Here is a modified excerpt from a 60-page writing that I made for close friends and family members when I decided to leave the church a few months ago. It was my attempt at helping them understand my view. I think most of them didn’t bother reading it. I wasn’t looking forward to the conversations that I would be having with them, but I was surprised to find myself not having those conversations.
Today’s guest post is by Michael. In the spirit of Mormon Stories, he was invited to share his experience.
I thought the people that believed in the church and loved me most in the would have at least tried to “save my soul.” I would have done it for them, had the roles been reversed. Although, it would have led me to the place where I am now, which may be the underlying (perhaps subconscious) reason why they don’t wish to go there.
—————
If someone told me three years ago that I would be where I am now, I would have never believed them. And yet, here I am. A few years ago, I decided that I should probably learn more about church history. Not out of pure interest, but more out of duty. I heard that the book “Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling” was written by a member of the church, but didn’t give the usual sanitized version of history that is given in Sunday School. I was intrigued.
I read the book. It was slow going, but I finished it. More than any of the strange practices or weird events, the thing that bugged me the most was Joseph Smith himself. I couldn’t place it at first, but I soon realized that I didn’t really like Joseph as a person. I felt kind of guilty about that because we have been raised, and it has been ingrained in us, to love Joseph and the other men of the restoration. My feelings of guilt were lessened a bit when I found out that I was definitely not the only one that felt that way. There were many others in the church that felt the same way. In fact, my dad bought a video that features a question and answer session with the author and even he admits that, by the time he was done with his research and writing, he did not like Joseph Smith either.
When I finished with the book, it made me wonder: Maybe there was a reason why things were not sitting right with me and others. The Joseph we had been taught about growing up was not the real Joseph, so who was. Also, I wondered: If this book was written by a member, then how much of a positive slant is he putting on things? That’s when my journey really began. There are so many differing and conflicting accounts out there that I sometimes felt like a detective, trying to piece together what most made sense to me.
As I said above, I went searching into church history as a kind of church duty. I felt that I ought to take a look into it. I thought that I would search things out and find that history would vindicate the church and the prophet. I believed (and believe) that the truth does not fear investigation and the facts would be overwhelmingly in favor of the church. I found the opposite to be the case. This mostly surprised me because of my father.
He is well versed in church history, and I think I trusted heavily in his ability to interpret events. Sometimes, when I would find out something new, I would ask him, “Doesn’t this bother you?!?” He wouldn’t answer. At times I wondered why I was the only one who was bothered by some of the things I was finding. I wondered if I was the only crazy one or the only one who wasn’t. I couldn’t understand why, when I showed them a claim of the church or Joseph Smith and then showed them how that claim was in fact false, they didn’t seem to care. Well, I found out some interesting things related to that. Although most of the close people around me did not seem to want to face any of this stuff, I found out that I was not alone. Besides a number of people that I know that don’t believe, but are hanging on for various other reasons (family, friends, structure, etc.), there are many, many people leaving the church every year. It always helps a person fell less crazy when you know there are others making hard decisions like you.
The other thing that made me understand the situation better, was something told to me by a friend. I mentioned to him that I could not understand why these things bugged me and no one else seemed to care. He said, “Ok, tell me something that bugs you.” So for the 20th time or so, I mentioned that Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Abraham from Egyptian papyri. A decade after Joseph died, the Egyptian language was deciphered from the Rosetta Stone. Reading the papyri, it does not say what Joseph claims it said. When I gave him that one example, he went on to say that most people don’t think as much as I do, so they don’t let it bother them. Adding to that, he said, “Plus, it’s the Book of Abraham. Who cares about the Book of Abraham?” And then he ended, mentioning that some people will stay in for the sake of loyalty–they are Mormon and will always be Mormon.
Those are ideas that had never really entered my mind. It had never really occurred to me that even if the facts were against the church, people would still remain in it. I was not sure which answer he gave me that bugged me the most. If he only knew how much the Book of Abraham feeds into his own belief system. How could he say, “Who cares about the Book of Abraham?” I mean, the teachings exclusive to Mormonism don’t come from the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon was written in such a way that it virtually does not stray from biblical teachings. There is little or nothing new in the doctrine from the Book of Mormon. It is the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price that set Mormon theology apart from “regular” Christian theology.
These words of indifference, of not caring if it is true in the literal sense are so foreign to me. I first heard them from my best friend a few years ago, before I had ever expressed any doubts. As we passed by the house of a neighbor that had left the church after studying church history, he said, “I don’t understand Bro. So-and-So. I mean, even if I didn’t think the church was true, I wouldn’t leave it.” At that point, I blurted out a very loud, “WHAT?!? Are you serious?” He was. My other best friend who was also there that night is the one I mentioned in the above paragraph, who also doesn’t care about the church being true in any literal sense. Another close friend, for whom I was the best man at his temple wedding, wrote me an email when he found out that I had left the church. It was not what I expected. He congratulated me on doing what he said he never had the courage to do.
Perhaps the most painful response was from my girlfriend. She told me she was proud of me and for what I was doing. She started calling me Winston (the main character from 1984, who rebels against Big Brother). It shocked me that she would say such a thing that seemed so telling to me, and it saddened me when she said she wouldn’t be joining me. In HER OWN ANALOGY she chose to love Big Brother.
These people that have been such a large part of my life (three of the four I have known since we were children) now feel like strangers to me. Their way of thinking on this matter has never been an option for me. I have always considered such choices to be wrong, even in the best-case scenario, and in a worst-case scenario, downright evil. Although I don’t consider this a worst-case scenario, I am still left baffled that such good people would choose such a path. It would bother me less if they hadn’t all served missions and didn’t plan on teaching the rising generation that these beliefs are true. If they stand where they do, why are they passing the information on as truth? I am still working on the answer to that one. In the mean time, for the sake of preserving respect for my loved ones, I am forced to concede that making the choice to believe in something that you don’t truly think is reality, may not be as evil as I thought…
Comments 806
Dear Guest,
Thank you for your post. It is interesting. I am a convert myself so my personal journey was the opposite of yours. I found Rough Stone Rolling to be the best biography of the Prophet ever! It made him alive and real to me in ways that the Sunday School manual could never do. I relate more to him now than ever.
You seem surprised that some of your friends would remain members even though their faith is limited due to cultural and family reasons. However, there are hundreds of millions of people that do the same thing around the world in the Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, and other religions. I was raised in the Catholic religion and that is a normal pattern there.
You ask why someone would pass along the teachings and traditions to their children when they did not fully believe it. I think the answer is because the teachings still provide the best moral foundation for their children. What else would you teach them? To be selfish and non-trusting in everything they do?
There is an old bit of wisdom that states you don’t quit your current job until you have a new job lined up. I think the same applies with your life philosophy or religion. Now that you have discarded Mormonism, what are you going to replace it with? You still have to have some philosophy by which you live your life and raise your children. You are going to discover that there is no one philosophy or tradition that has a handle on every question about life.
You have decided that Mormonism is not for you but that is the only tradition you have known. You are discarding it because it did not measure up to the expectations you have built up in your mind. The Prophet Joseph Smith was not the man you thought he was. And I am sure the Saviour will turn out to not be the way you think he is even though He is perfect. Part of the journey of life is learning to live in an imperfect world with imperfect people and still find truth within it.
I don’t want to be disparaging or disrespectful but it seems by the way you presented your story that you are still young. I think you will discover that the alternatives you face in selecting a life philosophy are all going to be flawed and one day when you are older you will discover that the truths taught by Mormonism turn out to be eternal truths that will be revealed to you through your life experiences. Of course, that is dependent upon you maintaining the same enthusiasm and same hunger for truth you exhibit in your post above. If you allow that hunger for truth to diminish or if you weary of the searching, you will become just one of those lemmings that exist around the world that accept the traditions of their fathers solely because it is the easiest route to take in life.
guest, i also am a convert and would support much of what is said by michael in #1. i was an active, practicing catholic until age 35, and i came to find that my priorities were not in line with church teachings. (they weren’t far off from what most american catholics practice, but that is another discussion.) i did not have, as you did, a profound break between what i believed and what i later found to be true. i do empathize with your shock and your sense of betrayal, however. in your case, something whole was broken. in my case, it was built from scratch with more information than you had.
i was not raised believing, for example, that joseph was to be loved and revered. i heard more (not a lot really, but certainly more) about what a charlatan he was. so in my reading, i was pleasantly surprised, not so much by the man, really, but by his mission and what he left behind. he never had been a hero to me, and it isn’t necessary to me that he be one. he was an imperfect human, as we all are, and he was given a divine task.
the mormon umbrella is very broad. there are overarching principles that are non-negotiable. however there is also room for people who continue faithfully to learn and question. i hope you can find a way to stay. very little in this world is black and white. humans are complex, institutions are complicated, relationships can be messy. i applaud your loyalty, i applaud your desire to be knowledgeable about the principles you embrace, i applaud your standing up for your convictions. actually, i have little doubt that you’ll land on your feet.
The question of belief and unbelief has been strong in my life. The question of why I believe and why I don’t believe is one that I have often examined. I can’t really say that I know everything there is to know about church history, but I a good deal more that some people.
To me Joseph Smith, Jr., along Brigham Young and all the other prophets are extremely human figures. Worthy of respect for the fact that they accomplished much despite their flaws. When I am tempted to censure others for being less than perfect, I look to two things in my own life: the things about myself that I hate the most (it’s a long list, even though I have a great number of talents as well), and the things that I really wish I could change about my children, even though I love them and would do anything to protect them and see them grow up happy, healthy and capable of dealing with the world.
I don’t find anything testimony defying about Joseph’s character flaws–even though I know he had his share. Perhaps it is because I do not expect anything in particular from a prophet other than occasionally speaking with authority from God.
In the final analysis, it boils down to this, however–it isn’t so much about church history, but about church currency and about events and experiences that I’ve had and cannot rationally deny. As a psychologist I know better than many just how tricky human experience is, but in so many ways that knowledge has made the experiences that I have had so much more enduring and powerful. I have never seen an angel, but I have had experiences that make it impossible for me to deny the reality of God, the Priesthood power, and so I don’t. I can’t say that this has always made it easy to be a good member of the church, nor have I always been particularly ardent in my testimony, but when push comes to shove, and I look back, there are some experiences that are undeniable for me.
I respect everyone’s decision to follow the dictates of their conscience, and if that means that they truly feel that they must leave the church to feel most comfortable, then I will not argue. I ultimately cannot know the subjective experiences and inspirations that anyone else has had without divine intervention, and there is rarely a need for me to know these things, so I don’t.
I will agree…if one is to leave the Church, where will you go? Do not wander aimlessly–have conviction in whatever you do, for conviction, I believe will do you more good in the next life than merely being in the ‘correct’ church. I strongly suspect that those who die as Islamic fundamentalists, firm in their belief that they serve Allah, will be counted as more righteous than those who do nothing of conviction at all to serve God or man. So find some faith that you can have, be it in this church or another, and let that conviction mean something to you. A life of complacency, I’m convinced, is one of the surest paths to barring oneself from heaven.
Michael, I think a lot of it depends on the approach you take. On my mission we had the Hill Cumorah Pageant. Part of the materials had a long section on the human frailties of Joseph Smith, starting with a couple sermons of his where he talked about them, a number of stories, and of course references to the D&C where God rebukes him from time to time. The point made was that just as we have our own frailties and just as the Old Testament stories are human stories, so was Joseph Smith’s. Of course I’ve known people who dropped Christianity upon reading the Old Testament.
As for the Book of Abraham, you are right. It is a temple text, and it is consistent with a number of similar texts. If you went to the Ramses II exhibit when it toured you were probably struck by many of the elements of the Egyptian endowment (though walking between rooms or having the lighting change is no where near as impressive as traveling by boat for transitions). But, the real question that you failed to ask is how does a temple text come out of a temple text?
You can find what you are trying to look for, which can leave you mired. I have no doubts that there are mists of darkness and that if we do not hold to the iron rod we will end up wandering in strange paths and be lost. But I also believe in God and the Spirit, and that they work with us in spite of imperfections rather than requiring that we become perfect first.
When you say you “left the church”, does that mean you simply stopped showing up or that you wrote a letter asking to be removed from the rolls? I have met many people that did the former but very few were really willing to actually leave the church.
For myself, a convert at the age of 33, I find the inconsistencies much less dramatic than in any other faith I have looked into. I am happy with it, and that is what really counts. As Robert Duvall’s character in “Second Hand Lions” said, “find something to believe in, even if it isn’t true”.
I really don’t understand why knowing the imperfections of Joseph Smith is such a deal breaker with faith. Reading about Joseph Smith is like reading the Old Testament prophets who themselves were no angels of perfection. With all his faults he is still my hero. When I read Joseph Smith’s history, especially like “Rough Stone Rolling,” I see him as passionate, resolute, kind, intelligent, searching, spiritual, brave, humble for his faults, self-conscious, life affirming, and altogether a whole human. He is a rough stone rolling that I can emulate in my own life if for no other reason than to try and overcome the faults he couldn’t (or at least that historians won’t let him get over).
With that said, I will say that I find your leaving the LDS Church because you no longer believe in it much more moral than those who stay within. They are spiritual liars and wolves in sheep clothing, and I am not afraid to say that. That is because I DO believe in its theology, authority, scriptures, divinity and Truth! My problem isn’t for those who have some faith and some doubts and are seeking for greater faith. My problem is for those who don’t believe, aren’t seeking to believe, and simply go through the motions. They make me very angry and I feel are getting in the way of blessings and the mission of Mormonism. My fear has never been that the LDS Church will lose members, but that its members will lose faith. I lost the quote (and if anyone can find it for me I would be very thankful), but a Brigham Young quote influenced me greatly. He said, paraphrasing from memory, he would rather be the last or among a handful to believe than have a huge number of members who don’t believe.
My battle has always been with my own desires to sin and a skeptical mind. I agree with those above who say if you leave one philosophy or religion, have something else prepared that’s better. I’m a lot more sure that Christ lived and was resurrected than I am that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and yet, the Mormon version of Christianity makes more sense to me than any other. Thus, I stay.
I’m a lot more disappointed in my own sins than Joseph’s or anyone else’s.
I pretty much agree with the comments that have been made. It’s true, and in my opinion unfortunate, that Joseph Smith is often portrayed in the church as some sort of holy figure. He wasn’t; he was very human. But when I read “Rough Stone Rolling” (and even Fawn Brodie’s book) I read about a man whom God was using for a purpose that went far beyond his weaknesses. Just as the Bible doesn’t flinch from the frailties of its prophets (Noah, David and Peter comes to mind first), so we shouldn’t hesitate to accept the fact that Joseph Smith was a human being.
I’m reminded at the moment of the film “Gandhi.” In my opinion, it was one of the most overrated films of all time. It portrayed Gandhi as almost divine, more perfect than Jesus himself. I had a hard time relating to such a character. In reality, Gandhi was far from perfect; among other things, the way he treated women isn’t to be emulated. But he also left behind quite a legacy, one that has inspired millions to work for peace. (The same can be said of Martin Luther King.) I see Joseph Smith in much the same way. When he’s presented as close to perfect (as some church-approved materials do), I can’t relate to him. But when I read about his failures (and they were many), I am grateful for what he brought to humankind.
For what it’s worth, like some of the others posting here I too am an adult convert to the church, so I wasn’t raised with the idea that if the church isn’t perfect it must not be true.
Ellen #2–“the mormon umbrella is very broad.”
Jettboy#6–“I will say that I find your leaving the LDS Church because you no longer believe in it much more moral than those who stay within. They are spiritual liars and wolves in sheep clothing, and I am not afraid to say that.”
Maybe the umbrella isn’t so broad after all. For some, we must come for their right reasons or not at all.
I can only echo the words of my college golf coach who, as a bishop, said he was glad to see the prostitute at church as well as the drug addict. I assume he also meant those who, at any moment in time, found themselves not believing.
Faith is the prerequisite to membership, even if starting more or less with a grain of salt. Why that is so hard to understand by those who wish to remain a member, but not seek more faith and repentance, is a mystery to me. H.C., if you want to believe than that is fine. If you no longer believe and simply remain a member because of family devotion and tradition, then there is a problem. Mormonism isn’t just a culture, it is a Faith.
I think it is unfair to expect prophets to be more than any of us who are trying to be good people. Who would ever want to be a prophet? The Lord did say that He will use the weak things of the world to thrash the nations, so why do we expect some superhero to emerge when the Lord said they will be weak?
Religion is similar to marriage in that you get what you put into it. If you are deeply struggling with Joseph Smith then put the Lord to the test. Start focusing on the positive and ask the Lord to help you understand your struggles. Don’t just focus on the negative aspects or it will create a situation where you feel you cannot tolerate hardly anything. In a relationship if you focus on all the negatives, soon you will feel that it is not worth being in it and want to be out of it. You then end up missing all the happiness and joy that could have come by changing your focus. Life is messy and complicated. I believe part of this life involves feeling betrayed. I don’t know why, but I really think every single one of us will experience what feels like betrayal. Whether it is real or perceived doesn’t matter. I believe there has to be purpose in this, even though I don’t know exactly what it is.
Don’t allow what is written about Joseph Smith to dictate your future. Expect God to answer your questions and your struggles. I don’t rely on people to tell me what to do about things that affect my life so deeply. Only God knows me, even better than I do, so He is the only one who can really give me what I need to know. I have never had an answer in relation to Joseph Smith telling me one way or another about him, BUT I have had answers about many other things and that does tell me that something is right about where I am and what I am doing. I think part of the plan is that it is supposed to be imperfect and we are supposed to have to deal with hypocrites in the church and with more questions than answers. Maybe that is WHY we are here, to deal with all the inconsistencies, the questions and the struggles. Remember that faith is in God, not in Joseph Smith. If the Lord had come down Himself and restored the church perfectly with no drama or anything to question then I bet people would be saying, that was too perfect, nothing can be that perfect so how can it be true? There must be something we aren’t being told, etc. If a human is involved, expect human behaviors and mistakes…..lots of them. I really think we are supposed to be focused on our own weaknessess, not others, and we should be grateful that we weren’t asked to live the life that Joseph Smith was asked to live. There is something to be said for not judging others and I think we should take it more to heart than we do.
Jettboy:
“If you no longer believe and simply remain a member because of family devotion and tradition, then there is a problem.”
There are problems with all of us. You choose to believe that a lack of faith is a greater sin that other types of sin, a sin so great that the faithless should not be allowed entrance to church. I just have a hard time imagining God saying, “You don’t believe. Don’t come to church.” To me it is more likely that he would say, “You don’t believe. You need to come to church.”
Jettboy, please read Elder Wirthlin’s “Concern for the One”.
I am happy and find great joy in the LDS Church. I love the grand cosmology, and I love the focus on family and godliness. The culture and lay leadership cause many problems on a regular basis, but without it the kind of individual growth in this life that it can foster so well would be limited greatly.
I personally have NO problem with anyone being part of our community – no matter what they are willing to live and not live, believe and not believe. “Enduring to the end” means little if it’s only possible for those who have the least to endure. Jesus spent most of his time among those the rest of society rejected, and I wish desperately that we could learn to separate the requirements for attendance with us in our meetings (almost NONE), for baptism into the Church (some, but not a whole lot), for temple attendance (quite a few more, but still not all that many – and mostly focused on effort and desire to believe) and for organizational leadership (the most strict of all, generally). Too many of our members expect all who walk through our doors to be willing to commit to leadership or temple standards, and that simply isn’t Christ-like, imo.
As to Joseph, I sincerely, deeply, passionately hope that my life is never examined like his is. I don’t hold him up on any pedestal, even as I accept him as a Prophet and a great man. I think he was greatly flawed, as well, but I can’t think of a single person throughout history who had a massive impact on history who wasn’t greatly flawed – except Jesus, himself. I mean that; I have taught history, and it appears that it requires a deeply conflicted, complex, flawed personality and character for someone to have a far-reaching and long-lasting effect on history. A sanitized Joseph probably couldn’t have done what he did – and I really love the end result of what he did (even as I have to acknowledge the lingering fruits of the apostasy even within the Church). Since the Book of Mormon itself talks about that issue (the lingering effects of the apostasy within the Church itself in the last days), and since Joseph is the most chastised person in the entire D&C (and it’s not even close), I find it hard to condemn Joseph for being what I believe he had to be to have the effect he had.
Guest: I have the same questions you do. It bothers me the way many members don’t want to know the details of Joseph’s life or the details of the true history of the church for fear that it will throw a monkey wrench in their belief systems, and so some bury their heads in the sand and choose to avoid the history of the church. I used to think it was wrong to read anything about church history that was not in a manual published by the church. But I decided that I did not believe that god would frown upon someone seeking greater knowledge about the history of the church. I also don’t understand the logic of those who know about the true history but are willing to dismiss it as the imperfections of men. JS and BY made mistakes that went beyond being merely human, but were great enough, in my opinion, to really question why god would call them and/or why god would not correct them more often or in a stronger fashion. So in response to your post I would say, despite the pain and loneliness of the path you are on (this seems like a fair assumption bc based on your post it seems a great deal of your social life involved members of the church), continue to think for yourself and I wish you luck in determining what direction you want to go in. If you decide that you want to go back to the church, I wish you the best. Whatever you do, I think it needs to be what you feel is right, not a decision based on what your family or friends think, and it sounds like you are doing just that.
All who posted: I don’t think Guest wanted advice on how to regain his testimony, or comments that believing in mormonism is better than believing in nothing. Clearly, Guest wants to believe in something but believing in mormonism goes against what he feels is right. I don’t think it’s fair to say, well, it’s better than nothing. He is seeking truth, not the most convenient way to live. Whatever he finds, or whatever he decides is best for him, I hope it is based on more than the weak idea that mormonism has more to offer than any alternative. I hope wherever he lands it is based on a strong belief that it is best for him so he can be true to himself. I recognize that some posted similar views to what I am trying to say here.
Michael, you said “You ask why someone would pass along the teachings and traditions to their children when they did not fully believe it. I think the answer is because the teachings still provide the best moral foundation for their children. What else would you teach them? To be selfish and non-trusting in everything they do?” I find your assumption insulting to Guest. Why do you couch the alternative to mormon moral foundations as “selfish and non-trusting”? Clearly, Guest is concerned with living his life in a morally honest way. I think it is ignorant and rude to categorize the alternative to the moral mormon foundation as selfish and non-trusting. There are plenty of non-selfish and trusting belief systems in the world outside of mormonism. And who says mormon teachings provide “the best” moral foundation? Clearly, Guest doesn’t agree or he wouldn’t be considering leaving.
Dear Guest,
Maybe the reason many of us stay with the Church is we can’t find any thing better. For me, the teachings of the Church explain the past, give meaning and purpose to the present and give hope for the future in a way that no other does. When my brother told me he was leaving the Church, I asked him what he was going to replace it with. He didn’t have an answer. I would be interested to know what you have replaced the Church with because if it’s better than what I’ve got now, I wouldn’t be afraid to switch. Until then, I’m sticking with what I’ve got, warts and all!
Alan
I disagree with the argument that one has to replace the LDS belief system before one can let it go. Perhaps the best way to discover one’s belief system is to dismiss what you don’t agree with, and start from scratch. I think to truly discover what works for each individual may require an attempt at a clean slate. I say attempt because it is impossible to truly wash away all experiences and former beliefs, in my opinion.
By the way, I sent my previous post before seeing Ray’s. If I were a believer in JS and BY as prophets, I would definitely adopt the position Ray presented: it takes great men to lead and to change the world and great men seem to be tied to great flaws. That is a logical view and one history certainly supports and one I can respect, even if I disagree with respect to JS and BY.
Hello everyone,
I’m the guy who wrote the article for this week. Many of you have mentioned that you should not base your decisions on other peoples’ strengths and weaknesses and such. I agree. As I said at the beginning, this comes from a much larger body of writing, but I just chose a small section to share.
Ever since I was a child, I have doubted the existence of God. I believed in Santa and I believed in God and Jesus Christ. They were figures that I had been taught about by my elders and I had no reason to doubt their existence. Santa’s influence was a bit more concrete for a little child, but I believed in both. One day, I realized the similarity between God and Santa. It was in the song that says the words: “He sees you when you’re sleeping. He knows when you’re awake. He knows if you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake.” I realized at that moment that those were powers that God had, not man. Eventually, I decided that God must give Santa his magical powers. But, one day in primary, a kid asked the teacher about magic and our teacher said that we don’t believe in magic in this church. That was a shock to my system. I knew that Santa worked by magic. At that point, I realized that it was either Santa or God. It couldn’t be both. I delayed in asking my parents. I think I was scared of what the answer would be and scared of what my parents’ reaction would be (thinking that they believed in both). I finally asked about it and they told me Santa wasn’t real. My father tells me that I was devastated by the news. At that point, my greater concern was answered, but it left me wondering when they would tell me the same thing about God.
I went on with my life, bearing little kid testimonies and getting baptized and such, but there was always room in the back of my mind that none of it was true. I moved on into my teen years and started to go to firesides. I usually agreed with the principles taught, but I was always stuck at the end of talks. Almost without fail, someone would end with these words, “Now I know we have all felt the spirit tonight…” At those moments, I would get a confused look on my face and literally look around the chapel to see if anyone else was confused by that statement. I never did. Was something wrong with me? Why did everyone else seem to feel these special things that I didn’t feel?
Anyway, those are just a couple of examples of the difficulties that the church has caused in my life. I never believed because of special feelings that I have gotten. As Arthur said in his comment above, I stayed because it “made more sense to me than any other.” But that just meant to me that either this church is true, or none is.
I never thought the church was a good influence in my life. A lot of the standards and beliefs I would keep without it, because they just made logical sense to me, but a few of them made no logical sense to me and I always felt guilty about them. I felt embarrassed that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin, but I was like, “Well, if God says it is, I guess it is.” I always felt embarrassed about how only men have the priesthood and how women pledge obedience to the men and such, but I would say, “Well, I guess that’s just the order of heaven.” I was always embarrassed about blacks and the priesthood, but as Brigham Young had said, it was the “Law of God” on the matter, so who was I to argue? etc. Don’t get me wrong, I was happy in the church, but I am happy out of the church. It was not the church that brought me happiness. And, in my experience, it had brought me more pain, alienation, embarrassment, and hours and hours and HOURS of crying and prayer than anything else in my life.
In an effort to play second hand interlocuter for the non-believing crowd, there is a point I think I would like to clear up. While there are certain lines of conduct that even a Prophet cannot/should not pass to recieve our acceptance, I have no problem with the idea the Joseph Smith or any of his successors were imperfect. No one expects him to be perfect, but we do find him unbelievable for a variety of reasons. Generally when we are giving a pass to Joseph Smith or other leaders, as imperfect men, we are addressing polygamy or the Priesthood Ban, in some aspects. The first and stil major detail that caused me to disbelieve Joseph Smith was over a matter that I find completely unoffensive. It has to do with his superstitious employment of seer stones in searching for buried treasure, including the on record explanations for why the treasure was never obtained. To me, this practice needs no forgiveness from me, but causes me to distrust Joseph on his other claims. I don’t believe for a second that ancient spirits or visions were leading him to buried treasure. I don’t believe that said spirits were protecting/enchanting/cursing any alleged artifacts, and I don’t believe that the treasures were sinking into the earth. I think that this was a business venture for Joseph Smith, and he either believed that he possesed ability (a possibility which I find unlikely), or that he didn’t but claimed to for the sake of enterprise. The fact that this same seer stone played such a dominant role in most of the early founding events key to Mormonisms claims for legitimacy gives me pause. This stone by all accounts served to assist in translating the plates. It allegedly was used in Joseph’s experiences with Moroni (I realize that the exact details and circumstances are debatable, but I am comfortable believing that it played some role), and may have even been used in conjunction with the three witnesses. From here we can move into other circumstances such as; Zelph, the greek psalter incident (speculative, I know), The Book of Abraham, The Kinderhook plates, and so on. If you take the emotion out of the fact that Emma was treated so poorly, and that some women were taken advantage of (including marriages disrupted), even Polygamy represents some glaring doctrinal inconsistencies and questions. The same can be said for the Priesthood ban, aside from the fact that it was immoral, it really challenges the credibility of men who will unbashedly declare an eternal law in the name of God, from a position of power, which turns out to be just a relic of 18th century “folklore”. So, long story short, everybody is entitled and should develop their own position on their faith. Nevertheless, for those of us who don’t believe, it is not just because we are stubborn, or stuck in an immature tantrum where we take license to be offended at honest mistakes which occured 180 years ago. Often times we just don’t believe because frankly, the story isn’t all that believable. For those of you who feel that inspite of all this, you have had a spiritual manifestation from God, then I think I understand why you choose to believe – and I at least respect that, and occasionally even envy you.
Michael–
You’ve made your decision based on the study of church history. The Lord never told us to acquire a testimony that way. And like the majority of members who get side tracked by church history you don’t mention any experience seeking a testimony the way the Lord teaches we should.
We’re given the Book of Mormon as a witness to the truthfulness of the restoration and the calling of Joseph Smith as the prophet of the last days. The Lord tells us to pray about the Book of Mormon (Moroni 10:4-5). From what you’ve written it appears you have little knowledge, let alone a testimony of the Book of Mormon. You said the Book of Mormon is a rip off of the Bible-that tells me a lot about your level of understanding.
After reading your post I find it hard to respect the way you left the church and the way others stay in the church, they’re cultural Mormons and like you haven’t paid the price to acquire a testimony the way the Lord teaches. Very sad, and so unnecessary.
Testimony doesn’t come by studying church history. Testimony comes by earnestly fasting and praying about the Book of Mormon as one studies it. I did, and I know church history well. I’ve been studying it for forty years and I am unaffected by the challenges it poses because of the manifestations of the Holy Ghost regarding the Book of Mormon. In addition, I have continued access to the Lord by prayer and have found the statement in the Book of Mormon to be true where it says:
5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do. (Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 32:5).
I hope you will reconsider your decision to leave the church until you have put in a sincere effort to acquire a testimony in the way the Lord has taught.
oh boy at comments:
re 1:
Michael, you say:
Why would someone who does not believe in the teachings/traditions still believe they are the best moral foundation for their children? Personally, if I don’t agree with the church’s stance on homosexuals, I most certainly will not agree that it is the best moral foundation for them.
Now, let me caveat. It is possible to pick and choose things. You can still follow the Word of Wisdom and Law of Chastity, for example, and not be Mormon. How is this possible? That is because Mormonism, a religion, is dependent on something more. It is dependent on more than works, but on faith in the theology and in the gospel. So, even if you *act* in accordance to seemingly Mormon commandments, this does not mean you are Mormon unless you accept the Mormon theological underpinnings behind those commandments. For example, you set a dichotomy: if you aren’t mormon, then what are you teaching them? To be selfish and untrusting?
This is a rather ridiculous false dichotomy. Just because you disaffiliate with the church doesn’t mean your only option has to be to teach selfishness and untrustworthiness. You could theoretically teach your kids every single thing the LDS church believes in, but since you justify it in different ways, it would be completely different. For example, the LDS church says, “Do x, y, z, because this is part of God’s plan.” This doesn’t make x, y, and z only LDS ideas…rather, anyone could come and say, “Do x, y, and z, but because of some different reason…I don’t believe in the LDS church’s reasons for it.”
You continue your dichotomy with this idea that you need to “replace” Mormonism with something…when in fact, if Guest looks within himself, he already *knows* what philosophy he truly believes in…he has his job lined up. It is a philosophy that, for whatever reason, causes him to be seriously bothered with certain claims the church makes. So, it is EASILY conceivable that he could teach his children some philosophy such as, “If you’re going to practice a religion, believe in it. Study it out. Find truths that are comfortable to you,” and this would match his philosophy — guest just finds that Mormonism fails these tests because they don’t seem like comfortable truths to him.
As for your final quoted claim…you’re trying to suggest that Guest has unrealistic expectations…and that these will be disproven eventually…he’ll realize that even as the church is imperfect, all churches are. All philosophies are.
Well, I’d say that this is ok. The problem is that some things presume to be more than they are. The church (and most churches) presume to be more than imperfect. Now, the LDS church gets around this by saying, “The gospel is perfect; the people are not.” But obviously, we have to look and see if this is a convincing truth for an individual. For guest, it is not. It only raises more questions.
Things will make sense if, however, you cease to look at it in terms of truth. If you abandon a claim that the LDS church is “true,” then you won’t have unrealistic expectations. Then, you can look at it in terms of “the LDS church works for me” or “doesn’t work for me,” or “the LDS church is good” or whatever else.
But when you divorce truth from the church, you have strange things that happen. The LDS church begins to command less respect. For example…let’s take businesses. I may be enamored of Google and love Google, so I support Google. If I find Google to be imperfect, this is no problem, because Google doesn’t pretend to be perfect. I can easily stay with Google or go to another company (Apple, whatever)…and even though they all are imperfect, none of them *pretends* to be perfect. If you apply the same model to religion, you get rather strange results, I think you’ll find.
re 2:
Ellen,
With conversion…you’ve got an interesting conundrum. Why didn’t you stay Catholic, if you are trying to justify a cultural Catholicism? You kind of defeat your argument (but with cause) by your conversion to the church. I’m not saying this is a bad thing…in fact, I commend you on doing what you think felt right. But in the same instance, it justifies Guest’s move. He’s doing what feels right. If cultural religion feels right to others, then they are doing what feels right (so I would caution Guest to become frustrated with his friends who still are in the church, who aren’t bothered by certain issues, etc.,)
re 3:
Benjamin,
I actually kinda hope you don’t *really* believe this, but then again, at another level, I know you do and I don’t care that you do. I would personally say though that I would hope more people would value those who are searching — even if it appears aimless — rather than those who are quick to assert things as absolutely correct without enough consideration (but even this will be wasted — because everyone will disagree on what is enough consideration, etc.,)
Personally, I just disagree. I think it’s a false dichotomy to call it a “life of complacency,” but I think a life of cautiousness and reservation is noble in its own way.
@ Jared: I agree that that is not how the church teaches to get a testimony, but I assure you, I have done plenty of prayer and fasting. See my comment #17 for further details.
@ Cowboy: Exactly! The treasure hunting and the 1826 trial combined with the Book of Abraham alone are by far enough for me to not trust his word. The hundreds of things on top of that are just filler.
@ Andrew S: Beautifully said.
Jared:
Please do not forget that the counsel given by Moroni, preceeding his injunction that you “…ask God the Eternal Father in the name of Christ, if these things are not true…”, is that we are to “read these things, if it be wisdom in God that we should read these things,that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts”
In other words, yes thinking, pondering, studying, all those things you seem to imply as almost innesential, are pre-requisites to prayer and faith. You have been leading the charge with this line of rhetoric for some time, to the point where you are basically critical of any critical evaluation of the Church. Despite the fact that your entire logical schema is often based on circular reasoning, such as in the case of your last post, you often come across as highly self righteous, and to be honest – I have a hard time respecting that.
Btw, I support totally and completely the idea that “we allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, when or what they may”. I believe, at the most fundamental core, integrity to one’s beliefs is the single most important aspect of future judgment – since we are clear that exaltation is not limited to those who are Mormon (or any other part of Christianity) in this life. We are judged by our works, and I interpret that to mean by how consistently we live what we believe and claim to believe.
As I’ve said previously, I’d rather someone find joy and wonder and edification somewhere else than live a miserable, internally hypocritical life in the Church. I’ll do their temple work for them, just to cover all the bases, and let God make the final decision. 🙂
For me it comes down to this: We all find what we are looking for. One of the overarching life lessons we hopefully learn is to understand what you’re actually looking for and how to know when you have or have not found it.
Regardless of whether the LDS Church is true or not, regardless of the situation, I think the first thing to do is be completely open and honest with yourself about what you’re really expecting to find. A lot of people have complaints about the Church who just want something to complain about it. My point is that, whatever the true church may be, I won’t just stumble onto a strong relationship with God and Jesus Christ without looking for it. Similarly, I won’t just stumble onto a reason to leave the church without looking for it. What I open my eyes to is what I will eventually find.
re 22 and 17:
since I’ve been in your shoes before (with some variations…I was simply never convinced…so I never had a kind of “wow, the history is a lot worse than I once thought.” Indeed, a lot of those comments about people who don’t believe but stay in the church really apply to me, because I thought that’s just how it was)…I would say a few things.
I would say…go where you feel comfortable. I think everyone should do this, and if it leads people to the church, fine. If it leads people away, fine.
Two, don’t think that you’re starting from scratch or that you have started from scratch. One of the questions I asked was, “What if I believe in all of the practical aspects of the church, but not the spiritual?” And that told me a lot of things. 1) Then I’m not really getting the point of a church, which *is* about the spiritual. 2) I am still ok. Without the spiritual aspects, I am still ok. I’m not getting in trouble with my life. 3) The practical and spiritual aspects can and are divorced. You can be a good person and live a good life without believing. 4) When the practical and spiritual aspects *are* divorced, you can grow more fully. For example, you don’t have to feel guilt because you like x thing about the church but not y thing…because you don’t have to look at the church as a full package deal, like would be expected.
I would say that to understand your friends who didn’t leave the faith, you have to reevaluate what your view of faith is. Is it something chosen, or is it something that chooses us…that, if all the go well, we keep, or if something happens we can lose (or simply not have). I think faith is an inclination…faith is an inclination to believe. So, for someone who has faith, it’ll make most sense to stay in their churches (keep in mind: people have faith in different churches, of course). It’ll make most sense to believe in a particular solution. But if you don’t have this inclination, you can’t force it. You can’t force the so-called “desire to believe.” As you’ve learned, you’ll just be hurting yourself, because you’ll have questions and doubts and you won’t have that desire or inclination that others have to somehow make it all inconsequential.
From here, it’s easy to see what makes different people stay. Some have the inclination to believe…and so they do. Others do not, so instead, what seems more readily apparent are the questions, the holes, the doubts. We don’t have a reliable way to force a belief regardless of what the church might say, and in fact, trying to force it will bring chaos and unhappiness to our lives. We’ve got to move on, move past, move forward, move away.
#1 – “What else would you teach them? To be selfish and non-trusting in everything they do?”
I know this has been addressed already, but this statement is ignorant and unbelievably condescending. How about you teach them to believe in their fellow uman beings? Is that really such a bad alternative to teaching them to believe in a god that supposedly intercedes in our lives if we’re righteous enough to summon him, but lets millions of children suffer horrific atrocities every day, because – what – they’re not righteous enough? My point isn’t to ridicule or demean anyone’s beliefs. I respect the fact that people believe what they believe, but I think it’s only fair to be granted the same respect in return. The absence of mormon or religious belief and teaching is not despair and debauchery. In fact, from a logical standpoint, it makes FAR more sense to teach your children to believe in good things they can measure and experience, as opposed to rely on something written by someone who lived 2000 or 200 years ago. There are unlimited wonderful, uplifting and constructive things one can teach his or her children without ever invoking god or religion.
#23 Cowboy–
Are you saying, I’m not on your hit parade of favorite Bloggernacle personalities? If so, I accept it and will just say, I hope we can be better friends. Until then I hope we can disagree without being disagreeable.
Your point about “if it be wisdom in God” is something I’ve thought about but haven’t come up with a solid answer yet.
I’ve experienced the promise given by Moroni and it seems to me that most if not all will receive an answer, at some level, if sincerely sought for.
To understand my point about “respect” consider the arrangement God has made with us as though it were a busy deal. He says he will reveal something to us if we will do so and so. If we decide to go about the arrangement in another way and then claim we didn’t get what was owed to us–do we really have a valid complaint? I don’t think so. I don’t think any business person would respect someones claim if they didn’t follow the previsions of the contact. Quid pro quo…
Guest, thanks for this thoughtful post. Concerning JS and the Book of Abraham. I am convinced that JS is both a great deal more and a great deal less than official church history makes him out to be. Same for the BOA and the JS translation. You don’t have to be a great scholar to see that there are times when JS “corrects mistakes” that are not actually mistakes at all, his corrections are based on his own miss-reading of the KJV text. So there is a long list of quirks, oddities, and mistakes in JS textual work. But there are also many moments of delight in his work as well. A personal favorite of mine is how closely he read the psalms and adopted them to the lives and struggles of the early Saints. D&C 121 is a perfect example of a psalm of community lament. Obviously he drew heavily from Ps. 13 & 35 to create this prayer, yet I appreciate how thoughtful and passionate a reader and user of scriptures JS was. He had a vision of a community dedicated to God and willing to do what ever was necessary to serve God. In todays context there are important reasons to not restrict ourselves to his brand of theodicy but his voice and his faith beckon to us from the 19th century, “what form will our faith in God take?” “What will we do to try to understand the will of God?” “How will our faith find action?” these remains an essential questions that JS life exemplified.
I think the people who have the hardest time with Church history are those who truly believe the white washed history produced by the Church and then come into contact with more complete information. But I think this should lead to institutional questions. That is, we should be asking why the institutional church advances the kind of history it does and why the Church USES history they way it does. For me the second question is the more important of the two.
As for the people who say they know about Church history and then basically shrug it off, I suspect they are working to avoid cognitive and spiritual dissonance. If they are not ready for it, or do not have productive ways of handling it, then I think we need to let them be.
you write “These words of indifference, of not caring if it is true in the literal sense are so foreign to me.” To which I respond that religion is not journalism. The most important truths present in ANY religion are the poetic truths that can’t really be captured or understood by literalism in any of its forms.
First of all… great post. I may print this and keep in my journal along with my thoughts on the matter, as I continue to study Joseph Smith and church history.
I think what strikes me is that you agree the Book of Mormon is not controversial. It is Joseph Smith and the D&C and Pearl of Great Price that are confusing.
I think that I can have a testimony in the church despite the failings of Joseph because the gospel of Jesus Christ is greater than Joseph. The Church is just the earthly kingdom ran by imperfect people trying to implement the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So the church does not die with Joseph. It does not die with Brigham or with GB Hinckley. It is a living church. However miracle the revelations come about, they stand on their own in context as having a positive impact on me, or not of consequence. Just like the book of Psalms of Solomon in the bible has no impact on me, so I can move on and shrug it off, like it sounds some of your friends around you do about tenets of the gospel you have raised (which are valid points, just tenets, IMO).
To go back in church history and try to frame everything by today’s standards is dangerous because things change. Despite what Joseph failed at, he accomplished so much. Like him, I think I will be judged by God not by all my failings, but by my accomplishments despite my weaknesses and failings. That is why I need the Atonement, that is why I need the Gospel of Christ, that is why I need the Church, and I will never leave, despite the factual inconsistencies anyone will point out to me.
It becomes a matter of faith in what is good, not an intellectual exercise of proving accuracy.
Doctrine and Covenants 19:31
And of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost.
Of course, this website wouldn’t exist if we weren’t talking of tenets, right? Just gotta keep it in perspective.
Jared, in order for your case analogy of business contracts to stand, we have to first accept as fact that this is a legitimate contract – meaning both are parties are for real. Second, I don’t know that you have made a case that the theoretical contract has been broken, except that you assume it must have given your claims of having personal experiences to the contrary. Guest Writer responded to you claiming that they had followed the very specific measures you outlined. Your failure to acknowledge that in your response to me is questionable. Third, again your contract analogy is premised on circular logic.
A final point Jared, regarding your comment directed at me requesting that we “disagree without being disagreeable”. I think you’re running out of chips for this type of request. I have had numerous exhchanges with individuals on this board where that outcome was/is achieved without someone having to request it. I can disagree with Ray, or Hawkgrrrl, or Mormon Heretic, and never have these types of exchanges where the comments are akin to insults. You on the other hand are becoming notorious for the following types of comments:
“After reading your post I find it hard to respect the way you left the church and the way others stay in the church, they’re cultural Mormons and like you haven’t paid the price to acquire a testimony the way the Lord teaches. Very sad, and so unnecessary.”
This is not an intellectual observation, or a polite disagreement. It is self righteous and denigrating, and on occasion forgivable, but when it becomes routine and people begin to call check on your comments, quippy responses like “lets not be disagreeable” (which also comes across as though you are talking down to me) comes across as a generic attempt at being the “better man” in the argument. Suffice it to say, over time your attempts at putting out fires are losing their efficacy, and I’m not inclined to have a better impression of you at this time, instead I suggest you take some tips on tact from Ray/MH/Hawkgrrrl, etc, and put these types comments behind you.
@ Jared: Also, when did I say it was a rip off? I implied that it coincides with Biblical beliefs when I said, “The Book of Mormon was written in such a way that it virtually does not stray from biblical teachings.” I didn’t realize that was a very controversial statement. Also, when I was in the church, I made the study of the Book of Mormon a daily thing, I was told to study it every day, so I did. I would like to think that I was very proficient in my understanding of the Book of Mormon, more than most, in fact.
I don’t know how many hundreds of hours of crying and prayers that I have gone through to get an answer like is promised in Moroni, but I have not received one. At some point, I had to choose between what all the facts seemed to point towards and a mental breakdown.
#29–“I think the people who have the hardest time with Church history are those who truly believe the white washed history produced by the Church and then come into contact with more complete information.”
As a convert to the church, I felt it was so cool for years that I could sit and read all the volumes of the History of the Church written by Joseph Smith. Reading page by page the words that he wrote himself, only to find out years later that he didn’t write it, that it was compiled years later by scribes, historians, etc. using his words as a basis. I understand that the main content was his. I just thought reading a history written by Joseph Smith was a history written by Joseph Smith.
#19–“Testimony doesn’t come by studying church history.”
I guess that has more than one meaning, doesn’t it?
As we read of things in Joseph’s life, I wonder if President Monson did today the “odd” things that Joseph did, would our opinion of him be changed. Why or why not? If he had a Fanny Alger in his life what would our thoughts be? If he brought forth the Book of Abraham today and made all of the assertions the prophet did, who would continue faithful. Would the level of scrutiny (and no doubt ridicule) it would receive today change our feelings? I think one of the reasons we cut the old prophets so much slack is because we did not live through it.
Maybe not. Mark Hoffman deceived the church leaders and that didn’t seem to have a lasting affect.
re 30:
KG McB, I’d be careful. We don’t really know the Guest Writer Michael’s opinion on the BoM. When we say “it is not controversial,” that is not to say that it is necessarily accepted as true, but rather, that it is not very controversial with respect to the Bible. From the Book of Mormon, you don’t get the breadth of unique Mormon beliefs. Rather, without the Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, and continuing revelation from prophets, you have a rather ho-hum, indistinct Christian denomination. With these things, you have a rather dynamic and different, rather distinct Christian denomination.
Guest: “At some point, I had to choose between what all the facts seemed to point towards and a mental breakdown.”
I have to say I agree with this, and if there is a God (and I believe there is) I don’t think he wants anyone psychologically collapsing due to this process.
Thanks again, guest, for agreeing to share this here, and thanks to everyone else for the conversation. I am glad this is a place where there can be quite a diversity of experiences and opinions. May we all find happiness and be free from suffering in whatever path our lives may take.
While I welcome all the comments on my initial first comment, I never expected it to be interpreted so wildly. In reading through everyone’s opinions (and trying to understand their offenses) I noticed that the comments could be classified as spiritual approaches to the topic and secular approaches to the topic. If you approach the “challenge” of helping guest understand from a secular standpoint then any reference to spiritual solutions will come across as offensive and condescending. If you approach it from a spiritual standpoint then you can misunderstand why a cultural mormon would find a reason to remain in the Church if they are not getting spiritual nourishment.
As was mentioned, I think that as the Church grows and as the umbrellas expands, you will see a variety of mormons under the umbrella just as you find in the Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist and other traditions.
If you feel at all religions are useless at providing guidance during your life journey then you can just go with the generic “belief in humanity” stuff. Personally, I have never found it appealing because it seems a cop-out to me and history has shown it to be a misplaced faith (sorry if that is offensive – it is just my feelings).
Michael, the only thing offensive is your taking of guest’s name! 😉 – It was kind of confusing at first, but now that he’s going under “guest writer” it sorts it out I guess.
#32 Guest Writer–
If I didn’t have a testimony from the Holy Ghost regarding the Book of Mormon, I think I would be hard pressed to find a reason to stay in the church. I’ve never been in that situation so I can only guess how I would feel. Leaving the church, as you are doing, is a huge decision. Akin to a divorce, I would think.
I wish you the best either way you decide to go. I agree with Ray’s sentiment #24. I have close relatives–loved ones, who have left the church, not over church history, the church didn’t mean anything to them–not important to them. We love them and it doesn’t make any difference to us. They’ve made their decision and we accepted it. I hope your family will do the same.
I do think it is important for your own self concept that you do everything in your power to insure you’re making the best decision for yourself. You have to live with it.
#33 Holden Caulfield–the Lord told us there must needs be opposition in all things. I would imagine to be real opposition, it would have to be worthy opposition, meaning as strong in con as in the pro. Therefore, I’m not surprised by the opposition found in church history. But for every con there is a pro. The real decision however, needs to come as explained in Moroni 10:4.
#34 I need to make a correction–Instead of saying “I’ve never been in that situation…” I should have said, I’m not in that situation.
There was a time when I was completely inactive in the church and followed the ways of the world, but had a change of heart when the Lord gave been a manifestation that changed my life.
re 36:
Michael, to clarify, the reason so-called spiritual solutions are offensive and condescending is because they invalidate any other kind of perspective. I mean, your comments aren’t being perceived as offensive and condescending because it’s a disagreement between secular and spiritual (although there is that), but because you take a high position as being more mature or more correct. You say, “Well, it seems to me that you’re young, and eventually you’ll come to realize everything will be flawed, and then you’ll discover that we were right and Mormonism was correct.” This is intensely condescending…and it doesn’t mesh with the experiences of many, in fact.
See…I recognize fully that humanism or any other philosophy is not going to work for everyone, so I don’t pretend it to be a one-size-fits-all. I recognize that there are those who, like you, will think it is a copout, a misplaced faith. Yet, you don’t see me saying, “oh ho ho, you’ll come around soon, and then you’ll realize that there are eternal truths here.” Rather, I have been saying, “If you believe it is a misplaced faith, if it doesn’t work for you, if it doesn’t mesh for you, don’t try to force it.” That’s true whether it is humanism, existentialism, Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, or whatever else.
For the record, no one is offended at spiritual solutions, or spiritual perspectives, at least I’m not – and I don’t think others are either generally. What is offensive is when answers, spiritual or secular, are presented in such a way that they attempt to qualify a commenters (or group in general, aka “cultural mormons”) efforts as being either inferior or insincere, or otherwise without merit. I don’t know how many of the participants on this board are acquainted with one another outside of virtual Mormon blogging societies, but I don’t get the impression that there is a tremendous level of that going on, rather I imagine most participants are soley acquainted on these boards. With that understanding, it is poor taste for anyone to assume to know exactly what another’s experiences are, so qualifying statements that aren’t HEAVILY reinforced, are really just ad hominem. I have no objection to statements where participants express their positions based on spiritual experiences, or even when they inquire into spiritual experiences of another. We should obviously just avoid inferences along the same lines. My two cents…
Adamf,
It was never my intention to present myself as guest. I don’t know how that happened. I apologize if I did anything to create that impression.
Lol, np. I was probably the only one who was confused. It’s not like “Michael” is a unique handle. 🙂
I only got confused when Jared addressed Michael (guest writer) in 19…
and then I reread the original post and saw “Today’s guest post is by Michael,” and felt silly because it was in bold AND italics.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Cowboy wins by TKO!
(Okay, that was overly dramatic, just trying to lend a little support.)
As someone who has been, and currently is, really struggling with a lot of these issues, the assumptions made by others about my motivations, worthiness, dilligence, obedience, or sincerity really have been offensive. When I come accross other people’s stories, it seems that they’ve run into a lot of people who also make these assumptions. It really is insulting. “You didn’t try hard enough”, “obviously there’s something in your life that isn’t allowing the spirit to guide you”, “you’re studying the wrong things”.
I come from a position of EXTREME activity in the church and not just the facade of activity that Jeff posted about a little while ago. The intimate spiritual aspects of mormonism have been central to my life for the past three decades. I haven’t just been going through the motions. I haven’t been on the fringes. I’ve read and prayed nearly every day for the past 2 decades. A few times, seeking greater knowledge or clarification or simply closer communion, I’ve fasted for days at a time. Jared, I’ve certainly “paid the price”.
And for the past few years, I’ve put this same effort and MORE into trying to maintain a testimony that has been eroding in the face of continually mounting evidence to the contrary. I’ve agonized over possible consequences within both my immediate and extended families. I have at certain points been quite desperate to regain the certainty I once had, and have pursued it with all of the spiritual dilligence and sincerity that you can imagine. But as I’m sure the folks at FARMS can tell you, it takes an awful lot of work to defend the indefensible.
While I am sure that some and even many may casually cast off their faith and simply rejoice in new-found freedom, that is not me. I don’t believe that describes the guest poster, either. I think that anyone who bothers to put the thought and effort it takes to post their story in this kind of forum at least deserves the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions and the fact that they have already “done their homework.”
jjackson, I agree with much of what you said. While I have not been in your shoes, I agree it would be quite insulting. I can also see it from the other side, however, in the sense that I think some believers may not have room in their religion/mormon schema for the idea that some people just don’t receive answers despite due diligence. They will always come back with “well, you didn’t pray enough. The question I have here is, what is threatening to a believer about considering that some people just don’t get answers, despite nearly having a breakdown, as guest described? Perhaps it is too jarring with the “ask and ye shall receive” teaching. I don’t know, and don’t have a good answer, other than I think it is important to approach everyone from “where they are” (i.e. their life and experience) rather than from where I am, or where I think God is.
I am grateful for all of the respectful opinions given regarding this post. I am grateful for those with whom I agree as they remind me why I believe what I believe. I am grateful for those with whom I disagree as they challenge my views. I am grateful for people who try to understand and empathize with others regardless of religion. Most of all I am grateful for those who don’t want to kick out of the church those of us who find reasons to stay while not believing in the literalness of various doctrines.
I think many of us in this string of comments would benefit from Richard D. Poll’s article found here: http://staylds.com/docs/WhatTheChurchMeans.pdf
To the Guest: Thank you for sharing yo ur story. I am always uplifted when I hear people tell their own story. We have much in common!
Thanks, jjackson, that was very kind of you to say.
When you mention “defending the indefensible,” I think some of the stuff that bothered me the most was seeing how the defense of Mormonism has changed through the years. I will often hear people say, “Believing and following the prophets has never led people astray.” I just sit there thinking, “Tell that to poor, old B.H. Roberts whose defense of Joseph’s belief in the Kinderhook plates found in the History of the Church is, in my opinion, now one of the most damning evidences against his claims of divine inspiration. Tell that to the numerous apologists that now look like fools for saying that the papyrus, if ever found, would obviously vindicate Joseph’s language translating abilities. Tell that to Nibley and others who said that if any evidence came out showing that Joseph was ever actually on trial in 1826 that THAT would be the most damning evidence against him.” It’s just frustrating because I see a hundred and fifty years of people being wrong and looking the fool because they took Joseph at his word.
I now realize that some people find this type of stuff secondary to what they call “the gospel,” but I have a feeling that I still follow what they call “the gospel” even without any religious affiliation.
jjackson-
I don’t doubt that you have done the work and been sincere in seeking the Lord. You mentioned that you have “at certain points been quite desperate to regain the certainty you once had.” You are not alone, many of us want to feel certainty, but I don’t think being certain is a part of the plan otherwise we wouldn’t have any reason to exert faith. I think that dealing with doubts are a part of belief for everyone and we all deal differently with it. From my own personal experience, I remember receiving an answer that was clear and undeniable in relation to something very important to me in my life, but since that time and after years have passed it has been a deep struggle to hold onto what I felt was so clear then. I think that answer is still true, but I feel like the Lord has given me every reason to believe it is not and it is hard to keep plugging along without feeling like He has forgotten about me. Deep down I feel like there is purpose in this, only because I can look at others before me who have felt abandoned by Him as well.
I wouldn’t become offended or insulted by what other people think or say, just focus on what God thinks and you will find a new-found freedom just in that alone. If you have peace within yourself about your efforts and sincerity, it will become easier to let go of what others think or say. Only you and God truly know the time you have spent seeking for truth and answers and that is all the really matters. I have had to learn to let go of others opinions of me and it is truly liberating.
This goes to the root of why mormonism offends people. Before anyone attacks me for saying this, let me explain. This is not an attack on mormonism. Any belief that says “we are the only way” is necessarily saying any other way is not the right way. If I say, my son is the greatest child in the world, I may be thinking I am simply boasting about my son, but indirectly, I am putting down every other child on earth. You simply cannot claim to be “the only true church” without rubbing people the wrong way, because there are so many implications of that belief that affect everyone. The fact is, if you believe that the church is true, then you believe that god will answer anyone and everyone who sincerely takes moroni’s challenge. Thus, for anyone who didn’t get an answer, it’s not god’s fault, it’s the individual’s insincerity or lack of faith or lack of obedience or lack of discernment or on and on an on. What other choice does a believer have? He can’t lay the blame at the feet of the lord for not answering, so it has to be placed upon the seeker. At most, god can be held to blame for simply waiting for a more opportune moment to reveal the truth to the seeker. But undoubtedly, at some point, those who don’t get an answer are to blame, if you believe the church to be true. I do not fault anyone who believes this. But naturally, this belief leads to opinions and comments that can be viewed as condescending. But really, I don’t think that is the intention of the believer. It is simply choosing the alternative that does not threaten his current view. If presented with an anecdote of someone praying and not receiving any answer, he can think the seeker didn’t do it right or God didn’t answer this person. The latter would cause stress in the belief system, so it is dismissed. But just because it is a comforting thought, doesn’t mean it’s true, and more importantly, it should not be imposed upon others as evidence that god will answer them. If someone “knows” they received an answer to a prayer, I don’t think it is fair to extrapolate that to “I know you will receive an answer too.” That type of thinking leads to many of the comments here, for example, try harder, pray harder, fast more, you haven’t paid the price, etc. Those can be very offensive.
In short, I don’t have a problem with someone believing the church is true and believing that god answered his prayer and that therefore god answers all sincere seekers’ prayers. It is a natural secondary belief based on a belief in the gospel. But I do have a problem with a believer saying to a seeker, “I got an answer, you will too if you do it right” or any variation thereof.
jjackson–
I’m still learning. But what I’ve learned so far is that the majority of the people I’ve encountered having trouble with church history have put more work in studying the opposition to their faith than sincerely trying to acquire a testimony from the Lord.
Then there are those who say they’ve paid the price to acquire a testimony, but found none. Do I have trouble with that explanation? Yes and No. Do I call them a liar and try to degrade them? No. Do I think they need to be ready to deal with rigorous questions and feelings from those who have a different point of view? Yes. If not, what is the purpose of posting?
Thank you Jared. Perfect timing.
