Episode 61: Bonus: 10 Tribes–the After Discussion

John, Zilpha, Tom, Mike, and Glenn in a “captured” lively discussion about a variety of topics. Perk up your ears for great lines such as “You know who screwed them up?, God!”, “The cows are gonna pass down the culture?”, “They’ll be having sex”, “You don’t pray to the Daughter in the name of the Mother, it doesn’t work that way.”, “So you’re not “Fowler Stage 5?”…I couldn’t even say it without laughing.”, “Faith for me is just kind of a hope to keep peace in my house.” and other gems.

Episode 61

196 comments on “Episode 61: Bonus: 10 Tribes–the After Discussion”

  1. Glenn Reply

    “A couple of the panelists have assured me this is interesting…”

    A ringing endorsement if I ever heard one. I guess we’ll find out, won’t we.

  2. Glenn Reply

    “A couple of the panelists have assured me this is interesting…”

    A ringing endorsement if I ever heard one. I guess we’ll find out, won’t we.

  3. Swearing Elder Reply

    In the beginning God created Steve Jobs. And Steve Jobs created Apple. And it was good.

    And many years did pass. And Steve Jobs said unto his engineers, “Go forth and make a small, hand-held device that playeth music. Yeah, verily, like unto a Walkman, but yeah, maketh it in such a way that there be no need to put a cassette or compact disc into it.”

    And so they did. And they called it the iPod. And it was good. And one engineer, even a prophet, said, “One day someone shall drive to work listening to his iPod and he will heareth nonsense like unto which he hath not heard before. Yeah, he will need that this device be able to speed up the speech of the nonsense speaker so that his head will hurt, but not as much as it would have.” And he added the double-speed button to this iPod. And it was good.

    And it came to pass that a certain Swearing Elder was driving to work and nearly drove off the side of the road, even almost to his own destruction, when he did hear lightmindedness and loud laughter about the genitalia of he who founded the Mormon Expression podcast.

    But, then he did employ the small button indicating “2X” when the Pharisee Mike did speak. For his head hurteth. But at double speed it doth hurteth even a wee bit less.

    Even so. Amen.

  4. Swearing Elder Reply

    In the beginning God created Steve Jobs. And Steve Jobs created Apple. And it was good.

    And many years did pass. And Steve Jobs said unto his engineers, “Go forth and make a small, hand-held device that playeth music. Yeah, verily, like unto a Walkman, but yeah, maketh it in such a way that there be no need to put a cassette or compact disc into it.”

    And so they did. And they called it the iPod. And it was good. And one engineer, even a prophet, said, “One day someone shall drive to work listening to his iPod and he will heareth nonsense like unto which he hath not heard before. Yeah, he will need that this device be able to speed up the speech of the nonsense speaker so that his head will hurt, but not as much as it would have.” And he added the double-speed button to this iPod. And it was good.

    And it came to pass that a certain Swearing Elder was driving to work and nearly drove off the side of the road, even almost to his own destruction, when he did hear lightmindedness and loud laughter about the genitalia of he who founded the Mormon Expression podcast.

    But, then he did employ the small button indicating “2X” when the Pharisee Mike did speak. For his head hurteth. But at double speed it doth hurteth even a wee bit less.

    Even so. Amen.

  5. Sionpiensa Reply

    Mike
    I have respect for your positions, however there is the matter of adopting the husband name in this podcast.., so in your understanding the patriarcal order makes a wife takes the husband name (last name) to become part of that order
    So… we people of the kingdom of Spain are not going to receive celestial glory, because women do NOT take husband’s name when they marry.
    This is just a sign that you should check your answers and understand if they are correct, for the Saints in SPain this one can be very offensive… or enlight me and explain
    Thank you

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      Sionpiensa,
      Think of it this way: In the resurrection it is the husbands and fathers that resurrect their wives and children. They resurrect those that are sealed to them.

      This is after the order of the priesthood, and those that are sealed to them will either give glory or condemn those responsible over them.

      Note: If a man is unworthy to act in his responsibilities the next available worthy priesthood holder in that family line will then act in place of the unworthy.

  6. Sionpiensa Reply

    Mike
    I have respect for your positions, however there is the matter of adopting the husband name in this podcast.., so in your understanding the patriarcal order makes a wife takes the husband name (last name) to become part of that order
    So… we people of the kingdom of Spain are not going to receive celestial glory, because women do NOT take husband’s name when they marry.
    This is just a sign that you should check your answers and understand if they are correct, for the Saints in SPain this one can be very offensive… or enlight me and explain
    Thank you

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      Sionpiensa,
      Think of it this way: In the resurrection it is the husbands and fathers that resurrect their wives and children. They resurrect those that are sealed to them.

      This is after the order of the priesthood, and those that are sealed to them will either give glory or condemn those responsible over them.

      Note: If a man is unworthy to act in his responsibilities the next available worthy priesthood holder in that family line will then act in place of the unworthy.

  7. Swearing Elder Reply

    What Sionpiensa says is true of all of Latin America as well. And, Miguel, guess what is the largest segment and fastest growing area of the LDS Church?

    (It’s also the one that loses the most members and loses them the fastest, but, shhhh, we’ll just ignore that for now.)

  8. Swearing Elder Reply

    What Sionpiensa says is true of all of Latin America as well. And, Miguel, guess what is the largest segment and fastest growing area of the LDS Church?

    (It’s also the one that loses the most members and loses them the fastest, but, shhhh, we’ll just ignore that for now.)

  9. JD Reply

    Best Mormon Expression ever. It was refreshing to hear people speak candidly. I love the episodes where we get this kind of banter; there should be more of it.

    Mike – Perhaps I can more fully state what I believe the panel was trying to convey at the beginning, and in so doing I think it would help you personally. Even though I am not inclined to believe a word of the nonsense you advocate – like it being OK for God to wipe out cultures & people, or the whole women taking husband’s name issue – even though I think that is total garbage, I really think you would be more persuasive if you had an ounce of sensitivity regarding many of these issues. If you are fighting for the church and want the church is going to grow you at least have to address your audience in a persuasive and appealing way. You don’t. You come off sounding like a nut because you can’t possibly understand how a believing member could think that the Adam/Eve story might not be quite as literal as the church sometimes makes it sound. If you are familiar at all with the evidence, the science, and the good reasons, you should be able to empathize with these people’s positions even if you disagree. Instead you scoff and say they should repent. Empathy & sensitivity vs. arrogance & condemnation. It makes you sound ultra-nutty when you condemn believers, temple-goers, who don’t believe the exact same stuff in the same way you do. It is 2010 brother, and I’m not saying you should abandon your heart-felt beliefs just to get with the times and be socially accepted but to be effective you simply must understand how your message is heard. A little more sensitivity regarding science, racism, sexism, and genocide would go a long way towards making you sound less like a fanatical stuck in the last century and more like a thoughtful faithful member who believes despite the tough issues. Just sayin’. Stay on the podcast though; you are always there to remind non-believing listeners like myself just how far out of the darkness I’ve come.

  10. JD Reply

    Best Mormon Expression ever. It was refreshing to hear people speak candidly. I love the episodes where we get this kind of banter; there should be more of it.

    Mike – Perhaps I can more fully state what I believe the panel was trying to convey at the beginning, and in so doing I think it would help you personally. Even though I am not inclined to believe a word of the nonsense you advocate – like it being OK for God to wipe out cultures & people, or the whole women taking husband’s name issue – even though I think that is total garbage, I really think you would be more persuasive if you had an ounce of sensitivity regarding many of these issues. If you are fighting for the church and want the church is going to grow you at least have to address your audience in a persuasive and appealing way. You don’t. You come off sounding like a nut because you can’t possibly understand how a believing member could think that the Adam/Eve story might not be quite as literal as the church sometimes makes it sound. If you are familiar at all with the evidence, the science, and the good reasons, you should be able to empathize with these people’s positions even if you disagree. Instead you scoff and say they should repent. Empathy & sensitivity vs. arrogance & condemnation. It makes you sound ultra-nutty when you condemn believers, temple-goers, who don’t believe the exact same stuff in the same way you do. It is 2010 brother, and I’m not saying you should abandon your heart-felt beliefs just to get with the times and be socially accepted but to be effective you simply must understand how your message is heard. A little more sensitivity regarding science, racism, sexism, and genocide would go a long way towards making you sound less like a fanatical stuck in the last century and more like a thoughtful faithful member who believes despite the tough issues. Just sayin’. Stay on the podcast though; you are always there to remind non-believing listeners like myself just how far out of the darkness I’ve come.

  11. jax Reply

    Interesting listen. Amazing. You all need to do this again.
    Mike, I have great respect for you. I do not agree with you, but I think it says a lot that you come on the podcasts and represent what is true to you.
    One thing that bothers me, however, I would really like to hear more about your point of view. At one point in the podcast the discussion begins to swirl around why you appear. I believe it is John who asks you to explain your reasons, and in your response you mentioned the term “antis” a couple of times. I have not gone back over it, but I got the impression you used that term as a blanket name for anyone involved in the podcast who is not a full believing member. Was this your intention? Are all former or formerly believing members lumoed into the “anti-Mormon” category to you?
    Tom, your open minded and respectful attitude towards women is a breath of fresh air. Thank you for making my day with your comments.
    jax

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      Jax,
      I do use the term in a blanket fashion, and I probably shouldent. The NOM attitude does bother me, I hate the one foot out the door faithless response to some of the topics.

  12. jax Reply

    Interesting listen. Amazing. You all need to do this again.
    Mike, I have great respect for you. I do not agree with you, but I think it says a lot that you come on the podcasts and represent what is true to you.
    One thing that bothers me, however, I would really like to hear more about your point of view. At one point in the podcast the discussion begins to swirl around why you appear. I believe it is John who asks you to explain your reasons, and in your response you mentioned the term “antis” a couple of times. I have not gone back over it, but I got the impression you used that term as a blanket name for anyone involved in the podcast who is not a full believing member. Was this your intention? Are all former or formerly believing members lumoed into the “anti-Mormon” category to you?
    Tom, your open minded and respectful attitude towards women is a breath of fresh air. Thank you for making my day with your comments.
    jax

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      Jax,
      I do use the term in a blanket fashion, and I probably shouldent. The NOM attitude does bother me, I hate the one foot out the door faithless response to some of the topics.

  13. Polly Anna Reply

    I rarely comment, but this podcast was shockingly offensive to the reasonable person. John was exactly right when he said it’s views like Mikes that make people like me want to run for the hills. He sounded incredibly ethnocentric and sexist in this pod cast.

