The Church of Jesus Christ claims to be the Restored Church of the Lord Jesus Christ and the “only true and living church on the face of the whole earth.” (D&C 1:30)
On the other hand, there are many in the world who would claim that the LDS Church is a false religion and because of our differing beliefs we are all destined for the fiery pit of hell. Which, of course, I do not accept.
But, it has always gotten me wondering, what if the Church wasn’t true.
What if, as some have claimed, the Prophet Joseph Smith did not have the First Vision and his teachings were not correct. What would that mean? In October Conference of 2002, President Hinckley, speaking of the First Vision said “It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.”
Would it all be for nothing? Now granted, this is a hypothetical for me. I am a true believer and have a strong testimony of the Gospel and the Church. But, let’s look at the possibility.
What is the worst case scenario?
- I would have put more time into the Church than I really need to. After all, I have done the simple thing that most Christians ascribed to as “being saved.” I accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal Savior and confessed my sins. So, I am covered there from a salvation perspective.
- I might have spent more money on tithing and offerings then I needed to. However, that money went to helping people, building chapels, giving aid to those in need. Not to enrich a minister and allow him to drive a Rolls and live in a big house.
- I might have spent too much time going to the Temple. But, on the other hand, I used the time to think about my connectedness with my past ancestors and appreciated their sacrifices. I spent considerable amount of time pondering the eternities and things about Heavenly Father and Jesus. I gave service to those who could not do for themselves. Maybe, I didn’t need to, but I was willing.
- Maybe, some of my concepts about Heavenly Father and Jesus are wrong. But, the bottom line is I sincerely worshiped them as best I understood. And since so many churches teach some many different things, will God condemn all of us who may not get it exactly right, but are sincere? I know that some hard core Christians would say yes. But, I would still believe in a merciful and just God. did I worship a “different Jesus?” I never understood that argument. Besides, I never could have gotten into the standard Christian concept of the Trinity. As far as I am concerned, it is not scriptural and makes no sense. I would have just stayed Jewish.
- Maybe, I missed out on a number of activities I could have done on Sunday, but didn’t. Yea, that’s probably true. But I never really regretted it. It’s nice to try to leave the world behind and think about other things. And be with family. Besides, we probably saved money not shopping on Sunday. Nothing has ever been so needed that we had to shop. Except maybe to buy gas to go to Church meetings….
- And finally, what about all those hours of service I rendered to others? Visiting them, working at various service projects at Church and in the community. Rushing to people’s aid whenever I could. Now, how can that be bad? It was the teachings of the Church that motivated me along with my love and admiration of the Savior. In any religion, this is looked upon as a worthwhile activity. So I doubt that I wasted me time in doing all of that. I have been enriched enormously for having participated in that service. I feel I always benefited more than those I helped.
So, while I have a strong testimony that the LDS Church is the Lord’s Church and that I am a firm believer, I do not consider that it would have been a waste of my time being a member if it wasn’t true. Not that I wouldn’t want an extra day a week and a 10% raise. It has all been worth it.
Tomorrow, June 6th is the 26th anniversary of my Baptism.
Congratulations Jeff, on your anniversary.
I have to admit, I’ve asked the same question you did above and came to the same conclusions.
Since you asked the question on the assumption that the alternative was “creedal Christianity,” an interesting follow up post would be to ask the same question on the assumption that the alternative is that God doesn’t exist or that God is Deistic or impersonal. (Which in my mind equates to being the same thing for all intents and purposes. A God that does not care is the same as no God at all.)
I’ve asked that question too and eventually came the realization that even if there is no God I’m not sure there is anything in the LDS Church today that would cause me regret. Not that I believe in no God. On the contrary. But it’s still a question worth asking.
By their fruits ye shall know them… I certainly believe that the fruits of membership in the true church are some of the best fruits available out there. I’ve tossed around the ideas of atheist, existential, or other (even Daoist or Zen) viewpoints, and while they all offer certain advantages, I’m inclined to take the grains of truth in them and bring them back home with me rather than setting up shop somewhere else.
I am reminded of all the “Out of Mormonism” clips on YouTube where former members of the church give a 4-10 minute recap of how they decided the church wasn’t everything it claimed to be. A common theme among the videos is that the former members of the church claim to have found immense joy and peace from accepting their new beliefs outside the LDS church. It is common to hear them say that they feel as if “weights have been lifted from my back” or something similar. Many of them report that their newfound faith outside the LDS church has opened their eyes to how misguided they were, and how the LDS church’s history of stressing the importance of works did not allow them to fully understand what it means to have a relationship with Jesus. If your hypothetical that the church is false was a reality, you’re right that your devotion to the LDS church would not have been “a waste of time.” But I’ll bet there are a lot of christians who would argue that you are, in fact, missing out on many of the blessings of the gospel that come when you come to know the true Jesus… or something. Missed Opportunity Costs - that’s what I’m trying to say here.
Jeff,
Interesting thoughts. Most of us on the Bloggernacle have had them. It shows spiritual maturity of a sort that some people lack. I do think Bruce has a point that if one were to find out the church wasn’t “true”, one would probably adopt an alternative worldview. Depending on the new worldview, that would change how much of a waste of time or money you are likely to find Mormonism to be.
SingleSpeed,
“But I’ll bet there are a lot of Christians who would argue that you are, in fact, missing out on many of the blessings of the gospel that come when you come to know the true Jesus… or something.”
You are right, but people say that about a lot of things, not just the Church. There were many that said that about the so-called “sexual revolution.” but, I wouldn’t fully subscribe to all the “benefits” society has gained over the years as a result of it.
These other Christians would have never ever gotten me into their Church anyway, so I guess it means I lose out either way.
John, I agree that depending on your ultimate view might cause you to think it is a waste of time. At this point, I am such a better person for it, it is hard to imagine adopting that view. And, I don’t tend toward bitterness about the past as some seem to.
My father and I have had this conversation before also and decided that even if the prophet stood at the pulpit and declared that it was all made up, we would keep on doing things the same way we always have because it makes us happy. This discussion reminded me of an episode of South Park (yes, I watch South Park) where a Mormon boy moves into town and his beliefs are pretty much made fun of the whole episode but in the end he says (paraphrasing): Some of my beliefs may seem strange but my church makes me happy and helps me to have really great family relationships and to be a better person.
Nice post Jeff. I have had some similar thoughts, especially about the temple. It is seen as a waste of time by many but I am always energized by it–much better return on my investment of time than watching a movie. A lot of people (especially on Hawkgrrrl’s recent post) professed that they were happier after they left, but even putting God aside most of the good things that have taken place in my life are a direct result of my membership in the church. Obviously that is bound to happen when I’ve spent a lot of time in church related things, but overall my experience has been great. Sure, I could use a shorter block on Sunday, and I wish the history had been more open earlier on, but I don’t regret my membership, even if it is false. I have a view of God that just does not mesh well with most other religions, and frankly, if that God isn’t real, I’m not sure I like the alternatives. I do realize that other people have vastly different experiences, however.
As one who falls into the category of which you hypothesize I would say that I have no regrets. I was raised in the church, served a mission and married in the temple, but ultimately I decided that GBH was right, it’s a fraud. But I believe that about religion in general, as my beliefs have evolved to agnosticism (which is, in my experience, a more common phenomena among prior Mormons than going to another Christian church, as Bruce alludes to in his comment). I remain a “cultural Mormon.”
