Greetings from Pittsburgh

[FromTheUnderground]

Hello Mormons, I'm FromTheUnderground, a man of 24 years of age. My username is a reference to Fyodor Dostoyevsky's novel "Notes From the Underground" whose main character I can much relate to and also a reference to my "underground" nature in relation to the current degenerate postmodern "culture" that exists in the West.

I was raised in a secular family in the outskirts of Pittsburgh PA, where I currently reside, never baptized into any religious denomination, and am seeking a spiritual home in either one of the two traditionalist religions left: Eastern Orthodoxy, which is the only religion I have personal experience with, or perhaps Mormonism. My interest in the latter comes from Matthew 7:17: "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit". My main qualm with Orthodoxy is that, there doesn't, from what I've seen, seem to be much in the way of fresh fruit. That is, a lack of youth within the church body. The Orthodox Fathers, one of which I speak to several times weekly at Vespers attendance, is very conservative. However, many young congregants who I've encountered, I wonder, if their only impetus for church attendance is family tradition and not a belief in the ultra-conservative cultural values that I hold.

A friend of mine, residing in the Midwest, is set to introduce me to Mormonism sometime next week, when I will drive several hundred miles to see him. There are times when my belief in the almighty is strong as steel, but most of the time it is lukewarm, at best. I seek to join a denomination that separates it's self from the present American culture in the hopes that I can resist the temptations of sin, befriend those who are likewise culturally conservative, and marry a woman who is much more devout in her faith than myself, in the hopes that it'll rub off on me and resist various urges inherit to our modern dating culture.

My friend has been espousing various Mormon doctrines, which I find absolutely fascinating and wish to explore further. Kinda rambling at this point, so I'll just stop now.

[marc]

Welcome!!

[FromTheUnderground]

Thanks Marc

To further clarify, my views could be better described as reactionary or revolutionary-conservative, instead of merely "conservative". To be a conservative in this day in age would imply that one wished to conserve the present culture, rather than a drastic "revolutionary" break from the status-quo in favor of some form of traditionalism.

I was first inspired towards the path of the right-wing by the ancient Stoic texts of Epictetus, Seneca the Younger, and Marcus Aurelius and their espousal of views that imply ideals such as authority, hierarchy, cosmic order, and discipline. Later on, I became a very influenced by Italian thinker Julius Evola. Mostly his political works, such as Men Among the Ruins and his idea that mankind is currently living in an "age of the demon". An age characterized by a fall from a higher golden age of the past and that society, at this point, is so far-gone, that rather than try to change the socio-political order, our best bet would be to hunker down and survive in the face of subversion, which is everywhere.

This fall from a golden age corresponds to the Abrahamic notion of The Fall and separation, to Mormon culture. Which, from what I've heard, is much more insular and differentiated from postmodern American society. Something I admire greatly.

[durangout]

Welcome Underground. Nice to meet you.

I'm curuious. Which doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints do you find "absolutely fascinating"?

Take care.

[FromTheUnderground]

...I'm curuious. Which doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints do you find "absolutely fascinating"?...

Eternal progression, that God ordered matter into it's existing forms rather than creating it from scratch, that intelligence is something which is co-eternal with matter, the implications of multiverse theory with God having been a former man who achieved perfection and founded his own universe. Also, didn't Joseph Smith state (or, at least hypothesize) that even atoms themselves were alive?

The foundation of the religion it's self was quite, pardon my French, badass. With Joseph Smith firing a six-shooter into the crowd that came to lynch him, the flee out West to establish their own theocratic state, their armed resistance to the Federal government during the early years.

I also have sort of a hard time reconciling Orthodoxy's idea that they're the exact same faith that they were in 33AD for various reasons. For example, they seem to make liberal use of the "better to marry than to burn" quotation from the NT which, aside from it's implied anti-natalism to, allows for an arbitrary number of remarriages (IIRC, 2 or 3) as a concession to Human weakness, despite their acceptance of Jesus's commandment that divorce is only to be initiated for reasons of infidelity and that anyone who does elsewise and remarries is an adulterer. Though, he did stipulate that "any man who divorces" and in 21st century American, women initiate 70% of divorces, which could be a legal loophole. Catholicism, by contrast, seeks to construct some kind of alternate reality where the marriage is "annulled" and didn't actually take place due to lack of right intentions, or something.