    1.The whole argument that blacks couldn’t hold the priesthood because of the family that they were in makes not sense when you read Article of Faith #2 “We believe that men will be apunished for their bown sins, and not for Adam’s ctransgression.” Is it that only white men are punished for their own sins, but black men and women are punished for their father’s sins. That is very unfair.
    2.The reasons Mike used to justify his ethnocentric view that when the Israelites killed the women and children it was a “mercy killing” it sounds so similar to the views that the crusades, witch hunt, or other ethnic cleansing or the more recent Islamic extremist now that feel justified in killing the “infidel.” When one religions starts to justify that they have the truth and the “other’s” beliefs are invalid and “evil” that is a recipe for genocide. If the Israelites did what they did the city of Jericho today the UN would classify it as a act of genocide and would a human rights atrocity. One can not just say we have the truth so we can kill the wicked and think that is justifiable. That’s what the extremist are doing today. That’s why we have professions like anthropology and sociology to help us get over thinking that someone else’s believes are savage, less worthy of existence, invalid or justify killing and wiping out.
    3.Mikes explanation of why women need to take on the family name was so incredibly ignorant. As an adopted person I’ve learned how unimportant family names and blood ties really are. Those things are not written in stone and change so infrequently. Also the church does not require you to take your husbands name to be sealed to him. It is not a temple recommend question. I’ve know Mormon women who did not take their husband’s name so clearly that wasn’t part of the ordinance. I’ve never heard that in all my life and I think that out of the book of Mormon Doctrine According to Mike.
    4.Macro evolution is taught at BYU. Read this article from BYU: http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/71097

  14. Polly Anna Reply

    I rarely comment, but this podcast was shockingly offensive to the reasonable person. John was exactly right when he said it’s views like Mikes that make people like me want to run for the hills. He sounded incredibly ethnocentric and sexist in this pod cast.

    1.The whole argument that blacks couldn’t hold the priesthood because of the family that they were in makes not sense when you read Article of Faith #2 “We believe that men will be apunished for their bown sins, and not for Adam’s ctransgression.” Is it that only white men are punished for their own sins, but black men and women are punished for their father’s sins. That is very unfair.
    2.The reasons Mike used to justify his ethnocentric view that when the Israelites killed the women and children it was a “mercy killing” it sounds so similar to the views that the crusades, witch hunt, or other ethnic cleansing or the more recent Islamic extremist now that feel justified in killing the “infidel.” When one religions starts to justify that they have the truth and the “other’s” beliefs are invalid and “evil” that is a recipe for genocide. If the Israelites did what they did the city of Jericho today the UN would classify it as a act of genocide and would a human rights atrocity. One can not just say we have the truth so we can kill the wicked and think that is justifiable. That’s what the extremist are doing today. That’s why we have professions like anthropology and sociology to help us get over thinking that someone else’s believes are savage, less worthy of existence, invalid or justify killing and wiping out.
    3.Mikes explanation of why women need to take on the family name was so incredibly ignorant. As an adopted person I’ve learned how unimportant family names and blood ties really are. Those things are not written in stone and change so infrequently. Also the church does not require you to take your husbands name to be sealed to him. It is not a temple recommend question. I’ve know Mormon women who did not take their husband’s name so clearly that wasn’t part of the ordinance. I’ve never heard that in all my life and I think that out of the book of Mormon Doctrine According to Mike.
    4.Macro evolution is taught at BYU. Read this article from BYU: http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/71097

  15. Polly Anna Reply

    p.s. you guys keep talking over Zilpha. It’s rude. Let her jump in when she starts to talk.

    • Mister IT Reply

      Amen! You preach it.

      Guys get the lady her due!

      And, Zilpa, fight the power – speak up over the testosterone!

  16. Polly Anna Reply

    p.s. you guys keep talking over Zilpha. It’s rude. Let her jump in when she starts to talk.

    • Mister IT Reply

      Amen! You preach it.

      Guys get the lady her due!

      And, Zilpa, fight the power – speak up over the testosterone!

  17. Glenn Reply

    Polly Anna,

    I hear what you are saying about talking over Zilpha. I hate it when I listen to one of these back and hear that I am guilty of that very thing. It may sound rude when you hear it, but it is just a by-product of the group skype call where we can’t see each other to know who is getting ready to speak next and don’t always hear when someone else has jumped in at about the same time. It’s certainly not intentional. In fact I think my two favorite moments from this one were the John-Zilpha interplays. “Skulls” and “Outlaw” to be precise.

  18. Glenn Reply

    Polly Anna,

    I hear what you are saying about talking over Zilpha. I hate it when I listen to one of these back and hear that I am guilty of that very thing. It may sound rude when you hear it, but it is just a by-product of the group skype call where we can’t see each other to know who is getting ready to speak next and don’t always hear when someone else has jumped in at about the same time. It’s certainly not intentional. In fact I think my two favorite moments from this one were the John-Zilpha interplays. “Skulls” and “Outlaw” to be precise.

  19. Zilpha Reply

    Polly Anna,

    Probably the reason it sounds like they talk over me a lot is that I tend to interrupt them when their in the middle of saying something. So I’m afraid that I’m the rude one.

  20. Zilpha Reply

    Polly Anna,

    Probably the reason it sounds like they talk over me a lot is that I tend to interrupt them when their in the middle of saying something. So I’m afraid that I’m the rude one.

  21. Polly Anna Reply

    I just hear you start to say something, but then you never get to finish your thought. I like hearing what Zilpha has to say. I think your add at the beginning is very cute and funny.

  22. Polly Anna Reply

    I just hear you start to say something, but then you never get to finish your thought. I like hearing what Zilpha has to say. I think your add at the beginning is very cute and funny.

  23. scott Reply

    I don’t know whose interrupting whom, but I want more Zilpha.

    And will Nyal be returning any time soon?

    • Swearing Elder Reply

      Yeah, where is Nyal? I think Glenn and Nyal could take turns serving as “Moroni’s Advocate” — the Mormon version of the “Devil’s Advocate.” They both play the Mormon role quite well.

  24. scott Reply

    I don’t know whose interrupting whom, but I want more Zilpha.

    And will Nyal be returning any time soon?

    • Swearing Elder Reply

      Yeah, where is Nyal? I think Glenn and Nyal could take turns serving as “Moroni’s Advocate” — the Mormon version of the “Devil’s Advocate.” They both play the Mormon role quite well.

  25. Mike Tannehill Reply

    Its been so long I have no memory of what I said in this. Im looking forward to hearing it though, we always have fun discussions after the podcasts.

    • Glenn Reply

      I agree — it was fun. So once you have listened back to it Mike, any different thoughts now than then? Do you stick by everything you said or do you want to make any adjustments/clarifications?

      • Mike Tannehill Reply

        I got to listen to this this weekend. I thought it turned out really well. No retractions.

        I should probably clarify, but that will be a larger project later on.

  26. Mike Tannehill Reply

    Its been so long I have no memory of what I said in this. Im looking forward to hearing it though, we always have fun discussions after the podcasts.

    • Glenn Reply

      I agree — it was fun. So once you have listened back to it Mike, any different thoughts now than then? Do you stick by everything you said or do you want to make any adjustments/clarifications?

      • Mike Tannehill Reply

        I got to listen to this this weekend. I thought it turned out really well. No retractions.

        I should probably clarify, but that will be a larger project later on.

    • Rich Rasmussen Reply

      Did anyone else feel a great rush of reverence at the utterance of the name George?

    • Rich Rasmussen Reply

      Did anyone else feel a great rush of reverence at the utterance of the name George?

  27. Rich Rasmussen Reply

    That was an extremely refreshing podcast! I realize all episodes can’t/shouldn’t be stripped of diplomacy and represent my own views…but they are fun when they do.

  28. Rich Rasmussen Reply

    That was an extremely refreshing podcast! I realize all episodes can’t/shouldn’t be stripped of diplomacy and represent my own views…but they are fun when they do.

  29. JD Reply

    Yeah, seriously, Nyal, where is that guy? I want one of these with Nyal in it.

    Zilpha I was cracking up when you corrected John’s mispronunciation of skulls. “He means skulls” ‘Isn’t that what I said?’

    Sometimes it sounds like Zilpha is shouting from across the room and the mic doesn’t pick her up.

    • Zilpha Reply

      That’s because I WAS shouting from the other room sometimes. If I remember correctly, I was finishing up the dishes and would just run in to comment when I felt like it. You need to know that none of us knew we were being recorded (with the possible exception of Glenn, who is the one who luckily left his recorder going). So we all thought we were having just another discussion after the podcast recording was finished.

  30. JD Reply

    Yeah, seriously, Nyal, where is that guy? I want one of these with Nyal in it.

    Zilpha I was cracking up when you corrected John’s mispronunciation of skulls. “He means skulls” ‘Isn’t that what I said?’

    Sometimes it sounds like Zilpha is shouting from across the room and the mic doesn’t pick her up.

    • Zilpha Reply

      That’s because I WAS shouting from the other room sometimes. If I remember correctly, I was finishing up the dishes and would just run in to comment when I felt like it. You need to know that none of us knew we were being recorded (with the possible exception of Glenn, who is the one who luckily left his recorder going). So we all thought we were having just another discussion after the podcast recording was finished.

  31. Gunnar R. Reply

    Enjoyable discussion! John, what you said about a “spiritual witness” really resonated with me. Like you, I tried and tried to obtain a “testimony” through prayer, but after years of trying, I never received any answer that I could unequivocally attribute anything other than my imagination and desire to believe. Indeed, Alma 32 makes it a point to stress the importance of an initial desire to believe. I eventually realized that if one starts out investigating something with an initial desire to believe it, one automatically makes oneself vulnerable to self delusion and confirmation bias.

    Finally, I couldn’t help but conclude that the longer it takes to eventually obtain a testimony by that means, the greater is the probability that said testimony, when finally acquired, is nothing more than a product of that desire to believe and one’s own imagination. This conclusion was greatly reinforced by the fact that I had talked to people both during and after my mission who testified just as fervently as any Mormon (as far as I could tell) to have received divine confirmation via prayer and fasting their own religious convictions–including the conviction that Mormonism was of the Devil!

    If one were to devise plan for how to successfully delude oneself, it would be hard to imagine a more effective procedure than that outlined in Alma 32!

    • Rich Rasmussen Reply

      I recently went around and around Alma 32 with my EQ President (good guy, trying to fix me). Anyway, it might be a good discussion for a future episode; there seems to be quite a lot of footing in that chapter for a conflicting viewpoints.

  32. Gunnar R. Reply

    Enjoyable discussion! John, what you said about a “spiritual witness” really resonated with me. Like you, I tried and tried to obtain a “testimony” through prayer, but after years of trying, I never received any answer that I could unequivocally attribute anything other than my imagination and desire to believe. Indeed, Alma 32 makes it a point to stress the importance of an initial desire to believe. I eventually realized that if one starts out investigating something with an initial desire to believe it, one automatically makes oneself vulnerable to self delusion and confirmation bias.

    Finally, I couldn’t help but conclude that the longer it takes to eventually obtain a testimony by that means, the greater is the probability that said testimony, when finally acquired, is nothing more than a product of that desire to believe and one’s own imagination. This conclusion was greatly reinforced by the fact that I had talked to people both during and after my mission who testified just as fervently as any Mormon (as far as I could tell) to have received divine confirmation via prayer and fasting their own religious convictions–including the conviction that Mormonism was of the Devil!

    If one were to devise plan for how to successfully delude oneself, it would be hard to imagine a more effective procedure than that outlined in Alma 32!

    • Rich Rasmussen Reply

      I recently went around and around Alma 32 with my EQ President (good guy, trying to fix me). Anyway, it might be a good discussion for a future episode; there seems to be quite a lot of footing in that chapter for a conflicting viewpoints.

  33. George Miller Reply

    Dear Mormon Expressions Crew- Just wanted to let you know that this episode highly entertaining. I actually think it was one of my favorites. You mentioned early on in the post broadcast that perhaps you should do a podcast on the Documentary Hypothesis and the book Who Wrote the Bible. Who do I have to beg to get you to do one on this? I love the documentary hypothesis as it finally gave me answers to my MANY questions about the Old Testament. Is there any chance you guys would actually do such a podcast?

