I know the church is true. I love the church. They are disaffected with the church. We go to church. I discovered that the church was not what it said it was. What exactly, does ‘church’ mean? Where is ‘the church”? Who does it belong to? What does “church” mean? Is it a place, a set of beliefs? Is it an organization? A corporation?
Bruce recently said that Mormons often use ‘church’ and ‘religion’ interchangeably. When you think of “the church,” are you actually thinking “religion”? Is it the leadership? When a General Authority, Bishop or Relief Society President does something a member does not like, is it accurate or is it misplaced for a member be upset with the whole church?
Where exactly, is “the church”: James E. Faust gave a great talk on this a few years ago. He rejected the idea of the church being in the buildings, because buildings “will get no one into the kingdom of God,” and the “temple buildings alone do not bless.” He said families are a better answer, but still only part of the church. The best answer, although not necessarily a tangible one, is that the church is in our hearts: “for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” We go to a church building or a temple, but ultimately, the “church” is something we take with us.
Whose church is it? The short answer here is, “duh, it’s the Church of Jesus Christ.” But more pragmatically, it is also the church of Latter-day Saints, i.e. we the members. It is my church just as much as it is any apostle’s or rank and file member’s. To illustrate this, my mission president once told us how he was asked by man on temple square, “if the prophet committed adultery, would you leave the church?” Many would, for sure. But he said that it would not make a difference in regards to his membership. It is not the President’s church. I believe it is the church of Jesus Christ, as well as our own, and it will be what we make of it.
I like to think of the church as a vehicle for our progress. Whether the church is true compared to other churches does not matter to me. What matters is, if being an active member will help my family and I progress. Which, I assert, is and has been true for me.
Great post and questions, Adam. It seems to me that those who label themselves as “disaffected” with the “church” tend to focus on the institutional church, the corporation and its highest leaders, as opposed to the regular folks in their ward who are flawed but more often than not are generous and sincere and trying to do what they believe is right. It is impossible for me to become disaffected with the “church” when I am surrounded by so many of those kind and generous “regular members.”
Andrew and Adam,
You’re so right. Most of the time when I am feeling alienated from some of the directions a lesson or discussion is heading in my ward, some kind person redirects it to something important, like families, charity, peace, and Jesus Christ. I like to think of the Church as a family, as I indicated in a previous post.
The Greek word translated as church in the New Testament is ekklesia, which in secular terms means the assembly, the arena in which political decisions were made.
According to the Catholic theologian Hans Kueng, the English word church probably derives from the Byzantine word Kyrike, and means “belonging to the Lord”, kyrios. The Hebrew word kahal was translated into the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures, and meant the assembly of Yahweh. This is assuredly where the Assemblies of God denomination gets its name.
John, what you’ve said also seems to concur with John the Revelator’s reference to “seven churches,” all of which presumably would have been part of the same Church of Jesus Christ. I thought John the Revelator’s use of the term “churches” to refer to different congregations within the same overarching “church” was strange when I first read it, but it makes sense if you’re using the word “church” to refer to a congregation or “ward family” as many like to call it.
Andrew–it’s interesting to bring up the “seven churches”. All of them had their particular struggles, not unlike our ward/stake system we have now.
My favorite Mormon line: “The Church is true even if the people aren’t.” But wait! The church IS the people!
I love this concept. I often have this exact discussion at work. People who complain that “the company” doesn’t care or what is “the company” going to do about something that bothers them, but in reality, those of us who choose to work there are all “the company,” and we create the culture of our workplace. It’s the same with “the church.”
We also talk about the difference between employee engagement (active involvement and contribution) vs. satisfaction (passive contentment) at work. Like acting vs. being acted upon. Again, just like at church - we are all members, but contributing or engaged to varying degrees.
The real issue for the church right now is to increase everyone’s engagement in the church. There are many members, but a lot who are inactive, less active, or going through the motions. It seems that this falls into Perfecting the Saints rather than Proclaiming the Gospel, but if we could approach the task the way missionary work is approached, maybe it would be more impactful.
Adam…thanks for that uplifting and inspiring post. Very straight whilst being pragmatic and moderate. Cheers mate. Very well said.
What the the Church???
Why not go to the scriptures and get the answer?
Here is a good place to start, D&C 10:67-68:
“Behold, this is my doctrine - whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.”
That seems to me to be a very straightforward answer; one that doesn’t leave a lot of room for alternatives. We belong to the church of Jesus Christ when we ‘come unto Him’ no more, no less. There is a good description of the church according to the scriptures found at http://www.fulness.com under church.
Spek
Spek,
I’m certainly not going to argue with the sciptures on what the definition of the Church should be. But that still leaves open the question of how the word “Church” is used by Mormons. There seems to be several different ways we use it. We use it to mean “the building”, “the brethren”, “the inspired organization”, “our religion”, “the congregation” etc. We use one word to mean all of these and we rarely try to differentiate between differences of use. I think this can lead to confusion, as AdamF’s post suggests. But it seems like, in general, we sort through it without too much problem.
I agree that the church is a vehicle for our progress, and we will get out of it what we put in (we’ll actually get much more than we put it, but the point is, we do have to put forth effort).
I’ve really been struggling in my new ward and with my new calling. There are so many children (and I’m only adding to the problem) that it is so noisy. Even during prayers.
I’m a sunbeam teacher (there are 4 sunbeam teachers- 2 per class) and 11 kids in my class, by the time primary is over and we go to sacrament meeting I often feel so frenzied that I really struggle to pay attention to the spirit of the meeting instead of the noise.
I’m really trying to remember that I will get out of the meeting as much as I put into it, and last sunday I had a bit of a tender mercy. Sac. meeting wasn’t any less noisy, but I was able to listen to the speakers and feel renewed. It’s taken prayer and effort on my part, and I’ve thought how easy it could be to just stop going.
But it’s unfair for me to expect the “church” (or in this case a ward) to meet my needs when I am not willing to make an effort to make sure my needs are being met- whether that be through prayer, scripture study or anything else to help me have a good experience at church.
On an only slightly related note, have you ever noticed that Church publications fairly consistently capitalize Church when referring to Christ’s true Church (the organization and the people) but lowercase church in the phrase “go to church”? Also, you’ll note that Church publications fairly consistently use the word meetinghouse when referring to the building that Church members meet in to go to church.
By the way, the Doctrine and Covenants refers to the “church of the Firstborn,” meaning those who are begotten through Christ and heirs of celestial glory (see D&C 76:54, 67, 71, 94; 77:11; 88:5; 93:22; 107: 19). It’s also referred to as the “general assembly” and the “elect of God.” The Church’s goal is to help people qualify for this group, so I would agree with hawkgrrrl’s comment on the Church’s current challenges.