At least Catholicism has a sort of "open canon" equivalent in which they state that Jesus gave the Apostles a "seed of faith" for further development. These two doctrines seem to link up better with the OT's notion of a differentiation between what Mormonism calls "eternal principles" (e.g., marriage) vs temporary "commandments" (e.g., polygyny), which has parallels in Julius Evola's concept of Traditionalism as well. Reading the OT, God comes across more as a guy who makes decisions based on conditions on the ground, not absolute inflexible doctrines.

[therockpile]

First, welcome. Seccond, im not familiar the political works you referred to but from what I read on the Wikipedia article you linked to your views are similar to mine. When you say you are reactionary or revolutionary - conservative these sugest a return to an older system of government. How would you characterize this government?

[FromTheUnderground]

...When you say you are reactionary or revolutionary - conservative these sugest a return to an older system of government.

I take a Marxian-influenced base and superstructure view of society where the base (ethnos/nation) gives birth to the superstructure (government, religion, economic system, culture, etc) and in turn, the superstructure then affects/molds/"refines" the base. In the postmodern West, we have this strange view that dehumanizes the entire system and posits that there is some optimal political formula, equally applicable to all nations, that will create for an optimal society, while ignoring the Human element at it's core. That the same social, economic, or political system (the so-called End of History) is equally workable for all nations. E.g., Japan bouncing back quickly after WWII while the Third World is still poor despite billions in Western aide, including direct attempts at modernization (e.g., Hati) for decades. Note that by nation I mean something equivalent folk or folk community, not an independent political entity, such as a state.

How would you characterize this government?

I don't even know. Some unholy mess of competing special interests, decadence caused by excess of material wealth, which leads to cultural rot and Human regression. On the other hand, I don't even know if they could really be said to be competing, since they all seem to be working to advance to the same goal, left-progressivism. I often hypothesize that the excesses of global capitalism are being used as a means of imploding society and the economy from the inside out in order to make the case for and act as a launchpad for global communism. We can certainly see a push towards tolerance as the supreme value, which Aristotle claimed was a sign of decline.

[Robert Sinclair]

Greetings,
For fruit that is delightful and good feast upon the "One Stick" and see how that tastes to you.
And after you have feasted upon the flavor of that fruit feast upon The Book of Enoch the Prophet that Joseph Smith testified would contain much of what would befall the children of Adam until the end of the earth for this time around in the Scriptures written.
Enjoy and be glad for the Lord is about to do great things:)♡

Sincerely your friend and brother,
Robert Sinclair ♡

[durangout]

[quote="FromTheUndergroundI don't even know. Some unholy mess of competing special interests, decadence caused by excess of material wealth, which leads to cultural rot and Human regression. On the other hand, I don't even know if they could really be said to be competing, since they all seem to be working to advance to the same goal, left-progressivism. I often hypothesize that the excesses of global capitalism are being used as a means of imploding society and the economy from the inside out in order to make the case for and act as a launchpad for global communism. We can certainly see a push towards tolerance as the supreme value, which Aristotle claimed was a sign of decline.[/quote]

That sounds "on target" to me.

[durangout]

...I'm curuious. Which doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints do you find "absolutely fascinating"?...

Eternal progression, that God ordered matter into it's existing forms rather than creating it from scratch, that intelligence is something which is co-eternal with matter, the implications of multiverse theory with God having been a former man who achieved perfection and founded his own universe. Also, didn't Joseph Smith state (or, at least hypothesize) that even atoms themselves were alive?

The foundation of the religion it's self was quite, pardon my French, badass. With Joseph Smith firing a six-shooter into the crowd that came to lynch him, the flee out West to establish their own theocratic state, their armed resistance to the Federal government during the early years.

I also have sort of a hard time reconciling Orthodoxy's idea that they're the exact same faith that they were in 33AD for various reasons. For example, they seem to make liberal use of the "better to marry than to burn" quotation from the NT which, aside from it's implied anti-natalism to, allows for an arbitrary number of remarriages (IIRC, 2 or 3) as a concession to Human weakness, despite their acceptance of Jesus's commandment that divorce is only to be initiated for reasons of infidelity and that anyone who does elsewise and remarries is an adulterer. Though, he did stipulate that "any man who divorces" and in 21st century American, women initiate 70% of divorces, which could be a legal loophole. Catholicism, by contrast, seeks to construct some kind of alternate reality where the marriage is "annulled" and didn't actually take place due to lack of right intentions, or something.

