sorry, TomH didn't mean to use your name there.
The problem with TomH's points are that he assumes Jesus had technology that exists today. Laser beams... lol
The whole notion of the atonement is flawed. Sorry to break it.
Oh my, you all miss the point! All this arguing about who said what. The point the author is trying to make is to think for yourself, not keep digging up articles and evidence to support the programing you received as a child. When you think for yourself and live in accordance with what you know to be true (for yourself) you will not feel the need to judge others or try to convince them that what you believe is "right". I have had many "spiritual" experiences but I would never use them as an excuse to organize a church and tell you what to think or do. Many things are written....that does not make them "true". Your opinion on adultery and Celestial glory....more programing! The only reason you think you know what "God" said about those subjects is that someone told you he said it. Or, you had an experience that you interpreted to be God talking to you. Good for you, but allow others to have their own experience and come to their own conclusion as to what is true for them.
Donovan:
Jonathan superficially covered the "name" NHM but failed to incorporate all of the evidence from just south of Jerusalem down to the site for Bountiful.
You also fail to disclose that Jonathan admitted that the archeological evidence (Nhm and Bountiful) are consistent with the Book of Mormon.
On the question of atonement; it is coherent upon the existence of eternal laws of justice and mercy in the universe.
Based on the evidence, it appears that an eternal personal consciousness by itself is not "free" to roam the universe as it pleases but is bound by laws that it cannot pass.
The atonement offers eternal freedom to gain the power to surpass all boundaries in the universe into eternity.
BBB, (b)
But to answer your question, I do no possess the power to allow or disallow people to have their own experience or not. My posts do not determine such an outcome.
The issue is, will the premises or propositions of others hold up to scrutiny? If they don’t, then we can safely conclude, based on the evidence, that such premises and propositions are invalid.
BBB, (a)
Before I address your post and others, I’ll comment on your post below. You wrote:
“Good for you, but allow others to have their own experience and come to their own conclusion as to what is true for them.”
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you mean that we should allow for personal experience to become the “measure of truth” in one’s life?
You’re not suggesting that there are many “true” versions of reality, right? There is actually one reality, but there may be many views of it, that may not contain all of the necessary information to hold a “correct” or “real” view of reality. See the difference?
(8)
Now, take any polygamist break away group. Identify their “leader” and you’ll find that 1) he does not have any priesthood keys (or authority) as he was never the president of the Church or even a member of the Quorum of the 12, and 2) that he has abandoned the necessary doctrines in DC 112. How can he say “he’s been authorized again, when within Mormonism, there can be no more “restorations”?
All polygamist cult leaders fail in regard to number 1 and number 2.
For Michael Sterling, (or any other member) there was no need for “professional counseling”; instead, a careful reading of ALL of the teachings of Joseph Smith would have cleared up the matter. Dilemma solved.
It is clear that polygamy groups are apostate according to all of the teachings of Joseph Smith with or without the manifesto in 1890.
(7)
“ 30 For unto you, the Twelve, and those, the First Presidency, who are appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of this priesthood given, [for the last days and for the last time,] in the which is the dispensation of the fulness of times.
31 Which power you hold, in connection with all those who have received a dispensation at any time from the beginning of the creation;
32 For verily I say unto you, the keys of the dispensation, which ye have received, have come down from the fathers, and [last of all], being sent down from heaven unto you.” (Emphasis added)
Between the opening of the last dispensation and the return of Jesus Christ, there would be no new visions, visitations, etc. to give priesthood keys.
(6)
The claim of polygamist breakaway groups is/was that the LDS Church fell into apostasy when it discontinued the practice of plural marriage, therefore requiring a “restoration” or continuation of it by polygamist break away groups without the LDS Church.
So, let’s begin the necessary yet simple process of integration of all relevant doctrine pertaining to this issue.
First, there is the necessary connection between priesthood keys (not just priesthood authority) and plural marriage. Only the President of the Church can authorize multiple marriage sealings. (DC 132:45-48)
Second, in the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith revealed that there would not be another time of (apostasy and) restoration of priesthood keys and authority. (DC 112:30-32)
(5)
Many critics of the LDS Church or former disaffected Mormons are so eager to read something negative about Mormonism they emotionally approach these articles and fail to think critically.
Another post below stated that Jonathan’s article and Zoe’s book are, in essence, a re-hash of the old criticisms of polygamist break away groups. This is accurate.
Yet, a basic examination of Joseph Smith’s teachings on plural marriage reveals that you cannot separate priesthood keys from plural marriage. Now, once again, we’re not discussing whether or not such doctrine is from God, instead, we are making a necessary comparison between the premises of polygamist groups and the LDS Church to determine whether or not Jonathan’s or Zoe’s premises are valid.
