posted
I was listening to NPR on the way back from work today, and they had a very emotional interview with Laura Johnston Kohl, who is one of the surviors of the mass suicide of the People's Temple Cult led by Jim Jones. November 18th marks the 25th anniversary of the mass suicide, in which over 900 people died--including many babies and young children.
If you're not familiar with this gruesome bit of history, you really need to listen to the NPR retrospective on the events. It's terribly sad, but it's important to understand how something like this could happen. Even people with the best intentions get led astray, and now we can see the disastrous consequences of their blindness.
May they rest in peace.
Posts: 224 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Moral lesson: if your religion asks you do to something that you don't understand, or which feels wrong to you, switch religions. Your gut instinct is almost guaranteed to be healthier than blind faith in your leadership.
posted
Easier said than done for those under a leadership that requires blind devotion and gets to the point of mass suicide.
Those people who had the strength of self to do that had already done so. One has to ask oneself, what kind of people belong to those kinds of groups?
They already felt isolated, and the new group fulfills that loneliness very well.
There may also be processes that induce an inability to think clearly, such as lack of sleep, lack of food coupled with repetitive rituals. Also, believing that participation in this religion makes them unique and special, above any other human, is a pretty powerful thing for the person who can't see the goodness of their own individual self. Low self esteem coupled with a mild form of brainwashing to confirm the leader as The One and the teachings as unquestionable is a bad mix.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Moral lesson: if your religion asks you do to something that you don't understand, or which feels wrong to you, switch religions. Your gut instinct is almost guaranteed to be healthier than blind faith in your leadership.
If you should trust your gut instinct whenever it conflicts with your religion, what is the point of religion?
Consider the numerous stories in the Bible about people whose gut instincts were to do X when God told them to do Y. Isn't the point of these stories precisely to have faith, even when your gut instincts may say otherwise?
What's more, there's nothing to say the people who committed a suicide even made a mistake. After all, they probably believed they were saving themselves by doing so, and as far as we know they could have been correct. You assume this is something sad, but to one who believed in their religion, it could be something very happy.
quote: Consider the numerous stories in the Bible about people whose gut instincts were to do X when God told them to do Y. Isn't the point of these stories precisely to have faith, even when your gut instincts may say otherwise?
Can you give an example of such a story? I'm not saying I don't believe you, I just don't know what you're talking about.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about the children of Isreal wandering through the wilderness after the Exodus? Their gut instinct (or something) was to build a god they could see.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I guess those work. The whole Abraham and Isaac thing was truely senseless, but then he didn't really have to go through with it so I don't think it compares with this.
Edit to respond to Tresopax: I don't know if that one counts. According to what he says in the Bible, dying didn't go against his 'gut instinct' because his 'gut instinct' was to do whatever God wanted him to do.
[ November 18, 2003, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Law Maker ]
Posts: 46 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The whole Abraham and Isaac thing was truely senseless, but then he didn't really have to go through with it so I don't think it compares with this.
I dunno . . . I think the point is still valid. Or do you think Abraham was going to pull away at the last moment? The point is, God asked him to do something quite against his instincts, and he was ready to do it. The fact that he was stopped doesn't seem to have any bearing on it, unless you're saying that the moral is do what God tells you, unless it seems like he's not going to stop you from doing something you really don't want to at the last minute . . .
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right. Abraham was doing exactly what you all are saying he did. One thing though. Wasn't Abraham a prophet? Doesn't that mean he had no doubt about who was telling him to sacrifice his son? It's one thing to blindly follow a fallable human being, It's another to do what you know God is telling you to do.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, god talked directly to Abraham. But there are other instances where a prophet told someone to do something that didn't seem right to that person. A prophet is a fallable human being that you believe knows the right answers. So was the guy who told these people to kill themselves, so that makes more sense.
posted
Jim Jones believed himself to be a prophet as well, in direct communication with God.
Unfortunately, True Prophets don't come with blinking lights on their heads, or other failsafe markers. And matters of faith aren't matters of proof, sort of by definition.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
When God tells you to sacrifice your son, that is one thing.
When a self-appointed prophet tells you to feed your children poison, its time to get a new prophet.
(PS she survived by not being in Guyana at that tmie, but at one of the other church centers. Event here one mother killed herself and her three children with a carving knife. I also recall there were a few people who hid out in the jungle during the suicide, and witnessed the whole thing.)
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I'm calling the company lawyer during lunch, and then will call creepy stalker-ish guy tonight. Will have update tomorrow. Hopefully, all will be ended. Thanks. )
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference is when God says something to you, hopefully you will notice it. If God himself is speaking directly to you, then you had better do what he is saying.