  34. George Miller Reply

    Dear Mormon Expressions Crew- Just wanted to let you know that this episode highly entertaining. I actually think it was one of my favorites. You mentioned early on in the post broadcast that perhaps you should do a podcast on the Documentary Hypothesis and the book Who Wrote the Bible. Who do I have to beg to get you to do one on this? I love the documentary hypothesis as it finally gave me answers to my MANY questions about the Old Testament. Is there any chance you guys would actually do such a podcast?

  35. Sam Andy Reply

    I think that if some of the Brethren were to listen to the totality of podcasts in which Mike has participated, they would spend a lot of time blushing with embarrassment at the dogmatic robot they have created. Especially the more reasonable ones like Elders Holland and Marlin Jensen (Elder Holland would blush in private, but not in public). But then again, some of them might be very proud of him. Or, they would be proud of themselves for being able to have such control over their membership.

    Here’s a nice blog entry from Jeff Lindsay that could help guys like Mike chill out a bit:

    http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2006/11/cutting-little-slack-for-ex-mormons.html

  36. Sam Andy Reply

    I think that if some of the Brethren were to listen to the totality of podcasts in which Mike has participated, they would spend a lot of time blushing with embarrassment at the dogmatic robot they have created. Especially the more reasonable ones like Elders Holland and Marlin Jensen (Elder Holland would blush in private, but not in public). But then again, some of them might be very proud of him. Or, they would be proud of themselves for being able to have such control over their membership.

    Here’s a nice blog entry from Jeff Lindsay that could help guys like Mike chill out a bit:

    http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2006/11/cutting-little-slack-for-ex-mormons.html

  37. Sam Andy Reply

    By the way, Swearing Elder, your iPod comment was a hoot!

    Also, I’m looking forward to one of these “after” discussions in which Bridget participates. Should be fun!

  38. Sam Andy Reply

    By the way, Swearing Elder, your iPod comment was a hoot!

    Also, I’m looking forward to one of these “after” discussions in which Bridget participates. Should be fun!

  39. Jackie Reply

    I rarely comment, but this podcast was shockingly offensive to the reasonable person. John was exactly right when he said it’s views like Mikes that make people like me want to run for the hills.

      • Swearing Elder Reply

        I’ve said it before; I’ll say it again: Step back and listen to yourself, Mike. Use empathy as you listen. Put yourself in the shoes of other people as you listen to yourself. How would they react to your comments?

        Do you seriously not get it?

      • scott Reply

        hahaha… oh mike… i almost want you to keep it up because you add an entertainment value to the podcast that wasn’t quite there before you joined…

        • Mister IT Reply

          >Step back and listen to yourself, Mike. Use empathy as you listen. Put yourself in the shoes of other people as you listen to yourself. How would they react to your comments?Only the faithless seem to be offended<

          I see. So one has to be "worthy", "enlightened", or "quickened" to receive your great wisdom?

          Someone else has already said but I'll say it too: Typical!

          Mike, if you're unaware of this, this is called a "Double Bind" and Mormonism has mastered it to a 'T'.
          (see http://www.exmormon.org/pattern/dbmormon.htm )

  40. Jackie Reply

    I rarely comment, but this podcast was shockingly offensive to the reasonable person. John was exactly right when he said it’s views like Mikes that make people like me want to run for the hills.

      • Swearing Elder Reply

        I’ve said it before; I’ll say it again: Step back and listen to yourself, Mike. Use empathy as you listen. Put yourself in the shoes of other people as you listen to yourself. How would they react to your comments?

        Do you seriously not get it?

      • scott Reply

        hahaha… oh mike… i almost want you to keep it up because you add an entertainment value to the podcast that wasn’t quite there before you joined…

        • Mister IT Reply

          >Step back and listen to yourself, Mike. Use empathy as you listen. Put yourself in the shoes of other people as you listen to yourself. How would they react to your comments?Only the faithless seem to be offended<

          I see. So one has to be "worthy", "enlightened", or "quickened" to receive your great wisdom?

          Someone else has already said but I'll say it too: Typical!

          Mike, if you're unaware of this, this is called a "Double Bind" and Mormonism has mastered it to a 'T'.
          (see http://www.exmormon.org/pattern/dbmormon.htm )

  41. ed42 Reply

    Can the ‘truth’ ever be anti-Mormon?

    I really enjoyed this podcast.

  42. ed42 Reply

    Can the ‘truth’ ever be anti-Mormon?

    I really enjoyed this podcast.

  43. Jason Reply

    I loved this podcast and, as several others said, perhaps it was my favorite. I found myself almost yelling out loud “Answer the question, Mike!” Mike has a way of slipping out of questions, much like a politician, and not meeting arguments at their strongest point. For example, it seemed to take John around five minutes of pinning down Mike to acknowledge the intellectual difficulty in God’s decision to select an elite crowd via blood lines and condemn other innocent individuals who are not in the line. Finally, Mike admitted that this is a “mystery,” which is the best one can expect from John’s tough question. But, if this concept is a mystery of God, why does Mike spend so much time offering long-winded answers about the Book of Mormon, taking the name of Christ, etc., when, Mike admits ultimately that it’s a mystery?

    John, I agree with many of your critiques on Mormonism. But just because you can’t imagine the state of things in the hereafter (e.g. whether the body will reproduce or not), it does not follow that it must not be true.

    • NightAvatar Reply

      I believe John’s point was that the so-called “master plan” (of salvation) doesn’t make any sense. It breaks down when one tries to think it through to a logical end.

      How are families “forever” in Mormonism and not other faiths? It’s a nice catch-phrase, but what exactly does it mean? If it can’t be defined, then what’s the point of using it in so much of the marketing (missionary discussions, etc)?

      And what exactly does Mormonism think the exalted Saints will be doing in the afterlife? Once they reach the Celestial kingdom? According to Mike (and probably the official doctrine) the plan is to pop out spiritual babies by the millions (billions?) and start creating worlds of our own? And all this to glorify Elohim? Huh?

      If it doesn’t make sense, why believe in it? What good is the “truth” if it doesn’t make any sense? Especially if in order for it to be true, all common sense, reason and logic, as well as most if not all of the sciences, must be put aside to make room for the faith.

  44. Jason Reply

    I loved this podcast and, as several others said, perhaps it was my favorite. I found myself almost yelling out loud “Answer the question, Mike!” Mike has a way of slipping out of questions, much like a politician, and not meeting arguments at their strongest point. For example, it seemed to take John around five minutes of pinning down Mike to acknowledge the intellectual difficulty in God’s decision to select an elite crowd via blood lines and condemn other innocent individuals who are not in the line. Finally, Mike admitted that this is a “mystery,” which is the best one can expect from John’s tough question. But, if this concept is a mystery of God, why does Mike spend so much time offering long-winded answers about the Book of Mormon, taking the name of Christ, etc., when, Mike admits ultimately that it’s a mystery?

    John, I agree with many of your critiques on Mormonism. But just because you can’t imagine the state of things in the hereafter (e.g. whether the body will reproduce or not), it does not follow that it must not be true.

    • NightAvatar Reply

      I believe John’s point was that the so-called “master plan” (of salvation) doesn’t make any sense. It breaks down when one tries to think it through to a logical end.

      How are families “forever” in Mormonism and not other faiths? It’s a nice catch-phrase, but what exactly does it mean? If it can’t be defined, then what’s the point of using it in so much of the marketing (missionary discussions, etc)?

      And what exactly does Mormonism think the exalted Saints will be doing in the afterlife? Once they reach the Celestial kingdom? According to Mike (and probably the official doctrine) the plan is to pop out spiritual babies by the millions (billions?) and start creating worlds of our own? And all this to glorify Elohim? Huh?

      If it doesn’t make sense, why believe in it? What good is the “truth” if it doesn’t make any sense? Especially if in order for it to be true, all common sense, reason and logic, as well as most if not all of the sciences, must be put aside to make room for the faith.

  45. Mike Tannehill Reply

    I guess I should try my hand at clarifying this:

    We all understand that everyone who rejected Christ in the pre-mortal world were cast into Outer Darkness with Lucifer.

    We also all understand that all who were born into this world will receive a resurrection. This even includes those who in this life reject Christ. These will be placed in the Telestial Kingdom. (D&C 88:35)

    Those who covenant with Christ through baptism and seek to live up to this covenant will be placed in the Terrestrial kingdom. They will receive a different resurrection than those who made no covenant. (D&C 88:11-24)

    Those who Covenant with God through His Temple, and those who receive the Highest Covenant, that of Celestial Marriage (The New and Everlasting Covenant, The Abrahamic Covenant) receive a different degree of glory that those who chose to receive and live the law of baptism only. This covenant is not the covenant of salvation, that is baptism, it is the covenant of exaltation. In this covenant you emulate Christ in that you place your name, through covenant, on those you have received a stewardship over. A husband and Father promises to care for and protect his wife and children, both physically and spiritually. Just as Christ declares all that he has comes from his Father, and we declare all that we have comes from Christ, we seek to emulate Christ by being the lightbearer to all those sealed to us.

    Those who keep this covenant reeive promises relative to their posterity, such as the rights and blessings of the priesthood being made available to their posterity. This is why the twelve tribes, and membership in those tribes, matters to those who seek to follow the messiah.

    • NightAvatar Reply

      Thanks for the attempt, Mike. That’s just whacked none the less. Especially considering section 132 states that you have to live in a polygamous marriage to make it to the highest order of heaven. No thanks! 😉

      It may make sense in your small world but when you look at the world as a whole planet, where several countries don’t even use last names, or change last names constantly, and when you realize who actually wrote the Bible and how it is not in fact historical records of real people but mainly legends and myths written down to empower the people in their time of slavery and national crisis, then it doesn’t make so much sense after all. Especially in the light of these modern times. Names really don’t mean so much. Neither do borders.

      If names are so important, what was Jesus’ last name? Or Moses’ or Abraham?

      How does that make any sense to you at all?

    • Ella Menno Reply

      Ah, I just love how my “exaltation” is completely dependent upon the men in my life. I really don’t have to do anything since I’m female and it’s either my husband or father who will take me to the CK. It almost makes me wish I hadn’t taken my husband’s name.

      It’s okay, Mike. This is what you’ve been taught and I don’t blame you. In fact, this podcast is so much better for the dogma you bring to the table. If it wasn’t for you it would be just a bunch of liberal, ex, and anti mormons talking about their interpretations. You’ve got the McConkie mormonism down. Sure, it grates, but the conversation would be incomplete without you. I actually love it when something you say makes me cringe. Keep it up, all of you!

      • Mike Tannehill Reply

        Its not as simple as “My husband only counts”. How we live pertains to the degree that the Light of Christ, in conjunction with the Holy Ghost, is able to affect our resurrection. The more light we allow into our lives through our actions controls the body we receive in the resurrection. Those that live dark lives physically will be unable to dwell with God. God dwells in everlasting burnings, His Celestial Body is suited to dwell in that place. he is filled with Glory and Light, and we should seek after that same life.

        A couple who are a creative force and teach their children to walk in the light are immitating their Father and Mother in Heaven. That is why a man cannot be exalted without a wife, and she cannot be exalted without a husband.