But I don’t have any regrets. Growing up in the church offered opportunities that I wouldn’t have otherwise had. And my moral compass has been heavily influenced by church teachings. I have a wonderful wife and family. I haven’t missed the money I paid in tithing. I still attend church services with my family, and generally enjoy the community of saints (although there are a few wackos in our ward).
The only worry I have is that I may be wrong (which clearly I’ve heard many times). If I’m right, I’m really going to regret no afterlife where I can say “I told you so.” If I’m wrong I hope that there really is eternal progression as Joseph Smith seems to have taught, and that I’ll continue to grow in my understanding. (I’m with AdamF on the fact that if God is real, I hope the LDS Church is right, because other religions’ view of God and diety are not at all attractive to me.)
>>> I have a view of God that just does not mesh well with most other religions, and frankly, if that God isn’t real, I’m not sure I like the alternatives
>>> I hope the LDS Church is right, because other religions’ view of God and diety are not at all attractive to me
It was similar thoughts that led to this post.
Well, actually, it was the reverse thought. Who would be better off with their own religion being wrong and Mormonism being true.
hehehe…..rather than calling it Pascal’s Wager we could call it Jeff’s Wager or Spector’s Wager when applying this quadrant of faith and outcome to Mormonism
To confirm the truth of it all to you Jeff…and to stop everyone else from doubting….let me bear my testimony to you…that I KNOW….with every fibre of my being….with every neutron, electron, proton, gravitron, quark, lepton and all other subatomic particles…
During my undergraduate studies, I frequently heard a statement quoted from a prominent sociologist who’s name I unfortunately can’t recall. I’ve found it rather insightful on a variety of levels. “Whatever people perceive to be true, and believe to be true, is true in its effects.” After 26 years in the LDS church, my perception and belief changed, such that whether or not the faith claims of the LDS church are objectively true, their “untruth” is “true” for me in effect. On that basis, perhaps I’m qualified to give some insight to the question of how one might perceive their LDS experience, “if it [the LDS church] wasn’t true.”
On the one hand, I am grateful for my LDS experience, because there’s a very real possibility that I wouldn’t be alive today, had I not been exposed to Mormonism at the age of 13. At that time, mine was a violent home, where I was continually being taught that I was an object of contempt, from whom nearly every behavior seemed to be unacceptable. As a result, the only thing that was keeping me from suicide was a basic cowardice. My exposure to Mormonism instilled in me a sense of self-worth, and a hope which, even if entirely delusional, at least prevented me from making a tragic mistake. Further, I came of age in the mid-1980s. Had I not been exposed to Mormonism, it is more likely than not that I would have made some uninformed choices during that period in my life, with potentially fatal health effects that medical science was then only beginning to understand. Further, my LDS experience provided me with opportunities to help others, and certainly helped me to avoid the pitfalls of substance abuse.
On the other hand, Mormonism requires an enormous investment—not just in terms of time and money, but in belief and world-view. Having entered a world where the faith claims of the LDS church are not true (at the very least in terms of practical effect on me, as noted above), it’s difficult not to feel cheated. For example, I devoted two years (roughly 5% at this point) of my life to a cause which I no longer believe was deserving. I sacrificed in many ways to benefit an organization, largely on the basis of an expected future reward which I no longer believe that organization can offer. Looking back, I made hugely significant life decisions during that time, on the basis of my belief in the truth of LDS faith claims. I chose to attend a particular university, because the LDS faith was (allegedly?) taught and practiced there. I spent years denying, and then aggressively defying, my normal, natural desires for love and companionship, accepting instead a poor substitute, because I placed my trust in a faith which insisted that only that substitute was acceptable to deity.
In my more reflective moments, however, I realize that my LDS experience is part of what made me the person I am. If not for that influence, I would be a different person—perhaps in good ways, perhaps in some not-so-good ways. For a period in my life, the LDS faith seems to be what I needed, and I should recognize it for that, even if it no longer suits me. My LDS experience is part of who I am, and I like who I am.
“with every neutron, electron, proton, gravitron, quark, lepton and all other subatomic particles… ;-)”
Well, I guess that settles it once and for all! Thanks for the confirmation. Your wife must have had the baby and now you are not sleeping well… or she hasn’t had it yet and you are not sleeping well.
Well, the thing that occurs to me is that there is a very clear demarcation between who is and who is not LDS. So I guess IF we were wrong, we’d have spent a lot of time being separated and sometimes polarized from people who were a lot closer to the truth. So I guess the difference is whether or not you’re comfortable living in a bit of a bubble. If it’s “protective” that’s one thing. If it’s isolating or alienating, that’s another.
Adding that, for women, this could be a painful question because, not having the fullness of the priesthood and finding out that we had subscribed to erroneous doctrine that held us back… This is a MUCH more serious question for us.
I’ve pondered this. I’ve also gone through a crisis of faith and am still in the process of owning what I believe and don’t believe.
I decided that I have benefitted greatly from my participation in the LDS Church. I continue to benefit. I am uplifted by my attendance and participation. There are important concepts that are pretty unique to the LDS faith that I value tremendously.
As long as it serves a positive purpose for me, it is the one and only true church for me (lower case t in truth). I think that is what it comes down to for most, if not all of us. People leave when it isn’t working for them. The truth is almost a secondary issue.
For me, the absolute worst case scenario would be that the hard-core antis (Decker, et al) would turn out to be right after all, that we have bound our souls and those of our posterity to Satan, and that we are doomed to fry in Hell for all eternity.
Of course, given the company that would be presumably be inheriting heaven (Decker, et al), Hell might seem like a pretty good alternative.
Terry, yeah that would stink. I do not like a God who sends people to fry in hell based on their beliefs. Frankly I can’t understand anyone that really believes in a hell for anyone other than Satan and those who want to be there.
If it isn’t true then a lot of us (including me) need more help than we could ever fathom. Think about all the times when we strongly felt the spirit that influenced us to do something that was good to us/someone in need but also to the church obviously.
Let’s take my example (just look at me everybody) I am not comeing back to the church because I was “repenting”. No! I was perfectly comfortable with my little life. I was not hurting and I was enjoying the peace I had been longing when I was a good little member. But as I like to say I got hit by a celestial bat!
Why? Why this church rather than another one? The “true one” for example?
If it is not true then I need psychological help more than I can imagine and the worse is that considering the path I am taking (coming back to the church if my stake president can ever make my record straight) I am probably never going to ask for it.
Alice Said,
“Adding that, for women, this could be a painful question because, not having the fullness of the priesthood and finding out that we had subscribed to erroneous doctrine that held us back… This is a MUCH more serious question for us.”
I guess if you chose to view it that way. But, in many other churches, women tend toward the same types of roles and the end results taught by other religions for women are far more limiting than the LDS church.
But just think–all that wasted time in church service, left so little time for us to commit adultery with the spouses of everyone else–isn’t that a good benefit for all?