If some other guy tells you that God has spoken to him and told him what you need to do, you should probably be slightly more apprehensive.
posted
If you believed that God told you to lead a massacre of hundreds of people, would you do it? What about thousands? Is there a point at which you'd say "waaaait a minute, maybe this isn't God, even if I'm sure it is -- or maybe, even if it's God, this still may not be a good idea?"
My "wait-a-minute" response kicked off with the first person I was sent to kill. (I don't mean that facetiously -- there was a point in my life when I was suicidal and pretty seriously depressed, and I was sure that the thing I was supposed to do -- that God wanted me to do -- was start over.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but God never talks to anybody anymore. (well, except LDS prophets)
He's become quite a hermit.
You would think he'd be more involved--plagues and whatnot--since the world is so much more evil than in Biblical times.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, but God never talks to anybody anymore. (well, except LDS prophets)
How do you know that, Frisco? (or, contrawise and backwardstance, how do you know that He used to?)
Mind you, I know we've been through all of this before. I'm also not looking to shake anyone's bedrock. I really find my own relationship with doubt to be one of the key issues to come to terms with in my life. Insight is appreciated.
posted
Yeah. Now all the famines and plagues and whatnot are all caused naturally. Or else we caused them ourselves with industrialization. Or maybe God is punishing us.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
God talks to everybody through the Holy Ghost. It's just only for them (us) and for their family and stewardships.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's just only for them (us) and for their family and stewardships."
And on what grounds can someone contradict this vision? If someone receives what they believe is a message, who vets it to make sure that it IS from God, and not mental illness or wishful thinking?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
"And on what grounds can someone contradict this vision? If someone receives what they believe is a message, who vets it to make sure that it IS from God, and not mental illness or wishful thinking?"
Here is where LDS members depart from a strictly positivist, empirical way of knowing things, and talk about receiving pure intelligence straight from the source in a manner that leaves no doubt as to the source or the truth of what is received. Reliance on human ways of knowing is not an issue here. And those who receive this intelligence are ready to receive it, and receive it soberly, because they have prepared their minds and hearts by living the standards the Church teaches, by expecting such revelations, and by being willing to abide by what is revealed. This process isn't restricted to prophets, but to anyone prepared in this manner, down to the individual receiving inspiration regarding his personal life.
If necessary, others can receive confirmation from the same source, the Holy Ghost, that the inspiration an individual received is in fact from God. In fact, this is what all of us are expected to do when a prophet speaks.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm trying to think how to describe it. The best is peace and light. Feeling lifted up when I'm praying.
In terms of direct, almost verbal inspiration, it doesn't happen very often, but it is usually a strong, clear thought that feels right. My other best clue is when it is something I don't want to hear. Half of the sincere "What do I do?" prayers are followed with "Are you sure? Because I don't want to do that."
There are lots of scriptures that describe it, as well.
quote:Here is where LDS members depart from a strictly positivist, empirical way of knowing things, and talk about receiving pure intelligence straight from the source in a manner that leaves no doubt as to the source or the truth of what is received. Reliance on human ways of knowing is not an issue here.
avr, I understand I'm treading on shaky ground here, and feel free not to repond or to tell me "none of your business." But I mean it as a solemn, respectful question:
Is it taken as a given, then, that someone who is properly prepared to receive communication from God, in what he/she believes to be full sobriety, cannot be wrong about that communication? So, for example, the world is arranged in such a way that a person in this circumstance could not be suffering from a delusion, and not know it?
(BTW, I'm cool with you saying "yes," and I'd be okay with dropping it at that. It would help explain some things to me about the structure of faith, at least for you. I know you don't speak for all of the LDS. )
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know you were talking to afr, and he'll answer it, but I can offer my perspective.
Sure, people can be wrong. Feeling is subjective. I mean, some people's brains tell them they are being spoken to by someone standing directly in front of them, and it is a hallucination.
Do you mean the average population, that does not schizophrenia? Well, feeling is subjective, and I'd never underestimate the ability of human beings to talk themselves into anything.
If you are asking about customs, it is considered inappropriate to question someone's answer or inspiration, especially when it is something most directly concerning them.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The woman they interviewed was out of the complex at the time of the Kool-aid thing.
Ron heard it and was disturbed by how much time she spent talking about how cool it was to be there in the commune with like-minded people, etc. Like, she was missing the good old days before eveyone decided to die.
See, the problem Tom and I have with this LDS thing, is that it seems likely that what I truly believe, after prayer and seeking and reading and all that, might not jibe with everyone else. I mean, I'm the weirdo who said "Squid" when asked to name a vegetable.