Dexter, I agree with some of your points, but it seems you are painting believers into a corner with the “undoubtedly, at some point, those who don’t get an answer are to blame, if you believe the church to be true” line. I don’t buy this, and I am okay with not going to either extreme. I can believe and still allow that some people just don’t get answers. Why, I don’t know, as I addressed in a previous comment, and everyone may have an opinion as to why or why not. Point being, while I respect you and agree with you in part, your putting believers like me into this dichotomous position can be a little offensive as well, now that we’re on that topic. 😉 – I mean that in all sincerity.
Guest said, I now realize that some people find this type of stuff secondary to what they call “the gospel,” but I have a feeling that I still follow what they call “the gospel” even without any religious affiliation.
Touché!
Adam, I would hope there are members with strong beliefs in the church who are able to say, “maybe god didn’t answer that person despite efforts that were good enough.”
But I have never heard one say that. Are you saying that is how you feel? I just don’t see how that jives with a loving god and how that jives with the scriptures? God is no respecter of persons, giveth to all men liberally, ask and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened. I would gladly concede on this point if there are believers who believe this but if you believe god doesn’t answer certain people’s sincere prayers for a testimony, then doesn’t that make the house of cards fall over?
#36 – Yes, Michael, I’m sure all the victims of the Crusades, the Inquisition and every other holy war and other form of religious persecution throughout human history found faith in god to be much more well placed, not to mention every person who has ever prayed that a child be healed from a terminal disease or lifelong victim of child abuse, and on and on. I’m perfectly open to the possibility that god exists, but I think at least there can be a FACTUAL case made either way (separate and apart from personal experience). You, however, seem to be implying that all the evidence in human history flies in the face of any belief that excludes god. Such a position completely ignores the mountain of evidence throughout human history that suggests that faith in god is misplaced, and that is to say nothing of many good people’s individual experiences in their search for truth. Maybe god exists and maybe he doesn’t. Many people in history have been enriched and led better lives because of their beliefs in him. But many people have had the opposite experience, and I think your argument not only ignores this fact, but marginalizes those who take this position.
Dexter-
When reading your comment(#50)the thought came to my mind that there may be times when we do receive answers but don’t recognize them or accept them as such. I am not saying that it is not true that people aren’t receiving answers, but what about the possibiliy that answers are given and possibly not accepted or dismissed as such? I know that I can look back at a time when I received an answer about something and didn’t recognize it as such, but later it became clear to me that it had been an answer.
I think we have to consider that God doesn’t answer prayers the same for everyone and it is a process in learning how God speaks to us individually. If we are seeking for our prayers to be answered in a specific way, it is likely we will be disappointed. Right now in my life I have been seeking for assurance in something specific that is very important to me and I have felt completely ignored by the Lord. I recently had a friend mention several things to me though that I hadn’t noticed before because I have been so busy looking for answers in a specific way. I have started to realize that maybe the Lord hasn’t been ignoring me, but that He is just waiting for me to notice what He is saying in a way I wasn’t expecting. Just a thought.
#51 – Jared, I think you provide a great perspective and I’m glad you continue to be part of this site. That said:
“Do I call them a liar and try to degrade them?”
I know you don’t intend to, but Jared, you come awfully close to this when you tell everyone who is claiming to not have received confirmation that everyone who TRULY tries will receive an answer. How else is this to be interpreted? “I tried with all my heart and received nothing.” “No you didn’t, because everyone who tries with all their heart will receive an answer.” This is dicey territory, and I think you need to be more careful. I know you think you’re being helpful, but the fact that you continue to receive numerous rebukes about this issue is evidence of something.
Jen, I definitely agree. But I already spoke to your point when I said the seeker is at fault for lack of faith or lack of discernment, etc., etc. In other words, I already conceded the type of scenario you mentioned, the seeker failing to discern an answer of the lord, but still, that blame falls at the seeker’s feet. It is simply another way the seeker can fail, which supports my argument that one way or another, for a believer, if a seeker does not get an answer, it’s not god’s fault.
#50
“But I do have a problem with a believer saying to a seeker, “I got an answer, you will too if you do it right” or any variation thereof.”
Its how common this paradigm is that is so troubling. Any lack of an answer being automatically interpreted as the fault of the seeker “revealing” their lack of true intent, or what ever. That’s a kind of thinking we can do without.
I see your point Dexter, but again (from my view) you are giving me only two options again, i.e. if I believe that some people aren’t at fault for not receiving answers, than the whole “house of cards” falls over. Maybe it’s just a different way of approaching it, but I just have to sit with it. I don’t know why some don’t get an answer. In some cases I certainly would say it was their own problem, but in many other cases (guest’s included) I would say it seems like they did everything they could. I don’t know why that is. I just refrain from deciding. Maybe I’m a little too Zen on that. You don’t need to concede though, as this is my personal experience and view.
The song “the seeker” is now stuck in my head. Thanks Guitar Hero.
I’ve said that dozens of time in this forum and probably a hundred or more times across the Bloggernacle – and Adam said it quite clearly in the comment to which you responded.
Dexter, as gently as I can say this, you can’t blame believers for never saying something that some of us say quite regularly here and then turn around and claim you’d “concede the point” if only real believers believe it. That’s EXACTLY what you get bent out of shape about when Jared says it only takes more effort – that you are right and believers are wrong and there’s no alternative to those extremes – that any believer who says that simply is deluded and irrational.
Can you understand that? (That question is a sincere one – not meant in ANY way to be sarcastic or derogatory)
I know I don’t need to concede, and I concede nothing. Adam, I only give 2 options because there only seem to be two options. If you are a true believer, then you believe god answers sincere prayers. If you don’t believe god answers sincere prayers, you are not a believer. I don’t think I’m making any wild assumptions here. But I would be shocked to hear a true believer in the church say that sometimes prayers aren’t answered bc despite the seeker’s sincere and best efforts, god just didnt answer that person. At best, god might wait for a more appropriate time, but I already pointed that out. But we have all heard a million times that the seekers heart was hard, or he read some history, or some point alluding to the seeker being at blame in some way or another.
“I would be shocked to hear a true believer in the church say that sometimes prayers aren’t answered bc despite the seeker’s sincere and best efforts, god just didnt answer that person.”
Sometimes prayers aren’t answered because despite the seeker’s sincere and best efforts, God just didn’t answer that person.
Consider yourself shocked – unless you don’t consider adam and I to be true believers.
If that is the case, then, as I said in my previous comment, please don’t bristle when Jared writes that he doesn’t think someone else has tried hard enough. You are taking the exact same position on the other extreme.
The key here is, however, I don’t know why God wouldn’t answer someone, or what an answer even is to someone else. So perhaps I don’t know if I can truly say it like you put it down. I don’t think we will come to an agreement on this, because you have a black and white view, i.e. either God answers or he doesn’t (which is fine with me), and I have a “I don’t know, and some things I can’t explain, but I will do my best to meet people where they’re at” view.
Ray, you are twisting my words. I never stated believers are deluded and irrational. I never stated that I am right and believers are wrong and there’s no alternative to those extremes.
I said I have no problem with a believer believing that a seeker who didn’t get an answer must be at fault somehow. I said I DO have a problem with a believer announcing that belief to a seeker. I don’t believe my nephew will make the NBA. But I am not going to say that to his face. It’s as simple as that.
When did you say you believe that god doesn’t answer sincere prayers, and what did you say?
Well I am glad to see believers are willing to not assume the seeker is at fault. But can we agree most members don’t see it that way? Can we agree that is inconsistent with teachings of prophets and the scriptures? I mean, isn’t a huge part of a believer’s faith a belief that god will answer sincere prayers? Isn’t that taught in every GC?
Dexter, you didn’t say that (re: Ray’s comments), but sometimes your comments come across that way to some. Another thing, starting questions with “Isn’t it” or the like can feel manipulative. That is all. *hug*
Dexter-
There are people who see God’s hand in their life everyday, and some who claim He doesn’t even exist because of their daily life. Is that God’s fault? What makes one person grateful even under the harshest of circumstances and others in the same circumstances bitter and hateful? Can we blame God for that? I think you are wanting to place blame on God and therefore make a way for people to say “I tried, but failed and God is to blame.” I don’t think a believer will be likely to say that God hasn’t answered someone’s prayer because He answers prayers in many different ways. Do you have shelter, food, a good relationship with a spouse, etc.? Are those not answers to prayers? It seems when we are stripped of things that bring us comfort we begin to see that God was blessing us and answering our prayers after all. When we ask for specific things and don’t get specific answers we want, it doesn’t mean He isn’t answering. You say the seeker is lacking discernment or this and that, but what if someone points out things to them and they choose to not see it as an answer? Is that God’s fault? I believe many answers are given through others and we have to take accountability when our eyes and minds are opened to other possibilities as well and not assume that God just isn’t paying attention.
I don’t intend them to. I clearly said it makes sense to me. If one believes, it seems to me, the rational choice is to believe that God answers sincere prayers. I do not feel my tone is properly represented here. I have loved the church for 99% of my life and I would not want people to see my name and simply assume that I am being antagonistic.
How does believing god doesn’t answer sincere payers (sometimes) not make you hurt? Does it affect how you feel about god? Is it something you figure god has a reason for but you just don’t understand? I mean, how do you teach your son or loved one to gain a testimony if you feel that god might answer and he might not? Is that a lack of faith to believe that god doesn’t answer sincere prayers sometimes?
I thought the point of the promise in Moroni is that he WILL answer. Like Dexter sited, “Ask and ye shall receive.” Otherwise, it is a broken promise. Obviously, God never breaks a promise, otherwise he would no longer be God, which is why Jared and others (including me when I still believed in the teachings and scriptures) naturally assume, at that point, that the asker came up short in some respect.
Turning the tables on myself and now being the asker that came up short in this respect and not knowing how much more he could have done, I’m inclined to believe that the system set up is what is flawed, not the person following the system.
Jen, I don’t blame god. I am saying that many members (not ray and not adam) assume that god will never be at fault, so the seeker must be doing something wrong or missing something. I’m saying that seekers who don’t feel they receive an answer should not be told they are to blame.
Dexter, I’m not going to get in a fight over this, but I NEVER intentionally twist words. I am a hardcore parser. Here are your own words:
#64 – “If you don’t believe god answers sincere prayers, you are not a believer.”
#50 – “But undoubtedly, at some point, those who don’t get an answer are to blame, if you believe the church to be true.”
#55 – “I would gladly concede on this point if there are believers who believe this but if you believe god doesn’t answer certain people’s sincere prayers for a testimony, then doesn’t that make the house of cards fall over?”
#59 – “for a believer, if a seeker does not get an answer, it’s not god’s fault.”
“I’m inclined to believe that the system set up is what is flawed, not the person following the system.”
I can see why. How would ANYONE in your shoes still think they were flawed? That smacks of being spiritually abused, imo.
#75 – “I’m saying that seekers who don’t feel they receive an answer should not be told they are to blame.”
AMEN, Dexter. We agree totally on that point. It’s the whole “Judge not . . . with what measure you mete . . .” concept.
Yes, I said that.
But you said I said believers are deluded and irrational. You said I said that I am right and believers are wrong and there’s no alternative to those extremes.
I never said those things. Don’t twist my words again.
Dexter, is it possible that neither God nor the “seeker” are at fault? Is it possible to not know one way or the other?
Also, Ray was not twisting your words (well, he can answer that), but as I said it is how you come across sometimes. A little humility and patience can do us all some good, believer, secular humanist, or whomever.
Obviously, #76 was being written while #75 had posted. Thanks, Dexter.
Ray, I’m glad we agree on something.
Adam, I just would point to the scriptures I already mentioned. It doesn’t say seek and ye shall sometimes find. It doesn’t say knock and it shall sometimes be opened. The promises in countless scriptures and GC talks are that He WILL.
Dexter, I’m not trying to twist anything. You and others have (correctly, imo) chastised Jared for the tone of his comments – that the tone comes through the words and reveals an attitude that can be read as highly offensive. What I said is perfectly reflective of the tone of some of your comments in this thread – although you have moderated that tone considerably in the last few comments.
Again, can you understand what I mean?
You are correct, Ray. I wrote that before 75 had posted. I just want to clarify that I would never label members in that way. The people I love the MOST in this world, by far, are faithful members of the church.
Again, thanks.
I think this illustrates why we all have to be VERY careful with the words we choose and worry less about posting “fast” and keeping up perfectly with the conversation.
Dexter-
I am not a believer that can agree that God just doesn’t answer sincere prayers. It just may not be in a way that is recognizable….at first or maybe not for years or decades or even in this life. He does answer and does not just ignore us. Above all, He does keep His promises. If you look at the Father’s willingness to allow His firstborn to be sacrificed and treated as He was, you must realize that He does love each and everyone of us or He would have spared the Savior that experience. That alone is evidence of His love for us and implies a listening heart and one that is willing to answer His children as well. Again I will say that just because answers don’t come in a way we recognize does not mean we are not receiving them. I think it is when we become angry and cloud our minds and hearts with this anger that it becomes harder and harder to see God in our lives, even though I truly believe He is still there depite our struggles.
I feel my overarching point in all of my posts is that belief is one thing, but what you say to the seeker is a separate issue. I don’t feel I have been offensive in this thread. I still am having trouble seeing why it is wrong of me to assume that a believer believes god answers all sincere prayers. I realize that may have been an incorrect assumption, but I don’t see how it was an offensive assumption bc in my initial post I clearly stated “I have no problem with someone believing” that the seeker is at fault. I used to think that way. I only said I had a problem with someone saying to the seeker that they are at fault. And that is what we agreed on. If you go back to my first post, you’ll see that was my conclusion.
Re: 82 – I can see that. I just refrain from assuming that others haven’t really sought. Not only can I not know if someone received an answer or not, judging their efforts is none of my business.
Re: 87 – The only thing that was offensive (and I meant that KIND of jokingly because it gets tossed around so much) was putting people into categories that they don’t feel like they belong in. Both sides do it.
Jen, your post is what I would expect of a believing member of the church, that god keeps his promises. I agree with you that he may answer in mysterious ways, or at later times. But the point I am making is that if we assume god will always answer a sincere prayer, it can lead to members unfairly judging those who don’t get an answer, and it can lead to the seeker himself feeling tremendous heartache bc he blames himself for not getting an answer. So my point is, if a believer says to a seeker or implies to a seeker that if he had more patience or tried harder he would get an answer, this can sometimes cause more pain to the seeker, so we should all use prudence with how we address this sensitive issue.
We agree completely with each other, Dexter, about your last comment – and the last phrases are the point I was making. 🙂
Dexter 89 – Agreed! That is a great point.
Adam, your attitude is exactly what I would hope for from a believer. I think it would be hard, as a believer, to think god isn’t answering, but it can cause pain to label the seeker as somehow unworthy. All I was trying to say is that members should take use your attitude. But I don’t think it’s offensive for me to say that when push comes to shove, if forced to opine about what went wrong, I would think most members would say the seeker must have fouled up bc it would be hard to say god did. The best explanation, and one I gave in my original post, for a believer, is probably that god will answer in his own time and to assume the seeker did not fail. I didn’t think putting believers into the category of people who believes god answers all sincere prayers was an offensive categorization. But I will try and be more clear in the future. I appreciate that you responded and we were able to come to an agreement.
“I didn’t think putting believers into the category of people who believes god answers all sincere prayers was an offensive categorization.”
It’s not. If anyone was offended by that, the problem is in them! 😉
Fwiw, Dexter, I don’t think it’s offensive as a good generalization at all.
It’s nice to come to an accord!!!
As I’ve said before, tone can be difficult to properly express in this atmosphere, for me, anyway. And I know I sometimes skim posts and perhaps due to my long posts some of them were skimmed as well.
Kumbayah!!!!
Is that how you spell it?
Guest Writer,
Your story struck me as very similar to that of Bob McCue’s. He has a website that you can google wherein he posts a letter he wrote to his family explaining his reasons for leaving the church. I corresponded with him briefly and he said the letter was a waste of time because he felt that no matter what he said, most people simply assumed he lost the faith or was influenced by satan. Were you glad you spelled out your reasons in a long letter? Did you find it worthwhile?
Dexter-
I agree with you and I think that is why the Lord has made it clear that we shouldn’t judge others and that we leave that to Him. Having said that, I don’t think most members of the church intentionally try to make another person feel that they are to blame if they feel they haven’t received answers from the Lord. A person can bear their testimony and one person may feel the Spirit and be renewed and another may feel deep pain and heartache because they haven’t had the same experience or they desire something that person has that they don’t (i.e. a spouse, children, good job, etc.). I truly believe though that the pain and heartache that come from all of these things is not in vain and it has a purpose. If we look at the Savior and the fact that He suffered for everyone of us, what was the point of suffering for everyone if not all would accept Him? I truly believe suffering has purpose in and of itself when we are truly seeking God. If that suffering involves feeling like the Lord is not answering, even when we have done all that we can to seek Him, then we can understand in some small way how the Savior felt when He felt abandoned by the Father on the cross. I truly believe being able to understand how that feels will benefit us or those around us somehow, someday, and we will be better because of it, if we allow it.
I think we will have to deal with being unfairly judged by members and non-members alike throughout our life. The best way we can deal with this is to make what God thinks our priority and remember to not judge others no matter how well we think we know their situation. I truly believe God is merciful to those who choose to be merciful to others. I take great comfort in knowing that He knows my heart and that He will be my judge.
DANG IT, I HATE THIS SITE SO MUCH BECAUSE I LEAVE FOR 20 MINUTES AND ANOTHER 40 COMMENTS SPRING UP.
re 55 and 64:
Dexter, despite what I have just said about the speed of the site, I’ll tell you and anyone else this: there’s a reason why I love this site; it’s my favorite of the big Mormon blogs, I regularly read and comment here, etc., It’s because here is a place where members *are* willing to say exactly what you have not heard. And these are members who can keep faith despite and through it. That’s more powerful, to me, than someone who only keeps faith because they wish away tough exceptions or tough counterpoints away. As Adamf said, that’s how he believes. As Ray said, that’s how he believes, and I’ve been here for a while — both posters, as well as many others, have great track records (I’d call them out if they didn’t :D).
But I understand what you mean, in that I know that MM is a special place. I might not get that in my home ward (or, if so, it would be with particular people, who I already know would understand and appreciate me regardless of where I was). I might not get that at another blog. But from what I’ve experienced, I know enough to say that you can find good, accepting people in all places.
And I mean, let’s take a look at Jared. We disagree on several issues, and yes, as brjones wrote in #58, regardless of intention, he sure comes off sometimes as trying to get as close to a line as he can…but you know what…I know it’s because he cares. He’s strong-willed, principled, has his beliefs and believes them to be true, but as he wrote in 51, he’s trying. Sure, rigorous questions may be assuming the worst of someone, but I think I can handle rigorous questions, if someone is willing to listen to the answers and learn something, however small from it. So, indeed, Jared is a valuable part of this site. And so are all the regulars, and some of the less regulars. I know there are some trolls here, but I just haven’t been on while they’ve been on (I leave for 15 minutes, after all, and topics EXPLODE with comments)…so personally, I can’t say there’s anyone here I put on auto-ignore. I can’t say the same for certain other places.
I understand your point, though. Will it ever seem to be like this with the church in general? Maybe not. Because in the end, for a church that advertises itself as the true church, the most correct, (or whatever other traits one would describe to be ecumenical), it has to stand its guns and work past evidence that might weaken its position. And yet, DEMONSTRABLY, you can know that there is more to a believing position than just this all-or-nothing ultimatum.
Some answers don’t really appeal to me and don’t really satisfy me (as you point, blame-victim mentality…or another one, “God works on his own time, so just endure to the end”) but you cannot deny that there are answers like these and even more answers that could allow for someone to believe and yet not have a one-size-fits-all complex, whereby if the church doesn’t fit, you need to go on spiritual diet and exercise scheme until it does.
In the end, all I’m asking is have charity. Have charity for Ray and adamf who have tried to stake out a way for one to be a believer *and* for one to be compassionate to the voices of nonbelievers. Have charity that they make it work out with belief in the prophets and belief in the doctrine and that they are not any less believers (or any less compassionate). Have charity for the concept that there is more than one way to believe, as there is more than one way not to believe.
keep in mind i haven’t paid attention to the last 20 comments (or any comments that have sprung up in the 20 minutes or so I’ve spent writing this one)
I’ve been out on business–just returned. This post has caught fire.
I feel the Lord is not only my Father, but my friend. Those of you with children will understand this.
When my prayers appear to go unanswered, that is an answer. It causes me to rethink what I’m asking, review if this has already been answered. Do I need to fast and pray or take some other action, or just drop my request for now.
I prayed for a number of months about a book I read and asked if the author was being honest. I received a prompting not to pray about it any longer. I initially put off by this, then quickly realized who I was dealing with–a perfect being. I will not counsel the Lord–even though I am tempted at times to do so.
In regards to those who say they there not getting answers about fundamental questions. I look to the scriptures for answers to this question. There are many scriptures that touch on this. Here are a few that come to mind: Alma 10:4-7, D&C 46:13-14, 3 Nephi 1:30, Mosiah 26;1-4 (please add to this list)
#58 brjones–
I’m working on it. Thanks for your kind concern.
#98 – This is a great comment, Andrew. I think it’s significant that there are a number of people who have left the church entirely but who still frequent this site, and I don’t think it’s generally to bash or argue. I think many of us will always have a connection to the church through our heritage or our social construct, and this is the only outlet we’ve found where we can connect with that in a way that lets us represent ourselves fully. That’s an incredibly powerful compliment to this forum and the people here.
“but you know what…I know it’s because he cares.”
I also believe this to be 100% true. I think this is why, despite the many comments to Jared regarding this issue, there has never been any real incident of animosity. I think his concern comes through in his comments.
Davis Bitton gave a wonderful talk at a FAIR convention called, “I do not have a Testimony of the History of the Church.” I liked the talk because it put those things in the proper perspective. There always seems to be two major mistakes that a lot of folks make when analyzing Church History.
1. They do not consider the time period – Folks though a lot different than we do today and they have a lot less information and knowledge than we do today, thus their interpretation of things may not square without our own experience. It takes a real expert of the times to properly assess the writings of those who wrote things a hundred or more years ago. At the very least, you simply cannot judge anything by today’s standards.
2. You can’t really know all the facts – In spite of the well documented Church History, you just can’t know all the facts and what people were really thinking. Taking the Book of Abraham for example, I have no idea why it does not line up with texts that Joseph said he used to translate from. No idea whatsoever. On the other hand, the Book of Moses was given solely by revelation. So perhaps the Book of Abraham came in the same manner. Don’t know about that. I just have faith I will know at some point. I wouldn’t be as dismissive as some of Michael’s friends seem to be. But also recognize that some things are not really known or understood well by us at this point.
Couple of other things. I am sure Brother Richard Bushman would be very disappointed to know that his book on Joseph Smith would serve as a catalyst for someone to leave the Church. The other thing is what has been said, This is the Church of Jesus Christ, not the “Church of Joseph Smith” or the “Church of History.” We are told to be valiant in our “Testimony of Jesus.” Everything else is sort of a distraction. I am not a huge believer in the over-influence of Satan, but this would certainly be one way to derail someone from a testimony of Jesus.
#00 – Jared, it can be hard to interpret tone in this forum, but I genuinely hope you don’t think I was just being critical. I do appreciate your perspective.
Andrew S. and Ray–
Thanks for watching my back–military jargon.
I am trying to be more like Ray and a few others, without becoming his clone. 🙂
Jared, you’re right. I am guilty of becoming Ray’s clone. I promise I will never parse, nor apologize again. 😉
brjones–
I’ve been called to do the dishes. Be back later
Tone–my wife tells me I’m tone deaf. It’s true. I love music, but I can sum it by saying what my music teacher once said: Jared can carry a tune, he just can’t unload it.
You’re right. Tone is a skill in blogging. Working on it.
@ Dexter: Yes, I would say that it was worthwhile writing what I wrote, even if no one cares to read it. It was therapeutic for me. It also was a fantastically painstaking way of organizing my thoughts and seeing even better why I was doing what I was doing.
#105 adamf–
I think you’re one of a kind. 🙂
#107 Guest Writer–
Reading your post makes me want to start a support group or something that would allow you to have your questions addressed by the best their is so that you could be exposed to their thoughts and how they deal with the issues you’re facing.
Have you read Shaken Faith Syndrom by Michael Ash?
Have you visited FAIR website?
Visited with a GA or some other person you have respect for?
I’m not trying to suggest anything other than being completely sure of your next move.
Wish you the best.
#105 -How do you spell the sound you make when you stick out your tongue and blow a raspberry at someone? 🙂
Jared, from my other correspondences with Guest (Michael), he did the FAIR and FAMRS stuff for a year or something, I think he said (not on this post, but elsewhere).
Re: support group – I think that is a fantastic idea, as long as there are no agendas for the ultimate decision people make, to stay OR leave. There must be absolute respect and fostering of individual autonomy.
Ray 110 – hahahaha, thanks for the laugh. 🙂 I think this smiley works too: 😛
I am curious when I hear people talk of contemplating leaving the church if this (for some) can be compared to threatening to commit suicide….is it a cry for help, a last ditch effort in hoping that someone or something (God) will not “allow” it, but will intervene in some miraculous way and relieve them or give them a reason to stay?
Does anyone feel this to be the case for them personally? In talking about leaving the church, do you feel talking about it to others is so that God can “know” you are serious?
#106 – Jared, I would like to nominate that comment as an instant classic.
Jen, I suspect that for those who don’t believe, that would not be the case. Other situations, perhaps? I don’t know.
There certainly have been a variety of answers here for why deity doesn’t answer someone’s prayers in the way some of you have been taught to expect. Maybe deity is just really smart, so he knows it’s better to wait. Maybe the asked wasn’t sincere enough. Maybe the asked sinned too much. Maybe the asked wasn’t very bright, and deity thought it would be fun to “hide the ball” by answering in some vague, indirect way, just for the amusement of watching the asked miss it.
Some here seem quite facile with these “faith-protecting” answers, even at the cost of lacking basic respect for anyone whose experience doesn’t reinforce religious teachings. Of course, a few of you will go through the motions to disclaim such an attitude, if you’re called on it.
News flash–Guest may be the sincere one, the righteous one, and the smart one. Just maybe, others may have WANTED to believe so badly that they manufactured and/or interpreted their experience to fit the answer they wanted. Maybe deity doesn’t even exist. Such a reality is every bit as possible as the “faithful” answers some are handing out so easily.
Ray on 110:
That would be: phfffffffffffffttt!!
I know because I hear it a lot.
@ Jeff Spector: I would say that Bushman’s book was a catalyst for my own search into church history. His book alone was by no means the reason for my leaving. I feel that he left out the things that were the true deal breakers for me, the stuff that looks the worst. As I said, the thing that bugged me most after his book was just the fact that I no longer liked Joseph as a person. At that point, I felt that I would have liked hanging out with Hyrum, but Joseph would have been a person that I would have kept my distance from. But, that was not enough for me to lose my testimony. At that point, I said to myself, “Well, I guess God did not have to choose a person that I like for that person to be a prophet.”
Yes, there are many things that may just be misunderstood since we did not live in the 1800s, but how much of a blanket excuse is that? I believe that a person making claims to divine inspiration should be held accountable for those claims. As a sentiment that I agree with and have heard recently states, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”(Carl Sagan). This is why, when I studied the Egyptian and read some of the hieroglyphs myself (I did my own translation to some extent, on the off-chance that the Egyptologists were anti-Mormon sources), I was so shocked to find that they were not what Joseph claimed they were. Not only that, but they were very obviously not. I would have an easier time dismissing this as a misunderstanding of the word “translate” if there weren’t so many quotes from Joseph, his scribes, his friends, visitors to Nauvoo, etc. all stating very clearly that the papyrus was literally written in Abraham’s handwriting. These numerous accounts combined with Joseph’s assertion that he was working on a book of Alphabet and Grammar along with his scribes that also contains a very detailed and very inaccurate translation of Egyptian characters, leaves me less trusting of his words. That, combined with numerous similar accounts and equally revealing quotes add to the mistrust. I am not talking about differences in personality and culture, unless you are saying that hyperbole and tall-tales were just part of the culture. If you said this, you would not be the first, I have heard one apologist say that because of this propensity for hyperbole in Joseph’s time we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water. At least that individual is closer to where I now stand on the issue. However, I would argue that it is all hyperbole and tall-tale and that there is no baby IN the bath water.
I will end with this comment as well. You mention that this is the Church of Jesus Christ not the Church of Joseph Smith, but the problem is, I never had an independent belief in Jesus Christ or even God (see comment #17 for more detail). I had a testimony built like is taught to people on the mission. People are told to read the BOM, pray and if they feel God is telling them it is true, then they are told that it logically follows that Joseph must have been a prophet and if Joseph was a prophet then, he really did see God and Jesus like he claimed and, therefore, through them he really did restore Christ’s church, in which case there must have actually been a being named Jesus that existed and he really must be the son of God, and since Jesus is the son of God, there must actually be a God. *phew* For me, as long as I could believe in Joseph’s testimony, I could believe in the Book of Mormon and, if the BOM was true, then it followed that the Bible must be true, and if the Bible is true then Jesus must have not only been a person that actually lived, but he must be the Christ because both books say so and God must exist as well. My belief structure was built in such a manner. That is why, when I lost my testimony in the BOM and Joseph Smith I started praying like mad (not about them) but about God and asking if he/she/it was there.
Nick-
Sometimes answers may come that we aren’t asking for and don’t really want to hear, not because we wanted to believe so badly or because we were manufacturing an experience. I have received answers that were diffcult to hear, so I am not sure how that fits with what you are saying.
Also, this blog is called Mormon Matters, so naturally you can expect “faith-protecting” answers and comments from some people. I don’t think this post is about who is sincere and who isn’t, obviously guest seems sincere, but so do those who are posting comments in relation to his story. If guest didn’t want comments from different perspectives then he shouldn’t put his personal story online on a blog that will naturally get just that.
Lastly, you are handing out the idea that deity doesn’t even exist just as easily as others are handing out “faithful” answers. To each his own. Just because a someone writes a “faithful” answer doesn’t mean anyone that reads it has to believe it. That’s what is so great about living in this country……we can speak our mind (or write it) and it is ok. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Guest,
I am late in posting so please forgive me. A few comments;
Regarding the Book of Mormon, it was not until I stopped internalizing the platitudes that I really came to understand what is in the book. When I started really reading from the beginning, it took me several weeks to get past the first verse of First Nephi. Why? Because I had to understand what the mysteries of God were. There is so much more in the BOM than I ever realized. For example, the Bible alludes to being born again. The Book of Mormon dedicates multiple chapters to the topic. There are other similar topics that are incredibly satisfying to the soul in the book. Great stuff once you drop your TBM pat answers.
Secondly, I have learned by sad experience that pretending the Easter Bunny and Santa are real is a great disservice to our children. I know where you are coming from relative to the existence of God. My only comment is that life is way to complex and beautiful to be the result of millions of years of accidents.
Ask Ray and he will tell you I come off as anti-LDS Church. Probably because I am. In my opinion, the church is doing its best to play intermediary between man and his maker, and it isn’t working. Instead of trying to assist people in coming to Christ, the church seems bent on defining what it means to be accepted of God . Activity in the LDS church can be a detriment to building a real relationship with God.
Finally, I wish you luck on your journey. My best advice is to keep an open mind and explore the possibilities.
Spek.
@ Jared: In response to your questions
-No, I have not read “Shaken Faith Syndrome.”
-Yes, I practically lived and breathed Farms and FAIRLDS for about a year after reading “Rough Stone Rolling,” but I just became frustrated with their arguments. Their apologetics drove me crazy, because they would zoom so far into any critics argument and show that it held no sway, but in doing so, they wouldn’t realize that they had zoomed in too far. Most of their arguments fall apart if you just zoom out a little bit and take in all the evidence, not just the little bit the writer is focusing on. Also, I had heard that “anti-Mormon” people will often take things out of context, but I have found it to be far more common by the apologetic sites. Putting things in context hurt the churches cause more than helped it, I felt.
-Unfortunately, I have not spoken with any GAs. I did not have access to them. But, since the moment I lost my testimony, I have spoken with at least 40 friends and family members, 3 bishops and 2 institute instructors. I did not really go into much of the history with them. I knew it would just make them uncomfortable. The only thing I discussed was Bruce R. McConkie’s letter to Prof. Eugene England where he explains that Brigham Young taught false doctrine in teaching the Adam-God Theory. Reading that was the breaking point for me. I even tried to believe that it was a fake letter put out by “anti-Mormon” sources, so I had my dad ask McConkie’s son to check his archives to see if it was really written by his father. Unfortunately, it was. For 6 months, I asked all of those people the same thing. I would say, “Brigham Young taught for 20 years and even included in temple ceremonies the concept that Adam is God the Father. This is thoroughly rejected by modern teachings in and out of the temple and even proclaimed False Doctrine. If a man who is supposed to be a mouthpiece for God, does not even know who God is, does not even know the very nature of God, why should I believe any of his teachings that are supposed to come from God? If we are all in agreement that prophets can be wrong on even fundamental beliefs (seeing as the nature of God was supposed to be one of the most profound things we learned from Joseph’s first vision) and teachings, then why believe any of it? If we are in agreement that I should disbelieve some of the teachings of the prophets, where should I stop? It is a slippery slope. Now that I have started to disbelieve some of their teachings, I don’t see why I should believe any of them.” I never received a response to that inquiry that made any sense to me.
I am going to take an extreme position here, but the only one which I consider tenable.
1. I believe God answers all prayers, sincere or insincere. I believe that very few people like the answer they receive. That is how you can tell it is from God: not just wishful thinking on your part.
2. I believe the Savior calls some people into his Church, with strong or weak or absent testimonies, for whatever reason. (And if you know some members of his Church, you wonder about the reason.)
3. I believe that others are not called into his Church, but have a different calling in this world, for whatever reason. (And if you know certain people outside the Church, you must confess that this is a Mystery.)
4. I believe that there is a spiritual gift of Knowing That Jesus Is The Christ, a spiritual gift of Believing On The Testimony Of Others, and a spiritual gift of Stupor Of Thought.
5. I believe that one can have a testimony without seeing an angel, without seeing a light or hearing a voice, without experiencing a personal visitation of the Father and the Son, without even having a “burning in the bosom” experience, without any knock-your-socks-off spiritual confirmation at all.
6. I think that too many members of the Church, having received a lesser witness, cease to strive for the knock-your-socks-off spiritual confirmation. Because it comes.
7. I believe that ultimately, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. Therefore, any present judgement of others– or self– is premature on the order of millenia, at least.
Taking Guest at his word, he has sincerely followed the exhortation of Moroni to the best of his ability, and has not yet received a personal witness of the truth of the restored gospel. I therefore believe that he has placed himself in a position in which the Lord will ultimately guide him- in ways obvious or subtle- to that calling which he needs to fulfill in this life, whether within or without the Church.
Come on Matt, tell us how you really feel.
@ Spektator: As far as the Book of Mormon. I can agree with a lot of its teachings, but that doesn’t make me believe it comes from God. The same goes for any book or teaching. I will accept what I think is right and reject what I don’t think is right.
As far as the existence of God, I am agnostic/athiest. Not atheist in the sense of: There is no God! Atheist in the sense of: There very well may be a God, but I don’t see any reason to believe in one (or many). I agree that the universe is amazing and fantastic. I have always been fascinated by the world around me. Nature is amazing to me. I have a true sense of wonder about the world around me. However it does not bother me to say, “I have no idea how all of this came to be” and it often makes me uncomfortable when others DO claim to know. I get frustrated because I then ask them why they believe such a thing and they will give me all sorts of answers that don’t seem like good reasons to me. Like when I ask my oldest sister who believes in astrology and some shaman spiritualism stuff, her answers for believing in that sound like the same answers for why some people believe in Christianity, others in Islam, others in Greek mythology (when it was a living religion) etc. I get frustrated, because their reasons for believing their way are just as valid or invalid as someonelse’s in another belief system.
I don’t believe they are all right, so I guess I believe that they are all wrong.
So, in other words, there may be some sort of Higher Power that made all this happen, but I don’t make any claims about that and become uncomfortable when others do.
#118:
Jen, I think you fundamentally miss my point, so let me be more clear.
I have received answers that were diffcult to hear, so I am not sure how that fits with what you are saying.
One could interpret that experience as one where you ultimately knew the “right” answer, but didn’t want to accept it, so you interpreted your current circumstances/experiences in such a way that the unwanted answer became “from deity,” so you could swallow it as you knew you should. This is at least equally plausible with your “I didn’t like the answer, so it must have come from god” explanation. Neither your interpretation, nor the one I suggest, can be demonstrated to be objectively true, so the honest thing is to admit that your situation is subject to multiple interpretations, just as anyone else’s is.
Also, this blog is called Mormon Matters, so naturally you can expect “faith-protecting” answers and comments from some people.
As one of the original blogger/members here, I think I understand that, Jen. In no way did I suggest that your interpretation was inappropriate to be posted here.
I don’t think this post is about who is sincere and who isn’t, obviously guest seems sincere, but so do those who are posting comments in relation to his story.
Are you prepared to acknowledge that anyone in this discussion, no matter what perspective they approach from, can be “sincerely” wrong? If you really are open to such a possibility, Jen, you appear to be in the minority of those who’ve tried to “advise” Guest for his salvation, rather than discuss his thoughts.
Lastly, you are handing out the idea that deity doesn’t even exist just as easily as others are handing out “faithful” answers.
Of course! I never said otherwise. Rather, I said that the “cognitive dissonance reducing” answers given by several here are no more valid than the idea that deity doesn’t answer prayers because he/she/it doesn’t exist. Your eager rejoinder is actually my point.
Nick, it sounds like you feel some on this thread have said that others’ views are invalid. Am I incorrect on this? I may have missed it, but is there a specific comment where someone invalidates someone else? I think everyone has done a pretty good job on this one. I agree, btw, when it comes to subjective experience, it’s all valid.
#214-
But if they don’t believe what are they really giving up anyway? Either they did believe and have to go through the process of UN-believing or they never believed and therefore nothing is changing within them. Isn’t giving up belief a process, not an event? That’s why I asked the question, because I assumed that they once believed and are going through the process of giving up that belief.
re 123: I like the things you say and I’d like to subscribe to ur newsletter
Guest Writer–
I don’t know if you’re still here. If you are let me know.
Guest Writer,
Thanks for taking something so personal and sharing it in a format like this. Some of my good friends from my teenage years decided to end participation in church and they disappeared from my life. That was a very painful thing, and I wished they could have shared with me something of an explanation like you have, but perhaps their reasons were so personal, they couldn’t even share it with a good friend.
I grew up in the church and had a pretty sterling view of Joseph Smith which adjusted little by little. I still like him. (Although I don’t care for the portrayal in the latest church movie). I have journals from ancestors that met him and described their feelings. I know of my ancestor’s character. I have a desire to believe. Some people may call that being naive, as I have been called in other posts.
I choose to not get offended by the following comment that was made, but if I was the type to get offended, this one would get me:
“As for the people who say they know about Church history and then basically shrug it off, I suspect they are working to avoid cognitive and spiritual dissonance. If they are not ready for it, or do not have productive ways of handling it”
There are only so many heartbeats in a lifetime and I could choose to spend my life researching every bit of history until I possibly find the bit that breaks the camels back, or at some point I could say I’ve learned enough to become comfortable with continuation of testimony in spite of what I know and “shrug it off”. If someone calls identifies this as not being ready for the next X-file of church history or not having productive ways of handling it, then so be it. I need to spend more time reading “Concern for the One” and accept the possibility that some undiscovered deal breaker could be out there for me in Fawn Brodie or another unread work. All of my studying so far points to the same conclusion for me that there isn’t a deal breaker.
Nick-
“One could interpret that experience as one where you ultimately knew the “right” answer, but didn’t want to accept it, so you interpreted your current circumstances/experiences in such a way that the unwanted answer became “from deity,” so you could swallow it as you knew you should. This is at least equally plausible with your “I didn’t like the answer, so it must have come from god” explanation. Neither your interpretation, nor the one I suggest, can be demonstrated to be objectively true, so the honest thing is to admit that your situation is subject to multiple interpretations, just as anyone else’s is.”
What you are suggesting doesn’t correlate with what I was talking about. My answer from the Lord was Him giving me a knowledge of something to come and it ended up happening sometime later. I didn’t want to hear it or deal with it and it did happen eventually. It was not something I could control or change or make happen either, in fact it was not something I ever would have considered or thought of. You can call that what you want, but it was pretty straightforward for me and it was clear that God was the only one that would have known about it and been able to prepare me beforehand for it.
re 112, 114, 127,
The thing is, as a result of growing up in the church, we have a culturally learned reaction of thinking that it is somehow taboo to leave. Some members *will* go so far as to say to us that leaving is the equivalent of spiritual or eternal suicide, blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, the one big sin of apostasy, etc.,
So, we ourselves may have to deal with these kinds of attitude, because that is our culture too. Even if not, we have to deal with family members and friends who may certainly reject us or view us in a lesser light if we were to reveal ourselves. So, it could be a social suicide.
There is a lot to give up in this process.
I’ll tell it from my perspective. I never had any spiritual confirmations, or anything like that, so for me it wasn’t a matter of losing belief. Rather, it was a matter of me coming to grips with the idea that it is ok to not believe, and realize what kinds of consequences this could have on my relationships with others. Even now, it is a matter of me coming to grips with cultural effects of Mormonism that are a part of me.
Really, I think the losing the belief comes from instances like realizing that the BoM/D+C/PoGP/Bible/words of the prophets don’t work for you, don’t ring true for you, etc., Losing the belief comes from troubling instances in history or theology. So, in many cases, the damage is done based on the books, on the theology, etc.,
But whether to leave or to stay…this deals with more cultural matters…more social matters…matters of upbringing, etc.,
does that make sense?
Many of the comments here have criticized believers who tell non-believers that 1) God always answers prayers and 2) the Church is true – therefore if a person doesn’t get an answer to a sincere prayer that the church is true then the person asking the prayer is at fault. Especially when the believer implies that the reason answers don’t come is because of some sin, lack of faith, or not enough effort on the part of the person asking the prayer. Many have commented that this is insensitive/offensive/inappropriate, that we should not judge others experiences. I agree, but a couple other thoughts come to mind.
1)I believe that the reasons given above for not getting an answer to a prayer are true in some cases, certainly not all and probably not even most. I think most would agree that there are some conditions to getting an answer to a prayer and I don’t think it’s inappropriate (especially for a Bishop) to ask questions to see if certain conditions are being met. I think we can do a better job of being sensitive and understanding but I don’t this those who are struggling should be surprised when these types of questions are asked.
2)The original post essentially implies the reverse – the evidence shows that the church is not what it claims to be and those who continue to believe only so because they haven’t looked at the real history of the church, haven’t studied, are ignoring the evidence, or aren’t ready to deal with it. I have heard/read these types of comments many times and it often seems hypocritical. There are many here who seem to accept the premise of the original post – that it’s a person’s fault for not reaching the correct conclusion – but then criticize others for using the same tactic for to support a position they don’t agree with.
Andrew S, you are right that there is a big difference between not believing everything, not believing very much, not believing anything and leaving. Someone can leave at any point on that continuum, and someone can stay at any point, as well.
I know good people who have done one or the other (stay or leave) at all stages. As Dexter was saying about talking with those who are “non-believers”, I think it’s just as important for the non-believers to be just as careful how they talk with “believers”. It really does boil down to respect, and that really is a two way street.
This is going to be a general statement and NOT directed at any one person or any one “type” of person. Learning to let go of the idea that you know what’s best for someone else and everyone else is one of the hardest things in this life, imo. Organizations of all kinds simply must teach a “way” – a “truth” – a “principle” – a “reality” – etc. in order to reach and motivate people; organizations of all kinds simply much be convinced that what they have to offer is important – and, with the exception of commodities, better than the alternatives; organizations of all kinds simply must, in one way or another, denigrate or demean competing organizations in order to survive and thrive. That’s too bad overall, but it really can’t be any other way.
The key that fascinates me is the idea that, while that outlook must exist, Mormonism at the meta level is incredibly paradoxical – particularly when it comes to the ultimate outcome of those who don’t accept its exclusivity claim. All other Christian religions of which I am aware limit salvation FAR more than Mormonism does and most limit their “highest believed reward” much more than Mormonism does. That balance dictates a degree of tension within the Church, since it incorporates an incredibly liberal theology (now, even with issues like homosexuality) with a quite conservative practical structure.
That doesn’t mean anything, perhaps, to those who leave, but I think it is important to point out that, individual interpretations of ANY member at ANY level notwithstanding, the official position of the Church at least leaves open the possibility that someone who leaves but lives absolutely committed to the principles they understand will be rewarded greatly (perhaps even ultimately) for that effort. I understand that this is not the default belief setting for most members, but I also believe it is the logical conclusion of the “big picture” we teach now. I just think relatively few members see that picture – but that might be nothing more than hubris on my part.
AndrewS-
I think I understand what you mean. If you don’t mind me asking, what kind of consequences did leaving end up having on your relationships? Was it as bad as you imagined or better than you expected?
Guest Writer–
Here are a few of my thoughts on this post that I hope will be useful to you and any others who may read them.
We live in a fallen world. I don’t think many of us realize just how big of a challenges that is. This world can be hell!
The Lord gave me a vision years ago that gave me perspective on this. In my vision I was coming to earth with someone. We were moving very fast. I knew I was coming to earth to be born. We began to slow down, we were in a canyon and at the bottom of the canyon was a city. Near the canyon was the hospital where I was going to be born. I stopped look out over the city. It was early morning just before dawn. I stopped by some rocks and remember reaching my hand out to touch the rocks. I was very concerned about being born into the family I was sent to. I knew I was in for some difficult times and was very humble about what I had been asked to do. I thought to myself, as I turned to go to the hospital, and once again looked out over the city, what is going to become of me?
I know from this experience and others I’ve had that this life is designed to be difficult. Out of all the earths created by Heavenly Father this is the lowest and most wicked. It is the darkest of them all. This is the place Christ came to descend below all things. Because of this we have the opportunity to ascend to a higher status than if we had gone to another earth with less challenges.
Satan is our adversary, but the most difficult trials we face don’t come from him. The most difficult trials come from Heavenly Father. He will have a tried people. Consider the trials that Abraham went through. Who was the source of his trial? How about Job? How about Joseph sold into Egypt? How about Moses?
I personally believe the Lord has allowed the challenges posed by church history to come into being to try the souls of those who live in this day. The pioneers had their trials, the early Christian had theirs, and we have ours.
Our trials will do one of two things: 1) cause us to call on God until we have a spiritual awakening or, 2)defeat us.
The solution to our trials according to the vision of the tree of life is found in the word of God (the iron rod). The only way to be successful is to move through the mist of darkness using the scriptures and the words of the living prophets.
Studying in detail the elements that make up the mist of darkness, as you appear to have done, can only have one result.
Just as a man can’t survive under water without some source of air, we can’t survive the mist of darkness without clinging to the iron rod. It just isn’t possible.
I hope you will lay aside your study of church history and read the word of God with an intensity you may not have done before. When I had my miracle of conversion the trial was so encompassing I couldn’t bear it. I had been in some tough situation prior to my conversion trial: military combat, broken home, alcohol, drugs, problems with the police, sins of the world, but my conversion trial was much more intense because I was active in the church and done all the things the Lord expected, yet the one thing I wanted most was being ruined and I couldn’t do anything about it. I cried mightily to the Lord. I was angry with Him, swore at Him, and couldn’t understand how he could have allowed this totally useless situation to come on me. It didn’t make any sense!
However, this crisis turned into the best thing that ever happened to me, but I had to go through an early hell to obtain it.
I hope you won’t abandon your faith without a battle. Don’t let it happen. When things are at there very worst is when you can have a break through.
It isn’t supposed to be easy or make sense. I hope you will recognize this fact and seek a Spiritual healing that can only come from the atoning blood of Christ.
This is a plea from me to you. I am saying to you what I would tell my best friend.
There are others who have traveled the same path your on who have successfully negotiated it with God’s help. I hope you can find such a person to hear their testimony. Please seek one out. You’re not the only one in this situation.
God’s blessings be upon you!
re 135,
Jen, not to sound terrible, but the people who took my leaving badly, I didn’t really care about being the best of friends with them. My family took it better than imagined, but then again, my family is idiosyncratic, you could say.
If I had thought that my parents would throw me out — which is not unlike what I have heard from certain others who have had struggles with their nonbelief — then I would have probably made very different choices regarding staying in the church. Similarly, if I were married to a devout believer — which is not unlike other stories I’ve heard — then I’d evaluate what that would do to my marriage. So, I recognize that I’ve been rather fortunate indeed.
AndrewS-
Again a personal question- how old were you when you left?
re 138:
Jen, it was only a few years ago…like 17?
(now I’m going to watch carefully for what you might have to suppose about age)
Do you have any popcorn?
MeMyself:
in reference to your two points
1) We can surmise any number of explanations as to why one person/groups religious claims and experiences do not square with our own. That is perfectly acceptable. I think it is acceptable in blog such as this, to pose the question if it is handled delicately and respectfully. There are statements throughout this post which (in one case imparticular) where a question is not raised, but rather a damning allegation is levied. There is the first difference. We can say what we want, but the person who has levied the allegation in this case has laid claim to some pretty spectacular experiences regarding themselves, but the manner in which they are so cavalier in laying charge against Guest Writer causes me to question how much stock I should place in their claims. After all, if they can with such confidence declare that, as matter of fact, Guest Writer has not truly and sincerely sought to understand God and the Gospel, a position to which only those with intimate first hand experience with Guest Writer could have any perspective on, how liberal is he being with his other claims. Can he still post comments here? Of course he can, but they will be percieved in light of the way he represents himself here. The same can be said of anyone here, is it reasonable to speculate that those who lack faith are in such a position because of errors on their part? Yes it is, but if you lay the charge without reinforcement you will offend people and lose their respect. And just to quote some sentiments offered earlier, what is the point of posting on this blog if all you’re going to do is tick people off to the point where they disregard your comments because of you?
2) I didn’t get this point from the post at all. What I understood was that Guest Writer was actually surprised to learn how many people actually where familiar with all of the nitty gritty in Church history, who yet stay involved anyway. The point was his dilemma is such that he is not able to do that while remaining true to himself. I didn’t really follow that he pushed any of the old, members are just uninformed rhetoric.
AndrewS-
Oh boy I have a 17 year old so I had better hold my tongue on this one! 🙂 Anyone else want to chime in here?
re 140:
*stops chewing, hides the bag*
no!
#143- That’s funny!
Seriously Andrew, I don’t remember really having a testimony when I was 17. I grew up in a “crazy house” and I was trying to survive it. It wasn’t until after I got married and away from my family of origin that I discovered my belief system fully. That is my personal experience from what I recall at that age. As for my 17 year old I truly hope he still has some years of maturity coming his way! haha 🙂 I do wish you the best of luck in all you do and hope you find what you are looking for in life.
“Anyone else want to chime in here?”
*crickets chirping* (I’m not going to chime in, even though I’m closer to 3×17 than 2×17.)
#117 Guest Writer –
Thanks for your note back to me and your explanation.
“I will end with this comment as well. You mention that this is the Church of Jesus Christ not the Church of Joseph Smith, but the problem is, I never had an independent belief in Jesus Christ or even God (see comment #17 for more detail).”
I went back and re-read your #17. I wonder if the genesis of your issues begins here. Without a belief in God and Jesus Christ, the whole church thing falls apart. At least for me. Without a testimony of the divinity of the Savior, it wold be hard to comprehend why a restoration was even required, let alone a Prophet like Joseph.
I now recognize the issue you are having with the Book of Abraham. but I am really curious about this:
“Brigham Young taught for 20 years and even included in temple ceremonies the concept that Adam is God the Father. This is thoroughly rejected by modern teachings in and out of the temple and even proclaimed False Doctrine.”
Where do you get the information that this was taught in the Temple? While I would acknowledge that Brigham spoke of these ideas for some time, there is no evidence that he expected or compelled the members of the Church to accept is as doctrine. As it was not accept by the members, it is not doctrine of the Church.
It seems the others are engrossed with their own conversations now, so I am happy to dialog with you. As an adult convert, I was pretty impressed with Joseph Smith and what he accomplished in his relatively short life. I can also understand your frustrations as it seemed that he could not handle his personal business very well, take care of his family and that he seemed to do things that were contrary to his own teachings. I tend to look at the whole life and realize the accomplishments of re-establishing the Church on the earth.
There are very few people that could have their lives as scrutinized as Joseph’s was and is and come out looking much better.
AndrewS-
“I’ll tell it from my perspective. I never had any spiritual confirmations, or anything like that, so for me it wasn’t a matter of losing belief.”
FWIW-I didn’t have any spiritual confirmations that I can remember until I was 20 years old. I am going to go out on a limb and say that maybe you didn’t have enough opportunity to experience any spiritual confirmations. I am sure you could see that coming so hopefully the popcorn makes it easier to swallow. 😀
Sure just a quick response to Jen. Let’s bare in mind that the Church sends missionaries out when they are 19, and from my experience there is rarely much difference in the maturity level of 19 year olds from 17 year olds. A large of them haven’t been to college. A larger share of them have only lived at home. They have never been married, and only rarely have experienced the weight an burden of self sufficiency and responsibility that we usually sum up with the word “Experience”. There are exceptions no doubt, but suffice to say if your mature enough to be taken serious as a Missionary and embassador for Jesus Christ, then you ought to be considered mature enough to begin forming rational belief systems for personal spirituality.
For what it is worth, I think I’m just debating this point, because honestly I don’t think very many seventeen year olds are in a position to finalize issues such as beliefs and attitudes towards God. To sum up, I don’t think that is what Andrew is saying, but I am just positing we can’t discount his age at the time of his religious “awakening” for lack of a better word, if we are not going to question the sanity behind sending nineteen year olds out as ordained ministers by virtue of a right of passage standard to Mormonism.
re 144:
That was one possible foresight.
I will open you up to the possibility that hey, I could go 20 years and then have some kind of epiphany, a spiritual message, and then say, “Yup. I’ve got to get back to the church.” I recognize that could happen potentially with any church.
The question is…if we give me a hypothetical 20 years…what do I do in these hypothetical 20 years? This is the question. So, the answer, I think, is I search for what works for me now and in these 20 years…and I experience that demonstrably, what can work for me and what can work for you can be different. And in this instance, if we’re hoping for 20 years of maturity (or any other amount of time), then we might want to reconsider holding our breaths for it. Because it could be that it never happens, and we live a long, happy, productive, and full life of growth and progress outside of the church.
Succinctly, I recognize anything is possible, but I’m not holding my breath. I am merely arguing that others shouldn’t either.
re 146:
The goal, Jeff, is not for someone to have his life to be as scrutinized as Joseph was and then come out looking much better, because I agree with you that everyone seems to fall on that level. Rather, the goal is to realize that we don’t give *any* such person such deference, so when we do give it to people like Joseph Smith, and scrutiny doesn’t seem to justify it, then there are problems.
The analogy I have often made is…if we recognize the church is composed of humans, can be flawed because humans are flawed, etc., then why wouldn’t we treat it like another human organization, like a business? I mean, I might looooove Google and everything Google is doing, but I wouldn’t blindly follow Google (although some people do, -_-). I follow Google very tenuously — so far as it is providing good products and services in my life. Faith in Google extends so far as I might give them a bad year or so and hope that they’ll get back to their feet…but if there is no confirmation, it doesn’t make sense to “endure to the end” with a company I know is a human company like Google, no matter how wonderful I found their product to be.
Jeff:
I’m going to blame it on Wilford Woodruff, but I believe his journals actually mention Adam-God doctrine being incorporated into the St. George Temple endowment ceremonies. Also, there was never a time when the Adam-God doctrine was formally adopted in the same manner as the The Family, a Proclomation to the World, however there is an interesting bit in early Utah history where this matter became a public point of tension between Brigham Young, and Orson Pratt. The outcome appears that, many of the General Authorities of the day seemed undecided but the general consensus was “don’t argue with the Prophet”.
I will try and get more specific references for this.
Cowboy-
I think it definitely depends on the young man and their own personal maturity, but I think two years does make a difference when your talking about teen years. I hear what you are saying, but let’s face it, for all of us who have been through this age and moved through our twenties, there is a big difference between what we were thinking then and what we think now (at least for most of us) 🙂
We can definitely question the age we send missionaries out, but what age would you recommend honestly? The older they get the more likely they will meet someone and get married and then the missionary opportunity will be gone, or they will move through school, get a job and not be able to leave it.
re 148, 151: AGEISM FROM THE LOT OF YOU! 😀
People can know themselves. This is silly. It isn’t like you don’t know yourself when you’re 15 or 17, but you know yourself when you’re are 25 or 27. Rather, what *could* be true is that you’re still forming and settling into your beliefs when you’re younger, and so it’s possible that by the time you’re “settled,” you could have a much different outlook than when you were younger.
But that is no reason to discount the experiences from 17. Wasn’t Joseph only 14 and ready for visions?
AndrewS-
I am not discounting your experiences, just talking from my own experience. I surely did not know myself at age 15, 16 or 17. I liked guys, dancing and having fun. I don’t consider myself shallow then, but I wasn’t seeking for the deeper things in life either and the teenagers I deal with on a daily basis are generally focused on when the next available time is for them to have a good time with their friends, not whether God exists or not. I am sure there are exceptions, but I have a lot of exposure to teens 15-18 and I haven’t seen a lot of spiritual focus in most of them. Maybe you are just one of those exceptions, I mean hey you are blogging instead of out on a hot date! 🙂 haha
In relation to JS, I think he was ready for visions, but the Lord took years to prepare Him for the work he was to do. He didn’t drop it on him right away and gave him time to mature and grow up some.
Jen:
Overall I agree with you on all of your points. I guess what I am trying to say is that you can’t really invalidate Andrew’s age when missionaries are sent out at the age of nineteen to consult with people across the world on spiritual matters. If a missionary is old enough to bare testimony of the restored gospel at 19 years, then it is not too much of a stretch for a 17 year old to begin forming religious beliefs. As for the problems that would prevent older members from missionary work, there is an old quote from Joseph Smith, speaking about this very issue, and his take was to not send boys out to do a mans job, ie, missionary work.
Jeff:
If this does not come across as being too lazy, here is a reference listed on the http://www.fairmormon.org website that adresses the Adam God doctrine being taught in the St. George Temple.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God_and_the_%22Lecture_at_the_Veil%22
FYI – It wasn’t Wilford Woodruffs journal, it was L. John Nuttal.
re 153:
I’m pretty exceptional in more ways than one B)
See…here’s my idea…even looking at my peers, I can see a marked difference in them. Yes, some of them may not have spiritual focus, but they certainly believe in God, the church, etc., They do not have these kinds of struggles, questions and doubts of the veracity of these claims…they accept these things to be true. So, this is rather different than my experiences.