    • Glenn Reply

      Mike,

      I love it when you spell it out like this. It reminds me of campouts when I was a kid, looking up at the stars, trying to figure out the answers to averything and thinking I was pretty well armed to do so. So, in the spirit of that naive enthusiasm, my boy scout self would like to ask you a few questions:

      1. If Lucifer and his angles were cast into outer darkness right after the pre-mortal world, then who is the one moving the planchette on my sister’s ouija board?

      2. You say “those who were born into this world.” What other kind of people are there?

      3. What is the difference in resurection types between the kingdoms?

      4. If god is connected to Jesus, and if god is named Elohim, then does that mean that Jesus is saved/exalted under the name Elohim? And if that is so, then wouldn’t we also, through Jesus, be saved/exalted under the name Elohim?

      5. If Jesus commands us to worship his father, and we command our children to worship Jesus, then should our grandchildren be commanded to worship us?

      6. The twelve tribes matter to those who seek to follow the messiah…. why? Of the twelve tribes, only Levi had the rights and blessings of the priesthood, right? So shouldn’t it just be the line of Levi that really matters?

      Pass me another smore. When you’re done with this, I want to take you on a snipe hunt. You will be awesome catching snipe!

      • Mike Tannehill Reply

        Thanks for the series of questions, this is fun.

        1)You got me on this one. Judgement day has not yet occured, so those that followed Satan are here all around us in the spirit world. (hence their ability to manipulate a ouija board)

        2)Those that followed Satan obviously were not born into this world.

        3) People receive a resurrection based on the degree of light they have taken in during their time of probation. It will be visibly obvious as to who is going where after the resurrection

        4)We are asked to worship the Father in the name of the Son. We are placed under the Stewardship of the Son, that is the order of the priesthood, the reason the Father only appears to introduce the Son since the Fall.

        5)We ask our children to worship the Father in the Name of the Son. After/if we are exalted our offspring will follow the priesthood order we establish.

        6)All of those who are of the house of Israel are subject to and invited to participate in the blessings of the New and Everlasting Covenant.

        Hope this helps.
        Mike

        • Glenn Reply

          That did it. Back in with both feet Thank you Mike!

          The most beatifullest snipe I ever dun sawed 🙂

  46. Mike Tannehill Reply

    I guess I should try my hand at clarifying this:

    We all understand that everyone who rejected Christ in the pre-mortal world were cast into Outer Darkness with Lucifer.

    We also all understand that all who were born into this world will receive a resurrection. This even includes those who in this life reject Christ. These will be placed in the Telestial Kingdom. (D&C 88:35)

    Those who covenant with Christ through baptism and seek to live up to this covenant will be placed in the Terrestrial kingdom. They will receive a different resurrection than those who made no covenant. (D&C 88:11-24)

    Those who Covenant with God through His Temple, and those who receive the Highest Covenant, that of Celestial Marriage (The New and Everlasting Covenant, The Abrahamic Covenant) receive a different degree of glory that those who chose to receive and live the law of baptism only. This covenant is not the covenant of salvation, that is baptism, it is the covenant of exaltation. In this covenant you emulate Christ in that you place your name, through covenant, on those you have received a stewardship over. A husband and Father promises to care for and protect his wife and children, both physically and spiritually. Just as Christ declares all that he has comes from his Father, and we declare all that we have comes from Christ, we seek to emulate Christ by being the lightbearer to all those sealed to us.

    Those who keep this covenant reeive promises relative to their posterity, such as the rights and blessings of the priesthood being made available to their posterity. This is why the twelve tribes, and membership in those tribes, matters to those who seek to follow the messiah.

    • NightAvatar Reply

      Thanks for the attempt, Mike. That’s just whacked none the less. Especially considering section 132 states that you have to live in a polygamous marriage to make it to the highest order of heaven. No thanks! 😉

      It may make sense in your small world but when you look at the world as a whole planet, where several countries don’t even use last names, or change last names constantly, and when you realize who actually wrote the Bible and how it is not in fact historical records of real people but mainly legends and myths written down to empower the people in their time of slavery and national crisis, then it doesn’t make so much sense after all. Especially in the light of these modern times. Names really don’t mean so much. Neither do borders.

      If names are so important, what was Jesus’ last name? Or Moses’ or Abraham?

      How does that make any sense to you at all?

    • Ella Menno Reply

      Ah, I just love how my “exaltation” is completely dependent upon the men in my life. I really don’t have to do anything since I’m female and it’s either my husband or father who will take me to the CK. It almost makes me wish I hadn’t taken my husband’s name.

      It’s okay, Mike. This is what you’ve been taught and I don’t blame you. In fact, this podcast is so much better for the dogma you bring to the table. If it wasn’t for you it would be just a bunch of liberal, ex, and anti mormons talking about their interpretations. You’ve got the McConkie mormonism down. Sure, it grates, but the conversation would be incomplete without you. I actually love it when something you say makes me cringe. Keep it up, all of you!

      • Mike Tannehill Reply

        Its not as simple as “My husband only counts”. How we live pertains to the degree that the Light of Christ, in conjunction with the Holy Ghost, is able to affect our resurrection. The more light we allow into our lives through our actions controls the body we receive in the resurrection. Those that live dark lives physically will be unable to dwell with God. God dwells in everlasting burnings, His Celestial Body is suited to dwell in that place. he is filled with Glory and Light, and we should seek after that same life.

        A couple who are a creative force and teach their children to walk in the light are immitating their Father and Mother in Heaven. That is why a man cannot be exalted without a wife, and she cannot be exalted without a husband.

    • Glenn Reply

      Mike,

      I love it when you spell it out like this. It reminds me of campouts when I was a kid, looking up at the stars, trying to figure out the answers to averything and thinking I was pretty well armed to do so. So, in the spirit of that naive enthusiasm, my boy scout self would like to ask you a few questions:

      1. If Lucifer and his angles were cast into outer darkness right after the pre-mortal world, then who is the one moving the planchette on my sister’s ouija board?

      2. You say “those who were born into this world.” What other kind of people are there?

      3. What is the difference in resurection types between the kingdoms?

      4. If god is connected to Jesus, and if god is named Elohim, then does that mean that Jesus is saved/exalted under the name Elohim? And if that is so, then wouldn’t we also, through Jesus, be saved/exalted under the name Elohim?

      5. If Jesus commands us to worship his father, and we command our children to worship Jesus, then should our grandchildren be commanded to worship us?

      6. The twelve tribes matter to those who seek to follow the messiah…. why? Of the twelve tribes, only Levi had the rights and blessings of the priesthood, right? So shouldn’t it just be the line of Levi that really matters?

      Pass me another smore. When you’re done with this, I want to take you on a snipe hunt. You will be awesome catching snipe!

      • Mike Tannehill Reply

        Thanks for the series of questions, this is fun.

        1)You got me on this one. Judgement day has not yet occured, so those that followed Satan are here all around us in the spirit world. (hence their ability to manipulate a ouija board)

        2)Those that followed Satan obviously were not born into this world.

        3) People receive a resurrection based on the degree of light they have taken in during their time of probation. It will be visibly obvious as to who is going where after the resurrection

        4)We are asked to worship the Father in the name of the Son. We are placed under the Stewardship of the Son, that is the order of the priesthood, the reason the Father only appears to introduce the Son since the Fall.

        5)We ask our children to worship the Father in the Name of the Son. After/if we are exalted our offspring will follow the priesthood order we establish.

        6)All of those who are of the house of Israel are subject to and invited to participate in the blessings of the New and Everlasting Covenant.

        Hope this helps.
        Mike

        • Glenn Reply

          That did it. Back in with both feet Thank you Mike!

          The most beatifullest snipe I ever dun sawed 🙂

  47. scott Reply

    this “episode” was amazing… we need more of this.

    mike, you have enough tbm fodder to keep this podcast going until the second coming. chances are you’re a great guy, but don’t you think you should take a second to consider why EVERYONE that comments on the website writes something about how offensive you are? john was right, your delivery is awful, but some of your content is equally bad, on that i will have to disagree with him.

    ps. there are two “scott”‘s, and i’d like to differentiate myself somehow (not because the other scott said anything i disagree with… he might disagree with me…), but my computer will not let me change my name.

    looking forward to tomorrow’s episode.

  48. scott Reply

    this “episode” was amazing… we need more of this.

    mike, you have enough tbm fodder to keep this podcast going until the second coming. chances are you’re a great guy, but don’t you think you should take a second to consider why EVERYONE that comments on the website writes something about how offensive you are? john was right, your delivery is awful, but some of your content is equally bad, on that i will have to disagree with him.

    ps. there are two “scott”‘s, and i’d like to differentiate myself somehow (not because the other scott said anything i disagree with… he might disagree with me…), but my computer will not let me change my name.

    looking forward to tomorrow’s episode.

  49. Scottie Reply

    I LOVED this episode!!

    And, Mike, I don’t blame you for your dogmatic views. I think you are spot on that you shouldn’t allow members the freedom to interpret scripture how they want. The brethren have told us, through continuing revelation, how to interpret the scriptures. You are simple repeating what they have clarified. If all y’all don’t like it, TOUGH! Take it up with God and those whom He speaks to.

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      There is some room for interpretation of scripture to bless and inspire us through our individual struggles, but the problems arise when we begin to interpret the institutional doctrines.

      The Plan of Salvation, the Order of the Priesthood, the need to follow the living prophets, these are not open for private interpretation.

      • Douglas Hunter Reply

        What I find so shocking about this statement is that it implies the writer believes in the possibility of an engagement with doctrine that isn’t, on some level interpretive.

        The idea that interpretation has fixed limits that must not be transgressed is in line with a certain kind of institutional thinking, but its also a structural impossibility. The things that are said to be closed to private interpretation actually require it, even if only on the most basic level.

        The only way that Mike’s statement could have a hope of being accurate would be if there were no signifiers, only a certain perfect and terrifying signified that somehow transcended the chain of signification and put an end to meaning as soon as it appeared.

        • Glenn Reply

          See Douglas — my guess is that a TBM might read your comment here, and it would not “make any sense” to him, and that in itself would be evidence in his eyes that you had scribbled too far outside the lines. Don’t forget the scripture mastery scripture, “Too be learned is good, as long as you don’t learn anything that contradicts what I already believe.” Or something like that.

          • Douglas Hunter

            Glenn,

            I’m sure you are right that to certain types of Mormons my comment “makes no sense” but obviously I feel the same way about what they are saying! 🙂 On a personal note interpretation has been a subject of life long investigation, and even though I should expect it by now, my jaw does hit the floor when interpretation is described in such a proscriptive way, as something that is always intentional and calculated, or as taking place in a sphere removed from the signifier. Something like the public / private distinction made by Mike is stunning, yet I’m sure he experiences such as idea as completely natural [sic.]

            I suppose rather than picking on Mike I should stick to what is a more important and honest project. This being to keep pointing to the idea that there are now, and always have been different ways of being mormon, different ways for one’s Mormonism to find expression in language and action; and that these differences do not describe the boundary between the true believers and the apostates, rather they are differences in personal revelation, understandings, practice and so on, all of which lead to a richer and more vital community. A true religious community, not an ideological club. Whats more, this is the way its supposed to be!

