Thoughts On Church History, Theology, And Faith Crisis

[Log]

Kevin,

Hopefully I haven't contradicted you in my (simplistic) rendering of paradigm choosing.

But I have to say again, there are true contradictions - mutually exclusive, jointly exhaustive claims about reality, history, events, and such - and, when confronted with them, you have genuine problems the power of which can only be known by them who experience them. I agree MOST problems in the OP do not fall into this category, but at least one does.

Have you truly not experienced the full power of a fundamental contradiction?

Edited April 13, 2012 by Log

[DBMormon]

I took some time to ponder this issue a bit recently. I have some observations -

1: People are always influenced by their environments.

Bill here, is a great example of this. In the original post, he gives us a list. Now, the list itself isn't unusual at all. In fact, if I look all over the internet, what I find is that this list of issues is published in lots and lots of places. Mostly by critics and disaffected members. The narrative is often the same. Now, this doesn't mean that people aren't encountering information that disturbs them, what it means is that not only are they encountering information that disturbs them, they are also being given a template for how to discuss this disturbing information, they are given a pattern for how to respond to it, and so on. It isn't about facts that anyone can uncover, it is also about accepting the narrative of discovery, of rejection, and all of the rest of it.

2: Most members of the church don't have these issues - even when confronted by them.

This is an interesting personal observation. While I know that there are people out there who have experienced a faith crisis over these kinds of issues, I also know a lot of people who haven't. In fact, my personal experience with people I know personally is that other issues cause far greater angst with the church than these historical ones. I suspect that this is largely an issue of interpretation. Because while Bill has encountered issues that challenge his faith, I have (I am sure) encountered all of the same issues - and I haven't had the same response he has. I can think of a number of reasons why this might be the case - but it has very little to do with the source of the information (whether from believing sources or from critical sources). In fact, I tend often to be quite skeptical of both kinds of sources - because both kinds of sources have an innate bias that isn't helpful at building my own interpretation of the facts.

3: Why the emphasis on the internet?

This seems fairly obvious to me. As with everything else, the internet is great at decontextualizing everything. It is great at creating anonymity when it suits a persons purpose. It is great at eliminating perspective. What do I mean by this? John Dehlin created this survey of disaffected members. Looking at the survey, you would think that he had uncovered the root causes of people leaving Mormonism. The challenge, of course, is that the survey defines the narratives that it wants to present. What the internet seems to be doing is encouraging people to match their own issues with the gospel with a set of predefined narratives (John does this very well) so that whatever Bill's challenges were, as he encounters Dehlin's materials, he rewrites his own history to match what John has provided. Dehlin gives people a framework to understand their disaffection. The reality is that the approach is very problematic. Religion in general is currently in a state of decline here in the U.S. It's not the first time its happened (historically). It won't be the last. It seems (at least to those who track these kinds of things) that this is a cyclical process. If Mormons were losing members at a rate that was completely out of sorts with the religious community in the U.S. in general, we might look for explanations. But it clearly isn't out of whack - in fact, Mormonism is one of the few religions that is still seeing growth right now (even if it as at a slower pace) while most churches are losing overall membership. On some level, if we were losing all of the members that we are losing just to historical kinds of issues, that would seem to be a really interesting piece of the conversation - because it would mean that we weren't losing members for all of the other reasons people normally leave their church over. In a sense, because Dehlin is creating the narrative himself and not collecting it from others, it creates a self-fulfilling kind of situation. The internet isn't causing people to leave by revealing facts - it is causing people to leave by telling them that when we uncover these facts, this is how we should interpret them, and this is how we should respond to them, and ultimately, this is why we need to leave the church. That is the role of the internet, and that is what John Dehlin is doing.

4: Polemical language

Nearly all of these narratives are filled with polemical language. Bill's is no exception. And it clearly isn't built on any kind of personal knowledge or experience. Take this from his item number 2: "ex: not finding seer stones and treasure Hunting in any of the info we are taught from on sundays, no mention of polyandry anywhere.... try typing that in LDS.ORG's search engine, no effort in the material to correct any of these fasle teachings mentioned above." It is true, of course, the the word polyandry doesn't occur anywhere on LDS.ORG. (I am not sure this is an issue, since it is a relatively technical term that has never been used in popular discourse - it was never used to describe the practice when it occurred - its absence is something of a red herring). But seer stones? How about this from the Friend magazine: "Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone." It doesn't get a lot clearer than that. So we have this insinuation in part because Bill has never actually tried to do what he is so critical of. The fascinating thing for me is how easy it can be to find this information. But, Bill would rather take someone else's word for it (like John Dehlin) instead of actually looking. Where is the personal responsibility here?

What's the deal with polemical language? There is a notable issue in the study of comparative religions. That is, quite naturally, a fairly small scholarly field, and its publications are probably not widely know. One of the most recognized though is Johnathon Z. Smith (no relation that I know of to any of Mormonism's Smiths). You can read a bit about him here: http://en.wikipedia....nathan_Z._Smith ). In his book Drudgery Divine, he talks about this issue quite a bit. In particular, he makes this observation:

Now that may be a bit Greek, so let me explain. Religions always have two aspects. One is a historical aspect (religions are made of real people living at a real point in time, using language that is shared with their contemporaries, incorporating ideas from their social and cultural backgrounds into their faith). The other is the meaning of the faith - represented often in its theology, its notions of salvation, the meaning of faith, and so on. In examining religion, Smith tells us, the problems begin when we substitute one for the other. So, when I read Bill's set of issues, I see all sorts of things that are doing just this. They are moving historical items over into the realm of theology - in ways that the actual historical members of the church didn't. Bill is frustrated with the church for exactly the kind of things that would occur in any American church (how many churches today are vocal opponents of Evolution)? To use one he didn't mention, we have the pre-Adamites right? It was a fairly popular theory through to the tail end of the 19th century. The idea is to take the part of Mormonism that is culturally based, and pretend that it ought to have been revealed. But this is itself a sort of fabricated look at religion. Scholars of the history of religion see things quite different. Everett Ferguson writes this (and I have taken the liberty of substituting "Mormonism" for "Christianity"):

In point one, probably some of the issues do in fact have significant doctrinal or theological consequences. The restriction of the priesthood would be one of these. Lamanites skin getting lighter? That is not a major doctrinal difference. Bruce's identification of the Great and Abominable Church as Catholicism (stemming from the popular view that Babylon in Revelations was the Catholic Church) is not a major doctrine. Part of the polemical argument is giving these issues an importance that they never had.

5: How to decide?

There is this funny statement in Bill's comments. One of course, that many LDS simply do not have issues with in my experience. He tells us he has a problem with "the effort to teach everyone that we should all follow the prophet, that he can not lead the church astray, that we will be blessed for following him regardless of what he asks and then on the other hand being told to know that these are men and they make mistakes and you are not obligated to follow them when they are wrong. That you should have the spirit and it will direct you when one is acting as a prophet and when they are not." Does this paralyze him? Does it make him unable to make judgment calls on his own? There is great irony for me in this statement because, quite simply put, he is already making these decisions - and some of them he is allowing to be made for him. Yes, he tells us about Bruce R. McConkie and his anti evolution stance. But where in the question is the views of James E. Talmage, or John A. Widtsoe or Henry Eyring. Where are the statements from the church on the subject? Bill presents a single side of the story - the side aimed at causing the most angst if provided without the other half - a corresponding context. And all of this while bemoaning have to make meaningful choices. Obviously access to information in our digital age is not that hard. But in repeating the same kind of claims that others make (almost as it were a mantra), Bill lets me know that he has simply read the claims and hasn't bothered to do any kind of personal study or research. If they don't spend the time to look at what is already there, then why should I believe that the church adding to the accessible materials will make any difference at all?

6: The narrative

Bill concludes with this:

And here again is the rich irony. Take Adam-God. In the Ensign, in 1976, then prophet Spencer W. Kimball wrote this:

"We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." Where do we read about Adam-God? Is it spelled out on LDS.ORG? No. In fact, if you search there, you will find a couple of passing allusions to it, and the one statement from Kimball rejecting it. So, here we have it. Obviously there are warts in the past. There are things we have moved beyond. But, we have this sort of challenge here where people like John Dehlin (and his fan Bill now in this thread) want to define the church by these issues. Even in raising them though there is sort of polemical outcry. We could pick the ten biggest issues that Dehlin might raise and include them in the curriculum as past beliefs that we no longer practice. We could talk about the racism of the past. Every church in America has past beliefs that they no longer practice. Every church in America has racism in its past. These are the things we expect to find. It shouldn't be a surpries. What makes it a surprise is not the discovery, but the narrative.

As the church makes more and more historical resources available, the cry hasn't changed. It hasn't diminished. If anything the critics take the historical record and try to fit it to their own preconceptions of what is wrong with the church - and what they really want is some kind of historical interpretation (not the historical documents themselves) in which the church admits how wrong it is, and was, and that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Anything short of that, for most of the critics, will always be a narrative that conceals and hides the truth. I reject that. In giving so much attention to this issue I think we need to remember that despite claims to the contrary, many memebrs of the church are aware of these issues, they remain faithful. It's not the facts that cause disbelief, it is the inability to handle ambiguity in faith and it is the narrative that tells people that they need to stop believing once they uncover historical inconsistencies.

I suppose we can always argue that things were "kept" from us. It is so easy to play the victim - to suggest that we have no responsibility for ourselves to look things up, or to read. We can argue that because its easier to read a synopsis on a critical site than to look at a source and read it for ourselves that we can feel justified in accepting and believing their narrative. But then, I became aware of a lot of this stuff at a very early age. And my response was quite different from Bill's. So I don't think that I am going to accept a Dehlin like narrative that the church has been hiding all of this stuff, and that we should be disturbed by it. Or that if I am not disturbed by it, I must be an apologist with some kind of ulterior motive that keeps me from questioning my faith in the same way (or more importantly just rejecting it). I simply reject the narrative that seems to be informing others about how they should respond - the narritive that really makes a lot of people sound virtually the same when they make their complaints. The narrative that has hand picked its issues and cherry picked its support. I suppose some people are willing to just substitute one authority for another instead of actually trying to find their own understanding.

Ben M.

May i say this.

1 - I have been aware of these issues since I joined as a teenager in the 90's.

2 - If you type urim and thummim in LDS.ORG you will find 100's of referneces .... seer stone less then 8. Also most of them have nothing to do with Joseph translating but rather another member using it to trump joseph's revelations.

3.) I give you the idea of Polyandry not being a word used. So show me where the ensign tells us Joseph married other men's wives. That he married 14 year old helen mar kimball and mentions her age in the article.

4..) in relation to your statement about following the prophet... We should teach our members openly that these men make mistakes or have human. We should have in our current manual that George Albert Smithsuffered from depression (wouldn't that help those with it not see themselves in such a negative sense). We don't.... it took a long time once we got away from Brigham Young's time for the more modern leaders to acknowledge Brigham Young taught Adam-God... Bruce R I Think was the first for 40 years to say something. I simply want to get the full story up front and be trusted to rest on my faith. When it goes down any other way then that I feel the church didn't trust me or felt I was incapable of handling it.

5.) most on this topic say this stuff doesn't phase them and many of you think this is not a problem, yet Elder Marlin Jensen states emphatically that it is and many are leaving because of their perception of it. And lastly the church is working overtime to fix it.

[CV75]

5.) most on this topic say this stuff doesn't phase them and many of you think this is not a problem, yet Elder Marlin Jensen states emphatically that it is and many are leaving because of their perception of it. And lastly the church is working overtime to fix it.

The quotes from Elder Jensen that I’ve been able to find do not address the OP:

1.) How do you handle repeated major doctrinal mistakes taught by prophets and apostles from the pulpit or in their books…

2.) The lack of sharing historical and theological issues with everyday members…

3.) the effort to teach everyone that we should all follow the prophet…

4.) lastly, Now with the internet the church is forced to deal with much of the above issues and was wrong… Do you feel like things were kept from you? and if so how do you reconcile that?

He does speak of the Internet (Google) in terms of expanded information about the history of the Church, individuals’ negative reactions to it, a significant modern "apostasy" from the Church and what the Church is doing about that (with peoples' reaction to history as part of the larger "Rescue" initiative). He does not speak to major doctrinal mistakes, blind obedience and withholding information (except in the case where he speaks for himself in how he once conducted and would now plan his own FHE in today’s environment):

"The church has a very progressive research and information division, with tremendous public opinion surveyors. And the church is constantly running surveys, and employing consultants that do focus groups on a variety of topics, but especially on the ones that we are talking about right now, that are so sensitive to the faith of members. Where has the prophet laid his emphasis right now? It's on something called 'The Rescue'. And with good reason, because we are suffering a loss; both in terms of our new converts that come in that don't get really established in the church, as well as very faithful members who because of things we're talking about, as well as others, are losing their faith in the process. It is one of our biggest concerns right now."

I don’t think ‘The Rescue’ is all about history, though he did have a reply for those who that feel uncomfortable with church history, which is an individual responsibility of members: “I mean, if we really are truly Christian, it has to start there. Being less judgmental. Being more open and welcoming and inclusive. Someone asked Robert Frost once, 'What's the ugliest word in the English language?' And he said, 'Exclusive.' I think it is, too, in a way. So, if that environment can be created, and it should be…” This principle is reiterated when he said, "It's a different generation. Everything's out there for them to consume if they want to Google it. There's no sense kidding ourselves. We need to be very upfront with them, tell them what we know, and give answers to what we have, and let them fall on their faith for things that we don't completely understand."

"The fifteen men [First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve] really do know, and they really care. And they realize that maybe since Kirtland, we never have had a period of, I'll call it apostasy, like we're having right now; largely over these issues. ...We have hired someone that's in charge of search engine optimization. We realize that people get their information basically from Google. They don't come to LDS.org. If they get there, it's through Google. So, we are trying to create an offering that will address these issues and be available for the public at large and to the church leaders, because many of them don't have answers either. It can be very disappointing to church members. And, for people who are losing their faith, or who have lost it, we hope to regain to the church."

Note that faith can support one through dissapointment and that dissapointment is not the cause of losing faith, but losing faith is the reason for leaving the Church, or using dissapointment to do so.

[Buzzard]

I would not presume to disparage Elder Jensen. He has access to information and statistics that I do not. But based on membership statistics, there does not seem to be a mass apostasy in the church. Growth has slowed since the 1980's, but there is still growth. Absolute missionary numbers have dipped, but that is mainly due to lower birth rates starting back in the 90's, the percent of young men going out is holding steady, and more retired couples are going than ever before. Compared to Kirtland, where nearly a third of the church left, losses are a trickle, not a flood. While there are certainly those who leave over historical and doctrinal issues-and every one of them seems to be madly posting away over on exmormon.org-I know that over the past several years sacrament meeting attendance is up in our stake. Not way up, but higher than it was. Neither of the two bishops that I personally know has recieved a single request from anyone to have their records removed during their tenure.

If there is anything that seems to represent a threat to the vitality of the church, it might be the tidal wave of pornography and immorality sweeping over society that also is affecting the church and it's members. IMHO, that's the challenge faced by the church.

[NobodyFamous]

If there is anything that seems to represent a threat to the vitality of the church, it might be the tidal wave of pornography and immorality sweeping over society that also is affecting the church and it's members. IMHO, that's the challenge faced by the church.

I'm often tempted to think the same thing until I remember where the church got its start -- first century Greece. Paul established churches in places like Corinth, which makes modern-day Las Vegas seem like Provo by comparison. In fact, I'd postulate that the most depraved saint couldn't even fathom the decadence that the average early convert would have found "normal."

[spartacus]

He probably is saying exactly that. I can say so for myself - that is, I know for myself of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and this knowledge is independent of the words or actions of any man.

"know"ing, "for myself", "truth", "Gospel of Jesus Christ", "independent", and "man" are all such complex things (at least in actual human experience) that it seems difficult to be so certain as your statement appears, and thus risky to live it.

In other words, this should be a thread unto itself, because it is way to complex an issue to discuss in just a couple of sentences. At least, meaningfully.

[Log]

It actually isn't complicated at all, unless, of course, you don't believe it; then, surely, it could look complex indeed.

[spartacus]

Speaking only for myself: yes.

There seems to be a degree of hubris in play when we presume to tell another person what their faith should be based upon, or what they should "look into." Just a thought.

----- A valid point, but there is a bit of hubris when you presume that I haven't thought of this. My writing may be bad, but what I m saying is simply that faith without any reason is foolish - this seems obvious; But also that faith with unsound reason is risky - also obvious; And if one is truly concerned with Ultimate Truth then every bit of evidence should be considered because Ultimate Truth is of Ultimate importance, ultimate effort should be put forth.

But yes, the fact that various people (not just Emma) didn't follow Brigham is worth investigating as an historical phenomenon. It has nothing to do with the truth claims of the Church, though.

-----One of the truth claims of the LDS church is that it is the actually authorized continuation of the prophet mantle and priesthood from Joseph Smith, so I think it (the issue of proper succession which is alluded to explicitly in my post and given concrete example by the Emma comment) has everything to do with the truth claims of the LDS church.

Here's a suggestion: instead of you(!) telling us(!) what "the whole point" of our(!) religion is, why don't you let us tell you?

-----I apologize for unclear writing. By "the whole point" I meant "is all about", as in ONE of the MAIN POINTS of the LDS religion is that churches fall into apostasy and so it is important to determine which is correct. I don't see that there is a problem with this assertion. The writing, yes, I concede and apologize, the point, no.

It may be "obviously unsound" to you; but that is because you seem to be relying upon the "obviously unsound" assumption that the various splinter groups are actually relevant to someone who is investigating the Church of Jesus Christ.

-----I showed how saying "the BoM is true so the CoJCoLDS is true" is not sound. You seem to be simply claiming that the splinter groups being relevant is "obviously unsound". Please show how this could possibly be so.

-----Given that the BoM is accepted and revered by more than one exclusive group seems beyond contention that they are quite relevant to someone who is investigating the LDS church claim to be the one true church. Another way, since the LDS church claims to be the ONLY true church, AND it uses the BoM to "prove" this, IT is unquestionably relevant to consider the other churches that ALSO claim to be the ONLY true church, AND use the BoM to "prove" this.

Which they are not.

-----Caveat - if you are simply "investigating" the LDS church then they (any other group) aren't (relevant), but if you are investigating the LDS church's claim to be the True Church, then they (other BoM groups claiming the same) are.

Regards,

Pahoran

-----Thanks,

spartacus

[spartacus]

Nope! My faith is based on my own personal revelations, experiences, blessings and miracles. I don't care about the past. It has nothing to do with my own salvation and my future. I know this gospel it true or I wouldn't have converted to it in the first place. I look at the big picture.

How is "I don't care about the past", "my own salvation and my future", and "based on my own personal revelations, experiences, blessings and miracles" at all compatible with "I look at the big picture"?

Also, saying "I know" or else "I wouldn't have converted.. in the first place" sounds like you are saying that there is no way you would have converted without absolute certain knowledge - surely this can't be what you are saying. Otherwise, it seems to mean you wouldn't have converted unless you THOUGHT you "knew" - which isn't saying much as this is what people do all the time - and believe in other religions. Correct me if I am reading you wrong, cause it seems like I must be.

[spartacus]

The way that I saw the Journal of Discourses was always in simple form: these men of the frontier spoke from the hip. I do not remember anywhere that they said: I kneeled with the twelve and we received this revelation and it will be in the updated D&C.

-----I also don't remember anywhere that Joseph Smith said any of that either.

I just saw them as someone speaking their mind about a variety of issues.

-----How does "Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken--HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do." (JoD 1:50-51) and "one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me" (8 June 1873 SLC Tabernacle Deseret News Weekly, 22:308-309 ) sound like "someone speaking their mind"?

We need to remember that the church of yesteryear was different from today. In the beginning there would be people jumping up and down, speaking in tongues, enjoying the lord. And the frontier leaders were speaking about this and that, trying to come to terms with a new church with direct revelation. I am sure that it was exciting to be a member, even being a danite must have been exciting. And brigham was a part of it. The lds church has matured since then and one thing I do know: the lds church has not lead anyone away from what it means to be a human being who has faith that god lives. And now the church is fighting against worldly values and our youth are examples for others to follow.

-----"Maturing" is one word. That the current version of the LDS church is quite different all around from the original and that there is a conspicuous absence of "revelation" from Brigham Young, on , is a few others.

But I like Brigham for being a frontier pioneer with a fighting spirit.

-----He did seem to have that.

[spartacus]

From the bottom of my heart...this is how serious. We spend to much time reading about the scriptures than reading them. Apologetics and the internet do not bring the Spirit. All of these questions related to the Church in any age. Men embellish, we should have testimony of the gospel and not Church history. We will never know the full truth and from experience those who claim too are fooling themselves. We did not live in those times and will never fully understand them. What impresses me most about the early Saints is what they accomplished "despite their weaknesses". Everyone on the internet has an agenda, and no one should look to "scholars" for inspiration, just information. God works with flawed men because that is all he has to work with.

And God's Word warns of false Gospels and false Prophets that would DECEIVE. This means that people would accept them as true and "have testimony of [them]". You're right we will never know the full truth, but it may be possible to know enough. Those claiming we can't know all and so shouldn't consider any, "are fooling themselves". Humans from all cultures have done impressive things with or, presumably, without the Spirit.

[spartacus]

Specifically regarding the Adam-God theory, if Brother Brigham was around today to clarify, I bet he would clear up a lot of the confusion that those few passages in the JOD have caused. Of course, he's not, but there is a very good reason why the JOD is not doctrine.

Refer to my just previous post quoting BY.

Also, not much at all has been made "doctrine" since Joseph Smith - like, at all. Ever notice that? Doesn't make for a good point about the JoD, especially considering all the statements lauding the JoD and its importance for all Saints.

[spartacus]

As I said earlier, many old timers had the Journal of Discourses in their homes and they did read them. And they read them with interest but no one that I remember ever left the church because of them. In fact, most found the Discourses interesting and they were able to interpret them for themselves and put them into perspectives.

In an admittedly equally generalizing and assuming manner, I suspect that most if not all Fundamentalist Mormons fit this description to a "T". (is that how that phrase writes; looks weird, maybe b/c I've never written it... hmm...)

[spartacus]

The Gospel is for those who want to find God. Church history is for those who enjoy church history.

And there's different Gospels going around with different Prophets. To cut these off from their physical counterparts and causes is to unnaturally and myopically search for the Truth. Seems a strange thing to endorse.

And LDS church history is a record of an institution claiming to be SIGNIFICANTLY led by God through a SIGNIFICANTLY effective means - a prophet - and thus is quite pertinent to its claim to such and, thus, being the One True Church.

[spartacus]

And there's different Gospels going around with different Prophets. To cut these off from their physical counterparts and causes is to unnaturally and myopically search for the Truth. Seems a strange thing to endorse.

And LDS church history is a record of an institution claiming to be SIGNIFICANTLY led by God through a SIGNIFICANTLY effective means - a prophet - and thus is quite pertinent to its claim to such and, thus, being the One True Church.

Oh, and, significantly, its claimed "Gospel".

ps-do you only get to edit after you posted 25 times, too?

[Log]

ps-do you only get to edit after you posted 25 times, too?

Only if you're not banned first, I suppose.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Log

[spartacus]

It actually isn't complicated at all, unless, of course, you don't believe it; then, surely, it could look complex indeed.

Log,

I would like you to be a bit more specific if you care to have a meaningful interaction. I listed quite a few things you might be referring to by "it". I will assume you mean the "Gospel of Jesus Christ" - well, even among LDS there are a number of answers as to what that is exactly. Then there is the fact that there are multiple Gospels in the world, not just LDS. So, yeah, it can get complex, or comlicated, quick.

[spartacus]

Only if you're not banned first, I suppose.

I'll be charitable and not take that as a threat. That way it's quite humorous. Thanks!

[Log]

Log,

I would like you to be a bit more specific if you care to have a meaningful interaction. I listed quite a few things you might be referring to by "it". I will assume you mean the "Gospel of Jesus Christ" - well, even among LDS there are a number of answers as to what that is exactly. Then there is the fact that there are multiple Gospels in the world, not just LDS. So, yeah, it can get complex, or comlicated, quick.

"It" was my post.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Log

[Log]

I'll be charitable and not take that as a threat. That way it's quite humorous. Thanks!

Oh, I'm not a mod. I've seen posters quite similar in habits to yourself find themselves escorted off the premises when a mod does come on the scene, and I believe there's a good chance the pattern might be repeated in your case.

[DBMormon]

I would like to interject that while Ben has a well-thought out position, it's incomplete. This is not going to be a fully coherent post, but, then, when do I ever post coherently?

Everyone has a breaking point. What they do when they reach that point is a witness of their character.

Abraham was commanded to slay his sole son. I guarantee you there was nothing else in existence that would have been as great a trial for him.

For others of us, other issues arise which perform the same function. I have personally defeated a couple. I have chosen wickedness in the face of others, to my eternal shame.

I feel that, in Ben's response, the power of a demonstrated contradiction is not appreciated.

It does not help to say "others don't have this problem." The person with the problem has this problem, and that is sufficient for them.

Thank you for saying that. Writing this topic I had hoped to have help from others who had experienced this, rather 98% of people shrug it off, think that I am not looking at this the right way, and the problem is with me. Not much help at all. I am not alone, yet here I have felt I was in seeing these difficulties. I am trying really hard to take each of these issues and try to find a way to reconcile them. I am not an anti mormon. I am an active faithful latter-day saint. who while having had spiritual experiences can not put my heart into something where the facts (as I see them) lead me to think that there are way too many mental hurdles to leap to make it fit. Yet I want nothing more then for the pegs to all fit in their holes.... at least enough to move forward. IT is not as simple to me as I have had spiritual experiences withing the realm of mormonism therefore the conclusion is that Mormonism is true I Know God loves me and that is enough for him to draw me closer to him in any realm or context.

anyway thanks

[DBMormon]

From the bottom of my heart...this is how serious. We spend to much time reading about the scriptures than reading them. Apologetics and the internet do not bring the Spirit. All of these questions related to the Church in any age. Men embellish, we should have testimony of the gospel and not Church history. We will never know the full truth and from experience those who claim too are fooling themselves. We did not live in those times and will never fully understand them. What impresses me most about the early Saints is what they accomplished "despite their weaknesses". Everyone on the internet has an agenda, and no one should look to "scholars" for inspiration, just information. God works with flawed men because that is all he has to work with.

that framework doesn't work... here is why..... the Catholic Church has some pretty troubling history when they killed any Christian who believed diffrerently over 100's of years. Many Catholics have spiritual testimonies of their faith. Are we not to consider History at all in finding these things out for ourselves.... I can not skip history..... To me it is a a definer. A church led directly by God will have a history that indicates that. Compared to other faiths they will get it right more often

[Glenn101]

You didn't answer the question.

I presume you chose not to, because you know fully well that Smith engaged in the practice of polygamy without seeking approval from the Q12.

Didn't Joseph Smith engage in the practice of polygamy before there was a Quorum of twelve?

However, history tells us that Joseph revealed the principle to select members of the twelve individually. Some, like WIlliam Law, finally rejected it, but others accepted it, finally.

Glenn

[DBMormon]

If anyone would truly like to give a logical answer to my questions rather then talk about the way the brain handles information, or Tell me I don't have a testimony, or that the internet is evil. Please feel free, otherwise I am getting frustrated.

1.) There are negative things in LDS history the leaders would prefer to discuss as little as possible. some not at all. it comes off as they have something to hide at times

2.) Leaders have claimed to be inspired and have given bad information.

3.) We can't teach follow the prophet regardless and then tell people they are human and they make mistakes and we can choose not to follow when they are wrong and there is no consequence

[Storm Rider]

If anyone would truly like to give a logical answer to my questions rather then talk about the way the brain handles information, or Tell me I don't have a testimony, or that the internet is evil. Please feel free, otherwise I am getting frustrated.

1.) There are negative things in LDS history the leaders would prefer to discuss as little as possible. some not at all. it comes off as they have something to hide at times

2.) Leaders have claimed to be inspired and have given bad information.

3.) We can't teach follow the prophet regardless and then tell people they are human and they make mistakes and we can choose not to follow when they are wrong and there is no consequence

I am a LDS, a scholar, and generally faithful. I believe in the restoration, its need, its reality, and the many teachings of the Church that provide a purpose to this life. I believe that leaders of Church are men, first and foremost, who have been called to serve. They have just as much inspiration in their personal lives as I do. They struggle to lead the Church and provide direction, inspiration, and guidance; however, they are just men.

The Church necessarily focuses on the fundamental teachings of the Gospel because that is what most people need most, a firm foundation. They go beyond the fundamentals rarely; this is a different from the early leaders of the Church who were more prone or open to giving opinions, speaking their mind, and sharing their thoughts. Sometimes our leaders are spot on and do a great job. At other times, they are really not very good and just regurgitate one of their canned talks and it really is not that spiritually satisfying; this goes as much for local leaders as it does for any other leader in the hierarchy.

We do not enter heaven at the direction of prophets, apostles, pastors, and teachers. We enter heaven through the Grace of Jesus Christ and through Jesus Christ alone. I promise you that you will have as many trials over Church history as you choose to have. I also promise you that the moment you let God direct your life all the trials of faith will become as mist that is blown away in the morning's first light.