Rather, their problem, and where they might need to change in the future, is that many of them are not motivated by their belief. Basically, since they *do* believe in God, anyone else, or even I will ask, “So, why aren’t you reading your scriptures? Why are you doing x, y, z, when you know these are sins by your own belief system? Why aren’t you repenting? Why aren’t you straightening up and flying right and preparing for a mission?” The problem with them is that they believe, but their actions don’t show it. They may be believers, but they are apathetic.
So I’m not going to toot my own horn or say that I’m a patron saint or anything, but I do not think those are where my problems are, or those are where Guest’s problems are (we don’t even know how old he is, haha)
#155-
Oh go ahead…toot your own horn, we don’t mind. 😀 I consider a believer a doer as well, so maybe our definition of a believer is a bit different. I think it is not that hard to tell when someone truly believes in what they profess. If you spend enough time with them in different circumstances you will be able to see what is important to them and what is not.
Keep on your friends about what they believe and what they are not doing about it. I respect the fact that you are following your heart and living in alignment with what you believe.
I have to run but it has been good talking with you. Some kettle corn is sounding really good right now……
# 149 AndrewS
“The goal, Jeff, is not for someone to have his life to be as scrutinized as Joseph was and then come out looking much better, because I agree with you that everyone seems to fall on that level. Rather, the goal is to realize that we don’t give *any* such person such deference, so when we do give it to people like Joseph Smith, and scrutiny doesn’t seem to justify it, then there are problems.”
Well, I kind of agree with you on your point. No one deserves “deference” just “because.” They deserve it for their body of work and their positive effect on the world, a group of people or whatever. If we isolate their foibles, then no one except Christ deserves any credit for anything because they are, in fact, flawed human beings. Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, Gandhi, David Ben-Gurion, Mother Teresa, as examples, could not pass the test. I think Joseph falls into the category that his life on balance was of far greater worth than not and his accomplishments warrant our respect.
“The analogy I have often made is…if we recognize the church is composed of humans, can be flawed because humans are flawed, etc., then why wouldn’t we treat it like another human organization, like a business? I mean, I might looooove Google and everything Google is doing, but I wouldn’t blindly follow Google (although some people do, -_-).”
It all boils down to nothing more than faith. That may seem like a simpleton answer, but it is true. You can have faith in Google, as far as it goes, but there is a limit. Faith in Jesus Christ has no limit.
#150 – Cowboy,
I am definitely up for seeing the prove from WW journals.
“The outcome appears that, many of the General Authorities of the day seemed undecided but the general consensus was “don’t argue with the Prophet”.
Nevertheless, it was not Church doctrine then and it is not now. It is pretty clear that BY never forced it on the Church. You can say he forced a lot of things, but that is not one of them.
Jeff:
That is still a debatable point, but from where I stand it is besides the point in the first place. If he tried to incorporate it into the Temple Ceremony, I find it hard to make a case that he didn’t try and force it on the Church. You could debate as to whether this doctrine/error (whichever it may be) was ever properly approved (whatever that means), but from what I have read it is clear that this was a belief that Brigham Young, the guy on top, held. I find it hard to believe that a man who once held the station of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, can espouse a belief about the very nature and identity of God that is this abhorrent to the entire LDS premise, and still be considered an oracle. This issue makes him seem really disconnected, so I have a hard time reconciling this as just simple speculation. I could accept it as human error, but that’s the problem, it’s not the kind of human error that still tolerates the human to be “in the know” on God.
FYI – The Wilford Woodruff journals are referenced in the article I linked, but from reading the statement on the page it sounds like WW is either unclear or silent on the matter. Obviously you can see this as evidence against the allegation. Unless there is sufficient reason to discount Nuttall’s diary I won’t be likely persuaded. For what it is worth, the FAIR group seems convinced that his (Nuttals) record was legitimate.
#150-Cowboy “I’m going to blame it on Wilford Woodruff, but I believe his journals actually mention Adam-God doctrine being incorporated into the St. George Temple endowment ceremonies.”
From “The Mysteries of Godliness” p 112-113 by Gary Buerger:
“The St George endowment included a revised thirty-minute “lecture at the veil” first delivered by Young. This summarized important theological concepts taught in the endowment and contained references to Young’s Adam-God doctrine….The veil lecture continued to the turn of the twentieth century, though it is uncertain whether the St George lecture with its Adam-God teaching was included in all temples”
Footnotes in the book reference source material. I’m too lazy to list them……..
re 156: Our definitions are probably most definitely different, but that probably wouldn’t be the first or last time that’s ever happened :). I think we can separate belief from activity, but of course, I think a better believer will strive to act in accordance with his beliefs. But I certainly think it is possible for someone to believe something, but be apathetic about that belief, in which case his belief won’t propel him to any change. And I think this is distinct from someone who simply does not believe (because a nonbeliever could be more “active” than a believer who is apathetic, potentially). We had this go around in Jeff’s last post about the Facade of activity…
re 157: I was looking for people like MLK and others to be raised. My point is exactly that we don’t give deference to Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, Gandhi, David Ben-Gurion, or Mother Teresa, and we shouldn’t. Precisely because when under scrutiny, we do find out they each have their own issues. will avoid commenting on Christ because this could open a big can of worms here.
Basically, if we appreciate anything from any of these figures, we might comment on these these things and we might even adopt them for our lives. But we wouldn’t put these ideas on such a pedestal as “Truth.” We don’t say that these guys have done more for humanity, save Christ.
As for your comments on faith, most certainly it is. But then I’d argue this is not a choice (and I know you’ve got an entire argument to try to convince me otherwise coming up in the works; I’ll cook some popcorn for everyone) and in fact, people have faith for any number of concepts that cause them to be willing to go forward with no limit (even to Google, if you are a drinker of Googlaid.) These things say more about individuals than they do about the concepts that faith is had in.
Cowboy #141
I don’t post often and I’m not very adept at putting my thoughts into words. I must have rewritten my post 15+ times and don’t think it came across the way I intended.
1) I agree with your comments. We should not make damning allegations. However, it seemed to me that many of the criticisms weren’t limited to the comments on this post but included any question about the faithfulness/effort. The point I was trying to make is that if someone makes a statement that their prayers have not been answered then questions (not accusations) about faithfulness or possible barriers to receiving that answer are legitimate. These questions should be asked carefully and respectfully and with the purpose of seeking understanding.
2) Again, this probably didn’t come across the way I intended. The Guest Writer makes several statements that the church is not what it claims to be and then gives examples of believers who don’t want to know the hard truth or if they do then they ignore the stuff they don’t like and continue in belief anyway.
“it would have led me to the place where I am now, which may be the underlying (perhaps subconscious) reason why they don’t wish to go there”
“Sometimes, when I would find out something new, I would ask him, “Doesn’t this bother you?!?” He wouldn’t answer.”
“Although most of the close people around me did not seem to want to face any of this stuff”
“he went on to say that most people don’t think as much as I do, so they don’t let it bother them. Adding to that, he said, “Plus, it’s the Book of Abraham. Who cares about the Book of Abraham?”
“In HER OWN ANALOGY she chose to love Big Brother”
The implication is that anyone who looks at the evidence will reach the conclusion that the church is false. If someone does not reach that conclusion it’s because they’re doing something wrong (avoiding the evidence or ignoring stuff they don’t like). The point I was trying to make is that the logic is the same – if you don’t get an answer to your prayer it’s because you didn’t try hard enough, if you don’t reach the conclusion that the church is false it’s because you are ignoring the evidence.
I’ve official spent way too much time trying to articulate this point and there have been another 20-30 posts since I left my first comment. Time for bed.
#131:
My answer from the Lord was Him giving me a knowledge of something to come and it ended up happening sometime later. I didn’t want to hear it or deal with it and it did happen eventually. It was not something I could control or change or make happen either, in fact it was not something I ever would have considered or thought of. You can call that what you want, but it was pretty straightforward for me and it was clear that God was the only one that would have known about it and been able to prepare me beforehand for it.
What matters, Jen, is what you call it, for your own experience. Of course, the situation could also have been a mere coincidence, which you, in your desire for continued affirmation of your faith, interpreted as divine intervention. It happens all the time.
#146:
Brigham Young dictated the original “lecture at the veil” to Wilford Woodruff and L. John Nuttal, in connection with their asssignment in 1877 (immediately before the opening of the St. George Temple) to commit the endowment ceremony to writing. That dictation was copied into the diary of L. John Nuttall (secretary to several presidents of the LDS church), and is abundantly filled with the Adam-God doctrine.
Of course, Brigham also went on to say that the men had now established the endowment ceremony as it would be until the Second Coming, so…..
There are few people (if any) who would emerge unscathed from a biography written by an experienced and balanced historian such as Bushman. I don’t think anyone would ever say Joseph was perfect, but it’s been a surprise to some just how un-perfect he was. Observers and believers can interpret the evidence as they wish. Some choose to leave a religious tradition that contained surprises – at least for them. Others accept on faith or because of personal spiritual experiences that Joseph was what he (and his successors) claimed to be – prophets leading a church comprising the restored Gospel of Christ. While there are things I don’t understand (and things that have surprised me) about the Church and its leaders, particularly its early leaders, I see absolutely no alternative for someone of a Christian persuasion who desires to believe as the early Saints believed. The LDS Church is the Restoration church and it is one I believe is divinely inspired. The imperfections of its leaders and its members have absolutely no bearing on my testimony. That exit path is too easy. Eventually all come to the cliff overlooking the bottomless pit and have to make a choice which has eternal consequences (see Fredrick Lee – http://tr.im/nZt2). Do we take the leap of faith or do we back away? Ultimately it’s a matter of faith in the unseeable. No criticism from me for anyone who leaves the Church. But I ask, is your life better now?
re 163:
MeMyself, To try to defend the Guest, let me try to interpret…you write:
I do not think that Guest Michael is supposing what you think he is. Rather, I think what has happened is he has had several big questions…questions that really bother him. He would have liked for someone, anyone, to give him an answer that can resolve these questions in a way that can make him comfortable believing. So, he asks his friends about these same issues. They respond to him by saying, “this issue doesn’t matter,” or “Who cares about this issue?” or “Ah, isn’t it cute that you’re doing this investigation; you’re like a Winston Smith!” This is how his friends have reacted.
So, he would’ve liked for them to dispel his fears. But instead, no one he talked to was able to give him any satisfactory answer, and in fact, most demonstrably did seem not to care. The guest writer is not implying that anyone who will look at the evidence will reach the conclusion the church is false. In fact, the guest writer has had incredible faith in assuming that there must be great cause and reason for people to believe despite the evidence…that maybe there’s an explanation to the evidence, or some evidence unseen. Regardless, his faith was not rewarded. Instead, he did not receive anything that dispelled his doubts, but only that which made the doubts stronger.
re 166:
I’d argue that the exit path is not as easy as you suppose, because as I have tried to impress in comments in this thread, it involves a walking away from the community one has been born into and raised into…and walking away from everything one has learned about how things are or should be.
That being said, I think for some, it is the right decision…and their lives are demonstrably improved for it. They can move past the baggage of their past and work to healthy attitudes about themselves or about others. It is an immensely tough growing experience, but in the end, it is more worth it to have that comfort than to live in doubt, chaos, guilt, and self-dislike
What a great post and comments. And Dexter, I understood you right from the beginning. I’m not sure how the tone got misunderstood but I got it.
#164-
“What matters, Jen, is what you call it, for your own experience. Of course, the situation could also have been a mere coincidence, which you, in your desire for continued affirmation of your faith, interpreted as divine intervention. It happens all the time.”
You mentioned earlier about a lack of respect from others, yet I wonder if you see it in yourself. This is one of the reasons that is is better to keep spiritual, sacred experiences to oneself. You know nothing of the experience and what took place but talk of it as though you do. The good news is your desire to explain God and His intervention in our lives away doesn’t really make it happen and is only that….your desire.
Just a slightly tangential analogy to consider:
Most classroom teachers teach by using the same modality with which they learn best. Those who learn by hearing tend to lecture; those who are visual learners tend to do PowerPoint presentations or use lots of pictures; those who are kinesthetic learners tend to assign hands-on projects; etc. Generally, this holds true even if the majority of their students learn best through different modalities than the teacher.
Those who are the best teachers (who can reach the most students in a way that those students will understand) are those who understand the dominant modality of each student and find a way to present the instructional material in ways that allow all the dominant modalities to be employed. That’s a very difficult thing to do, so there are students who end up in most classrooms not understanding what the teacher is trying to teach.
I personally think this happens in religion just as much as in the academic classroom, if not more so – since people tend to imbue their religious learning modalities with divine approbation and assume all will experience God (or not experience God) in the same way they do.
I think I might write a post about that at some point in the future.
re 166
I may indeed be reading the post wrong. However, the title is “trying to understand my friends who didn’t leave” not “I had questions and nobody could answer them or didn’t care”. I read it as though the writer found things that caused him to question and ultimately leave but others did not. His conclusion as to why they did not is that they are ignoring the evidence.
re 176
Didn’t intend to say that leaving is easy, i know that it is often a difficult, painful, heart wrenching experience and I feel much sorrow for those who go thru it.
To change the subject slightly – This post is barely a day old and there are different understandings about what the author meant. We are fortunate that the writer is still around and can attempt to clarify his intention. We are not so lucky when it comes to documents that were written 100+ years ago. I think it’s easy to read something, even something that is fairly simple, and come away with a different understanding than what was intended. This is something we should consider when ever reading about events that happened long ago and how they should impact how we live today.
#160/161 – Cowboy/Holden
Thanks for the reference to the Buerger material. I went and read it as well as the FAIR stuff and a few other things. While it is not the subjecto this post per se, it appears that that recorded lecture was a singular event, never repeated and certainly not adopted by the Church. Clearly BY was pretty alone in his thinking on the matter and after his death, the ideas were pretty much put to bed.
The fact that BY as Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the Church did not demand the adoption of his Adam-God ideas is a comforting thing to me not a situation where we should be dismayed. It once again demonstrates to me that a Prophet can have his own ideas that are his own opinions and does not force them on the Church. Now, if that could have only happened with the Black/Priesthood situation we might be in a very different place with that. But, then again, the feelings on blacks were much more widely held than BY and John Taylor.
#172 – “The fact that BY as Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the Church did not demand the adoption of his Adam-God ideas is a comforting thing to me not a situation where we should be dismayed.”
He tried, but he had too much opposition. He preached it for 20 years in sermons that he claimed were scripture, said “How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God”. According to him it was a revelation from God.
#173 – Not sure what your POV is, but we are talking about 20 sermons out of more than 1500 sermons that BY gave. What is that a little more than 1% of his sermons focused on that subject?
The greater our island of knowledge the greater our beach of wonder.
Brigham Young knew a lot and talked about a few doctrines that later church leaders knew would be obstacles to the churches missionary program. In addition, these doctrines were not contained in the scriptures. The decision was made to distance the church from these doctrines.
Jared, I really don’t want to derail this post and turn it into just another argument over a long-discarded idea, but just to quibble a bit:
I would say “teachings” rather than “doctrines” – since it really wasn’t ever adopted and believed by the Church at large.
Interestingly, however, this really does highlight a difference in perspective between some who stay and some who leave. Some who leave just can’t accept that a Prophet of God believed something that we now don’t accept, while some who stay have no problem with that idea. As a fwiw, leaving Mormonism over that particular issue and remaining Christian (and a believer in the Bible, especially) is inconsistent, imo. After all, there are teachings and practices in the Bible that even the Fundamentalist Assembly of God doesn’t believe and follow.
#174, #175 – I don’t think these comments go to the issue that Guest raised at all. The fact that this issue only represented a small portion of his teachings is irrelevant. the point is, this was the supposed one and only prophet of god on the earth. We’re meant to believe that for decades he walked and talked with the lord face to face on a daily basis, and that he received revelations for the church and the world directly from god’s mouth. The fact that the church in later years completely disavowed this teaching in later years either says something about the modern church or about brigham young or both. Jeff, you seem to be saying “well it’s only 1%, he’s batting 99%, that’s a great track record.” Well in my opinion, although I wouldn’t argue that a prophet needs to be perfect, I would argue that a prophet should at least be familiar with WHO the god is that he’s purporting to represent. Even the mormon church acknowledges that BY didn’t know that – he got it wrong. I realize that that doesn’t bother some people, but it bothers other people a lot. That seems like a pretty big one to get wrong, even if it is just one thing.
#175 – I think it’s unfair to characterize the church’s position on Adam-God as simply “distancing” itself from teachings it knew would be an obstacle in later years. That teaching has been characterized as flat out false doctrine. So again, either the teaching is true, in which case there’s an issue with the church that disavowed it for political purposes, or the teaching is false, in which case, to me, it clearly says something about BY’s claims to have had an intimate relationship with god.
I think it’s pretty clear that there isn’t going to be a meeting of the minds between most believers and non-believers on this issue, so we’ll probably have to agree to disagree.
brjones, I am curious about why you believe the following – seriously curious, since I have never heard either of the following claims in any of the Church publications I have read:
Brigham Young himself said more than once that he was NOT a visionary man like Joseph – which is why most leaders and members during his own lifetime didn’t take the Adam-God theory as revelation from God but rather as his own idiosyncratic opinion.
re 171:
Yeah, mayhaps you read the title but didn’t read the post.
Summary: The Guest writer had read some material. He had questions. He asked friends about it NOT because he believed they would have unsatisfactory answer. No, he asked friends because he thought they WOULD have satisfactory answers: after all, they believe and they don’t seem to have problems. However, in fact, none of his friends had satisfactory answers, and in fact, they suggested to him that the issues don’t even matter for them. He did not presuppose that they are ignoring evidence. Rather, the friends answered to that extent. He quotes what his friends ACTUALLY have said.
The Guest left. That is the decision that made most sense to him. But now, he is wondering…since his friends did not have satisfactory answers, why do they stay? Why do they not even have issues over these concerns? Why don’t they care for answers? Does no one care? What drives them? He is…as you could say, trying to understand his friends who didn’t leave the faith.
With your regard with the slight change of subjects…I agree to an extent. Obviously, I think our feelings on the matter are critical. See, our feelings act as a beacon…when we are happy or satisfied, we pursue. When we are unhappy or doubtful, we want to change something to get ourselves back to satisfaction.
So, dissatisfaction with how you perceived the Guest’s tone has motivated you to speak up about it. This is not wrong; this is natural and what you or anyone should be doing. But there are people like me or others who are trying to provide you answers. In the end, the answers may or may not be convincing to you, and in the end, you should go in the direction your heart says. This is exactly what The Guest has done, and when he did so, he did not receive convincing answers. In fact, he received what was unexpectedly unconvincing. And he acted on that. This isn’t to suppose that that’s how history actually went, but until someone can give him a better answer on that, he has no reason to be convinced otherwise.
Coming to this late but I hope Guest Writer and all the ex-Mormons and all the present day saints find what they need.
I no longer believe that needs to be the same thing. But I do believe the world needs more people who can think and evaluate and stand up for themselves and have their own relationships directly with Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.
ooh, that was really spiteful of me. I apologize for that first line, MeMyself. Yeowch, what a terrible thing to say
Thank you SimplyMe, #168. I think people love to hate Dexter, even when he’s on good behavior.
Before anyone responds, let me clarify that I am exaggerating and kidding when I use the word hate. It’s all good. 🙂
#169:
You mentioned earlier about a lack of respect from others, yet I wonder if you see it in yourself. This is one of the reasons that is is better to keep spiritual, sacred experiences to oneself. You know nothing of the experience and what took place but talk of it as though you do. The good news is your desire to explain God and His intervention in our lives away doesn’t really make it happen and is only that….your desire.
Jen, once again, you’re misunderstanding me. You reported your interpretation of your experiences, and that’s a valid interpretation for you. Frankly, it’s the only interpretation that matters for you. I did not say that your interpretation was right or wrong, nor did I ridicule or disrespect you for sharing it.
All I did, Jen, was point out that these things are subject to multiple interpretations. Suppose, for example, I were to tell you that an angel visited me in January of 2006, delivering the message that (1) I should leave the LDS church, and (2) deity approved of me being an openly gay man. (No, I’m not actually saying this happened, btw.) You, because of your different worldview, may have a very different interpretation of my experience. In fact, you may even be likely to interpret such a report as an absolutely clear case of satan appearing as an angel in order to deceive me.
In the end, neither of us could prove who had correctly interpreted the experience as it really was. It wouldn’t matter how sure either of us were that we were right.
Even Joseph Smith acknowledged that he could misinterpret an experience in this regard. Joseph believed he had received a revelation to send brethren to Canada, in order to raise money for their church by selling the Canadian copyright. The men were sent, and the venture failed. When Joseph was confronted, he said “some revelations are from god, some are from the devil, and some are from men.” In other words, Joseph fully understood that human beings are capable of believing they were inspired by deity, when it was really their own mind at work, or even active deception by satan.
#174:
Not sure what your POV is, but we are talking about 20 sermons out of more than 1500 sermons that BY gave. What is that a little more than 1% of his sermons focused on that subject?
First, Jeff, you could eliminate many of Joseph Smith’s teachings in the same way, pointing out that we have only one or two sermons mentioning a particular idea.
Second, did you get this “20 sermons out of more than 1500 sermons” trick from FAIR? It may sound fancy, but it’s not very meaningful. I could provide you with literally hundreds of statements positively referencing the Adam-God doctrine, from a variety of early Mormon leaders.
#171 Ray– I agree
#178 Ray– This is a good question. I’ve never felt that any of the prophets walked and talked with the Savior face to face on a daily basis. I can’t think of of any scripture that says or infers this idea.
The more I think about it, the more I feel that a person who is troubled by church history should take each issue that troubles them and list them on one side of a page, then begin to list those things that are faith promoting on the other side of the page. I’ve never done this but I think the list would produce greater faith than the other way around.
Take Brigham Young for example. It seems to me that we hardly ever address his accomplishments and contributions. His list of accomplishments is breath taking, and in my opinion, a rather small list of questionable issues. Many people appear to throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to the problems in church history.
Further, one sermon in which he taught that adam was god would be enough to bother me.
The BY quote about interracial marriage is also too easily swept under the rug by members. I don’t think it’s fair to simply say BY was wrong there, and that that was his personal opinion. “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.109). He prefaced it by saying it was God’s words, not his. Then he concluded with “this will always be so.” Therefore, it makes no sense to say BY was giving his own opinion. It also makes no sense to say, but that was back in the crazy 1800s when all sorts of strange stuff was going on that we can’t even begin to understand. (By the way, if the times were so crazy back then why did the rest of society find mormon ways so reprehensible?) It also makes no sense to say that BY’s teachings were right then but are wrong now. “Always be so.”
For me, this issue is similar to the adam-god theory. How can we on the one hand believe prophets are inspired of god and on the other hand accept such glaring mistakes so easily?
To clarify, I know what the answer is for a believer: some variance of god lets his prophets be human and they do make mistakes but that doesn’t change the truth. I understand that, and I am not trying to convince anyone that BY was not a prophet. The purpose of this post is to simply say that I can relate to Guest’s issue because I think it is a serious and difficult one to overcome.
Ray’s view that the lord needed great men and great men have flaws is acceptable to me. I can respect that view. But I also respect the view of Guest in that it doesn’t make sense that a prophet of god would teach the incorrect doctrine or teaching that adam was/is god.
Jared, but what about great men who did great things? Doing great things or being a great leader doesn’t make you a prophet.
BY could have done all those great things, and I will readily admit he was an amazing leader and certainly did accomplish tremendous feats in the face of serious calamity, but accomplishments don’t make him a prophet.
Gutenberg changed the world more than BY. No one claims he is a prophet because of it.
Let me clarify # 187.
I said: The BY quote about interracial marriage is also too easily swept under the rug by members.
I want to say: It appears to me that the BY quote about interracial marriage is at times too easily swept under the rug by some members.
Dexter-
Just as Nick has pointed out to me that it is all about interpretation, when BY said “death on the spot” what did he mean by death? Physical death, spiritual death, emotional death? Could he have meant this will always be so….in his lifetime only? Only BY could answer exactly he meant when he spoke those things and so we will never really know. The point is, when things are written and there is no ability to ask questions of have follow up they can EASILY be misinterpreted by others.
Dexter (#187) – I have often wondered if many people who advocate the “personal opinion” theories as defenses to the outrageous statements of Brigham Young, really pay attention to his comments. Whether or not BY felt that he was as “visionary” as Joseph Smith, often times when he spoke he made no pretenses that his words were the will of God, period. That’s the problem, if he was so wrong about his own convictions, then we each are forced to acknowledge that there is a reasonable possibility that our own spiritual convictions are nothing more than our best opinions. If we can’t accept that, then we have to surmise as to why Brigham Young couldn’t figure it all out, and that frankly is a sketchier path than the first alternative. For those who care, that is why the Adam God Theory is such a big deal. I find the theory itself less problematic for the Church than the issues the debate raises.
#188 Dexter–
But BY did all these things you refer to and was a prophet.
I don’t think there is any way around the point that all of the LDS prophets have been men who lived lives that are exemplary and also were prophets.
In modern times an example of their well lived lives can be found in how they individually, and the church as a whole, has handled finances. These men-prophets have shown their sterling character in many ways, finances is one that tells much about them. As family me, what can be said about them? In their private live, what can be said about them. The accomplishments of the LDS church, it’s growth, and missionary system, welfare program, and etc show phenomenal leadership.
In comparison, the issues of church history that have been discussed in this post, lose much of there luster.
Our scripture teach there must needs be opposition in all things. I find there is a balance, and like I’ve said before, the Lord never told us we would find a testimony by studying church history, the warts or the diamonds. A testimony is found by following the Lord’s admonition and that is to find it through the power of the Holy Ghost.
Ultimately this is what sets the LDS a part from all other churches, just as JS told the president of the United States when he was in Washington DC.
RE: #178 (“. . . most leaders and members during his [Brigham Young’s] own lifetime didn’t take the Adam-God theory as revelation from God but rather as his own idiosyncratic opinion.”)
A prayer to Adam-God by Eliza R. Snow: “CHANT, Delivered by ELIZA R. SNOW, February 6th, 1855, before an Assembly of the Polysophical Institution, in L. Snow’s Hall.”
— Deseret News volume 5, issue 7 (April 25, 1855), page 53, column 2. Eliza Roxcy (her preferred spelling) SNOW (1804-87), plural widow of Joseph Smith, and plural wife of Brigham Young, recited this psalm in the home of her brother, the apostle Lorenzo Snow, at the inaugural meeting of his Polysophical Association. Three months after reciting her elaborate prayer to Adam-God, Eliza was called to preside over all women’s ordinances in the Endowment House. She later served as general president of the Relief Society, 1866-87.
“Ultimately this is what sets the LDS a part from all other churches”
Jared, the issue with that statement is that EVERYONE who adheres passionately to ANY religion or denomination will say the exact same thing – and I personally am not going to deny their statements, since I do believe God speaks to people regardless of religious affiliation. (just not ALL people – *grin*)
Perhaps the HG speaks to others; perhaps he doesn’t. From a strictly practical standpoint, it really doesn’t matter one way or another **to those people** – since they believe their witness came from God. Personally, I know lots of really good, sincere people of various faith traditions of whom I can say with confidence, “God communicates with them” – and your comment seems to split hairs that don’t make any difference strictly from a practical standpoint.
It becomes kind of a “by dad can beat up your dad” argument in practical terms.
#190:
Just as Nick has pointed out to me that it is all about interpretation, when BY said “death on the spot” what did he mean by death? Physical death, spiritual death, emotional death? Could he have meant this will always be so….in his lifetime only? Only BY could answer exactly he meant when he spoke those things and so we will never really know. The point is, when things are written and there is no ability to ask questions of have follow up they can EASILY be misinterpreted by others.
So, when Brigham Young said that if he ever caught one of his wives in the act of sex with another man, he would thrust a javelin through their hearts on the spot, we should be confused about his meaning?
Rick, so?
It never gained church-wide doctrine, because most people didn’t accept it. That’s all I said.
Jen,
Nick is right. He was being literal. He saw most things very much in black and white. Elder McConkie might be the best parallel in our more modern history.
#178 – Ok, that’s a fair point; I’ll concede that I exaggerated. But I don’t think it changes the analysis much. He was, and still is, considered by the church to be god’s one and only true prophet on the earth for that time period, and he received revelations directly from god for the church and the earth, whether from his mouth or otherwise. I still maintain that, as Guest pointed out, the nature and character of god is a pretty big issue to get wrong when he is supposed to be his mouthpiece for the earth.
Jen,
While I don’t normally come to the defense of Dexter, he is right on this one. Death on the spot means capital punishment, here and now, and that’s exactly what Brigham Young meant.
I understand and respect that, brjones, and I think it goes to the heart of what each person thinks it means to be a prophet – and The Prophet. I’m sure there is an old post about that somewhere, but it might be good to have a new one directly about it again.
#194 Ray–
I noticed you’ve said this in other post.
I think it boils down to authority. What was restored in the restoration? Authority. Authority to do what? In short, to do the will of God through the authority of the priesthood and the associated ordinances (D&C 84).
Do other churches have the same authority? No. If they did then why have a restoration?
Baptism is a fundamental ordinance for salvation. What does it bestow? The gift of the Holy Ghost.
I agree other churches are not left with nothing. They do have the Spirit and gifts, but not to the extent they would have if they had the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Your thoughts.
While we all have to be aware of the reality that some details can be lost in translation, we should also not get carried away by straining at a gnat over what is meant by BY comment that the punishment for interracial intercourse/marriage was “death on the spot”.
Jared:
While the Church appears to have managed it’s finances remarkably, this isn’t at all an explanation for the mistakes made by prior leaders, the logic doesn’t even follow. I am always troubled by the appeal to the Church’s financial position as a mark of it’s divinity, given that Jesus pretty much turned his back on mortal wealth on the numerous occassions the matter was addressed in the scriptures. I’ll spare reiterating familiar scriptures, except to say that given the oppurtunity Jesus couldn’t care less about money, and even declared to a royal officer that his (higher) kindom was not of this world. You will recall that he even counselled his apostles not to worry about where their clothes, food, or lodgings will come from, because the same God who watches the sparrows will look after them.
I am not personally persuaded that the Church cannot be involved in financial enterprises, or at least that is not a real big issue for me, but I certainly question rhetoric that suggests that the Church is possessed of divine power, and yet points to it’s financial position as demonstration of it’s strength.
“In modern times an example of their well lived lives can be found in how they individually, and the church as a whole, has handled finances. These men-prophets have shown their sterling character in many ways, finances is one that tells much about them. As family me, what can be said about them? In their private live, what can be said about them. ”
Jared, don’t you think it’s fair, since you have used these things as a barometer of the prophetic nature of these men, to perform the same analysis of the man who founded the church and was the first prophet of this dispensation, and the man from whom all these other men ultimately derived their authority? And how does he come out in such an objective analysis? I think an analysis of how he handled the finances of the church would be particularly interesting, considering the weight you seem to be giving that issue.
RE: 196
Ray, I think the fact that your brief answer to me, there, is good enough to satisfy you, goes to show why some of us have blue eyes and some of us have brown eyes. In other words, the surprisingly different approaches to religion displayed in the many comments in this post are quite a revelation. We should all love one another, but we are headed to many different destinations, and we can only touch tentatively along the way.
I’m coming in late on this one but have really enjoyed reading the thread. I hope my own comment isn’t too far off base.
As a convert of twleve years, coming off the buzz that LDS prophets were shining knights in white, godly armor has been difficult, to say the least. I think that’s mostly because the idyllic images painted of them by “faithful members”, by and large, seems to continue. It’s maddening to know that they were fallen, imperfect men, who because of their positions maybe made bigger mistakes than I will ever have the opportunity of committing. But then, that’s the point of faith in the LDS Church for me…I’m permitted to believe in whatever, however I may.
For me, that particular Article of Faith has little to do with “humoring” the “outside” world of faiths and everything to do with exercising tolerance and patience with members of my own religion who do not share the exact same beliefs as myself. We are all in process and none of us have nor will arrive for eternities to come.
BY and JS were not perfect men, by any stretch of the imagination, and learning of their faults has taught me a greater patience with my own. That doesn’t mean what they have said doesn’t hurt, it just means that I can write it off if it doesn’t “taste good” or feel quite right on a spiritual level initially or following a period of prayer and fasting. If I relied on them to be perfect and proclaim all-perfect teachings, I’m not really relying on the Savior or my right to personal revelation, am I? Maybe we LDS, generally speaking (I know, I dislike generalities too….sorry!) rely too much on getting inspiration via our leaders and forget to secure it for ourselves. As my husband puts it, “we’re all on equal footing in God’s eyes…only some men and women are called to fill positions as a ‘job’ and maybe less as an ecclesiastical conduit.” It’s easy, what with all of the supposed “doctrines” practiced to lose sight of the fact that my relationship to Diety is the only thing of real importance. I reckon we don’t really have a clue about the rest of the chatter no matter our church position or esteem with which we are held and hold for ourselves, imho.
I have not had internet access for awhile, sorry.
@ Andrew S: Are you my doppleganger? You seem to understand me perfectly.
@ Jared comment #186: This may reveal how nerdy and methodical I am, but I actually DID sit down and write out a list of reasons to doubt and another list of reasons to believe. I even sat down with my parents who are believers and made the lists with them. In the end, my list of reasons for doubting was at least 5 times longer than the one for believing.
re 205
after reading about your response to Jared’s #186, only one conclusion makes sense: we must indeed be doppelgangers. My decision matrix ultimately probably wasn’t/isn’t as thorough as yours probably is, and I don’t have a 60 page treatise to go along with it, but I remember going through the same process.
#203 – Rick, well said.
#201 & 202 Cowboy & Brjones–
I’m not trying to say this proves they’re prophets. But I do think it tells a lot about their integrity, wisdom, and ability. It makes me think of the idea that by their fruits you shall know them.
The church is built on the concept of that our leaders are inspired (prophets) and that the Book of Mormon is a witness to the reality of Jesus Christ and came by the gift of God.
What they do with the tithing members pay is an indication of who they are. Do they have huge incomes with real estate holdings, topped off with yachts, extravagant art collections, and the like. No bimpo eruptions either.
So what’s my point? They pass the smell test with flying colors. Where are their equals?
Now whether or not they’re prophets, that point needs to be assessed in other ways. How is the Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price holding up? Very well, in fact I’ve been in the presence of scholars who made no bones about the fact the Book of Mormon has all the features of an ancient document.
The Pearl of Great Price is a remarkable document as well (I agree the translation questions are valid, but the contents of the PoGP stand up well).
But, again the Lord is not going to allow a sure witness to the truthfulness of the church’s claims and thereby negate agency, this comes by the power of the HG.
“In short, to do the will of God through the authority of the priesthood and the associated ordinances.”
Jared, I can agree with that statement – but I also think that statement doesn’t exclude all kinds of other godly and God-directed activity “to do the will of God” elsewhere. I think too many members conflate Priesthood authority with exclusive conduit of God’s voice – and that’s never been the claim of “the Church” or its top leadership, collectively.
Fwiw, the Article of Faith says that the Priesthood is necessary to “preach the Gospel” and to “administer the ordinances thereof.” Pretty much everything else, imo, can be accomplished all over the place. Yeah, there’s a practical benefit, imo, of church membership in the here and now – but the only exclusivity I can pin down as absolute in the comprehensive theology is the performance of eternal ordinances for every soul who has ever lived upon the earth so they can become like their Heavenly Father (the core “Good News” of the Atonement) and preaching the Gospel that includes that universal reach of the Atonement. Iow, it’s pretty much all about building the temples and preaching the theological justifications for and implications of the work performed there. Everything else is subordinate and can be accomplished by people not holding the Priesthood authority.
#205 Guest Writer–
Thanks for sharing that. I’d suggest sitting down with someone who knows the history of the church and can help with your list.
For example, I can point you to two books, for starters, that are outstanding contributions to understanding how the the Lord’s servants are recipients of the the promised blessings of being led by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost.
Harold B. Lee Prophet & Seer, by L Brent Goates
Yearning for the Living God, by F. Enzio Busche
I really enjoyed Elder Busche’s book because he was a convert in Germany and then become a GA.
Both of these men worked by the gift and power of God. Where did they get it if the church isn’t true?
I hope you read, and will consider my #136 to you.
There is little to no accountability on tithing, so I don’t who is in authority to suggest whether it is handled well or not. Many of the Brethren are independentally very wealthy, so I’m not sure I get the point. Lastly yes, generally the Church and it leaders these days bear good fruit. But, not the independent variety. In other words, they don’t seem to bear they kind of fruit that can’t be purchased at any reasonable source.
#209 Ray–
What does Iow stand for:
Acronym Definition
IOW Isle Of Wight
IOW In Other Words
IOW I/O Write
IOW International Office for Water
IOW Intelligence Operations Workstation (USMC)
IOW Integrated Optical Waveguide
IOW Information Operations Warfare
IOW Innovators of Wrestling
IOW Idiots on Wheels
LOL
I think it’s in other words.
now what I want to know…FWIW? Is that “for whoever is wondering”?
Jared, that’s perfect for a game of Balderdash. Good thing this thread is post-200 comments so we can have comments like this. 🙂
Carry on.
#209 Ray–
On a more serious note–
A short answer, in my opinion, we do 98% of the lifting and they the rest.
Just a wild estimate, but I guess what I am saying is the Lord restored authority so that at the 2nd coming the earth would have a prepared people, otherwise…3 Nep 25:6
FWIW–for what its worth
AdamF–
Good to hear from ya–
Question: when I make a comment I often need to fill in the Name, Email, Website info. Is there a way to avoid repeating this?
[admin] Copy and paste? You should not need to if you’re logged in to WordPress. Or, your computer should remember. Anyone have any other ideas?
#211 Cowboy–
In the final analysis, it is what is in the eye of the beholder, as to what we see.
I don’t think anyone will argue that LDS church leaders use the church funds for anything else than building the Kingdom of God on earth as outlined in the LDS scriptures.
#218:
I don’t think anyone will argue that LDS church leaders use the church funds for anything else than building the Kingdom of God on earth as outlined in the LDS scriptures.
Whew! Jared finally reveals that he’s been JOKING in his comments, all through this thread!
#195 “So, when Brigham Young said that if he ever caught one of his wives in the act of sex with another man, he would thrust a javelin through their hearts on the spot, we should be confused about his meaning?”
Depends on how you look at it. Haven’t you ever heard parents say to their children “I’m going to wring your neck if you do that again, or “I brought you into this world and I can take you out?” People say things in emotion, or even when they are just considering what they would do if someone did something they wouldn’t like, yet it doesn’t mean they really would do it literally. So yes, BY’s meaning could be more about how it would make him feel to catch one of his wives in the act of sex with another man, then what he would truly do if it came down to it. Not to mention if he really did catch one of his wives in the act, would he really have a javelin handy? 🙂
BTW..I would love to see the reference on this BY quote and the one prior relating to JS.
I admit, my example wasn’t the best in referring to BY’s comment about “death on the spot” but I was trying to make a point more than anything. BY is dead and long gone and cannot be questioned about what he said and did so long ago. It doesn’t really matter to me if a person is a BY “expert” and has read everything about him. He really is the only one who can clarify or explain what he meant literally or not. I look forward to asking him questions about what he said about many things, but until then, I won’t worry about it because it really doesn’t pertain to how I relate to God or Him to me.
To be honest Jared, this really isn’t a an area of complaint from me personally, but I am aware that there are individuals out there who hold this complaint. Many of them often delve into the realm of Mormon Conspiracy Theory, which I am not all that fond of. However (you knew that was coming, right), I am confused as to why the Church seems to busy itself so much and, presumably the leaders in commercial endeavors. Banks, retail shopping, publishing, public relations, life insurance, cattle ranching, and that doesn’t even scratch the surface. On any account, none of this is a silver bullett either way. Suffice it to say, the financial management of the Church appears generally commendable – but, so what. I don’t think that Church finances is exactly what Jesus had in mind when he stated that “by their fruits ye shall know them” when using parable to issue his famous warning that we should “beware of false Prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves”.
Speaking of BY, what is the best biography on him?
I have read some of Arrington’s book on BY. It seemed pretty good.
#221 Cowboy–
Finances and related subjects do not prove the Spiritual claims of the church. But they do act as indicators-fruit, in my opinion.
Indicators, as in stock market indicators, will not guarantee a success stock trade, but can give a trader an idea whether or not a trade as potential.
Financial indicators in the stock market help benchmark performance and standards of expectations of a stock. The only thing that matters about stock is that the price rises above that which you bought it for, since generally the only thing you are trying to accomplish is increasing your net worth. Again, I’m missing the correlation on this one. If you see the Church’s financial management as a plus, I guess I can understand that. But, I’m confused by your comments because you seem to be suggesting that the financial strength of the Church is indicative of a divine influence. If that is so, what do we therefore infer about the Playboy corporation? Secondly, are you suggesting that these financial indicators verify to you that you made a good choice about the Mormon Church? Am I missing some contemporary analogy on spiritual ROI? I would certainly be pleased that my religion is fiscally responsible, but I can’t say it would serve as any type of divine corroboration, especially not to the degree that it nullifies some major doctrinal fouls.
Jen:
The source you are looking for is Journal of Discourses, Volume 3 – Pages 246-247. I will link it below, but what Brigham Young states in a nutshell is that if a man is going to spill the blood of his brother and wife who are engaged in sex, that man must have clean hands – otherwise he should leave it alone. He then qualifies himself as such a one with both hands clean enough a will strong enough to put a javelin between the two of them while they are having sex. Though, as you cleverly point out, he makes no mention of how to obtain the javelin needed in this case.
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/JournalOfDiscourses3&CISOPTR=9595&REC=3
Jared, I use Firefox, and usually don’t have to retype my info (but occasionally it does force me to.)
Jared, if I argued that pornography rates, depression rates, bankruptcy rates, and divorce rates in Utah were the “fruits” of the church you would disagree, I imagine.
So give us the same respect in not labeling the finances of the church as “fruits” of the church, especially when you consider the failures of the bank JS created. If the church’s financial record is an indicator of whether the church is true then where does it end? I think the church does a great job of diversifying and I love the perpetual education fund, but it’s not an indication of being the lord’s work, in my opinion. I don’t hear anyone arguing that the assets of the catholic church indicate anything at all.
I think being debt-free as an organization shows incredible foresight and amazing restraint, but I’m not sure I could label it prophetic foresight. Overall, I would never use financial management as an indication of divine authority – especially, as others have mentioned, given the financial condition of the Church prior to the last few decades.
Agreed Ray.
I believe the quest for understanding this issue boils down to a desire to believe. We humans believe many bizarre and absurd things, from world wide floods, to Kolob being the source of light for the Sun, to the supposed first man and woman eating some mystical fruit causing evil and sin to enter the world, to spiritual protection from blessed underwear. Once we accept and believe these things, then our minds go to work to keep those beliefs real, even when clear evidence shows us that such is absurd and nonsensical. This is why people fly planes into buildings, this is why innocents were slaughtered on the meadows of southern Utah, or why young zealots spend two years of their lives selling a particular flavor of the Christian gospel, or why outright lies and absurdities are ignored or defended despite the costs to personal integrity and honesty itself. This is why the Book of Mormon is taken seriously by a tiny fragment of our species, and the Bible for a larger segment. It is nothing more than a desire to believe which keeps one focused, believing and convinced when everything else around us from evidence, reason and reality itself tells us such is absurd.
The Brahman Monk rubbing cow urine on his head for blessings, the Catholic wearing the cross to ward off evil, the Mormon placing olive oil on someone’s head and then pronouncing magical words in order to heal the sick. All magical, yet for our human minds very comforting in a world lacking order and rife with chaos. It is comforting to be in the tribe with all of the answers and a sense of purpose, especially one which claims over and over to be the one grand truth in the Universe. We humans are strange creatures, believing that each has the true religion, (several of them) all while doing their damnedest at spreading their own version of the supposed eternal truth despite cost to self, family, community and even life itself. And sadly, most folks never stop, never pause, and never think about just what it is they are being asked to believe, wear, eat and do; the call of the tribe, the desire to belong and the feeling of being the one with all of the answers is just too powerful in boosting the feeling of self importance and specialness. Nature has no idea we exist, the world does not spin for us, nor do we see the stars and galaxies because some deity placed them in the right place for our evening enjoyment, yet embracing such does not give us comfort, so we huddle together in our fear, with our talismans and our scriptures warding off the evil unknown which lurks just beyond our view. What does truth have to do with any of this? Nothing. Belief, belonging and the very human desire of being special, unique and chosen feeds the vanity of faith and human ego.
Michael wanted to know the truth. He did not want to pretend or hide what he found, he was prepared for truth to take him on his path wherever it led him. When lies, and I mean outright, in your face, skin scorching lies are told and then discovered, the only real alternative is to see it for what it is and move on, or we can continue to pretend that truth and reality have no meaning, especially if accepting such will cause us to be uncomfortable, grow, change and realize that maybe we don’t really know anything after all, something which is almost impossible for human beings to do. Many here have expressed the many ways in which they desire to eat the feces filled brownie all while exclaiming that they just can’t taste the poop, so why not keep on eating? Michael and I and tens of thousands of others have decided our fecal intake has reached its limit, and so off we go, to live, discover and accept truth and reality wherever it takes us while the rest of you remain behind debating how to make the fecal brownie taste better.Good luck with that, perhaps a little frosting might help?
Here’s raising a glass of Scotland’s finest to Michael and all those on the path of truth and understanding, to the rest, enjoy the brownies.
While I do not wish to offend any, so I do not necessarily adopt all of Swedeboy’s terms, I agree 100% with the point of his post.
I can tell you from experience, it is painful to go from feeling like you have all the answers and a good understanding of the purpose of life to believing that life is simply the breaths that we take, and that no one is watching, and no one form the heavens cares. However, I would rather face what I believe to be the truth, despite it’s haunting loneliness, than believe some comforting hocus pocus. I believe cognitive dissonance is very powerful. I believe it is very hard to accept defeat, like I did. What I mean is, it was very painful to realize that a) I had been wrong all these years and b) I had taught many others these wrongs.
I believe many consider themselves to be too intelligent to have been duped all their lives, and the prospect of being wrong all their lives is too painful, so they continue to believe no matter what evidence is placed in front of them.
But that is just my opinion. As I’ve said before, the people I love the most in this world are faithful mormons, so I would never wish to offend any faithful mormon. But in my opinion, at some point one must call a spade a spade. It’s possible that god exists. It’s possible that the church is true. But it’s also possible, and in my opinion probable, that the mormon church is led by many well-intentioned people who are simply people, not inspired men called by deity.
Cowboy, Dexter, Ray
I guess I didn’t do a very good job explaining myself. Let me try again.
Do I think the church’s wealth is a reason someone should join the church. No
Do I think someone should join the church because of the financial programs (welfare, PEF, cattle ranges, and etc) No
Do I think it strong evidence of the wisdom, honestly, and integrity of the church leaders. Yes
Question: if church leaders made some bad decisions that caused a big loss of money that made headlines would critics be justified in saying this is evidence church leaders are not inspired?
Question: if church leaders were found to be using tithing to buy yachts, planes, numerous expensive homes for their private use, and etc would that be reason to question their honesty, integrity and wisdom?
If you answered yes to either of these questions then is it fair to say the absence of these kinds of dealings is evidence that church leaders are men of honesty, integrity and wisdom?
Is honesty, integrity and wisdom a “fruit” (evidence) as described by the Savior where he says:
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.
(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 14:15 – 20)
Jared, I expect any fiduciary to be very honest and to have integrity in the safeguarding of funds be it for a church, or a trust, or a corporation. The law requires proper handling of monies and integrity. So why, if the church hires fantastic managers to manage the funds of the church and those managers do a good job, should I think that is a fruit or indication that the church is of the lord?
Swiss banks are the most trusted in the world? Are they run by the lord?
Jared, we all know you strongly believe the church to be true. For you, a million things point to the church being true. The problem is, the same could be said of anyone about anything. For many, a cow walking is a sign of god’s love. If one chooses to constantly look for indicators to support whatever their belief is, they will find it. This is true for atheists and believers. But it reflects the attitude of the person more than any objective truth, in my opinion. People see what they want to see.
#235 Dexter–
I talking about a church who claims to have inspired leaders, not a bank. The Lord in the verse of scripture I quoted is talking about true vs false prophets. Banks don’t teach the gospel so I don’t think the Savior was referring to them as prophets.
As one looks at the various “churches” what kinds of fruit does one see. Some of the churches that have been in news stories in recent years have been found to be run by leaders who use church money–tax exempt money, and spending it on lavish life styles involving multiple homes, yachts, and real estate holding, art work, jewelry and etc.
How would you classify them based on the Lord’s definition of “fruits”?
Jared, you are talking about the church’s banking abilities. I’m done with this issue.
Swedeboy, you are entitled to your opinion – and I truly respect that. However, please moderate the tone of your comments a bit if you continue to post comments here. Disagreeing is perfectly acceptable; phrasing things in a blatantly mocking way is not – especially when using the images you did.
It’s amazing how many people mirror the exact attitudes and actions they condemn harshly in others. Please don’t do so here.
Jared, the Catholic church claims to be the one true source of authority of god on earth. For decades they were led by Pope John Paul II, who was a man of very high integrity. He was more accomplished in many ways than many of the brethren who have served as apostles in the mormon church. He was highly educated, he spoke 11 languages, he did a great deal of charity work and spent much of his life helping the poor and afflicted. To my knowledge he was never accused of pilphering church money to buy yachts or homes or accused of having mistresses, etc. Clearly many of his fruits are those of which the savior spoke. Do you think there is ANY chance that Pope John Paul was the representative of god on earth?
Dexter, one of my favorite statements has been said in various iterations over time:
I only would add,
#240 – Ray, you are wrong.
Excellent quotes, Ray. I agree. Those are definitely common tendencies.
Personally, I think he was “a” representative – and a very good one. His successor, not so much of a good one. I’m sure that’s how those who are charitable outside Mormonism view our Prophets – some good ones and some not so much.
Dexter, Brjones, Ray–
I’m just exploring and trying to learn your perspective on the Lord’s definition of “fruits”. I used finances as topic to talk on. There on others, but I just selected that because it is kind of a neutral topic.
I don’t mind if there are other churches brought into the discussion.
#241 – It was worth getting to 240+ comments just to read that one, brjones.
#243 – Ray, I completely agree with you. Jared, however, seems to be indicating that the fruits he mentioned are indicative of the brethren of the church being true prophets. My point was just that many religious figures of other churches who profess to be right possess the same qualities, but I don’t expect that you would see that as evidence of their claims being true. I’m not saying the brethren aren’t true prophets, but I think the criteria you outlined are not good indicia of that.
#245 – I’ll be here all week.
#246, I agree, brjones – and I think the last comment primarily was addressed to Jared, not me – since I didn’t outline criteria for prophetic status. Am I correct?
#248 – That’s right. I forgot who I was talking to.
Brjones et al,
Sometime I think the critics of the church make mountains out of mole hills. I am just trying to find common ground among those on this post who have brought up many things about the church they don’t like. Is there anything we can agree on? Or is it like Ray says above #240.
I think the church and many other churches show forth fruit like the Savior defined in the beatitudes. But there are also many churches who cannot fit that definition.
The LDS church has a record of honesty, wisdom, and integrity in handling their finances. Is that so hard to admit? That says something about the leaders. If there was evidence LDS church leaders were using church funds to feed the apetites of the flesh then the critics would be all over them. Why not compliment them for using the churches resources wisely?
Could this be and indication of being so one sided on the facts that it is unreasonable in the extreme?
This is a fair question, asked with a real desire to understand. 🙂
Jared, nobody here is disputing that basic assertion, but it sounded like you were tying that to evidence of actual prophetic authority. That’s all. No big deal, really.
Jared, I just want to say, it is clear you are trying hard with your tone, and are doing quite well! I think that is something everyone can agree on! 😉
Michael,
Thank you for sharing your personal journey with us. You are not alone. I have had many of the same experiences.
When I studied Joseph Smith’s life through books such as Rough Stone Rolling I grew to love him more. He was not the glossy, touched up Prophet I was taught in Church. He was a real man, like you and I, who was simply brilliant. He had a ton of flaws, but was still able to organize a Church and convince thousands to follow him. He helped his followers let go of the creeds and fallacies of 19th century Christianity. My feelings for Joseph Smith went from worship to holy envy.
#250 – Jared, I happen to completely agree with you about the leaders of the modern church. In my lifetime, including up to this very day, I have always felt that the leaders of the LDS church are of high integrity and morals. And yes, I would agree with you that these are examples of fruits as defined in the scripture you quoted. I would also agree that if they possessed character traits opposite to those mentioned, it would cut against them being prophets.
I have two main issues with this standard. 1) While I think that the lack of these characteristics would make it more difficult to argue that these men are true prophets, I don’t think the converse is necessarily true; i.e. that the existence of these characteristics indicates that they ARE prophets. The reason I say this is that there are millions of people in the world (if not billions) who are extremely ethical and moral people with the highest integrity, who would never steal, cheat, etc. I think these are baseline requirements that anyone claiming to be a representative of god would have to possess. The fact that so many other religious figures have the same characteristics makes the possession of such characteristics of limited use in determining whether or not one’s claims to divine authority are authentic.
The second problem I have is that many members of the church are unwilling to apply similar criteria to the earlier brethren of the church. Joseph Smith fails similar tests on a massive scale. He was at BEST an incompetent manager of money, and at worst he was guilty of fraud. That he took other women to his bed without his wife’s knowledge is unquestioned. The only question is whether god told him to do it or not. He commanded that members give ALL their possessions to the church, and he used a portion of that money to procure the finest land and homes for himself and his family, and when the experiment with the law of consecration ended, did he return the land to those who had donated it? No, he kept it in his own name. My point is not to disparage JS. I will admit, as I have done many times, that if god commanded him to do these things, then he was justified and that’s the end of the conversation. But when you use the criteria of frugality, money management, honesty, chastity, etc. as barometers of whether the leaders of the church are worthy to claim the prophetic mantle, I think it’s only fair to include JS and other brethren of the early church in this analysis, and as I said before, I think any such objective analysis will have a much different result.
254. Brjones
In your opinion can Joseph Smith be guilty of the things you mention, without direction from God to do them, and still be a Prophet?
Jared:
Everyone has pretty much nailed it, but I would just remind you that you initially raised this issue of the Church’s recent financial conduct as a means of cancelling out Brigham Youngs rather emphatic assertion that Adam was God the Father, ie, literal Father of The Savior. I acknowledged in my initial responses to you that the Brethren have demonstrated good money management, and that it is commendable. I just fail to see this as evidence in favor of their Prophetic calling. I think BrJones mentioned that financial integrity is not a fruit, but rather a minimum benchmark for anyone proclaiming divine authority. It is alot like a bachelors degree, having one really doesn’t mean anything anymore, but not having one means the world.
A final note, I was reluctant to mention the Kirtland banking fiasco because BrJones started that one, but I think it must be considered if we are going to consider the current financial position as a metric indicative of Prophetic legitimacy.
#255 – Yes, if god indeed exists, he could call anyone he wants as prophet and he could place any parameters on that calling that he chose. I make no qualms about the fact that JS’s many shortcomings (in my opinion) do not disqualify him as prophet.
I would point out, however, that Jared is the one who raised the issue of fiscal and personal integrity and a spotless record as being indicative that the brethren’s claims to divine authority are genuine. Again, I think it is only fair that JS be held to the same standard, or else all we’re doing is pointing out such attributes in those who have them and saying they don’t matter in those who didn’t. I happen to agree with Jared that those things are important. The difference, I suspect, is that a) I believe that JS did not possess, or at least display them (in large part) and b) it is significant that he didn’t possess or display them. I suspect that many believers either think that JS’s actions don’t indicate anything about his character one way or another (except his good actions, of course) or they just can’t be understood because we didn’t live 200 years ago (although again I find it interesting that we’re perfectly capable of interpreting all the good things JS and BY did, despite the paucity of facts available to us). Either way, I think there is a major double standard being employed here. The fact is, by their fruits we’re supposed to know them, but apparently only the good fruits. All the good they did proves they were prophets, but none of the bad proves anything. I realize this is an oversimplification, but it generally encapsulates my feelings about this issue.
In short, do I believe he COULD have been a prophet despite all his actions? Absolutely. In light of his actions do I believe it is LIKELY that he was a prophet? No.
#256 Cowboy–
I’m interested in seeing all of the prophets in perspective. Joseph Smith for example, in the history of the world has their been another man like him?
Does history show an individual who was born in like circumstances (poor and uneducated) who brought forth a scripture like the Book of Mormon (before age 25) and told the world it was from God, started a church that has flourished as the LDS church has, and has attracted the best of people as its members (requirements to join are very high). The church he started, as many of its critics admit, is amazing in many ways. Lay clergy, 19 year old missionary force, financed by tithing and donations, was run out of the united states, built an empire in the west, over come extreme prejudice, developed a unique and innovative welfare system, lead by men who are very old, experienced unusual growth and kept up with it, the list goes on and on. Please add to it.
I repeat is there a parallel in history? What about the many other religions that started in Joseph’s day. Where are they today?
I’m just pointing a few of the things that seldom get mentioned in the “shoot outs” we have in this blog and the others that comprise the bloggernacle.
Sometimes we forget what an amazing church we have in the LDS church. There are warts, but there are diamonds too, they need to be mentioned and respected to be fair and just in our discussions.
#250:
The LDS church has a record of honesty, wisdom, and integrity in handling their finances.
Says who? The allegedly “independent” accounting firm that’s called upon to stand up in general conference each year, reading their little script of ringing endorsement?
Since Monson’s ascendancy, the LDS church has conveniently built one temple in the midst of a wealthy donor’s new housing development, and has conveniently announced another temple in the middle of a church-owned real estate development in the Kansas City area, which happens to be lagging in property sales. To me, these actions smack of financial motive, rather than divine revelation.
Let’s be honest though, Jared. It doesn’t matter to you what the leaders of the LDS church spend on or invest in. No matter what it is, you’ll consider it honest, wise, and full of integrity, because you’re highly motivated to interpret the GAs actions in that manner. If Monson shot the president of the United States in the face, you’re one of those guys who will insist that it was directed and fully approved by deity.
#257 Bjones said –In short, do I believe he COULD have been a prophet despite all his actions? Absolutely. In light of his actions do I believe it is LIKELY that he was a prophet? No.
That seems like a fair assessment to me. Thanks
I don’t want to beat this perspective to death, but I did want to bring it out so all could see and comment about it.
I won’t add anymore to this perspective unless others keep it going. 🙂
#259 Wow Nick–
Your words leave me without words. Your words say it all but leave you…well,
I wish you would modify them. I think you would feel better if you did. Especially later.