  50. Scottie Reply

    I LOVED this episode!!

    And, Mike, I don’t blame you for your dogmatic views. I think you are spot on that you shouldn’t allow members the freedom to interpret scripture how they want. The brethren have told us, through continuing revelation, how to interpret the scriptures. You are simple repeating what they have clarified. If all y’all don’t like it, TOUGH! Take it up with God and those whom He speaks to.

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      There is some room for interpretation of scripture to bless and inspire us through our individual struggles, but the problems arise when we begin to interpret the institutional doctrines.

      The Plan of Salvation, the Order of the Priesthood, the need to follow the living prophets, these are not open for private interpretation.

      • Douglas Hunter Reply

        What I find so shocking about this statement is that it implies the writer believes in the possibility of an engagement with doctrine that isn’t, on some level interpretive.

        The idea that interpretation has fixed limits that must not be transgressed is in line with a certain kind of institutional thinking, but its also a structural impossibility. The things that are said to be closed to private interpretation actually require it, even if only on the most basic level.

        The only way that Mike’s statement could have a hope of being accurate would be if there were no signifiers, only a certain perfect and terrifying signified that somehow transcended the chain of signification and put an end to meaning as soon as it appeared.

        • Glenn Reply

          See Douglas — my guess is that a TBM might read your comment here, and it would not “make any sense” to him, and that in itself would be evidence in his eyes that you had scribbled too far outside the lines. Don’t forget the scripture mastery scripture, “Too be learned is good, as long as you don’t learn anything that contradicts what I already believe.” Or something like that.

          • Douglas Hunter

            Glenn,

            I’m sure you are right that to certain types of Mormons my comment “makes no sense” but obviously I feel the same way about what they are saying! 🙂 On a personal note interpretation has been a subject of life long investigation, and even though I should expect it by now, my jaw does hit the floor when interpretation is described in such a proscriptive way, as something that is always intentional and calculated, or as taking place in a sphere removed from the signifier. Something like the public / private distinction made by Mike is stunning, yet I’m sure he experiences such as idea as completely natural [sic.]

            I suppose rather than picking on Mike I should stick to what is a more important and honest project. This being to keep pointing to the idea that there are now, and always have been different ways of being mormon, different ways for one’s Mormonism to find expression in language and action; and that these differences do not describe the boundary between the true believers and the apostates, rather they are differences in personal revelation, understandings, practice and so on, all of which lead to a richer and more vital community. A true religious community, not an ideological club. Whats more, this is the way its supposed to be!

  51. Gail F. Bartholomew Reply

    I am not sure I understand the whole time shift theory to explain the carbon dating. It sounds like what you are saying is a shift happened at the time of the fall messing up all the dating before the fall. So if we buy this, this says that carbon dating would be accurate for things that happened after the fall but not for things that happened before the fall? In other words we can still be sure that the cave drawings before the fall, but not sure exactly when. How does this help the case against evolution?

    • Glenn Reply

      Gail,

      Don’t spend too much time trying to work out the carbon-14 dating thing. It is a wacky sci-fi theory I thunk up at BYU many years ago while I was sitting in a Geology 101 class trying to figure out how this new-fangled fancy-shmancy science stuff could fit with my religious worldview at the time. I gave the example in this podcast about “quickening” and “constant rates of decay” very tongue-in-cheek. It sounded like John had thunk up a similar theory when he was in highschool. He is much much smarter than me, you know — almost always ahead of the curve. Except for the times when Mike is.

  52. Gail F. Bartholomew Reply

    I am not sure I understand the whole time shift theory to explain the carbon dating. It sounds like what you are saying is a shift happened at the time of the fall messing up all the dating before the fall. So if we buy this, this says that carbon dating would be accurate for things that happened after the fall but not for things that happened before the fall? In other words we can still be sure that the cave drawings before the fall, but not sure exactly when. How does this help the case against evolution?

    • Glenn Reply

      Gail,

      Don’t spend too much time trying to work out the carbon-14 dating thing. It is a wacky sci-fi theory I thunk up at BYU many years ago while I was sitting in a Geology 101 class trying to figure out how this new-fangled fancy-shmancy science stuff could fit with my religious worldview at the time. I gave the example in this podcast about “quickening” and “constant rates of decay” very tongue-in-cheek. It sounded like John had thunk up a similar theory when he was in highschool. He is much much smarter than me, you know — almost always ahead of the curve. Except for the times when Mike is.

  53. brandt Reply

    As a open-minded TBM, sometimes Mike makes me cringe and shudder with his responses.

    If that’s his on-air personality, bravo. Trainwreck radio makes everyone listen for “what will he say next.”

    If not? Oh boy. Oh dear dear dear.

    Great show though. Nice and casual, and with books and quotes and concepts you all were spouting off? Wow…you guys really give us listeners something to strive for!

    10/10! A+

    • Jake Reply

      Great job, but I wouyld have love to have heard from Nyal on something like this.

  54. brandt Reply

    As a open-minded TBM, sometimes Mike makes me cringe and shudder with his responses.

    If that’s his on-air personality, bravo. Trainwreck radio makes everyone listen for “what will he say next.”

    If not? Oh boy. Oh dear dear dear.

    Great show though. Nice and casual, and with books and quotes and concepts you all were spouting off? Wow…you guys really give us listeners something to strive for!

    10/10! A+

    • Jake Reply

      Great job, but I wouyld have love to have heard from Nyal on something like this.

  55. Douglas Hunter Reply

    Very entertaining episode, but whenever I hear this kind of discussion I think, “Man they really need to have me on the podcast.” Why would I think such a silly thing? Well, one of the big problems that I see the panelists fighting against but not addressing is the way that religion is assumed to present the same type and kind of ontological knowledge about the nature of things as does science. It seems like there is a genuine frustration among some of the panelists when it becomes obvious that a certain line of discussion can only lead to either a “We don’t know” or “This can’t be true.” Part of this kind of discussion arises from the idea that religion exists to give us answers, but some of us think this is incorrect, we believe that religion exists to provide excellent questions, questions to which we become the answers. As you can already see this is a more poetic approach.

    I wonder how the panelists would respond to a different understanding of the scriptures and religion, one that is in the tradition of folks like Eugene England that centers religious work around the theological and ethical potentials found in our encounters with scriptures rather than insisting that religion is supposed to be a fully rational and complete explanation of the material nature of humanity and the universe.

    I think you guys should do a podcast on Theology, ethics, and the encounter with scripture in the Mormon context, and I would love to help with it.

    Just a suggestion, worth what you paid for it.

    • Carey Reply

      Totally agree. This episode really highlighted the fact that most of the panelist don’t think there is any value in mythology/symbolism at all. I would suggest reading some of Joseph Campbell’s work to provide more background on the purpose and value of myths.

      • Douglas Hunter Reply

        Carey you are taking it to a whole new level by bringing in Campbell! Nonetheless, I wonder how the panelists would respond to taking mythology seriously as mythology in the fullness that is intended in the idea of myth.

        • Glenn Reply

          If I didn’t see the purpose and and value of myths I wouldn’t have spent so much time and money pursuing my MA and PhD in Folkloristics. So why don’t you illuminate us with the awe inspiring insights of Joseph Hackbell. I’ll grade it for you.

          • NightAvatar

            Glenn, I have an idea: you and Douglas do a podcast where you debate the topic! But only if you promise to bring in a bit of hostility, irreverence and humor.

          • Glenn

            I don’t know how much of a debate it would be if we are both talking about the value of mythology, but it could be a fun discussion. I just don’t care too much for Joseph Campbell. But it’s been a while. I would have to remember why.

          • Glenn

            Incidentally, there is an episode coming up that we did a few weeks ago on the First Vision narratives. Somewhere near the beginning I sort of scratch the surface of this idea, Douglas — that even our personal experience stories are technically “fictions” because we select some details of what actually happened and omit others, so the “true or false” dichotomy about stories is really a false dichotomy. You have to look elsewhere for meaning. Still, I like the idea of spending more time unpacking this idea, and getting different perspectives on it.

          • Douglas Hunter

            I think there is good reason to be skeptical of Campbell. We don’t need to consider his ideas authoritative. After all his notion of the hero’s journey did become the content of a good deal of cheap teaching from pop psychology to screen writing. Nonetheless, Campbell does bring a very different understanding to where the meaning in a narrative lies, as compared to a literalist understanding of the Bible. Of course someone such as Walter Brueggemann is far more useful than Campbell.

            I think an interesting discussion might be to try to parse out how theology, mythology and doctrine interact in the Mormon context. How do such ideas apply to a description of Mormon thought? Although we often try to be a church that only has doctrine, theology continually slips in, its impossible to keep out. Mythology plays a huge role in Mormon culture yet talking about mythology, or even traditioning, in relation to scripture seems to be a huge no-no.

  56. Douglas Hunter Reply

    Very entertaining episode, but whenever I hear this kind of discussion I think, “Man they really need to have me on the podcast.” Why would I think such a silly thing? Well, one of the big problems that I see the panelists fighting against but not addressing is the way that religion is assumed to present the same type and kind of ontological knowledge about the nature of things as does science. It seems like there is a genuine frustration among some of the panelists when it becomes obvious that a certain line of discussion can only lead to either a “We don’t know” or “This can’t be true.” Part of this kind of discussion arises from the idea that religion exists to give us answers, but some of us think this is incorrect, we believe that religion exists to provide excellent questions, questions to which we become the answers. As you can already see this is a more poetic approach.

    I wonder how the panelists would respond to a different understanding of the scriptures and religion, one that is in the tradition of folks like Eugene England that centers religious work around the theological and ethical potentials found in our encounters with scriptures rather than insisting that religion is supposed to be a fully rational and complete explanation of the material nature of humanity and the universe.

    I think you guys should do a podcast on Theology, ethics, and the encounter with scripture in the Mormon context, and I would love to help with it.

    Just a suggestion, worth what you paid for it.

    • Carey Reply

      Totally agree. This episode really highlighted the fact that most of the panelist don’t think there is any value in mythology/symbolism at all. I would suggest reading some of Joseph Campbell’s work to provide more background on the purpose and value of myths.

      • Douglas Hunter Reply

        Carey you are taking it to a whole new level by bringing in Campbell! Nonetheless, I wonder how the panelists would respond to taking mythology seriously as mythology in the fullness that is intended in the idea of myth.

        • Glenn Reply

          If I didn’t see the purpose and and value of myths I wouldn’t have spent so much time and money pursuing my MA and PhD in Folkloristics. So why don’t you illuminate us with the awe inspiring insights of Joseph Hackbell. I’ll grade it for you.

          • NightAvatar

            Glenn, I have an idea: you and Douglas do a podcast where you debate the topic! But only if you promise to bring in a bit of hostility, irreverence and humor.

          • Glenn

            I don’t know how much of a debate it would be if we are both talking about the value of mythology, but it could be a fun discussion. I just don’t care too much for Joseph Campbell. But it’s been a while. I would have to remember why.

          • Glenn

            Incidentally, there is an episode coming up that we did a few weeks ago on the First Vision narratives. Somewhere near the beginning I sort of scratch the surface of this idea, Douglas — that even our personal experience stories are technically “fictions” because we select some details of what actually happened and omit others, so the “true or false” dichotomy about stories is really a false dichotomy. You have to look elsewhere for meaning. Still, I like the idea of spending more time unpacking this idea, and getting different perspectives on it.