It’s like Peter said, “Where would we go?” Everything else seems so shallow and lacking in full substance. It’s like the politicians (both Republicans and Democrats) who are always promising everything for us if we’ll only vote for them, while most of what they’ve done in the past has only made things worse, and their solution is to pile it higher and deeper–which they can never acknowledge, but end up blaming others when the results aren’t what they said they’d be.
Great post, Jeff.
We can turn ourselves around in circles when we try to figure out every last minute detail of every historical or doctrinal question. I think that’s why the one test Jesus gave us to discern truth was to focus on the end result of whatever proposition we are considering by looking to see if it results in goodness (i.e., good fruits). Even the simplest, most uneducated person (by the world’s standards) is capable of applying that form of truth-detection. It’s nearly impossible to know for certain what exactly did or did not happen 200 or 2000 years ago, but it is very easy to see today whether a proposition produces good fruits.
I’ve also always liked Joseph Smith’s statement about how if the Mormons all end up in Hell in the afterlife, we’ll throw the Devil out of doors and make a Heaven out of it. I think his point was that we have our righteous desires and intentions, and we have our agency to choose. And because neither of those will cease to exist in the next life, we can make the kind of afterlife that we desire.
There was a quiz on another LDS blog site several months ago asking what people would do if they found out for a certainty that the church was not true. 38% said they would not do anything different. That’s a pretty powerful thought. I’m not sure that’s true for other religions. (BTW - about 8% said they’d hit the bar, only 3% said they’d get those SOBs for lying to them).
I think the key reasons people would not do anything differently (for those that would not) are a lot of what’s been said above: 1) focusing your life on trying to serve others and be more Christlike, even if you were misguided in how you went about it, has intrinsic value, 2) other views of Christ and our purpose in life are not as appealing to those of us who find the LDS view compelling, and 3) our spiritual experiences are hard to dismiss.
Hawkgrrrl,
Thanks for bringing us those survey results from the rest of the ‘Nacle.
Jeff,
Following up on what some of these folks have said, I think it would be interesting to explore, in another post or here, what scenarios they could imagine where they could potentially lose or regain their faith in Mormonism. Would finding the Zarahemla city limit sign written in Reformed Egyptian bring Nick back to the fold? Would finding a letter in Joseph’s handwriting to Sidney Rigdon coming up with ideas for the Book of Mormon plot destroy yours? And in what is our faith placed, by the way?
If there is no possible scenario one could imagine for losing or regaining faith, however improbably, what does that say about us?
john,
I like that idea. I’ll sign up for that.
True or not true, the principles espoused in the Gospel as taught in the LDS church have made me be a better man that I was (or would be) if I hadn’t joined in the first place. If it wasn’t true, I would have left the church about five years ago. I went through a lot of hell in 2003 in terms of the church. I would have left and never looked back. But dang it, it’s unfortunately true.
So this may sound really harsh, but if I’m not going to be honest, what’s the point right?
It seems to be that many of you, and not all, because that would be a little rash, are in some way trying to comfort yourselves, or, how do I put it, in some small way rationalize your membership in the church. You’re trying to cover your tracks and say, “Hey, if the church isn’t true, that’s o.k.” You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. You either believe its true, and therefore, the what if situation of “If it’s not” is completely unimportant and irrelevant, and to be honest, a little lacking in faith, or you believe it’s not true, and it still doesn’t matter, because if you don’t believe it’s true, what’s the point in debating? In all fairness it is something to think about when telling others of the church, but for your own personal faith, if you’re telling yourself, “What if it isn’t true?” are you basing your faith off of “everything will be o.k. true or not” or that you truly believe it to be the true church?
Jeff, a few years ago I was going back and forth with my dad over the nature of “truth” and “belief” etc. His “worst case scenerio,” or his justification for staying active in the church even if it turned out not to be “true,” was more or less the same as yours. He added that he was open-minded enough that even if it turned out that Joseph was not The Prophet, and Jesus was not The Savior, he’d have no problem accepting whatever “truth” God (or whomever was waiting for him) had to reveal.
I think your thought experiment is a healthy exercise.
Hope, I think everyone has to ask him/herself these kinds of questions. We ask them not only about our beliefs, but our career paths, our jobs, our spouses, etc. And I prefer a moderate, less-than-100%-sure, approach to faith/belief than an all-or-nothing, my-truth-is-better-than-your-truth, approach which tends to bludgeon those around the Believer. Oh that all religious believers were as introspective and open-minded as Jeff.
>>> For me, the absolute worst case scenario would be that the hard-core antis (Decker, et al) would turn out to be right after all, that we have bound our souls and those of our posterity to Satan, and that we are doomed to fry in Hell for all eternity.
Clearly that would be the worst case scenario for Mormons… but as it turns out it’s also the worst case scenario for everyone else, including the Ed Deckers, it would seem.
After all, we are now talking about a universe run by a God that is, for all intents and purposes, evil. I’m not sure hell is really worse than heaven in this scenario.
C.S. Lewis, in a Grief Observed, made mention of what the universe would be like if God were evil and even suggested backing into that idea using an extreme form of Calvinism which seems to be what the Ed Decker’s believe in. His rational approach to that problem was to realize that if God is that different from us in terms of understanding ideals like love, mercy, justice, etc, then we may indeed find that God’s idea of heaven is our idea of hell. After you realize that is true, then there is no reason to spend any more time worry about the possibility as we’re all hosed anyhow.
When I asked myself “what if it wasn’t true?” a magical thing happened. All the questions I had regarding church history, polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, the lack of archaeological evidence for the BoM, the problem with the Book of Abraham “translation”, the similarities between the temple endowment and Masonry and many other problems all became crystal clear. The church is man made. That was my big “ah hah” moment. When my question was “since I know the church is true, how do I reconcile this or that?” I had to make up an excuse that deep down I knew was an insult to my own intelligence.
Alice Said,
“Adding that, for women, this could be a painful question because, not having the fullness of the priesthood and finding out that we had subscribed to erroneous doctrine that held us back… This is a MUCH more serious question for us.”
and Jeff replied,
“I guess if you chose to view it that way. But, in many other churches, women tend toward the same types of roles and the end results taught by other religions for women are far more limiting than the LDS church.”
Many women in of other faiths do indeed choose similar domestic and support roles. But a choice is a very different thing than having your life, in the great majority of practical ways, laid out for you from birth. What’s more, gentile women have options about switching roles after child rearing.
As for more limiting churches, it’s hard to think of many (which may explain why so many Mormon women resort to anti-depressants) and certainly not in the Western World except by transplantation.
This may be hard for a man to hear, accept or even comprehend and I’m not sure how many Mormon women will admit to it because it takes a certain amount of imagination and courage to step out of a role that has the weight of so much tradition and overwhelming acceptance. But if the question is asked, “what if the way we live and what we believe isn’t the correct or only way”, then the answer, for me, is inescapable.
Alice,
“But a choice is a very different thing than having your life, in the great majority of practical ways, laid out for you from birth.”
Really, I never realized that. There IS NO choice. but, I suspect, you’ve made a different choice, even though there is none.
“As for more limiting churches, it’s hard to think of many”
Ah, the Catholic Church, the Baptists, Orthodox Judaism, to name a few that come to mind off the top of my head. If we extend it to the rest of the world, it is most religions and they suppress their women far more than you seem to think the LDS Church does.