The answer is so simple and so easy to come by that many are shocked when they read about it.
(4)
So, Zoe’s novel, in truth, is a pointless story because it fails to incorporate all of the doctrine of Mormonism and therefore, Michael Sterling fails to incorporate all of Mormon doctrine and therefore is susceptible to deception by the polygamist leader. Using all of Mormon doctrine, Sterling could have clearly identified that his vision was just a common dream and avoided deception.
If you go back to Jonathan’s other articles, you’ll find that he repeats this error over and over again: 1) he fails to incorporate all of the history or all of the doctrine. 2) its absence creates a false dilemma. 3) He writes an article about the false dilemma. This is either accidental or deliberate – only Jonathan can say why he repeats the error.
(3)
In truth, there is no dilemma in Mormonism when one of its members receives a “vision” contrary to the First Presidency or Quorum of the 12. Whether one agrees with Mormonism or not, the doctrine on modern revelation is that God reveals to man/woman ONLY that which pertains to his/her life or his/her “stewardship.” This is necessary and integral to the doctrine/concept of “modern day revelation.” Without this qualifier, both Jonathan and Zoe err in making a comparison between Mormonism and Zoe’s character, Michael Sterling.
Now remember, we are not debating whether or not such is “true” but we are defining what exactly Mormon doctrine is and whether or not Jonathan’s comparison (or Zoe’s) is coherent or follows logically. As you can see it does not follow; in fact, the absence of full disclosure of what the necessary premises are for modern day revelation, is what creates the impetus for the story. If the disclosure is made, the novel is pointless.
(2)
Jonathan, and Zoe, fail to adhere to the doctrine and history of the LDS religion when addressing or writing about the topic of modern revelation. They fail to address, that within Mormonism, there are doctrines, instructions, tools, etc, to be able to DISTINGUISH between the vision of Joseph Smith and the vision of Michael Sterling (or any other polygamist cult leader in real life.)
Jonathan and Zoe also fail to acknowledge and incorporate the LDS law that plural marriage was only authorized by priesthood key. Whether or not you or I believe in such “keys” is irrelevant. This is important in testing whether or not Jonathan’s or Zoe’s arguments or story is coherent and plausible or whether it’s just a fantasy in their heads.
(1)
Some have claimed that I suffer from “childhood programming” yet they cannot form logical arguments as to why their position is correct. Very interesting. You claim that I am the one with the disability but you fail to refute the arguments or evidence that I produce. Sorry, BBB, but it sounds like you’re just making excuses for yourself (and others).
The LDS religion has a doctrine and a history. These cannot be separated from Mormonism. In the article, Jonathan makes several false comparisons. The first is the comparison between the doctrine of modern revelation and the “revelation” between Micheal Sterling. In other posts, I criticize Jonathan’s arguments because he has not yet been able to make the clear distinction between emotions, feelings, sensations, perceptions, and knowledge. Jonathan’s identification error stems from this weakness. Because they don’t make the necessary distinctions, Jonathan and Zoe create a false dilemma.
(1)
Some have claimed that I suffer from “childhood programming” yet they cannot form logical arguments as to why their position is correct. Very interesting. You claim that I am the one with the disability but you fail to refute the arguments or evidence that I produce. Sorry, BBB, but it sounds like you’re just making excuses for yourself (and others).
The LDS religion has a doctrine and a history. These cannot be separated from Mormonism. In the article, Jonathan makes several false comparisons. The first is the comparison between the doctrine of modern revelation and the “revelation” between Micheal Sterling. In other posts, I criticize Jonathan’s arguments because he has not yet been able to make the clear distinction between emotions, feelings, sensations, perceptions, and knowledge. Jonathan’s identification error stems from this weakness. Because they don’t make the necessary distinctions, Jonathan and Zoe create a false dilemma.
(1)
Some have claimed that I suffer from “childhood programming” yet they cannot form logical arguments as to why their position is correct. Very interesting. You claim that I am the one with the disability but you fail to refute the arguments or evidence that I produce. Sorry, BBB, but it sounds like you’re just making excuses for yourself (and others).
The LDS religion has a doctrine and a history. These cannot be separated from Mormonism. In the article, Jonathan makes several false comparisons. The first is the comparison between the doctrine of modern revelation and the “revelation” between Micheal Sterling. In other posts, I criticize Jonathan’s arguments because he has not yet been able to make the clear distinction between emotions, feelings, sensations, perceptions, and knowledge. Jonathan’s identification error stems from this weakness. Because they don’t make the necessary distinctions, Jonathan and Zoe create a false dilemma.
does TomH do this to every thread here? what a drag!
grain:
It's a drag when you can't live in your self-created delusion, isn't it?