          • Douglas Hunter

            I think there is good reason to be skeptical of Campbell. We don’t need to consider his ideas authoritative. After all his notion of the hero’s journey did become the content of a good deal of cheap teaching from pop psychology to screen writing. Nonetheless, Campbell does bring a very different understanding to where the meaning in a narrative lies, as compared to a literalist understanding of the Bible. Of course someone such as Walter Brueggemann is far more useful than Campbell.

            I think an interesting discussion might be to try to parse out how theology, mythology and doctrine interact in the Mormon context. How do such ideas apply to a description of Mormon thought? Although we often try to be a church that only has doctrine, theology continually slips in, its impossible to keep out. Mythology plays a huge role in Mormon culture yet talking about mythology, or even traditioning, in relation to scripture seems to be a huge no-no.

  57. Andrew S. Reply

    You guys should definitely record the after-discussions of all these podcasts. You don’t need to post them all, but ones like this one are DEFINITELY some of the best discussions I’ve heard.

  58. Andrew S. Reply

    You guys should definitely record the after-discussions of all these podcasts. You don’t need to post them all, but ones like this one are DEFINITELY some of the best discussions I’ve heard.

  59. James Reply

    THAT. WAS. AWESOME.

    Can’t believe I put off listening to this one for so long. Maybe your best work yet?

    Mike, I say this with all the love in the world, but damn you’re nuts! I was hanging with you, in that kind of fingernails on the chalkboard kinda way until you revealed yourself on evolution/natural selections. Sorry, but I lost any remaining respect for you at that point.

    All kidding aside, that was really refreshing. That was a good discussion, a frank collection of opinions and some really interesting threads you ran down. I liked seeing under the covers of the different personalities. Gonna listen to that one again.

  60. James Reply

    THAT. WAS. AWESOME.

    Can’t believe I put off listening to this one for so long. Maybe your best work yet?

    Mike, I say this with all the love in the world, but damn you’re nuts! I was hanging with you, in that kind of fingernails on the chalkboard kinda way until you revealed yourself on evolution/natural selections. Sorry, but I lost any remaining respect for you at that point.

    All kidding aside, that was really refreshing. That was a good discussion, a frank collection of opinions and some really interesting threads you ran down. I liked seeing under the covers of the different personalities. Gonna listen to that one again.

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      Flip,
      Lets open with the statement that we learned in primary. Faith is a belief in things we can not see which are true. Also we can repeat the old addage Faith precedes the miracle.

      To harvest the rich fruits of the gospel, one must first plant and nurture the seeds of faith. Planting precedes harvesting, works precede assurance, confirmation precedes manifestation. few plants grow to maturity overnight, the process is gradual, almost imperceptible. The same is true of spiritual growth.

      Jospeh F. Smith described it thus:
      “When I as a boy first started out in th eministry, I would frequently go out and ask the Lord to show me some marvelous thing, in order that I might receive a testimony. But the Lord withheld marvels from me, and showed me the truth, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, until he made me to know the truth from the crown of my head to the soles of my feet, and until doubt and fear had been absolutely purged from me.
      He did not have to send an angel from the heavens to do this, nor did he have to speak with the trump of an arcangel. By the whisperings of the still small voice of the Spirit of the living God, he gave to me the testimony I posses. And by this principle and power he will give to all the children of men a knowledge of the truth that will stay with them, and it will make them to know the truth, as God knows it, and to do the will of the Father as Christ does it. And no amount of marvelous manifestations will ever accomplish this. It is obedience, humility, and submission to the requirements of heaven and to the order established in the kingdom of God on earth, that will establish men in the truth. Men may receive the visitation of angels; they may speak in tongues; they may heal the sick by the laying on of hands; they may have visions and dreams; but except they are faithful and pure in heart, they become an easy prey to the adversary of their souls, and he will lead them into darkness and unbelief more easily than others.” (Gospel Doctrine, p.7)

      • Glenn Reply

        Mike,

        This answer would earn you a solid D, but there is room for repentance and forgiveness in my classroom, so I will let you try again.

        You demonstrated here that you think that faith is important, but using vague imagery like “harvesting rich fruits” and “confirmation precedes manifestation” does not address Flip’s question. You are talking about growing desire into a faith and a conviction — the Alma 32 “plant a seed and then eat the fruit to know it was good” model. But you have not connected faith to salvation — you have just moved one fuzzy assumption a little closer (maybe) to another fuzzy assumption without clearly connecting the dots.

        So let me re-phrase Flip’s question — and my apologies if I am asking it wrong, but this is what I think he means:

        Salvation through the atonement is overcoming the effects of sin and death. So why will God not save the unbeliever? Why does the atonement of Christ require faith as a catalyst before it can take effect?

        Try again.

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      Flip,
      Lets open with the statement that we learned in primary. Faith is a belief in things we can not see which are true. Also we can repeat the old addage Faith precedes the miracle.

      To harvest the rich fruits of the gospel, one must first plant and nurture the seeds of faith. Planting precedes harvesting, works precede assurance, confirmation precedes manifestation. few plants grow to maturity overnight, the process is gradual, almost imperceptible. The same is true of spiritual growth.

      Jospeh F. Smith described it thus:
      “When I as a boy first started out in th eministry, I would frequently go out and ask the Lord to show me some marvelous thing, in order that I might receive a testimony. But the Lord withheld marvels from me, and showed me the truth, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, until he made me to know the truth from the crown of my head to the soles of my feet, and until doubt and fear had been absolutely purged from me.
      He did not have to send an angel from the heavens to do this, nor did he have to speak with the trump of an arcangel. By the whisperings of the still small voice of the Spirit of the living God, he gave to me the testimony I posses. And by this principle and power he will give to all the children of men a knowledge of the truth that will stay with them, and it will make them to know the truth, as God knows it, and to do the will of the Father as Christ does it. And no amount of marvelous manifestations will ever accomplish this. It is obedience, humility, and submission to the requirements of heaven and to the order established in the kingdom of God on earth, that will establish men in the truth. Men may receive the visitation of angels; they may speak in tongues; they may heal the sick by the laying on of hands; they may have visions and dreams; but except they are faithful and pure in heart, they become an easy prey to the adversary of their souls, and he will lead them into darkness and unbelief more easily than others.” (Gospel Doctrine, p.7)

      • Glenn Reply

        Mike,

        This answer would earn you a solid D, but there is room for repentance and forgiveness in my classroom, so I will let you try again.

        You demonstrated here that you think that faith is important, but using vague imagery like “harvesting rich fruits” and “confirmation precedes manifestation” does not address Flip’s question. You are talking about growing desire into a faith and a conviction — the Alma 32 “plant a seed and then eat the fruit to know it was good” model. But you have not connected faith to salvation — you have just moved one fuzzy assumption a little closer (maybe) to another fuzzy assumption without clearly connecting the dots.

        So let me re-phrase Flip’s question — and my apologies if I am asking it wrong, but this is what I think he means:

        Salvation through the atonement is overcoming the effects of sin and death. So why will God not save the unbeliever? Why does the atonement of Christ require faith as a catalyst before it can take effect?

        Try again.

  61. just lookin Reply

    John asked a question on how others can recieve a spiritual witness of the truthfulness of other religions. It was not answered. So I ask again, since an entire jewish nation is waiting for christ and he is the most important aspect of our earth life. Why doesn’t god let them know he has already come? How does this misunderstanding support knowing truth through the spirit?

  62. just lookin Reply

    John asked a question on how others can recieve a spiritual witness of the truthfulness of other religions. It was not answered. So I ask again, since an entire jewish nation is waiting for christ and he is the most important aspect of our earth life. Why doesn’t god let them know he has already come? How does this misunderstanding support knowing truth through the spirit?

  63. Mike Tannehill Reply

    Glenn,
    God does save the unbeliever, that is to say that they receive as much of heaven as they are prepared to receive. They receive a resurrection and a place in the telestial kingdom. If they refuse to make covenants and take upon themselves the name of Christ..well then what can the Lord do to raise them up if they refuse to accept Him?

    We are saved by grace through ordinances. We enter into covenants and take upon us the name of Christ, in doing this we invite God the Holy Ghost to purify us and inspire us. Many christians speak of being born again, this is not a one time event. In reality we are born again and again, continuing from grace to grace. Each step of the way our faith increases as we grow in both knowledge and ability to act for and in behalf of our God. (D&C 93:11-20)

    Faith (light) is a belief and hope. When we act (work) on that belief and hope and see tht fruits that grow from it then we know truth. Faith inspires us to work, and it is faith and works working hand in hand that cause us to grow up into God.

    • Glenn Reply

      Mike,

      Much better. I’ll give it a B- (this is not grading the content, just the structure of the argument, the clarity of expression, and the relevance to the question that was asked). See my notes below:

      God does save the unbeliever…

      [Bingo — you could have stopped here and been in the A range because you directly addressed the question]

      …that is to say that they receive as much of heaven as they are prepared to receive. They receive a resurrection and a place in the telestial kingdom. If they refuse to make covenants and take upon themselves the name of Christ..well then what can the Lord do to raise them up if they refuse to accept Him?

      [if this is your answer to “faith being a catalyst,” then you are in the B range here, just for lack of clarity — you could connect your thoughts more clearly to the original question]

      We are saved by grace through ordinances.

      [now I feel like we are getting off track… I expect that this will somehow be tied back into faith]

      We enter into covenants and take upon us the name of Christ, in doing this we invite God the Holy Ghost to purify us and inspire us. Many christians speak of being born again, this is not a one time event. In reality we are born again and again, continuing from grace to grace. Each step of the way our faith increases as we grow in both knowledge and ability to act for and in behalf of our God. (D&C 93:11-20)

      [It feels like you are conflating several ideas here — the saving power of names, the “event vs. process” thing — and it is pulling you further away from the question of faith and salvation. You could tie these to it by making it more explicit that these are all acts of faith that are required for salvation (or exaltation, if you want to make that distinction), but instead of stating that, you are leaving it implied — that’s what I mean by “lack if clarity”]

      Faith (light) is a belief and hope. When we act (work) on that belief and hope and see tht fruits that grow from it then we know truth. Faith inspires us to work, and it is faith and works working hand in hand that cause us to grow up into God.

      [Once again, this is off the point. Faith leading to knoweldge is a different discussion than faith leading to salvation, unless “grow up into God” is the same thing as salvation, but if so, that’s not clear. But once again, you made some improvements — keep at it — you’ll get there]

  64. Mike Tannehill Reply

    Glenn,
    God does save the unbeliever, that is to say that they receive as much of heaven as they are prepared to receive. They receive a resurrection and a place in the telestial kingdom. If they refuse to make covenants and take upon themselves the name of Christ..well then what can the Lord do to raise them up if they refuse to accept Him?

    We are saved by grace through ordinances. We enter into covenants and take upon us the name of Christ, in doing this we invite God the Holy Ghost to purify us and inspire us. Many christians speak of being born again, this is not a one time event. In reality we are born again and again, continuing from grace to grace. Each step of the way our faith increases as we grow in both knowledge and ability to act for and in behalf of our God. (D&C 93:11-20)

    Faith (light) is a belief and hope. When we act (work) on that belief and hope and see tht fruits that grow from it then we know truth. Faith inspires us to work, and it is faith and works working hand in hand that cause us to grow up into God.