“which may explain why so many Mormon women resort to anti-depressants) and certainly not in the Western World except by transplantation.”
Yes, that is THE reason!. If only the women had the Priesthood, they would ALL stop being so depressed. Really, now.
“But if the question is asked, “what if the way we live and what we believe isn’t the correct or only way”, then the answer, for me, is inescapable.”
Is it? What is the answer, then? Is living in this world really better for women, than as a faithful LDS woman? Is being a CEO really better than raising up a righteous generation?
#30 - “When my question was “since I know the church is true, how do I reconcile this or that?” - I have had that line of thinking in the past, but was freed from it (like you, but in a different way) when I started thinking in terms of “these are the things I believe, this is our history, and these are the results in my life” I stopped trying to reconcile everything. Perhaps it’s been due to an embrace of ambiguity, but I’m not bothered by it anymore.
Jeff- I answered in all sincerity. If you refuse to get the point that there are overwhelming expectations that compel LDS women into a life of domesticity and support regardless of their talents, personality and inclinations there is no point in continuing the discussion.
Well, Alice,
“that compel LDS women into a life of domesticity and support regardless of their talents, personality and inclinations there is no point in continuing the discussion.”
You’ve made these type of blanket, generalized statements, but you don’t seem to want to dialog about why YOU seem to feel this way, but I know many LDS women who do not feel compelled in that way and do what is best for them and their family, if they have one.
And I also see a larger picture that most of us, men and women, accept the roles for ourselves dictated by society in general. In other words, I have no more opportunity to become President of the US than you do.
I am one of those that have no regrets save that my family hasn’t made the same decision as I. I am a cultural Mormon in that I would otherwise appear to be Mormon.
I think that most of your points are somewhat lacking a critical examination, for example:
1. How much time is spent in church bearing one another’s burdens? Not enough for the time spent, how much closer to your family does one get at church meetings? My answer is ‘not much’.
2. How much money is spent on good works? No one knows except a very few people, there are lots of great programs and activities, but lots of political works, commercial projects and farming and hunting projects that seem dubious to me. Is tithing the best way to reach out to those in need? My answer is a tentative ‘no way’.
3. In the end, a person’s understanding of the nature of God should always be in flux. Unless a person chooses to stop thinking or examining conscience, a person can only have them self to blame for sticking with an concept after spiritually rejecting it. The church is at least on par with any other religion with respect to developing belief in the divine.
4. The obligations concurrent with church membership means 3 hours for church and usually 2 hours for prep. 5 hours a week, means less chance to spend with family. Granted, having the time and making the right decision with that time are two different things.
I would love to enjoy the time with my family more. The 250 hours a year can be a great thing with the family and I am glad i have made that discovery.
5. Service is a great thing. I am glad that growing up I was in Scouts, worked with St. Vincent de Paul, protestant soup kitchens, participated in ward projects and could work full time for a non-profit agency. There are great opportunities to serve that are not exclusive to the church, in fact, I have it from One who knows that God is particularly interested in how we treat the least of these. Ward charitiable activities are one way to communicate these values to my children, but it is one of many.
To your list I would add the following issues that I face in a family with one LDS and one non-LDS parent: How does one ensure that my children understand that race is not a reflection of value to God and never can be associated with the value of a person, notwithstanding what scripture and prophets have said. Same goes for gender. Important to me is the question of how do I tell my children that the content and quality of a person’s belief in the LDS church is not related in any way with the quality of a person’s character.
Sorry for the lengthy response, but this is an important question, especially given the fact that many who leave the church will readily leave behind many of the positive teachings with respect to service, self-reliance and health. If my children, like me, choose in the future to leave the church, I want to make sure that they are wise enough to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative and well, you know the rest.
If I found out the church isn’t true, would I immediately run out and buy beer, coffee, cigarettes, tattoos, tank tops for my wife and daughter, porno mags, or anything else I could think of that the church forbids? Eh, probably not.
I don’t think my life would change that much, and I doubt I’d regret much all the lost opportunities described above. Whether Heavenly Father lives near Kolob or Joseph Smith saw him and Jesus or not, the church has made me a better person, and that part of it will always be true.
Green Man,
“I think that most of your points are somewhat lacking a critical examination, for example:”
If by critical, you mean from the viewpoint of someone who has expresses the standard litany of secular complaints about the Church, namely how the church spends its money, how individual members act and treat other people, race (which I am to assume as Blacks and the Priesthood), gender issues, etc, then you are right.
I had no intention of addressing it from that perspective because I am less concerned about those issues and more concerned about my spiritual development, how closely I follow the Savior and His example and how the Church has helped me do that.
Matt, ” I think everyone has to ask him or herself these questions.”
Your right, and I guess I probably came off a litle… (o.k. really) close minded, but tha wasn’t my intention, I was just struggling to make my point. I don’t think it is bad to question, I just think one ought be carefull. You should make sure that the foundation of your testimony is that you believe it’s true. Not that you hope it’s true, but if not, things still work out.
If a belief system works for someone, what’s to argue against that person for believing and practicing as they will, and to honor the choices and merits that person finds in it? Yet honoring agency does not mean that by which we justify our beliefs and actions is always well considered. There are a several common, not very well thought out, rationalizations that I’ve heard among different types of Christians. About one of these I hope I may be able to add some useful points for consideration.
What are Good Fruits?
“By their fruits ye shall know them” is a popular phrase that I believe has become quite tainted by universalism and post-modernism. Most consider good fruits to be self-evident works, ethics, morals manifested in our lives from being rooted to a good tree. This phrase (Matt 7:20), from the “sermon on the mount,” was given specifically as a follow up to the warning Jesus gave to beware false prophets (v15). Where false prophets look like sheep on the outside — they display everything on the outside we might happily accept them by — Jesus warns us to seriously look inwardly to discern wolves from sheep.
Now, I don’t think there is any harm to applying this lesson of trees and fruits to everyday life, to being a way to tell sincere believers from deluded believers. But where we err, in my perspective, is where we then, once again, focus our energies on discerning outwardly rather than inwardly. We say, “ah the virtuous fruits we see definitely means that person is a believer. Look how nice they are! Look how they live their life! Look at the good family values!”
An apple blossoming on an apple tree does not necessarily make it good fruit. And judging the the tree by the fruit is especially tenuous if all we are focusing on is the outside. Are the apples sour? Are they wormy? Are they nutritious? Is the fruit all it really appears to be? Are the fruits just polished up pretty on the outside? Are there other fruits blossoming on this apple tree?
I’m not saying this in the usual denominationalist sense. I’m saying that I think Jesus is inviting us to a paradoxical measurement that may, possibly, only be inwardly answered: correct beliefs (the root, the tree) are vitally important, and so is how they are manifest (the fruit). Anyone who claims to follow Christ, and truly is a follower of Jesus Christ, must produce the good fruits from the right tree that may not be as self-evident, nor as easily to outwardly discern, as we commonly think. I think Jesus is inviting us into a deep, internal challenge with this admonition even as there is a practical purpose in the call to discern truth, in roots and fruits, from error.