I know its easy to get worked up and over state things.
#261 – Jared, I think this is absolutely true, and I appreciate you pointing it out. As Dexter has said a number of times, virtually every person in my life that I care deeply about is an active, believing member of the LDS church, and I have no question about the personal integrity of any of them. I think the LDS church as an organization is amazing, and it has done much good in the world.
I can see your point Nick, about interpretation (and I agree to some extent), but your comment was over the top.
God has defined the differences between good and evil, and He is our Maker, Creator and Lawgiver, so doesn’t that automatically give Him the right to say (in whatever situation He sees fit) what will be considered good and evil before Him? We have clear cut guidelines, but let’s say a prophet is told by the Lord to do something that seems blantantly wrong. I am sure this prophet will struggle within himself, but I have no doubt that if it is truly coming from the Lord this prophet can and will find peace in obeying and will find sorrow and sadness in not obeying. What would you do if you were this prophet? Would you put everything on the line and disobey the Lord? Who can ever win going against the Lord? (assuming you believe in Him and seek to obey Him).
I am sure my opinion will not be a popular one, but I believe it is very likely the Lord told Joseph to do some of the things he did that have made him look bad to us. I have no idea why, but I have no problem believing it. Some people receive an answer to prayer that JS was a prophet, but then later study his life and come to the conclusion that this can’t be the case because of some of the things he did. Why not? If God justified him, who are we to say what he did was out of line or even wrong? If the Lord tells us through the Spirit that JS was a prophet, then we can question God, but it takes us down a path of questions that CANNOT be answered unless you were to walk in JS’s shoes (boots, whatever). It is impossible to understand why he did what he did, so we can trust that God is telling us the truth when he answers our prayers concerning JS (and I already hear those of you saying you have never received an answer about JS so you can ignore this post).
My point is that even if a prophet doesn’t have a perfect life history, it doesn’t mean he wasn’t a prophet. To me there is plenty of evidence in the scriptures that the Lord does ask difficult things of those He has chosen and at times, things that seem completely wrong. He’s in charge and running the show, so we can get over it and believe He knows what He is doing or we can chose to not believe He exists at all. Who knows what any of us will do is we ever get the chance to be in charge of an entire human population….scary thought!! 🙂
258. Jared
“I’m interested in seeing all of the prophets in perspective. Joseph Smith for example, in the history of the world has their been another man like him?”
Yes, David Koresh. I am not saying this to be offensive. If you compare their teachings, how they conducted themselves, and there ability to convince followers to do anything for them the similarities are many.
#265–DrewE–
Is this David Koresh of the branch davidians? He and his group were unfairly burned out by the govt. Janet Reno’s biggest error.
Maybe we can take a vote to see how others feel about your comparison. Where is his equivalent to the Book of Mormon?
#259-
Nick-
That’s totally uncalled for. It is obvious to the majority of people who have some exposure to Jared that he is a good person. He is sincere and even if some of the things he says aren’t taken in that way, it is obvious he cares about other people and is making an effort to show that.
You, on the other hand, aren’t even trying. Time to show some respect.
Oh…please don’t tell me I’ve misinterpreted you AGAIN.
Ok, its time for a story.
A couple of sister missionaries tract out a minster. In the conversation the minister refers to the Bible passage about poison not hurting the Lord’s servants. He tells the sister he happens to have some poison.
One of the sister missionaries says, well if you take the poison to prove you’re a servant and it doesn’t work as you hope, we’ll see if we have faith enough to raise you from the dead.
266. Jared
I didn’t say Koresh was a carbon-copy of Joseph Smith. I said he was similar to Joseph Smith.
For example, both Joseph Smith and David Koresh solicited men in the Church to give their wives to them. In fact, people looked at Joseph Smith in his time as we look at David Koresh in ours. Why do you think we were referred to (and still our at times) as a cult?
Jared-
Your exhaustive list of accomplishments achieved by the Mormon Church are unfairly credited to Joseph Smith. His activities ended in Nauvoo in 1844. While he put the ship in motion, he cannot get the credit for a vast missionary force of 19 years olds, for example. While I cannot think of another immediate example in history of someone who did all the things Joseph Smith did (which isn’t an entirely reasonable request, but instead smacks of the ridiculous old Hughe Nibley challenge to rewrite The Book of Mormon), I can think of examples where men have accomplished equally impressive feats. Martin Luther King was quite remarkable in his ability to break down social barriers. Martin Luther was instrumental beyond measure for his willingness to challenge Rome and the authority of the pope. Was it impressive that Joseph was able to inspire so many, I guess we shouldn’t overlook the Prophet Mohammed if inspiration is the criteria, sure.
So just to clarify Jared, yeah I think everybody realizes that not every aspect of the Church is “bad”, but overall I feel the cons outway the pros. So when we get into these conversations about why some believe and others don’t, just as you expressed earlier, expect those who disagree with you to focus on the “bad”. That is acceptable so long as nobody is twisting the evidence, or only addressing issues in such a way that they serve the bias rather than honesty.
#264 – Jen, your position is consistent, but it is completely circular. To even engage in the logic you are employing, you have to begin with the assumption that god exists, he is our creator and anything he commands someone to do is righteous. Those are hardly givens. Engaging in this type of exercise requires an almost complete removal of objective criteria from the discussion. Well if I don’t choose to simply accept the premise, then this equation is completely useless to me. It is unprovable and unknowable. So while I appreciate that you and many others believe this to be the case, it’s hardly common ground upon which we can have a reasoned and logical discussion about the existence of god, let alone whether JS was his prophet.
#271-
I know all that, but I am assuming God exists and that He is our creator. They are givens to me. It is ok if the equation is completely useless to you, obviously you can completely ignore what I have written. I am stating what I believe for those who are interested in what I have to say and if there are none that are I am fine with that. The reality is there is no logical discussion that you can have about the existence of God either way. I see no reason to argue that point. But I do see a reason to express my belief just as you see a reason to express your disbelief. I think we can respect each other in that at least.
270. Cowboy
Prophet Mohammed for sure!
264. Jen
The story of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his son comes to mind.
My husband had a similar journey as you did after reading that book. His dad has also read a lot about the church and is well versed, he even has read Rough Stone Rolling. My husband also wonders how he could have read all of these books yet still remain completely faithful in the church. I haven’t read the book yet but after my husband has told me what is in it, I feel the same way about the church. We are lucky because both of us have similar understandings and that has saved our marriage.
Jared,
Your emphasis on the Book of Mormon as evidence of Joseph Smith’s calling is quite understandable. Joseph Smith had some unique ideas, and of course there is no other Book of Mormon. No two human beings are identical, so if every person who ever lived had at least one original thought, then I believe it is worthwhile to search for an ever more expansive assessment of presumed Mormon uniqueness within an ever more responsible context. Such analysis requires careful balance, but here are three interesting examples, for anyone who wishes to brave some .pdf downloads (the first of which is 5 megabytes, the others shorter) . . .
Naturally, some readers may protest that these writings were not exactly like the Book of Mormon. Sometimes Joseph Smith seemed to mix what he found in his pantry, transcending the normal fare to offer unusual recipes. But a new dish is not necessarily a miracle, except to those who find it delicious. Just because it’s different, doesn’t mean it’s right. Or as Grant Underwood has observed, “. . . religious devotees are sometimes skittish about comparative analysis because it seems to rob their particular religion of its uniqueness. They assume that uniqueness is prime evidence of their faith’s divine origin. Such thinking, however, confuses a religion’s character with its source. Similarity and difference are descriptive categories; they say nothing necessarily about origin.” (Grant Underwood, “Attempting to Situate Joseph Smith,” in Brigham Young University Studies 44:4 [2005; “Special Issue—The Worlds of Joseph Smith”], 47.)
I can’t possibly read all the comments tonight — sorry if this has been addressed already.
Dexter: “It bothers me the way many members don’t want to know the details of Joseph’s life or the details of the true history of the church for fear that it will throw a monkey wrench in their belief system…”
There are many members who do know the “true” history of the church and shout “praise to the man!” louder than ever.
#272 – Jen, I am interested in what you have to say and I do respect both your right to your beliefs and your beliefs themselves. I disagree with you, however, that there is no logical discussion you can have about the existence of god. I think this statement is both incorrect and somewhat self serving, because it allows one to make blanket generalizations like “god exists and anything he commands is righteous.” I think it’s fine that you believe that, but to intimate that there is no discussion to be had before we get to a point that we throw up our hands and declare an end to the conversation and say “some of us just believe and some of us just don’t believe and that’s it” is short sighted. There are many facts and experiences we can discuss that can provide evidence as to the existence or absence of god and to the identities of his servants. Obviously not everyone will accept those and there will be much disagreement, but there is definitely a conversation to be had. Secondly, the discussion we were having was regarding tangible, measurable attributes possessed by men who claim to have been prophets of god, and what the existence or lack of such attributes said about those men’s respective claims. Specifically, what are the fruits that a prophet should bring forth, and whether certain people, specifically JS, brought forth such fruits. With all due respect, I don’t think it advances that discussion to simply say “everything JS did was right because god commanded it.” I respect that you believe that, but a statement like that basically nullifies the entire purpose for the discussion that was taking place. Some of us think there is use in discussing the specific events and attributes of JS’s life and analyzing, in a logical manner, their import. I appreciate that you’re not interested in that, and again, I respect your opinion. But I disagree that there is no discussion to be had.
#267:
I never suggested that Jared wasn’t sincere. Rather, I indicated that his comments suggest that he will defend the LDS church and its leaders, regardless of the circumstances. Thus far, I see nothing to suggest otherwise. That’s his choice, of course, but it’s the very definition of extremism.
Nick, the “shooting the President in the face” statement really was over the top. If jon miranda had said it about homosexuals, you would have (properly) ripped him for it. Think about it, and I’m sure you will agree.
If we are going to ask jon and Jared to work on their tones, we have to point out something like this – right?
#279 Nick
A quick thought–yes, I defend the church leaders, there are plenty of those who are as one sided on the negative, as I have been, in this post, on the positive. I acknowledge that both warts and diamonds exist.
From a point of view of faith, the Lord wouldn’t and couldn’t have it any other way, according the scriptures, there must needs be opposition in all things.
From my perspective, there appears to be two to three times as many negative, as positive comments in most post in MM. Maybe someone should make a count for each post and then we’d know for sure.
I am not blind to the warts, but I know by scared experience the church and its leaders are what they claim to be. I not speaking as an apologist, I am speaking as one who has put the Book of Mormon to the test and found it to be absolutely, and unequivocally what it claims to be. It is not possible for me to deny what I’ve experienced and be honest. I used to think everyone who was active in the church had similar experiences, but I know now that the bell curve holds true for sacred experiences. Lots of variety in the kingdom.
Most unfortunately, our most intense discussions come down to this kind of back and forth. It’s sad. And I do agree with Jared, that those who are critical of the Church are consistently so and not at all accepting of criticism themselves. As far as they are concerned there is little to no redeeming value in the Church for them anymore.
It is the equivalent of a dam bursting. Starting with a small hole, the water leaks our bit by bit until the whole dam collapses. I often wonder if these folks family’s must endure the same barrage and criticism of the Church that we often read. I sure hope not.
Maybe in some bizarre Chiasmus way, we can get back to the original point of the post.
“#250:The LDS church has a record of honesty, wisdom, and integrity in handling their finances.”
I personally believe that to be the case but there is no record of how money is spent that the members ever see. We see how a lot of money is spent but financial records are not made public. I am very interested to see how the California investigation of prop 8 expenses turns out.
Monies have historically been paid to some general authorities (still?) for their service. Many (most?) members would insist that is not true. We don’t know because we don’t get told.
Jared,
From my perspective, there appears to be two to three times as many negative, as positive comments in most post in MM. Maybe someone should make a count for each post and then we’d know for sure.
I think that depends entirely on the post. It seems to me you post more frequently on controversial posts (where more negative comments happen), and you don’t post on positive posts. For example, you didn’t post a single comment on the Oz post, where all the comments have been positive.
I’m claiming the +200 comment rule. I find these discussions very helpful, even if they do only appear as tit for tat. Every Sunday for my entire life I have/do go to Church and hear more talks, lessons, songs, testimonies, which basically rehash all thing’s you could get out of one year of Church participation. Rarely is anything new discovered or addressed in terms of material or topics of conversation. Yet, many experiences had in Church discussions or lessons, or the various talks, still engage members into new perspectives on old topics. I think this site represents an extension of that experience. Yes, the believing crowd rarely introduces any new topics or doctrines, the non-believing crowd generally just recycles the same tired list of complaints, and yet I find the discussions often times very engaging as we each try to approach the subjects from fresh perspectives. In other words, even though I would agree that yes these threads can be almost routine, I still find value out of talking with friends about spiritual matters. The fact that each of us, many non-related individuals, sought out the conversation says quite a lot in and of itself.
#258 – “I’m interested in seeing all of the prophets in perspective. Joseph Smith for example, in the history of the world has their been another man like him?”
Muhammad’s accomplishments were just as miraculous and, so far, farther reaching. He produced the Quran and the second largest religion in the world, with over a billion followers.
“And I do agree with Jared, that those who are critical of the Church are consistently so and not at all accepting of criticism themselves.”
This is a fantastically unfair and insulting statement, Jeff. I consider myself one who is on the far end of the spectrum, and I have been critical of the church and religion pretty regularly, and I think I am as open to criticism as anyone. Yesterday in this very post I was criticized by Ray and immediately conceded that Ray’s criticism was correct. I also went out of my way yesterday to agree with Jard and make a complimentary comment about the church. Obviously everyone has beliefs that they hold strongly, and most people are not going to budge from those beliefs, even in the face of fervent arguments that disagree with them. That is human nature, whatever one’s beliefs are. To single out critics of the church as those who just can’t take criticism is not only unfair, it’s completely innacurate.
I would also point out that I, and many other non-believers, have been consistently complimentary of people like Jared and honestly appreciate his perspective, even though we might not share it.
And to your heartfelt concern that members of our families don’t have to endure the criticism of the church that you endure, I would respond in two ways. First, there is obviously a huge difference between normal everyday interaction and that found on a blog that is devoted ENTIRELY to issues of the mormon church, and explicitly and actively seeks perspectives from ALL sides. So I can speak for myself when I say you can sleep easy knowing I don’t torment my family with the same constant criticism that you have to endure here. Second, I find it fascinating that you are so quick to point out how non-believers constantly criticize the church, while apparently failing to recognize that believers praise the church in EXACTLY the same proportion. Somehow it’s unfortunate that non-believers express their opinions consistently, but when believers express themselves consistently it’s just fine? That’s a complete double standard. I’ll even go you one further, Jeff. I don’t remember the last time I read a comment from Andrew S, Dexter, myself or any other non-believer on this site where they used the phrase “I know….” I’ve never seen anyone say “I KNOW there is no god” or “I KNOW JS wasn’t a prophet.” In fact I think non-believers here generally try to be very conscious that others don’t feel the same and comment accordingly. Conversely, such statements are the stock in trade of believers. “I know god lives” “I know god loves us” “I know JS was a prophet” “I know if you pray hard enough you’ll be answered.” Honestly I don’t have a problem with these statements, and I understand the perspective that prompts them. But for you to turn around and point at those critical of the church and act like we’re the ones who are overbearing and disrespectful of others’ beliefs with our “consistent criticism” is insulting.
I understand the criticism of Nick for his comments in this thread and I think it’s appropriate, but honestly, Jeff, in the past week you have been NOTHING but critical, strident and self-righteous in your condescending comments to anyone who has criticized the church or your recent post. In my mind you have revealed yourself to be one of the more intolerant regulars on this board. You clearly have no tolerance for anyone who is critical of the church, as made clear by the fact that you have, on several instances, attacked people individually for being critical of the church. I may be wrong but I thought it was made pretty clear that this site seeks all perspectives. I’m not sure why this is such a problem for you.
#286 I think Muhammad is a good choice in some respects. Of course, it isn’t a Christian religion so the comparison is quite different from the get go (I know I didn’t make that a qualification).
It would be interesting to see how the various writers on this morphed post view the fruits of the two religions. Of course, you have to be careful what you say or you could be risking…
#278-
brjones-
I understand what you are saying and respect it. I am a person who has always asked a lot more questions than those around me and I have had friends who say “who really cares?!” Over the past several years I had some questions that I really needed to be answered so I pursued the Lord relentlessly for answers. I got answers to some of my questions, but to be honest it opened up a whole lot of new questions. Since that time I have found myself letting go of things that used to bother me (JS’s history, etc.) and I have focused on what applies to me and my life here and now. I agree that there is discussion to be had for those who need that right now and I need to remember I was there not so long ago. For me, some topics being hashed over and over again feels like leaving an old relationship and then talking to everyone about it over and over instead of moving on with life. That’s just me though, and I understand that others find purpose and meaning in discussing things that I don’t. I think we all go through times in our life where we want to discuss things and hash through them, but eventually it just becomes old and decisions have to be made and life has to lived.
When I was talking about the existence of God and discussing it, it is not worth my time to hash through it because of my experiences with Him. But to others, it is something they need and want to discuss and work through. I respect that and look forward to joining in posts that I feel I can contribute something worthwhile or even something that is not so worthwhile. 🙂
Cowboy-
“The fact that each of us, many non-related individuals, sought out the conversation says quite a lot in and of itself.”
Probably more than we would like to admit…..like those who ARE related to us would like us to just shutup! haha 😀
1) ANY thread that goes past about 150 comments generally starts going off track and becomes vulnerable to chippiness. That is why some group blogs commonly close the thread after 100 comments.
2) Jared, the “fruits” of Islam are very comparable to the “fruits” of Mormonism. Each has a large majority of very dedicated, peace-loving, good, sincere believers; each has “splinter groups” (no condemnation there, FireTag, John Hamer, Nick, et al) that vary radically in size, beliefs and practices; each has had high profile extremists and whackos who bring embarrassment to the vast majority of members; each has active, less active and inactive adherents; members of each tend to be passionate about their beliefs; each has a strict health code; each emphasizes prayer and intensive, full-life-focused community; etc.
#289 – Jen, I understand what you’re saying. Thanks for sharing that. I think for me, and it seems like some others here, I am in the relative infancy of that period in my life, and a lot of the things I am thinking about are still pretty fresh and new. It’s easy to overlook the fact that there are others who have already spent a lot of time hashing this stuff out for themselves and have sort of moved on. To the extent that an individual feels like he or she doesn’t really have an interest in delving into certain things, I copletely respect that. I guess I interpreted your comment as implying that there’s no point in anyone talking about those things, so I apologize for the misunderstanding. Thanks for clarifying.
Jared, first I’d like to apologize for the “shooting the president” portion of my earlier comment. It was intentional hyperbole to make a point, but clearly several here found it offensive. Mea culpa.
#281:
It is not possible for me to deny what I’ve experienced and be honest. I used to think everyone who was active in the church had similar experiences, but I know now that the bell curve holds true for sacred experiences. Lots of variety in the kingdom.
Believe it or not, Jared, I was once one who insisted that it was “not possible” for me to deny what I had experienced and what I “knew” in regard to the truthfulness of Mormonism. I learned, however, that our understanding of our own experience and “knowledge” can change over time.
I think it’s fair to say that the vast number of LDS, as believers in personal revelation, have at times made abundantly clear mistakes in regard to what they believed to have been inspiration, revelation, etc. When this happens, some believers will “force” an interpretation of events that preserves the initial idea that they received divine instruction. Other believers will re-evaluate the situation, determine that they were mistaken, and try to learn how better to identify divine answers/experiences.
This process of continual re-evaluation can also take place on a broader scale, Jared. I truly believed in the veracity of Mormonism, to the point of being an extremist. In fact, I was such a true believer in Mormonism, that I had some serious concerns about the LDS church, which in my observation was steadily dumping the religion taught by Joseph Smith. That wasn’t enough, in itself, to get me to leave the LDS church, however, since I believed that (1) they had the most valid claim to the authority restored through Joseph Smith, and (2) deity would one day “set his house in order.” Eventually, however, additional factors came to my attention. Like Guest, I saw some serious issues in Mormon history–issues which I was long content to “set on my shelf,” confident that more information would resolve them at some future time. That “shelf” was made up of my perceived spiritual experiences and knowledge, and for a while, it was enough to hold up the weight of other issues.
After a while, I noticed that my shelf was getting dangerously overloaded. When that happened, I naturally started to closely examine how the shelf was built, and what was supporting that shelf. I found that the wood I once thought was solid, was actually full of termite damage and dry-rot. I found that the bolts I once thought could never fail were drilled into sheetrock, rather than solid studs.
I tried to reinforce my shelf with better materials, and get rid of unnecessary weight. Many (including FARMS and FAIR) offered to take care of the items weighing my shelf down, but instead they tried stacking rolls of tissue paper underneath the shelf to prevent it from collapsing. Some even advised me to simply ignore the items on the shelf, until they went away or became weightless. In the end, Jared, the things on the shelf didn’t go away, and there simply weren’t enough quality materials to help that shelf bear the load. It became increasingly clear that the shelf was badly designed from the start, and inevitably, it came crashing down.
#288:
It would be interesting to see how the various writers on this morphed post view the fruits of the two religions. Of course, you have to be careful what you say or you could be risking…
DANITES! 😉
FWIW (homage to Ray) I think this thread is still very much on-topic relative to the original post. As Ray said, any thread that goes on this long is prone to tangents and asides, but I think the current conversation between Jared and Nick, for example, is very fitting with respect to the topic of the original post. Thanks for keeping us on track, Jared.
I was talking with one of our “sons” recently (friends of our children whom we have helped raise in one way or another, in this case living with us after being kicked out of his own home by his father) about this general topic (his agnosticism and general unwillingness to attend any church services), and he said something that I liked for its simplicity. He said, in summary:
“You guys are really big picture people. I respect that greatly, but I just don’t see that big picture. God can do whatever he wants to do, ’cause he’s got this whole ‘God’ thing going on.”
I like that perspective – that we see what we see, and he sees what he sees, and we can respect each other because, in the end, “He’s got this whole ‘God’ thing going on.”
sidestepping the actual topic at hand (or the topics that have come in comments), I like more comments on a post. I wish my posts were pushing close to 300 comments. Yes, sometimes, things get off topic, and yes, sometimes, things get chippy (although i’m not even quite sure what that means)…but this is the flow of conversation. Conversation is organic. riiiight?
#296-
Ray
I like that perspective as well. I also like what I heard on the radio while I was working out at the gym last night. He sang “God is great, beer is good and people are crazy.” Personally I don’t know about the beer part, but I have to fully agree with the other two! 🙂
Back to topic Jared…….
#288 – This is an interesting question, Jared. I think both make claims to greatness in different ways. In terms of sheer scope, obviously Muhammad’s religion has been far more prolific, to date. On a deeper level, though, and with full acknowledgement that my knowledge of Islam is limited, I think there is a peace and tranquility to JS’s teachings that are not as apparent in Islam. Although there is an aspect of militancy to JS’s life and some of his teachings, there are few vestiges of that remaining in the religion he produced, whereas enmity towards other religions, even if you accept that this doesn’t necessarily include violence, is ingrained in the Muslim faith, I think. To greatly oversimiplify, JS was an eternal optomist while Muhammad was an eternal pessimist. Obviously such things are difficult to measure, but I guess I would argue that there is a profundity and depth to mormonism that exceeds that of Islam.
Reading through so many comments has been a challenge, and it makes me wonder what all the rest of you do for a living! But this has been one of the most provocative and interesting posts in a while on MM. Thanks, Guest, and the permas who made it happen.
I don’t have much to add to the discussion, but I will say that I empathize with Guest Writer quite a bit, although I haven’t decided to leave the church. Indeed, there are a number of factors that would prevent me from doing so, even if I wanted to. THAT’s an interesting predicament to find oneself in, I must say.
Regarding Jeff Spector’s # 282
If anyone here said “I often wonder if these folks family’s must endure the same barrage of self-righteousness, narrow-mindedness, and constant praise of the Church that we often read. I sure hope not,” you and many others would be very offended and would make comments like, “hey, I’m an author on this site, you need to tone it down.”
But you can make such a rude and ignorant statement? How does being critical of the church on a website that is devoted to discussing controversial topics of the church equate to the way one treats his family? I guess you often wonder if the families of sports talk radio hosts have to endure a constant barrage of criticism about steroid use in baseball. Poor Jim Rome’s kids!!!!! If he criticizes steroid users during the day, I can only imagine what he does in his free time!!! Or maybe people like to discuss church issues with others who share an interest, like the people on this site, and the time they spend with their family is about enjoying themselves, not criticizing a church they don’t believe in. Why would someone as critical as you label them to be, want to talk to their families about a church they don’t believe in? If someone is critical to the church, some would be critical of it in all settings I imagine, but I bet some would probably prefer the church isn’t constantly discussed at home.
And how can you make such a blanket statement in saying “that those who are critical of the Church are consistently so and not at all accepting of criticism themselves.”
Where did you get this gem? Newsflash: some people don’t accept criticism well. Some people do. Many of each are subsets of believers as well as non-believers.
And I find your final point hilarious. You wrote a comment that had nothing to do with the original point of the post. Much worse, your comment was simply to unfairly and inaccurately label people that are critical of the church as universally unable to accept criticism and to state that you worry about their families. Wow. Yet, you conclude by asking if we can get back to the original point of the thread. In case it’s not clear, you wrote an insulting post that had nothing to do with the point of the thread, and then you asked that we return to the point of the thread. I guess you can’t take your own advice.
Let me state my views on these topics.
I believe some critics of the church (“critics”) are good to their families. I believe some critics are bad to their families. I believe some critics aren’t accepting of criticism. I believe some critics are accepting of criticism. I believe some faithful believers (“believers”) are good to their families. I believe some believers are bad to their families. I believe some believers aren’t accepting of criticism. I believe some believers are accepting of criticism.
Can you accept criticism, Jeff? Because if you cannot, then you have something in common with a person who is critical of the church (gasp!).
*raises hand* I’ll take the credit here, thanks. 😉 Really though, after some discussion about Michael’s (guest) experience, I asked him to share some of it here. I am glad it has worked out well, and grateful to Michael for being willing to share here.
Don’t feel too bad Andrew! 🙂 My biggest post was 250, but half of those were either my own replies or comments about mayo.
It took over 300 comments, but we have a Jim Rome reference! I’ll be smiling all day. Thanks, Dexter.
Oh, and in the spirit of equality that abounds so well here, that really was an overly broad statement, Jeff. If I’m going to say it to Nick, I need to say it to you – although I hope doing so doesn’t convince Carlos even more that I am offended by conservative views. 🙂 (I’d blow you a kiss, Carlos, but that would be more appropriate on the other thread.) 😉
#302 – the condiment, not the clinic – just so it’s clear.
I wondered about the clinic and the basketball player, O.J. Mayo. Now I know. Thanks, Ray.
O.J. Mayo – That would make a fascinating case study of the psychology of naming kids. 🙂
(Since this thread has over 300 comments, I’m not going to say one word about staying on topic. If we end up passing the 997 – I think – comments BCC had on their “let’s try to see how many irrelevant comments we can write” thread, fine by me.)
I’d prefer a name that is more appetizing, or where the items go together better. Like B.L. Tomato.
Having said that, my life is about to get very hectic, since I leave on Saturday to start my new job on Monday. If this is to hit 1000 comments, you’re going to have to do it without me.
Thanks, everyone. Keep it real, but keep it civil. (my new mantra)
Jack (#277)
You said, “There are many members who do know the “true” history of the church and shout “praise to the man!” louder than ever.”
I don’t see how we are in disagreement. I said, “It bothers me the way many members don’t want to know the details of Joseph’s life or the details of the true history of the church for fear that it will throw a monkey wrench in their belief system.”
Clearly, my comment did not say “all members.” Thus, I understood and appreciated that some members who know the history of the church still strongly support JS. Many are on this site, and I respect that view. My point was that many choose to avoid learning about the history of the church out of fear of learning something upsetting. I simply don’t like this “head in the sand” approach. I respect members who seek truth and knowledge, but I don’t like the idea of protecting one’s self from the potential discovery of truth for fear it won’t sit well.
@ Nick comment #293:
The analogy of the shelf that you used is the exact on used by one of my coworkers in explaining his journey in leaving the church. When he was still in the church, he would say, “Well, I’ll put that question/paradox/reason-to-doubt on the shelf.” Eventually, he said the amount of stuff he had put on the shelf became too heavy and the shelf collapsed. He would be able to agree with your comments about having an experience that he once would not have been able to doubt. He was one that, after praying extremely fervently, he heard a voice. He accepted hearing the voice as an answer and continued on with his life. It wasn’t until much later in his life that he realized that the voice he heard said something that really didn’t even make sense or answer the question he had answered and he now feels that he had worked himself up to a state where he left himself believing he had heard a voice.
I sometimes wonder about these supernatural experiences, perhaps similar to the many thousands of otherwise honest and normal (if any of us can be considered normal) people that claim to have been abducted by aliens, I find myself questioning the reality of such experiences.
@ SteveS comment #300: I’m happy to be the provocateur. 🙂
Dexter, in all fairness (before I shut down the computer for the day), many members just don’t care about the things that interest us. For many, it’s not a defense mechanism; they really, truly, profoundly don’t care. They are not “tinkerers”; they would rather buy prepared meals than create meals on their own. We need to accept that without condescension, especially if we want them to accept our tinkering.
re 312 re 309:
not to mention, everyone has some kind of issue that they don’t care about, so it’s not as if we can just say “some people care” and “some people don’t.” Rather, there are different issues that people don’t care about…and different issues that people will tinker on. We can’t blame people for their differences in preferences.
Ray, I understand that and I respect that. I’m speaking about members, and I’ve heard many say this or something to this effect, “I don’t want to know about the details of polygamy or JS or BY’s livs because it will make me mad, or make me confused, or …..”.
If someone isn’t interested in the history of the church and loves the church and wants to live it that is fine. I am only speaking to those who go out of their way to avoid learning things out of fear, not out of lack of interest. That’s all I’m driving at.
#308 Ray- I thought MM was your job! 😀 Seriously, good luck with your new job and everything else.
In my own case, I had an experience in the MTC that I was able to use to get me to go out into the field instead of going home. I held on to that experience for a long time. When I read RSR and started doubting again, I did what I had been told in church- to go back to the moments when you KNEW it was true. I thought back to my experience in the MTC. To further give me comfort, I pulled out my extremely thorough volumes of missionary journals in order to reread my profound experience. To my surprise, I found that the experience that I had been touting for years had, in fact, grown with time. I had turned my experience in the MTC into something much grander than it really was. I was telling people of a very profound spiritual experience that had forever changed my life. My journal explained an experience much less dramatic, to the point of me writing that I was choosing to believe.
I now wonder how many others are doing the same thing. A friend of mine tells me of an experience he had when he was nine that makes him not doubt. I wonder, if he had been keeping a thorough journal at that age, if he went back and read it, would he feel the same way about the experience as he does now?
@ Ray comment #312:
I think you may be getting to the heart of this very post- My difficulty understanding how some people can just not care about this stuff.
Guest,
From what I can tell, we have somewhat similar paths, except that as a child I readily ate up what my parents taught me and you said even as a child you were able to state that you wondered if it was true. I really wasn’t able to even consider that it might not be true until much more recently. But I must say, as far as spiritual experiences go, I am at a loss with what to do with them. I can understand that they may have been somehow produced by me to satisfy my serious quests for an answer. But maybe not. I am at the stage of being willing to say I don’t know what they mean or where they came from. How confident are you able to be when you say you believe it was not divine? More than 90%? I think these issues are extremely interesting and difficult, for me, to get a complete grasp on.
@ Dexter #318:
That is a good question. As far as my experience in the MTC, thanks to my journal, I am willing to say with 99.99% certainty (I have a hard time with absolutes) that it was not even a spiritual experience at all, it just grew into one due to faulty memory.
As far as my coworker is concerned, I am actually a bit surprised by his story. If I had heard a voice in the way he describes it, I quite possibly could be in a situation more like yours.
#316
Guest Writer- I have found that spiritual experiences are VERY difficult to put on paper. In my own experience, you cannot transfer those types of experiences to written word. I think writing them down (as you did in the MTC) is important, but what is even more important is what you were taught at that moment and what you came to know as truth that you didn’t know before. That truth is what your focus needs to be and not how dramatic or simple the experience was that conveyed that truth to you. When doubts and questions come up (and they always do), trusting in the Lord comes into play. This can be a turning point for some, especially those who have struggled to learn to trust. Everyone is brought to a point like this in their life at some time. I think people can feel like God is playing games with them or enjoying watching them suffer. I really believe though that if you hang as long as the Lord expects you to (thinking of the quote by NMaxwell “Faith in the Lord includes faith in his timing”) then healing will come and it will have been worth it (IMO of course).
I just want to make the point that just because your journal explained an experience much less dramatic than you remember, it doesn’t mean that what you experienced wasn’t real and based on truth. I don’t think spiritual confirmations are supposed to be dramatic, just clear. To answer your question about your friend’s experience, I think the feelings fade away after time, but the truth which is taught stays and that is the whole point. It is only when we go back and fight it over and over that we can lose that which we were originally given and start to question if it really happened at all. That is always a choice, and I am sure it all part of the process of agency, but that is one of the main reasons we are here…to choose what we want (IMO once again 🙂 )
#320
Perhaps.
For me, it has been more of an indication how memories can change and become faulty over time. For me, it helps me better understand Joseph’s evolving first vision story and how memories and impressions can alter. As the story of my experience grew, I took the story further and further from the reality of the events. I wonder if the same is true of what may or may not have happened to Joseph in 1820 and the way he described those events 18 years later.
Dexter-
I know that you did not ask my opinion and were directing your questions to Guest Writer so I hope you don’t mind me throwing in my two cents. I grew up with a father who was a retired military man. He was difficult to live with (to say the least). He decided to join the LDS church during his time in the military and that meant giving up drinking and a lot of his buddies, which was not easy for him to do. My point in telling you this is that I was able to become familiar with the LDS teachings because we went to church every week, but I lived with great hypocrisy in my home, so I learned to feel stark differences between things. The difference between how I felt when God answered me was like night and day compared to what I felt at home and much different than anything I had ever felt before. It wasn’t something I could have created because I didn’t even know that it was possible to feel loved in that way or to feel peace like that either.
Having said that, I would tell you to take the spiritual experiences you have had (and are now questioning) and make a choice to believe them. Make the choice to believe that there is someone who deeply loves you and cares for you beyond this life and is watching out for you. Having experienced an abusive situation for many years of my life, I can tell you with assurance that you are heard and watched out for and someone is listening to you when you pray and answering you. I am sorry if this feels like I am bearing my testimony, but hey since I got the ball rolling, anyone want to take the mike next? JK
I just returned and this topic continues to flourish. Thanks again to guest writer and AdamF and others.
#293 Nick–your apology is welcome and whole heartily accepted.
I appreciate the fact that testimonies can be fluid. I just want to make it has clear as I can, without coming across in the wrong way, that the experiences the Lord has given me don’t leave wiggle room.
Sure I could turn against my testimony, I’m free to do that. But I can’t leave the impression that when the veil has parted, or was so thin, that unmistakable communication has been given, are of the variety that allows for reevaluation of what I experienced.
I’m stuck, and when I share my testimony, I’m required to do it so that there is no doubt on my hearers part of the dept and breathe of what I have been given. At the same time, I won’t overstate it either.
When I say I know, I am not using the term loosely. Can my testimony grow? Yes. Is my testimony equivalent to the three witness. No
I don’t like putting my testimony out this way, but I feel I must. I’m accountable for what I’ve been given.
Guest/Jen/Jared – I agree with all of you on this, if that is possible. There is a danger in re-interpreting events or deciding NOT to believe or interpret in a way that supports belief, just as there is in relying on our memories which often are unreliable, and can certainly get changed over time.
Also, the number of comments on this thread seems to be a “fruit” of the importance of this topic, and how close it hits to home for so many of us.
#317-
Guest Writer-
I don’t know how old you are, but I have found that as more responsibility comes our way (spouse, children, work, college, etc.) it can come down to not having TIME to care. By the end of the day, people are tired and are just trying to get what has to be done accomplished. Thinking about all the other stuff just doesn’t come up because there isn’t time to even consider it. Ask someone who is married with a new baby and working and/or going to school. If they do care at all about it, it will tend to drop off their list first because everything else is right in their face, especially the lack of sleep. Once married, there are a lot more considerations to take into account as well. It is not a choice that will only affect you anymore, but a spouse and possibly children. You have to then decide what is worth it and what isn’t. If your family is number one to you and you don’t want to create tension, then it is best to avoid these issues. If you are not married or don’t have children this can be difficult to understand, but it is a reality for many.
223-Jared:
When some believe you can “know” and others believe you can’t “know”, it makes for interesting discussions. The fact that the discussion continues is a positive sign for all those involved. Me, I try to stay out of those types of discussions.
Holden C – agreed. I’ve been away this week, but I’ll be surprised if this hasn’t been our most commented post to date. The first place previously (IIRC) was AdamF’s “What is the Church?”
It’s a fascinating discussion all around. It’s difficult and sometimes disingenuous for a believer to allow for the possibility that a non-believer is not to blame in some way. But there are different levels and types of belief and different types of believers. I am skeptical of others’ spiritual experiences in general because they seem so often misunderstood and such a fallible guide for behavior. Clearly not all have the same “gifts of the spirit” as it were. Some instructions one how to gain a testimony sound a lot like a guide to confirmation bias. And yet I trust in my own experiences, and I do consider myself a believer. So, if I allow for my own belief, I have to allow for others’ disbelief and assume their equal sincerity, too. Not all people are the same. One size does not fit all.
Jared:
I have serious question regarding your last remarks, having to do with the famous Mormon analogy that a testimony can “grow”. I have always had a hard time wrapping my mind around this concept, but I would be really interested in your perspective given how emphatic you are that you have had certain experiences which provide the basis for your belief. My question is, how does a testimony grow? That concept seems counterintuitive to the whole premise of what a Mormon testimony is supposed to be.
#327 hawkgrrrl–
Its taken me some time to realize what you’ve said. I believe that the bell curve tells the story about testimonies has it does other kinds of distribution.
#328 Cowboy–
Good question. Some people are born with a testimony. They just believe. Then others are the exact opposite. They just disbelieve. But neither of them “know”.
When a person reads the Book of Mormon and prays about it they can acquire a testimony it is true by having a experience where they “know” in their minds and hearts–in their feelings that it is true. It can also be described as a strong confidence. It is strong enough that they will become involved in the covenant making and change their life.
In addition, whenever a testimony is given satan will try to diminish or destroy it. Also, the Lord will try it. Some lose their testimony in the process.
If one remains faithful and is diligent in pursuing further light and knowledge by repenting, fasting and praying, serving others– they can experience growth in their testimony has the Lord adds to their Spiritual experiences. Things like having prayers answered, seeing people who are sick, and recover due to priesthood blessing, and etc.
This is a brief answer to your question. There is much more to it, however.
Others, please add to my thoughts.
#324 AdamF–
Great insight in my opinion.
#326 Holden
interesting isn’t it.
Jen–
I learn a lot from you. Thanks
Jared,Cowboy-
I received some very clear and undeniable answers in relation to my testimony. Not long after several very sacred experiences, things became VERY difficult in my life and they haven’t changed since that time (except for becoming even more difficult). That was almost 5 years ago. You aren’t kidding Jared when you say the Lord will try our testimony. I have been through all the feelings and challenges that many are talking about in this post, but I have reached a point of being able to work past them. I understand how JS felt when he asked the Lord where He was in D & C 121. I have felt that to my very core and it is a lonely feeling. The problem I have is that I cannot deny what I was given from the Lord, or in other words, what I KNOW, even if I would like to. I know that doesn’t fly with some people, but I don’t know how else to say it without making it less that it really is.
My take on how a testimony grows is you are given enough to sustain you and to help you continue learning. The Lord will try and test you in what you are given and you make choices about what you want to do with it. If you hold to it, you receive more. If you let it go, you don’t receive more and that which you had is taken away, even if it is just by your own unbelief. Trials and challenges come and test you to your very core and may last for years on end. The time comes though that you are given assurance “after the trial of your faith” and you cannot deny what you know. Of course there is a lot more to this process, but that is what I feel occurs in a nutshell.
#331-
Ditto Jared
Let me try and put a point on it. A person can measurably grow in knowledge. I can learn things that I didn’t know, I can learn it deeper. For example, I can lear the properties of addition and enhance that insight by pushing the boundaries of this property by pursuing some of the higher disciplines in math, such as calculus, trigonometry, etc. A person can also grow in belief. I can have minor feelings or inclinations towards an ideal, religion, or philosophy. Over time I can become more determined in my orientation to the subject. I can have strong feelings on an issue, only to find that later the issue matters less than it did at one time. On the contrary, I can’t grow in my knowledge of static facts. I can’t gain a stronger knowledge of 2 + 2, to use the old analogy. I can begin applying the properties of addition in more complex ways to seek higher truth, but I can’t get a stronger understanding of that principle beyond the idea that if I have two of something, and then I add two more of that something, I now have four units of that thing.
To the point. I can learn more about God’s ways, his gospel, doctrine, scriptures, the eternities, whatever. But if God in a truly undeniable way manifests himself to me, logic doesn’t bare out that that I can either grow in that experience or lose it (for the sake of this comment I am not calling into question matters such as sanity, or perception, nor am getting into the complex theories of solopsism including mind games surrounding primary and secondary qualities). In other words I find the juxtaposition of notions within given testimonies that 1)a testimony is certain and undeniable, 2)One can grow in the veracity of things said to be certain; as ideals that ultimately work against each other.
If we take as a given that the First Vision actually occured in the manner the Church teaches, could we rationalize that Joseph Smith could have “lost” his testimony of that experience. I find the notion doubtful without first questioning his sanity. If it is not then what is meant by a “growing” testimony. I find the usage of the term testimony quite problematic as well, but I’ll save that matter for another time. If by testimony we really mean belief, and that on occassion experiences had, serve to reinforce that belief (a notion which implies orientation, but also uncertainty) then are we being disingenuous by stating certain knowledge and fact of things which we only believe. When I hear about growing testimonies it often causes me to wonder if the person making such a claim has seriously considered the implications of what message that sends.
In short Jared/Jen, I am not trying to qualify your experiences, on the contrary I am hoping you can do so – and in the process demonstrate where my logic fails to square on this matter.
@ Dexter #318
I would like to add one more thing along the lines of your questions.
I do not doubt the sincerity of the majority of those that testify to being abducted by aliens. I also do not doubt the profundity at which it has affected their lives, for better or for worse. I DO doubt the reality of such an experience. What I am saying is, those thousands of people may be able to testify with 100% conviction that they have had some extraordinary experience, but that does not necessarily mean that such a thing is the reality.
I am not saying that I would not be testifying along with them if I had had the experiences that they did, but I AM saying that as an outside observer, I would definitely not encourage them to believe that their experience was reality, no matter how convinced they were.
Cowboy-
“But if God in a truly undeniable way manifests himself to me, logic doesn’t bare out that that I can either grow in that experience or lose it” That is true. I think we can both agree, however, that you can DENY that manifestation and with that denial I think it is possible to forget it. I think forget is a better word to use than lose. I know that if I choose to ignore or deny something I will eventually forget about it (or at the very least it will be somewhere in the back of my mind) because it is human nature to do so.
Let’s say you are told you are worthless everyday for years. You come to believe that, but one day as you are praying you receive an undeniable manifestation that you are actually a child of God and deeply loved. After that manifestation, you have a choice to make. Even though you know it was undeniable you still have to fight against all the other feelings that still exist within you. You can deny what God has told you and go back to believing you are worthless, and it will probably be much easier to do that at first. But if you choose to believe that God loves you and you are full of worth, it will “grow” within you and become easier and easier for you to accept and understand. My point is, even if you have an undeniable experience with the Lord, there are many other factors that work against you, wanting you to believe otherwise once that experience is over.
Jen:
I guess a follow up to that would be:
1) What constitutes an undeniable manifestation from God. Somewhere between literal physical manifestation (such as in the First Vision) to the more obscure tingling in your spine? I can see your rational if the manifestation was interpreted through an event such as feelings, or an idea, or comfort. It would be very easy to second guess the origin of these less intellegence based and direct experiences. If I were to see an angel, or have a First “Visionesque” experience then I am confused as to how someone could just forget that. What would it take?
2) If someone where to have a truly undeniable experience, what motive would they have for denying that. You would literally have to hate God and yourself to purposefully place yourself at variance with God in this way. I can fathom that perhaps there are a very marginal group of individuals who have ever lived that would fall into that category. I think blaming it on pride in this instance is going to be the temptation, but I have a hard time understanding this. I can accept the faith/pride conflict such as in the case of Namaan. I can’t see why someone who had experienced a situation such as Joseph Smith or Paul, would be o prideful as to reject the blatantly obvious at their Eternal detriment.
Cowboy-
“What constitutes an undeniable manifestation from God” I cannot say because the Lord speaks to each of us indiviudally in His own way. I think you already know that I will not give you an answer that will satisfy you. From my own personal experience, I received an answer that also brought with it an absolute sureness that I was not being deceived. How do you explain that unless you have experienced it? I have friends who have experienced it and know what I mean and then there are others who haven’t had that and don’t know what I mean. If you were to see an angel or God the Father, you wouldn’t forget that, but I wasn’t referring to those types of experiences in that way. I am talking about experiences on a “smaller scale” that are not outside of you (i.e. angels, seeing the Savior, etc.) I do know very well that you do forget these type of experiences over time unless you write them down and go back to them. I also know that some of the life changing experiences I have had, I am unable to forget and will always have them in my mind and heart.
“If someone where to have a truly undeniable experience, what motive would they have for denying that” Let’s see, take a look at JS’s life after he told people about the First Vision. He wouldn’t deny it, but don’t you think he ever would have liked to? His life got quite uncomfortable after he told people about the FV and he didn’t understand why. Now bring that down to a smaller scale and think about how much easier it would be to deny something if your life became more uncomfortable because of something you knew. My life has been much more difficult than it was before I had some spiritual experiences and I have had days where I have wanted to deny what I know, but I am not able to do that. I don’t hate God, but it can be easy to become angry with Him and ask why. After having an undeniable experience with God (based on your definition of what that is of course) life usually gets harder, not easier and therefore it can make you want to turn away from it because it can be exhausting. It brings new meaning to the term long suffering.
I think most of us do not understand how wanting to deny what we know would feel because we haven’t been placed in a fire that hot. Look at Peter when he denied Christ. I would say fear or great discomfort would be reasons to deny something we absolutely know, not necessarily pride.
#334 Cowboy–
I just returned to my computer.
You’ve brought up many topics, and your questions indicate a keen insight.
Once a person has a testimony at the level of feeling like they have had their prayer(s) answered by the “whisperings of the spirit”. The have a certain degree of faith (alma 32).
Enos is an example of a person who took a certain degree of faith and pressed forward in prayer until he received a remission of his sins. When a person receives this they are “born again” having fulfilled their baptism covenant.
They are now in a different position before the Lord than they were before. They have advanced to a closer association with God. The Lord is now able to give them more of the “things of the Spirit” than He was before because they have fulfilled the law (D&C 130:20-21).
Nephi, in Helaman 10:6-12 arrived at a point in his relationship with the Lord where the Lord knew he could trust him and so he receive “power” to do God’s work.
This “power” is made available to those who are progressing in things of the Spirit. In the church today there are those who have power to heal, to be healed, power to see visions, and to receive dreams, and prophecy, and etc (D&C 46, Moroni 10).
Once a person has been born again they then will look to making their calling and election sure. This, as you know, is where a person has proven themselves faithful to the extent that God will promise them a place in the highest degree of glory while still in mortality.
I would like to know how you and others feel about what has been expressed so far.
Regarding Ray’s Post 196
Ray, I find your comment that BY was very literal to be very interesting. In one of the first posts I commented on, “More Open Mormon History”, comments 116-130, I quoted BY and his views on the evil romans for instituting the evil monogamous system. You and/or someone else said members thought he was using hyperbole. I disagreed and said BY meant what he said, like you say here. And I don’t see how members would think he isn’t literal. No big deal, just thought it was interesting, and I wanted to show off my memory. 🙂
Specifically post 126 of More Open Mormon History, you said, “I think most members see his statements as hyperbolic.”
Peter may have caved under social pressure, the type that can actually kill you, but I don’t know that he ever denied Christ in the the way that is being implied here. He certainly did not rebel against him in a refusal to believe, he just chickened out a little when the heat was on.
Jen, it is probably obvious, but I feel the need to lay all of the cards on the table anyway. Based on my experience, including my best attempts to try and understand the claims of others in the context of my experiences with natural world, I am inclined to believe that there is a fair level of hyperbole in what many people claims to know, as opposed to believe. In an effort to be fair and honest, I try and give the benefit of the doubt to many people, with the understanding that I have not experienced all that there is to experience, and that just because I can’t say for certain, that does not immediately preclude others from having benefited from that blessing. Even still, I become discouraged when the responses become “unexplainable”. This is excaserbated when I hear refrences to the “strengthening” or “growing” of testimonies from those who claim to “know”. While continued communion with the divine following a an “undeniable” experience would obviously be a plus, I’m not sure such an experience could really “grow”. If I were to see God, I’m not sure that such an experience could be enhanced by hearing a good talk where I “feel” the spirit, for example. I think what makes Joseph Smith’s testimony as powerful as it is/was, is the fact that he communicated having had an experience that we can all identify with. Where this breaks down for me is that an underlying promise in Mormonism is that at some point we should all be able to indentify with this at a similar level. It becomes discouraging when the emphasis is then shifted to an undefinable experience. Epistemologically speaking, knowledge of this kind would need to be explainable and referencable, even if not provable.
Jen, I hope to be understood here. My point is not to tell that I think I know, or that I think I have you figured out. What I am trying to suggest in the spirit of thoughtful persuasion, is that it is impossible for me take claims with confidence that cannot clearly explain themselves. I speculate that when someone declares that their testimony has grown, that is just the Mormon way of saying that they had a faith building experience, but not that they have further affirmed unequivocally that they possess the certainty of an Eternal truth.
In regards to the “growing of testimonies”.
Dedicating yourself to the church’s lifestyle, and seeing/feeling positive results, be they feelings of peace or successes in life (promotion, closer relationship with spouse/children, health, less stress) would naturally lead someone to feel more strongly about the church. Positive reinforcement. But that doesn’t make it more likely to be true.
Anyone who dedicates their life to any lifestyle would feel the same way if they see/feel positive results, be it a dedication to living a life or integrity, or committing to the honor of a military lifestyle or honor code of westpoint, or committing to a vegan lifestyle or to simply commit to do something and then actually do it. If someone commits to meditate and exercise and eat right and sleep well and get straight a’s and then they do it, they will feel a lot of satisfaction. But that doesn’t mean that way to live is best for everyone. Many have found happiness in training and completing a marathon but they don’t tell others it is the ONLY WAY to find true happiness. Yet, some members, live the gospel, have positive events/feelings occur, and therefore conclude that it is the ONLY WAY to find true happiness. My response would simply be: maybe I don’t like running.
Cowboy-
I think because we think and process things differently it is harder to clearly communicate to one another. You said that you become discouraged when responses become unexplainable and I can understand why you would you feel that way. Try and think of it this way. I remember after graduating from college I thought I would be a great parent because my education specialized in child development (any parent can read that and have a good laugh!). Seven kids later and neck deep in parenting, I realize how little I really knew then, yet I could not explain that to a graduating college student now who has no experience in parenting. You just can’t explain what it is like to be a parent until you are one and even if you try, people don’t necessarily believe you. Even within the parenting world, some parents may have one or two children who turn out wonderful and think it had everything to do with their fabulous parenting. The reality is great kids are a combination of good parenting and luck. Some kids are just a lot harder to raise than others. With that in mind, I could try and explain my spiritual experiences to you in detail, but until you experience something similar, it is like explaining parenting, it just isn’t that explainable.
Having said that, you are very deep and analytical thinker. I am a deep thinker and a truth seeker, but I don’t break things down like you do. I have noticed a lot of people think more like you and want to have things explained in a manner that I don’t feel is explainable. Being a believer, I think my answers are quite unsatisfactory to you and I won’t be able to give you the answers you are looking to find. The most important thing to me is my relationship with the Lord. If you are not a believer this will make no sense to you. I have watched things happen in my life that have been nothing short of a miracle and others would just explain them as luck or coincidence. My heart and mind have always been more apt to believe than not to believe, even when things have been very difficult in my life. I hope that I understand you correctly. I don’t expect you in anyway to believe what I am telling you. I am the type of person who believes because I feel something is true, not because anyone else agrees. I stand firm in who I am and it sounds like you do too. I hope you find what you are looking for, I know that I have.
Re: #193
Thanks for posting the poem by Eliza R Snow. I’ve enjoyed studying that. It’s interesting that she uses Ahman in two different senses. The prayer is to God the Father and she alternatively refers to God the Father as “thou Ahman”, specifically when she said He is in the midst of the Latter-day Saints. This sense fits the traditional interpretations of Adam-Ondi-Ahman that connect Adam to God. One interpretation is “Adam with God.”
She also uses “thy son Ahman” to talk about Jehovah, referring to the God of the Old Testament. The term “son Ahman” is scriptural from D&C 78:20 where the Lord is speaking and refers to Himself as your Redeemer, even the son Ahman. So she uses Ahman in two different senses, Father Ahman, so to speak, and Son Ahman.
That she would use the name Ahman dually gives some credence to the theory that Brigham Young’s contemporaneous teachings on nomenclature, specifically “Adam” emphasized duality. Abraham 1:3 uses the following describing Adam and his name: “the first man, who is Adam, or first father,” which could be interpreted that “Adam” is also a title meaning “first father”.
Thus when she closes “O, my God, Adam, Ahman”, she could be expressing poetically the title of Adam as “First Father” to God or Ahman or “Father Adam”, not “Son Adam” who partook of the fruit in the garden. Joseph Smith also used this duality with the term “father of all living”. He used the term in reference to Noah when he taught, “he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in his day” (TPJS 157) and in reference to God when he taught, “exercise faith in him, the Father of all living” (Lectures on Faith, lecture 3 p. 33).
This seems to me to be the only way that you read Brigham Young’s teachings pertaining to Adam and God that make any doctrinal sense.
Unfortunately, Rigel, you’re reading 20th century LDS thought into Eliza R. Snow’s 19th century Mormonism. Orson Pratt reported that Joseph Smith received a revelation as follows:
There is one revelation that this people are not generally acquainted with. I think it has never been published, but probably it will be in the Church History. It is given in questions and answers. The first question is, “What is the name of God in the pure language?” The answer says, “Ahman.” “What is the name of the Son of God?” Answer, “Son Ahman, the greatest of all the parts of God, excepting Ahman.” “What is the name of men?” “Sons Ahman,” is the answer. (Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses 2:342)
Further, you need to realize that the present LDS teachings of “Father = Elohim,” and “Jesus = Jehovah” were by no means standard prior to 1890.
It’s one thing for modern LDS to simply claim that Brigham Young was wrong about the identity of “our god, and the only god with whom we have to do.” It is quite another–and sad, really–for modern LDS to engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics, torturing Brigham Young’s teachings to make them sound more appealing to modern LDS who’ve become increasingly desperate to bury the things that separate Mormonism from so-called “mainstream” christianity.
Fair enough, Jen.
It may be that this post has run it course.
I was hoping there would be more interest in the subject of growing in the things of the Spirit. We were just getting started. Jen is doing a great job.
Jared:
If you have any ideas here that you would like to add, I’d be happy to listen. Just to clarify though, I can take a lot of meaning out of the phrase “growing in the things of the spirit”. That could imply growing in ones ability to interact with, discern, access, etc, the Holy Ghost, or be a reference otherwise to spiritual maturity. I have no objection to that concept if that is what you are implying by the phrase, infact I would see this as an often time overlooked concept in Mormon beliefs on spirituality.
What I am referring to in my question is specifically the notion of growing or strengthening/enlarging a testimony. By “testimony” I am referring to any manner of Mormon conviction. The question is, how can a testimony grow if someone already possess an “undeniable” witness? Where exactly can you go from certainty? How can you lose a testimony of something you already “know” to be fact from firsthand experience?
#348 Cowboy asked:
1. The question is, how can a testimony grow if someone already possess an “undeniable” witness?
2. How can you lose a testimony of something you already “know” to be fact from firsthand experience?
First question–the brother of Jared was very close to the Lord (Ether 1:34). At this point he had never seen the Lord, but he was at a point where he had an undeniable testimony. Yet, he grew in his testimony when he saw the Savior (Ether 3:13).
Second question–next
Ray,
“Oh, and in the spirit of equality that abounds so well here, that really was an overly broad statement, Jeff. ”
Of course, it was intended to be broad, general and not pointing out anyone in particular for a reason. What is more interesting to be, is that a couple of people, Brjones and Dexter, decided I was talking about them individually, which I was not. For example,
in #287, brjones say this, “You clearly have no tolerance for anyone who is critical of the church, as made clear by the fact that you have, on several instances, attacked people individually for being critical of the church.”
Which is kind of funny because anyone who has been around here long enough knows that I have been critical of the church and have wrote about it for time to time. I try to attack ideas, rather than people themselves. What is even more interesting is that I’ve never had a personal exchange with brjones on his comments. I have with Dexter, who was also offended by my last comment, over the somewhat sarcastic, critical posts he wrote in my last blog.Bbut, since this is a free exchange of ideas and thoughts, I thought that was OK.
At least as OK as being critical of the Church in every post regardless of the topic? So, let me offer an apology to those who I might have offended. And we can move on from here.
#348 Cowboy Contd
Second question–Samuel the Lamanite gave the Nephites the sign that the Savior would be born (Helaman 14:1-6). When the signs were fulfilled a few years later (3 Nephi 1:12-21) the record says that the more part of the people believed and were converted (3 Nephi 1:22). Soon they began to deny the incredible miracles they saw with there own eyes because their hearts were hardened by satan (3 Nephi 2:1-4).
Those who will read the chapters at the end of the book of Helaman and the beginning of 3 Nephi will see how powerful the influence of satan can be on those who once believed then fell away.
This cycle of belief to unbelief, even among those who have undeniable testimonies, is one of the main themes of the Book of Mormon. It is a reminder to those who believe the power that satan can have if they allow themselves to forget the Lord.
#352-
Jared-
That is why we pray and read scriptures everyday. We need those daily reminders to help us remember the Lord and that He comes first in all we do. It is too easy to forget Him otherwise due to our fallen natures.
This life is a battle for the souls of men and women. I have as firm a testimony of the powers of satan as I do the Savior. Early on, the Lord taught me about satan in a very powerful manner. He, and those who follow him are as real as the Savior, and have power to blind our minds and harded our hearts to the truths of God. 3 Nephi 7:16
# 353 Jen–
I agree.