It would just be a lot easier if you didn't have to account for all of the facts?
(1)
Some have claimed that I suffer from “childhood programming” yet they cannot form logical arguments as to why their position is correct. Very interesting. You claim that I am the one with the disability but you fail to refute the arguments or evidence that I produce. Sorry, BBB, but it sounds like you’re just making excuses for yourself (and others).
The LDS religion has a doctrine and a history. These cannot be separated from Mormonism. In the article, Jonathan makes several false comparisons. The first is the comparison between the doctrine of modern revelation and the “revelation” between Micheal Sterling. In other posts, I criticize Jonathan’s arguments because he has not yet been able to make the clear distinction between emotions, feelings, sensations, perceptions, and knowledge. Jonathan’s identification error stems from this weakness. Because they don’t make the necessary distinctions, Jonathan and Zoe create a false dilemma.
same posting x 4
I am not making the multiple posts.
Tom doesn't accept anyone elses logic only because it doesn't match his preprogrammed Mormon logic.
He likes to make it seem like it's based in the material world, hence scientific, by saying things like changing water to wine wasn't magic, but converted from one form to another. But there is no direct conversion from water (simple H2O molecules) to wine (complex chains of carbohydrates and such). Molecules would have to broken down to atoms, and atoms to their composite protons, neutrons, and electrons; then recombined (with additional neutrons) to form completely different atoms then bonded into far more complex molecules. This is far too complex a process to be done by the wave of a hand. There is no science in Mormonism.
And of course as you see here he likes to spam his arguments to push other arguments under the fold.
Steve (2)
Years ago, Mormons were mocked for their belief in “refined” matter and energy that was not normally detectable to the human eye. However, recently, scientists and astronomers found a similar kind of matter and energy that fills the entire universe – dark matter and dark energy – undetectable to the human eye; an unseen type of matter and energy that was only recently discovered, proving once again that Mormon beliefs about matter and energy are plausible and rational. Don’t forget Steve, they were revealed in the 1830s, nearly 50 years before Einstein was born.
Steve, I understand that you need to complain about my arguments or evidence but to be clear, it’s not the same thing as responding directly to them. I know this is frustrating for you but try to open up your mind a little wider and perhaps even concede that you’ve probably been a bit naïve and flat out incorrect in your assessment of Mormonism.
Steve (1)
Steve, if you go back to my original post, you won't find that I proposed that there was a "direct" conversion. If your premise is not correct, your conclusion is not valid.
However, Mormonism would posit that indeed the necessary conversion, as you describe above, would have to take place. However, it would "appear" instantaneous and thus the category of "magic" would be incorrectly assigned to the process.
Mormonism doesn't claim that Jesus waived his hand either. Joseph Smith taught that spirit energy is more refined than energy and matter we can detect with the human eye. It is through the power of Jesus’ energy (glory) that Jesus commanded the elements to rearrange themselves at the subatomic and atomic level and the elements obeyed. This is classic Mormonism.
Steve: (0)
The acceptance of one’s logic depends on its validity. Now watch, I’ll examine your logic and show you why it’s not valid:
You propose that …
"There is no direct material conversion from water to wine and therefore Mormonism isn't scientific or material."
TomH: I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to try to keep your comments a little more succinct and on topic. I don't want to censor you, but I've gotten too many comments about you overwhelming the conversation. The comment section is a poor venue to engage in full-on debate, anyway. Have you considered becoming another Examiner?
Incidentally, this article didn't make any "argument," per se. The book is semi-autobiographical and represents her real life experiences and what people actually thought and did and said. You could clarify Mormon theology or explain why Michael Sterling was wrong according to that theology, but it's rather irrelevant ("wrong" or not, it's what he believed) and somewhat circular (According the Mormon theology, FLDS theology is incorrect.)
The Jesus discussion is similarly circular. "Could" doesn't equal "did." Speculate on how water turned to wine all you want, but that isn't evidence that it did.
I really can't believe what I am reading below from the author of this article. Jonathan Montgomery's post is indicative of a freethinking nazi!
If you don't post what Jonathan likes, he'll censure you! This must be the world of the critics of Mormonism. They want to control the information so they can control the arguments. What a cowardly act.
TomH was attacked and he defended himself. He didn't go off topic deliberately but responded to another post. He wouldn't have been forced to write off topic if Jonathan had intervened and asked Donovan and others to stay on topic. What hypocrisy!
I have a mind to report Mr. Montgomery to the Examiner and ask that he be eliminated from it. He doesn't measure up to his name or his topic "freethinker."
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!