Who were the common “enemies” of the church here in Matthew? Particularly zealous “chosen” Pharisees who considered themselves righteous by all the good, moral and ethical things they did — their exactness and obedience to the Law. (Which is different than saying the enemies were the Jews; always appropriate, IMO, to contextualize Matthew’s anti-semitism.) Anyhow, Jesus plainly tells us to stop focusing outwardly. Verses 21-23 of Matthew 7 are sobering: how could it be that people could perform exorcisms, mighty miracles, and wonderful works in the name of the Lord and not be counted His own in the Kingdom (which is both in the here-and-now AND in the hereafter)? Plainly “good fruit” is more than the “self-evident evidence” that many who follow Christ are content to observe and make judgments by.
What is that good fruit is not mine to inwardly answer for someone else. Yet I think it is important for us all to accept Jesus’ challenge to not satisfy ourselves with “fruit” which very well may be outwardly desirable, but may not be the fruit that Jesus is talking about: the fruit by which we will or won’t be counted as one in His kingdom.
Zelph (30)
What I find astounding about statements like yours (e.g., “the Church all man made”), made presumably after years of believing the Church was divinely-inspired, is that you seem to be just as certain and confident in your CURRENT conclusion that the Church is NOT TRUE as you presumably were PREVIOUSLY about the Church being TRUE.
Your position on whether or not the Church is divinely-inspired has changed, but apparently one thing has not changed: You still have a high level of confidence and certainty that your present views and opinions are right.
I wonder if your high level of confidence in your position, regardless of what position you take, says more about you than about the Church.
Are the complaints not valid because they are the standard litany? Why are these issues not important, especially considering the pith and substance of the issue ‘what if the church isn’t true?’
It seems that the standard litany is enough on its own to warrant exit stories, why is it that unacceptable critical thinking. There is no dispute that the church’s teaching directly address, promote and / or condone all these actions.
Green Man (36)
The fact that you have complaints doesn’t mean that all other Mormons have your same complaints or think they are valid.
The fact that you were unable to find good fruits in the LDS Church does not mean that other Mormons are similarly unable to do so.
You seem to think the Church has a lot of problems. Have you ever considered that perhaps the problem is not with the Church, but with you?
It’s fine with me if you believe or disbelieve as you like. What I have difficulty understanding is why you would tell a person like Jeff, who has just shared many reasons why the Church works for him, that his thought process is “lacking a critical examination.” If it works for him, why argue with that?
Instead of faulting Jeff for “lacking a critical examination,” perhaps you should turn your brilliant skills of critical examination inward.
#32:
Jeff, do you really think Orthodox Judaism is a more “limiting” faith than the LDS church? My understanding (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) is that Orthodox Jews take the position that it is “no sin to be a gentile,” i.e. that the laws of Judaism are not considered binding on those outside the faith. As such, there would seem to be little or no motivation for an Orthodox Jew to attempt to legislatively enforce his or her religious code of conduct on a larger, pluralistic society. Any religion that does such a thing (i.e. the LDS church) is certainly more “limiting” in my book.
I essentially covered this concept in my first guest post here:
http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/21/hunger-and-thirst-after-righteousness/
If it isn’t true, but Christianity at large is, I will be saved - based on traditional Christian theology that is cleared of ridiculous anti-Mormon bias. I meet their requriements, so I’m not worried.
If it isn’t true, and Christianity at large also isn’t, I’m screwed ONLY if God really cares about specific beliefs. If there really is a merciful and loving God, I’m not worried. If God is not merciful and loving, I don’t want to live with Him, anyway, so I’m not worried.
If there isn’t a God, I won’t know it when I die anyway, so I’m not worried.
Bottom line: I’m trying to live a good, moral life and trying to become the best I can be (without joining the military). That’s all I believe I can do, so I’m not worried. I love my life, and the Church is a huge part of that. If it isn’t “true”, it’s no different than any other Chrsitian church in my mind, so I’d stay with my favorite Protestant church and continue to try to live the life I love.
Now, I really do have to run.
If there isn’t a God, I won’t know it when I die anyway, so I’m not worried.
Are you sure about that, Ray? Does the continuing existence of some part of our personality after death really require the existence of deity?
The Green Man, very well said.
Jeff’s question — What if the Church isn’t true? — should prompt additional questions, besides how one spends one’s personal energy, time, and money. One should wonder what impact the answer to that question has on others, besides oneself. If the Church isn’t true, would you have any regrets about your behavior towards others, would you have to apologize to anyone in the next life?
I sometimes wonder about the “collateral damage” of belief on non-believing friends and family (especially if they were formerly believers). I’ve seen too many families torn apart during this life by differences in belief, and wonder if they will be overcome with regret and sorrow in the next life (assuming it exists) for their conditional love, friendship, or respect?
Asking whether or not the Church is “true” is not only a question I no longer care about, it is a question I don’t even understand. My definitions of “truth” and “church,” to say nothing of “belief,” “knowledge,” “feelings,” etc. make the question moot, or nonsensical.
Nevertheless, I understand the importance of the question to most believing Mormons. The framing of the question really is the baseline question, isn’t it? It emcompasses belief in Christ, Joseph Smith, and the Plan of Salvation, and fidelity to the organization.
One more thought…
Is there no one who would regret the opportunities to, say, drink wine, if the church turns out not to be true? I’ve heard my brother-in-law make that statement on more than one occasion.
Regarding the question of whether the “Church” is “true,” and the implications of that answer for both members and non-members, I read an interesting quote on the
LDS Church’s website:
“[I]ndividual 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.” Stephen E. Robinson, “Warring against the Saints of God,” Ensign, Jan 1988, 34.
It seems the author of that quote, and presumably the Apostles serving on the Public Affairs Committee who approved its quotation in the Newsroom section of the Church’s official website, recognize that the Church of the Lamb of God spoken of in scripture is not exactly synonymous with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and membership in the latter does not equate to membership in the former.
alice - “there are overwhelming expectations that compel LDS women into a life of domesticity and support regardless of their talents, personality and inclinations there is no point in continuing the discussion.”
As a woman, I get what you are saying. There is a cultural push for women to stay home, especially in Utah. Part of me wonders if some of this is due to the fact that the church is a gerontocracy and therefore resistant to change. But I hear the church language softening in important ways toward 1) individual prayerful choice, 2) social acceptance of a variety of norms, and 3) achieving one’s full potential (e.g. through education & enrichment). The result is prioritization of family, for both sexes in complementary roles, but not to the exclusion of all else. I also find it interesting that a lot of this pressure is not from men but from women who have made those “concessions” and would like to enforce them for all. “I have seen the axe and the handle is one of us.” I have to live my life, and I make and live with my own choices.
I don’t see a connection to priesthood, at least not for me. There are 2 facets to priesthood: 1) leadership roles, and 2) the ability to serve others through gifts and power of the priesthood. The priesthood is not for the holder, but for the recipients of the service they render. Women serve in many ways and in leadership roles also. People of talent and intellect are valued by people of talent and intellect. Anyone who devalues a person based on their sex is not worth knowing, but I really haven’t encountered many of those in the church. If I have, I suppose I didn’t find them very interesting either.