Mortality is a period of testing, a time to prove ourselves worthy to return to the presence of our Heavenly Father. In order for us to be tested, we must face challenges and difficulties. These can break us, and the surface of our souls may crack and crumble—that is, if our foundations of faith, our testimonies of truth are not deeply embedded within us.
We can rely on the faith and testimony of others only so long. Eventually we must have our own strong and deeply placed foundation, or we will be unable to withstand the storms of life, which will come. Such storms come in a variety of forms. We may be faced with the sorrow and heartbreak of a wayward child who chooses to turn from the pathway leading to eternal truth and rather travel the slippery slopes of error and disillusionment. Sickness may strike us or a loved one, bringing suffering and sometimes death. Accidents may leave their cruel marks of remembrance or may snuff out life. Death comes to the aged as they walk on faltering feet. Its summons is heard by those who have scarcely reached midway in life’s journey, and often it hushes the laughter of little children.
Thomas S. Monson, “How Firm a Foundation,” Ensign, Nov 2006, 62, 67–68
I have a few minutes, so:
Dexter, in #196 when I said Brigham Young was being literal, I meant for that quote. He was very much into black and white, absolutist imagery and used hyperbole often to emphasize his opinions and beliefs.
Guest Writer, I have mentioned this before, but I have had at least three experiences that simply defy rational explanation other than either revelation or seeing into the future – specifically because they were situations where I literally had NO way of knowing things I was prompted to say. (and I understand all about pieces of stored information resurfacing after being forgotten) I also have had at least one instance of a “vision” of some sort – NOT a visitation or anything like that, but something more than just a flash of insight. Finally, I personally know at least two people I trust without hesitation or reservation who have had experiences much more vivid and undeniable than mine – one who told me only recently about one of the most remarkable experiences I have ever heard.
I’m not going to share any details here, for a couple of reasons – primarily because the details simply aren’t relevant to the point of this excellent thread. My point in sharing the outline is NOT to try to convince you of the veracity of anything someone other than I or my friends claims to have experienced, but rather simply to share that one of the things I feel comfortable saying I personally know is that there is something outside our control and ability to understand that occasionally opens a window for some people and allows them to glimpse things that can blow the minds of those who get the glimpse.
Again, I understand all of the psychological, neurological, biological, whateverological explanations that can be advanced to try to explain these experiences – but I personally feel fine saying I know there are some things that simply defy those types of explanations. Without accepting some kind of contributing factor totally outside the “rational world”, they simply don’t make sense.
I attribute them to God; others can attribute them to anything else they choose; I am fine with that. What I can’t accept is that there is a “logical explanation” for them. There simply isn’t.
Finally, it is called “The First Vision” and not “The First Visitation” for a reason, imo. Members of the Church generally have read WAY more into it than the description itself warrants.
I just got called away and won’t be able to finish this evening. Someone is having amini-emergency. Good night
Nick, cool quote. You could be the Bela Karoli for my mental gymnastics.
So, does that mean that the revealed meaning of Ahman was generally not known before that discourse was delivered? Wiki says volume 2 of Pratt’s discourses were delivered between 1852 and 1855. The date given for publishing of Eliza’s poem was 1855.
Rigel, there are a few D&C references to “Ahman,” so I’m sure it was known to some degree among early Mormons. None of those scriptural passages are as explicit as the Joseph Smith revelation reported by Pratt, however.
Given that “Adam-ondi-Ahman” was interpreted by Joseph Smith as “the land of god where Adam dwelt,” there must have been some level of understanding of “Ahman” by 1838.
Jeff #350,
That is not true. I did not decide you were talking about me individually. I was annoyed that you made a broad, offensive, and unfair generalization, which you just admitted was broad and general on purpose. I find sweeping and inaccurate accusations more offensive than anything you could say to me personally. I am surprised that you appear to either fail to realize the offensive and inaccurate nature of your statement or refuse to admit it was inappropriate. If you don’t agree with Ray, Brjones, and myself, in that your comment was an unfair generalization than your apology means nothing because that is what we all found to be disagreeable. I was never looking for an apology. I was hoping you would back off your statement. In other words, I was hoping you really didn’t feel that way. This is not a big deal, but I guess I’m surprised you really believe that those who are critical of the church cannot take criticism and that you worry about their families out of fear that they have to suffer being around someone who is constantly critical of the church. You said it once, and when we called you on it, you blamed us for taking it individually but you never backed off that belief, so naturally, I assume you still believe that. If you really believe that, I find that surprising.
And in your most recent comment you also accused me of being critical of the church in every post regardless of the topic. This is also not true.
Ray #356,
I definitely agree that there are things that are difficult to comprehend, even if a neurological or psychological explanation is provided. I respect someone like you, who attributes these special and perhaps difficult to explain experiences to God. I also respect someone who attributes them to an explanation given by a neurologist or expert in some other field of science. But one issue that troubles me is hearing similar experiences from people of many different faiths. If I only heard of these types of experiences from mormons, the claim that it is the only true church would make more sense to me. But when people across many faiths feel the same things, it makes me think that one of two things is more likely: 1) these experiences are somehow created by the self in some form or another to provide comfort or provide an answer to the seeker (the scientific explanation, whatever that might be), or 2) that God perhaps answers prayers with comforting answers that are meant to comfort and perhaps congratulate the seeker for working so hard at trying to do what’s right but that perhaps do not mean that that particular seeker’s religion is THE only religion. Does that make sense? A mormon and a muslim and a catholic could all pray and pray and receive a feeling wherein God intends to say something along the lines of, “I love you and I am proud of your efforts to seek truth and to seek My will.” But perhaps that is interpreted by each as confirmation that their particular style of worship, their religion, is the only true religion.
I will readily admit that I don’t know but those are just some of my thoughts on the matter.
#361 – Running between tasks, so pardon the brevity:
Yes, Dexter, I think your #2 is a perfectly reasonable explanation. I have NO problem whatsoever with the idea that God speaks to many in different faith traditions.
I think #1 and #2 happen.
AdamF
I agree, it happens to me everyday. How about you?
Then my follow up would be, how does one conclude that the church is THE only true church as opposed to feeling that God loves me and speaks to me but perhaps mormonism is one of many acceptable ways to worship?
Dear Guest,
I appreciated your post and wish to thank you for being honest and transparent. Leaving the LDS faith is no easy endeavor, and for many who chose to leave, that choice is met with much prayer, study and thought.
After much study and prayer I made the choice to leave as well. It’s been almost 2 yrs, and although at times it has been painful for friends and loved ones to understand, I have yet to regret my choice. There is peace in knowing one is living true to one self.
I admire you’re courage to share your expierence here with us all in this public forum and wish you God’s best as you move forward.
God bless,
Gloria
#363 AdamF–Please forgive my attempt at humor
Haha Jared I totally didn’t get it the first time. I can be dense sometimes. Like after I finished watching “The Sixth Sense” – at the end I was like “wow that was totally lame! What happened?” (not realizing he was dead the whole time, SPOILER!)
Dexter, there have been some good posts on that topic.
Andrew A. wrote this one: http://mormonmatters.org/2009/04/21/does-the-lds-church-claim-to-be-an-exclusive-conduit-to-god/
My answer (that I think most members would give) would be being the “only” true church does not mean that God doesn’t speak to others.
# 369 – This is a reasonable and consistent answer, but I don’t think it totally answers Dexter’s question. If there is ONE true church, it seems reasonable that god would give a special witness to those who are praying to know of the truthfulness of that church. Why is it that god seems to speak to those of other faiths just as strongly and gives a seemingly equal confirmation of other faiths as that of mormonism? I think it’s fair to say that there is no experience in the history of mormonism that has not also been claimed in other faiths. It’s possible that those of other faiths are misinterpreting their spiritual communications, but again, it seems logical that god would make it abundantly clear when he is confirming a true religion, to facilitate people finding the true church.
I don’t think anyone has ever had an “abundantly clear” or “undeniable” experience. If you had such an experience faith would no longer be necessary. I’m sure even JS and the prophets of old doubted some of their marvelous experiences in their darkest times. Even the most faithful can explain away marvelous miracles like angelic visitations as the product of temporary insanity, mental illness, medicinal effects, etc.
I don’t think an “undeniable” or “abundantly clear” response is part of Moroni’s promise. While the faithful are promised guidance from the Spirit, I don’t think that guidance would ever be so clear as to render faith unnecessary. We can never have “knowledge,” and when we speak of “knowledge” or “testimony” in the Church what we really mean is belief or conviction, not actual knowledge. To have actual knowledge would render faith unnecessary.
Thus, I think it’s unreasonable to expect the Lord to answer the prayers of latter-day saints with alarm bells and red lights. In my view he answers the prayers of members and nonmembers alike in different ways and in different forms of intensity and clarity. As members we have additional knowledge, gifts and tools that we can use to better discern and apply this divine guidance but it does not bother me that people of other faiths have had and will continue to have similar spiritual experiences.
Good points brjones, and that was also a simplistic answer I gave (my son was having some pre-nap crankiness so I had to go). Personally, my best answer is addressed in a post I wrote a while back about how we approach faith, i.e. exlusivist/pluralist/constructionist. There is a 4th category (rejectionist) but now I think that exclusivists and rejectionists are basically the same in their approach, one group just believes in one less God. 😉 )
“again, it seems logical that god would make it abundantly clear when he is confirming a true religion, to facilitate people finding the true church.”
Just speculation, but I wonder if other churches and people have different roles in this life. It seems obvious (to me) that not everyone who lives is meant to find or even join the church in this life. So maybe God wants or expects some people to be buddhist, some muslim, some atheists (OH NO!), some democrats. etc, and it is (to quote the Joker) “All part of the plan.” Again, speculation.
“I don’t think an “undeniable” or “abundantly clear” response is part of Moroni’s promise.”
“We can never have “knowledge,” and when we speak of “knowledge” or “testimony” in the Church what we really mean is belief or conviction, not actual knowledge.”
This is simply not an accurate statement of mormon doctrine. As moroni himself promised:
“And by the power of the Holy Ghost, you may KNOW the truth of ALL things.”
It’s pretty clear that knowledge is exactly what Moroni promised. So I would pose my question again.
@ Brjones, 373. I would contend that there are many different interpretations and variations of “knowledge,” but I don’t think scriptural references to “knowledge” mean actual knowledge, for the reasons I’ve discussed above.
#372 – AdamF, I agree that it is just speculation, and I don’t know that that answer would be endorsed by the church, but I think that is a wonderful answer. In fact, I don’t think there is a better answer out there, for me, within the context of a belief in god.
#374 – Paco, I actually think that is a reasonable interpretation of those scriptures, but as with AdamF’s comment, I don’t think that is a position that would be endorsed or accepted by the church. We are explicitly taught that we may know the things of god. I would agree that that doesn’t necessarily entitle anyone to angelic visitations or burning bushes, but I think it means what it says. I would also point out that there are people on this board, the most prominent of those being Jared, who would argue that they do have a sure, actual knowledge of those things. He may agree that it is relatively uncommon or difficult to acheive in this life, but I think he would disagree with your contention that we can’t really KNOW in this life.
Sorry, Jared, I didn’t mean to speak for you. I was just giving my opinion based on the things you’ve posted in the past. But I would be very interested in getting your perspective on this issue.
Thanks brjones, but don’t marginalize me as a fringe member! 😉
#378 – You did it to yourself with all your reasonable and tolerant posts.
Just kidding, everyone.
Fwiw, my take on “true and living” (in the context of the full verse in which that phrase is recorded) can be found in the following post:
“Common Scriptures in Review: The Only True and Living Church”
Gotta run again. *sigh*
Hahahaha. Thanks for the laugh brjones. 😀
And Ray, there had better be some good parsing in that post.
re 376 re paco’s comments:
I’m going to have to agree with paco…to suggest that knowledge is overblown and conflated…if only because of the way the community has abused it. I think many people, when they get up every Sunday to testify and say “I know…”…they use “know” in a sense that is shared communally to mean something VERY different than what we would use in a lay context…the hope is that every other member in the room will understand that (weakened) context, and perhaps that nonmembers or investigators will *not*, and so they’ll think, “Gee whiz, all of these people know!”
Our goal is to sift through the nuances of connotation. Because “I know” for Jared or Jen probably means something different than “I know” for most of the members I see bearing testimony (not to put words in anyone’s mouth)…I still think it’s a *subjective* difference and not an objective difference (like knowledge would suggest to laypeople)…but still.
#383 – Andrew, I totally agree that the term is overused and watered down within the church and in religion in general. That doesn’t mean that moroni didn’t mean what he said when he said we can know for a surety that the BoM or the church are true, and I don’t think it means JS was being hyperbolic when he said that it is given to all men to know the nature and character of god. I don’t think there’s any room to infer that they didn’t really mean that in a literal sense. I agree that there is room for interpretation within that framework, and that there is an element of subjectivity involved, but I think Paco’s statement that we just can’t ever really know in this life is ultimately untrue. I realize that we’re all putting words into Jared’s mouth now, but he has stated several times and in no uncertain terms on this site, that he has an absolute and objective knowledge that god lives and that the church is true. Even if Jared is one of the rare few who ever gain that level of knowledge in this life, I still think it demonstrates that Paco’s generalization is inaccurate, at least as a rule. I think to say otherwise would be to, in essence, tell those like Jared that they don’t know what they claim to know, and I don’t think that’s fair.
I ultimately and independently agree with Paco’s perspective, however I agree with BrJones that this concept is at odds with what the Church, including The Book of Mormon teach. First, Moroni’s promise mentions nothing of knowledge, but rather states concerning those who have read The Book of Mormon and pondered in their hearts the message it contains, including remembering how merciful God has been, that:
“…you would ask God the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these THINGS are not true. And if ye will ask with a sincere heart and real intent, having faith in Christ, God will manifest the TRUTH of IT unto you by the power of The Holy Ghost. And by the power of The Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all THINGS”.
This is a very clear promise that we can KNOW truth of all things. Alma 32 teaches that acquiring this knowledge is achieved through a progression of faith, but that ultimately that faith has end, or resolves into a state of dormancy as our knowledge of that thing becomes perfect. Modern Church leaders, and early leaders as well have all advocated this idea that we don’t believe the Church, rather members come to KNOW each for themselves by the power of The Holy Ghost. Lastly, our testimony culture is such that institutionally we each reinforce the notion that we Know the Church is true, JS was a Prophet, etc, even if such claims are only wishful thinking/believing. In other words, I agree with paco regarding the idea the when many members claim to Know, they are really communicating a belief. Nevertheless, this employment of absolute language stresses to me the idea that in the Church KNOWING is desirable, to which faith would be in some way or another condisidered as inferior. Hence, the propensity of the membership to claim knowledge, compared to those who claim only to believe.
Paco said, “I don’t think anyone has ever had an ‘abundantly clear or ‘undeniable’ experience” because then faith would be unnecessary.
I disagree. Joseph Smith certainly would argue his experience was ‘abundantly clear’ and ‘undeniable’ and perhaps he no longer needed faith that god exists bc he had a sure knowledge. But in the depths of misery in carthage he still would need faith, not necessarily that god exists, but that god would help him and his people.
I agree that knowledge removes the need for faith but only for that particular item known. If Jared “knows” that god exists, he might not have or need faith that god exists. But I bet Jared would still say he needs faith that god will continue to answer his prayers, or that god will bless his children for their righteous choices. One can have knowledge of certain things but still need faith in other things. Thus, Paco, one could have an undeniable experience and gain true knowledge but still need faith in other components of the gospel.
Just another example, of MANY, wherein I was not critical of the church, despite allegations to the contrary. 🙂
“Lastly, our testimony culture is such that institutionally we each reinforce the notion that we Know the Church is true, JS was a Prophet, etc, even if such claims are only wishful thinking/believing. ”
This is probably the subject for another post, but we can get into this if you want.
We are 12 post’s away from 400, which is probably a near record. I think I am safe in saying that it is fair game at this point.
None of us can have actual knowledge of the of truthfulness of the events described in scriptures (and other things requiring faith) because none of us were there to witness them. But we can achieve a different (less than actual) sort of knowledge and understanding (that still requires faith) of the truthfulness of those things.
I think substituting “understand” (and similar words) for “know” in those scriptures might be helpful.
re 388:
the worst part is it’s all for naught. All of these comments are assigned to a guest’s post, so no one can even brag about them!
…unless…guest becomes a permablogger on MM.
Guest Writer, you know what you must do.
Very few members are capable of committing the “unpardonable” sin of denying the HG. That’s evidence that very few truly KNOW.
#391 – I agree fully with this, but Paco is using absolute terms like “none of us” and “no one” and I can’t agree with that. The doctrine of the second comforter is an actual mormon doctrine, if I’m not mistaken. It is absolutely a doctrine of the church to have an actual knowledge of the doctrines, although I would agree that it is rare. I guess we’re not far off, and are probably splitting hairs at this point. It doesn’t seem like any of us disagree that in practical application for most of us, Paco is correct.
I do not oppose the LDS notion that absolute knowledge, ie the principles of revelation, can be obtained. This includes the idea that one does not have to have been an eye witness to scripture events to know them. If a person were to see God, an Angel, experience a real vision (I realize that this could be subjective, but I still accept the possibility), or in other words have a “meaningful” revelation that amounts to more than inclinations, ideas, emotions, or sensations, that these experiences could serve as vehicles for God conveying absolute truth. The idea behind strict agnosticism is not only are men unsure about God and the Eternities, but that such things are ultimately unknowable. I reject the premise that binds God by saying he cannot reveal himself, or that I can be absolutely certain he is beyond mortal communion. So, I disagree with Paco, who appears to be advocating a unique form of a believers agnosticism, in that revelation can’t confirm the truth of the Church. I am saying that I have not experienced this myself, I find the claims of the Church in light of it’s history doubtful, and I rarely hear tale from members who can relay meaningful personal revelations. Ultimately if I were to have a revelation, you may all be certain, Cowboy will change his tune – and fight like Paul to set things right.
Off to a movie in a few minutes.
Regarding the point about having a undeniable testimony. The Book of Mormon gives a number of examples of men-prophets who arrived to this level of testimony. And yet they still had to exercise faith. That seems like a paradoxical statement but it is true. Joseph Smith for example, he saw God and therefore had a undeniable testimony but he had to exercise faith all his life.
Andrew S 390 – I’ll get on that! Anyone else want to back me in extending an invitation to guest? (Or ask for another guest post?)
#395 – I nominate Paco, the believing agnostic.
#394 – I agree with this, Jared. I think this speaks to Dexters point that you can have absolute knowledge, but that doesn’t mean you will cease to need faith. I don’t think there is any argument to be made that JS’s knowledge of the existence of god or the savior wavered or waned. But as Jared said, that doesn’t mean his faith wasn’t tried in other ways. I think this is perfectly consistent with gospel principles.
re 396: lol, not to chide Paco, but believing agnostics are no big deal. But then again, I happen to agree with Paco’s position, so I think *most* believers are agnostic theist…whereas your gnostic theists are probably more like the Jareds.
#390 – I only accept cash, with random serial numbers, in individual bill amounts not larger than $100.
COOL! I get #400.
No you don’t, Ray! I’m going to delete your comment, so I’ll have #400!
Oops…you said we don’t delete permabloggers’ comments. Oh well…. 😉
402.
that’s only one number removed from 42.
I have noted a fairly steady stream of church members posting and commenting in the bloggernacle about their dwindling testimonies, or even loss of testimony due to their study of church history.
As I’ve studied their explanations and reasoning I’m of the opinion that one of the following conditions is at the heart of the challenge their experiencing:
1. They’ve never really had a true and living testimony of the Book of Mormon
2. They’ve allowed their testimony to grow anemic through sin or neglect
A true and living testimony needs to be based on something. We’ve been taught by the prophets that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. The prophets have also taught us how to acquire an authentic testimony (Moroni 10:4-5). An authentic testimony will not be overcome by the trials and difficulties of life, including the challenges posed by the study of church history.
The following questions might help pinpoint the problem:
Have you read the Book of Mormon? Yes/No
After reading, studying, and praying about the Book of Mormon did you ask the God the Father if it’s true, with real intent, and a sincere heart with faith in Christ? Yes/No
Did you obtain an answer through the Holy Ghost about the Book of Mormon? Yes/No
Have you ever fasted and prayed about the Book of Mormon? Yes/No
What do you think? Can a true and living testimony be obtained by a person who answers no to these questions?
I want to make it clear, I am not accusing or putting anyone down by this comment. I am trying to understand why some members, as this post points out, lose their “testimony” by studying church history and other do not.
Jared,
I know that you are truly sincere in what you’ve written, but I’m hoping I can help you to see your own words through a different viewpoint.
As I’ve studied their explanations and reasoning I’m of the opinion that one of the following conditions is at the heart of the challenge their experiencing:
1. They’ve never really had a true and living testimony of the Book of Mormon
2. They’ve allowed their testimony to grow anemic through sin or neglect
So what you’re saying, Jared, is that if someone reaches the point where they don’t believe modern LDS-ism to be true, either (1) there’s something wrong with them, or (2) there’s something wrong with them.
I’ve observed the statements of many religiously-conservative, believing LDS, with regard to those who “leave the fold.” In too many cases, these individuals have refused to accept the explanations of “apostates” at face value. Instead, they have substituted their own declaration that those who left the LDS church either (a) never really understood the doctrine, or (b) fell into sin. In other words, Jared, what you’re saying is nothing new; it’s part of a long-standing pattern.
Now, let’s look a little further at what you said:
An authentic testimony will not be overcome by the trials and difficulties of life, including the challenges posed by the study of church history.
The problem here is that anytime someone denies their previous testimony, you will thus exclude their testimony as “authentic,” by definition. If a member of the quorum of the twelve suddenly recanted and left the LDS church, your statement indicates that you would conclude he never had an “authentic” testimony.
What you’ve done here, Jared, is set up a paradigm which will always, no matter the situation, reinterpret reality to reinforce your own faith. If I were to tell you that I did everything you’ve listed as requirements for an “authentic” or “true and living” testimony, you would be forced to declare I was lying, since by your framework I should have had an “authentic” testimony which could not be overcome. That, or you’d fall back to your original dichotomy, declaring without any examination of my actual life, that I had fallen into sin.
You’ve personally eliminated the possibility that a person could come to a rational viewpoint, despite their earlier sincere faith, that modern LDS-ism is not what it claims to be. Perhaps this is based in your own view of yourself. You, like most people, probably consider yourself an educated, rational, reasonable person. Since you don’t feel it’s possible for you to ever deny your testimony, you don’t see that any other educated, rational, reasonable person could do so, unless there was something else wrong with them. This leaves you to go searching for the “fatal flaw,” and frankly, when it comes to reducing cognitive dissonance, you will find one in every person.
Jared:
While you don’t point to anyone specifically in this or any other blog, I think you still underestimate even those who fall into your loose generalization of the Church members commenting in the bloggernacle. The very fact that someone will go to their computer and spend time discussing Church matters is indicative of more than a passive interest in Church related issues. Most of the people I have either had discussions with, or whose comments I have observed, both on this site and others, demonstrate a reasonable awareness of Church matters, to the point where I think it is highly unsafe to assume that many of them have not either read The Book of Mormon, and/or earnestly sought God in an effort to know whether it is “true”. There was a short article written some time back, I believe on the FAIR website, that attempts to draw a dichotomy between what the author termed “Chapel Mormons”, and “Internet Mormons”. The idea was based on some loose research, but ultimately found that it would be more likely among the “Chapel Mormons” to find those who have not read The Book of Mormon, and are therefore more inclined to just go with the flow.
Another point Jared, is that you insist on being witness to some extraordinary experiences in relationship to the Church, and have at times had to defend that. Yet, you insist on trivializing the experiences of those who claim to have done just as you suggest only to reach different conclusions. The sin explanation is an easy cover, since anything from holding a grudge against your neighbor, to having watched an R-rated movie, or listening to “bad” music will be enough to pass muster under that clause. Yet again, we have a plethora of examples of active believing members who do each of those two things and still maintain that they are able to know by the Spirit that the Church is true – and all the while their claims go unchallenged.
It is also possible, that 1) those who “lose their testimony” do so because, as you say they never really had one in the first place. Not because of a fault of their own, rather because the thing that they are supposed to believe in actually is false. Because of this it cannot produce the fruits it promises, and as result the tenative believer loses interest and patience. 2) It is also possible, that despite their best intentions for whatever reason God has/is not revealing himself to them. In any case Jared, the point I am trying to make is that since you cannot prove that the Church is true, regardless of the reasons, the range on your spectrum would have to include all possibilities in order to be an honest evaluation of why some “lose faith”.
Nick and Cowboy–
I am really trying to understand those who maintain they’ve tried and failed to obtain a testimony. The scriptures just don’t allow for that option, at least what I am able to understand from them.
I hold to the view that timing has a lot to do with it. No one would argue that the average four year old should have a testimony of the BoM by reading and praying about it. The same may hold true for some adults, they may not be ready in someway to tackle that process, but will be at some time in the future. Right now may not be wisdom in the Lord.
If I take my immediate and extended family as a mini laboratory to study this issue. My dad, for example, I tried to interest him in the church. I shared my testimony with him and he would always tell me, “I’m not really interested in things to do with religion. I think that God exist, and if he does He will treat me fair. I don’t want to know all about religion then that way I can’t be held accountable in the same way as if I did.”
My brother was married in the temple. Was a branch president and served in the church. After many years he and his wife drifted away from the church. It turned out he is more interested in pornography than religion. He is a wonderful person, but he never really invested his heart in following the Savior. He knows about some of my experiences and believes they are true. He just isn’t interested in church, but believes it is true.
The list goes on, and not one of them says that they’ve tried and failed to get a testimony. I lived a long time and I don’t personally know of anyone who makes that claim.
So I believe that timing may be one answer for those who say they’ve tried but it hasn’t worked for them. Therefore, I would add a number 3 to my list above and call it timing.
Nick–It isn’t that there is something wrong with them, they just aren’t interested enough, they don’t have enough desire. They’ve made a choice using the agency God gave them. There is nothing wrong with that.
I don’t claim to have all the answers, I’m still open to understanding the answer to this question. I’m learning line upon line…
Jared, Part of faith is accepting things we can’t see or understand.
Maybe this is something you are going to have to take on faith – that people who say they have tried and tried and tried without receiving the kind of witness you have (and think everyone should be able to have) are being sincere and truthful AND correct – that maybe some people simply don’t receive confirmation in this life. Maybe you are right and they will eventually if they keep trying (and I certainly believe that is true if you expand the timeline to include the afterlife), but I think Mother Teresa is a great example of someone who edured to the end and never received the type of witness you have had. She did ASTOUNDING things regardless based SOLELY on faith, so perhaps a knowledge really isn’t possible for all. Perhaps it’s more important to live a life of absolute integrity and follow your own conscience and understanding to the best of your ability, since we are told it is that basis on which we will be judged ultimately.
I want badly for all people to experience God powerfully in this life, but I want just as much for all people to experience joy and peace and a conviction that they are living true to their best understanding – and if some really can’t experience God as I have, I want them to live the kind of life that we teach will allow them to do so everntually. That is being true to their own light and knowledge and being open to accept any further light and knowledge that MIGHT come their way.
#406:
I am really trying to understand those who maintain they’ve tried and failed to obtain a testimony. The scriptures just don’t allow for that option, at least what I am able to understand from them.
Jared, the above only makes sense if the LDS scriptures are absolutely, unquestionably, objectively true. If that were the case, then perhaps your reasoning would be valid. As it is, however, your reasoning completely ignores an equally possible condition—that the LDS scriptures are not true, thus the promises contained therein are not valid.
Nick–It isn’t that there is something wrong with them, they just aren’t interested enough, they don’t have enough desire.
Despite what you say, Jared, it’s quite clear that not being “interested enough,” or “not having enough desire” to believe is a personal fault.
Let me ask you a serious question, Jared. Do you think it’s possible for a person to want to believe something so badly, that they will have an experience which they interpret as gaining a testimony of that thing? Do you think it’s possible for a person to go through that kind of experience, and yet sincerely believe that they did, in fact, receive divine revelation on the subject?
Jared may answer as well, but that’s a good question Nick. I think it is certainly possible to want something bad enough that they interpret events to confirm the desire or opinion. We do it all the time, not just with spiritual matters.
I’d take Nick’s question and space it out further.
The nature of wants and desires. Can we simply choose to want something, or will this be overridden by our *true* wants, which are unchosen?
I can see it from both points. There are those who genuinely want to believe, but they cannot…because you cannot force belief. But at the same time, there are those who cannot *want* to believe, because you cannot force want. This gets into a rather confusing cycle: “I want to want to believe,” etc.,
#407 Ray–thanks for your thoughts
#408 Nick–
Good question. I agree with both AdamF and Andrew S People eventually move in the direction of their true feelings and desire. That is why the scriptures teach us we need to have a change of heart–mighty change.
Many experiences with the Spirit give information. I’ve had experiences where I was told that such and such would occur. Soon thereafter, such and such occurred. Things like that don’t happen if it’s self-deception. I don’t believe a normal healthy person needs to worry about self deception in the long run. Mistakes, yes–deception, no.
re 411:
yet, and here’s where I will probably disagree…mighty change of heart is not something we can pinpoint or consciously choose. It strikes us (like it can strike believers to change their belief) rather unpredictably.
So, I’d look at your questions:
and the question I would ask is NOT “Can a true and living testimony be obtained by a person who answers no to these questions?” because the obvious answer to this is yes (plenty of people who have true and living testimonies who seem to have done little or nothing to get it). Rather, I’d ask, “Is it possible that, to someone who answers yes to each question, that they will come out afterward without a true and living testimony.” And all I’m saying is that I also think the obvious and demonstrated answer is yes. This is the point of true disagreement, Jared, because as you note:
You can’t allow for this option. Your understanding of the scriptures make it impossible. I’d think there are only a few options…1) continue ignoring and rationalizing away the troubling and demonstrated reality of the situation, 2) strive for a different understanding of the scriptures or 3) find the scriptures to be untrue.
While Nick would want you to take the third option, and many others would want you to take the first option, I think if you’re going to be a believer, the second option, although it’s a struggle, is best.
Andrew, I’m not trying to convince Jared that his scriptures are untrue. Rather, I’m just trying to point out to him the same thing you did—that he’s not even allowing for the possibility (however slim he might see that as being) in his paradigm.
#412 Andrew S —
Interesting thoughts. It is true that people have a mighty change who weren’t even seeking it (Alma the Younger, people of Benjamin, etc). However, that’s the exception. The general rule follows the course of the questions I asked. The missionary system is based on that approach and many thousands of people fine results each year.
Not impossible, but improbable, is how I should have phrased it.
re 414:
no doubt that thousands of people find results each year with the missionary approach. I’m not suggesting otherwise. However, I’d argue to that it doesn’t establish a general rule of anything. In fact, the reality is much less black and white. Remember, too…thousands of people do not find the results you were thinking of. Just as often as a missionary finds a convert, they find people who may be very interested in the message, may read and pray and do everything as instructed, and come from the experience with nothing.
Your questions are admirable, but they are not the hope you’re looking for.
I find this part of D&C 46 interesting:
“To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.”
From the context, can we assume that some people may not have either of these gifts?
I’m another who has had some experiences that I don’t see how I could deny without being dishonest with myself. It’s possible to explain away a feeling, especially if the feeling is accompanied by emotion and can be reduced in memory to merely emotion. But it’s different when actual information has been communicated in such a way as to serve as evidence for the truth of one LDS claim or another.
I don’t have answers for some of the troubling questions that study can dig up, but my between some strong subjective evidences I’ve experienced and just the forces for good that the LDS church and scriptures have always been in my life, I can live with some cognitive dissonance. (To be honest, I think it’s kind of fun in an odd way to discover what a puzzle things really are, though that’s not to say I’m not quite disturbed at times.)
Assuming that revelation is real (which I do), I have no idea why some people experience it and others don’t. I’m extremely hesitant to post this, for fear of sounding as if I think I’m somehow special for having had answers while others haven’t who, I’ll go ahead and assume, are better people than I am and have sought more earnestly than I have.
worm, thanks for sharing that. Your experience and thoughts are welcome here!
I wonder how much has to do with the Lord’s timing as well. We all have different purposes and things we each have to do here (assuming you believe that) and the time for us to discover this or that truth can be different from one another. Is it possible the Lord allows us to be kept from the truth at times to fulfill His purposes?
Thanks everyone for your insights to this post. I’ve been lurking on this site for a month or so now and have gained much from the conversations that have taken place.
Jared –
All right, I’ll humor your questions.
#1: Yes, probably a couple dozen times
#2: Yes, many times throughout the years
#3: Yes, but not to the extent that I’m convinced that I didn’t produce the good feelings which I attributed to being answers to my prayers because I wanted so badly for it to be true (for some good reasons and some not so good reasons).
#4: Yes, with the same results as #3.
And no, I don’t have a porn addiction. I can look myself in the mirror and honestly say that I’m not looking for an excuse to get out of the church so I can feel good about myself sinning. I just see the same inconsistencies and problems w/ the history that have already been discussed here and have a hard time reconciling them. In addition, on a personal level I have had many spiritual promptings/personal revelations (or what I thought were at the time) that ended up being totally incorrect. Suffice it to say that I don’t have very much confidence in my ability to trust the feelings given by the Holy Ghost.
That being said, I haven’t left the church. I’m still active and really love the Gospel; however, my testimony is noticeably shaken by some of what I’ve read and personally experienced and I’m trying to make sense of it all. You could say that I’m still in the information gathering phase…
I don’t think it’s fair to assume anything about people with struggling testimonies, just like it’s unfair to assume anything about anyone else. Letting go of those assumptions is difficult because it acknowledges the possibility that your faith can still be tried even when you do what is right to the best of your ability. That is an understandably scary thing, but true nonetheless (imo). It is my hope that I come out of this with my testimony stronger than ever. Time will tell.
re 416: worm, I agree with adamf; thanks for sharing that. I have no problem with that kind of understanding of D+C 46, but then I would have questions regarding what people who fit in this category should do. Because I know a lot of people who would insist, even though they have neither gift, no attunement to the spirit, no desire to believe, etc., some people would say that they STILL must believe, etc.,
I agree that people shouldn’t be dishonest with themselves. So if that means one must believe the experiences are real to be honest with themselves, that’s what one must do. If one simply isn’t having these experiences or cannot believe in them, then to be honest with oneself, one can’t try to fake it.
I guess the question does remain: why do some people experience and others not? What makes the two different kinds? I’m comfortable saying, “I don’t know,” instead of trying to guess wildly.
Jared, are you just trying to get this to 500? Because we have had 400 posts on this exact topic and then you come back with: anyone who loses their testimony either never had a real one or they lost it due to sin or neglect. We have hashed this out a thousand ways.
First, some faithful members disagree with you. Ray and someone else both said they believe some don’t get answers despite doing all the necessary sincere efforts. They corrected me for assuming what you think, which is, that a true believer in the church would necessary think that if a seeker said he did everything he was supposed to and God didn’t answer him that the seeker is at fault somehow. So be aware, many faithful members disagree with you. However, I think you are correct in your interpretation according to the scriptures.
But the point I have tried to make nearly 400 times is that it is inconsiderate to judge people in that way. Your words are not very kind. Think about what you are saying, you are saying that anyone who doesn’t receive an answer either didn’t want it bad enough or didn’t try hard enough or couldn’t discern or was not obedient enough. This is an arrogant view when you have no idea how many hours Nick or me or Guest Writer or anyone else spent on their knees in absolute anguish or absolute faithfulness seeking an answer that never came, or how many days they fasted, or how many times they read the BoM. I understand that if you believe the church is true, you feel that you necessarily must beleive that God would answer all sincere seekers and that therefore any seeker who doesn’t get an answer is to blame. I think that makes sense from the standpoint of the scriptures/doctrines/teachings of the church. BUT, I think it’s a whole other story to tell people that is how you feel and to announce those views in any forum.
I don’t care if God showed up at your house and showed you the visions he showed Nephi where you saw every inhabitant that ever lived on the earth and God said to you, Jared, “anyone who claims to have tried to gain a testimony and did not get an answer didn’t try hard enough because everyone who sincerely seeks I answer.” Let’s also assume that the next day you went to the best scientists in the world and they all said that you had no neuroligical issues at all, and therefore, they don’t believe your vision was created by your own self-delusions. Even if all that happened, I would still think it is rude to walk around telling people that if they didn’t get an answer they are somehow at fault.
Look, how would you feel if an atheist said, “I don’t believe that you have ever received an answer to a prayer because I know that god doesn’t exist.” Then you gave a long story about all the answers you have received and he said, “nope, impossible, because I know god doesn’t exist.” This would be at least annoying to you, and perhaps insulting.
Similarly, if a muslim told you that you misintrepreted your answers bc the mormon church could not be true because he had received confirmation that his religion is the only true church how would you feel? That would be rude. The atheist and the muslimm couldn’t possibly know the feelings you felt and the answers you receieved. How dare they label your answers as phony or that you misinterpreted them?
So how do you think a seeker feels when you say that his lack of an answer is simply his own fault? You can’t possibly know the level of their sincerity in praying. You can’t possibly know the feelings they felt.
But you are thinking, “But I really KNOW, and I really have the truth.” Even if that is true, it’s still rude. Because even if it is knowable to you, the rest of the world doesn’t see it that way. They see your “knowing” the same way you view a muslim who claims to “know.” You think the muslim just thinks he knows. That’s how people not of the mormon faith view your “knowing.” So even if you do really know and you happen to have the truth, you can’t use that to justify your behaviour unless you are willing to concede that everyone else acts the same way. Imagine a world where no one listened to anyone else because everyone walked around thinking, “but I have the truth, and they don’t.” This sounds like a not very nice place to live to me. I think this type of thinking would lead to intolerance, arrogance, warfare, etc. And what do you know, many areas of the world where religious zealots live, these problems are much more common.
Jared, I respect your views, and I think you would think you are letting down the Lord if you stopped proclaiming that you KNOW the church is true with such boldness. We all know the church’s line on issues, and we all know you strongly believe it to be true, but in an open discussion of issues, if you always fall back on an assumption that the scriptures are true and the church is true, it leaves many with nothing to say. Because people who don’t believe the scriptures are true and don’t believe the church is true will simply disregard your comments.
I haven’t been on in a few days. I think this goes along with what Dexter just wrote.
I served my mission in Brazil. We would tell the people about the Joseph Smith’s First Vision and then ask them how they felt about the experience. Much more often than people doubting Joseph’s experience, I would hear someone say, “Oh, I saw them the other night too. They came to me and…” or “Last night, I saw the Virgin Mary. She came to me and told me the second coming would be in 2477 (I’d have to pull out my mission journal to get the exact year, but it was around then)” or someone telling me of their experiences seeing the deity that comes from a religion in Brazil that is a mix of Christianity and African Voodoo or the Jehovah’s Witness that would tell us of the celestial beings he would see when out preaching- they were as tall as telephone poles, with the body of men, but the heads of eagles (I picture the Egyptian god Horus), or the person that saw Ganesh, or the person that saw Muhammad and many more experiences similar to that. For the sake of continuing the teaching of the discussion, I would mention how interesting their story was and then hurry on. However, every time I heard such an experience, I would say, “SURE you did” in the back of my mind. It wasn’t until later that I realized the it was pretty disingenuous of me to discard all of those experiences as overactive imaginations, psychotic episodes or maybe just strange dreams that didn’t really come from any external source, without being willing to chalk up the experiences of the founders of the church as the very same thing. Why did I hold them to a different standard? If I were in the room when Martin Harris said that a flickering candle was the work of the devil, or there when he started playing with a snake because he believed God gave him power over them, only to be bitten by one, what would go through my mind? Would I see him in the same way as I viewed those Brazilians? Would my respect for his ability to interpret the world around him diminish? What about with Joseph, when he declared that the Egyptian Papyrus was written by the hand of Abraham (why would Egyptian papyrus be written by Abraham) or when he spouted off about Zelph or about the person whom he thought the Kinderhook Plates were buried with, would I have believed him or would I have said, as I have said in the back of my mind to many others, “SURE you did.”
At some point it became clear to me that I needed to be willing to either accept all the claims to revelation out there as possibly being genuine, no matter how contradictory in nature, or I needed to be prepared to reject all of them, because they were all so contradictory. The first option did not seem logical to me and in many ways it became a question of relative vs absolute reality. Perhaps it is my schooling, but the mathematician, physicist and engineer in me tells me that as much as everyone would like to be right, there is actually only one right answer. So, although it may appear to be mean to reject the experiences of the LDS members, I guess it’s not to much different than where I stood before. Before I rejected the spiritual experiences leading people to believe in faiths other than the LDS faith. Now I just disbelieve in a few more than I already did. It reminds me of a quote that I read recently from an atheist that said something like this: We are all atheists, there are thousands of gods that have been and are currently being worshiped that you do not believe in. I just happen to believe in one less god than you.
When I was around 6 I heard the story in primary about someone who lost a precious possession, prayed about it, and heard a voice telling them where the item could be found.
A friend lost something and I told her this story. She agreed to try it with me, and we both knelt down and prayed, and listened. “Did you hear a voice?” I asked her. “Yes!” she said, “It said to pray to the Virgin Mary.” She got a statue of the Virgin off her dresser and began praying to it.
I knew something had gone wrong here, but I hadn’t heard any voices and she did, apparently, so….
It was my first lesson in the subjectivity of religious experience and the influence of culture and environment in how we interpret spiritual feelings. Should I assume she was just imagining it because she didn’t get the “right” answer? And if she had gotten a more LDS-compatible answer, would that make it any more likely it was true revelation and not her imagination or wishful thinking?
Guest, I love that quote (re: atheists), and although I think it was meant in jest, it really helped me to understand atheists better. There ARE indeed all kinds of Gods that I don’t believe in.
Mytha, this is why I like the parable of the blind men and the elephant. Imo, culture and environment certainly do factor in to how we interpret spiritual experiences (in addition to spiritual feelings, because they are not always the same). With some similar thoughts but different outcome than Guest, I think many people have spiritual experiences, and their interpretation (or even mine!) may not be 100% objectively true. To me, this fits with LDS theology (not necessarily how everyone views it though) because we all “see through a glass darkly” and we all have a ton to learn, esp. after this life. So, if someone gets inspiration and feels like it was from the Virgin Mary, okay with me. I don’t discount that they may (or may not) have had a spiritual experience, nor do I assume that MY experiences are more valid. Both of us may have some truth, and both may be in for a surprise in the next life.
#423-
My issue with this situation is the expectation that either one of you were going to hear a voice because someone else did. The Lord answers prayers in different ways and if we go to Him expecting to “hear a voice”, we aren’t really leaving ourselves open to hear what He could be saying in the way He may be saying it. Listening means being open to hear things in the way He speaks to us, not what happened to so and so when they prayed. I don’t mean that disrespectfully, but I know that it can be quite a challenge to sit still and meditate or just listen, and I imagine it can be even more difficult when we are expecting to hear a voice above all other things.
@ #424: Sometimes an excellent point can most effectively be made with humor.
426 – Indeed, and that is why, as much as he irks me sometimes, I can’t stop listening to Bill Maher. 🙂
@ #425: They were only 6 years old. I certainly hope God’s personality is not such that he would say, “Sorry, you were expecting a voice, but that’s your problem for not understanding how I was going to respond.” I believe that if there is a God, he would respond to a prayer in a way that people WILL understand as being a response from him. People put too many stipulations on the responses. If he really has all those loving attributes that people say he does, then it doesn’t make sense to nit-pick.
These are from my personal experience:
“Oh, you asked in the wrong way. You need to pray as if you already believe he is there.” What? But, that makes no sense. That means someone who already does not believe could never believe. That doesn’t sound right.
“What were you listening for?” An answer. “Yes, but what kind of answer were you expecting?” Whatever answer he would choose to send me. “Well, there’s your problem. You have to set your mind on a type of answer.” What? A lot of people tell me the opposite. They say I should be open for any type of response. “Well, they got it wrong. God wants you to be proactive about this.” Look, I am not going to put any stipulations on God. I am praying and asking for an answer. I am certainly not going to tell him how to answer. I believe that if he is there and he loves me, he will answer in a way that I will understand.
People seemed to think that prayer needed a bunch of rules. It all started looking like a silly game to me. Every person had their set of rules to get the response that they wanted. I kept thinking, “Look, I do not believe that a God up there would say, ‘Oh sorry, yes you wanted an answer, but you were looking over here when I was over there’ or ‘Oh sorry, I know you were asking me with a sincere heart, but you weren’t quite using the right words.'” Had prayer turned into a game of Simon Says?
@ 427: Ha ha. Something about Bill Maher rubs me the wrong way as well and I usually AGREE with what he has to say.
I’ve read all of the comments since I last commented. This is a very important discussion for me. As I’ve said before, I would like to acquire greater understanding of what some of you are saying about having tried to gain a testimony but so far haven’t.
#416 Worm–Thanks–I think this is one of the more useful scriptures on the subject at hand and answers in part what some may be experiencing.
#419 Aaron–hang in there. If you click my name and go to my blog I have posted my testimony on a page–Jared’s testimony. I know something about the struggle you’ve been through.
#420 Andrew S–I think a person needs to be true to their feelings. If they can’t find satisfaction in the LDS church then they need to deal with that fact. And of course, that leads to many destinations.
#421 Dexter– you state your position well. Please see my comment #406 about timing. This is what I believe.
To make sure those who read this post and comments understand my feelings, I want to state that I don’t think less of a person because they don’t embrace religion, any religion. In my business I deal with people from all walks of life and there are many wonderful people who don’t think religion is important. And on the other hand, I know people whose world revolves around religion who don’t come across as being wonderful.
On this post, we’ve gone the rounds on LDS theology. If we were all brought together by coincidence, say for example, on a trip to Israel, where we spent several weeks together, I’d bet we’d be surprised at the friendships that developed. I’d also bet that the friendship wouldn’t necessarily be based on religious belief and commitment.
#428-
My understanding of what was written in #423 is that she heard the story when she was 6 years old, not that she necessarily prayed with her friend when she was 6.
God answers us in the way that we need and yes, it can seem like He is playing games with us at times, but I believe He is above that and answers us in the way that we need. My point is that, in my own personal experience, it is best to leave the way the Lord answers us to Him and not place the expectation that He will answer in a way only we think we can understand. He can teach us understanding in the very moment He answers us, especially if it is in a way we are not expecting. I don’t know who you have talked to about answers, but for me this has always been the best approach and it has worked for me.
@ #431: I guess we would need further clarification her age when they prayed. I assumed that since she even mentioned the age of 6, the prayer would have come shortly after.
I agree that, if the God is there, we should leave the way the answers is supposed to come to him, but part of my point was, I think they were just children in the story and I don’t think God would expect them to understand subtle nuances. The other part I was trying to get across is, not that God is playing a game (especially now that I believe that if there is one, it is not a personal God that interacts with the world), but the game of Simon Says for me was trying to follow everyone’s advice.
“You didn’t get an answer? Well, do this, do that. You did this wrong, you did that wrong. Forget what your bishop said, do it like this. Forget what your second bishop said, do it like this. Forget what your third bishop said, do it like this.”
You also have an opinion that directly contradicts some of the very direct and opinionated counsel given to me by church leaders and others. This is only a small aspect of a greater thing that I had never realized when I was growing up in the church and has just come to my attention in the last few years, Everyone has their own belief system, their own religion within the religion.
431 – Sorry if that wasn’t clear. I was 6 at the time of the prayer experience. And I took church teachings very literally (as I would suppose most 6 year olds do).
#433- I don’t think it is just 6 year olds. Many people take hearing a still small voice, feeling a burning in the bosom or whatever other communication system their own flavor of religion teaches very literally. I think it is the same with children as it is with adults. If someone thinks that God is going to answer them in a certain way, I don’t think that he would not respond in that way because that is not HIS way. Any way he responds would be HIS way. So, I don’t think it makes sense to even correct someone when you think that they are waiting for the wrong type of answer. I think that a loving God would respond accordingly.
I remember reading about Pres David O. McKay as a young man praying for a manifestation based on what he’d learned at church. Nothing came that day, but the manifestation came years later based on the Lord’s timing.
Guest,
Your said, “Everyone has their own belief system, their own religion within the religion.”
I could not agree more. Everyone I’ve talked to in depth about the church has their own views in order to make sense of everything. I have often told a friend of mine that he doesn’t even believe in the church, even thought he was defending it constantly. He had adopted so many beliefs that simply contradicted the teachings of the brethren and of the scriptures, but it was the only way for him to make sense of everything. I’m not saying he is wrong, but my point is, his issues and the beliefs he adopted to “fit” as best he can into the church’s beliefs were very different from the teachings of the church and would most assuredly be very different from other members’ beliefs who have different issues and different personal beliefs that they have adopted. It’s hard to argue for objective truth when so many have different subjective beliefs even within the same religion.
#434-
I don’t know what your definition of love is, but I have learned that loving someone doesn’t always mean you make things as easy as possible for them. Part of coming to know God is learning how He teaches us and communicates with us, not God giving us whatever is easiest for us to figure out. That’s just my opinion as a parent though and my experience with the Lord.
#436 Dexter and Guest–
Excellent point. In one sense we’re all on the same path, just at different places on it. As a parent I can certainly see this in my children.
A point from the scriptures (D&C 93:21)–Christ was the first born. That would imply that all of the Lord’s spirit children are different ages and therefore process different levels of experience. That has implication for the 400+ comment discussion we’ve been having.
@ #437: Perhaps.
One difficulty I have in taking peoples experiences as being from God is actually WHEN they have tried hard for an answer. The more someone exerts/strains themself, the more I find myself wondering if said experience is self-induced. To take it to an extreme, it reminds me of a companion I had on the mission. He had read Groberg’s (sp?) book “In the Eye of the Storm” that mentioned how thin the veil becomes when a person is starving and as close to death as he was after a hurricane. May companion had decided that when he got home, he was going to travel into the mountains and spend a week praying without any food, in order to have a similar experience. When I listened to his plan, I just thought, “You know, I would be surprised if you DIDN’T see or hear something after doing that, but I would most certainly question the origin of your experience.” The harder someone tries, the more someone refrains from eating or takes their body and mind to an extreme the more I think those experiences should be questioned.
Coming from the other side now. Say we DO open the door up for God to answer in any way He likes. Won’t that also open the door for people to take ANYTHING as an answer from God? It reminds me of a quote from the great Homer Simpson:
“Dear Lord: The gods have been good to me. For the first
time in my life, everything is absolutely perfect just the way
it is. So here’s the deal: You freeze everything the way it is,
and I won’t ask for anything more. If that is OK, please give
me absolutely no sign. OK, deal. In gratitude, I present you this
offering of cookies and milk. If you want me to eat them for you,
give me no sign. Thy will be done.”
#439-
In relation to your companion I would say that was complete foolishness. Trying to force God’s hand by recreating a situation similar to another’s is not sincere in my opinion. That is like me trying to recreate the situation that led up to the First Vision and expecting God to give me a similar experience. I believe experiences are given to people because there is purpose for that specific person and what they need at that time. It is one thing to sincerely seek answers from the Lord and another to try and force Him to give you an experience.
Of course people can take anything as an answer from God. That is their accountability though and I really believe when a person is sincere they are doing the best they can and God will accept that. Only God knows where a person is and what they truly desire so I just worry about myself. That is all any of us can do.
#437 Guest,
I would be careful not to assume that if someone that has claimed to have received an answer from God, or something even more powerful or profound than a simple answer to a prayer, that they only have had that experience because they tried hard to get it, or that they have fooled themselves into believing something happened only in their mind. Sadly many try very hard and for some unknown reason do not receive such an answer, or at least not yet, while others have had very profound spiritual experiences/confirmation about the restored Gospel that seem to happen unexpectedly. My experience is a case of the latter. Nor was it me alone at the time that had the same experience. No matter how I cut it there is no way that I can say that I deluded myself or that it was a “self-induced” experience. And I actually feel bad for even saying such a thing because I know that many like yourself have tried so hard, worked so diligently, to get enough of a witness to move from disbelief to belief.
#440- I worry about others.
If it is not true, then I most certainly do not want my family and friends living it and would never want to pass it on to my children. I do not think it is the best system out there. If this stuff is not really God’s will, then I take issue with a number of Christian and LDS teachings that I consider immoral. When I was a believer, I justified many of the actions of the God of the Bible as well as some of the teaching of the apostles and even a few of the teachings of Jesus by saying, “Well, that seems wrong to me, but who am I to question?” Now that I no longer believe, I do not feel constrained and can now consider immoral what I think is immoral. For this reason, it matters to me. For this reason, I care.
#441- I did not make that assumption, but rather said that the harder one tries, the more inclined I would be to question it.
But, adding to your comments, I understand that where I stand runs the risk of offending some, but if I accepted your experience as true, I do not see how I could deny the experiences of all of those who have had spiritual experiences that contradict yours as well- The people who have had visions and powerful experiences confirming the godhood of of Allah, Ganesh, Vishnu, Zeus, Osiris, Odin, Thor, the Virgin Mary, Buddah and thousands of other Gods that I (and probably you) do not believe in, but they have had profound effects on the lives of those individuals.
So, I am left in a difficult situation. If I accept that they all are equally valid as a way of pleasing everyone and getting rid of a little cognitive dissonance, then I am still not pleasing everyone, because in order to accept that the experience of the Jehovah’s Witness is true but the experience of the Mormon is true as well, then I am in fact, rejecting the belief of the Jehovah’s Witness by allowing for more than their 144,000 saved souls and also rejecting the belief of the Mormons by saying that there is just one heaven and one hell and no degrees of glory. I could similarly compare and contrast thousands of faiths where this just does not work. There are contradicting doctrines, visions of eternity, gods, goddesses, wind and earth spirits. Viewing everyone’s experience as valid does not make any sense. In order to please everyone, you have still pleased no one by accepting some of their beliefs but rejected others and have gone against reason. So, I take the other stance, where I think the mind may create many strange sights, sounds and feelings, where visions are indeed seen and experienced, but are no indication of a higher being. The source is internal rather than external. In this way, I still leave people upset, but at least I stick with the only logical conclusion that I can see.
The Book of Mormon teaches that Enos prayed all day and into the night (Enos 1:3-4) before he obtained an answer to prayer. I know of people who have attempt this approach. Not one of them had an Enos like experience, but felt they were able to draw near to the Lord which helped them in other ways than they initially sought Him for. But it created frustration in the short run.
Those who attempt this kind of marathon prayer forget that Enos said his “soul hungered”. He didn’t set out to pray all day and into the night. His soul hungered because the time had come for Him to have a born again experience and the Lord blessed him with the ability to pray as he did. He was basically invited or inspired to pray as he did.
re 443:
Guest Writer, you have captured the difference between subjective and objective. Many people have subjective experiences which can be absolutely contradictory…but these subjective experiences ultimately do not say anything about objective reality.
I am in complete agreement with guest writer in that I am suspicious of people (including myself) who went to extreme circumstances to gain a testimony. It makes perfect sense that the more we want something to be true, the more likely we are to find a way to explain it true and self-produce the signs that are supposed to happen when you do certain things. We see it all the time in medicine with the placebo effect. People gain miraculous cures consistently from taking sugar pills. Some of those cures are probably just people convincing themselves that their negative symptoms have been reduced and some of those people are legitimately cured. The power of our minds and our belief in something (whether it is real or not) is extremely powerful.
I think that most of us here want the church to be true because it is true (if that makes sense). The truth ought to stand for itself regardless of me or what I want. If I am intellectually honest with myself, when I remove what I want from the equation, I have a hard time with much of the church doctrine and history. Therein lies my challenge.
I like what my dad taught me as a young man. He said, “someday we will have to stand before our maker (assuming that God exists) and explain to him what we did during our lives and why we did it. If we are comfortable with that, go ahead and live your life just as you are. If not, you have some changes to make.”
For those of us who struggle with what is right concerning religion, morals, or anything else, which to some degree includes all of us, it is helpful to remember what my dad said. I believe that God will not hold anybody accountable for things that he hasn’t revealed to them through personal revelation. We just have to be careful to not let that lead us to quit asking and searching. Given the tone and breadth of the comments above, I fortunately don’t think that includes many of us here.
#442-
When I said I worry about myself, it did not mean I don’t have concern for others. I meant that I cannot decide for others what their sincerity level will be in relation to seeking answers from God. That is a very personal thing and not something we can judge or decide for others. Big difference between that and being concerned about others. I have much concern for children and protecting them in our society. I fight things that I feel are immoral, like pornography. I don’t feel a need to fight against the teachings of the LDS church or other Christian churches. I see much more good coming from them then evil.
Everyone has to find their own way, just like you have. If you feel certain things are immoral then you need to follow your heart and stand against those things. Everyone is on this journey in life, seeking what is important to them and living life the way they desire. Life is messy, complicated and challenging. We all have to figure out what matters most to us and then pursue it.
I’ve said it before, but this is the best LONG thread I’ve ever read. Thank you, everyone.
#443 Guest,
I certainly cannot speak for anyone else’s spiritual experiences, and I have no doubt that many in other faiths have had them of varying degree or effect. I can only speak to my own, and it speaks volumes to me. However, I do not accept that because a Mormon has a spiritual experience and a Muslim does, and a Jehovah’s Witness does that we have to accept all or reject all. I believe that God speaks to different people for different purposes, and I will not presume to know the mind of God on that. What I do know is what I know, and have experienced for myself. My point however is that it was not a delusion or something that I wanted so bad that I created the environment in my mind for it to happen by itself. Yes, others in different faiths have claimed powerful experiences that I in no way discount or deny. Why they had them is know only to God Himself, just as why I had mine.
@ #449:
I know you don’t have to accept all or reject all. But in attempting a middle ground I think that people end up in the same position as those who accept all as coming from God. In both scenarios you are both accepting and rejecting their experience.
What if the Mormon has an experience saying that theirs is the one true religion that will redeem all of mankind, that the others are an abomination, that they seek God with their lips, but their hearts are far from Him?
What if the Muslim has the exact same experience saying their religion is the one true religion?
What if the Jehovah’s Witness has the exact same experience saying their religion is the one true religion?
What if a person who believed in the Greek Gods had the exact same experience saying their religion was the one true religion?
Even if you are one of the freethinkers that is willing to say that perhaps each religion is what God has in store for that person, aren’t you still rejecting the validity of at least some of their experience? Each had an experience stating that theirs was the one and ONLY true religion, but you would be stating otherwise by conceding that all of them may have come from God.
Thanks, Ray. I assume you meant to thank me most of all since I have contributed the most. I get it, you were just afraid to name names for fear of forgetting someone, but I am at the top of the list. Guest is a close second. And if anyone disagrees, that’s pretty rude. After all, Guest did write the article.
And don’t forget me Dexter. I copied Guest’s writing into the post! That took at least a few minutes.
Adamf to second. Guest to third.
In regards to the comments of going to extreme measures to “force” a spiritual experience, I might draw a few quick parallels to early Church history. But, first Jen, I am puzzled by your remarks that “copying” the efforts of those who claim to have been succesful, is foolish. It makes perfect sense to me that we would follow the patterns set by others.
If you recall, Joseph Smith’s use of a Seer Stone to recieve revelations, he commented that he did not like to do it because staring into the stone for hours caused his eyes to hurt. Think about the exertion employed in such and endeavor. When the Three Witnesses spoke of their experience, I believie David Whitmer commented that the three of them took turns praying (by some accounts using the seer stone), an activity which consumed the better part of the afternoon. After all was said and done, David Whitmer claims that the entire experience took place in his mind. Martin Harris’s witness, as told by Joseph Smith, suggests the same idea. They were in the midst of praying (Hours, perhaps) when all of the sudden Martin says “tis enough, tis enough, mine eyes have seen”. It doesn’t come across as though this were a shared experience between Martin Harris and Joseph Smith, rather that Martin witnessed the plates in the isolation of his mind.
The point is, if you consider many of the founding events, staring into rocks, and extremely prolonged prayers, the history is full of extreme efforts for spiritual experiences. The debate is, is this what God requires in order to demonstrate sincerity and devotion, or are these behaviors just the ticket for hallucinations, or other self induced phenomenon?
Cowboy-
I think following a pattern is different than trying to recreate a similar situation like Guest Writer’s mission companion was trying to do. I also see the Three Witnesses as having specific roles and purposes and so what they were trying to do could be considered appropriate for their calling and purpose. I wouldn’t consider it appropriate for just anyone to try and do what they did.
If I were to see an angel it would be because there was a specific reason and purpose for it. Otherwise, praying to see an angel would not necessarily be appropriate. That is why we pray to have the Spirit to know what to pray for, so that we can receive that which we need and is necessary for us to fulfill our mission in life.
In my personal experience a sincere heart is much more important when praying to the Lord than how long we say that prayer. Of course that is just my opinion, but I believe there is much truth in that.
I’m still not sure I understand what is innappropriate about seeking and desiring the highest manifestations of God. Think of Jacobs wrestle with the Lord, to the point that he would not release his heavenly assailant until a blessing was given, also sometimes called Jacobs Latter. (about the 28th chapter of Genesis). Enos also refers to his experience as a “wrestle” with the Lord. Joseph Smith determined that if the scriptures said that God will answer all prayers, he would do so under the expectation that his prayer be answered. Three years later, after a period devoid of heavenly contact, he determined that he would pray again expecting to have a similar manifestation. The scriptures are replete with these types of examples, and I don’t understand what is wrong about asking for these types of experiences. Perhaps you feel that it is wrong to place demands on God? But why should any of us be content with lesser, and lesser “tender mercies” when the higher manifestations are supposedly obtainable?
If we follow Jared’s counsel, much of which you have appeared to be in-step with, than nobody can challenge the legitimacy of the Church based on the absence of divine manifestations, if that person has not first taken the classic challenge in Moroni 10: 3-5 and followed it explicitly. Ultimately, what that requires is that we each follow the same pattern by recreating the situation that all members are required to follow in order to gain a testimony. If that doesn’t work, then using the scriptures as an example, it would make perfect sense that perhaps trying to have your own wrestle with the Lord, such as Enos describes, makes perfect sense. Seeking out the wilderness areas that are all too common is scripture for these types of events, while perhaps not necessary, seems appropriate if you are trying follow those who claim to have succeeded.
In short Jen, it almost sounds like what you are saying is that, God only rarely manifests himself in these ways. If we are one of the lucky ones then great, but don’t expect it. The rest of us should learn to be satisfied with lesser witnesses which by their very nature become more likely subject to ambiguous interpretations. That is not very comforting, particularly when the promise of Mormonism is a glass window into the heavens for all those who dilligently seek God.
Cowboy-
I think we may be misunderstanding one another. I honestly don’t know if God rarely manifests himself in certain ways or not, because most people probably don’t discuss if they have had these type of experiences. I know I never would. I don’t think it is about luck, I think it is about necessity. For example, if we look at the gifts of the Spirit, some may be blessed with faith and not need manifestations throughout their life, it may just be easier for them to believe than others. For some, manifestations may be necessary to keep them going. Only God can know this. I guess my point is if a person already knows that God lives and is a believer I don’t think it is appropriate to seek having experiences just for the sake of having an experience and being able to say this happened to me. That is where I think you are misunderstanding me. Enos was struggling and was looking for answers. He wasn’t just praying to have some spectacular experience. I think if you are praying with purpose and not just for an experience in an of itself there is nothing wrong with that. I also think if you are consistent and diligent in seeking God it is much more likely that manifestations will come to you when you don’t expect because of your diligence and obedience, not because you are seeking to see God.
I don’t think it is wrong to seek God or His face, but I wouldn’t go out of my way on say, Monday, to say today I am going to pray until I see God or an angel. That is not me, and I don’t see purpose in that. For me though, I don’t feel like I need to see Hiim to know He is there or to believe in Him and that may not be the case for others. Does that make sense?
Cowboy-
These scriptures refer to some of what I am talking about. There are in D & C 63:
7 And he that seeketh signs shall see signs, but not unto salvation.
8 Verily, I say unto you, there are those among you who seek signs, and there have been such even from the beginning;
9 But, behold, faith cometh not by signs, but signs follow those that believe.
10 Yea, signs come by faith, not by the will of men, nor as they please, but by the will of God.
11 Yea, signs come by faith, unto mighty works, for without faith no man pleaseth God; and with whom God is angry he is not well pleased; wherefore, unto such he showeth no signs, only in wrath unto their condemnation.
12 Wherefore, I, the Lord, am not pleased with those among you who have sought after signs and wonders for faith, and not for the good of men unto my glory.
The Scriptures speak of learning through progression. Jesus speaks of Milk before meat, Isaiah speaks of “line upon line, precept upon precept”. The Brother of Jared progressed in faith to the degree where God, bound by some unspoken Eternal law, could not refrain from showin himself to The Brother of Jared. In other words, they seem to suggest that, even according to Scripture, the highest manifestations are physical/literal. In false objection to this many people site the occassion where Jesus chastised the famous “doubting-Thomas” because he needed to see in order to believe. The problem with this comparison is that, Thomas refused all that he had witnessed from Jesus, until he saw the Lord risen. He had had proofs during his entire sojourn with the Savior, and yet still refused to accept the possibility of his divinity until he was made witness in the flesh. The Brother of Jared on the other hand continually progressed in faith, until such faith was rewarded by seeing the entire personage of God, and conversing with him directly. Yet, it is still fashionable for Church members to declare that a higher manifestion is unnecesary, or almost subordinate to a “Holy Ghost” experience labeled the First Comforter, as opposed to the divine presence of Jesus called the Second Comforter. Given this I would say that it is not only appropriate, but incumbent upon each of us to seek out this higher manifestation if at all possible.
As for sign seekers. Part of the problem is not the desire for a witness, for using that logic even the Holy Ghost could be considered a “sign”. Rather Jesus chastised the sign seekers, who like Thomas, requested that all be put on a silver platter for them – but were unwilling to put forth their own effort. Any other interpretation places the whole law of gospel witnesses and religious epistemology in void.
Cowboy-
I think I am referring to something a little different than you. I am referring to people who are seeking to just have an experience, or seeking after signs as the scripture I posted refers to. I think it is appropriate to desire to see the Lord but I think it comes from daily righteous living and diligence over our lifetime. I feel it is a work in progress and something we all desire if we are truly seeking the Lord’s will. I just think we have to be careful we are not seeking it for the wrong reasons.
Jen:
I am not sure what “the wrong reasons” could be. I find it hard to imagine that the new college fad that is replacing the ouija board is try and summon God through a Mormon experience in order to gain a testimony. I don’t entirely disagree that this is an overnight experience, yet the scriptures make no excuses that these experiences in many cases were nearly “heat of the moment” encounters. I would concede that me walking into my room, and saying I’m not leaving for two days because God will come to me, is a shortsighted expectation. On the other hand, wrestling with the Lord under the attitude of Enos, ie, I’m not leaving until you answer me, is at least not without scriptural precedent. And what good are the scriptures, if not to serve as a guide for how to live and to seek deity? I would just say that not all of the examples in scripture, where God appeared to men, happened to men in their old age.
Just a final note on sign seeking: I seem to recall some LDS literature from a long time ago (I know this sounds like the perfect excuse for having no source) that stated in all probability the main reason Jesus held contempt for “sign seeking” was because it specifically referred to signs in the sky and weather patterns, that were very common in the beliefs of the surrounding pagan cultures. You will notice that Jesus, turns these expectations around on them by stating that their signs will be manipulated against them by the very creator of heaven and earth – whose works were being credited the false Gods of their faith. In other words, “signs” may not be universally translatable to all manifestations of God, and I think logic seconds that fact.
Cowboy-
Frankly I would love to see the Lord. In fact, I have many things I would love to talk to Him about face to face, especially right now in my life. I have spent much time praying, meditating and seeking after the Lord so I am no stranger to seeking after Him. I know that He knows the deepest desires of my heart and seeing Him is one of them. I don’t feel I have to express that to Him specifically on a daily basis though and if and when the time is ever right, according to His will, I believe it will happen. I think our desires are a great part of prayer, spoken or unspoken. I believe part of having the Spirit is knowing what to pray for. I pray to have the Spirit everyday and in doing that, if I feel I ever need to pray specifically about seeing the Lord, I will.
#461-
Cowboy-
When I say wrong reasons, I mean those other than the Lord’s will for us. Seeing God or having any other type of manifestation has to be according to God’s will, not just what we want or desire. If we desire to see God and don’t care whether or not it is His will for us at that time, then I think we are missing the whole point.
NOT TO 500!!!!!!
(said with the same tone as Christopher Guest’s when he screams “not to 50!” on Princess Bride)
Oh come on Dexter, where is your sense of adventure? I was hoping for at least 550.
You truly love each other and so you might have been truly happy. Not one couple in a century has that chance, no matter what the story books say. And so I think no man in a century will suffer as greatly as you will.
LET’S DO IT, JEN!
Jared, would you please regale us with a few of your favorite spiritual experiences. One post per experience, please.
Just kidding, everyone. Just kidding. Everyone here knows I think highly of Jared.
I mean no offense. Just a joke. I thought it was funny.
Jen:
I apologize if it seems like I am just badgering your points, I just don’t get it. I sort of understand the idea, certainly we don’t want to make God mad. Even still, two questions come to mind.
1) Why would this be against God’s will in General? Sure, I can’t flip God the bird for forty years and then suddenly expect that if I change my tune, 15 minutes later he is going to grant to me the highest confirmation of his existence possible. Ultimately however, given his stated purpose of bringing to pass our immortality and Eternal life, I think that that revealing himself would be key to making that happen. Sure, the whole timing thing, but I am not confident that we can make a case as to how long it could take given scriptures which throw that idea out as a gospel maxim.
2) How do we know what God’s will is in the first place? Isn’t that why we are approaching him in the first place. I wouldn’t want to turn the Holy Ghost into a receptionist, but perhaps we could get an impression of “not now”, but does that mean we should stop seeking? Even still, the impressions are so sketchy that it seems to me we are better to be continually seeking him, if we believe that to be a reasonable expectation.
Cowboy, I was on a roll. That wasn’t exactly the bu-doom-ching!! I was looking for. In fact, it was quite sobering and killed the whole comedic route I was heading on.
DEAL DEXTER! I personally am very curious to understand where some of the daily bloggers on MM are coming from in relation to the LDS church and their experiences. I can tell that some were once believers and now are struggling with belief, but sometimes it is hard to tell exactly where they stand. If anyone is willing to explain their situation in a more detailed explanation I would be interested in understanding it better.
I personally have had my struggles with some of the things in church history, but I have been able to get past them. I am a believer and continue to be active in the LDS church.
Anyone want to contribute where they are right now? I would love to know.
I was actually curious about Cowboy. Maybe I am misremembering but it seems some of his posts have a completely devout tone and some seem to be critical/doubtful about the church.
Obviously, if you don’t want to share personal information you don’t have to but I have at times thought you were in one category and at other times thought you were in a different category.
so, what you would like is just a very, very, liberal testimony meeting?
#472-
I have had confusion with several people similar to what you are saying.
Cowboy-
Why not? 🙂
Let me clarify that no one has to fit into any category and can have days where they feel faithful and days where they don’t. I can totally and completely accept anyone who changes their position on some or many of these issues often and by large degrees, or someone who doesn’t have a position on certain subjects. Navigating these issues in a straight line is probably the exception, not the rule.
Dexter-
Oh you mean like the lukewarm who will get spewed out of the Lord’s mouth? haha JK….really
You didn’t laugh at my Jared joke so I don’t have to laugh at yours. 🙂
By the way, I am currently drinking lukewarm (room temperature) water right now. Cold water I find to be too….what’s the word….cold, yes that’s it.
I am a sinner, indeed.
Maybe we should have a post devoted to people sharing their experiences. I would also be interested in hearing people’s stories. I would be more than happy to share mine as well, although I don’t know if right in the middle of this post is the place for it, as much as Dexter would like to get to 1000 comments.
Dex, (you don’t mind if I call you Dex do you?)
I am afraid I don’t remember your Jared joke, refresh my memory will you?
“By the way, I am currently drinking lukewarm (room temperature) water right now. Cold water I find to be too….what’s the word….cold, yes that’s it.
I am a sinner, indeed”
Or it could just be you have a tooth sensitivity to cold, I hate that! 🙂
brjones-
We were just shooting for 550 comments, but you have a good point. So, who wants to write the post? I nominate Dexter.
Sorry for the confusion. Short answer, I don’t want to become a post inside of a post: I was at one time a very devout member, and even still hold to some of the emotion behind that. Just prior, during and then for several years following my full-time mission I was very devout, have held numerous callings (GD Teacher 3x, Youth Sunday School, EQ – Secretary, Stake Sunday School Presidency – 1st Counselor, and Ward Clerk). I fullfilled those callings to the best of my abilities, I served a mission in the the mid-west, and have been back there on non-Church related business a handful of times. On my mission and afterword, I became somewhat of a student of Joseph Fielding Smith, and some of the “Older” generation of contemporary Church writers. Today, and most of the last five years, I have been in the doubtful/critical camp, thinking like many people start to, that the Church (membership mostly, because certainly the Brethren would agree with me) was becoming complacent. Personally I can’t see how you can belong to our Church, place such devotion in its founders, and not be fundamentalist. Not to the point of joining offshoots, but not being flexible in facets of the “law”.
A problem that plagued me on mission was the concept of feeling the Spirit. Conceptually it just does not make sense that this phenomenon can ever be construed as some type of revelation. I attended many Church’s, and watched in dismay as those services would take advantage of effects that music and crowd hype can have on a persons immediate emotions. I watched as grown men in the congregation, sporting $3,000 suits could stand up and begin running laps around the congregation, while muttering out a line of gibberish called “speaking in tongues”. I watched as small children would fall to the floor in convultions similar to seizures, surrounded by a crowd of their weeping loved ones who thrilled to witness their children being blessed by the Spirit. I also began to observe this type of manipulation in our own Church. I was able to accompany the AP’s on a few Zone Meetings where they were teaching the Elders and Sisters how to “properly” teach the discussions. I watched this Elder three times manufacture a drama where he could induce tears on cue at exactly the same point of his presentation. I couldn’t help but draw parallels in my mind to experiences in my High School drama class. As I watch Church films, commercials, or music, I saw portrayals such as the family, which centered around the American ideal of family, usually about a family where the daughter was hit by a car, that then stressed the “unique” Mormon idea that families could be together forever. What I didn’t see was all of the things surrounding the family in our doctrine, that wouldn’t make the film so palattable. Nevertheless, I noticed even the emotions these presentations would well up inside of me. I also couldn’t help but notice that these emotions “Feeling the Spirit”, could also occur while listening to music that would often times be considered worldly by Church standards, or in movies that also wouldn’t quite fit the mold (nothing over the top, to where a Bishop should have been consulted).
As I began to study more about Church history I began to see a Church that was more at odds with it’s origins, and that progressed to a point where I saw a very inconsistent Church with it’s own claims. I also began to see, what some have termed, a whitewashed history. This became a huge isse for me because I felt/feel that the truth needs no protection, or in other words, there should be no need to “steady the ark”. What particularly got me was how revisionist the story of Joseph Smith early experiences with the Seer stone has become. When I began to doubt, things just trickled from there, till I got to a point where I had to acknowledge that I didn’t “know” the Church was true, so the next step was to ask do I even “believe” that it is true. I found that I didn’t, and what surprised me the most was that I also found that this was not a choice I made, I really just didn’t believe it, that was my brain acting independent of my motives.
So now long story short, I am very much a Mormon (it’s still hard wired Dexter, I can’t help it, but sorry it has created confusion for you), who does not believe the Church is true.
Cowboy-
Thanks for sharing. I have some questions for you, but I am now wondering if a new post needs to be started to address this topic. I am not sure how to proceed. Where is Ray when you need him? 🙂
Sigh. I just said it. I made a joke that all we have to do to get to 500 posts is ask Jared to share the spiritual experiences he had the last few weeks, but with the rule that only one post per experience. Just kidding, again! We all love Jared. JUST JOKING!
Tooth sensitivity? I think not. That would be admitting to having a fault in my physical constitution. 😉 And yes, you can call me Dex.
I think it is clear who the party pooper is. Cough (mumbling brjones).
That is funny Dex! I think Jared would laugh as well. I never saw your comment Dex (with the joke) or Cowboy’s after it because I have been having problems with the MM link all day today. Sorry I missed it. I wasn’t ignoring your comment Cowboy, I just barely saw it now (#469)
Cowboy, thanks for the post. As much as I enjoy doctrinal discussions, I really enjoy hearing personal journeys very much. I think questions on what he said are totally appropriate here, Jen. No time like the present.
I am curious, again, if this is too personal just don’t respond, Cowboy. How much of your transformation was based on logic (viewing what you perceived to be inconsistent doctrines or your the church manipulating the spirit the way other religions do, or doctrines that you didn’t think would be consistent with a loving God) versus personal feelings of “God wasn’t there for me” or disappointment with your personal life?
#485
I think it is also clear that we are going to meet our goal (550 comments) even with the party pooper! 🙂
I just returned from a busy day. I think Cowboy is a english teacher and creative writer doctoral candidate. He can sure write.
Jen is like most sisters, she can write just because she’s female.
Dexter is a stand up comic, when he isn’t writing at MM. 😉
I’ll add a link for Glen Beck’s conversion story to follow up Dexter request for a spiritual experience story. This really is a good story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKtAPT9KEfM
Cowboy-
I am curious if you are married and if you are, how has this affected that relationship?
My parents gave me a gift for Christmas a few years ago. It was called “A Christmas Sweater” by Glenn Beck. Wow. Let’s just say I only finished it because my parents had given it to me and to not read it would have been rude to them, in my opinion. I’m going to stop talking about Beck’s writing now to honor my mother’s rule about “if you don’t have anything good to say….”
As far as personal stories, I want to clarify that I enjoy them all, be it someone finding the truth, someone finding there is no knowable truth regarding God, or someone finding their lost red ball in the woods….but no more sweater stories!
#481 Cowboy–
Interesting experience. Thanks for sharing.
Have you ever studied Nibley? I think some people who get buffeted by church history have found the “proofs” surrounding the Book of Mormon worthwhile. There really are some stunning proofs for the Book of Mormon being an ancient document. Of course, it doesn’t take the need for faith away, but it does offer some intellectual stimulus in the credibility column for the Book of Mormon.
#481
I find this discussion of emotion inducing experiences interesting. I think it was a bad thing having a sister who was both a movie buff, but also in drama. She was very much into the technical aspects of movies. She would show me clips of movies with the soundtrack removed and we would compare them to the ones with soundtrack. It was like night and day. A scene that could induce goosebumps, a chill up the spine, and that sort of swelling feeling in the chest had none of those effects when the soundtrack is removed. The same things can be observed from someone who comes from a different culture of music, where the music we find dramatic and emotional just sounds strange to them. Those people will also not be moved by those moments. Our minds have been trained to understand what type of music is dramatic and powerful and what isn’t. The same is true for HOW resolutely someone says something. The more resolute, the more of an impact that it has. Some people throughout history have understood this about human psyche. For example, the brilliant propagandist for Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels once said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” Perhaps somewhat along those lines, H.L.Mencken said, “The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.” I think both of these men are hitting on the idea that the human mind is much more impressed with big, bold statements, rather than “Well, we think that…” or “It seemed to me that…”
Going back to the effects of music, I was recently reading an interview with a Hollywood composer and one of the first questions the interviewer asked was, “How often do you manipulate the emotions of the audience?” The composer went on to respond that mostly he just lets the music flow, but there are definitely moments in the film that the director makes him aware of where he wants him to make the music swell and other such techniques used in order to get the audience to feel something. He talked about the psychology of inducing those common feelings that people get. He mentioned something that really made me think. He said that the body feels those things when you build the anticipation. I thought that was very profound. It isn’t the climax of the drama on film that makes a person feel those emotions, but rather the building of the music to the point where you may not even be aware that it has placed you on pins and needles. The body is, in a sense, on alert, hence the heightened state of emotion with the goosebumps and chill up the spine and such, almost like a cat with it’s hair standing on end. I thought it was fascinating.
So, anyway, back to what I was saying. Whenever I watched any movies, including church movies, I found myself analyzing the movie so much, that instead of feeling those things that the makers wanted me to feel, I would just notice when the filmmaker was trying to induce those feelings. It was always a bit distracting for me, but also very fascinating. I do a better job now at just letting them manipulate me, because who doesn’t want that naturally release of endorphins/dopamine stuff? I still try to be somewhat aware of it, though. I couldn’t believe it, though when the 2nd Singles Ward movie got me. They are telling an obvious, tongue-in-cheek faith promoting story, the music swelled and everything and I totally got the goosebumps, spine tingle and swelling feeling. Even when people are doing it as a joke, it still got me. Grrrr….
Also, about the mission. The MTC training was always an uncomfortable thing for me. We would practice bearing our testimonies and we would be judged on how well the instructor felt the spirit. I was usually the one in the class that was given the highest ratings on those, but it was because I made the most eye contact and said it with the most resolute conviction. The others, who I have no doubt actually had a stronger testimony than I did, would be told they needed to work on their testimony, because the instructor didn’t feel it. In other words, it seemed like, whoever was the better presenter (actor?) had the most Spirit.
All very interesting to me.
#469
Cowboy-
1) I think having a great manifestation also brings with it greater accountability for the receiver. Assuming God knows us perfectly, it may not be His will to give us a great manifestation at that time because we may condemn ourselves more if we were to turn away from it. I don’t believe God would have ever come to JS (First Vision) if he knew that he would fail in his mission. It would have frustrated the Lord’s purposes and greatly condemned JS. Just because someone sees an angel doesn’t mean they will be faithful, but I believe if you do see an angel you are that much more accountable and your condemnation will be that much greater if you fall away.
2) I think it is possible to know when things are not according to God’s will. I never said we should stop seeking the Lord, but I have known when what I was praying for wasn’t what I needed to pray for at that time. I don’t know how you explain that in logical terms and I know this will not satisfy you…..SORRY!
Here is a follow up to what I wrote in #492. It’s a little hard to read, but is interesting information for those who are looking for information on the Book of Mormon. As I’ve said before the BoM is the Lords gift to those living in this day and age.
This is a u-tube presentation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOkfUXNIV-o
Jen:
I am married, my wife and I were sealed in the Temple at our marriage five years ago, we have two small Children (Boy 3 yrs, Girl 1 year). Three years ago I crossed my fingers, closed my eyes, and told my wife my feelings regarding the Church. She acted pretty much as I expected, though she hid it well. She comes from a family that wears Church membership on their sleeve, to the point where the only subject that maintains a conversation at family gatherings, is the Church. They constantly recieve complaints about this from other family – cousins – and friends and neighbors. I never tried to push any of this onto my wife, but I felt that we could not succeed in our marriage if she didn’t know where I was coming from regarding the Church. About a year later, and a lot private tears which made her think her family was falling apart, she began to press me about the issue. I have not personally read a lot of what would be considered classic “anti-Mormon” literature, but I have followed a number of Mormon dedicated blogs (generally the somewhat Pro-Mormon sites – FAIR, BCC, FaithPromotingRumor, Juvenile Instructor). I also read many of the classic Church history books (Mormon Enigma, No Man Knows my History, Rough Stone Rolling, part of Early Mormonism and the Early Magic World View, portions of In Sacred Lonliness, portions of BH Roberts, Studies of The Book of Mormon). Many of the issues addressed in these books I have cross referenced in LDS official sources, so I am confident in every argument I raise against the Church.
In order to come to terms with my wife we read the Biography of Joseph Smith by Lucy Mack Smith, which really opened her eyes to many of the arguments I have raised with the Church. She has been stuck on Polygamy now for two years. If the Church could get rid of it’s polygamy heritage they’d almost have her all of the way. She agrees that the Church is not what it claims to be, though she is not at the same place I am at. At this point she doesn’t care that much, and isn’t troubled by being married to an unbelieving husband, she just accepts that as part of the human experience. It also helps that she isn’t convinced that the Church is true either, she tends to leand towards the believing side, but not convinced. My part of the agreement is to not try and rock the boat so much by becoming publicly outspoken (hence the “Cowboy” moniker) and that I don’t make her go to Church alone, or do anything which could ostracize her from her family. I am happy to do this. So, that’s where it’s at Jen.
#496-
Cowboy-
Wow…thanks for sharing. I know how that polygamy thing can get to women. I got stuck there for a while too, but I prayed for a while about it and got some answers that I needed to help me get unstuck.
How do you think things will go as your children get older? Do you think that will put a strain on your marriage as the children start asking questions?
#495
You have those points in the video (that could be addressed individually), but you also have a member of the First Council of the Seventy, B.H. Roberts, in his own personal writing comparing the Book of Mormon to the book the “View of the Hebrews” and conceding that, “One acquainted with Book of Mormon historical events will recognize in all this an outline of the Book of Mormon ‘history,’ what else there is would be merely detail.” (B. H. Roberts, Book of Mormon Studies, Pt. I, VII, 2)
Here is another u-tube presentation. This one is on chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.
I met to include it with my last comment #495.
I DID IT!!!!!
I mean WE did it!!!!!!
#500!
Beat ya to it Dex!
HEY! I was #500 for a few glorious seconds and then I hit F5 and Dexter appears! That is just not right!
Are you sure about that, Jen?
Not anymore! You did something didn’t you Dex?!? I knew you were trouble all along….. 🙂
Jared:
I read about 1/3 of Abraham in Egypt which was about a mile over my head. I read about 3/4 of The Temple and the Cosmos, which was about 10 miles over my head, but had enough nuggets in it to maintain my attention. I have also read a handful of nibley’s papers, Zeal without Knowledge, and No Ma’m that’s not History, the latter of which is not at all flattering of Nibley. I know what I am about to say is really not a discredit to Nibley, more than it is to myself, but a rule I tend to follow regarding religious history is little like a rule given to potential investors. If you don’t understand the scheme or strategy, don’t buy into the portfolio. In other words, I am not sold on Nibley because I don’t understand. I recognize that he is generally considered one of the most intellectual figures in Mormon history, twenty something languages. I also took an English class from his son in Law Boyd K. Peterson several years, who published a Biography titles, A Consecrated Life, and had an occassion or two to speak to him about his father in law. By all accounts he lived a remarkable life. I am also aware of some pretty serious academic criticisms of him by some of his BYU peers. I will have to look up the source, but in one instance his ancient world parallels to Mormonism is compared to a futile effort of selectively choosing bits and pieces of old world culture and molding it into a Mormon collage that ultimately distorts the cultures of origin.
Don’t tease everyone into thinking I will appear for them if they hit F5.
A few seconds for you….a lifetime for me. Sounds about right.
I’d like to thank Willie Mays, Babe Ruth, and of course, Hank Aaron for welcoming me to the 500 club with open arms. I feel it is where I belong. Praise to the man (or woman) who created this site!
#499
The problem I have with chiasmus is that just because people didn’t have a name for it, does not mean that people were unaware of it. I mean, the Bible had been around for some time. They knew of it, they just didn’t know a technical term for it.
If chiasmus is a sign of divinity, then I may be forced to believe that James Strang, whose followers rivaled Brigham Young at one point, should have been Joseph’s true successor. The scriptures he translated from plates given to him by an angel also contained chiasmus and are used by current Strangites as an example of his being the true prophet to follow Joseph. James Strang died a martyr.
Here is their website: http://www.strangite.org/Chiasmus.htm
“The MTC training was always an uncomfortable thing for me. We would practice bearing our testimonies and we would be judged on how well the instructor felt the spirit”
I vividly remember this experience as well. I also saw this as a drama experience. On one occassion I was given a low score, and remember asking the instructor – Well did you feel it or not?
The View of the Hebrews is not taken seriously by any of the seasoned critics today.
Guest writer–there is abundant evidence and proof to show the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient document. The evidence from extra-spiritual sources is as compelling as the challenges found in church history.
In my opinion this levels the playing field so that it leaves no over whelming reason to conclude the church is the creation of men. The Book of Mormon stands tall and convincing to all that take a serious look at from a Nibley perspective.
Where did that book come from, who wrote it? It just came on the scene seeming out of no where and is a powerful evidence for the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.
#505-
“A few seconds for you….a lifetime for me. Sounds about right.”
Game on! Guess we will have to see who gets the last word then! haha
#493 – I have had many similar feelings to those you discussed in your last paragraph, Guest. I was consistently praised on my mission and afterward for how wonderful and spiritual my blessings and confirmations were, even at times when I gave blessings I probably should not have been giving and without making any pretense at seeking the spirit. The fact is, I was always relatively well spoken and was able to channel that pretty easily into giving blessings that sounded great and were verbally impressive. Frankly, it always made me a little sick when people would come up to me and tell me how much they felt the spirit. There were even times when people would compare my blessings to others who had given confirmation blessings in a group setting. Similarly, I taught an Elder’s Quorum lesson less than a year ago, after I was 90% sure I was finished with the church, and I was roundly praised for the spirit that existed in the meeting. The SP was in attendance and went on and on about how wonderful the lesson was. I don’t say these things to brag, because frankly, I’m not that bright and I don’t think it’s that difficult to impress. The point is, I have always been able to manipulate the facade of the spirit’s involvement in my church activities, and it’s really not that difficult to do. My father is a very intelligent person and also very charismatic, and everyone has always thought he is a spiritual giant. He is a good man and I respect him, but I think the praise heaped on him is primarily due to his intellect and his oral skills.
#496 – This is also a comment with which I can relate, Cowboy. It was very difficult for me when I began realizing I didn’t believe in the church. I was comfortable with the things I was learning and studying because my exodus was not the result of learning about the church’s history. I decided I didn’t believe the church was true before I ever picked up a book or visited a web site. But as I progressed, I found very unsure of how to proceed with my wife, not because I was worried about what effect it would have on our marriage (although I worried about that as well), but because I knew that if I shared many of the things I was learning, it would potentially inflict serious damage on her testimony of the church, which I had no desire to do. In fact, one night she pressed me on my spirituality and I discussed a few of the things that were troubling me. A few days later she came to me in tears and told me she was very confused about the things I had told her. It was very difficult. I didn’t want to destroy her faith in the church or in god, especially because she finds it personally very helpful to her. At the same time, I didn’t really want to keep from her the details of the very personal transformation that I was undergoing. It was very tricky. We have since come to a very comfortable place about the whole situation and it’s not an issue anymore. It is a very rocky shoal to navigate, though.
#
Jen:
I don’t expect there to be problems with our Children. With some coaching our plan is to let them decide, if and until my wife changes her mind, we’re church goin people, so that’s the rule of the home. We will however be honest with them about our feelings, though we plan to teach them about Church history like we’ll teach them about sex. A very tiny bit now, and as they get older we will have more mature conversations with them about it. Not to be confused with the Santa Clause approach that suggests we teach them one thing now, and a completely different thing later. My wife and I are both agreed that if our children want to serve missions we will be supportive of that, but we both agree that we are much more interested in reinforcing college as a priority.
Jen, if you know I am trouble, you best stay away.
I already won. Being the last one to speak was not the goal, being the pinnacle, being #500 was the goal. One that I achieved and you failed to achieve.
If I were looking to support the credibility of JS and the BoM, I would not intentionally steer anyone to “No Ma’am, That’s Not History.” I think it is frankly embarrassing to Nibley’s reputation.
Guest Writer & Cowboy. et al–
Regarding the extra-spiritual evidence for the Book of Mormon and the prophet Joseph Smith: it is compelling and deserves to be looked at to add balance the perspective that each of us has.
Guest Writer is ready to leave the church because of his study of church history. OK-each of us have agency to do as we please, but I’m suggesting that the Lord has provided enough support for the Book of Mormon from extra-spiritual evidence to balance the play field so that it isn’t a no brainier to leave the church.
I hope Guest Writer and others will take on Nibley and will avail themselves of a really good book “Shaken Faith Syndrome” to do a thorough job of intellectual honesty before they give up on the church. Who knows what will happen?
Interesting comments Cowboy and brjones.
It should be interesting to see if you still feel that way when your kids reach mission age. I am glad both your spouses appears to have taken it pretty well. The Family First? post might want your input as well.
#513
I actually did achieve the goal for a few short moments and then decided to allow you to have it. I hope you appreciate my generosity.
Jared:
With all due respect, there are no ancient world Scholars out there who give any creedance to The Book of Mormon, who are not also Mormons. I can concede that there is some speculation, such as FARMS findings, and such that eliminates “some” of the traditional arguments against the BOM, but nothing (by even their own admission) that provides real proof in the affirmative. The best evidence is Nahom, and that is far, far, from conclusive, and again even FARMS representatives will concede this point. Chiasmus has been under debate from the beginning. I am not trying to suggest that your points don’t have merit, but none of the pro BOM findings to date level the playing field scientifically.
Cowboy and brjones-
Hearing your stories (being a woman) I am very curious to hear your wives’ side of the story now. When I read your stories I couldn’t help but think of them and wonder what they have been going through.
Thanks for sharing. I am signing off for now to get some grub. Try and keep Dexter in line.
#509
I’m sure I could come up with a solid list of critics who think that the parallels between the View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon are tremendous, but you may not consider them seasoned, so you may have me there.
I, an unseasoned critic, find it interesting that a book published in Joseph’s area years before the coming forth of the Book of Mormon (and more importantly, containing ideas of the common belief of the time), tells of a tribe of Israel leaving Israel and coming to the Americas, while in the Americas, this tribe split into two sets of people, one of them more civilized (planting crops, building large cities and structures) and the other more savage. According to the View of the Hebrews, there was much jealousy and rage between the two groups, so much so that there were many years of wars between them until, ultimately, the more savage of the groups completely destroyed the more civilized and the civilization and religion brought from Israel was lost in the process.
And tangentially, now we know where the mounds in the earth came from.
Guest Writer –
You left out the most interesting detail. The principle scribe of The Book of Mormon, Oliver Cowdrey, was a parishoner of the man Ethan Smiths congregation prior to joining Joseph Smith to translate The Gold Plates. In other words, other than textual similarities, there is a direct link.
Guest 493: “We would practice bearing our testimonies and we would be judged on how well the instructor felt the spirit.” This post has taken off again (nice work!) but I wanted to comment on what you said above.
It gives me the shivers (not the good kind!). If one of my MTC teachers wanted to do that activity I think I would have wanted to punch them in the face. Yikes. Good thing they didn’t. 🙂
#522 AdamF
It was not the practice of my teacher, but the MTC. I was in the Brazil MTC, though. It may have been different there. The one consolation I had was that I usually won the Spirit contest. 🙂
Welcome to the club of winners, Guest Writer.
Wow! Brazil MTC FAIL! Nothing against Brasil though. I was in Sao Paulo last November for a bit. Loved it!
Glad you won those contests!
I thought Brodie, despite Nibley’s criticisms, painted a strong argument that The Book of the Hebrews and the BoM were in no way connected.
This reminds me of an interesting side note: the church set out to prove JS had plural wives in the early days to counter JS’ sons’ arguments. How interesting that that evidence today is used against the church.
Jen said, “Where is Ray when you need him?”
Limited to accessing the internet for a few minutes at a time from a hotel business office. I told everyone I would be cutting way back soon. 🙂
Let’s go for 1000! 😉
#527-
Ray-
Hopefully you aren’t experiencing any serious withdrawal symptoms! 🙂 MM isn’t the same without you.
#528
AdamF-
If you can keep this post going I am game!
Today is busy but I have some time tomorrow. There have been a few comments I wanted to respond to/offer some ideas, etc.
#526
I think there are some very interesting parallels, but I think it is actually far more interesting that those beliefs and teachings are not limited to View of the Hebrews. In fact, View of the Hebrews took extensively from an earlier work (I would have to pull out my research to find the name of it). I find it most interesting that in the early 1820s, it was the common belief taught by ecclesiastical leaders that the Indians came from the lost tribes and that they needed to be restored to their place among God’s people. As another example, here is a quote out of the Wayne Sentinel (the paper Joseph Sr. subscribed to) from October 11, 1825:
The Jewish Rabbi M.M.Noah writes, “If the tribes could be brought together, could be made sensible of their origin, could be civilized, and restored to their long lost brethren, what joy to our people!”
This belief was not limited to View of the Hebrews or even Christian sources. It was a widely held belief. It was the history that people were being taught.
#517 Cowboy said: …there are no ancient world Scholars out there who give any creedance to The Book of Mormon…
I’m not up on this subject. But in the early 1980’s I attended a meeting at BYU where a whole bunch of ancient world scholars headed by Krister Stendahl presented papers showing that the Book of Mormon had legitimate finger prints of being an ancient document. Stendahl was a Harvard Prof who recently died.
There is lots of evidence to support the claims of the Book of Mormon. I ran one by Kevin Barney over the weekend. He thought it was interesting. Here’s the link
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=b404fd758096b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Scroll down to section titled, The W & I at the bottom of the page.
#533
Nowadays, I don’t know of a single one, but I would be interested if there is. I have a feeling that after the DNA evidence, very few will be taking the stance that Native Americans came from anywhere other than the Mongolian region.
Second Nephi uses a poetic description in Chapter 28 about lulling people away into “carnal security.” I ran a search through the online scriptures and found no other use of that term. So was it original with the Book of Mormon?
Thomas Shepard, a popular Cambridge, Mass clergyman who was instrumental in the founding of Harvard delivered a number of sermons which were published during his lifetime (1605-1649). His works have two chapters titles in which the term “carnal security” is incorporated. There is a comparison in the body of the one of the chapters to the sleeping virgins of the NT parable being overcome by carnal security and “slumbering”, “nodding”, “winking”, and becoming “sluggish”.
Could a plot to write the BofM have involved plagiarizing this term from Thomas Shepard? Perhaps, but you can also google “carnal security” and find what appears to be the independent development of the same term by like thinkers. Or the spirit enlightened different thinkers with the same phrase at different times.
So when you hear the hymn “Lord Dismiss us with thy Blessing” and think of “Go tell Aunt Rhodie” it doesn’t mean the tune was stolen. Or WAS it????? 😉
#536
I think there is a difference between term usage and storyline. I am far less interested in the extensive lists people have made of the Book of Mormon “stealing” the use of terms than I am with comparisons between plot. However, there are some very interesting lists out there that show an extensive similarity in terms among small paragraphs. I guess a higher correlation between terms increases my interest.
It is far more interesting to me that the “outline of the Book of Mormon ‘history’” (as B.H. Roberts puts it) was a widely held belief prior to and during the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon would not have been novel to the people of that time, but would have rather been seen as a confirmation of already adopted beliefs.
I’m not knowledgeable enough in the extra-spiritual evidences for the Book of Mormon to be useful in this discussion. Thee are those who have spent years studying these evidences. But it doesn’t nail down conclusively the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith are authentic anymore than church history nails down the church is false. I think the playing field is level so that faith is required. There needs to be opposition in all things for faith to be relevant and Heavenly Father is behind the balance so that one doesn’t get the advantage over the other for very long.
DNA is the latest challenge. But notice how it has lost some of its authority and is currently less of a challenge. Both sides of the issue have had to recant some with the increased understanding of DNA.
Once again, FAITH prevails and there is doesn’t exist a legitimate reason to say, “leaving the church is a no brainier due to all the evidence against it”.
#540
I think when someone has experiences that they take as spiritual manifestations from God telling them the church is true, then I agree that it would be hard for them to say leaving the church is a no brainer.
Speaking as someone without one of those experiences, I would say that it was very much a no-brainer, people just look at one issue at a time, but stacking them up made it a very clear no-brainer for me. I spent a year after that asking people how they COULD believe. For me it was such a no-brainer, I have been trying to understand people that don’t see it that way.
re 540 vs. 508 and 514:
Jared, you’re killin’ me here. Your gungho position slowly eroded.
Personally, though, as per 540…you still have to answer certain questions…are faith and the spiritual experiences that can possibly lead to it chosen? Perhaps for those with faith, there will be nothing that can get them to say leaving the church is a no-brainer…and would I have it any other way? That’s the role of faith.
But faith, through the 540~ comments here, seems to be rather elusive. It comes to some, escapes others. It drops on some without their intention, but others can’t find it no matter how much searching and praying and hope they have. It is too mercurial for us to rely on it as a catchall…unless we already have it.
I will certainly agree that it is not a “no brainer”, I hope I have never come aross that way at least. Also, I completely agree and recognize that the Church is not conclusively false, were it otherwise we would not be having this conversation as no reasonable person would take a position of belief here. That being said, I would still argue that the secular/objective evidence in opposition to the Church outweighs the secular/objective findings in favor of The Book of Mormon being an Authentic document. I don’t know that we could truly have an objective basis for determining the corallary “is the Church true” question. Again, the best research into authenticating The Book of Mormon in recent years, have been either “reasonable” hypotheses, or counter evidences against theories which attempt to invalidate The Book of Mormon scientifically. To date, there is no verifiable evidence that validates directly any point of The Book of Mormon, excluding possibly Nahom, and I can’t overemphasize possibly regarding Nahom.
#541 Guest Writer–
I disagree, politely so–you’ve staked out a position and feel you have a enough facts on your side to call it a no brainer to leave. It’s your choice, but to say that it is so clear cut, a no-brainer, such that every rational being would leave, just can’t be established.
There is so much material out there you haven’t even begun to study–if you leave the church, it will be a choice not a no-brainer, without doubt, decision for the masses to follow.
I think those who deny the earth is flat have a no brainer-reason to leave that particular persuasion of thought.
#542 Andew S–
Welcome to the discussion. It’s morphed! I am addressing the issue of Nibley type evidence for the BoM.
#543 Cowboy said: I would still argue that the secular/objective evidence in opposition to the Church outweighs the secular/objective findings in favor of The Book of Mormon being an Authentic document.
As you might guess I don’t agree with this thought. But I do it from choice, not knowledge. I don’t have the expertise to definitively state my premise, but I would be willing to bet if we had a court room type approach to this issue with the jury all being experts in church history and Nibley type perspectives we would have a hung jury.
Regarding Nahom. I think Nibley had a few evidences for the Book of Mormon in the same category as Nahom. But its been so many years since I read his works I can point it out.
re 545:
I saw. I’ve been keeping up, however quietly. That’s how I noticed how it seemed that your gambit was rather unsuccessful to establish, as you wanted, that “there is abundant evidence and proof to show that the BoM is an authentic ancient document.” Now, you’re at, “balanced on both sides, gotta use faith” which I think is charitable, but I’ll go with it. All I’m saying is faith isn’t a good ace in the hole, especially for someone like Guest Writer who finds himself without it.
#548 Andrew S–
It is great having you in the discussion–thanks for your–“I’ll go with it”.
I’ve been browsing the internet for Book of Mormon Evidences. Jeff Lindsay has listed a few at this link for those who are interested in pursuing this subject. Each one of the titles below is a link on his website.
http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml
# Bountiful and Nahom in the Arabian Peninsula (this may be the most powerful evidence for authenticity yet!)
# The Valley of Lemuel: Another “Blunder” Becomes Evidence FOR the Book of Mormon
# Writing on Metal Plates
# The Buried Plates: Evidence of Authenticity
# Genes Linking Eurasians and Native Americans
# Writing in Reformed Egyptian?
# Mulek, Son of King Zedekiah?
# The Use of Cement in Ancient America
# Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon
# Olive Culture
# Wars in Winter?
# Mesoamerican Fortifications
# Numerous Hebraic Language Structures
# Names in the Book of Mormon
# “The Land of Jerusalem”–a fatal blunder??
# The Great Catastrophe: Volcanism in Book of Mormon Lands
# Gardens, Towers, and Multiple Markets
# Mesoamerican Temples
# Laban’s Treasury
# The Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Writings
# More from Mesoamerica…
# Weights and Measures in the Book of Mormon
my argument is this: religion isn’t about evidences. It is desirable and preferable that religion has evidences for it and is objectively true, but as you say, things are too confused…there’re always issues and doubts and loose ends. We may not be able to find the truth.
But this is irrelevant. What makes religion for people is primarily the spiritual experience. The spiritual experience, as I’ve argued many times, is a subjective and personal thing, and it doesn’t “prove” anything, but nonetheless it is vitally important. It is conceivable that even if something were decisely proven wrong, there’d still be people believing in it as long as they could receive what they perceived as spiritual experiences from them.
So, the better trick is not to try to show that the BoM or any other document are authentic, ancient documents, because I believe you’re trying to hike up an EXTREMELY steep slope for that (and I say the same for Nibley, Lindsay, FAIR, FARMS, etc., etc.,)…but not only that, you aren’t hitting at the heart of the matter. People aren’t converted by convincing evidences…
the problem is that you and everyone doesn’t know exactly what does convert someone. You have theories…you have personal experiences, you have stories…but one size doesn’t fit all. The Book of Mormon challenge may work for some, but it doesn’t work for all. Praying and fasting may work for some, but it doesn’t work for all.
#551 Andrew S–
Well put. I can’t really find anything to disagree with. But I will add,some people need to have secular evidence to help them come to the point where they are “able” to receive the all important Spiritual experience.
As you pointed out, one size doesn’t fit all, even David O McKay was reluctant to serve a mission because he didn’t know for sure the church was true. But after he went on his mission and served the Lord he obtain the Spiritual manifestation he sought earlier in his life, but was denied.
Nevertheless, we were making argument for whether their is enough forensic evidence in support of The Book of Mormon, that an objective jury could not decide yeah or nay.
Jared:
I have spent considerable time on Jeff Lindsay’s site, and personally find him to be one of the better independent apologists for Mormonism available on the web. I say that mostly because of the wealth of information listed on his site, however as in all cases there is a lot of debate as to the objectivity of his articles. Your brief list of issues is to long to get a one by one treatment for each item listed, so a general response. You will notice the ranking of Nahom on the list as compared with my comments. You will notice that vast majority of other topics, particularly if you have read through them, is not exactly a case in favor of authenticating The Book of Mormon. Rather he is challenging charges levied against the BOM to remove obstacles. Critics will lay a charge, complaints against ancient precedent for writing on metal plates from your list for example, and Lindsay will compile a TON of research which demonstrates that in fact ancient cultures close to Jerusalem and the Ancient American peoples did in fact write on metal plates in isolated circumstances, thereby removing a scientific obstacle to BOM historicity. However, in these efforts to clear the way for possibility, they still have not been able to pave the road for probability. So I agree that it is not a “no brainer” as you say, but the scale is tipped against The Book of Mormon.
Question: Do those who have discovered issues that have brought them to an unbelieving state (from a believing one) feel they are happier and more at peace then when they were believers? In other words, is life better than it ever was before and are you satisfied with where your life is right now(Especially those who are married and it has changed the nature of their relationship)?
re 552:
regardless, I don’t think you fully agree with me, or else you would have no problem with the Guest Writer leaving the church. Why is it a no-brainer for him to leave? It is because for him, it is spiritually empty. Earnest search and prayer hasn’t worked. Faking and pretending faith and desire hasn’t worked for him. Research of objective issues is the last thing to have failed him. He’s got several X’s against him. Perhaps later in his life, he’ll have some experience that’ll make him believe, but for whatever it’s worth, that experience is not forthcoming at this moment.
Cowboy, thanks so much for posting #481. You articulate well concerns that I have had.
Ziff:
Thank you for reading it is nice to know that others can relate.
#553 Cowboy–
I haven’t paid a lot of attention in the last 30 years to apologist secular evidence for the BoM. I am aware, but really not too interested in it. Searching Google tonight I came across Lindsay’s site. I’ve heard of him and visited his blog Mormonity a few times.
With the give and take this evening we’ve found common ground, it seems, in one area. There is a balance, like an old time scale, with evidence on either side so that rational beings won’t reach a no-brainer conclusion either way. We can debate how the scale is tipping, but agree there is a scale.
As Andrew S. says–I’ll go with it.
The reason I feel this way is that we are in a probationary state (Alma 12:24) and whatever gets us to the point where we can have the all important Spiritual experience that tips the scale and increases our faith to the extent that we can stay with the good ship zion and become joint heirs with Christ is worth it.
One size doesn’t fit all. and I don’t feel there is one person who has participated in this well commented post, who is lost the possibility of being a true follower of Christ.
Jared:
Yes, just as to not be misunderstood, I believe there is a scale, and too such a degree that belief’s in Mormonism are reasonable – given that we are talking about religion afterall. In other words, I don’t think you are up in the night with your beliefs or claims, or in other other words, I’m paying you somewhat of a compliment. In fact Jared, I feel the overall nature of our conversations during the last 500 comments has been quite enjoyable. So much so in fact, that I in the presence of all who are watching, do hereby recant my pissiness towards you at the beginning of this post.
HRH
COWBOY
Jared, it really doesn’t get better than a royal pardons, not that I consider myself royalty, no, but that I royally take it all back. Way to go.
#555 Andrew S–
I just saw this comment.
I am willing to fight for Guest Writer’s faith. I hope he will do his due diligence before he makes his finial decision. When he does then he has used his God given agency in a respectable way. And as you say, he can always find his way back at a later date if things change.
I was a long ways from faith and church when I was sought out. I’m the first to hold to the possibility of the Lord seeking out His lost sheep (Matt 18:11-14).
Jen:
Take Two – Alternate Ending:
I am really no more happy or sad than before. Occassionally there are things that will get me fired up about the Church, but other things that also used to get me fired up (SSM) no longer bother, so it’s been an even trade. My marriage has not been disrupted. The issue caused some tension for a time, but overall things are fine. This issue did not arise out of a desire to betray my wife or children, and I remain every bit as committed to them as before.
Jen:
Since I have lost my faith my life has fallen into ruin. I am miserable all of the time. All I do is throw darts at my old Mormon pictures, my hair has turned, and whenever I go out, the people always, that is one lonesome cowboy. That on account of the fact that my wife has left me, not because disagreed with me, she just can’t stand the sight of me. Every day I work myself up into a frenzy trying to decide how I am going to try and spite the Church, and ultimately God, who I secretly believe in, but because of pride refuse to openly acknowledge.
#559 Cowboy–
Your words enter into my soul.
re 560:
I’m willing to say that Guest Writer has done (and continues to do) his due diligence. What’s difficult to understand is that due diligence doesn’t always lead to the answer you’d want it to.
If you will have faith, then have faith that any one of us can be reached on God’s terms in God’s time wherever we are, and then let Guest writer (or anyone else go), and do think us worse for it. If we are out of the church or in doesn’t matter. If you have faith that God will reach out and seek his lost sheep, then you should have this faith if Guest Writer leaves or stays. To insist that he stays suggests that you doubt the Lord and his power to reach out to those outside of the church.
re 562:
LOL
Jen:
Just as an aside: This issue has not changed the nature of my marriage, even slightly. I had a philosophy that both my fiance, now wife, agreed to prior to getting married. That we wouldn’t buy into all of the nonsense about choosing marital partners based on a candidates liklihood to help me into the the Celestial Kingdom. We decided that should be a part of it, much like having common values, but that our overriding premise was going to be love, romance, passion, and someone who could manage a budget. I also checked out her mom in order to get a thirty year projection. We have all of the same feelings in those regards that we always have, we love our children who have literally become our shared emphasis, and we spend a lot of time together. We expect fully to enjoy one anothers company in the hereafter (believe it or not, but most Christians expect to have “eternal families” – I first discovered this dissappointing (from a sales perspective) tidbit on my mission). We basically have all of the family happiness that most Mormons do. Despite popular opinion, Church’s don’t make people happy, people make people happy.
#562-
Cowboy-
Maybe you can start an Unbelievers Anonymous group and find the support you need there….LOL
Seriously, does your wife feel the same as you do in #561? I mean let’s get real, men can compartmentalize and women don’t have that option. Our minds are like 4 lane highways and yours are like a path through the woods.
Jen:
Your definately a woman, that highway analogy nailed it. She seems to run fine, every once in a while I’ll kick her tires and they seem to hold up. What are your thoughts, am I missing something?
By the way, I’m just too mad to start a support group, so I’m thinking of calling it “Misery – Company Welcome”.
Cowboy-
#565-This comment helped me understand you and your wife better. I have known women who hold in a lot of their feelings to keep the peace or to give the perception that everything is ok when really they are silently suffering. It doesn’t sound like that is what is going on with her though from what you have said. Just remember that it is likely that she has suffered more than you realize, especially if she doesn’t have anyone besides you to talk to about these issues. That can slowly break a woman down over time if she doesn’t get all of her feelings out and work through them. Ok.. enough psycho babble……
“I also checked out her mom in order to get a thirty year projection.”
That is so guyish of you….don’t forget she has her papa’s genes too. How’s he looking? haha LOL
#568-
I think we can safely say that MM is a type of support group in its own way. The main difference being at a support group you get support and at MM your taking your chances. 🙂
Jared,
I would like to somewhat retract that no-brainer comment I made. It was still a no-brainer for me, but it wasn’t solely because of the lack of Book of Mormon evidences, which is what we were talking about at the time. It was a no-brainer considering those, the Book of Abraham, Kinderhook Plates, the years of lying about polygamy and all the other reasons from church history that gave me a reason to feel like lying for Joseph was the rule rather than the exception. All of that combined with the fact that I don’t have a spiritual experience to back things up. So, yes, it was a no-brainer, but not JUST because of the lack of external evidence for the BOM.
#550 and #552
I agree with Cowboy that I have considered Lindsay’s sight one of the better apologist sites through the years. One thing that bugs me about the sites sometimes, is that apologist sites don’t address what critics would say in response to their apologies. On the list posted, I would argue that a number of them should probably be neutral, rather than an argument for or against. The one that I will go back to is what I said about chiasmus. If Utah LDS are going to use that as an argument FOR the Book of Mormon coming from God, are they prepared to call the writings of James Strang from God as well? In which case the LDS that followed Brigham were probably wrong and the Strangite LDS members were right. I don’t think Strang was a prophet, but he was well aware of the poetic chiasmus style, in which case, chiasmus should just be thrown out as a known biblical structure at the time of Joseph.
Which brings me to a question for people, when considering evidence for the BOM, would you say that things like chiasmus, native American monetary systems, the use of cement and other such things that were known (enough to be found in books in the area and perhaps talked about) would you still consider those slight evidences for or would you consider them inconsequential? I find myself mostly throwing a lot of the stuff out that was known in 1800s as neither for or against. I mean, the “white man” had been living with the Natives for over 300 years by that time. To think that some of that information hadn’t trickled down to the population would be hard for me to believe. I’m sure it would have been much more a topic of conversation for them than it is for us now, because relations with the Native Americans would have been a constant topic. In which case, I would still leave some of Lindsay’s list, but I would chop it down quite a bit for that reason.
Jen,
It may be too early to tell, but I would say that my happiness has remained about the same. I have had sadness, but it has been more for friends like the ones in my original post that congratulated me on my decision to leave, but find themselves in a position that makes it hard for them to do the same. That, and the general frustration that comes when the people you love don’t understand and don’t seem to want to understand why you have done something, but I don’t make my life decisions based on how they feel about things.
One friend of mine recently told me that my life is going to be 20 times happier now that I have left the church, since that was her experience. I didn’t want to offend her by disagreeing too much, but I told her that I was happy in the church and I am happy out of the church. It wasn’t the church that had anything to do with my happiness. My disposition appears to be unaffected.
None of you really know me (unless AdamF now considers us tight), but I would like to pat myself on the back for not posting a counter list of arguments against the veracity/historicity of the BOM as well as a rebuttal to many of the ones listed as arguments for. It has been a huge struggle for me to not do so. I like it when all the information is on the table, but I bet most the people here are not interested in that type of discussion, so I am sitting on my hands. I keep telling myself that if people are interested in more information, it is out there for them to find.
I have not posted or even read here for many, many months even though I used to spend a great deal of time here. So while surfing the web a few nights ago, I stumbled here and found this discussion-what a surprise. My years on Mormon Matters just brought up too many questions. And like many others who have posted, I left.
There is a constant, ongoing debate about staying as a non-believer or leaving all together. In my case it was like finding out your spouse is unfaithful. Some are able to put the past behind and move forward together. Some feel so betrayed and cannot deal with the lie and leave. I was the latter. I am too hard-wired for truth to play games with it.
To answer Jen’s question. It was difficult for a while. A great void is left in your life and I hurt my adult children which was very painful. But as for the peace. For me is is a “peace which passeth all understanding.” I feel whole again. You cannot offer peace to the world and those around you when there is war raging within your own soul.
I appreciate the many bright, intelligent people at Mormon Matters who were willing to discuss the hard questions and gave me a reason to open my eyes and search it out on my own. I am glad to see a discussion like this continue for so long. Don’t ever stop searching because the answers do come.
*allows Guest to pat himself on back*
If others put out lists, Guest, then feel free to do the same if you would like. Really, we’re over 500 comments now, and no one can really say it’s a threadjack.
Guest 541 – “For me it was such a no-brainer, I have been trying to understand people that don’t see it that way.”
Have you come to any increase in understanding? Just curious–I realize I titled the post, but I was wondering if there was any success for you after all these comments. 🙂
Cowboy 565 – “That we wouldn’t buy into all of the nonsense about choosing marital partners based on a candidates liklihood to help me into the the Celestial Kingdom.”
People choose partners based on likelihood of getting into the Celestial Kingdom? I’m from Yewtah even and have not heard of that. Thanks for that cultural nugget! 😉
“our overriding premise was going to be love, romance, passion, and someone who could manage a budget.”
Don’t forget cooking! Really though, the “overriding premise” of why you got married is pretty much why I did too, although for me the “romance and passion” part was definitely less of a factor early on–that has built up more as we have been married (now for about 4 years). I’m still getting a kick out of this “celestial partner” stuff. I don’t think I saw that far ahead. It was more like “which of these candidates is more likely to help me NOW.” Also, who are these people that have multiple choices? Also, how is that ethical to even have multiple choices? One at a time people!
“Church’s don’t make people happy, people make people happy.”
Agreed! I think Guest said something similar as well.
Guest 572 – “apologist sites don’t address what critics would say in response to their apologies”
Perhaps some great apologists, and some great people on the other side could join together and create a great site! Or, is there already such a site? Sounds interesting to me…
For me, most of the “evidence” one way or the other would be in the “neutral” category. I think the evidence hits people emotionally according to where they are and what they already believe. It really seems to “stack up” so to speak, one way or the other for many people.
Jen, I can honestly say that I am much happier personally and have a sense of inner peace that I never had as an adult in the church. I would say my experience has been more akin to Guest’s friend. I also don’t think it’s a stretch to say that since I’ve opened up to my wife about my feelings my marriage is the best it has been since we were newlyweds. It’s interesting to hear people’s reactions to leaving the church, and how they relate to the reasons they left. As I said before, I didn’t leave because of the church history stuff – I came upon all that after I had already pretty much made my decision about the church. I decided I didn’t believe in the church based on my personal experiences and feelings. I think my experience was similar to Guest’s, except for the church history stuff. I basically just came to a point where I decided that the things I had been taught since I was a child had simply not been borne out in my life. It took me a long time to decide what to do with that, but ultimately I realized that I didn’t believe the church was true, and as AndrewS has pointed out, it wasn’t really a decision. I could decide what I wanted to do with that, including staying in the church and trying to get past it, or I could move on and expand my horizons. Ultimately that’s what I decided to do. I think one of the reasons my happiness level is so much greater outside of the church than in is that I never really had a deep personal connection to the spiritual side of the church, as hard as I tried. I was active my entire life (in fact we were always one of the most active families in the ward), served a mission, married in the temple, etc., but I never had spiritual experiences, and what’s more, I never enjoyed church, praying, the scriptures, etc. The spiritual aspects of the church were always very tedious for me and I never felt I was getting anything from them. This naturally led to guilt and shame because I clearly wasn’t living worthily to receive what everyone else was receiving. Obviously now I don’t feel those feelings because just doing my best is actually enough for me, whereas in the church, although everyone says doing your best is enough, it’s not really enough, and everyone knows it. I think for so long in my marriage I was trying to fake the spiritual stuff and it was very stressful. Now I’m finally being honest about how I feel and that has had a huge positive impact on my marriage.
Guest Writer…your hands are gonna get numb from sitting on them for so long!
Thanks to each of you who shared your feelings about where you are now in relation to happiness and peace. It sounds like peace was very difficult for some of you to find when you were struggling with your doubts about the church. It is interesting to think about peace vs. happiness. In my life I have been in very difficult circumstances and felt a lot of frustration and sorrow, but have also had an overall feeling of peace during these times. I feel peace is an essential part of being able to have the capacity to function everyday. Happiness, on the other hand, isn’t necessarily essential in my opinion. If peace is missing, I think we as humans seek to adjust whatever we have to in order to find it. Without peace it is like our foundation is missing and we cannot stand. On the other hand, without happiness, many of us are able to plug along and survive it just fine.
May we all find and keep that peace that gets us through everyday and helps us find meaning in life. Thanks again for sharing your experiences.
#578 #580
I think you really hit on something. I am happy in or out of the church, but the church never brought me peace. In fact, it brought me mostly frustration, but I was willing to look past a lot of it as long as I could believe it was true.
#577 AdamF
Yes, it has been very good to get everyone’s take. As I have mentioned, I have spoken with SO many people, but they are not as…how shall I say it?…calloused as the people on this sight. Ha ha. I don’t mean that in an offensive way, but I mean that people are willing to listen to other points of view a lot further without getting defensive and shutting down. My other conversations have not been able to go this far.
Guest Writer:
Since I have participated on this blog, I have not seen any other conversations go this far. Who’s up for another hundred?
#583 Cowboy-
Sounds good to me. 🙂
#577 AdamF
One qualification, though. While it has been good to get a better understand of points of view. I am still left with my main point of confusion from the original post. Why do people who DON’T believe it is true stay in and preach it? It rubs hard against my sense of integrity.
Jen, a few others, and my own musings have addressed this to some extent: family, friends, comfortable where they are, too hard to change, level of priorities…
“Why do people who DON’T believe it is true stay in and preach it?”
From many of the comments in this thread, I think I have a better idea as to why people stay even when they don’t believe it. HOW they are able to “preach it” and etc., however, I am at a loss, and completely agree with you.
For what it is worth Guest Writer, I think in the mass of comments I lost your question. Since I would be one such person, let me say that you now know why I stay in, as AdamF has mentioned, as for how am I able to preach it? I am not able, therefore I don’t. I do teach (as one who just recently served in a teaching position) those principles which I am comfortable with. Part of our recent teaching was on Church history, and that really isn’t that hard to teach. I did not wish to take advantage of my position by using it as a platform to introduce all of the members to all of the unsavory details in Mormon history. I did my best to just state facts, and raise discussions which I try to loosely moderate. I did not bare a false testimony in favor of Joseph Smith, at point I was challenged because a class member noted that I never bore my testimony, to which I responded “Testimonies are personal, and I won’t be compelled by a manual to offer mine on demand. When I have something to which I wish to be a witness, I will bare testimony”. Some of the class members appeared a little puzzled, but to be honest, I don’t care.
Cowboy, I am glad you stood up for yourself, AND that some of the members were puzzled. I wish the diversity we DO have was willing to be a little more open, and allow the rest of us to have new experiences with each other. We DON’T all think the same, despite the pressure to appear so.
#585 – Since we’re going for another hundred comments, why not come full circle and get back to the original point of the post. When I first started questioning the church, and even after I initially decided I absolutely didn’t believe it, I felt confident that I could and would remain active in the church and continue to raise my children in it. I will admit that my main motivation for adopting this position was social, but I also didn’t see a big problem with raising them essentially in the church as long as I was always honest with them about what I did and didn’t believe. Ultimately, though, this position didn’t last long, and a lot of it had to do with the open and honest dialogue I was able to have with my wife about the situation. As I’ve said before, we’re still in the process of deciding exactly how we’re going to proceed for the long term, but whatever we do, we have decided that we’re not going to encourage our children, even tacitly, to believe in something we think is wrong. But back to my original point – for quite some time I felt strongly that the social considerations for my kids were ample justification for staying in the church. I don’t know why everyone stays when they don’t believe, but for me that was a monumental consideration, and still is. Additionally, there are different levels of disbelief, just like there are different levels of belief. I have arrived at a place where I have a very strong level of disbelief (if that’s even an accurate way to describe it), to the point that it would bother me greatly to have my children actively raised with LDS principles (that’s no offense to the LDS church, I would feel similarly about any other religion). For many other people, they may not believe the church is necessarily THE truth, or even objectively true, but they still appreciate its teachings and values and culture, and they either have no desire to leave it or the angst that would come from leaving would far outweigh the benefits they see in leaving. I think it’s got to be very different for each individual, and the whole “I can’t be involved in something I don’t believe in, just on principle” just doesn’t appeal to everyone. I think that kind of thinking is even less appealing when you have practical considerations like children, that really have to come first.
#589-
brjones-
Depending on where you live, it can make things much harder for your children if you try to break away from the church completely and take them with you. I think Utah would be a very hard place for children to be raised if they had parents who were once active and then decided to leave the church. Right or wrong, it can create a lot more challenges for your kids (depending on their ages) and it can negatively impact their friendships. This can create anger and resentment in the children towards the parents even if the parents feel they are living true to themselves. I am not saying it is right to pretend for their sake, but their well-being is a huge factor to consider just as you have mentioned. I think it would be much harder if you have tweens or teens. Younger children can adjust better and may not remember much at all if you stop being active in church, but the older kids have so many activities connected to church (scouting, activity days, Young Men’s and Women’s, etc.) it could be quite tramautic for them to have to find their place if their parents change their activity levels at church.
#590 – Thanks Jen. My wife and I have had MANY discussions about those very factors in trying to decide what to do. It is really difficult. Luckily our children are still young – the oldest is 8, and we were never really idealogues, so the drift away for them has been pretty slow, and whatever we do we don’t feel like we’re abandoning something that has been ingrained in them from birth. That doesn’t mean there aren’t still many social considerations. You’re exactly right about the difficulties that are involved in actually extricating yourself from the church while living in Utah. Man, it’s really hard to know what to do that is best for everyone. I think the drop dead date for making a decision is 2 years from now when my daughter will turn 8. I don’t think we’ll let it linger until then, but at that point it’s going to be questions like – will we baptize her; if so, who will do it; what will we teach her about it; etc. This was one of the things that led to the end of my strategy to simply stay in the church and be lukewarm. Eventually there will be baptisms, priesthood ordinations for my son, a mission, etc. How would we deal with those if we don’t believe the church is true? Do we lie to them and tell our son he needs to be ordained, even though we don’t believe that? Do we encourage him to go on a mission? I can’t imagine that we would. These questions ultimately raise the big question, which is: either we lie to them and let them think these things are true and necessary, or we tell them the truth. But if we’re going to tell them the truth about what we believe, then why bother going to church and then have to come home and contradict all the things we’ve just allowed them to be taught? It just doesn’t seem workable on a long-term scale. One thing that makes it more difficult is that we love many aspects of the church’s social and cultural programs, and most of the people we and our children love are active LDS. It would be FAR easier if we thought the church was evil and was going to harm our children. It’s definitely a sticky situation, and I don’t know that there’s a right answer. More than anything we’re just trying to make sure that no matter what we end up doing vis-a-vis the church and religion, that we teach them strong underlying values, and let them know that they will ultimately be responsible for deciding for themselves how they want to live their lives.
#591-
brjones-
Growing up in Utah I remember one of my best friends had parents who were members but weren’t active in the church. My friend didn’t really come to church, but when she turned eight her parents had her baptized. Looking back now, I think it would have been better to not baptize her if the parents weren’t going to help her understand what membership in the LDS church meant because of their lack of activity. I wonder now if they baptized her partly so she wouldn’t feel left out because all of her friends were being baptized. Baptisms, ordinations, etc. are big milestones for children if you are an active member of the church and it will definitely become much harder as I can tell you are aware. I have children ages 17 and down and church activities are a big part of their lives. Having two boys just recently get their Eagle awards, I really don’t think they could have done it without the great leaders in the ward. I personally feel like the benefits of the youth programs are so great (at least from what I have seen with my children) that it would be hard to let go of those. I don’t envy you in your position at all and I wish you the best of luck.
My parents weren’t active but I was baptized when I was nine due to the ward members persuasion. I’m glad my parents provided me the opportunity and didn’t force their perspective on me. I made my choice to leave the church as a teenager but at least it was my choice.
I don’t think it would be wrong for “non believing” parents to baptism their children unless they had serious misgivings about the church doing harm to their children.
#591 “It would be FAR easier if we thought the church was evil and was going to harm our children.”
I have had a few discussion that have gone a long those lines. In a sense, a few of the people around me have said that they feel the end justifies the means. My ex-girlfriend, even though we weren’t specifically discussing it, brought up the Mountain Meadows Massacre and said that she wouldn’t be surprised if Brigham Young really did order it, but it didn’t matter to her. I was completely stunned and and sat their thinking, “Are we no better than the Islamic Jihadists?” I figured that no one else could possibly feel that way, but a coworker of mine agreed with her when I told her about it. (Others agreed that it would be a deal breaker for them.) For some, it is more what the church is now, rather than how bad the foundation may look.
For me, I am not able to separate out the two (that may be partially because I think that some of the current teachings are immoral as well). If Joseph was not a prophet, then Sarah Pratt, Nancy Rigdon, Martha Brotherton, William and Jane Law and many others were my heroes. They said no to someone taking advantage of the position he had taken, despite facing public criticism as whores and prostitutes for not become a polygamous wife. In my mind, THEY are the ones for whom monuments should be erected. If Joseph was not a prophet, I don’t know how I could forget the pain bleeding from Henry Jacob’s letter after Joseph had married his wife, and then sent him on three missions in a row, and then, after Joseph died, Brigham declaring that she was now one of his wives and sending Henry off on another mission. Henry’s words:
and then ends with him trying to comfort himself by referring to Joseph as his deity, “all is right according to the law of the celestial kingdom of our God Joseph.” These words represent lives destroyed, where if it was God’s will, then I guess it was a necessary sacrifice; if it was not God’s will, then those people were taken advantage of. I cannot sit still under such injustice, where those who stuck to their principals were slandered, where happy lives were ruined. I cannot separate out the current church from its foundation.
For what it’s worth, Guest, I agree with you. I don’t mean to imply that this is not a problem for me. What I’m saying is that I can understand that a lot of people don’t know about the history or don’t know what to make of it, but it’s easy for them to ignore it because they feel like the church today doesn’t pose those kinds of risks. To some degree I think they’re right. For me, though, I also can’t just separate the two. This goes to whether the church is true. Either it is true, which means it was true then, and vice versa, or it wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now. Whatever else anyone believes, clearly the church isn’t true now if it wasn’t true then.
Jared, I guess it depends on how you define “harm.” I think there is the danger of irreparable harm to my children if they are raised in the church, or else I wouldn’t go through the upheaval of leaving. I just don’t think the harm is the same kind of harm that existed in the early days of the church, and my definition of harm is undoubtedly different than yours and most active members of the church.
“these words represent lives destroyed”
I have chatted with very believable individuals who would say that THIER lives were destroyed by “the church” (leaders, local and regional) and tried my best to figure out how it happened. Then I talk to family members who have worked in LDS social services and others who have held leadership positions and confirm the experience the injured person has seems so contrary to what seems to be the usual “protocol” for such events. It is hard to reconcile the two. The “fruits” of the church community I see are vastly different than what that individual’s account would suggest. Were the church leaders in the individual’s case THAT bad or are there things that the injured person is reporting that a leader could easily clear up if he wasn’t bound to keep things confidential. I have been in the middle of such a situation where knowing things discussed in Bishopric’s meetings could clear up an opinion held by someone getting information from an emotionally injured member. In that situation, I felt like I could only go back and advise the Bishop of what is being said, but leave it in his hands to determine how the situation should be handled.
On a different aspect of harm, is just the general misinformation that would be spread if it is not true. I believe truth and knowledge are power and that misinformation weakens. If the Book of Mormon is not true history, then I would be harming my children teaching them such. What if my child wanted to become an archeologist or anthropologist? To say that the BOM resembles what we understand about ancient America in any way shape or form would be an enormous stretch.
I would not wish for them to go to college believing that the Ass, Bull, Calf, Cattle, Cow, Elephant, Goat, Horse, Ox, Sheep, Sow, Swine were a part of ancient American life, when they did not exist on this continent before the Spaniards (the horse and elephant might be argued if someone believes that evolution and carbon dating are inaccurate). But rather, I would want them to know that the Jaguar, Panther, Monkey, Llama, Bear, Eagle, Wolf, etc. played a large part of their culture. I would want them to know that the lion did not exist on this continent and for someone who grew up here, it would make no sense for them to say that their people, “fought like lions.”
I would not wish for them to go to college believing that Wheat, Grapes and Olives were on this continent and understood here before the Europeans brought them. Rather, I would want them to know about plants that were prevalent staples in ancient America, like Chocolate, Lima Beans, Squash, Tomatoes, Manioc, etc.
I would not want them to go to college believing that there was knowledge of the use of “Iron, brass, copper, steel, gold and silver” over a thousand years ago on this continent. But, I would want them to understand that much later than 400 A.D. the natives started learning how to work gold and silver, the softer metals.
I would not want them to go to college believing that chariots were used on this continent when the wheel had not been invented here and the knowledge of such was brought over by the Europeans.
I will cut the list off there. My point is, I am setting up my child for a world of hurt and confusion if I try to pass the story of the Book of Mormon off as anything that even remotely resembles what we know about ancient America.
#596
I am talking more about the scenarios like Henry Jacobs, where he was one of 11 men whose wife also married Joseph Smith and one of the unlucky who also lost his wife and children to Brigham. I’m not sure that a scenario like that translates to a misunderstanding, but just the pain of watching your wife and kids taken from you and living with another man. To make the matter worse for me, Zina Jacobs didn’t even have a happy marriage with Brigham.
In her words later, scolding the unhappy women of the church in polygamous marriages she states, “[they] expect too much attention from the husband and…become sullen and morose…” the wife “must regard her husband with indifference, and with no other feeling than that of reverence, for love we regard as a false sentiment; a feeling which should have no existence in polygamy.” WHAA??? That is awful.
I don’t know if Dexter is around but…..
AdamF-
You just rained on my parade!!! I was going to be #600! Oh well, it wasn’t meant to be…… 🙁
[Hahaha I’ll give it to you! – I switched them. 🙂 Adamf]
598 – That IS awful. It makes sense that they would disregard love. It would be too painful otherwise.
#593-
Jared-
In relation to my friend getting baptized, she didn’t ever come to church and there wasn’t anything being taught about the church in her home. I felt that it would have been better for her to not have made a covenant she didn’t understand because there is more accountability for her from that point on. I’m not sure what the point of getting baptized is if there is no intention to go to church or participate as a member. I feel it would be better to let the child choose as they grow older what they desire and therefore they don’t have to be considered an inactive member or ask to have their records removed if it were to come to that.
#601-
Now that is completely and totally cool!!! I wish I had that kind of power….what else can you do? haha LOL
Thanks AdamF! 🙂
Hey Dex, I think you could learn a few things from AdamF….. 🙂
Guest Writer,
Do you believe that the friend you mentioned in your post really does stay in the church only because he lacks the courage to do what you have done? Have his actions/words since that time continued to testify to you that he maintains that facade? Have you really conceded that he has made the “evil” choice to believe in something he truly doesn’t believe is reality?
It wasn’t that you caught him on a bad day, or that he was just having a momentary lapse of his personal spiritual witness, or that he was saying that he lacks the courage to stand up for something you are compelled to do (in general) against all odds?
It is indeed an interesting and unusual twist in a relationship and I’m not sure maintaining respect for a friend like that, which is what you said you have tried to do out of the sake of love, is something that would be easy. Again, appreciate your willingness to share something like that in a forum like this.
How do you spell weak sauce?
J-E-N
First, 600 is nothing compared to 500. 1000 tops it. No number between 501 and 999 comes close. Do people celebrate the 600th anniversary of something as much as the 500th? I think not.
Second, clearly, you are not allowed to do the post previous to a milestone post, and then do the milestone post. That is weak. If I had written something for 499 just so I could then do 500, then I wouldn’t be the king of this thread, now would I? I would be weak.
Third, having AdamF, in a moment of sympathy for you, switch things up so you could be 600 is pitiful. If you want my sympathy, you have it. Congratulations. If you want my respect and admiration, it must be earned. There are no shortcuts in life. It’s about time you learned that lesson.
Your sympathetic (and only sympathetic) teacher,
Dexter
🙂
I am wondering if one of the friends mentioned in the post (or people in similar situations) answer tough questions with things like “come on, it’s only the Book of Abraham, nobody cares about that” or “It wouldn’t matter to me if it wasn’t true” and etc. because they feel trapped or pressured. iow, if they say “well, actually I DO believe, or YES the BoA is important” then they have to face the blitzkrieg of questions (which are often manipulative in nature (only speaking from personal experience with other people, not Guest). So perhaps those answers have something to do with not wanting to be steamrolled. Just wondering. That is partly the reason why I wrote the post I did today–Generally most of us do a pretty good job! But we can always improve on asking questions and listening to each other, rather than leading them down certain lines, or phrasing questions in manipulative ways like “Don’t you think…” or “How can you…”.
Don’t get me wrong–I’m not taking anything away from the debates or “lining up the facts” or etc. It is our methods which can be overwhelming for people sometimes.
Come on Dexter, it was pure altruism. 🙂 *glances around shadily*
And 4) We had previously discussed 500 as being the prestigious goal.
and 5) We were both on when it hit 500 and both attempting it. I had no interest in 600.
And regarding whether an inactive member should baptize their children. Now that is an interesting topic. Obviously there are a lot of factors to be considered….hmmmmmm….I will have to think on this one.
To take it even more generally, is 8 the appropriate age? Obviously, I would think a very faithful member would think so, but if you were a non-believer, but you respected the decisions of your children, would you suggest a different age where you would think they are old enough to decide for themselves? If so, what age would you think is appropriate?
Interesting questions Dexter. I have an uncle who is not a member (atheist, I think; my aunt is a member), and he made his daughter (who was 8 or 9 at the time) who wanted to be baptized take the lessons from the missionaries like 8 times before he consented. He is also VERY educated, so it wasn’t like he was in the dark about the church. She wanted to get baptized long before the missionaries taught her though. She had had some spiritual experiences even earlier in her life which were quite powerful. That being said, that is one case. In no way do I think all kids are ready for that decision at 8, but I think some (dare I say something that is an “abomination”) are ready much earlier.
Hilarious.
Jen, not to pile on too much. You can handle it, right?
But people who’s names appear in blue have links whereby if you click on their name, it goes to their blog. For example, if you click on AdamF’s name it takes you to a blog with a hilarious billboard that says, “Attention: Lunatic Atheists and their lawyers. Anti-God is Anti-American. Anti-American is treason. Traitors lead to Civil War.” Hilarious. Whoever wrote that should teach logic at a major university. Please note sarcasm dripping from this comment….. If you click on Jared’s name it goes to his blog or website.
Anyway, Jen, your name is blue and when you click on it, it goes to mormonmatters.org. Original and helpful!!!
Wow I got someone to look at my blog through Mormon Matters! I guess I’m done! 🙂
One problem with my question is that a non-believing parent may simply decide when the child is ready based, not on age, but when the parent thinks the child is ready. This could be different from one child to another so setting an age might be pointless for a non-believing parent. We all know some children mature faster than others.
But if I had to state an age for children generally, with the caveat that some would be ready sooner and others would not be ready at that age, where I thought they were old enough to understand the seriousness of the commitment and understand what the church stands for and what they were getting into culturally, doctrinally, etc., it would definitely be older than 8. I would say probably 14 at the earliest.
I think I may do a post sometime called “steadying the ark” where we all get to suggest these things that we would like to see changed. We could really go over the top with it, or not, but it would be fun! 🙂 We would also have to put up some protection against being struck down. Perhaps the greek god who zapped the angel Moroni with the lighting could do the job. 😉
And for the believers, what age would you suggest IF the church were silent on this issue? Let’s assume that there is no stated age of accountability and children may be baptized at any age. What age do you think would be appropriate?
When to get endowed (if one does not go on a mission or get married) is an age that varies quite a bit.
Also, when to receive one’s patriarchal blessing has no suggested age that I know of.
Wait….I think I just had a thought that might lead to an interesting question……..YES I DID!!!!!!
Why is baptism locked in at age 8, and the priesthood (with its various steps, 12, 14, 16…) but the timing of the endowment is based on preceding an event (marriage or mission) or has a very loose age range.
You would think steps that take place at a younger age would be timed more loosely, based on the maturity of the child, and things for adults would have a more set age, as long as the person is faithful enough to take that step. Why is the endowment to be done, without a specified age, but “when one is ready” but baptism is to be done at age 8 unless the child is not ready.
Obviously, a simple answer would be God said it should be that way. But I would be interested in hearing any other thoughts?
It could be a reflection of society. Kids are told at what age to do to school, and based on age we know what grade they are in and what they are learning. Adults are free to choose when to do what.
Ter- (you don’t mind if I call you Ter do you? I’m a little tired of Dex)
“Do people celebrate the 600th anniversary of something as much as the 500th? I think not” REALLY? If I made it to my 600th anniversary I sure would be celebrating it just as much as my 500th if not more!
“Second, clearly, you are not allowed to do the post previous to a milestone post, and then do the milestone post.” I think we should take a vote on this one.
“Third, having AdamF, in a moment of sympathy for you, switch things up so you could be 600 is pitiful.” Just admit it Ter, your just jealous cause you WISH someone would be as nice to you. Maybe, just maybe, someday they will…don’t give up hope yet.
“Anyway, Jen, your name is blue and when you click on it, it goes to mormonmatters.org. Original and helpful!!!” I did that just for you Ter. It is original…..you don’t see anyone else doing it do you? LOL
The name is not Ter. Close though. It’s Terd. Actually, I spell it Turd but many spell it Terd. Turd Ferguson. http://www.hulu.com/watch/12203/saturday-night-live-celebrity-jeopardy—stewart-reynolds-and-connery
Dexter (#615):
In an effort to remain consistent in my inconsistency, whereby in some comments I appear devout, whilst in others I display doubt, let me offer a brief suggestion.
1) Baptism. If you will recall from Nephi’s teaching’s in 2nd Nephi 31, that baptism is merely the gate by which me must enter in order to to safely find ourselves on the strait and narrow path that leads to the fountain of all righteousness. In other words, it’s kind of like the admission desk in the temple (you will notice that the baptismal fonts are accesable without having to first pass the admission desk in the temple). You enter in at the gate, but then is that all, are we done, no we must “…press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men…”. In other words, you can’t start on the path for the sake of this analogy if you spend your whole life deciding whether or not you will walk through the gate. Again, it is just the gate/entrance/beginning. You will also recall this is how Jesus “began” his ministry, and if Nephi’s words are any indicator that is the proper order. I don’t think there is really any harm in baptism in other words, because it’s sole purpose is to point us in the right direction.
2) The difference between the ordination of boys in the Aaronic Priesthood, vs the much more flexible Melchizedek is because the Aaronic Priesthood is the preparatory Priesthood. You will recall from Section 107 that though there are two grand heads in the Priesthood, technically all Priesthood is Melchizedek – which is the DBA for the higher Priesthood that actuality is named after the Savior. This implies that those who are made partakers in Priesthood covenants have quite literally taken upon themselves the name of Christ. In other words the Aaronic Priesthood is a sub Priesthood encapsulated within the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood that gives authority to the bearer in the performance of outward ordinances, of the gospel, as well as jurisdiction in temporal welfare of the Church – hence the duty of Bishops to care for the members as outlined in Section 42. It is sort of like the valet key on on a sports car. Sure it let you “drive” a corvette, just not past 2nd gear, just enough to allow the valet to get it from the front of the hotel to the parking garage. You will recall a remark from Joseph Smith where he declared that any Church that cannot attend the physical needs of it’s members has no business pretending to the spiritual needs. So it is with the boys and men who one day may progress to administering in the spiritual affairs of the Church which is a prerogative soley for the offices of the Melchizedek Priesthood. They must first pass by degrees scrubbing the floors if you will, before they can ever run the till. The whole point, as it was for the Children of Israel who because spiritual immaturity fostered mostly by four centuries pagan acculturation, the purpose of this Priesthood is to progress them by degree from perfection to perfection where they can fully perform under the demands of a much higher law.
Jen (#602) –
Do you really feel that young children who are coerced into a Mormon sacrament by their parents, are suddenly “more accountable” to God then they were prior?
Dexter – “Why is baptism locked in at age 8, and the priesthood (with its various steps, 12, 14, 16…) but the timing of the endowment is based on preceding an event (marriage or mission) or has a very loose age range.” Back in the early days, members as young as age 12 were endowed, and it was done by invitation of the leadership, not at the request of the initiate. That’s the origin of “temple recommend”–someone in leadership “recommended” you proactively, and you were initiated. Of course, priesthood ordination didn’t used to follow the current age-advancement protocol either. Now it’s a bit more like boy scout rank advancements, even in EQ where they age you up at some point to HP.
Cowboy-
I am talking about over time as they grow up, not something that happens suddenly. I don’t feel like it is a good idea to have a child baptized if the parents have no intention of teaching them the significance of what that means. Being baptized means they are now accounted for in the church as a member and therefore they have a tie to the church where they wouldn’t otherwise. I don’t feel they are suddenly more accountable to God, but they are accountable for that membership because of the baptism. Now, if they don’t want to be a member they have to do something about it, whereas they wouldn’t have to otherwise.
Just seeing what my name looks like in black.
Sorry, I can’t do it, I look much better in blue! 🙂
Yikes, I leave for a couple days and get 150 posts behind.
#481/493 –
I was talking to my dad about this phenomenon the other day. He told me an example that I think is relevant to the discussion. It is all second hand so the details are probably shaky, but I still think it is a good example.
Paul Dunn was an institute director and became a general authority in the 70s and 80s. He was well known as a very dynamic speaker, especially among the youth, where he would tell these crazy experiences of his early life of when he fought in World War II and other sensational events. People loved to hear him speak and often commented how adept he was at helping people feel the spirit.
Then at some point a reporter did some research into Bro. Dunn’s history and uncovered that most of his experiences were complete fabrications. He basically just made everything up just for effect. Despite the fact that he was lying through his teeth, it didn’t stop all those people from feeling the spirit in a big way when they heard him speak.
As much as I wish I could say otherwise, it does make sense to me that at least some of the time we think we are feeling the spirit, we are just confusing emotions that feel similarly. People can lie and still cause others to “feel the spirit.”
That is your opinion, Jen.
#604 Rigel
I maybe shouldn’t have been surprised by his email of congratulations, although I was. After I had lost my testimony and was talking to my friends and family members to figure out how they can still believe if what the prophet teaches is not necessarily doctrine. I was trying to figure out their system of belief to see if I could wrap my head around it and follow it also. To my surprise, when I went to talk to him and explain my dilemma he said things like, “Duh, Michael. Who ACTUALLY believes this stuff anyway? Raisings from the dead? Instantaneous healings? Ghosts, Angels and Spirits? Demons into swine? Seer Stones and gold plates?…” “Where was this Michael 6 years ago? We could have had so much fun in college!” and again “If this Michael had been around in college, we could have chilled, gone out for beers…it would have been the true college experience!” and also “Man! If this Michael had been around 4 years ago, we would be a couple of pot-smokin’ hippies by now!”
For the record, I do not want to be a pot smoker, nor, frankly, a hippie. 🙂
By his words, it seems that he would have left if he had had someone to leave with him. He went on to say, “Ugghhh….I’m the First Counselor in the Elder’s Quorum and have a wife and kids…I can’t really leave now…” I was just sitting there in shock, because I was not asking him to leave. I had gone to him to see if his method of belief was one I could agree with and adopt. Needless to say, it was not.
#625-
I have to hand it to you, that was a good one and you made me laugh. Don’t expect to do it again though.
Of course it was a good one, that goes without saying.
Don’t tell me what to expect and what not to expect. Please see the latest post on free agency regarding this important issue. Bossy.
And do you mean it was a good one based on the text of the comment or the embedded link in my name?
And no one answered my question. Just because baptism must come first does not explain why age 8. I agree baptism is only the gate but that doesn’t really address my question. By that rationale, even younger than 8 could be argued as being the appropriate age.
#628
I think 8 is way too young to make an informed decision.
#628
Oh, and you have cracked me up a number of times on this thread.
@ 626 – I’d feel the same way if I was in that situation. There is no way I could adopt a stance like that, i.e. not believe AT ALL, but still do everything else.
Thank you, Guest. I am honored.
You say 8 is too young, if you had to give an age, what would it be? In post 612 I more clearly outline the question.
Re 626
It’s interesting in differences of perspective. Your friend looks at his wife and kids as a ball and chain that are keeping him in the church. I look at mine (wife especially) as the lifeline that brought me back. Maybe it’s because I married later and had my chance to dabble.
I look at finding her as an ‘Alma the Younger’ experience where I was in no position to deserve finding someone that good (although I had spent years searching). Her love was a gift from God. Instead of resentfully obeying and justifying certain things, my will humbled and sought to emulate her simple faith and devotion. Other things became less important. I have no desire to go back to my former “method of belief.” I realize this is a subjective experience, and I find your friends story ultimately sad. There is so much joy in life to be had. Just needing someone to leave with…I just needed someone to stay with!
#628-
It was funny based on the embedded link in your name. This alone: “That is your opinion, Jen” isn’t funny. And don’t tell me not to tell you what to expect and not expect. Bossy back.
I am curious about those who are talking about what age a child should be baptized. Do any of you have any children of your own? And if not, how much experience do you have with children?
I once played a child on tv.
#635-
That counts…..NOT. Don’t tell me…you’re Bobbi Brady! 🙂
Wow. Did we just get a “NOT” reference. Talk about not funny.
And I think “that’s your opinion” said in the right tone, like the way Turd Ferguson says it to Alex Trebek, is funny on it’s own. But tone is difficult when writing. Sigh.
Bobbi Brady? First, please tell me he didn’t spell it that way. Wouldn’t that make it a girls name?
And I can’t tell you who I played, I am on this site so I can express my views anonymously.
#637-
“Bobbi Brady? First, please tell me he didn’t spell it that way. Wouldn’t that make it a girls name?
I can tell you aren’t around a lot of children. You would be amazed what people name their kids these days and how they spell them. People try to hard sometimes in my opinion.
And yes, it actually is spelled Bobby (not Bobbi), but I have known it to be spelled Bobbi and be a boy as well.
A simple, “you were right, Dexter, and I was wrong” would have sufficed.
#634
Well, I was a child once and, when I was that age, all my friends were children as well. Oh! I also went to school with hundreds of children for many years.
Soooooo….I think that pretty much makes me an expert.
And the children I am around, due to my influence, are way too sophisticated to spell their names in such silly ways. Even if their parents had named them that way, they would change them, at my suggestion.
You were only half right because it wouldn’t necessarily make it a girls name. So a simple, “Wow, it IS possible that I don’t know everything” would suffice coming from you.
Actually, I couldn’t say that, Jen. Because, like George Washington, another hero from a another time, I cannot tell a lie.
#634
Seriously, though, I think better than trying to take the road of ‘how much do you really know about children?’ it might be good to establish what each of us thinks baptism symbolizes first.
Viewing it as a covenant/contract, then I think that 8 is far too young to make a decision like that. How many 8 year olds can be trusted to decide what they are going to have for dinner, let alone what belief system they think is true and what path they wish to take in their life?
I think there is a really good reason for having a governmental distinction made between adults and minors. Age of consent, voting rights, legal drugs, etc. all involve big decisions that we wisely put minimum age limits on.
Although, if we DID allow 8 year olds to vote, I think that we would find that they would vote for exactly who their parents voted for.
Kind of like my two younger sisters that are mentally and physically challenged. My dad wants them to feel involved in their civil duties, so he takes them to vote and helps them in the process. How much do you want to bet that they “support” the same people my dad does?
#644-
If you truly believe in the LDS church, then 8 is not too young to have your children baptized. If a parent has consistently taught their children about God and taught them what that covenant means, an 8 year old is capable of understanding it in basic terms. They are more than capable of understanding right from wrong (assuming they are developing normally) and it is a good age to help them to learn how to make the Lord an important part of their life. If they learn to rely on Him when they are young, they can learn how to recognize when He is speaking to them. Also, it can make a big difference for a child to know that they are a child of their Father in heaven as they grow and develop in this sometimes not so kind world.
Oh also-
#626
““Duh, Michael. Who ACTUALLY believes this stuff anyway? Raisings from the dead? Instantaneous healings? Ghosts, Angels and Spirits? Demons into swine? Seer Stones and gold plates?…” “Where was this Michael 6 years ago? We could have had so much fun in college!” and again “If this Michael had been around in college, we could have chilled, gone out for beers…it would have been the true college experience!” and also “Man! If this Michael had been around 4 years ago, we would be a couple of pot-smokin’ hippies by now!” He went on to say, “Ugghhh….I’m the First Counselor in the Elder’s Quorum and have a wife and kids…I can’t really leave now…”
Honestly, maybe you need to get some new friends? I mean really, if a person is talking about drinking and smokin’ pot at that point in their life you really have to wonder. There are going to be people who say those types of things in every congregation but I think it is safe to say by his lack of respect for things in general that he never believed at any time in his life. I just feel sorry for his wife really. He sounds like he never got out of high school and realized it was time to grow up and be a man.
Of course 8 is fine if you truly believe. But Jen, if your son/daughter wanted to be baptized into the Catholic church, at what age would you feel that they are old enough to make this choice? Assuming they are the same maturity as your kids but their beliefs are simply in line with the Catholics instead of the Mormons. Would you let them at age 8? Would you let them at age 15? Would you not give them your blessing/permission at all?
#647-
If I was a Mormon and my child wanted to be baptized Catholic (which isn’t very realistic to me but I will go with it) then I would tell them “Sorry, you have to be baptized as a baby in the Catholic church so it is too late to become a member” and then they would say “ok, can I go to my friend’s house?” haha JK Really, it just isn’t realistic to me to think my 8 year old would be considering another religion when they attend with me every week. As they get older, then it would be more realistic to consider and I can honestly say, having 3 teenagers right now, that I do my best to allow them to choose things for themselves and let them decide what they want in life. It is their life after all and they have to live with their choices. I will admit though, if the lawn needs to be mowed, their freedom to choose whether they will mow it or not is just not an option. 🙂
It sounds like you think 8 is way too young to make a serious decision about religion, unless it happens to be the same religion that you believe in.
But I don’t know everything. 🙂
#646 It’s pretty fascinating to me.
If you met my friends, you might be shocked. We were (are?) the goodie-goodie, Peter Priesthood types. We never swore, watched rated R movies, etc. I was only comfortable with them because they weren’t the marginal followers.
I think one thing that living in a system that tells you what is right or wrong can sometimes do is leave people complacent about having their own personal conviction about things. As I learned to doubt at an early age, I would always think, “If I didn’t believe this was true, would I still agree with that?” There were a number of things that still seemed smart for me to stay away from, but there were also other things that I wouldn’t (and now don’t) think are worth worrying about. This also goes back to one of my friends who believes that he would have gone to a prostitute by now if he weren’t in the church. I sit there thinking, “Are you sure? Because, even if you no longer thought sex outside of marriage was bad, I could give you few very solid reasons why that would be very dumb thing to do.”
#648 Jen
I think you just made my point.
One of the lines I detest most from members is the old, “I don’t know where I would be if I didn’t have the church. I would be addicted to drugs and I would have STDs” and on and on and on. I think this is grossly exaggerated. With or without the church, I think people would be more the same than they realize. Even if you didn’t believe drugs and sex were offensive to god, I don’t think that means you would go off the deep end because there are plenty of practical here and now concerns with those types of things.
#649-
“But I don’t know everything.” I knew you would come to your senses eventually. 🙂
Anyway..I think you are trying to simplify something that isn’t that simple. Children have to taken care of and watched over at age 8, but that doesn’t mean they are brainless and unable to make decisions. Most people don’t go to an LDS church one week, then a Catholic the next, then a Church of Christ the next, etc., so really it is about lack of exposure to other religions. This is a question that you may want to pose to a couple who has different religious beliefs and is allowing their children to decide what they want to believe. I know some really mature 8 year olds and some that aren’t so mature, but I can say that for some adults I know as well so that really doesn’t help…….
#654
They are definitely able to make decisions, but are they able to be trusted with such life-shaping informed decisions? As you say, in general, they have not been exposed to other ways of thinking by 8, so is it that they are prepared to be baptized into a particular belief system, or is it just that it is the only one they know?
I think that if the Catholic, LDS, any church waited at least till the mid teens before they had someone make a decision like baptism, there would be far less people baptized into those religions. They get locked in before most have ever learned to question.
I know there are some in the LDS church that plan on raising their children on the idea that it is not necessarily the ONE TRUE church, but the one that fits them. They plan on letting their children decided their own path. I wonder what that really means though. Does that mean they will never pressure them? What happens when their fellow ward members or bishop start pressuring them? Will they say, “I want my children to reach an older age when they actually have enough facts and tools to make an informed decision.”? Or will they start breaking down? And forget about outside sources. The kids will see their friends getting baptized and not want to feel left out. They will start pressuring their parents to let them get baptized. Will their parents say, “No. You are not doing it for the right reasons. You are not old enough to even understand what a monumental choice this is. You will thank me when you’re older.”?
Jen, I only said that to make you feel better. 🙂
But you know what I really think.
Do you only post on this thread? There are some other conversations going on. I quoted Godfather II in one and no one noticed. It was depressing.
#653-
I think it has more to do with specific people influencing them from doing things like drugs, having sex, etc. rather than the church itself. In my experience, people can be a big influence on one another and if a person tends to lean towards wanting to do drugs, have sex, etc. they may not dive into it as deeply if they have someone who they respect and hang around (like a girl they really like who wants them to be “good”) than if they didn’t have the person in their life. If a person is prone to wanting to live on the edge you can bet they will eventually do the things that they may have stayed away from when they lived at home or had different friends. I agree that there are a lot of people who aren’t members of the church who don’t choose to do drugs or have premarital sex because of the consequences those behaviors can bring.
#651
“This also goes back to one of my friends who believes that he would have gone to a prostitute by now if he weren’t in the church.” I would say it is highly likely that your friend in involved in pornography if he is making comments like that.
Wow. Now who knows everything, Jen? What an interesting prognosis in 657 about the friend’s quote.
Guest Writer said:
“As I learned to doubt at an early age . . .”
That is an interesting comment, especially after mentioning (in a somewhat negative tone) those who follow their parents wihtout forming their own ideas.
I agree that there is much we learn as children (“at an early age”) that stays with us subconsciously. Perhaps, Guest Writer, you finally answered your original issue in your post. Your friends learned to believe “at an early age”, while you “learned to doubt at an early age”. Maybe it’s not more complicated than that for many or most – and maybe you are no different than your friends at the basic core. Maybe you just took different paths “at an early age”.
#656-
I am only posting on this thread right now because I am working on other things as well. Sorry no one noticed your Godfather quote. I will have to check it out.
#658-
Hey, I didn’t say it was for sure, just highly likely. I am quite educated in this area and a good portion of men wouldn’t take that risk (due to STD’s, relationship issues, etc.) unless they are highly driven, usually by some type of addiction.
#660
My point is, I don’t think he WOULD do that really, but he thinks he would, because he thinks the only reason not to is because God is against it. If he had thought through it more, he would find that he would actually be living his life similar to how he currently lives it (prostitute free).
There are hundreds of millions of men and women in the world that look at pornography and still know that paying a prostitute for sex is dumb.
#661-
“There are hundreds of millions of men and women in the world that look at pornography and still know that paying a prostitute for sex is dumb.”
That is quite a statement in and of itself, but I will just focus on the fact that even though people think something is dumb doesn’t mean they won’t eventually do it because when you are addicted to something it makes you do really dumb things.
For example, I am now caring for several children full-time that aren’t mine because of drug addiction. Do parents think it is dumb to do drugs and lose your children over it? Of course, but like I said, addiction makes you stupid and you do stupid things that you normally never would consider doing otherwise.
One more thing to consider:
That says exactly nothing about what he will do between childhood and when he is old – nor does it define an age at which he will be considered old. It is a fascinating fact that the most conservative stages of life tend to be childhood and later adulthood (assuming some degree of parental influence and control during childhood), while the most liberal stage of life tends to be young adulthood (from high school graduation to the time one’s children begin to have chlidren, especially). That is worth pondering – and it really is true that the general nature of the belief system with which one is raised tends to return as people start down the hill toward death instead of away from birth.
#659 Ray
Interesting thoughts. Maybe it is just that simple, although, learn to “believe” may not be the right word since many of them seem not to (at least in part). I actually like the wording you used “those who follow their parents without forming their own ideas.” I maybe would say that I “learned to follow while questioning” while they “learned to follow.”
In a more general way (not just referring to religion), it reminds me of a girlfriend I had a number of years ago. I was friends with her for 4 years and then started dating her. We dated a few months and everything seemed like it should be fine, but something was off. I couldn’t figure it out. We had fun together, we agreed on everything…..wait! That was it! I finally realized that she always deferred to my position on things. I had asked if she saw herself as a stay at home mom or a working mom and other questions that seemed like they should be important to her, since it was her life. She always went with what I thought. That scared me, because it reminded me of a play that I had read way back in high school called “A Doll’s House.” It was a story of a women that was the perfect wife and hostess for years and years. All of a sudden, something changed, she started to realize that she wasn’t living for herself. She was just a trophy wife, the doll on display. After that the woman walked out on the man. That scared me. I wouldn’t want to end up marrying someone who was just doing what I wanted. I spoke with her one night saying how even though we had known each other for a long time, I still felt like I didn’t know her in many ways. I asked, “What are your wants your hopes your dreams your wishes? What amazes you and fills you with wonder? What do you see your life like years down the road? I want to know your thoughts and opinions on things.” When I finished saying this, I turned to her. She had her head down and said in a quiet tone, “Maybe I don’t HAVE my own thoughts and opinions. Maybe I only think the way I do because my parents do.” I was NOT expecting a response like that. That was a very strange conversation all together. She surprised me. She had lived on her own for 4 years, was finished with nursing school at the University of Utah, and had been working full-time for 2 years. All signs of a fairly independently minded person (I thought). Eventually we broke up because she did not want to start forming her own ideas. She said that I expected too much from her. I just wanted her to have a voice.
To bring it back to some of your original sentiment, the friend from the original post that said “Who cares about the Book of Abraham?” had a conversation with me later where he said that he couldn’t understand me. I asked him why and he said, “I’m the type of person that, once I’ve made up my mind on something, I don’t change it.” I asked him (not necessarily talking about religion at this point), “But what if the original choice you made was wrong?” That did not seem to sway him. For him, rather than a matter of truth, it seemed to be more important to stick to his guns than anything else. From what I can tell from him, he puts more value in steadiness and resoluteness. I know some, especially in the political world, seem to think that a leader who changes his mind is weak. I think a leader who is unwilling to change his mind is a frightening thing.
I may have rambled too much in this comment, sorry. I do that sometimes.
#662
There is a difference between liking something and being addicted to it. Even if my friend does look at pornography, that does not make him an addict. Maybe he’s just a hypocrite. 🙂
“We were (are?) the goodie-goodie, Peter Priesthood types. We never swore, watched rated R movies, etc.”
I had a friend like that when he was with US, but other weekends, he was 2 hours away hitting the gay clubs. (Only to learn later). Your friend sounds like he was 2 hours away emotionally, even if physically he was still identifiable as a Peter Priesthood.
“one of my friends who believes that he would have gone to a prostitute by now if he weren’t in the church”
Is he that bad looking that he would have to pay??? It’s easy enough in or out of the church to get it for free, and he will be less likely to “pay” later. My friend worked at a clinic in Ogden and provided a lot of birth control to Weber students and told me this, knowing that I am a Mormon. I joked with her that they were just using birth control pills to regulate their cycles. “Sure they are”, she replied with an evil grin.
And Dexter, this is just for you: “I don’t know where I would be if I didn’t have the church!” Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Jen and Rigel,
I simply find your judgments about the guy’s prostitute to be ridiculous.
Based on Guest paraphrasing one thing he said he is addicted to porn and ugly.
I would be much more critical of your comments if he were here, and he is not, so it is not a big deal.
But come on, it was just a comment saying that if it weren’t for the gospel he would be more willing to seek worldly pleasure. There is nothing to be gleaned from it about him personally and any such issues are wholly irrelevant.
*steps off his high horse*
*feeds his high horse oats and hay, not beefarino*
*climbs back on his high horse*
*waits patiently for next comment*
In 667 I meant to say “guy’s prostitute comment”
#665-
“There is a difference between liking something and being addicted to it. Even if my friend does look at pornography, that does not make him an addict.”
Not yet anyway. If you haven’t educated yourself about the addictive nature of pornography, the way that it skews men’s perceptions of women and how it destroys relationships, then I recommend that you do. I’ve seen enough of the destructive nature of it in people’s lives to last me a lifetime. Maybe you are still young enough or don’t have enough married friends yet, but eventually you will see how it tears people and families apart.
#667-
Oh Dex lighten up. I said it was highly likely he was involved in pornography, not an addict and ugly…those were your words. Just so you know, if the Guest’s friend made a comment like that to me about a prostitute, I would have no problem asking him directly if he views pornography. What’s the big deal about that?
Now go get yourself a nice lukewarm drink of water and settle down…..
Perhaps the greek god who zapped the angel Moroni with the lighting could do the job. 😉
I remember sitting on tatami flooring with a fairly new investigator in Japan and asking him about committing to progress in his continuing of the discussions. Exactly at that moment, a very short but impressive earthquake hit and raised us up and down a bit on the floor. Needless to say, that was his last discussion.
I never got excited. And Rigel said he was ugly, not me. You both are concluding way too much based on a comment. Perhaps he refrains from porn for the same reason he refrains from prostitutes. Viruses. I mean, because of his desires to stay strong with church.
#668-
Looks like you’ve been on that high horse for awhile. Maybe you should get down and get some grub yourself. 🙂
Maybe you are doing that which you accuse us of as well, concluding way too much from our comments.
#670
I could name you a few couples where it has destroyed their marriages. I also know of couples who use it as part of their overall sexual experience. I know of women and men who would look at it every once in awhile before they were married, but stopped when they got married, because it was just a filler for them. There is a wide breadth here.
“I’ve seen enough of the destructive nature of it in people’s lives to last me a lifetime.” – The same could by said by someone who deals a lot with alcohol abuse, but that doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of alcohol user should not be considered alcoholics, and probably will not become alcoholics. I similarly believe that the vast majority of women and men who have looked at pornography at some point in their lives do not become addicts.
That being said, I agree that it can skew men into thinking of women as mere sex objects and, lets turn the tables here, it can skew women into thinking of men as mere sex objects (It’s not just men looking at it. Women are catching up to men in the statistics. Living in a male dominated society, I believe that, historically, women just haven’t had as much tailored to their taste.). I believe that it is harmful in a relationship. I would be pretty upset and jealous if a person I was married to or even dated looked at that stuff. I would say, “Hey, what does he have that I don’t?”
Most people who look at porn don’t become addicts, but for those who do it can be quite a severe problem. Not just porn though, anything that provides a significant dopamine rush can become addictive. From a professional standpoint, I don’t think porn should ever be used alone, even when one is single (I think it separates love from sex, which doesn’t help future relationships), and in the cases of couples, they should ONLY use it together, with both partners being COMPLETELY open and okay with it. When just one partner is using, and the use is heavy, there are some bad problems. With light or occasional users (according to research) wives feel neutral to lukewarm.
Even then, I’m not sure about being aroused by people other than one’s spouse. Throw the church’s stance in there, and there is no reason to personally use it, but the above reasons is probably my bias when seeing a couple.
Different topic, but Guest, I agree about the thoughts re: your ex. I remember that book quite well too! Makes me always try to make sure my wife REALLY is happy, and not just putting on a front, and that she has a voice that is heard as much or more than mine. A lot of women leave their husbands after many years of marriage, and it really surprises the husbands–like “HEY I thought we had a good life!” when really, she was putting up with his stuff for years and just not saying anything. Let that be a lesson to us all! 🙂
I feel I have come to know you over the past 600+ posts and you seam like very nice people. People with whom I feel comfortable enough to share some very personal feelings, I want to tell you my story and let you judge if the trite comments I have heard so many believers say applies to me like: you are too young to have a spiritual experience; you never really believed; it was the way you were brought up; you are not doing it right; god will bring you back in his time. I hope I don’t upset too many of you here but I think those ideas are excuses that allow one to continue to believe without being critical of oneself. If you blame the one who leaves you don’t have to ask if he or she has a good reason for leaving.
Jen – you asked how leaving the church has changed people’s lives. I will tell you it has been a great joy. I did not know it before I left, but the church is a great burden. It was not right after I left the church but years later once I realized that god does not exist that I felt a great burden had been lifted from me. (Just to get this out of the way – I am in my early 40’s and I have not had any inclinations to so any wild oats). The peace and calm was like nothing I had experience in my life. Finally all the nagging problems, the contortions I had to go through to deal with those very nagging problems in the church were gone. The pieces of life fit together and make sense.
I need to fill in some of the story or you will jump to unfounded conclusions. I also want to say I am not bragging (as I don’t think anything I have done deserves to be bragged about. I am telling you what I did so you know who I am. I lived the life I lived because that is who I was who I chose to be). I grew up in the church. I filled every position in the Aaronic priesthood except bishop. To my knowledge I am the only one in the ward I grew up in to ever receive the Duty to God award. I completed 4 years of seminary. I took it very seriously studying it on a college level, meaning I left no leaf unturned. I tied for first place in the scripture chase in our stake and this is only because after half an hour they could not choose between my honorable opponent and me. I cannot tell you how many times I have read the Book of Mormon. I have read the entire bible cover to cover. I pleaded with my stake president to let me get my temple recommend before my mission so I could do temple work (they refused). I never doubted even after the many times things did not go as I thought they should. I just chalked it up to what god wanted. I was one who did not doubt I could talk to god face to face and, having a good reason I asked. I completed a 2 year mission. When I returned I found my wonderful wife and we were married in the temple. I have taught gospel doctrine classes and filled every calling to the best of my ability.
Now someone earlier stole my analogy (thank you, I loved your version), but each time I had a question that could not be answered I put it on my shelf. I was very studious and so had lots of unanswered questions. I was content to wait until I got to heaven to have them answered. And not all of the questions were doctrinal, some were experience based. But one day in Elders quorum the shelf broke, over burdened by the mass of it. My shelf was not rotten, Atlas could not have done a better job then I did. So I walked away. I just could not take the shear ignorance and lack of motivation of the people, the illogical morass I found myself in.
As a youth I once said I did not care if the church was true, I like the people and the teachings and would be happy to spend eternity with them. But on that day I realized I no longer felt that way. I did not reject the church, I just could not take going anymore. It was not because of the people that I left but they were a part. They could not be bothered to know the gospel of the church they were a part of or read the scriptures. It was 5 years before I came to the conclusion the Joseph Smith was right about one thing, all churches were wrong together, including the one he founded.
The next 5 years I was agnostic. I could not, because of personal integrity, testify that I knew god did not exist. During the last 6 years (it now being about 16 years since the day I left) I have become comfortable telling people I am an Atheist. That is I do not believe that god exists. I am very strongly convinced that there is no evidence to support the belief in any god. But I am open minded and if additional evidence comes to light I will be happy to consider it and even change my mind if it turns out I am wrong. But to this day I don’t believe that I am wrong.
Each day is rich and exciting because I have one life to live and no afterlife. The only thing that matters is what I do while I am alive. Think about that, you can’t hope for a better life in heaven so maybe you should consider how you treat people now. Have you told your spouse and kids you love them lately? If you die you won’t get a second chance. Thought about murder or adultery? Really? Is that the kind of person you want to be? I am a better person now that I have stopped believing in god, then I was before and I have always been a good person. Contrary to what many believers feel, Atheists take responsibility for their own actions, respect others beliefs and live to their own standards which from my own experience and others I have met are very high.
This is an amazing discussion you have been having; I have relished every post. What excites me the most is the individual thought that so many of you share. I wish you all the best no matter what you believe. Thank you.
678. 7Watts
Thanks for sharing your life story. I love to read the experiences of those who have become atheist. Not because I consider myself one, but I have also felt that weight and contemplated what it would be like to release it. My shelf is pretty heavy.
“They could not be bothered to know the gospel of the church they were a part of or read the scriptures.”
Do you mean the people in your ward or the Church collectively? When you say gospel do you mean doctrine or history?
re 678: Thanks for the story that you shared too…I have to say that I was on edge about the parts about agnosticism and atheism…not because I disagree with those things (I am agnostic atheist — I don’t think this is a contradiction because agnosticism and atheism answer different questions), but because I thought you might fall into a trap of feeling that atheists must certainly believe there is no god.
but you really nailed it — all it about is lack of belief…not believing god exists. Why? No convincing evidence. If this changes, then you can be flexible and change your position. You aren’t locked in anywhere.
Like DrewE, I’m also interested in your feelings about others in your ward who could not be bothered to know the gospel of the church they were a part of or read the scriptures…because for me, this seems perfectly reasonable. It seems perfectly reasonable that many people would be apathetic about their religions because even if there is a god, he certainly doesn’t seem to be playing a pressing role in most people’s lives. This is troubling for a belief in an active god who answers prayers and motivates with spiritual experience, but not so troubling when we don’t assume such.
For me, it seems like the nature of people is very sensical and things just click into place when I don’t assume a god.
679. DrewE
I was not talking about the church in general only those I had contact with. First my home ward and then the ward my wife and I went to at the time.
I never had a huge issue with church history. I thought that polygamy was a mistake but I accepted it. Mostly it was the doctrine and the scriptures that I saw people ignoring. They did not really know what the church believed. I have since found this is true not only of Mormons but of most people in most religions. I think it is a priority thing. I you are going to raise a family are you willing/able to devote 10 hours a week to scripture study. When I was teaching GD I was putting in 10-15 hrs/wk. I didn’t expect others to do that, I was the teacher and needed to be very prepared but they could at least have given a cursory glance at the chapters. It was obvious they did not.
680. AndrewS
It took me more then ten years before I decided there was no god. I don’t like to jump into things or make rash decisions. It took even longer to use the word Atheist. I had left the only church I had ever been a part of because I disagreed with so much of what they were. I was not anxious to be part of another group. For a long time I would tell people what I believed and asked them not to put a label on it. Then I watched ‘A History of Disbelief.’ That was a great experience. I found that there were many who felt like I did. Finally I was not so alone in what I believed. It was at that point that I started saying I was an atheist.
I have to admit I lean a bit toward anti-theist as well. That is because I feel religions as a group are responsible for more pain suffering and anguish than anything else in life. On the other hand I have seen, what I feel is belief in a delusion, bring happiness to people. I am not convinced that they would be happier without religion. In fact I think many people would be lost and need that direction. It is not so in my case. I like to make my on decisions and be held accountable for what I do. But I recognize that may not be true of all people.
#678
“Jen – you asked how leaving the church has changed people’s lives. I will tell you it has been a great joy. I did not know it before I left, but the church is a great burden. It was not right after I left the church but years later once I realized that god does not exist that I felt a great burden had been lifted from me.”
7Watts-Thanks for sharing your story, I always appreciate it when people are willing to do so. It has always been fascinating to me to hear others stories and experiences. We are all so alike in many ways, yet the differences are big enough to keep it interesting.
I think I understand how you felt that the church was a great burden. I think it can easily become that for some people and if that is what it is, it makes no sense to keep carrying that in your life. Some people look forward to going to church on Sunday and some dread it and wish it was general conference more often. 🙂 In my personal experience I have had times when it felt more like a burden (when I was younger) but as I got married and had children it was something I came to really appreciate. For me, even if I left the church it would be impossible for me to not believe in God. I think the evidence is overwhelming that He exists and I am deeply grateful to Him for every moment I am given…good and bad.
“Each day is rich and exciting because I have one life to live and no afterlife. The only thing that matters is what I do while I am alive. Think about that, you can’t hope for a better life in heaven so maybe you should consider how you treat people now. Have you told your spouse and kids you love them lately? If you die you won’t get a second chance. Thought about murder or adultery? Really? Is that the kind of person you want to be? I am a better person now that I have stopped believing in god, then I was before and I have always been a good person. Contrary to what many believers feel, Atheists take responsibility for their own actions, respect others beliefs and live to their own standards which from my own experience and others I have met are very high”
For what its worth, each day is rich and exciting to me as well because I have this life to live and can look forward to it continuing on after I die. The only thing that matters to me is how I live this life as well, because this is the only life I am living right now. I consider how I treat people everyday and every moment, and not because I am worried about what will happen to me in the next life. I do it because I deeply care about people and want to be a source of help and support to those who need it. I have 7 children in my home right now, several of which have lost contact with their parents because of their choice to choose drugs over them. I care about their well-being and I care about the type of people they are and I work hard at helping them to see outside of themselves. I tell my kids and spouse I love them everyday, not only through words, but by being here and caring for them to the best of my ability everyday. When that ability is drained and I am worn down, I pray and receive more capacity to make if through the day. I know this has been the case many times when things have been hard. I am a much better person because I believe in God. He makes up the difference when I want to, but don’t have the ability to. Not only do I take responsibility for my actions like you do, but I am teaching my children to take responsibility for theirs. I consider my standards and values high, too high for some I am sure. I am looking forward to knowing all the people I love (and don’t love as much 🙂 ) in the next life. See, I don’t think we are that different at all-we both love life, enjoy life and are living it with high standards and values. I just rely on God to help me do that and plan on Him always being a part of my life now and forever and you don’t.
I think if all religion or belief were gone, people would find something else to use as the inspiration for wars and destruction and etc. I.e. I don’t think people who argue against religion are going deep enough–the root of those problems is anxiety.
#678 7Watts–
I don’t believe in atheist. But if there really are atheist it would just be another religion. One of the definitions of religion in my Oxford dictionary says:
Devotion to some principle
I’m not saying this as a put down. All I’m saying is that atheism is a religion in the broadest sense of the word so you are religious.
Do you think “atheism” should be protected under under the “free exercise clause” of the first amendment?
Do you believe in the satan?
Jared:
In an effort to parse like Ray for just a moment. Are Atheists devoted to a common cause, or are they defined by their rejection of all common religious causes? I would speculate the latter. Also, so as I am not misunderstood, I cling to the Christian hope in faith in God, though I tend to reject most institutions I am familiar with as being mortal contrivances. I ultimately lean agnostic, but hope for an after life including the rewards for those who do good, but this is all a fluid, non-cohesive belief system, again based on the hope that God is out there and he has us in mind.
That being said, I’m not sure what the ulimate point is in trying to demonstrate that Atheism is, by definition a “religion”.
re 684:
AdamF, I agree that we have to find a different inspiration for wars and destruction…but it’s interesting that you prescribe them down to anxiety…never thought of it like that.
re 682:
7Watts,
Yeah, from what I have seen as well, I have to conclude that the objective truth or falsity of any given religion isn’t vitally important (except in a few situations — determining public policy, social decisionmaking, etc.,)…what’s more important is the subjective value it holds for people. If someone is improved by their religion, then I see nothing wrong with that. If their subjective experiences lead them to make certain conclusions, then that’s where they are.
Instead, I care more about people who seem “stuck” in religion because it is the societal status quo even though they don’t believe and so it is making them miserable to practice something that they don’t identify with.
re 685 and 686:
I like Cowboy’s question…
I propose that at its minimum…atheism is merely the the nontheist answer. So at best, you can only compare on the basis of theism.
Is theism a religion? If it is, it’s a rather poor religion. There aren’t any specific principles or specific formulations. There isn’t a complex belief system. The only thing you can say about theism is that someone includes a deity somewhere there. If you want to get more specific, you have to start digging deeper. From theism, for example, you can have a package of beliefs such as Christianity (which is a religion…), but Christianity is not the same as theism. Rather, Christianity is a belief system that is compatible with theism.
So, in the same way, is atheism a religion? If it is, it’s a rather poor religion. There aren’t any specific principles or specific formulation. The only thing you can say about all atheists is that they don’t include any deities in whatever belief system they have. Again, if you want to get more specific, you have to start digging deeper. From atheism, for example, you *could* go to secular humanism…you could go to anti-theism, etc., But these things aren’t the same as atheism. Rather, these things are belief systems that are compatible with atheism
Cowboy said: I’m not sure what the ulimate point is in trying to demonstrate that Atheism is, by definition a “religion”.
To get us to 700.
With all of this discussion about leaving the church and atheism it would be a could time to give a plug to reconversion using the Book of Mormon. I think every one of you who are temporally estranged from the Mormonism will find your way back.
Eugene England wrote a book titled Converted Through the Power of the Book of Mormon.
In the preface he says:
I had my “reconversion” to the Book of Mormon (to use the word I have chosen for the experiences of life-long Mormons) when I was a missionary in Hawaii in 1956. Yes, I had read the book and studied passages for talks, but I had not been brought to Christ by it.
Near the end of my mission (Charlotte and I had been called to Samoa together right after our marriage and transferred to Hawaii for our first child’s birth, then she had gone home), I faced the most difficult spiritual challenge of my life to that point. A man we were teaching on the island of Maui had come to believe the gospel was true, but he couldn’t find the strength to repent. He would make promises to change his ways, to get rid of habits very harmful to himself and his family, but he would break his promises and then suffer terribly from guilt. He felt ashamed, not good enough for Christ, and too weak to become good.
We tried all kinds of ways to help him be strong, from telling him about the hell he was making for himself and about the heaven with his family he was destroying, to hourly calls to check up on him, to going over and over the logical “steps” of repentance. Nothing worked, and his family, who had joined the Church, and we missionaries were all near despair. Then I remembered Joseph Smith’s claim that the Book of Mormon was “the most correct book” in the world and that its principles provided the best way to get near to God. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938], p. 194.)
I studied the Book of Mormon, looking for ways to help our friend. As I did, I went back over my notes from Lowell Bennion’s institute classes, which I remembered had stressed the new vision of salvation through Christ’s atonement given by the Book of Mormon. Slowly I found again the key I had been taught but which had not meant enough until now when it was needed so badly. Then we read the main passages about Christ from the Book of Mormon with our friend, and he felt the spirit of complete love from his Savior. I remember when we came to the sermon of Amulek, in Alma 34, where he teaches that the suffering of Christ brings about the bowels of mercy, enough to break through the bands of justice and give us the means to have enough faith to repent. This was exactly what our friend needed—and as he read the Book of Mormon passages he finally understood and felt it and thus was able to accept Christ’s love and repent. I believe his wife’s love, never critical, always encouraging (and our own struggling efforts to be like her) played some role. But the turning point was when he felt love from Christ, conveyed by the promises and spirit of the Book of Mormon. He said, “If Christ can have this kind of love for me, who am I to refuse to accept it—and not accept myself.” With this new strength, he became a new person, almost overnight.
My own life didn’t change as much, but I saw clearly then that the Book of Mormon had the best answer to the chief human question, “What can we do about our sins?” and that it also contained the best direct help to actually bring people to repent. My sense of Christ’s atoning love that began there on Maui has become central to my own efforts to change, to my way of seeing literature and politics and human violence and healing, and to my efforts to counsel people.
Jen – Based on your comments I agree, we both have a great deal in common. If we could focus on that the world would be a better place.
AdamF – Sadly I also agree that without religion people would still find reasons for hate and wars. I have been saying for years this would be a great planet if we could just get rid of all the people. The astronomers are correct Pluto is not a planet, it is an intergalactic warning beacon telling everyone our society is in “Time Out” until further notice.
Jared – I understand what you mean about Atheism being a religion. It is for that very reason that I was reluctant to say I an atheist for the longest time. I didn’t want to replace one religion with another. I only call myself an atheist now because it is easier for believers to understand. Atheists don’t go around Not Believing. If it weren’t for some much religion all around us (and sometimes in our faces) we wouldn’t think about god or religion at all. We would do the things that Jen said in 683 about taking care of our families, just minus all the religious stuff.
I think the constitution gives individuals the right to worship how and what they believe in or not to believe in. I don’t want any other rights except to be left alone. I don’t think that is anything more then what you want.
And no, I don’t believe in satan any more then I believe in god; we don’t need to invent monsters, humans are vile enough.
Jared – I think you have a very rigid belief system. You are so locked into Mormonism that you don’t see why anyone would reject it. You said you don’t believe there are atheist (I heard that growing up in the church as well); it is not true there are lots of us. You say you think that those who leave the church will eventually come back. I hope not. I would rather die then return to the chains of religion. For me religion was not freedom but bondage. Don’t get me wrong I was very good at being Mormon. It has been a process of leaving the church (because for me it was a long process and not an event) that allowed me to realize how wrong I was, that I had many faults in logic that I thought were sound.
I was too close to it when I was in the church to see it. I have a friend about the same age as me who went through nearly the same experiences. We were talking one day about our paths in life and marveled at how we could have believed as we did and how lucky we felt to be out of that situation.
I think I may have been a little like you in my beliefs. I was very strict and a bit of a zealot when it came to following the rules. To me if you believe you have an obligation to follow. To whom much is given much is required. I believed that and behaved accordingly. I think if you could ever find your way out of the box religion forces you into you would feel just as relieved as I feel.
As for the Book of Mormon it was actually Alma’s words that helped me the most. In his parable (alma 32:28-43) he explains how to test an idea. You plant a see in your heart and see if it grows into something good. I think that is why it took me 5 years to say the church was not true. I was letting the seed grow; I had to know if it would bear good fruit or bad. At each junction I decided that what I was doing was correct (other wise I would revise my personal philosophy). This idea continued to grow and expand as it continues today. I have decided that the ideas about religion being wrong and god not existing were good seeds; they have born good fruits. You see it isn’t that the Book of Mormon will lead me back to the church but has been the path to my leaving. I know you believe it comes from god, I don’t, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t contain good advice.
First, I want to thank 7Watts for sharing his story. I am glad we could provide an environment where you felt comfortable sharing your personal story.
Second, I agree with 7Watts and Jen. Each of them find they are a better person based on what works for them. 7Watts does not believe in God, and this motivates him to be the best person he can because this life is all the time we have and in his mind, God is not going to help these people, so he must do it or no one will. I agree with this philosophy. But for Jen, believing in God and in mormonism motivates her to be the best she can be to prepare for the next life and to honor Christ by doing as she believes he would do.
The point is, they are both choosing what works for them. This is how life should be lived. Everyone should be free to choose how they want to live and if that means being a part of a religion, great. If it means being atheist, that is great too. We all need to find what works for us. And further, I think we need to respect other’s choices and realize that what is right for them IS RIGHT FOR THEM. Instead of assuming that they would be happier if only they found this or if only they knew what I know.
Some people have found what works for them, and they want to impose it upon others because they assume that if it works for me it will work for all. This is wrong if you are an atheist or a mormon. Now, politely informing another of why you like what you have found is great. But to assume that “you are not really happy because you don’t have the gospel” is rude. Or, to assume that “you are deluded by religion” is also rude. I think we all need to accept that people can be happy in a million different ways and that it is up to each to choose.
Jared’s comment that he doesn’t believe in atheists, is rude in that sense. How would you feel if someone said, “hey jared, I don’t think you really believe in god, you are just pretending to believe.” That would be rude and offensive. But you can say that yo don’t believe someone can not believe in god?
7Watts–
You seem like a fine person. I enjoy reading your remarks, and I believe, you believe what you are saying. But God is our creator and the time will come when all of mankind will know that, regardless of how they may have believed at one time or another.
I’ve had almost the exact opposite experience with the things of God than you. I was a long ways from the church and God. Then one day, I decided to give the religion of my youth one last chance. I told God I would read the Book of Mormon and if there was anything to it to let me know, if not, then I would turn my back on it (essentially I already had). Shortly thereafter, before I could even acquire a Book of Mormon, the Lord gave me an experience that got my attention. The veil was parted and I was left with a sure knowledge that God and satan exist. That was in June 1966.
Since then I have had many more sacred experiences that, well…, how can I put it…I am looking out the window and although I can’t directly see the source of the light that illuminates the day, I know it’s there.
I’ve never seen God, but he has illuminate my life with the gifts of the Spirit to the extend I know, nothing doubting, that he is our Heavenly Father.
#692-
7Watts-
There are many who have been on the flip side of where you are now. They grew up being taught there was not a God and then eventually came to know Him and are very grateful for that. There are many reasons why people will reject Mormonism, just as there are many who embrace it or would if they were given a chance. I heard a lady from Africa speak who lived in the midst of civil war in her country. She talked about how her family was chased down and her parents were killed. She was captured, as well as her sister, and they were put in line to have their legs chopped off. She watched her sister’s legs be cut off and she was in line to have the same thing happen to her. It didn’t happen because something happened to stop the process. She felt the Lord intervening in her life and she felt led directly to the LDS church through a series of events. She received very direct answers from the Book of Mormon that she saw realized later on in her life. I am glad for you that the Book of Mormon helped you attain what makes you happy in your life now, for I believe we are what we desire. If you don’t desire to believe in God and that relieves you of a great burden, then you need to live in that manner. I think it is important for you to understand that many people are extremely grateful for that God that you don’t believe in and to call that belief rigid is just as unfair as me saying you are rigid to not see that God is the one who has given you everything you have, including your ability to reject Him outright.
Jared – Thanks for your comments. It is apparent that the experiences you have had are very important to you, that they have shaped the latter part of your life and I think you are saying that you are in a good place. But when you say, “But God is our creator and …” I hope you understand that statement is not absolute truth but reflects your opinion. My opinion is just as strong as yours but completely different.
I have an ongoing bet with a friend (Mormon, bishop I think) that there is no afterlife. I don’t think it is fair because if he is right he gets to say I told you so. Smiles!
#693 Dexter–
Please understand I am not putting anyone down my stating my belief about atheist. How can a son say he doesn’t have a father and be correct? He may believe that, but that doesn’t make it a fact.
I know we are all children of God so I don’t believe in atheist. At the same time, people can believe what they want and I can respect them. We each have agency and choose how we want to believe.
I fully believe the 11th AoF
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
(Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:11)
#696 7Watts–
lol
You related a few verses out of Alma 32 where faith and knowledge are discussed.
When we have faith in something we can employ the word opinion. However, when we know something the word opinion would be improper.
For example, if it is noon and the sun is visible and I am an astronomer and I tell someone, “in my opinion the sun is shining” that would seem odd. Wouldn’t it be more precise to say, “I know the sun is shining”?
I am not expressing an opinion when I say I know God is our creator. Of course, you’re not required to believe that.
That’s not what you said.
If someone says, “I dont’ believe in god.”
And then you say, “I do believe in God.”
That is totally fine.
If someone says, “I don’t believe in god.”
You are saying, “I don’t believe that you don’t believe.”
That is something very different, and offensive.
It doesn’t make it a fact that there is a god just because you say there is. The same way someone saying there is no god doesn’t make that a fact.
Jen, is the sister who’s legs were chopped off supposed to interpret that event as god intervening as well?
Shame on anyone who witnesses many horrific deeds, including a sibling have their legs cut off, and then claims god intervened to same them.
#693-
Hey Dex-
I think if things come across as rude sometimes, it is not intended in that way, at least for most of the people who blog on MM. I have read some comments that are just downright rude, but it is not that often (especially with Ray around 🙂 ). Sometimes it can be hard to express belief being on complete opposite ends of the spectrum and not sound like you are putting the other person down. I think it is important to stand up for what you believe in while respecting others in the process. I wonder if the nature of blogging itself just makes that a more difficult task to do because we aren’t speaking face to face and it is easier to stand up for what we believe in and say what we think on a blog then if we were all in a room face to face together.
I really am grateful for the many things I have learned on this blog and for the many different experiences people have shared. I feel it has helped me become a better person and be more open minded. I hope that I express myself in a way that is respectful to others and if I have offended some without knowing it I apologize (except for you Dex, of course 🙂 ).
Dexter–
It could be offensive. It depends on how it was said and what the speaker had in mind, and the setting it was voiced in.
And for that matter, who should be offended, man or God, if it gets right down to it?
By that I mean, if God gives you something should he to whom it was given, hide it so as not to offend someone? Take Joseph who was sold into Egypt by his brothers. Should he have not told them about his dream. They were insulted, when no insult was intended, and they sought to do away with him, but God had other plans.
Nonsense, to tell someone they don’t know what they believe is rude. Jen, this was not addressed to you. It was only to Jared in that he doesn’t believe that people don’t believe in god.
And Jen, please not I’m not claiming 700 to mean anything. Only 1000 can top 500, as I already have proven impeccably.
#702 & 703-
Wow Dex…how easy for you to try and shame people when you weren’t there and didn’t have to be the one experiencing the horrific events. She would have gladly taken her sister’s place, but it didn’t happen that way and she had no control over what those ugly men did. You don’t know the details of the story and what she later went on to do. Just because some people die and some people live doesn’t mean that God wasn’t aware of them. I personally don’t fear death at all, and see it as another step in my progression. If I had to die in a horrific way to allow my sister the chance to live and go on to do many things, I would do it in a heartbeat. Of course you are entitled to view things as you wish, but I don’t see them as you do at all. But, I don’t think it is ok for you to shame someone who has been through something you and I will probably never even comprehend. Shame on YOU.
#705-
“Jen, this was not addressed to you.”
So are you telling me that you never respond to something that is not addressed specifically to you?
re 695:
Jen, what a horrific story. What a horrific story that we are supposed to believe that God would let free will supersede for the sister to get her legs chopped off, but would then decide enough is enough and let one girl through. I find it a bit offensive to attribute that to God, so I don’t.
And then they call me a heretic, for supposing to give even the idea of God more decency than to attribute such a thing to him in any way.
I was exaggerating, and I am willing to concede you make some good points.
I wouldn’t tell that woman what I said on here. And I recognize she can interpret what happened however she wants.
I was simply speaking to the principle of saying “God intervened” when many people had horrific things done to them.
If I survived a plane crash and 100 others died I would not say God intervened to save me because that implies he didn’t do anything for the 100.
That is all I am trying to say.
I apologize for saying shame on that woman though. That was something I should not have said and something I wish I hadn’t said. But I stand by my general point.
Jen, 705, what is wrong today? Are you having a bad day? 🙂
I wasn’t trying to say you shouldn’t speak on the issue. I was trying to say you haven’t said anything that is offensive, in my opinion. I was trying to nicely say your comments haven’t crossed into offensive land the way Jared’s did. But you take it as an attack. Take it easy 🙂
We’re all pals here.
#708 Andrew–
This kind of story actually happens often. When I was in the service I became aware that God let’s some people die while blessing others so they don’t die.
I believe it has to do with pre-mortal promises in some cases. Mormon theology allows for this.
The girl who lost her legs may have been told in advance what would happen to her and she agreed to it. The girl who didn’t lose her legs may have been called to a work that required her to have legs so she was spared that ordeal, but has the responsibility to complete her work.
The Book of Mormon gives insight into this rather difficult to embrace doctrine Alma 14:9-14
re 711:
yeah, the fact these kinds of stories happen often speak more against God than for…but as you comment, your mileage may often vary (since you attribute it to pre-mortal promises that we cannot evaluate at the current moment and cannot change after the fact…essentially, we are to believe we consigned some part of our free will away in the premortal existence)
I really have a big problem with 711. Not the convenience store, the post.
Dexter, et al
In the world we live in there are hundreds of countries with just as many languages. People really are separated by many things: time, distance, language, opportunities, culture, oceans,and etc.
Those on this post have many, many things in common but we are still living in different worlds. We’re separated mainly by our beliefs. Where do beliefs come from? EXPERIENCE!.
For example, Dexter (and probably others) is concerned by what I’ve said about knowing and opinion. He feels I am being rude. But when he comes to understand what I am really saying he will know that it isn’t rude, but is the logic extension of my philosophical position. The same things holds true about the girls Jen talked about.
The object of communication is silence. As we can see we still have a lot to communicate so that we can understand one another.
#708-
AndrewS
I am wishing that I wouldn’t have shared that story now because it needs to be told by the one who experienced it. Because of the nature of the experiences she went through, I should have recognized that this isn’t an appropriate forum to discuss it and it should always be her story to tell in her own words. I apologize for that.
I understand where you are coming from and I respect your feelings about it. I don’t feel the same as you do, but you already know that.
#709 and #710
Dex-
“If I survived a plane crash and 100 others died I would not say God intervened to save me because that implies he didn’t do anything for the 100.” Or maybe He did do something for the 100 by taking them home and leaving you on earth. Maybe he let you live because he just wasn’t up to having to deal with you again yet. LOL! Seriously, I understand what you mean, I just don’t see death as a bad thing. I think being on earth can be much harder than moving on to the next life. If someone is taken and another lives, I see God as a part of both processes.
Just so you know, I’m not having a bad day, I just haven’t had my chocolate yet! haha And I didn’t take your comment as an attack, you are going to have to work a lot harder to offend me. 🙂 It was just the perfect set up to say what I said so I couldn’t resist.
#711-
I had never considered the idea of making promises to do things before this life until I had something significant happen to me and I began searching for answers. I believe what you are saying is true, because some of the answers I received directly correlated with what I said I would do before I came here.
Oh and Dex…..the Lord knew you were going to be stubborn and difficult so He asked me if I would be willing to help. I told Him it would be a challenge but I was up to it, so here I am in your “life.” I hope you appreciate it. haha Just Kidding of course.
I don’t think there is anything rude, wrong, or offensive at all about Jared’s claim to “know” that God lives. We would be wise to avoid becoming offended too easily. I know that this sounds a lot like the pot calling the kettle black, coming from me, but we should encourage a free exchange of ideas. Jared, and others, may make statements that they know, but would also be wise to take note that just stating “I know…”, while supposed in Mormonism to be one of the most powerful iterations of testimony, to those unacquanted with Mormonism it often carries little weight. If, “I know…” is backed up with a specific “because”, then it may have greater impact. But in saying this, no one is implying that those who “don’t know” are inferior in one way or another. To be honest though, when it is just claimed by someone that they know with demonstrating “exactly” how, it comes across as being rather incomplete. Nevertheless, no one should be offended. Nor should those of us who don’t believe, expect those who do believe to shed themselves of their witness and what it means to them and how they percieve the world. For Mormons that largely means they “know” things pertaining to the eternities. For those of us who are targeted for persuassion by the Mormons/religions of the world who know, we must decide whether we think they really do or not – and that is okay too. So, others should not take offense when the non-believers have to rationalize “they think they know, but they really believe”.
re 715:
Perhaps you would only want the person who experienced it to tell the story because you feel that people like myself or others would resist or tone down their words out of some seeming shred of compassion and not scrutinize her position.
Yet, it is just as outrageous for the person who experienced it to come to such a conclusion as for someone to relate the story after the fact.
#717 & 718 Cowboy–
Your ability to communicate with the written word is superior to mine. Very well put.
This brings something to mind that may sound strange. Having a “testimony” can be challenging, and can be a lonesome place to be.
When I decided to come to the bloggernacle and not hide or minimize my testimony I realized I would take some flack. But I’ve lived long enough and had enough experience I figured I would find my way. I think there are many people in every stake in the church who have an equivalent and greater testimony than I do, but have learned to be very careful expressing it.
I just got tired of people saying that a testimony is just an ethereal feeling that one feels at church or in a parade, and thus can’t be really trusted.
The Lord gives other church members an undeniable testimony so the whole spectrum of possibilities is made manifest among church members.
I honor those who do so much for the Lord with just a basic testimony. I hope in the final analysis I will be found as accepted to the Lord as they are.
#719-
AndrewS-
Maybe I am just slow today, but I don’t quite get what you are saying. Can you say it differently so I make sure that I understand you mean?
Is it just me or is the click to edit not working for other people too!! AHHHHH!! On #721 I meant to say: so I make sure that I understand WHAT you mean? I hate it when the edit button doesn’t work!
re 721 and 722:
yeah, the whole edit not working thing totally annoys me too…especially since I make some really long comments that have some pretty bad messups and I just can’t go back through them.
What I meant is this: You shouldn’t regret having told us this story (especially not because of the comments you got back)…because had the original person told it, we’d have the same thoughts, feelings, and comments. If we didn’t say it to her face or scrutinize her position, it would be out of cowardice that we might later announce to be “compassion.”
I think using the term “I know” should be used carefully. I bore my testimony and said “I know …,” when I was a member but I really didn’t know. I did have great faith and believed very strongly but to know something is very different. I went through a time where I tried to look at all the things I knew, really knew. I found I don’t know very much. I think I know that gravity will always be there for me but that is only because it has never gone away. I think I know who my parents are but that is only because I look so much like them. I think we know something when we have had first hand experience with it, have tested it and found it to be true.
If you say that you know god is real then I think you should have talked to him face to face like a man talks to another man. Not a vision, a conversation. You then have the grounds to say you know. I still won’t be able to say I know unless I share the experience.
If this happens to you, you still need to explain (assuming you wish to convince me of something) how your experience is different from people who see aliens or Elvis. Please understand I am not belittling someone who has had an experience they treasure but I need a way of separating people who really know from people who have hallucinations that they think are real. I also need to separate people who have had religious experience from people who are outright lying.
If you claim to have had some extraordinary experience then either you need to provide extraordinary proof or else I have to smile and say that is nice but it does not constitute proof. Since I cannot tell if your experience is real, an hallucination or a lie I cannot use it to motivate myself. It may constitute a pivotal point in your life, and that is great but it does not help me to ‘know’ anything more then before I talked to you.
#723-
I regret telling it because it doesn’t include all the details and facts that are important to the story so I feel I have done her an injustice. And honestly, before you make the assumption that you would have the same thoughts, feelings and comments if she told it, realize that most things aren’t that way in life. Firsthand experience is never the same as someone telling you about it after the fact. That’s just my fabulous opinion though. 🙂
Cowboy, I was not offended by Jared saying “I know.”
I was annoyed by Jared saying to an atheist, “I don’t believe that you don’t believe.”
That is not respectful. That sounds like something someone would say to a four year old.
And Jen, if God exists, he would want me back immediately. My absence from heaven proves there is no God. 😉
#723 7Watts–
I agree with a much of what you say in this comment.
The word “know” probably does get over used in the church. However, it just as disingenuous to say you know when you believe, as to say you believe when you know.
The “ways of knowing” is an interesting subject.
I am writing a blog post as I am reading and commenting here. I have a book written by Eugene England called Converted to Christ Through the Book of Mormon. It is a collection of testimonies by people who relate in some detail how they received their testimony. The spectrum of experiences is broad. From voices speaking in answer to prayer about the Book of Mormon, to a those who just knew because of the presence of a special and unusual feeling they receive while praying.
So depending on how a person uses their words they could use believe or know depending on the strength of they experience.
If a person as a general feeling the Book of Mormon is true they generally use the word believe.
If a voice speaks to a person in response to prayer about the BoM I think they would be irresponsible to say they believe the Book of Mormon is true.
It would be like saying to someone you believe you talked with your mother on the phone this morning. They could reply, “what do you mean you believe, don’t you know?
#723
7Watts-
I know that I wouldn’t tell anyone (outside of my spouse or a friend that I trust very deeply) that I saw God, and I believe that anyone who has seen Him probably would be very unlikely to go around telling people. I know that Joseph Smith did, but he was 14 and it was something that I don’t think he wasn’t expected to withhold from others because of the nature of his calling. So remember that if someone says to you that they know that God lives, maybe they have seen Him and aren’t telling people that part. Let’s be honest here too, if I told you that I talked to God face to face today (and it really happened) would you be likely to believe me? I don’t think you would.
Jared – Many years ago I heard a voice. I knew who I was talking to and so I knew who the voice was from. I say I knew because at the time that is what I believed. In fact I did not know the origin of the voice. It has taken me years to realize that I was the second vice. I had a monolog not a dialog. I could say to you now I know that to be true. I know I was the second voice but I am much more careful about how I use that word. So I will tell you I am convinced that I was the second voice. When I said I knew years ago I was mistaken and should not have used the word. I think you should only use the work ‘to know’ if what you are claiming is so sure that the odds of it being wrong are almost zero. Otherwise you run the risk of deceiving yourself as well as others.
#728 7Watts said: I think you should only use the work ‘to know’ if what you are claiming is so sure that the odds of it being wrong are almost zero.
I have no problem with those odds.
you know what would be crazier than getting to 1000 posts?
a sitcom.
what happens when you take the people who have commented on this thread…and make them inhabitants in a house with not enough bedrooms?
Obviously, Jen gets her own room…but the rest…MORMON MATTERS: THE REALITY SITCOM ACTION DRAMA
get ready to grab your popcorn, folks
Jared 729. I guess we have achieved the object of communication.
et al,
It’s been interesting and enjoyable. I not saying I’m through, Andrew S is ready for treats, so what’s the next feature?
#730-
Makes me wonder who the best looking person would be on the show…..we all know how important looks are on the big screen! LOL
re 733:
this is a trap question I just know it.
#734-
*grabs popcorn*
*see if he falls for the trap question*
Jared:
I would be very interested in hearing your take on “the ways of knowing”, with regards to gospel epistemology.
Cowboy–
Just read your 736-7. Great topic. I’m signing off-Mrs request. Let’s pick up that thought again.
I posted a topic on my blog a few minutes ago about recognizing a testimony of the Book of Mormon. I used 5 examples from Eugene England’s book.
Ways of knowing:
Truman Madsen said:
Brothers and sisters, over a period of forty years I have worked in the area of “how one knows.” And I can report, in a comparative mood, that there are really only five main modes that have been appealed to in all the traditions, philosophical or religious:
1. appeal to reason
2. appeal to sense experience
3. pragmatic trial and error
4. authority–the words of the experts
5. intuition
Following is a link to the entire article for those interested. I found it to be a very deep and thoughtful presentation–what one would expect from Truman Madsen
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=7822
Jared:
I read the speech from Madsen referenced in your comment (#739). While the five modes of of “knowing” are mentioned in the beginning of his talk, he really does not appeal to those means, but rather tries to force a mash between intuition and and appeal to sense experience by ultimately suggesting that our intuition is just a relic of our own pre-existence, and therefore such inclinations really account for sense experience. While we are free to believe what we would like, this is entirely subjective, and rational only with the pro-Mormon underlying assumptions. I would be interested in LDS thought on revelatory experiences which compare to the First Vision, and the roles of the varying degrees of revelation (impressions, vs. face to face encounters with deity – as claimed by the Church) play in Mormon epistemology.
FYI- I was also disappointed at Madsens self serving conclusion that those who don’t know, actually really do know, but are just trying to avoid accountability.
730: It has been made known to me that I should have the largest bedroom and Jen can fend for herself. She certainly has been attempting to do so on here.
733: Hasn’t this already been clearly established?
Cowboy–et al,
When one attempts to communicate about the “things of the Spirit” the difficulty of the task can be illustrated by relating the following:
Suppose someone gathered up a million pictures of the faces of different women between the ages of thirty and fifty. Then they put a photograph of our own mother among them. Though it would take a long while to sort through them, and though we might find quite a few pictures that looked somewhat like our mother, none of us would have any trouble picking out our mother from all the others. We could do it instantly, once we saw her.
Now suppose that we have to describe our mother to someone who has never seen her and to do it so accurately that they can pick her picture out from all the rest. That simply is not possible. Our language does not have that specificity.
———————-
However, even with the limitation inherent in our language millions of people have joined the church since its inception because they have felt something we call “the things of the Spirit”.
I would be interested in discussing, as best I can, “…LDS thought on revelatory experiences which compare to the First Vision, and the roles of the varying degrees of revelation (impressions, vs. face to face encounters with deity – as claimed by the Church) play in Mormon epistemology.”
To start with it, may be useful to narrow the topic down further by using questions. I suggest you think of three questions to get the discussion started, then let’s see what comes of it.
#740-
“It has been made known to me that I should have the largest bedroom”
Then CLEARLY you have been deceived. How can you really KNOW anyway? 🙂
millions more (remember: the church isn’t the most popular on the earth) have felt “the things of the Spirit” for religions with vastly differing conclusions, traditions, etc., to ours. *Most* people do not feel “the things of the Spirit” toward the church, and some even go so far as to think the church is a cult.
How could this be? Could you confuse your mother with a mad ax murder?
What happens when the things of the spirit tell people vastly differing things (or tell some nothing at all)?
AndrewS-
You say that millions more have felt “the things of the Spirit” and I would like for you to give more specific examples. In my experience with my Catholic family members, I have never once heard them say “I felt like this was true when I heard it”(in mass), etc. What do you mean exactly when you say millions have felt the “things of the Spirit?”
Andrew S–
The LDS will never be a large church in comparison to the world’s population. That has been taught by church leaders and in the scriptures.
Things of the Spirit are like things of men in that truth is hard to find among all the voices speaking. Just look at the various kinds of government and political leaders that are in the news. And this is true of religion as well. In fact, the reason Joseph Smith was called as the prophet of the restoration is to restore “authority” that had been lost from the time of Christ.
re 744:
Jen…so you *really* believe that all Catholics (based on rather anecdotal evidence of your family members) do not similarly have burning testimonies of the truth of their scriptures/traditions? That’s a new one…
What about evangelicals who are “born again?” Are these “things of the Spirit” not real? When certain ex-members actually claim, “I never had a spiritual experience in the church, BUT WHEN I WENT TO (insert evangelical church), I had a true experience with Jesus, etc.,” They claim to have felt “the things of the Spirit” just as much as any Mormon, and yet their message is in direct opposition.
For every LDS story you can find about some member who felt the “things of the Spirit,” you can find stories in any other tradition that mimic the same feeling, same experience, etc., But it’s for a different tradition. How can that be? How can you so quickly brush off the possibility by pointing out your family members when someone of any other religion could do the same about Mormons?
AndrewS-
No, I don’t *really* believe that. REEEELAAAXXX. I am telling you my experience with my specific family members and I am wondering what your specific experiences are with REAL people. I am not interested in major generalizations, I want real life experiences, that’s about it.
# 742
I just do know. If you want a lengthy explanation, ask Jared. Now please help me with my biggest room furniture and biggest room tv and biggest room pillows for my biggest room bed.
re 745:
but Jared, anyone could just turn the message back on you. See…you’re convinced that you have found, out of all the voices speaking, the truth. the Things of the Spirit. Etc.,
But anyone of any other religion could (and some DO) point out that you are deceived and that you don’t have a “true relationship” with Jesus/Allah/Nirvana/whatever. Every religion will predictably use this kind of rhetoric, and every adherent will suppose that they, of all the people, are on the right side.
So, the challenge…of all these spiritual experiences where people feel just as strongly and exactly the same as you do about your tradition as they do about theirs, how can you assert that yours is definitively correct and theirs is not in a way that cannot be turned back on you? Appealing to scriptures is something anyone can do (they just use different scriptures). Appealing to spiritual experiences is something anyone can do (their spiritual experiences just point in different directions). And so on and so on.
#748
I can’t even help you with all your big ideas let alone your big room furniture. Guess you’ll have to figure this out on your own, although I hear IKEA is nice and reasonably priced. 🙂
Sometimes AndrewS I think you just like to argue for the sake of arguing. Would this be a true statement based on truth as you define it (whatever that means 🙂 )?
When a state lottery is held someone wins. Maybe that is a poor analogy but it works to a certain extent. Out of all the religions that there are it’s possible for one to be more true than the others. And you know the Mormons, they make it clear that they have the only true and living church.
Most people in the world want to be free. This is abundantly clear in Iran even as we write. There are many countries with many kinds of governments, but how many really enjoy freedom?
When the USA came on the scene a new kind of freedom was born. The world had never seen anything like it. The Mormon church is a new kind of religion, just as the USA was a new kind of government.
What I’m trying to say is that even though there are many voices out there proclaiming what they have to offer, it doesn’t exclude the possibility that one among them really does have the “real thing”.
#752 is a response to #749 Andrew S
No one disputes that, Jared.
We are willing to concede that there could be a true religion out there, and it could be the mormon church.
But you are not willing to concede that it is possible that none of them are true, or that some church other than the mormon church is true.
#754 Dexter–
I know that at least one is true. And as you know I’ve given a detailed reason how I know.
That doesn’t mean I don’t think there are some wonderful churches out there that do a lot of good. I also believe they have access to the things of the Spirit.
#754-
Dex where have you been? The First Vision cleared all that up.
*hoping he remembers we’re all pals*
Jared, we’ve been around and around on this a thousand times. The point is, if you are attempting to engage in an open-minded discussion, you need to be willing to at least assume certain things.
For example, all the work of economists in the world have used assumptions that they know are not true. They assume, for most of their theories, that markets are entirely free. Nothing could be further from the truth. But do you know the wonderful advances that have been made in economics (and a million other fields) by assuming something that is not true in order to come to certain truths and theories that still stand up and are valuable despite assumptions that are not completely true?
It’s the same thing here. If you want people to carry on a discussion with flowing ideas you need to be willing to assume that whether the church is true or not is not 100% knowable. Doing this will not make your comments weaker, as you seem to presume. It will make them stronger and will give you credibility.
Even if you do know 100%, you cannot communicate that knowledge to other people without them simply assuming whatever they want. It’s as silly as me saying, “it has been revealed to me that the largest room will be mine and that Jen should camp outside.”
#757-
Hey, there is something to be said about sleeping under the stars. 🙂
#757 Dexter–
We’re taking about revealed truth. I used government and etc to make the point.
The first vision really does settle the question about which church is true. And I know 100% it is true, and so can others. Following is a quote from an GA:
Do you realize that the notion that all churches are equal presupposes that the true church of Jesus Christ actually does not exist anywhere? Now, others may insist that this is not the true church. That is their privilege. But to claim that the true church does not exist anywhere, that it does not even need to exist, is to deny the scriptures. The New Testament teaches of “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” and speaks of [all coming] in the unity of the faith” (Ephesians 4:5, 13), and of a “restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21).
We Latter-day Saints did not invent the doctrine of the only true church. It came from the Lord. Whatever perception others have of us, however presumptuous we appear to be, whatever criticism is directed to us, we must teach it to all who will listen.
It has been revealed to me that I am the King of the world. Bow down and worship me, Jared.
I know with 100% surety that this is true. God has revealed to me that all humans are my servants. So, Jen, please prepare me a fine meal. Jared, go mow the lawn. Chop chop!
#760-
“So, Jen, please prepare me a fine meal.”
Know with 100% surety that meal will be your last.
re 751:
Well, Jen, I most certainly do *play to win*.
You certainly have a subjective experience that leads you to believe this statement…so subjectively, it is meaningful to you. Subjectively, someone else could determine otherwise. What I’m saying as far as “truth” is that *objectively*, we may or may not even be able to know. Your SUBJECTIVE experience that I’m arguing for the fun of it doesn’t necessarily tell you anything about the truth, because someone else could have a subjective reaction that leads elsewhere.
In the end, it could ultimately be true that I argue for the fun of it…or it might not be. We don’t have the tools to decide at this time.
re 752:
Jared, it is very possible for no one to have a winning number in a pick five/pick seven/whatever. Not only that, you don’t know until the winning numbers are drawn.
What if a bunch of people got differing spam emails each saying their numbers were drawn and they were winners of a Nigerian lottery…all they had to do was give their phone number, bank routing number, etc., 😀
Your arguments don’t really prove anything. That people want to be free doesn’t suggest anything objectively…it suggests subjective. After all, some people want to be cut…it makes them very happy. Some people want to be held by their lovers in bondage and abused in leather. Makes them very happy.
Even the so-called ideas of freedom can differ. Some want to be free to marry the person of the same sex of their choice. Should we say that countries that have gay marriage are a “new kind of country” with “new kinds of freedom”? Should we say that any liberal progressive religion is a “new kind of religion” just because they match and identify well with what some people value?
So, you’re right…any one could be the “real deal.” It could be that there is no god, and that atheism is the “real deal.” It could be that any of the religions we have are the “real deal.” It could be that there IS an invisible pink unicorn out there and that is the “real deal.”
So the question is. How are you so sure that you are right using spiritual experiences when everyone else can claim to 1) not have a spiritual experience for YOUR religion, 2) have a spiritual experience for their religion, or 3) actively believe yours is wrong and have an experience that assures them of this.
In a world with a lot of possibilities, how are you so sure that your Nigerian email, however happy and ecstatic it makes you, is legitimate? (You’re right…this was a terrible analogy).
#760 Dexter–
I must have the gift of prophecy. I mowed the lawn yesterday. lol
#762-
AndrewS-
How do you ever sleep? Does your mind ever turn off at night? I think you are determined to never reach any conclusions about anything because if you do, you cannot be sure that you reached a conclusion that is worth reaching or you may have been reaching but not far enough, or you may just have had bad gas, therefore, no conclusions can ever be made. I wish you luck with that whirling mind you must live with, and I mean that sincerely. I hope it at least stops long enough to let you eat. 🙂
I could continue to claim I know with 100% surety that I am King of the world and I am the prophet of the new religion and all must obey or suffer the consequences.
The point is, for me to be 100% sure that I am King and my new religion is the one and only true church and to respond to every post with that fact would not bring anything to the conversation. It would be me constantly saying I know I am King, worship me, and everyone else ignoring me or being annoyed by me. If I had a few others who also believed that I was King, this would not change the fact that continually saying I am King and I know it with 100% surety brings nothing to the conversation.
And Jen, I have food tasters, naturally, being King, so if you did what you said you would do, you would only be killing innocent people. And then you would be put on trial for murder. Guess who would be the judge?
Jared:
I would like to respond to your request that I provide a specific question, as well as #752, as they both relate. Andrew’s comments on Atheism apply here, that we should each come to the understanding that nobody debating the existence of either God, or the truthfulness of the LDS Church from a position of absolute certainty. You correctly note that in the mass of religions broadcasting their views of God and with it the inherent confusion for consumers in the religious market place, nothing precludes the possibility that one Church is correct above all in a winner takes all type of scenario. The dispute, and really the question which this brings up is both fundamental to the Mormon promise including the claims of it’s founder, and the topic introduced by your Truman G. Madsen speech. The question is not what is true, rather how can we know what is true. This question requires that we analyze the integrity of our epistemological systems, which are largely rational.
Let’s for a moment take your analogy of photographs. How does this square with the example provided by Madsen, and implied by you. According to LDS claims we are all, Mormon and non-Mormon alike, members of the same heavenly family. This includes that we all lived before we were born and had some degree of literal association with one another and our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. Beyond that the particulars are somewhat sketchy. Given this understanding there should not exist any person who would not recognize the picture of their mother. You suggest that the difficulty in explaining the things of the spirit is akin to trying to use an imperfect language to describe an experience which is largely sensory. Yet, according to Madsen this cannot be, for we were all at one time the Saviors sheep and heard his voice (the pre-esistence), so those who claim not recognize the voice are instead actively repressing their “recollections” from the pre-existence. In other words, in order for your analogy to square with Madsen, I would be fraudulently claiming to not recognize my mother. You allow for the possibility that I perhaps have no sensory precedent, and while such a position is certainly generous, it is also problematic for the views presented by Madsen which are largely traditional Mormon sentiments – which take us back to former debates as to whether God for some reason chooses not to reveal himself to some, or whether all who follow prescribed methods should be made to hear the Shepherds voice, for the sake of maintaining Madsens analogy. It is for this reason that Madsen adopted a view which he himself admits as sometimes cruel, where those who claim not to hear the voice are ultimately at fault, perhaps even dishonest.
Having had no experiences that justfiy Madsens remarks, I reject his entire premise. I would take this matter back however to the mode of experience. It bears out that very few people move to Mormonism based on a strictly logical basis. The Churh largely does not market itself via this method, but rather focuses on the conversion “experience” and “intuition modes. As for my question, where would we place and rank the ways of “knowing” in Mormonism through these modes. In other words, what types of experiences or manifestations of intuition can we confidentally appeal to, in order to assuage the investigators concerns of being unable to recognize the spirit. What types of events, for lack of a better general word, should specifically accompany the event and instance of “knowledge” where we can say with confidence “I know the Church is true”. In the past when similar questions have been asked, the responses have been varied, but variation has been the concensus. The explanation to this needs not to be rigid that only hyper specifics will suffice, however the range of consistency ought to be more stable than “anything goes”. Where God is quoted to be a God of order, it would make sense that his interactions with his Children be consistent, so that we may all know how to understand him. It should also be noted that his Sheep appear to know his singular voice, while it is the sheep who seem to vary. Further scriptures could be sited to show that God does not change his course in order to suit the needs of his Children, so much as perhaps he is just merciful to their imperfections. The logical problem with an anything goes basis for interpreting events in our lives as manifestions of God in our lives, is that any event regardless of outcome will be seen as a testimony to his reality and concern for us under a give God the credit clause. For the sake of coming to understanding as individuals however, I think it highly important that we try to understand what exactly we mean when we say “I know” regarding and religious principle posited as an Eternal and immutable truth.
#765-
King Dex-
I was hoping you would just choke to death on a piece of food. LOL
I have to run but it has been fun. Try not to miss me too much.
re 764:
Jen, I sleep rather easily. I simply consign myself to a rather humble life with I take cautious steps. That allows me to sleep very easily.
On the other hand, you feel completely fine with making the conclusions you make, and so you do. So I’d imagine you sleep very easily too.
So you see, we’re not *so* different. Try not to focus on the points of difference about god or religion and instead on how two people who can enjoy their meals and go to sleep easily at night really have gotten the important things in life down. The rest isn’t so material.
So first it’s 100% surety that it would be my last meal.
And now it’s hoping I would choke to death.
Those don’t make sense and they are not very Christlike, or King Dexterlike, for that matter.
#762 Andrew S–
There are things we can all be sure of.
When I am enjoying good health (covering the bases for possible exception to the general rule) I know when I’m hungry. It comes to me and to the average individual through feelings. So I eat, and then I know by my feelings when I am full. This cycle repeats itself everyday and by following these feelings I am able to keep myself from starving to death.
We could discuss breathing, sleeping, and many more subjects of this type. The point I am trying to make is that there are fundamental things we all have shared experience with.
However, with things of the Spirit it is different based on what gifts we’ve been given. Not everyone shares the same “gifts”. But for those who process a spiritual gift they experience it, when it manifest itself, much in the same way hunger is experienced. To deny a gift of this kind would be like denying the feelings of hunger.
I’m struggling to communicate what I experience but I hope at least something is coming across that makes sense to you.
See #741 about the million mother photo analogy.
So all a person can do is share their experience and invite others to check it out. The scriptures teach that their will be few who find it.
re 770:
So, in the same way the people satisfy hunger in different ways (and you can’t claim that an “apple” is “right” and a “sandwich” is “wrong,” nor that the satisfaction of hunger means anything externally [the satisfaction of hunger does not get you to this overarcing goal…rather it’s something that only satisfies a desire you had and will come back when you get hungry again], we find out a lot about spiritual hunger. People satisfy it in different ways. Some people have a spiritual experience for music. Some for some great literature (even fiction!). Some satisfy it with Evangelical Christianity, some with unitarian universalism, some with paganism, some with Islam, some with Mormonism. Just because people have a desire to eat and may have a preference for some foods doesn’t make these foods objectively “right” or “wrong,” so similarly, just because some people may have a desire for spiritual food and may prefer some spiritual foods doesn’t make these things objectively “right” or “wrong.”
So, again, I’m not denying that you have a spiritual experience. I’m not denying that spiritual experiences exist. I’m wondering why you will say that your spiritual experience is made “right” and all of the rest of everyone’s throughout history’s experiences are either 1) flat out wrong, 2) incomplete, 3) misdirected or misguided. I mean, you can say these things, but what justification do you have that can’t just be turned against you by someone else who has as strong an experience as you do for a different cause?
Next, why do you say that the spiritual hunger is indicative of anything external, when you most certainly don’t think hunger is. For example, I don’t deny hunger…but I don’t think this means there is an external meaning. Rather, the way things are we naturally have evolved to do things that make us feel good. Food is tasty. If it isn’t, we don’t eat it.
Basically, how can you be so sure that you have a photo of your mother. What if what you think of as your mother is really a doppelganger, or your adoptive mother (wow, and you didn’t even know you were adopted!)? Not only that, since your own scriptures and tradition will suggest we are “seeing through a glass, darkly,” or we are “veiled,” wouldn’t your analogy be more appropriate under your own religious precepts if all the pictures were fuzzy?
#769-
I came back for a few minutes. And Dex, they do make perfect sense. I am a woman, so therefore, I can change my mind at any given moment. The sooner you learn that fact, the better.
AndrewS-
Unfortunately, you cannot hear my tone of voice when I write comments, but I am a person that kids around a lot. I have to find humor in a lot of things with all the kids I have. 🙂 I wasn’t really serious when I wrote what I wrote about you so I hope you didn’t take it as anything more than in jest.
I see the smileys :D, Jen
as I said, i like to take things easy.
#766 Cowboy said:
…we were all at one time the Saviors sheep and heard his voice (the pre-esistence)…
I’ll begin with the point the above thought touches on. As I understand the doctrine regarding the “war in heaven”, all those who come to this earth followed the Father’s plan and rejected satan’s plan. The idea of sheep, however, means something different than all those who followed the Savior. Those who are referred to as “sheep” are those who followed Him as pointed out in Alma 13.
Alma 13:4 refers to those who exercised greater faith by not rejecting the Spirit of God and thereby acquired certain privileges.
I believe these are the ones referred to as His sheep who hear his voice in this world. They along with all of God’s children came to this world to prove themselves. And if they are faithful here they will receive all the Father has (D&C 84).
Among those who were given certain privileges because of their faithfulness there, not all of them will prove the same here. The challenges here are apparently greater here, than there.
Maybe it like the Green Beret song from the 60’s, 100 will try but only three will win the Green Beret.
#771 Andrew S–
I think you pointed out some important ideas in your comment. You basically said that we all hunger for something and follow our hunger where ever that may lead us (we must remember that satan is part of the equation and he has claim on his own).
And this is why there are degrees of glory. We will go to a kingdom of GLORY and I believe this is a place where we will be the most fulfilled and the happiest. Remember it is a kingdom of glory. There is no regret there.
#775-
Jared-
You said there is no regret there. Do you think that there is longing for things that a person could have had, but realized they lost from their choices here on earth?
LUCKY 7s GET!
#776 Jen–
I don’t think so. I believe, like J Ruben Clark, there is progression between kingdoms. So I don’t think anyone is ultimately “damned”. Of course, that is just my opinion and I was happy when I found Clark’s thoughts on this subject.
re 775:
so do you recognize as well that perhaps *you* could reach a lesser glory in someone else’s formulation of afterlife too? Remember, you just assume that the Mormon idea of glories is correct, but anyone else could say that you’re the one who’s mistaken.
#779 Andrew S–
We can only follow what we’ve been given. But the Book of Mormon teaches that once we have been born again then we are on the high road to receiving all that the Father hath.
But you’re saying I might be following a lesser god and even if I arrive at the best he has I will still be receiving less than those who followed a greater god.
That gets confusing. So I’ll just have to take my chances.
re 780:
It does get confusing. In the end, you’re right that we can only follow what we’ve been given. Yet, different people are given different things, and we can’t be sure that any of these things are necessarily the one. We are biased to feeling that we have the one to rule them all, but this bias only tells us about ourselves and our biases, not really about reality.
In the end, there probably is one to rule them all (it could be that all of the ones we have aren’t it…or that one of the ones out here is one of it…who knows?)
I just think in the end, not only should we take our chances, but shouldn’t we allow others to take theirs? Shouldn’t we do this humbly, without presuming too much of the others?
#781 Andrew S–
I agree with the apostle Peter when he said:
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear
I thought of a great way to get to 1000 comments AND make it interesting. How about if those who are arguing one position (I mean speaking respectfully *coughs*), switch sides and try the other side? Maybe that would be a great way to see things from the others perspective because we would actually have to try and defend it.
Hey I heard that. Any better ideas?
I’m still waiting for my meal. After I’ve received that, I will consider your suggestion.
Jen, great idea! Although, I don’t think King Dex could do it without a good dose of sarcasm. 😉
KDex-
Fine. Pick anything you want off the dollar menu at Wendy’s. You get three items plus a water (not the bottled water, the one they give you for free). Oh yeah….don’t forget to bring $3 and some change to pay for it too.
Now that we have the figured out, don’t bring up the meal again or I’ll have one of your servants murder you on your throne.
I can’t go to Wendy’s on a sunday. It’s against one of My commandments. No fast food on Sunday. I’m headed to La Caille. I trust you will have phoned in to arrange for the financing of my meal by the time I arrive.
KDex-
Yes, I have. You just need to do all the dishes (after you eat of course) at closing time, vacuum the floors and lock up. Oh and you can bring home any left overs you have as long as you wipe down all the tables too. ENJOY!!
I think your green beret song syncs well with what is meant in the Doctrine & Covenants by “many are called, but few are chosen”. Regarding the notion of progression in the Kingdoms, are you aware that Bruce R. McConkie listed this notion as a damnable heresy in his talk entitled “The Seven Deadly Heresies”, which attempted to specifically address heretical notions that had crept into the LDS general discourse. Elder McConkie suggests that what is so reproachable about this doctrine is that it teaches us that we may live a life of sin, completely uncommitted to the gospel, and yet based on some obscure law of suffering (which frankly smacks of Brigham Youngs sermons that have been labeled under the ominous heading of “blood atonement”) may yet find themselves as beneficiaries to a Celestial glory. I find Elder McConkies position much more compatable with logic and Mormonism. After all, what then is the purpose of mortality now, why not just start everyone in the actual kingdoms? Does that mean that even once in heaven, could one lose their Salvation. Could God be over thrown in some type of Eternal coup d’etat. I think these become relevant questions with the notion of progression into kingdoms.
Lastly, I don’t know that I agree or disagree with how you choose to interpret “sheep” as intended by the Saviors analogies to our relationships with him. I am also not sure that this distinction effects the point I was trying to make. Truman G. Madsen in the speech you cited basically stated that our spiritual inclinations are relics of our culture and heritage in the pre-existence. Because of this, the idea is that when we hear truths on Earth, even though we cannot recall our former existence, these truths will resonate within us as familiar voices, ie the voice of the Savior/Good Shepherd. I was referring to his point here which ultimately requires that each person will recognize the truth when they hear it, as we have all heard it before, but we will still need to decide wether we will accept it or reject it.
My point is that while this all may be instructive to the LDS members who hold to the Mormon beliefs that we lived in a Mormonistic society before we were born, to the non-member or investigator the reasoning is subject to the underlying assumptions that Mormonism is correct. In other words the evidence is subject to the conclusion. Independently however, this rational does not provide the investigator with a solid basis from which they can be instructed on how to recognize the spirit. In other words it does little to enhance the spiritual experience by giving definition and setting expectation, rather it amounts to belief and circular logic.
Cowboy–
Yes, I am aware of what Elder McConkie said. The scripture do not support what I hope for. However, I have a letter wherein President McKay said we don’t have a doctrine regarding this movement within the degrees of glory.
We only have a small amount, a very small amount, of information about the degrees of glory and how the Lord will deal with His sons and daughter in the eternal realms. I would never discuss, and certainly not teach about progression between kingdoms in a church setting.
Here is a link to the Green Beret song for those interested in hearing it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH4-tOqLH94
Regarding sheep and those who have shown forth greater faith than others–I wonder if it might have something to do with their age and experience. We know Jesus was the Firstborn. Could that be part of the equation? I don’t know, and I am doing a lot of speculation which is not my usual way.
The bottom line for me is: the church is everything it claims to be. The Savior gave many parables that give some light on why His followers come on go from the path that leads to eternal life. I don’t like to use these parables to judge others. I hold the hope out that nearly everyone who is now estranged from the kingdom will find their way back.
I have been given an undeniable testimony of the reality and truthfulness of Mormonism and I have hoped by sharing this with those in the Bloggernacle it might make a difference to some.
Regarding investigators–I am looking forward to serving a mission with my wife at some period. The Book of Mormon is the key to conversion. I believe that when the BoM is properly presented those who are ready will find their way into the kingdom. I additionally believe that it is the primary tool for reconversion of existing members who have strayed off of the path (as I did).
Not everyone is ready to accept the claims of the restoration in this life. We need to remember that the greatest field of labor is on the other side of the veil.
It is one thing to have question and doubts about the church, but it is entirely different thing to oppose and fight against it. I only know of a few who are coming out in open rebellion against God who were once His followers.
I’ll be preparing to travel this week so my time is limited. I’ve enjoyed the exchange, it’s invigorating.
Fair enough Jared, thanks for the discussion.
If there is some confusion about whether there is progress between Kingdoms of Glory, perhaps we should acquaint ourselves with the works of Emmanuel Swedenborg. He’s the first one that I’m aware of that taught about this type of afterlife. He included 3 degrees of glory as well as the highest degree of glory being split up into 3 parts, etc. Here is an article by the Mormon Craig Miller comparing the LDS afterlife belief system with that of Swedenborg:
http://craigwmiller.tripod.com/interest.htm#Unique%20Similarities
I bet if we read Swedenborg’s works, we might just find an answer to this question. Maybe on this matter he had a clearer vision than Joseph. As Joseph said, “Emanuel Swedenborg had a view of the world to come, but for daily food he perished.”(Statement in 1839 by Joseph Smith to Edward Hunter, a Swedenborgian convert who later became the presiding bishop of the Church)
I disagree with Miller’s assessment that it is unlikely that Joseph would have been familiar with Swedenborg’s teachings, just because it is unlikely that he had read them. People could have conveyed this information on to him, just as the missionaries teach it to those who have not read D&C 76, 131, etc. Either way, it is an interesting read.
Is this it? Are we done? Where are you my minions?
Sorry Dex, guess you were only King for a day. Look at the bright side! (when I think of what that is I will let you know).
SILENCE WOMAN!!!!!!!
It
Dexter,
Can I be a minion?
Three more gets us to 800 – and that’s probably a good place to let it die.
It truly has been fun while it lasted.
Agreed. Thanks for all of your thoughts everyone. I really appreciate the dialog. Although my underlying confusion with my friends and people like them remains, I still feel that this discussion was more than worthwhile.
Thanks again.
I will leave 800 for someone who wants the final word.
800get
~Andrew S
*played and won*
Yes, you may Guest Writer. And those who don’t want to be are as well. Free agency is key in my realm.
Bueller?…..
Bueller?…..
Bueller?…..
Bueller?…..
Pingback: Does history even matter to Mormons? « Irresistible (Dis)Grace
Did we make it to a thousand?
I know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is true. And I love Joseph Smith for everything that he has done, and I know that everything he did was righteous and true. I am surprised someone would write this, especially after having experience in the temple. I think you missed something that is will tell you the real facts.
Does history mean anything to Mormons in discerning the truthfulness of the Church? It shouldn’t. Divine revelation is everything.