Spektator: “Whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.” So does this mean that the church is much larger than Mormonism? Definitely something I could believe (maybe related to Andrew’s post), but many would have a hard time taking that scripture as the sole definition of “the Church”.
Is the church larger than Mormonism? I wouldn’t be surprised if it were so. In the D&C 10 quote, Christ made it clear that anything more or less than this definition was not acceptable. Does the corporate church maintain the one and only path to ‘come unto Christ?’ I think we each need to answer that for ourselves. I have come to the conclusion, as Andrew indicated, that the corporate church is not the same as this spiritual church that is defined in the D&C 10 quote. Can it span beyond the Mormon sphere?
I am reminded of the experience of Cornelius, the first ‘gentile’ convert in Acts. It was tough for the primitive church leaders to accept the fact that Cornelius has received the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost just as they had. Can a similar situation exist today? I think so. God has the right to accept anyone who repents and comes unto Him.
Spek
I would argue that the Church is larger than Mormonism, but that those who are part of the Church would accept Mormonism as a given when they encounter it, although not necessarily to subject themselves to it.
Let me speculate just a bit, if you would. Let us suppose that we suddenly discovered a neat technology that expands our understanding of physics greatly, allowing us to travel to the furthest reaches of this galaxy, and even perhaps other galaxies, taking only a moment to do so. Think perhaps in the manner of Stargate (I’m being very speculative, but this is fiction for the moment).
We get to another distant location and discover that there are humans there, or rather, intelligent creatures that look very much like us. We speak with them and discover suddenly that they have extremely similar beliefs about salvation, exaltation and the like. Supposing that they had Temple rites that resembled the LDS rites and ordinances (who would ever know, how would we find out?).
Obviously we would not expect, in our pride, for them to become Mormon, but neither would we expect to join completely with them. On the other hand, we might completely agree that their faith and authority is completely valid.
Now the above is purely speculative, and while I’m certain there are those that will find good reason to scoff, the point is valid I think. If we would accept it as valid at such a distance, why not closer to home? The only reason we as Mormons in the current time frame think of a global unified Church is because we have the modern technology to do so, but in times past such a thing would have been ill-considered. We know that in the time immediately after Christ’s death and Ressurection there were at least three organized and separate churches (a careful reading of the Book of Mormon text indicates this), and likely more.
Of course, D&C 1:30 might be interpreted as indicating that the LDS church is unique at this point in history, and that is certainly the way I tend to read it, but I can see where another reading would be possible:
With that in mind, however, I concede that there is some ambiguity, but my personal interpretation leans toward no other organization or priesthood authority outside the mainstream of the church except for a few minor exceptions (three Nephites, John the Beloved, and possibly some others that are still around, but who knows what those are really up to?).
I leave further speculation in your capable hands.
#10 Allie
In sacrament meeting we usually are seated behind a young couple with a child under the age of one. This darling, little girl is a ball of energy and is prone to loud outbursts. After one particular raucous sacrament meeting, the grandmother apologized to our family for her granddaughter’s loudness. I explained to this sister that there was no offense and that I actually enjoyed the sound of small children and I would never want the child to be stifled. What I didn’t tell the grandmother is this: I was left completely sterile due to cancer surgery over eight years ago. While I am grateful to The Lord for our three children, my wife and I thought we would have several more over the course of our marriage. I miss the sound of small children in our home and in our pew.
As far as church and children are concerned, consider this example and statement The Savior gave us about the “kingdom of God”.
Mark 10:13-15
13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
Ammon (#15)
Thanks for your input, and I’m sorry about your inability to have more children. I have several good friends who have desparately wanted children, while my wife and I are blessed to have 4 wonderfully rambunctious boys. My wife feels the strain of their noise quite a bit, but I personally don’t mind that much, and notice that no one in the ward really seems to mind. Which is a good thing, because if they did, I’d have a few words to say about that! I am a very protective father, when it comes to my children.
#15 Benjamin O
I rarely have to remind myself how blessed we are for the three children we have. My heart aches for those friends and family we know who struggle or who are not able to have their own children. Thank God for adoption!
As far as the noise, it doesn’t matter if it’s laughing, crying, shouting, etc., the sound of a child’s voice is a song to my heart.
Spektator: “I have come to the conclusion, as Andrew indicated, that the corporate church is not the same as this spiritual church.”
–I agree with this. The corporate church is a temporary organization, compared with the spiritual church, IMO. We have been told we have not been given everything, with much to learn in the future or in the next life. As for the scripture you quoted, I am sure there are plenty who are members of the corporate church who have not repented or come unto Christ, so spiritually in this sense, they would not be members. Maybe we all get too comfortable “knowing” we are in the true church, when we really need to worry about repentance and coming to Christ. Spiritually speaking, I have left and come back to the church quite a few times. Thanks for your comments! They have provided some great new insight for me.
Benjamin O: “immediately after Christ’s death and Resurrection there were at least three organized and separate churches”
–On my mission I was reading (maybe in the old Missionary Guide) about what to say to an investigator who notices that and tries to suggest that there is more than one true church, lol.
According to LDS belief, ultimately everyone will need the ordinances by the proper authority, but I think that is only a small part of exaltation. There could definitely be a lot of religions or “churches” in the world that offer paths that lead to these ordinances, now or in the next life. At a stake conference telecast in Japan, a GA even said that Buddhism in Japan had prepared Japanese people for the gospel and compared it with the teachings of John the Baptist. Maybe that’s stretching it a bit (maybe not), but I believe that whatever is good and elevates people is part of the plan, and is from God. I don’t mean to steal Andrew’s post here though…
#18 Adam F
“At a stake conference telecast in Japan, a GA even said that Buddhism in Japan had prepared Japanese people for the gospel and compared it with the teachings of John the Baptist. Maybe that’s stretching it a bit (maybe not), but I believe that whatever is good and elevates people is part of the plan, and is from God.”
If what was said about Buddhism is true, then why isn’t there a separate “Preach My Gospel” manual for missionaries in “non-Christian” lands? A young man from our ward recently returned from a mission in Japan and talked about teaching Joseph Smith from that manual. (Which makes sense; “Preach My Gospel” starts with the JS story.) I remember thinking to myself, “How stupid to teach the Japanese people about Joseph Smith BEFORE they have at least an elementary understanding of Jesus. How can a non-Christian hope to put JS in context without understanding the life and mission of Jesus?” IMO the “Preach My Gospel” manual needs to be revamped and properly ordered. God first, man’s relationship to God second, repentance as the only saving principle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ third, and all other things related to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as “only appendages” as Joseph Smith himself put it.