    • Glenn Reply

      Mike,

      Much better. I’ll give it a B- (this is not grading the content, just the structure of the argument, the clarity of expression, and the relevance to the question that was asked). See my notes below:

      God does save the unbeliever…

      [Bingo — you could have stopped here and been in the A range because you directly addressed the question]

      …that is to say that they receive as much of heaven as they are prepared to receive. They receive a resurrection and a place in the telestial kingdom. If they refuse to make covenants and take upon themselves the name of Christ..well then what can the Lord do to raise them up if they refuse to accept Him?

      [if this is your answer to “faith being a catalyst,” then you are in the B range here, just for lack of clarity — you could connect your thoughts more clearly to the original question]

      We are saved by grace through ordinances.

      [now I feel like we are getting off track… I expect that this will somehow be tied back into faith]

      We enter into covenants and take upon us the name of Christ, in doing this we invite God the Holy Ghost to purify us and inspire us. Many christians speak of being born again, this is not a one time event. In reality we are born again and again, continuing from grace to grace. Each step of the way our faith increases as we grow in both knowledge and ability to act for and in behalf of our God. (D&C 93:11-20)

      [It feels like you are conflating several ideas here — the saving power of names, the “event vs. process” thing — and it is pulling you further away from the question of faith and salvation. You could tie these to it by making it more explicit that these are all acts of faith that are required for salvation (or exaltation, if you want to make that distinction), but instead of stating that, you are leaving it implied — that’s what I mean by “lack if clarity”]

      Faith (light) is a belief and hope. When we act (work) on that belief and hope and see tht fruits that grow from it then we know truth. Faith inspires us to work, and it is faith and works working hand in hand that cause us to grow up into God.

      [Once again, this is off the point. Faith leading to knoweldge is a different discussion than faith leading to salvation, unless “grow up into God” is the same thing as salvation, but if so, that’s not clear. But once again, you made some improvements — keep at it — you’ll get there]

  65. Joseph Reply

    I loved Glenn’s debunking of carbon dating: like John, I can remember “learning” this in high school. In my case, though, the learning came from a Christian textbook (published by Bob Jones University Press) written to argue for a young earth (or at the least, to disprove an indisputably old one). In the end, it was dietary science (of all things!) that converted me (back: but that is another story) to evolutionary theory (old earth and all). Great discussion!

    P.S. I too shake my head at Mike, but I am really glad you have him on. His viewpoint is an important reality in Mormonism (and speaks for a certain part of the common psyche that all of us Mormons have), and (more importantly) the mixture of personal goodwill and dogmatic craziness that he brings to the table is hilarious.

  66. Joseph Reply

    I loved Glenn’s debunking of carbon dating: like John, I can remember “learning” this in high school. In my case, though, the learning came from a Christian textbook (published by Bob Jones University Press) written to argue for a young earth (or at the least, to disprove an indisputably old one). In the end, it was dietary science (of all things!) that converted me (back: but that is another story) to evolutionary theory (old earth and all). Great discussion!

    P.S. I too shake my head at Mike, but I am really glad you have him on. His viewpoint is an important reality in Mormonism (and speaks for a certain part of the common psyche that all of us Mormons have), and (more importantly) the mixture of personal goodwill and dogmatic craziness that he brings to the table is hilarious.

  67. mcarp Reply

    With respect to the conflict of “are the 10 tribes in one group or scattered among all people of the world?” you should know that the travelling patriarch who gives blessings in Russia has reported that he had declared the lineage of every tribe of Israel in Russia.

    So, according to him, the tribes are scattered throughout Russia.

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      Mcarp,

      If at all possible it would be great if you could aquire a chart of some kind from him stating how many of each tribe he has found. It would be even better if you could find out what regions they came from.

  68. mcarp Reply

    With respect to the conflict of “are the 10 tribes in one group or scattered among all people of the world?” you should know that the travelling patriarch who gives blessings in Russia has reported that he had declared the lineage of every tribe of Israel in Russia.

    So, according to him, the tribes are scattered throughout Russia.

    • Mike Tannehill Reply

      Mcarp,

      If at all possible it would be great if you could aquire a chart of some kind from him stating how many of each tribe he has found. It would be even better if you could find out what regions they came from.

  69. NightAvatar Reply

    Just listened to this again on my bike ride to work. Really love this episode! There are so many great John quotes and funny Glenn quotes. I especially love the humor. Very funny stuff.

    Mike, you were asked about the comparison between LDS members’ testimonies and members of other Christian faiths. You said you would need to hear them in context, see if there was no thrashing about etc.

    Zilpha is right in saying their testimonies are very similar to ours, because it is the same (or very similar) culture.

    Take a look at this dude’s testimony: http://www.eadshome.com/TomTestimony.htm

    Quote: “Then Billy Graham got up to speak. It was as if the Holy Spirit grabbed me by the throat and told me to listen. I was sitting on the edge of my seat. He told me that I had a hole in my heart that was created by God and it could only be filled by Jesus! With 50,000 people in the audience I felt like he was talking directly to me! … Then Billy Graham asked us to stand up, come down and invite Jesus into our heart. When I stood up, God filled my heart with love for everyone.”

    Sounds nice, doesn’t it? Where does his feeling of love come from then if not Jesus through The Holy Ghost?

    And this from a former Hindi turned Christian: http://www.testimonyshare.com/i-found-my-life-in-christ/

    Quuote: “That night, I had a vision in which I saw Our Lord Jesus Christ. What I saw was in His glorious form, where it is only Him and nothing beyond that. What I heard was “I will put my words in your mouth”. The light that enveloped me with Him was so Holy, His love was deep. But yes, there was a deep sorrow too, a pain that a father feels after losing His begotten children to hell. I sensed not only love but pain too.

    “In the early hours of 29th July 2009 at 4:00 am or so, I woke up, to my utter surprise I saw two great rays of light (the same type of light I had seen in my vision the previous night) covering me, and I was speaking in tongues continuously, it was out of my control and thought; of what I was speaking. I was wondering what happened to me, I shared it with the same friend, whom I heard speaking in tongues. He asked me, whether it giving me joy or fear. I told joy, and he confirmed that the Spirit of God gives joy, so it is from God. After talking with him, when I began to pray, in middle I started to pray in tongues, since that day, my soul is encouraged whenever I pray in tongues.”

    And this one, which strikes a cross between Paul and Joseph Smith: http://www.testimonyshare.com/a-pakistani-muslim-comes-face-to-face-with-jesus-christ/

    Quote: “First I set the Qur’an on fire and it got burnt before our eyes. Then I tried to do the same with the Bible. As soon as I tried it, the Bible struck my chest and I fell on the ground. There was smoke all around my body. I was burning, but from a spiritual fire.

    Suddenly I saw a man with golden hair, wrapped in light on my side. He placed his hand on my head and said to me:

    ‘You are my son and from now on you will preach the Gospel in your nation. Go! Your Lord is with you.’

    “Then I saw the stone on the grave, which was removed. Mariam Magdalene spoke to the gardener who probably took the body of my Lord. The gardener was Jesus Himself. He kissed the hand of Mariam and I woke up. I felt very strong as if when someone would strike me, I could not be hurt.”

    http://www.testimonyshare.com/ has tons of Christian testimonies of this kind. Read through them and tell me they aren’t from equally sincere people as any devout LDS.

    As for the stories about early church members “speaking in tongues” there is an excellent article about it here: http://rsc.byu.edu/pubJSFluhmanCrisis.php

    Quote: “Joseph Smith remembered that Brigham Young had first introduced him to speaking in tongues in 1832 in Ohio, but the practice appears to have prevailed in Ohio before that time, perhaps even in the infant Church’s first months in New York. Sidney Rigdon, whose congregation made up the core of the early Mormon harvest in Ohio, had split with onetime ally Alexander Campbell in part because of a disagreement over the modern restoration of spiritual gifts, including tongues. Rigdon’s congregation was thus ripe for Parley P. Pratt and the other missionaries traveling from New York, armed with the conviction according to a skeptical Ohio editor, that “‘there would be as great miracles wrought'” through their preaching “‘as there was at the day of Pentecost.'” Indeed, the Ohio Saints experienced an outpouring of spirituality in the time before the Prophet’s arrival from New York and after, and glossolalia figured prominently among the gifts. John Corrill recalled an early Ohio meeting where he first witnessed the gift:

    The meeting lasted all night, and such a meeting I never attended before. They administered the sacrament, and laid on hands, after which I heard them prophecy and speak in tongues unknown to me. Persons in the room, who took no part with them, declared, from the knowledge they had of the Indian languages, that the tongues spoken were regular Indian dialects, which I was also informed, on inquiry, the persons who spoke had never learned. I watched closely and examined carefully, every movement of the meeting, and after exhausting all my powers to find the deception, I was obliged to acknowledge, in my own mind, that the meeting had been inspired by some supernatural agency.

    • Mister IT Reply

      First, this link is blown http://rsc.byu.edu/pubJSFluhmanCrisis.php could you repost it please? This is an ongoing area of study and I’m dying to read that paper!

      Second, I would like to add this Muslim testimony to the most excellent body of work that you have compiled above:

      “For me, I believe that Muhammad was a prophet because of the Qur’an–because I read it, and in my own estimation after reading it, reflecting on it, and praying about it, I found in myself an unwavering belief that the Qur’an is without a doubt revealed by the Lord of the Worlds, by the Almighty God.
      (see http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?s=c37f3f001ea2276b7b74b15a8cf740c6&p=4462691&postcount=3 )

      Sound familiar? Folks just substitute “Joseph Smith” where it says, “Muhammad” and “Book of Mormon” where it says “Qur’an” and you pretty much have The Mormon Testimony!

  70. NightAvatar Reply

    Just listened to this again on my bike ride to work. Really love this episode! There are so many great John quotes and funny Glenn quotes. I especially love the humor. Very funny stuff.

    Mike, you were asked about the comparison between LDS members’ testimonies and members of other Christian faiths. You said you would need to hear them in context, see if there was no thrashing about etc.

    Zilpha is right in saying their testimonies are very similar to ours, because it is the same (or very similar) culture.

    Take a look at this dude’s testimony: http://www.eadshome.com/TomTestimony.htm

    Quote: “Then Billy Graham got up to speak. It was as if the Holy Spirit grabbed me by the throat and told me to listen. I was sitting on the edge of my seat. He told me that I had a hole in my heart that was created by God and it could only be filled by Jesus! With 50,000 people in the audience I felt like he was talking directly to me! … Then Billy Graham asked us to stand up, come down and invite Jesus into our heart. When I stood up, God filled my heart with love for everyone.”

    Sounds nice, doesn’t it? Where does his feeling of love come from then if not Jesus through The Holy Ghost?

    And this from a former Hindi turned Christian: http://www.testimonyshare.com/i-found-my-life-in-christ/

    Quuote: “That night, I had a vision in which I saw Our Lord Jesus Christ. What I saw was in His glorious form, where it is only Him and nothing beyond that. What I heard was “I will put my words in your mouth”. The light that enveloped me with Him was so Holy, His love was deep. But yes, there was a deep sorrow too, a pain that a father feels after losing His begotten children to hell. I sensed not only love but pain too.