Is loyalty to the LDS Church truly equivalent to loyalty to the Lamb? Can one be loyal to the LDS Church if one does not accept, believe nor support every whit of it? If one is devoutly loyal to the LDS Church does that compromise in any way complete loyalty to the Lamb? Is there loyalty asked of by the LDS church that the Lamb does not ask? Can one be loyal to the Lamb if one is not a member to any certain denomination? Truly a Christian of any denomination can ask these questions — and as good as Robinson’s point feels on the surface he doesn’t really delve into the differences of what loyalty means among different denominational perspectives.
Who can actually define what loyalty to the Lamb is, and for that matter, the Lamb himself? It’s all subjective. And from an LDS perspective, Robinson’s point is sufficient, imo, in the sense that LDS should worry about their own salvation and not assume that they will be exalted based on their membership, and not assume that their good neighbor is damned because he/she is not a member.
Nick,
“Jeff, do you really think Orthodox Judaism is a more “limiting” faith than the LDS church?”
I was only speaking in context to the role of women. they cannot be a Rabbi. And they sit in the back of the synagogue behind a curtain. in fact, Orthodox do not even recognize the reformed branch of Judaism, which is the liberal branch. the Orthodox are more dogmatic than the LDS. And argumentative on top of it!
Great post. I think it is a good idea to occasionally evaluate what and why you believe. The church for me has been both good and bad. For me, as a divorced single mother who has to work - the roles and expectations the church places on women have not been helpful and I have experienced extra grief and turmoil trying to conform my life to impossible ideals. I also don’t believe in the patriarchal order - I believe in a true partnership - but not the patriarchal order. The temple has never brought me peace because of what I perceive to be overt sexism, and uncomfortable emphasis on knowing symbols and passwords, etc. That being said, there is much about the church that does bring me joy and peace. I do not believe it is the one true church, but I do believe there is much to value and love in the church and in its teachings. I think the church works a lot better for some people than for others - peace to those for whom it is good, compassion to those for whom it is less helpful.
Thanks to everyone who has commented on this thread. All of the comments have been great! I want to go back to Zelph’s comment, #30.
“When I asked myself “what if it wasn’t true?” a magical thing happened. All the questions I had regarding church history, polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, the lack of archaeological evidence for the BoM, the problem with the Book of Abraham “translation”, the similarities between the temple endowment and Masonry and many other problems all became crystal clear. The church is man made. That was my big “ah hah” moment. When my question was “since I know the church is true, how do I reconcile this or that?” I had to make up an excuse that deep down I knew was an insult to my own intelligence.”
Reconciliation with these issues has faced all of us. I want to comment on the the last three questions raised by Zelph as I have reflected on them and the issues they raise for me. My comments are not meant to attack the conclusions Zelph as made because each person can have different responses internally in their reconciliatory quest. I’m sure many will say that my comments are simply choosing to be naive.
Jeff says in his post, “I have a strong testimony that the LDS Church is the Lord’s Church”. Is this testimony gained through faith, repentence, and personal witness or is it based on presumptions that there are scientific explanations for the lack of archaeological evidence for the BoM, the problem with the Book of Abraham “translation”, and the similarities between the temple endowment and Masonry? I guess everyone must have their own level of comfort with how much they can be expected to take on faith alone and how much scientific evidence is reasonable to support that faith.
If God wanted us to base our testimony on archeologic evidence for the BoM, I’m sure He could have left a “lost city” with clearly identifiable records to be discovered that would tie everything up. If he wants His children to develop testimonies by faith, then it is best if outright scientific evidence is suppressed. So, let say for example, that He used natural calamities, climate processes, actions of subsequent inhabitants of cities or outright moving of mountains to obscure archeologic evidence to require His children to approach their testimonies of the Book of Mormon by faith.
If God wanted us to base our testimony of the Pearl of Great Price on scientific evidence, the exact manuscript used for the “translation” could have turned up. If he wants His children to develop testimonies by faith, then he could have allowed the one confirmatory manuscript among the several that were found with the mummies to be destroyed by fire while the rest of the manuscripts are spared. He could even throw a curve by using the fascimilies to teach hidden principles that are only available with the key of revelatory knowledge.
Lets also say for example that while the temple covenants don’t change, that they way they are presented in different dispensations do change. The use of symbols and rituals which already represent something to a particular culture could be used to express the themes of man’s journey and progression to exaltation.
President Benson’s great sermon on pride explains that the Lord will have a humble people. Either they can choose to become humble or they can be compelled to become humble. Does the inability to prove the Book of Mormon by archeological evidence prevent us from going “Ah Hah” to our neighbors and compel us to remain humble?
Is the process of reconciling these questions deep down an insult to our intelligence or an insult to our pride? God is omnipotent. He could alter the DNA of individuals if he chose to do so. Is this harder to believe than water turning to wine? Is the absence of an archeologic Zarahemla any harder to account for than the whole idea that a Liahona would just happen to be discovered outside of a tent?
If anyone believes that I base my reconciliation with this type of logic, I would respond that it is a possibility that I MUST consider before I reach a reconciliation. I must also consider that the work is a fraud. I admit that the thought of someone in the next life saying, ” ha ha I told you that the absence of archeologic evidence for the Book of Mormon should have clued you in that you were caught up in a great fraud” stings my pride even in the contemplation of that possibility. If life, however, is to be a test with a veil and a principle of faith prevailing, then the concept of testimony must be based on more than signs.
Good luck “proving” any religion. If we can’t “prove” a religion, why do we think it’s so easy to “prove one false”? Human beings can’t even prove that God exists (or that He doesn’t). While we can sort of prove that Jesus was a person (there is some evidence anyway), we can’t prove much about His life with any degree of certainty. There are enough pieces of the crown of thorns in the cathedrals of Europe to fill a briar patch, and enough pieces of the cross to build an ark, all of which “proof” is highly suspicious when you try to chase down its historicity. Is the church man-made? All religion is at least partly man-made. And yet all religion edifies to some extent. The question is not does the church have flaws (all human organizations do), but is the church led by Christ and therefore true? And IMO the more important question is are we true (meaning do we do our best to live gospel principles)?
Rather than working in this simple binary perspective, the church is true or it isn’t, I would suggest that one consider two more options for a total of four:
Option 1:
The church is true.
Option 2:
The church is not true.
Option 3:
The church was true but fell into apostasy.
Option 4:
The church was not completely true but corrected itself.
First, I would have to assume that something that was true in 1830 is still ‘true’ today. In other words, truth does not change.
Since the discussion on the first two options are found throughout this thread, I will take a moment to address the third and fourth options.
The fourth option assumes that there were some misconceptions in the early restored church that were corrected as the leadership was enlightened and received direction from the Lord. That could explain the principles that were practiced at one time but left behind. An example, of course, is blacks and the priesthood or polygamy or the united order, etc. One could argue that these types of principles are true when they were introduced but are not practiced today because of a ‘lack of faith’ of the saints or some other reason. I realize that this is a rather simplistic treatment of this option but it is sufficient for this discussion.
The third option assumes that the restoration followed the course of any other time that the gospel was given to man by God. The ‘fulness of the gospel’ that was originally restored was abandoned or, perhaps, more appropriately, ignored and compromised by man. Principles that were introduced as part of the imparted truth from God were jettisoned as the church moved along a more man-made course. Precepts that made that this people a unique and peculiar entity traded for the mammon of the world just as the situation which transpired at the meridian of time.