At least Catholicism has a sort of "open canon" equivalent in which they state that Jesus gave the Apostles a "seed of faith" for further development. These two doctrines seem to link up better with the OT's notion of a differentiation between what Mormonism calls "eternal principles" (e.g., marriage) vs temporary "commandments" (e.g., polygyny), which has parallels in Julius Evola's concept of Traditionalism as well. Reading the OT, God comes across more as a guy who makes decisions based on conditions on the ground, not absolute inflexible doctrines.

Yes. That's quite a list. Obiously you've given this quite a bit a thought and study. One thing that you might add to that list is in regards to Adam/Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit. It was not a sin but an event that was not only forseen by God but part of His plan for us His children. Partaking of the fruit was a good thing and a necessary step in our progression.

[Rose Garden]

Welcome, Underground. Have you read the Book of Mormon? I recommend starting with that.

[FromTheUnderground]

Yes. That's quite a list. Obiously you've given this quite a bit a thought and study.

My entire life, I've striven for a logically coherent philosophy. However, I've come to the conclusion that, within Human relations, there is no such thing. If I killed by neighbor to steal his propane tanks, I would be called a murderer. According to early Mormonism, the only repetance for such would be blood atonement (suicide). However, if America went to war to take access to Canada's oil sands and I killed a Canadian soldier, I would be branded a hero.

I've come to the conclusion that Rationalism is a false prophet and that one ought to pledge himself to a higher order, rather than try to make sense of it all himself.

One thing that you might add to that list is in regards to Adam/Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit. It was not a sin but an event that was not only forseen by God but part of His plan for us His children. Partaking of the fruit was a good thing and a necessary step in our progression.

I've heard that. Very interesting stuff. The Orthodox view is that all current problems in the world spring from our capacity to sin (Ancestral Sin, not the same as Catholicism's Original Sin. Although defacto, they result in the same Human condition). Mormonism seeks to remedy this by stating that The Fall was a planned event. This seems a much healthier attitude and one that would result in much less self-flagellating sorts of thought and behavior.

Welcome, Underground. Have you read the Book of Mormon? I recommend starting with that.

My Mormon friend, also a member of this forum, is going to give me a copy when I see him this weekend.

Here're two questions: (1) If Joseph Smith's later additions to the OT and NT are said to refine errors in the original text, why hasn't Mormonism merged at least some of these works into an entirely new Revised New Testament? (2) Why is your name Jezebel? Didn't she urge the ancient Jews to abandon worship of Yahweh and subsequently killed for her apostasy? Does Mormonism posit a differing view of her?

[Thomas]

Duragout wrote: Yes. That's quite a list. Obiously you've given this quite a bit a thought and study. One thing that you might add to that list is in regards to Adam/Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit. It was not a sin but an event that was not only forseen by God but part of His plan for us His children. Partaking of the fruit was a good thing and a necessary step in our progression.

I will have to disagree with this. Disobeying God was a sin. God would have allowed Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit in due time. I cannot say, I know all things pertaining to this allegory but it should be evident that it was done prematurely and we are paying a price for it.

[Rose Garden]

Welcome, Underground. Have you read the Book of Mormon? I recommend starting with that.

My Mormon friend, also a member of this forum, is going to give me a copy when I see him this weekend.

Here're two questions: (1) If Joseph Smith's later additions to the OT and NT are said to refine errors in the original text, why hasn't Mormonism merged at least some of these works into an entirely new Revised New Testament? (2) Why is your name Jezebel? Didn't she urge the ancient Jews to abandon worship of Yahweh and subsequently killed for her apostasy? Does Mormonism posit a differing view of her?

You can get started on the Book of Mormon online if you are curious: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Speaking of killing people, right near the beginning the first author in the Book of Mormon, whose name is Nephi, kills his uncle. It's been the source of a great deal of debate on and off this forum.

Some of the offshoots of the LDS church have produced a revised version of the Bible. I have no idea why the main LDS church has not.

I am named after the Jezebel in Revelation 2:20

20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

I had a friend compare me to her. He claims I'm teaching false prophesies and seducing people. Being the smart a$$ that I am, I thought I might change my username. I was formerly Called to Serve, which is the title of a popular LDS hymn.

I can't recall ever hearing about Jezebel in church outside of gaining a vague impression she was not a good woman.