Ammon-I see your point here… maybe I can add some more personal insight. While I was in Japan (before “Preach My Gospel”) our mission President had us teach about the first vision at the beginning, and then what we learn about God from it. I think your ideas are well reasoned, but teaching about God first often led to unending chats with people that ultimately went nowhere. Interesting, for sure, but not effective missionary work. I rarely, if ever, asked people about their beliefs in God, because it was SO different, and we would not get anywhere. Teaching the first vision first really helped to set the stage for the rest of the discussion about God, Jesus, and the gospel.
#20 Adam F
“Teaching the first vision first really helped to set the stage for the rest of the discussion about God, Jesus, and the gospel.”
And what version of the first vision would be taught to the people of Japan?
I imagine though, once it is translated into Japanese, it’s a new “version” in and of itself.
More sincerely though, If I had of known about the other versions at the time I would have incorporated them (that is, if my Japanese skills would have good enough). Definitely fills out the story more, which is something that could have been beneficial. A lot of people would hear it and then say stuff like, “Oh yeah, that kind of stuff happens all the time. Tanaka san had the same experience a few years ago.” More detail would have helped.
#22 Adam F
“:)lol. The one I liked best, obviously.
I imagine though, once it is translated into Japanese, it’s a new “version” in and of itself.”
My concern is this: I have a son who will be missionary age in 2.5 years. He will be asked to preach the “official version”. He will bearing false witness if he testifies to the truthfulness of the “official version” of the first vision.
“He will bearing false witness if he testifies to the truthfulness of the “official version” of the first vision.” So, you’re saying the “official version” is false compared with the other versions?
I guess this is a threadjack, not that my post is long enough to warrant using such a word. Either way, I don’t have a problem with it. If anyone still wants to talk about “the Church”, the main thread is still open.
#24 Adam F
I will bring it full circle for you. We will be condemned by our words. We are commanded to live by faith and faith is NOT knowing. (No matter what the Primary song says.) For a person to say they KNOW the church is true is bearing false witness.
All I’m saying is, before you take Joseph’s word for it, you better be sure your “feelings” aren’t deceiving you. We are taught in the OT that the heart is most deceitful.
If you want to BELIEVE the church is true, go for it. If you want to witness that you KNOW the church, the first vision, the book of mormon, the doctrine and covenants, the pearl of great price, etc. is true, then be absolutely sure of yourself.
Well said. I agree completely. There are many things in the church that are only on the “belief” level for me. Part of the motivation for this post is if I (or anyone else) is saying “I know the Church is true,” I think it is important to know exactly what “the Church” means in that sentence.
Feelings can be deceiving. There are very few things I would say I “know” (church-related and otherwise). Now, what “know” means, is another discussion. Maybe Jeff Spector’s post addressed this already…
“Whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church” - I like this definition the best. I have no problem at all with the phrase “I know the church is true” in this sense.
#26 Adam F
“’Whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church’ - I like this definition the best. I have no problem at all with the phrase “I know the church is true” in this sense.”
I like to think your quote may be related to the following:
John 17:3
3 And this is life eternal, that they might [KNOW] thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
John 8:32
32 And ye shall [KNOW] the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
We can KNOW Jesus and if we come unto Him, we can “know” His church. I like to think His church is the whole body of believers, not the followers of Joseph Smith or any other man.
Ammon, Adam:
Actually, (and this is something of a threadjack, so I apologize) I’ve always been a bit bothered by the way members of the Church (not to mention non-members) talk about the relationship between faith and knowing. I think the two are somewhat orthogonal to each other, and while faith can lead to knowing, and sometimes we have faith in things that we don’t know, and that faith can be supplanted by knowledge, the need for faith in general is universal.
It brings me back to the whole emotion/cognition/spiritual divide as well that I’ve brought up before in other posts/threads. There is an emotional recognition that we like the gospel–that’s where it starts for MOST of us. Or that we need something we don’t have, or something. If things go according to the Moroni 10:3-5 plan, we then pray about it after some cognition, and then have a spiritual experience. That’s where faith comes in. But in the church we seem to have this idea that the cognition part is somehow more important than the spiritual aspect, and I suspect its because we tend to conflate the spiritual and emotional. If we can keep those separate, however, we understand that the spiritual is actually more accurate than the cognitive in most ways, but we have a hard time understanding it because of the imperfections of our bodies.
But the scriptures do a poor job of delineating this, I think, because they use the same word, faith, to refer to numerous concepts. Thus we have faith as motivator for behavior, we have faith as belief, and we have faith as spiritual power.
In this sense, we can have faith, and that faith can lead us to [KNOW] that the Church is true, that Christ lives, etc, even if we never have a theophanous moment in our lives. The lack of physical evidence is what bothers most intellectual/atheist/agnostic types, but from a philosophical point of view, its hardly bothersome. Now, at the cognitive level, I have a different level of proof that I would require, but I have no problem indicating that the spiritual or emotional can inform the cognitive (or vice-versa). What I do have a problem with is this: expecting that we can have immediate and complete spiritual understanding when all the evidence indicates that it takes most of our mortal life to simply can gain understanding of our own cognitive and emotional patterns.
Of course, the more narrowly one defines the church, the more difficult it is to state “I [KNOW] the church is true.” Conversely, I would argue that if one defines the church too broadly, this is also the case. In the broad middle ground, however, there is a vast area that makes it all too easy to say “I know the church is true”, and yet have this phrase have no practical significance. In order for this statement to have any value, it must be a statement of some sort of value. Of course here, I think most of use would be comfortable including that statement mean some sort of belief in God, while a bunch of Unitarians might not. Of course they wouldn’t utter such a statement, but that’s another story. But even for a believer, that statement needs to have a bit more meat to it in order to require any faith (motivation) at all. Or faith (belief). Or faith (power).
The statement “I believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is led by a prophet of God and he is a fallible but divinely inspired spokesman for Jesus Christ on earth today” requires more faith (belief), and may provoke (in my mind at least) more faith (motivation). Its impact on faith (power) is indeterminate.
The statement “I believe that TCoJCoLDS is led by Jesus Christ through modern living prophets and he has granted them priesthood authority” is similar, and has similar implications and requirements of faith.
Whether or not these are valid statements I leave to the reader, and whether or not one can make the transition from faith (belief) to knowing is only a valid question if the statement is indeed a true statement. If the statement is true, then faith (belief) may then become cognitive knowledge in my opinion, but faith (motivation) and faith (power) are still very much necessary.
Of course, it still has nothing to do with what is meant by church. I’d still argue that what I said earlier is true: if we met a group of extra-terrestials who had priesthood authority, we’d have absolutely no qualms about accepting them as members of the ‘Church’, but with no need to baptize them as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I can even see them being allowed to use our Temples without any baptism on this earth! Of course, we’d probably get a shock if we went to their temples! The core of the temples would be the same, but the form might be radically different, which might prove quite a shock to some people.
#28 Benjamin O
Anyone who affirms any knowledge of anything Joseph Smith advanced as divine truth is bearing false witness because there is no way to know something to be true that is born out of falsehoods. The history of the church demonstrates that it is more probable than not that JS and his contemporaries made it up as they went along. I can’t say for sure what their motivations were, but it is likely it had little to do with God’s will and more to do with man’s will.
Ammon: “Anyone who affirms any knowledge of anything Joseph Smith advanced as divine truth is bearing false witness because there is no way to know something to be true that is born out of falsehoods.” That is a big statement.
I don’t agree, though, that “anyone” in this case would be “bearing false witness”. A spiritual witness is an entirely subjective experience, thus making it impossible, IMHO, to know if another is bearing false witness, or not.
“A spiritual witness is an entirely subjective experience, thus making it impossible, IMHO, to know if another is bearing false witness, or not.”
Why would God cause His Spirit to be experienced differently from person to person. God is supposed to be no respecter of persons. This idea of subjective spiritual experience is a devious trick played on those who admit they have never had a spiritual confirmation of mormon “truth”. I don’t buy it and I wish members of the church would quit trying to sell it because it has made people feel inferior or not worthy of God’s Spirit.
Re: devious trick:
Whether that is devious or not, is subjective. As for selling the idea, maybe they do, but I’m not selling it here. All I am saying is that no one can convince another of a the veracity of a spiritual witness. No one can convince me by any logic or reason or science that God exists. It is a subjective (i.e. personal) spiritual matter.
“God is supposed to be no respector of persons”
Why would God cause anyone to have any different experience of Him? Why would he allow people to believe in Buddha? Why does he allow one person to suffer greatly and another to live in prosperity, unrelated to personal righteousness? I appreciate your question.
Bruce, I appreciate your comment as well. You always provide substantial input that deserves its own post. Thanks for your thoughts.
“The statement “I believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is led by a prophet of God and he is a fallible but divinely inspired spokesman for Jesus Christ on earth today” requires more faith (belief), and may provoke (in my mind at least) more faith (motivation).”
That statement would be more powerful to me than an “I know the church is true” because it is well thought out, and more specific.
#32 Adam F
“No one can convince me by any logic or reason or science that God exists. It is a subjective (i.e. personal) spiritual matter.”
I understand now what you mean by subjective. I was thinking you were advancing the idea that when a person prays to know whether the BoM (or some other aspect of mormonism) is true, that each person may have a difference experience which points to the “answer”.
As for the other questions, people will believe what they want to believe. Some believe is cultural (mormonism not excluded), some believe is subconsciously coerced, but belief (whether backed by a subjective spiritual experience or not) does not define or point to truth.
I was having a discussion with someone who asked me how is it that all 13 million members of the church in the world have been deceived if the church is not true? My response was, “13 million? That’s nothing what about the 1.2 BILLION that follow Islam?” God may be a poor planner if the LDS church is the only true church on the earth and is to prepare the world for the second coming.
Thanks for clarifying. That makes more sense now…
Re: “God may be a poor planner if the LDS church is the only true church on the earth and is to prepare the world for the second coming.”: That is why I don’t believe that The CoJCoLDS is the only true “church” (using the definition of “those who repent and come unto Christ”). Everything that is good and uplifts people to grow towards their potential is true to me, in that sense.
#35 Adam F
Thank you Adam F. I think you and I may agree on a number of matters of a divine nature. I have enjoyed this very stimulating exchange of ideas.
Thank you too! It’s nice to find common ground, as well as hear some new insight.
Re: “subjective”: I believe that “God is no respecter of persons”, but I do think that He can speak to people in different ways, e.g. some people experience God in nature, some in prayer/reading the scriptures, some in meditation, etc. So, “Why would God cause His Spirit to be experienced differently?” IMO, people are not experiencing his spirit differently, but they are using vastly different language to describe it. Often, spiritual experiences cannot be put into words very well. I tried once (related to an experience with the Book of Mormon) and was mocked (by a daughter of a friend). Maybe that’s the whole “pearls before swine” principle. I now try to be more careful to whom I describe my spiritual experiences to.
The other thinking about the fact that the majority of the world has never heard of the church or Jesus Christ is that it is not “their” problem, but “our” problem. While God is no respecter of persons, he will not let those who didn’t have a chance to hear the Gospel in this life go astray.
But, what of us, we have the great commission to “go ye unto all the world….” How are we doing with that? The Lord will hold those who “know” accountable for what they do and not do.
On this statement, “I know the Church is True.” Many members say it because they are expected to say it that way. What they are really saying is “I believe this church is true” or even “I hope this Church is true” Some say it because they have had a spiritual experience powerful enough to convince them that they do “know.”
It is a legimate phrase and a correct stateement if it is based on the latter.
#37 AdamF
You make a strong argument about the way the spirit is perceived differently by different people, but I believe people and leaders and teachers take it to the extreme to make people feel less worthy when they don’t “feel” the spirit as strongly or at all when seeking answers to questions. If we counsel with God in all our doings, we need to look for opportunities He places in our path rather than relying on a feeling that is not conclusive or reliable.
#38 Jeff Spector
In the D&C it states that those who do not receive the (mormon) gospel in this life will have the opportunity in the next life. We also understand that if a person would have been of the mind to reject the (mormon) gospel while on earth, the same spirit will possess them in the next life and they may not accept it there either. So why all the fuss about missionary work? Jeff, the stuff you and I are quoting came from man. Just because Joseph Smith said he received these things from God, doesn’t mean he ACTUALLY did. We should not put our trust in the arm of flesh.
#39
I can accept I “hope” the church is true. Even though the evidence is strong against it, I myself hope the church is the correct way. After a life-long adherence to the (mormon) gospel, I’ve been considerably let down to say the least.
#31 said:
“A spiritual witness is an entirely subjective experience, thus making it impossible, IMHO, to know if another is bearing false witness, or not.”
Approaching this subject using just our ability to reason still leads the reasonable man to the conclusion that it is wiser to believe in God than it is to disbelieve. If there is no God and we elect to believe then when we die it doesn’t matter, because that would be the end and we would have lost nothing by believing. However, if we elect to believe and there is a God, we will be far better off than those who elected to disbelieve. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe in God.
Regarding spiritual experiences, there is a whole spectrum of them.
On one side of the spectrum are people who believe they have had spiritual experiences when in reality they haven’t. They might be liars or just deceived.
On the other side of the spectrum are people who have had spiritual experiences of the highest order, Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow, for example.
And of course, there are all the others in between these extremes with all there varies hews and shades of experiences.
Is it reasonable to conclude that all these witnesses are liars or deceived?
Lastly, I will share with you that I process a witness of the truthfulness of the restoration of the gospel through the prophet Joseph Smith of an order that allows me to say that I know it is true, nothing doubting.
#38 Jeff – I agree, and “with great power, comes great responsibility.” See Spiderman movies 1-3.
I think we will be held accountable for what we have been given that we do not share in a material sense as well.
#40 Ammon – It is unfortunate that some of us make others feel less worthy for not receiving spiritual confirmation to their questions. As for “conclusive or reliable,” I have wondered at times whether something is just my anxiety acting up or if I am being prompted. The few times I was sure it was the Spirit it was a vastly different experience. Once again, it is a personal matter for me. I’m not someone who is consciously led day to day by spiritual promptings, but the times that were significant proved to be conclusive and reliable.
As for being “considerably let down,” by whom are you speaking about here? I think this is one of the things I was getting at in the post. In what ways have you been let down? I would (sincerely) like to know. I understand that people can place too much trust in man and be let down, but I don’t see how one could be let down by “the (mormon) gospel”. Please fill me in.
#41 Jared – I see your reasoning there (and I believe in God), but I don’t think it is reasonable for everyone to believe in their respective version of God. Much of it has caused all kinds of problems. Granted, my belief in God has only led to peace in my life, but I don’t think that is true for all. I appreciate your witness as well.
And I need to stop using so many smileys. Or maybe just some variation would be good.
#41 Jared
“Lastly, I will share with you that I process [possess] a witness of the truthfulness of the restoration of the gospel through the prophet Joseph Smith of an order that allows me to say that I know it is true, nothing doubting.”
Please read Joesph’s varying accounts of the first vision with no commentary from either the apologists or the “antis” (I hate the term “anti-mormon”). Then draw your own conclusion. I will freely admit, no one can prove the first vision actually happened and no one can prove that it didn’t, but as for doubt however, Jospeh’s own words seem to create plenty of it.
#42 AdamF
As for being let down…I wrote a really, really long rant about how the mormon gospel is not real and man-made. I also talked about some of the good fruit the church has to offer people in a daily living sense and some of the bad things the church does in a socio-political-religious sense.
I am disaffected. I have objectively looked at the historical evidence as well as taking a closer look at scripture and my conclusion is that I cannot base my faith on incorrect knowledge (see “FAITH”, LDS Bible Dictionary). I feel like a fool for believing in an ideology/movement/religion that doesn’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to truth. I would be a greater fool still to listen to the pap that comes from church HQ (i.e. GBH on polygamy: “It’s not doctrinal and I condemn it.”)
I have literally shed tears over the realization that the church, BoM, first vision, etc. are not what they have been purported to be: truth, factual, the way back to God.
I appreciate you sharing that. Despite this format being a woefully ineffective means of explaining one’s beliefs in depth, it helps to know a little more about where you are coming from. While I have different conclusions regarding LDS scripture/history etc., I also appreciate that we can have different views (and some the same perhaps!) and still discuss them civilly.
My faith in Mormon theology and activity in the church is pretty much based on 3 things: Most good things in my life have resulted from or have been related to my activity in the church, a few nearly overwhelming experiences of love while reading the scriptures (BoM and the Bible), and the fact that my personal, internalized beliefs about God and cosmology find the most similarities in Mormonism–whether that view is because it was put in my head in primary at age 6, or if I was born with it, I don’t know, but it is delicious.
I am sorry about your (past?) heartache over matters that have been so wonderful in my life.
Thanks again for your comments.
I am wondering as we look back to the First Vision. Did not the Lord tell the young boy prophet that all of the churches were an abomination? Others have written upon this and commented including Brother Bushman. Has that changed?
What do you think the Lord meant by “churches” in this case? Also, what does “abomination” mean?
#40 - ammon:
“Just because Joseph Smith said he received these things from God, doesn’t mean he ACTUALLY did. We should not put our trust in the arm of flesh.”
I guess your and my definition of “arm of flesh” are very different. I have faith that Joseph was a Prophet, so in that case, we are not talking about an “arm of flesh” by the voice of the Lord though his prophet.
Perhaps and from what I can gather, you do not believe that. so we see things differently.
#41 Ammon Rye
Elder Ballard wrote (notice the use of the word “must”):
We must have personal, spiritual experiences to anchor us. These come through seeking them in the same intense, single-minded way that a hungry person seeks food…It is my witness and testimony that the Lord is not very far away. When Thou Art Converted, Chapter 4, by M. Russell Ballard
Spiritual experiences anchor us so that our foundation is built on rock instead of sand. Most church members who dwindle in unbelief do so because they lack spiritual experiences.
I know for myself of these things. I’ve studied all of the issues in church history and doctrine that can undermine our faith and testimony, and when troubled by these things, I reflect on the spiritual experiences the Lord has given me, and I am troubled no more.
I know by scared experience that what Elder Ballard says is true. I have received spiritual experiences that are undeniable and all the fiery darts of the adversary are quenched thereby.
Jared–while on one hand, I understand Ammon Rye’s perspective that feelings can be deceiving, I agree that spiritual experiences are very important. After all, what is spirituality, without spiritual experience?
#45 WP - To what comment(s) in this discussion were you referring to in your comment?
WP Lyon - the quotation isn’t that the churches were an abomination. Specifically, Joseph asked which church he should join and he was told not to join any of them and that they were all wrong. He was told “all their creeds” (Nicene Creed? Apostles Creed? Creed meant more generally?) were an abomination (meaning they took people further from the truth? they changed His words?). And he was told “those professors” (the ones Joseph knew in Palmyra who gave him advice? ministers in general?) were corrupt (teaching impure doctines? lacking in integrity? hypocrits?). A lot of these words are subject to interpretation and create more questions than they answer (although to Joseph, they answered a really important one).
Ammon Rye - there are different types of truth to consider: doctrinal truth (the church is true because the gospel precepts in action yield good fruit), historical truth (statements made by people over time seem to be accurate and consistent), and personal testimony (one has had a personal spiritual experience or witness of the truthfulness of the restoration or Book of Mormon, etc.). Most people would agree that personal testimony is subjective to individual experience, but I would posit that all these truths have subjective elements. Doctrinal truth can be clouded by misunderstanding or a desire to believe otherwise.
It sounds as though your disaffectation is linked to historical truth. It’s easy to think of this one as purely objective - things did or did not happen exactly as JS-H relates - but historical truth is the most subjective of all because we only have what is recorded by individuals who interpreted things in their own subjective ways within a specific context, and now they are dead. Aside from the various written accounts of the First Vision (all of which were written for different reasons, different audiences, at different times, and many many years after the fact), who can really say what factually happened? Was it a vision or a visit? Were angels present? Did they speak using words or through some sort of telephathic method? Are these direct quotes or a paraphrase? What things did they say that Joseph didn’t record? Did he forget some of it or was he forbidden to repeat some of it?
I have a personal testimony which precludes any inconsistencies in written records because it’s my personal experience. I certainly understand how difficult it is to find truth and consistency in the written historical records. I’m sorry you are disaffected and have had disappointment, but I hope you find the truth you seek. Best wishes to you.
Re: creeds: a quote from Andrew’s talk addressed this nicely: “It is their postbiblical creeds that are identified in Joseph Smith’s first vision as an ‘abomination,’ but certainly not their individual members or their members’ biblical beliefs.”
Another nice quote from Stephen Robinson (from the same talk): “Individual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records.”
In this sense, my membership in “the church” comes and goes. Sometimes (well, often) I am in need of repentance, and my heart is not in the right place. Other times, it is. I only hope that overall, I am progressing.
#47 Jeff Spector
“I have faith that Joseph was a Prophet, so in that case, we are not talking about an “arm of flesh” by the voice of the Lord though his
prophet.”
Just because you have FAITH that he was a prophet (of God?), doesn’t mean he was. Thank you, however, for not saying you KNOW he was a
prophet. I believe he was a self-appointed prophet (of himself), therefore I believe the
arm of flesh” is in play here.
#48 Jared
“Spiritual experiences anchor us so that our foundation is built on rock instead of sand. Most church members who dwindle in unbelief do so
because they lack spiritual experiences.”
What is the rock Jesus said he would build His church upon? Peter? No…Answer: Revelation. So if you are saying that revelation is the
spiritual experience that anchors us to His church (see AdamF’s definition of church; which I like btw), then I’m OK with that. I don’t
believe most church members dwindle in disbelief because they lack spiritual experiences. I believe it’s because they don’t have a certain
“feeling” they have been told will come when they sincerely pray. Then they are told things like: “It’s different for each person.” “You are
not humbling yourself enough.” “Maybe for you it comes a little at a time.” “Are you sure you are WORTHY to receive an answer.”
I have had physical sensations that are supposed to be a manifestation of the spirit testifying of truth. I have felt it when hearing a
talk, a lesson, watching a movie, listening to all different types of music, watching my children do something for the first time, holding
my wife in my arms, etc., but it doesn’t mean the church is true. I believe it means The Lord is close by.
As for M. Russell Ballard, I would rather read the words of Jesus from the Bible.
#50 hawkgrrrl
“Aside from the various written accounts of the First Vision (all of which were written for different reasons, different audiences, at
different times, and many many years after the fact), who can really say what factually happened?”
You have got to be kidding me?! Who was Joseph’s audience when he made his 1832 journal entry? Answer: HIMSELF! And it seems the factual
accounts became much clearer and more defined SIX YEARS LATER (1838, see offical version of the first vision in the PoGP). If you are going
to apologize for Joseph’s many versions of the first vision, you are going to have to do better than that. (I’ll save you some time; don’t
bother bringing up Paul’s differing accounts of his “vision” on the road to Damascus. Those were written by different people, as opposed to
several different accounts of the first vision written by or dictated by Joseph himself.)
#51 AdamF
Thank you for sharing those thoughtful quotes.
Let me elaborate on what I mean by ‘written for different reasons, different audiences at different times, many years after the fact’ using only the 1832 account to illustrate my meaning. No detours to Damascus, I promise.
The 1832 account was written up to 12 years later in JS’s own hand (the only account that was). For whom? Was it for himself alone (”dear diary, twelve years ago something extraordinary happened I forgot to mention . . .”)? For posterity (like many journal-writers)? To defend his story? At someone’s urging? Frederick G. Williams scribed what directly precedes it and what follows, so it wasn’t just him writing his private reflections in isolation. You can look at this account as a contradiction of other accounts, or you can see it as incomplete. I see it as incomplete and possibly motivated by a desire to make it sound less controversial than it really was. You may see it differently.
In my own experience as a journal writer, my written accounts of things that have happened in my life vary greatly depending on when I write them, why I’m writing them, and what has happened recently that brought them to mind.
My only point is that it’s not possible to prove or disprove historical records because they have contextual components that are ephemeral (unstated motivations, influencing events, non-recorded conversations, etc.), so to a large extent, we are left to conjecture. Even if JS were not dead and we interviewed him, would we really understand why he wrote what he wrote when he wrote it or would we just have more shreds of evidence to consider? We can only conclude JS was either deluded or crazy, deceiving others for his own gain, or (as I conclude) telling the truth.
Nice thoughts, hawkgrrrl. I agree, even in my own history, I have said or written things differently at different times, not because I was trying to be dishonest, but because we always have our present filters on when we think about the past. This doesn’t mean we can’t rely at all on historical record (I love reading history) we just need to get a wide range of viewpoints and strongly consider the fact that records leave out SO much, as you said (unstated motivations, etc.)
#53 hawkgrrrl
“I see it as incomplete and possibly motivated by a desire to make it sound less controversial than it really was.”
Controversial? Let me ask you a question: If God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to you and you “had seen a vision; [you] knew it, and [you] knew that God knew it, and [you] could not deny it, neither dared [you] do it; at least [you] knew that by so doing [you] would offend God, and come under condemnation”, then why would you write or relate the account any other way? Wouldn’t you KNOW that God has your back when giving a full and accurate account of the actual events? (Sorry, that’s two questions.)
Now read the 1838 version and study the words VERY CAREFULLY. Joesph never names the two personages, he only implies who they might be. He never uses any other word than vision to describe the experience. I believe Joseph’s words are VERY CAREFULLY chosen. Since the 1838 official version doesn’t come right out and admit seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ, I would like to see a direct quote from Joseph Smith (better if it be written by his own hand) where he says he saw God and Jesus together, in the grove, in 1820, by naming them specifically.
In the meantime, I will leave one more thought on the first vision. Why was the account in the “History of the Church” changed from “first visitation of angels” to “first vision”?
Feeling like a threadjack here.
“Wouldn’t you KNOW that God has your back when giving a full and accurate account of the actual events?” Even if JS “knew” God had his back spiritually (given all his expressions of self-doubt that’s questionable), he certainly had no reason to believe that he was immune from physical harm. He states that he had been attacked physically by persons wanting to get the plates. God didn’t protect him from physical harm or trials. Writing an incomplete rendition isn’t the same as denying it. All you or I can do is make assumptions about what JS felt or his motivations. We can’t know anything for certain, including what we would feel in his circumstances.
“I believe Joseph’s words are VERY CAREFULLY chosen.” Maybe they were; maybe they weren’t. That’s still an assumption. You infer that he admits something by omission. I consider an omission neutral.
“Why was the account in the “History of the Church” changed from “first visitation of angels” to “first vision”?” Who cares? It was both. The name change doesn’t imply anything specific.
My only point is that you can neither prove nor disprove anything based on the historic fragments. It’s all conjecture. If JS had but one written account that was the one in JS-H, it still wouldn’t prove that it happened or was accurately depicted (18 yrs later). And it doesn’t disprove anything that there are several versions with varying details. It’s still either something that happened or it didn’t, and no written account will prove or disprove it.
#56 hawkgrrrl
Sorry if this seems like a threadjack. It’s not. I was accused of threadjacking earlier and I brought it back full circle, so here we go again.
I agree that the first vision cannot be proven or disproven. I will say that it is more likely than not that the first vision never happened; there is too much evidence against it and very weak apologetics for it. If GBH is going to shift the members from the BoM as the keystone of our religion to the first vision being an indicator of the work being the greatest the world has known or a complete fraud, then the church is on extremely shaky ground.
What does “church” mean? If you believe in and come unto Christ, then you are of His church and belong to the body. I’ll put my faith in that long before I take the word of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Gordon B. Hinckley, et.al.
Ammon #27:
As a Christian I like your perspective and fervor. However, in John 8:32 the knowledge is not necessarily epistemological knowledge that would replace faith. It is a more practical knowledge of which Jesus speaks, gained by continuing in His word. The Greek word translated into “continue” here is “meno men’-o: to stay (in a given place, state, relation or expectancy) — abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand, tarry (for), thine own.” (From Biblos.com Greek Lexicon)
In context: John 8:31-
31 So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” …
Furthermore I would argue your use of John 17:3 is also an experiential knowledge not achievable by mortals through the application of faith. But to have faith is to receive eternal life is to abide with God, and by the experience to [know] Him.
Re: your comment #57: Praise God! Amen.
Ammon Rye, Re: threadjack–I’ve been enjoying the conversations here, and I think (unless anyone else has any new insights on the original topic) it’s fine to let them take us where they may. I’m just glad it’s going somewhere.
As for the earlier accusation, it wasn’t. What I meant (in #24) was that I was joining in the tangent, thus encouraging the shift in topics. Thanks for always “bringing it full circle,” regardless.
#59 AdamF
“As for the earlier accusation, it wasn’t.”
AdamF, you are correct. I’m sorry. When hawkgrrrl brought out the threadjack word, I overreacted. Why raise the threadjack flag instead of reinforcing one’s argument? Why not take on Joseph’s 1838 account that states that he dare not deny his vision or come under the condemnation of God? Well, he did deny it, as it was put, to avoid controversy. Jesus said He came into the world not to bring peace, but a sword pitting father against son, mother against daughter, etc.? I don’t know why Joseph would be worried about physical harm, Jesus suffered intense brutality for the cause of Salvation. None of us should exalt ourselves above the Savior in any way, shape, or form. (Oh, that’s right, Joseph did. See “History of the Church”, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409.)
As for this comment from hawkgrrrl (#56): “‘Why was the account in the “History of the Church” changed from “first visitation of angels” to “first vision”?’” Who cares? It was both. The name change doesn’t imply anything specific.”
Who cares?! I care! The name change doesn’t imply anything specific? It implies deception. If the name change doesn’t imply anything specific, then leave the statement in the original form. What was the INTENT (not the implication) of the change? Answer: Deception. To reinforce an official version of an event that, in all probability, never happened. The history of the church and some of its high-ranking leaders (prophets, seers, and revelators included) is full of deceptive statements and practices right up to the present day. Does not the BoM state that the father of all lies is the devil?
Ammon Rye #60 - I can see why you would come to the conclusions you do. Church history has not been clear, some leaders have lied or covered up things, and the history overall has been sanitized in many parts. In addition, however, there are (IMHO) just as many historical issues for the other side of the argument (e.g. that support Joseph Smith), which leaves me where I am in terms of the history… not disaffected, but certainly not with my head in the sand. That being said, the history (though I love it) never converted me to the gospel/church/religion etc. Other things did/do (#44).
Ammon Rye - I apologize for the “threadjack” word. I felt complicit in threadjacking, so I meant the word more as an acknowledgement/apology to the moderators, if that makes it any better to you. If I wasn’t enjoying the conversation, I wouldn’t have continued.
But that was my intent. My words were not chosen carefully enough. I can see why what I said was easily construed differently.
So either that really was my intent (it was; I swear!), or it wasn’t but I have convinced myself it was, or I made the whole thing up to deceive those reading this board that it was my intent. See how easy it is?
Ammon Rye - Like AdamF, I am not in the church because of the history, nor would I leave because of it, although I certainly find some of it unsavory. If leaders have lied to cover things up they felt were damaging, that says more about their own standing with God than mine. There isn’t a church on the planet that doesn’t have that issue. On that front, only atheism can stand on its merits because atheists don’t have an official organization with which they affiliate.
#63 hawkgrrrl
“only atheism can stand on its merits because atheists don’t have an official organization with which they affiliate.”
Have you never heard of the Democrat Party or the ACLU? LOL
You said, “There isn’t a church on the planet that doesn’t have that issue.”
I agree with that statement 100%. I have said to my friends and family that the LDS church is the best religious organization out there. However, the church shoots way wide of the mark when it comes to doctrines of salvation and then it sprinkles in junk like becoming a god of our own world. Where does my salvation lie other than love God, love your fellow man, repent of your sins (receive Jesus as your savior and redeemer), and receive sanctification through personal righteousness? Why would any church insist on more than that?
“it sprinkles in junk like becoming a god of our own world”
Junk? I’m rather fond of the idea. Not becoming a “god of my own world” per se, but cosmologically speaking, one of the main things that attracts me to Mormonism is salvation being viewed as eternal progression. Honestly, I don’t see why becoming like God is a “junk” type thing. I think it’s inspiring, and it motivates me to help others progress. Also, just one world? How about a thousand, or a million?
I’m offended when people say I’ll only have one world. lol.
Also, why stop at “sanctification” (not sure what your definition of that is, but that’s okay)?
The idea of becoming a god is junk, because it is not Christian doctrine, it’s mormon doctrine. God declared many times to his prophets that there is no other “God” like Him, beside Him, before Him, or to come after Him and he knows of no other. I take that to be true, because God does not lie. (Mormonism takes that and twists it to say there is no other god with which, we on this earth, have anything to do.)
I believe that there are other worlds in the universe and the one and only God, who created everything (see John 1:3), rules and reigns over all his creations. Just because you are fond of an idea or you think a man-made doctrine is inspiring, doesn’t make it reality. Sorry.
Ammon–so you’re Christian, but not Mormon. Okay. I understand your perspective better.
“Just because you are fond of an idea or you think a man-made doctrine is inspiring, doesn’t make it reality. Sorry.”
Richard Dawkins would say the same thing about the existence of God. There is absolutely no more proof for the existence of God that you believe in than the idea that man can become like God. Both ideas are utterly preposterous, as far as proof is concerned. I am not using this argument to say there is no God, but rather, to express that anything that is not scientifically proven is equally unprovable. I can’t say that the God I believe in is more probable than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
“God declared many times to his prophets” So, you appeal to the Bible here? But, I’m assuming, modern prophets are not real, but biblical prophets were? Like I explained, this is the flaw in your argument, and also why it is somewhat pointless (although interesting and fun to talk about) to have two believers debating about spiritual things. You can’t prove any of it. Anything not proved by science is equally unlikely. Can man become a god? Is Christianity true? Is there a china tea cup out in space orbiting the sun? No one can say they “know” these things in any way beyond the personal sense, i.e. they cannot prove it to someone else. I think Buddha, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, and Moses were all prophets, but can I prove any of it? Of course not. Therefore, whether or not my beliefs are “man-made” as you say, is not an answerable question in a debate setting. Nor is the question of the divinity of Christ, or the existence of God(s). It’s all spiritual here. Ultimately there is no sound logic or reason involved with religion. When I talk with an atheist, I agree with them on that point.
BTW, I appreciate your comments here. It is surprising that you keep coming back.
I thought you would get a little tired of this after a while.
#67 AdamF
“Ammon–so you’re Christian, but not Mormon.”
But I am a mormon. A member in good standing. BIC, baptized at eight, deacon & teacher quorum pres., priest quorum first assistant to the bishop, returned missionary, married in the temple, BYU grad., father of three, former financial clerk, ward clerk, exec. sec., second counselor to a bishop, currently I am serving as a high priest instructor. All that is part of what makes this so difficult.
About a year ago, I came to an understand that no matter how obedient I was the to the “laws and ordinances of the gospel”, I never felt like I could do enough to satisfy the demands of LDS theology. So I considered what it means to be saved from and evangelical perspective. I read what Paul said to the Romans, prayed to The Lord for forgiveness of my sins, and I accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior. As a result, I guess you could say I’m a “Born Again Mormon”.
You’re right about being tired. I am tired of all of it. I wish the first presidency and quorum of the twelve would come clean about the history of Joseph Smith and LDS church origins, tell ALL they know. I wish they would commit to taking the church in a more traditional Christian direction. Until that happens, I feel something is being hidden, covered up, or withheld from the members.
Wow, that is not an easy life to live. I don’t know how you do it. I am glad you have found peace at some level, despite your other aches. I am impressed that you are able to continue your church calling to teach and bring people to Christ. I wish you the best in your journey.
“I wish the first presidency and quorum of the twelve would come clean about the history of Joseph Smith and LDS church origins.” Do you think the JS Papers are a positive step in this direction? I do. They said they want nothing left out.
“I wish they would commit to taking the church in a more traditional Christian direction.” I think there are definite positive aspects about other forms of Christianity, some that we could learn, for sure. (On this topic, some have complained that the church is going to far in that direction, so it is interesting to hear you yearn for the opposite…) However, if this happened too much I think I would end up in a place you are now.
“tell ALL they know” Hey maybe you did it again! Brought the conversation back to the original topic.
Is the church the first presidency and the 12 in this case? To me, historical issues are every bit a personal responsibility as they are the first presidency’s (at least now that things like Rough Stone Rolling are being sold in Deseret Book stores). I.e. I am the church just as much as they are, or any other member.
Everyone, Fwiw, it might be helpful to post a new thread specifically about the concept of becoming like God as a BIBLICAL standard. I believe it is Bible-based and, in fact, Bible-foundational. It is NOT taught in the Book of Mormon, but I think it is one of those things that is hinted in Mormon 7:9 - that the primary reason for the Book of Mormon is to give people an ability to understand and believe what the Bible actually teaches, including that we are born to be gods.
As to “know” verses “have faith” and people saying, “I know the Church is true”: I have no problem with that statement IF it is interpreted by Nephi’s personal definition in 1 Nephi 1:3. (my words according to my own knowledge) We live in a hyper-sensitive world when it comes to distinguishing between “think”, “believe”, “hope” and “know”, but it wasn’t always so. As long as the statement means, “I (for myself) know (as much as I personally am able to know) that the Church is true (since I can’t fathom any other way to explain my impressions and experiences),” I am totally fine with it. Having said that, my concern is that others feel pressure to say “I know” amid their own doubts or, even worse, they feel like a lack of such certainty somehow is not good enough - when our own scriptures say that some have a GIFT to believe but not know.
Finally, I belong to three different churches: 1) the global one that teaches the broad Gospel of Jesus Christ; 2) the structural corporation that administers the temporal affairs of the organization; and 3) the local one that fills my daily life and brings sweet communion with my fellow worshipers. I appreciate the first for the general outline it provides, even though that outline is evolving continually; I suffer the second one as a necessary evil given our existence in this world; I live and breathe and find my joy in the third one. I think, FAR too often, people get so caught up in the impossibility of perfection (completion) in the first two that they lose sight of the one that truly can animate and energize and and fulfill and “fatten” their actual lives - the one that, imo, provides the real pathway to perfection and godhood. (to bring this comment full circle)
know “versus” have faith, not “verses” - Yikes!
#70 AdamF
“Do you think the JS Papers are a positive step in this direction? I do. They said they want nothing left out.”
I do think it is a step in the right direction as long as the church and its leaders allow the members who read them and the members are provided the freedom to come to their own conclusions about them. If the church and its leaders try to spin what’s presented in the JS Papers or offer an interpretation that the members are expected to accept as truth, then I think we have a continuation of a long and storied problem. I also don’t want apologetics as most LDS apologetics are weak and require a long stretch to be believed.
#74 *correction*
allow the members [to] read them not “allow the members who read them”
Ray - “it might be helpful to post a new thread specifically about the concept of becoming like God as a BIBLICAL standard.”
That sounds like a good idea! Do you mind if I do that? Probably a few weeks away, but interesting nontheless.
I can wait a few weeks, Adam. *grin*
Ray - Just with the posting schedule and all, I don’t have a morning slot until Mar. 30th.
“FAR too often, people get so caught up in the impossibility of perfection (completion) in the first two that they lose sight of the one that truly can animate and energize.” - This is a great insight, imo. I like the way you put it belonging to three different churches (the Holy Trinity? lqtm). I might even add a fourth, one that is intensely personal and mostly unrelated to the ward–more of a spiritual relationship with God.
Ammon Rye,
Just a quick note from a guy who’s been away for far too long on this board. I’m grateful for your insight and posts on this topic. I, like you, have spent all of my life in the church and served in many different capacities. Even today, despite my understanding of our history, still consider myself a Mormon in good standing although that may change soon. I believe your statements about the problems of the First Vision accounts are valid and deserve a better answer then what is commonly produced from apologetic sources. In support of the 1832 account, members of the church should realize that Joseph and leading br