As I analyze the current situation in the church today, I would suggest that this third option is likely that best fit. As one considers the scriptural warnings and prophecies in light of the current worldliness and the focus on the works of man, there is ample room for this scenario. As Elder Packer stated in his talk at BYU in February 2008: we are the Gentiles. The warnings in the scriptures are for us.
“And when the times of the Gentiles is come in, a light shall break forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the fulness of my gospel;
But they receive it not; for they perceive not the light, and they turn their hearts from me because of the precepts of men.
And in that generation shall the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. D&C 45:28-20″
“…At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.
11 And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them. 3 Nephi 16:10-11″
In my opinion, there are only two choices; the church is either true from the beginning and stayed true or it began with the truth and man to rebuilt the church after his own image. The latter fits with the latter day scriptures.
Spektator
Spektator, frankly, I think the scriptures support your number 4 - but with a slight wording change. “The Church was true when it was restored, but it wasn’t perfect (whole and complete). It is evolving and progressing and becoming more and more complete - like the olive tree being pruned in Jacob 5.”
That’s my personal view, frankly. I can’t see ANY way to justify the restoration as “perfect” at the beginning, when EVERY member was a convert who struggled to not let the new wine be contaminated in the old bottles, and I personally believe that the overall understanding right now is closer to complete than it was 100 years ago.
Btw, Nick, you don’t have to tell us you disagree. We know.
I agree, Ray. To suggest that things were perfect at the beginning would also suggest that there is no need for further change or revelation.
This subject is covered often in the Bloggernacle. For some reason the possibility that the church isn’t “true” is on a lot of peoples mind.
Is there anyone in the Bloggernacle who spends their time pondering about the time when they will meet the Savior in person, possibly in this life, and until that day comes, does anyone seek after the greater manifestations of the Holy Ghost that we’re invited to experience?
I find it hard to understand how all sorts of things are respected in the bloggernacle by those who post and comment (agnositcs, atheist, apostates for example) as they should be, but a comment that one has received the greater manifestations of the spirit (visions, dreams, ministering angels) is unwelcome.
>>> I find it hard to understand how all sorts of things are respected in the bloggernacle by those who post and comment (agnositcs, atheist, apostates for example) as they should be, but a comment that one has received the greater manifestations of the spirit (visions, dreams, ministering angels) is unwelcome
Is this true? I’m sort of new to the bloggernacle, so I’m honestly asking. Is it true that people react worse to believing spiritual manifestations than to unbelieving comments? I haven’t had a chance to see such a thing in action yet.
#41 Mo Betta- “Your position on whether or not the Church is divinely-inspired has changed, but apparently one thing has not changed: You still have a high level of confidence and certainty that your present views and opinions are right.”
You are probably right and I have no rebuttal.
I reject without qualification Gordon Bitner Hinckley’s false binary that if the first vision happened, it’s the most important thing ever, and if it didn’t, the church is a massive fraud. I guess that means I’m going to hell.
The meaning and understanding of Joseph’s vision has escalated far beyond what anybody of Joseph’s time would have thought of it (including Joseph himself!). We have vision accounts by Moses, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Zarathustra, John the Revelator, Paul, Augustine of Hippo, The Prophet Mohammad, Julian of Norwich, Mother Ann Lee, Bahá’u'lláh, Padre Pio…this list is far from exhaustive. Setting the First Vision as The Single Event that proves or disproves the Truth of the LDS church is nonsense. It’s a supernatural historical event which can be neither proven nor disproven, accounts of which varied in notable ways during Joseph’s own lifetime.
I am not arguing that the vision didn’t happen. I’m arguing that just because it happened doesn’t mean it’s the most important thing to happen since the resurrection of Jesus. And I’m arguing that if it DIDN’T happen, that doesn’t mean Joseph (and the church) are outright frauds.
(aside: Why is it that the higher you go in the church hierarchy, the less appreciation you see for ambiguity?)
I’m with Matt, though I’m probably more apathetic than he is. I no longer care if the church is “true.” Is it good? Mostly. Is it useful? Mostly. Does it bring people to God? Sometimes. Are there other ways of accomplishing this that don’t require us to be so self-important and self-righteous and, well, weird? Undoubtedly.
“I find it hard to understand how all sorts of things are respected in the bloggernacle by those who post and comment (agnositcs, atheist, apostates for example) as they should be, but a comment that one has received the greater manifestations of the spirit (visions, dreams, ministering angels) is unwelcome.”
?
That certainly is not my experience.
#63 Bruce Nielson
For the last 8 months or so I have been sharing my testimony on occasion about having received these kinds of manifestations. I can say by my experience it is… “true that people react worse to believing spiritual manifestations than to unbelieving comments”.
I came to the Bloggernacle with the desire to find others who have similar experiences as mine and share and learn from one antoher.
It was two years ago this month I decided to talk more opening with family and friends about my experiences. I used to think everyone had the same experiences, but just didn’t talk about them.
Jeff said:” Well, I guess that settles it once and for all! Thanks for the confirmation. Your wife must have had the baby and now you are not sleeping well… or she hasn’t had it yet and you are not sleeping well.”
14 days til the baby is here…and 12 days until year 1 exams are finished. Just pulled an all nighter for my clinical exams tomorrow afternoon
I am thinking of trying to get my hands on some indomethacin to ensure the baby stays in so it doesnt come during the exams!!
Congrats on your anniversary by the way and Great post.
#66 Ray said: That certainly is not my experience.
Ray, I’m surprised that you would say this. Are you the same Ray that observed how I was treated last Oct at BCC?
Yes, Jared, but that is just BCC - and the thread wasn’t very conducive to what you were sharing. Also, frankly, like I did when I first started commenting in the Bloggernacle, you came across when you first started as a bit preachy and confrontational - like you were challenging and discounting the other commenters. I don’t read you that way, but I understood why others did. As I said, I made a similar mistake in not realizing how my comments sounded at first, and I had to back up and observe the general interactions a bit before diving back into the discussions.
Much of the reaction here, I think, is due to a difference in what you mean by spiritual experiences and what others think you mean. If you think about it, “spiritual experiences” can mean radically different things to different people.
#70 Ray
Thanks for your thoughts.
It never entered into my mind to be confrontational or preachy. However, I’ve learned to walk the line better so I am not getting the same kind of treatment. But the fact remains that anyone who shares a spiritual experiences and talks about the gifts of the Spirit is going to have the welcome mat withdrawn to some extend. I not sure why this is the case. But I believe it stems from some kind of fear.
Rigel Hawthorne #56
“if God wanted us to base our testimony of the Pearl of Great Price on scientific evidence, the exact manuscript used for the “translation” could have turned up.”
I believe based on what I have read on the subject that the manuscript used for the translation is the same that turned up. I know this is off topic and not meant for a debate, just pointing out how people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.
Although, I agree that if God wanted us to base our beliefs strictly on faith, he would purposefully “shuffle” the deck, intentionally eliminate any traces of archaeological evidence, and deliberately change DNA or willfully dilute DNA so that there is no trace.
However, if God did that, in a way God would become a God of deception, and that is not a God I want to worship.
I do not believe that God would have us rely on blind faith alone.
Going back to the original post, this is really just a re-hash of Pascal’s wager. Although, I agree with the original post in the hypothetical situation that the church is not true, there is nothing ‘wrong’ with following this belief system. On the other hand, I do see people get carried away in the amount of time they spend on callings that it takes them away from family members. I also think there can be a problem when someone goes against common sense. An example that comes to mind is the family on the documentary “the Mormons” that decided to go against all odds to try for another child because that is what they believed the spirit told them even when they already had several children and the mother was a high risk and the mother ended up dying after childbirth. I think that is an example of going too far and a bit unfair. Nothing wrong with having children, but when you are a high risk and already have several, common sense should out trump the whisperings of the spirit.
Hey Jared,
I think this: the main goal of much, certainly not all, of the ‘bloggernacle’ is to make room for reasonable discussion with people who don’t have a testimony, but still want to talk around issues having to do with Mormon history, culture, doctrine, etc. I think that expressing a testimony in that setting may put some people off because they feel it defeats that purpose. And maybe it does or maybe it doesn’t, prolly depends on the thread, the level of animosity already present, the exact manne rthe testimony is expressed etc. And I think it is a great question whether or not, or to what extent, having this as a main purpose can work contrary to the mission of the church - the mission that some of us are, at least nominally, comitted to. I certainly don’t feel comfortable about everything I see coming from believing, covenant keeping members on the bloggernacle - I also don’t feel comfortable about everything I’ve said, or have a tendancy to say, or the way I say it.
In any case, there are times when one’s testimony must be by example rather than expressed in words. And the purpose of BCC and many other blogs is what it is. And seeing that these forums don’t belong to me, I try - probably fail, but try, to be mindful of the rules of the house. I’ve still got an elephantine ego and plenty of areas of darkness, and these probably come out along with the good. I hope I’m forgiven of that, and try to be mindful that everyone isn’t going to be on their A game, all the time.
One of the reasons I love that you keep your own blog space is that I do think that more expression from an entirely faithful perspective would tend to add balance to the blogs. I do agree that there is something of a want of faithful expression that isn’t looking to be challenged, even if it does want to be explored.
I just got home from a great Priesthood Leadership meeting. Testimonies were expressed, ideas explored, the gospel taught and received, the Holy Spirit very much present and experienced by all who came prepared for that experience. I don’t anticipate getting that kind of spiritual sustenance from anything in the bloggernacle - though sometimes it does happen. It causes me to question the amount of time I spend here - and, for now, I think it is a fair use of my time. I do get a chance to hear out interesting people, be exposed to all kinds of opinions and feelings, learn about intersting things (read J Stapley’s KFD bits on Splendid Sun!) - many of which won’t get air time in Sunday School - and I get many chances to try to do a little good working within other people’s rules.
~
In terms of what one’s Christian alternatives are if in some bizarre stretch of faith that the LDS isn’t true, you have Catholicism which is a schismatic of ancient Christianity historically set up by Constantine from disparate groups of Christian cults from a collapsed original church. So you can trace your authority in that one back to a sun worshipper.
Then you have the Eastern Orthodox churches that excommunicated the pope and the Church excommunicated the patriarch. So all the popes and patriarchs have been excommunicated by themselves for a thousand years, by authority from a sun worshipper.
Then Martin Luther, rather than going to an orthodox Church for his authority, decided to make up a priesthood of all believers who take it upon themselves to have priesthood because they have a bible, a bible. And all of disparate Protestantism think that they have all the authority they need from the bible, when in essence, they are also all apostates from a church that traces its authority to a sun worshipper who wasn’t even a Christian.
So you might as well be a Buddhist or something if you aren’t Mormon. Then again, you could choose Freemasonry if you are into ritual stuff, and you could give it your time and devotion and get everything out of it that a religion offers, except it isn’t a religion. And since Churches all tracing their authority to a sun worshipper have no authority and no salvation to offer anyway, then Freemasonry seems like a pretty cool ritualistic thing.
Or hey, you could go join up with Art Bulla or the FLDS, or with Terrill Dalton and Terrill will initiate you into his swinger cult, and preach to you about his sacred stone where he has an inspired translation of the Rosetta Stone. Now that is some great stuff. He’s the holy ghost incarnate because he has the keys of time travel, so he says. He is also the angel Gabriel, but he forgot that one little thing about the fact that Gabriel was Noah, but thats not a problem with reincarnation, but I dont’ think that he’s thought of that one yet, but just you wait.
So list is endless if you don’t want to be LDS, and not a one of them can offer any more salvation than the LDS could offer if it isn’t true. But then again, if you actually want salvation as a bible thumper, then you might as well stick it out in a good Christian religion where you can swear by your mouth to be saved. But you can do that being LDS just as much, so you might as well be LDS, because all of that stuff doesn’t have anything better to offer.
Zelph, your points are excellent. They give me much to think about. I’ll be thinking about your point about circumstances making God a God of deception and whether or not that could be a perception error from only knowing a part of the equation. As far as not wanting to worship a God of deception, I think of the challenges one has in worshipping the God described in the old testament with the associated violence. As far as faith goes, there have been those who have accepted the gospel when the Book of Mormon had not been fully published in their language. They were taught from and challenged to develop testimonies on selected exerpts. It was an act of faith actually believing that a fully published Book of Mormon existed (even if they were shown an English copy). Blind faith is a relative term, isn’t it.
#59
Ray,
According to the scriptures, the ‘fulness’ of the gospel was restored through Joseph Smith. What other definition can be given to ‘fulness’ other than complete? Paul preached that if anyone preach another gospel, let him be accursed. I take this to mean that it is an imperative that we understand the complete/perfect/full gospel that was restored.
Were the Nephites closer to the ‘truth’ 200 years after the visit of the Saviour? Were the Christians closer the the ‘truth’ 200 years after the crucifixion of Christ? It is much more likely that the doctrines of man slowly creep into the church of God. I think it is extremely hard to see apostasy from the inside.
#73 Thomas Parkin
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. Gives me some good ideas to think on. The bloggernacle is what it is and I respect that. However, I think it is important for the movers and shakers in the bloggernacle to be inviting to all thoughtful post and comments. Otherwise, what will the bloggernacle turn into over time. I don’t think anyone wants to see the bloggernacle evolve into the likeness of great and spacious building from Lehi and Nephi’s vision.
Guy Smiley: But you can do that being LDS just as much, so you might as well be LDS, because all of that stuff doesn’t have anything better to offer
Except coffee in the morning and margaritas on a Friday night.
I understand from your comment that you think there is a Single Correct Church That God Runs - that Jesus set up a church and it’s very important to belong to That Church. All the counter examples are in that vein. If the LDS Church isn’t “True,” then why does there need to be another one that is? Because if the LDS Church isn’t “True,” then it’s quite likely that the idea of a “True Church” is IN AND OF ITSELF a false one.
Spektator, There are many, including Joseph Smith himself, who spoke of the “fulness” as being revealed and implemented incrementally - line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept, grace-by-grace. I also see that in the NT, where even Jesus’ closest disciples - those who would become the leading apostles - didn’t understand what He was teaching fully.
In fact, the idea that it c