That, and I'd probably have trouble not decking the first guy to say something remotely sexist. I have anger issues. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:have trouble not decking the first guy to say something remotely sexist.
Welcome to my world.
I know you were halfway joking, Olivet, but that really is a big issue for some people. Certainly was for me. The only way I could reconcile the Lord's gospel with my brother and various guys' interpretation was that they were doing it wrong. Fortunately, everything from the prophets to my prayers bears that out.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I guess what I was trying to get at in my earlier post was that it's a very unmistakable feeling (or impression), accompanied, as kat said, by peace and clarity of thought concerning the matter. However, faith still plays a big part in recognizing and accepting it.
I certainly recognize that there is real delusion and mental illness that might make it very confusing. However, it is my opinion that God takes special care of people with those problems and provides ways for them to distinguish between falsehood and reality as well. This isn't some machine spewing out information. It's a living, very real, very loving God who cares for each of us personally and works with us individually.
Another "check," if you will, is how the inspiration in question lines up with what has already been taught through scripture and living prophets. We believe God does everything in an ordered fashion. He reveals doctrine in an orderly way, namely through duly called prophets, and the doctrine is passed down the channels of leadership from there. Some random Joe isn't suddenly going to receive revelation from God that he is to start murdering people, or do something else contrary to what has been already taught through prophets. But we can all receive inspiration that relates to our personal lives or to those over whom we have stewardship, like our families.
Also, I don't mean to imply that inspiration from God is limited to members of the LDS Church. We are all entitled to it, as children of God.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, katharina and avr. Both answers were very helpful to me, and I appreciate the thought and great consideration. Thanks, also, for not telling me to go fly a kite.
I'll respectfully withdraw from the discussion at this point, unless I can be of help to someone.
posted
"Here is where LDS members depart from a strictly positivist, empirical way of knowing things, and talk about receiving pure intelligence straight from the source in a manner that leaves no doubt as to the source or the truth of what is received."
Um....I know LDS members who thought they had received a communication from God, and turned out to be wrong.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, it wouldn't matter if they turned out to be wrong, it only matters if they later think they have been wrong. Then you have at a given time t a set of people who believe they have received direct communication from God, and at a later time t + n a subset of those people who have decided otherwise.
Now, you could argue that anyone who has a true communication from will certainly know it, but this example clearly shows that, well, there's no way of being certain if you are certain. Recanting happens, clearly. People who are certain at one time become uncertain later. And since we are not privy to internal visions, there's no way to isolate if certain kinds of visions are never recanted.
Plus, even were certain kinds never recanted, I'm betting I could find contradictory visions within that subtype, invalidating that mode of analysis.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Understand, too, that the question of stewardship comes into play. If I, as a member, were to receive the revelation that women should be admitted to the priesthood, then I can safely assume that was a mistake, since that's not my stewardship.
Stewardship means that on my own personal decisions, the decisions that affect my dependent children, and my calling with the church, I have the right to receive revelation concerning these things.
If I were to receive, say, a revelation about my personal future calling in the church, then I would act to prepare myself for that, but would assume that God will tell the prophet about it if and when He feels I'm ready or it's time or whatever. I would wait to be called, in other words, and not put myself forward based on my personal revelation.
Everyone's stewardship is well defined. We all have the right to receive revelation about our own stewardships. Never is there any compulsion on anyone else. The priesthood "constitution", if you want to call it that, states that it only works through long-suffering good will, kindness, mercy, etc. Never through harshness or cruelty or punishments. That if you use the power of the priesthood in any unrighteous fashion, then you forfeit the backing of heaven, and the power is withdrawn. If the prophet one day (and this is inconceivable) told us all to drink cyanide, he would be very clearly breaking all the most basic rules, and nobody would comply.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the things that can't be refuted are the things that bear on your own personal decisions. And about everything else there is not any compulsion ever.
What I find so disturbing about the Jim Jones thing is that many many of the people were murdered. There are even tapes in which we hear people screaming, being shot, etc. My question is not so much how people can come to think that committing suicide for a cause is a good idea, but murdering? And what were they thinking would be accomplished?
It really cuts to the core of what it means to be a human being. Are there circumstances under which I would do something like that? I'd like to think there aren't, and yet in extreme situations people seem to do all sorts of things that you would think nobody could ever do. Just like in concentration camps. How was it that possibly happened? In the mass killings in Rwanda? Slavery?
What is this beast called man?
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"My question is not so much how people can come to think that committing suicide for a cause is a good idea, but murdering?"
There are PLENTY of Biblical instances in which God commands people to murder. And they do -- or, if they DON'T, He usually gets ticked off and does something atrocious to both them AND the victims.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
And matters of faith aren't matters of proof, sort of by definition.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