    “In the early hours of 29th July 2009 at 4:00 am or so, I woke up, to my utter surprise I saw two great rays of light (the same type of light I had seen in my vision the previous night) covering me, and I was speaking in tongues continuously, it was out of my control and thought; of what I was speaking. I was wondering what happened to me, I shared it with the same friend, whom I heard speaking in tongues. He asked me, whether it giving me joy or fear. I told joy, and he confirmed that the Spirit of God gives joy, so it is from God. After talking with him, when I began to pray, in middle I started to pray in tongues, since that day, my soul is encouraged whenever I pray in tongues.”

    And this one, which strikes a cross between Paul and Joseph Smith: http://www.testimonyshare.com/a-pakistani-muslim-comes-face-to-face-with-jesus-christ/

    Quote: “First I set the Qur’an on fire and it got burnt before our eyes. Then I tried to do the same with the Bible. As soon as I tried it, the Bible struck my chest and I fell on the ground. There was smoke all around my body. I was burning, but from a spiritual fire.

    Suddenly I saw a man with golden hair, wrapped in light on my side. He placed his hand on my head and said to me:

    ‘You are my son and from now on you will preach the Gospel in your nation. Go! Your Lord is with you.’

    “Then I saw the stone on the grave, which was removed. Mariam Magdalene spoke to the gardener who probably took the body of my Lord. The gardener was Jesus Himself. He kissed the hand of Mariam and I woke up. I felt very strong as if when someone would strike me, I could not be hurt.”

    http://www.testimonyshare.com/ has tons of Christian testimonies of this kind. Read through them and tell me they aren’t from equally sincere people as any devout LDS.

    As for the stories about early church members “speaking in tongues” there is an excellent article about it here: http://rsc.byu.edu/pubJSFluhmanCrisis.php

    Quote: “Joseph Smith remembered that Brigham Young had first introduced him to speaking in tongues in 1832 in Ohio, but the practice appears to have prevailed in Ohio before that time, perhaps even in the infant Church’s first months in New York. Sidney Rigdon, whose congregation made up the core of the early Mormon harvest in Ohio, had split with onetime ally Alexander Campbell in part because of a disagreement over the modern restoration of spiritual gifts, including tongues. Rigdon’s congregation was thus ripe for Parley P. Pratt and the other missionaries traveling from New York, armed with the conviction according to a skeptical Ohio editor, that “‘there would be as great miracles wrought'” through their preaching “‘as there was at the day of Pentecost.'” Indeed, the Ohio Saints experienced an outpouring of spirituality in the time before the Prophet’s arrival from New York and after, and glossolalia figured prominently among the gifts. John Corrill recalled an early Ohio meeting where he first witnessed the gift:

    The meeting lasted all night, and such a meeting I never attended before. They administered the sacrament, and laid on hands, after which I heard them prophecy and speak in tongues unknown to me. Persons in the room, who took no part with them, declared, from the knowledge they had of the Indian languages, that the tongues spoken were regular Indian dialects, which I was also informed, on inquiry, the persons who spoke had never learned. I watched closely and examined carefully, every movement of the meeting, and after exhausting all my powers to find the deception, I was obliged to acknowledge, in my own mind, that the meeting had been inspired by some supernatural agency.

    • Mister IT Reply

      First, this link is blown http://rsc.byu.edu/pubJSFluhmanCrisis.php could you repost it please? This is an ongoing area of study and I’m dying to read that paper!

      Second, I would like to add this Muslim testimony to the most excellent body of work that you have compiled above:

      “For me, I believe that Muhammad was a prophet because of the Qur’an–because I read it, and in my own estimation after reading it, reflecting on it, and praying about it, I found in myself an unwavering belief that the Qur’an is without a doubt revealed by the Lord of the Worlds, by the Almighty God.
      (see http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?s=c37f3f001ea2276b7b74b15a8cf740c6&p=4462691&postcount=3 )

      Sound familiar? Folks just substitute “Joseph Smith” where it says, “Muhammad” and “Book of Mormon” where it says “Qur’an” and you pretty much have The Mormon Testimony!

  71. OzPoof Reply

    It seems that whenever Mike (no offence) gets confronted with something that challenges his beliefs he never answers that challenge, but simply chuckles.

    I would like to see Mike be pushed into actually defending his beliefs more, even when he indicates he is finding doing so difficult by avoiding an answer.

    On evolution: there are increasing numbers of elephants being born in Africa that either develop one tusk or none. This is clearly an example of an animal (with a very long gestation period) evolving to adapt to adverse environmental factors – namely those elephants with tusks being killed by poachers.

    Now future Mormons might say that tusks just don’t vanish and it was God who created elephants with no tusks, but we are living during the transition from elephants with tusks to those with none. We can see this as one proof of evolution – survival of the fittest. In this instance, the fittest are those who avoid being killed because they do not have tusks. This is how evolution works. Expand this adaptation to local environments, foods, niches, threats, and climates over many millions of years and imagine the changes that can occur in animals with short gestation periods.

    People who can’t grasp this don’t understand it, Mike demonstrating this when he repeated the assertion that humans evolved FROM apes. No, humans branched off and now occupy different niches. We don’t eat cellulose like gorillas, or live in trees like orangutans, but go back millions of years and primates had a common ancestor with appendages that resemble the hands we all still have.

    It’s no surprise that the hand is one trait retained by all primates as this surely helped us survive, however consider modern primates and you will see the potential for the survival of only one species – humans – and the irony of the cause of the extinction of other primate species that are less adaptable to change being another primate that is so successful- us.

    Mike, please educate yourself on aspects of science you don’t believe to be true before you decide. When I was transcending organized religion myself I considered evolution to be a beautiful creation. I’m sure you will see how marvelous it is if you study it.

  72. OzPoof Reply

    It seems that whenever Mike (no offence) gets confronted with something that challenges his beliefs he never answers that challenge, but simply chuckles.

    I would like to see Mike be pushed into actually defending his beliefs more, even when he indicates he is finding doing so difficult by avoiding an answer.

    On evolution: there are increasing numbers of elephants being born in Africa that either develop one tusk or none. This is clearly an example of an animal (with a very long gestation period) evolving to adapt to adverse environmental factors – namely those elephants with tusks being killed by poachers.

    Now future Mormons might say that tusks just don’t vanish and it was God who created elephants with no tusks, but we are living during the transition from elephants with tusks to those with none. We can see this as one proof of evolution – survival of the fittest. In this instance, the fittest are those who avoid being killed because they do not have tusks. This is how evolution works. Expand this adaptation to local environments, foods, niches, threats, and climates over many millions of years and imagine the changes that can occur in animals with short gestation periods.

    People who can’t grasp this don’t understand it, Mike demonstrating this when he repeated the assertion that humans evolved FROM apes. No, humans branched off and now occupy different niches. We don’t eat cellulose like gorillas, or live in trees like orangutans, but go back millions of years and primates had a common ancestor with appendages that resemble the hands we all still have.

    It’s no surprise that the hand is one trait retained by all primates as this surely helped us survive, however consider modern primates and you will see the potential for the survival of only one species – humans – and the irony of the cause of the extinction of other primate species that are less adaptable to change being another primate that is so successful- us.

    Mike, please educate yourself on aspects of science you don’t believe to be true before you decide. When I was transcending organized religion myself I considered evolution to be a beautiful creation. I’m sure you will see how marvelous it is if you study it.

    • Mister IT Reply

      Here you go Mike, this one is “hot of the research”. I just stumbled across this one today with the help of another researcher:

      “[My wife] suddenly stopped, and by the gift of tongues she gave me a most remarkable and wonderful blessing and promised me that I should live to pay off all my debts, which I did live to do…Unless the gift of tongues and the interpretation thereof are enjoyed by the Saints in our day, then we are lacking one of the evidences of the true faith.”
      (YWJ [Young Women’s Journal], 16:128)

      One more time:

      “Unless the gift of tongues and the interpretation thereof are enjoyed by the Saints in our day, then we are lacking one of the evidences of the true faith.”

      • Mister IT Reply

        Oh and I got the link to the “mother lode” through my own research yesterday: http://www.frontiernet.net/~bcmmin/tongue1.htm
        (I can’t believe that I hadn’t found this before now)

        These Mormon Historical documents clearly demonstrate that the Early Mormons were heavily (one might even say fanatically) engaged in the type of classic tongues speaking Pentecostalism that is rooted in The Cane Ridge Revival.

        And I’m sensing through your public dogma-laden comments that you have NO idea what The Cane Ridge Revival is so here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_Ridge,_Kentucky ; http://www.caneridge.org/

        So know that you have access to TRUE history (rather than the UNtrue, white-washed, and spin-doctored history that CES and the LdS Church leadership dogmatically and regularly feed the faithful) you can stop making such ridiculous assertions in public when it comes to tongues and the other “gifts of the Holy Spirit” relative to Mormon History.

        If you have any doubts on what you’re reading as you’re reading it the historical record, please refer to Article 7 of “The Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. You can then go back to the historical record to see what the article is REALLY referring to.
        (see http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html )

        Thanks.

    • Mister IT Reply

      Here you go Mike, this one is “hot of the research”. I just stumbled across this one today with the help of another researcher:

      “[My wife] suddenly stopped, and by the gift of tongues she gave me a most remarkable and wonderful blessing and promised me that I should live to pay off all my debts, which I did live to do…Unless the gift of tongues and the interpretation thereof are enjoyed by the Saints in our day, then we are lacking one of the evidences of the true faith.”
      (YWJ [Young Women’s Journal], 16:128)

      One more time:

      “Unless the gift of tongues and the interpretation thereof are enjoyed by the Saints in our day, then we are lacking one of the evidences of the true faith.”

      • Mister IT Reply

        Oh and I got the link to the “mother lode” through my own research yesterday: http://www.frontiernet.net/~bcmmin/tongue1.htm
        (I can’t believe that I hadn’t found this before now)

        These Mormon Historical documents clearly demonstrate that the Early Mormons were heavily (one might even say fanatically) engaged in the type of classic tongues speaking Pentecostalism that is rooted in The Cane Ridge Revival.

        And I’m sensing through your public dogma-laden comments that you have NO idea what The Cane Ridge Revival is so here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_Ridge,_Kentucky ; http://www.caneridge.org/

        So know that you have access to TRUE history (rather than the UNtrue, white-washed, and spin-doctored history that CES and the LdS Church leadership dogmatically and regularly feed the faithful) you can stop making such ridiculous assertions in public when it comes to tongues and the other “gifts of the Holy Spirit” relative to Mormon History.

        If you have any doubts on what you’re reading as you’re reading it the historical record, please refer to Article 7 of “The Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. You can then go back to the historical record to see what the article is REALLY referring to.
        (see http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html )

        Thanks.

  73. George Reply

    I SO wish I could have been there for this one. WOW! I’ve been doing some painting today listening and just could not stop laughing.

    Zilpha…. Oh, wow… John must have a blast being married to you.

    Mike…. Oh, wow… wow… Oh…

    You guys were a blast. Lets do the after-parties more often.

  74. George Reply

    I SO wish I could have been there for this one. WOW! I’ve been doing some painting today listening and just could not stop laughing.

    Zilpha…. Oh, wow… John must have a blast being married to you.

    Mike…. Oh, wow… wow… Oh…

    You guys were a blast. Lets do the after-parties more often.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *