“Doubt Not, but Be Believing” Elder and Sister Renlund CES Training June 2018

[changed]

On 7/10/2018 at 12:20 PM, blueglass said:

I don't know if Lewis returned to atheism?  Could you elaborate more?  He did write that book under the pseudonym  NW Clerk after experiencing the grief and loss of his wife.   Here's a quote on doubt from this book he wrote which is startling but true in my life in many ways.  "My idea of God is not a divine idea. It has to be shattered time after time. He shatters it Himself."

"Lewis was schooled by private tutors until age 9, when his mother died in 1908 from cancer. .... It was during this time that Lewis abandoned his childhood Christian faith and became an atheist, becoming interested in mythology and the occult.^[9] ...Within months of entering Oxford, the British Army shipped him to France to fight in the First World War.^[11] His experience of the horror of war confirmed his atheism...

Lewis quoted Lucretius (De rerum natura, 5.198–9) as having one of the strongest arguments for atheism:^[36]

Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam

Naturam rerum; tanta stat praedita culpa

which he translated poetically as follows:

Had God designed the world, it would not be

A world so frail and faulty as we see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis

wiki - it is not perfect, but is good for a quick overview.  

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

On this thread I have learned so much about all of you.  We are all different with different experiences and yet I learn that there are ways and means to attain a spirituality in and out of set religion.  I admire so many of you..your trials..faith..and endurance in study and seeking truth.  Amazing!!

I think this has been a good faith discussion about some very core issues. Congratulations to all who have participated in this thread.  I hope that it continues in this vain and we learn more from each other as we journey closer to Christ.

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I fully believe in Christ and the atonement.  That is not going to get me back to considering the church has some kind of divine mission.

I'm always moved and inspired by Mitch Mayne's testimony in our Savior.  On the topic of divine mission, what are your thoughts on these "grand fundamental principles of [Mormonism]"  Friendship, Truth, and Relief to the poor?  It is more inclusive and inviting than the exclusive ordinances path.  If we weld together the truth found in a covenant path with upholding the grand fundamental principles we have more strength in unity.  We can then see many common alliances with other faiths and non-religious faith traditions who are pursuing truth at great sacrifice.    For example JS talk on 9July 1843, "Wherein do you differ from others in your religious views?"  JS answer:  "In reality & essence we do not differ so far in our religious views but that we could all drink into one principle of love"  "One:  the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, - let it come from where it may."

Edited July 11, 2018 by blueglass

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thats cool, thanks for sharing.  Another cool thing about the 2nd anointing I heard the other day, I think it was on the Year of Polygamy podcast, the most recent interview with Connel O'Donovan with August Adams Cobb, and I think there was an experience related on there where she gave a Priesthood Blessing and invoked the authority of the priesthood.  This would have been after receiving the 2nd anointing, which would be interesting to know if there is more evidence to suggest that women who participated in the 2nd anointing were taught that they held priesthood authority after that ritual was completed.  

https://www.yearofpolygamy.com/year-of-polygamy/episode-158-augusta-adams-cobb-and-other-boston-mormon-women/

I hope I'm remembering right, I listen to so many podcasts and read so many books that sometimes I can't remember where I learned something.  

First thought was to Camilla Kimball blessing her husband Spencer with other priesthood holders after brain surgery.  Second thought, I saw a photo recently of a loved one recently baptized by her father.  Standing in white in front of a painting of Jesus (you know the paintings blue-eyed Caucasian or Irish Jesus found by the thousands in LDS chapels).  The thought which came to me which was surprising was, "What if mothers standing in the office of priestess were to ordain, wash and anoint their own daughters?"  In addition to reading Exodus 40, you just have to add literally 1 line to the ordinance.  Well - and also to update D&Cov 20 to bring more into conformity with the fullness of the priesthood later introduced to both men and women.  We need to pull priestess duties out of the temple and employ generally in the ecclesia.  14-year old young women as ministering sisters is a baby step.  While at Sunstone it was enlightening to meet a gracious woman who was a high priest from the Community of Christ.  We had a great conversation talking about ministry. 

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, blueglass said:

First thought was to Camilla Kimball blessing her husband Spencer with other priesthood holders after brain surgery.  Second thought, I saw a photo recently of a loved one recently baptized by her father.  Standing in white in front of a painting of Jesus (you know the paintings blue-eyed Caucasian or Irish Jesus found by the thousands in LDS chapels).  The thought which came to me which was surprising was, "What if mothers standing in the office of priestess were to ordain, wash and anoint their own daughters?"  In addition to reading Exodus 40, you just have to add literally 1 line to the ordinance.  Well - and also to update D&Cov 20 to bring more into conformity with the fullness of the priesthood later introduced to both men and women.  We need to pull priestess duties out of the temple and employ generally in the ecclesia.  14-year old young women as ministering sisters is a baby step.  While at Sunstone it was enlightening to meet a gracious woman who was a high priest from the Community of Christ.  We had a great conversation talking about ministry. 

I have a great great grandmother who gave blessings during the Nauvoo period, and was known for being a very spiritual person.  I hate to generalize, but my personal experiences in the church I've had experiences with spiritually powerful women more than men.  I would love it if the patriarchy equally shared their power and privileged with women.  I think it would be amazing.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Maybe that would work for some people. I have no idea,  But for me, when the facade is ripped away, the promise of some kind of "saving ordinances" just seem like the same promise that the leaders of the church have some special divine connection with Christ.  Any divine role the church may play kind of disappears with the rest of the claims of a direct connection between Christ and the church.

I'm happy to have answered your questions!

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

It is interesting that in almost any other aspect of life, asking questions, challenging conventional thinking, seeking to learn more on any given subject, is seen as a good thing and encouraged.

Honestly, that's really overstating the case.  In most areas, people don't want to be challenged or questioned. Churches are not unique in wishing that their claims were just accepted on faith.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Honestly, that's really overstating the case.  In most areas, people don't want to be challenged or questioned. Churches are not unique in wishing that their claims were just accepted on faith.

I see your point, but CA Steve has a great point too. It seems to me that in life society tends to praise the seeker, whether it be an investigative reporter digging for the truth, a student reading voraciously to understand a topic, or an attorney digging through case law. And it should be praised. People who doggedly seek additional knowledge and truth are generally viewed as honest and sincere. In the church people who seek are often viewed with suspicion and scorn as if they only seek knowledge because they lack faith.

Institutions are designed to protect themselves but are not worthy of faith. They need to be challenged by watchdogs. I think most people know and appreciate that. Whether it's a government, a company, a school, a church, whatever, truth is generally seen as more important than upholding a system or institution when it is wrong.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

I'm always moved and inspired by Mitch Mayne's testimony in our Savior.  On the topic of divine mission, what are your thoughts on these "grand fundamental principles of [Mormonism]"  Friendship, Truth, and Relief to the poor?  It is more inclusive and inviting than the exclusive ordinances path.  If we weld together the truth found in a covenant path with upholding the grand fundamental principles we have more strength in unity.  We can then see many common alliances with other faiths and non-religious faith traditions who are pursuing truth at great sacrifice.    For example JS talk on 9July 1843, "Wherein do you differ from others in your religious views?"  JS answer:  "In reality & essence we do not differ so far in our religious views but that we could all drink into one principle of love"  "One:  the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, - let it come from where it may."

Big Yes!  Many of the principles taught by the church are good and lead us back to Christ.  I think that is why so many that have lost the belief of some divine nature of the church and it's leaders still stick around.  

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

On this thread I have learned so much about all of you.  We are all different with different experiences and yet I learn that there are ways and means to attain a spirituality in and out of set religion.  I admire so many of you..your trials..faith..and endurance in study and seeking truth.  Amazing!!

There are a lot of different ways and means, indeed. I'm reminded of an old joke:

A man dies and finds himself in a group of people waiting to enter the pearly gates. St. Peter says he's going to show them around heaven. They come to a place where there are a lot of children running around and large families singing and enjoying themselves. "This is the Catholic section," St. Peter says. A little farther along, they come across a group singing and clapping to gospel music. "This is the Southern Baptist section," says Peter. Finally, they see a group of people somberly singing sacrament hymns. "Everyone needs to be very quiet while we pass this section," says Peter. "Why?" asks the man. Peter replies, "These are the Mormons, and they think they're the only ones here."

[CA Steve]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I see your point, but CA Steve has a great point too. It seems to me that in life society tends to praise the seeker, whether it be an investigative reporter digging for the truth, a student reading voraciously to understand a topic, or an attorney digging through case law. And it should be praised. People who doggedly seek additional knowledge and truth are generally viewed as honest and sincere. In the church people who seek are often viewed with suspicion and scorn as if they only seek knowledge because they lack faith.

Institutions are designed to protect themselves but are not worthy of faith. They need to be challenged by watchdogs. I think most people know and appreciate that. Whether it's a government, a company, a school, a church, whatever, truth is generally seen as more important than upholding a system or institution when it is wrong.

I think both you and Cinepro have valid points. I suspect the difference is that most of us are willing to praise the seeker as long as it isn't our own sacred cows that are being barbecued.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sadly, for many, when the façade of the church falls so does testimony in Jesus. The church and Jesus are so often conflated so they think if they can't have faith in the church, then they can't believe anything the church says and therefore Jesus also takes a hit.

What I would like to see is the church focus wholly on the individual's relationship with Jesus. They can/should recognize that the institutional church and even church leaders have become a stumbling block for many in their relationship with Jesus. The only reason it is a stumbling block is because of church claims being the One and Only True Church. If that rhetoric went away, and the church viewed itself as part of the body of Christ, instead of the entire body, then they would focus more on helping members stay focused on their testimonies of Christ instead of on the church. They could step to the side and say "we have a good way. Join us. But if you can't join us, or remain with us because of the mistakes we've made that have resulted in a loss of trust, trust Jesus. Remain with the body of Christ, even if it's not with us."

I wish they would value that option instead of demonizing it. For so many, they feel that going to another church means they're apostate so why keep trying. But being apostate from a church and being apostate from Jesus are different things. Even so, many will be unable to maintain faith in Jesus because of the pull of institutional church's and I think that's just reality. But demonizing other's decisions won't ever accomplish anything good.

I think faith in Christ transcends trust in His servants no matter how knowledgeable or blindsided someone might feel. I know that often “trust’ and “faith” can mean the same thing, but in a discussion like this, I see trust as a psychological process and faith as a spiritual process. In a religion where everything is ultimately governed by spiritual principles, and where faith in Christ is the first principle, I think that trust issues can be transcended by conversion to Christ. Faith in and conversion to Christ transcend any conflation, whether of trust with faith or of Christ with His Church.

He is the one true God, and He works through fallible servants as part of His doctrine (3 Nephi 11:1 - 12:1) and His gospel (3 Nephi 27:8-21), showing the difference between him and the Church and trust in His servants and faith in Him. The invitation is only, “Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power…“ In this way, the term "one true Church" takes on a proper meaning and significance.

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Given the source of the talk, it's possible that the authors do see the issues as trivial.  I wouldn't be surprised if they are coming at the topic from the perspective of the disciple that responded to Christ, when He asked if he would leave also, "to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life."

I'm sure they do, but it's a mistake to tell someone who is experiencing pain and anguish to tell them their issues are trivial. When my mission president said my issues were "silly," it did not motivate me to contact him.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Elder Ballard in one of his Good Ship Zion talks said this same thing. "Where will you go? What will you do?" I don't think leaders see the real value in other churches. It's assumed that if they leave the One True Church they have nothing else. It's a false dichotomy and one that frankly helps to push people away from a continuing relationship with Jesus when they decide they can't be All In with the church. This is the problem I was speaking about earlier. I would hope that they could shift rhetoric from the implied "if you leave us you will have nothing" to a "if you leave us, don't leave Jesus. Find another home/ship where you can nourish that relationship".

 

But it's only a false dichotomy if the LDS church isn't the only church on the earth that has access to God's authority and His saving ordinances. If the church is what it claims to be, it's an analogy that works, as there isn't any other church that can offer what the LDS church offers. 

I think, before you can reasonably ask someone to 'shift the rhetoric' to something you believe is better, you have to do two things. You have to see if such a request is logical, considering their sincere beliefs.  Otherwise, it's not really fair to want someone to shift their rhetoric to something that they don't believe is true.  And if they believe it's not true, then you have to convince them that your ideas on the subject are right and their's are wrong before asking them to adopt them.


 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm sure they do, but it's a mistake to tell someone who is experiencing pain and anguish to tell them their issues are trivial. When my mission president said my issues were "silly," it did not motivate me to contact him.

I think that's probably true.  Even if you think that someone is delusional (not speaking in terms of religion but dealing with people's issues in general), you don't counter their false narrative by sitting them down and pointing out how dumb it is.  It's a process that first has to deal with whatever is wrong that is causing the delusional thinking.

(again, not saying that people who leave the LDS church are delusional but acknowledging that your point is true in general and LDS leaders should be aware of it).  

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that's probably true.  Even if you think that someone is delusional (not speaking in terms of religion but dealing with people's issues in general), you don't counter their false narrative by sitting them down and pointing out how dumb it is.  It's a process that first has to deal with whatever is wrong that is causing the delusional thinking.

(again, not saying that people who leave the LDS church are delusional but acknowledging that your point is true in general and LDS leaders should be aware of it).  

That is the entirety of my disagreement with Elder Renlund's talk. You might think someone's issues are trivial, but you're not going to help them much unless you try to understand what is bothering them and why. The idea of the "whack a mole" perpetual doubter addresses the what but not the why. I'm sure Stephen had reasons why these things troubled him, but it doesn't sound like anyone tried to understand. 

I have had people come to me, distraught about something in the church, and I'm happy to say, "I completely understand why that is so troubling to you." I'm suggesting that church members and leaders should be able to do the same. 

Edited July 11, 2018 by jkwilliams

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I have had people come to me, distraught about something in the church, and I'm happy to say, "I completely understand why that is so troubling to you." I'm suggesting that church members and leaders should be able to do the same. 

I agree. I also acknowledge though that it's a lot easier to be calm and reasonable when we don't believe that much is at stake either way in a person's decisions.  When we believe that someone's reaction to their issues has the potential to negatively affect them and generations after them, sometimes we don't respond very well.  

All of us parents just have to think about our own kids, and what our reactions would be if they came to us expressing doubt in something that we believed was imperative and absolutely essential for their happiness, to understand why some LDS leaders try to use fear or ignoring or chastisement to solve the issue.   That's not justification for bad behavior but empathy for how hard this kind of stuff really is when you believe you are trying to talk someone down from a cliff that, should they choose to jump off, could lead to spiritual death.

Edited July 11, 2018 by bluebell

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree. I also acknowledge though that it's a lot easier to be calm and reasonable when we don't believe that much is at stake either way in a person's decisions.  When we believe that someone's reaction to their issues has the potential to negatively affect them and generations after them, sometimes we don't respond very well.  

All of us parents just have to think about our own kids, and what our reactions would be if they came to us expressing doubt in something that we believed was imperative and absolutely essential for their happiness, to understand why some LDS leaders try to use fear or ignoring or chastisement to solve the issue.   That's not justification for bad behavior but empathy for how hard this kind of stuff really is when you believe you are trying to talk someone down from a cliff that, should they choose to jump off, could lead to spiritual death.

Or spiritual awakening. 

[HappyJackWagon]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But it's only a false dichotomy if the LDS church isn't the only church on the earth that has access to God's authority and His saving ordinances. If the church is what it claims to be, it's an analogy that works, as there isn't any other church that can offer what the LDS church offers. 

I think, before you can reasonably ask someone to 'shift the rhetoric' to something you believe is better, you have to do two things. You have to see if such a request is logical, considering their sincere beliefs.  Otherwise, it's not really fair to want someone to shift their rhetoric to something that they don't believe is true.  And if they believe it's not true, then you have to convince them that your ideas on the subject are right and their's are wrong before asking them to adopt them.


 

True. I'm offering my POV.

I wonder if the church has studied the correlation between the number of people who leave the church  (lose faith in the church) and those who end up losing faith in Jesus as well. Did one lead to the other? I've heard reports of large numbers of former members going the atheist route and it seems like it's a higher percentage than say a Methodist who decides Methodism isn't for him and then becomes atheist. I don't think that happens as often in other Christian denominations.  IF it's true that former Mormons are more likely to become atheist, or leave Christianity, than it is for a former Baptist, Jehovah's Witness, Pentecostal, etc, I think it would be interesting to know why.

I suspect that it's true and I suspect it's because of the One True Church rhetoric. IF that turned out to be the case, I think it would be responsible for church leaders to question the value of the rhetoric. Is it more important to teach the One True Church philosophy knowing that many who leave will leave Christianity or all belief in God, or is there a way to soften that so that those who leave may not lose all trust in God when they lose trust in the church. The church can obviously do what it wants, but if it's mission is to bring people to Christ, then its rhetoric could be harming that mission.

 

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Or spiritual awakening. 

But this kind of response completely ignores the point of my post, which is that you can't expect someone to behave in a way that is contradictory to their personal beliefs or perspective.  You can expect respect and reasonableness, and even kindness and open-mindedness but not for them to behave opposite of what they believe is true.

Obviously, Renlund and his wife (and those who agree with their point of view) do not believe that leaving the church can come from a spiritual awakening.  They might be wrong, but that is a different issue.

[jkwilliams]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree. I also acknowledge though that it's a lot easier to be calm and reasonable when we don't believe that much is at stake either way in a person's decisions.  When we believe that someone's reaction to their issues has the potential to negatively affect them and generations after them, sometimes we don't respond very well.  

All of us parents just have to think about our own kids, and what our reactions would be if they came to us expressing doubt in something that we believed was imperative and absolutely essential for their happiness, to understand why some LDS leaders try to use fear or ignoring or chastisement to solve the issue.   That's not justification for bad behavior but empathy for how hard this kind of stuff really is when you believe you are trying to talk someone down from a cliff that, should they choose to jump off, could lead to spiritual death.

I've had that conversation with most of my kids. The issues haven't been the same, but the trick for me has been to hear them out, to listen to what they are saying and why. Many times I've been tempted to just give the standard answer, but it's rarely the actual question that is the heart of the matter. You can rattle off all the latest apologetic answers and still never understand where a person is coming from. I wonder if that's what was going on with Stephen the perpetual doubter. 

I'll give you an example. When my daughter was about 13 or so, she asked us why Heavenly Father likes boys more than He likes girls. We asked what she meant, and she said, "Boys can be anything they want, but girls can't." I asked her to give me an example, and she said, "Well, boys can hold the priesthood and give blessings and become bishops." My wife's response was to explain that each gender had a different role, and gave the church's standard definition of each role. But I asked my daughter why that bothered her as much as it did, and it turned out that her question was really just scratching the surface of what was troubling her and why. Without going into detail, we had a good long conversation and came back to it a few times until she found an answer that made sense to her. Maybe I did too good a job with her, as she went on to go to BYU and marry in the temple and is active in the church. Ironically, she thinks my issues with the church are trivial.

Edited July 12, 2018 by jkwilliams

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

True. I'm offering my POV.

I wonder if the church has studied the correlation between the number of people who leave the church  (lose faith in the church) and those who end up losing faith in Jesus as well. Did one lead to the other? I've heard reports of large numbers of former members going the atheist route and it seems like it's a higher percentage than say a Methodist who decides Methodism isn't for him and then becomes atheist. I don't think that happens as often in other Christian denominations.  IF it's true that former Mormons are more likely to become atheist, or leave Christianity, than it is for a former Baptist, Jehovah's Witness, Pentecostal, etc, I think it would be interesting to know why.

I suspect that it's true and I suspect it's because of the One True Church rhetoric. IF that turned out to be the case, I think it would be responsible for church leaders to question the value of the rhetoric. Is it more important to teach the One True Church philosophy knowing that many who leave will leave Christianity or all belief in God, or is there a way to soften that so that those who leave may not lose all trust in God when they lose trust in the church. The church can obviously do what it wants, but if it's mission is to bring people to Christ, then its rhetoric could be harming that mission.

 

I think it's probably true that a large number of ex-mormons have left a belief in God as well as the church, but I don't think that has anything to do with the 'one true church' rhetoric.  I think it's because, when people start doubting their spiritual revelations in regards to mormon specific doctrine, they also begin to doubt all their spiritual revelations, regardless of if they are mormon specific or not.

If you can't trust that the spirit told you JS was a prophet, then why can you trust that the spirit told you Jesus is the Son of God?  It's not the church's doctrine of one true church that causes problems, it's their teaching that we gain a testimony of gospel truth--including who Jesus is--through the spirit.

Spiritual testimony needs to be based on revelation to cause conversion, but if someone loses faith in the ability of the Spirit to teach them truth, then their testimony of Jesus Christ becomes equally suspect.  Does that mean that the church should stop teaching that we need to find our testimonies of gospel truths using the Spirit?  No.  That would be irresponsible, regardless of the problems that can cause for people who leave.

Also, consider the issues that cause a lot of people to leave.  Historical problems, sexism, racism, science that conflicts with religious teachings or scripture, general skepticism,...  All of those things are also hurdles for Christianity in general and not just Mormonism.  People who believe those issues undermine mormonism usually also see those issues as undermining a belief in the bible and therefore Jesus Christ too. 

(To clarify, I'm talking about those who doctrinally leave.  I'm not speaking about people who leave for other reasons or who were never really converted in the first place.)

[CV75]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

Given the source of the talk, it's possible that the authors do see the issues as trivial.  I wouldn't be surprised if they are coming at the topic from the perspective of the disciple that responded to Christ, when He asked if he would leave also, "to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life."

Anything is possible, but I haven’t seen anything in the talk that would steer me into thinking that they think the issues (Stephen’s and Angelique’s for example) are trivial in light of how they responded to them. Considering the audience and the purpose of the talk (to instruct the CES teachers on how to help themselves and others  avoid pitfalls), I'm just not getting that attitude.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Elder Ballard in one of his Good Ship Zion talks said this same thing. "Where will you go? What will you do?" I don't think leaders see the real value in other churches. It's assumed that if they leave the One True Church they have nothing else. It's a false dichotomy and one that frankly helps to push people away from a continuing relationship with Jesus when they decide they can't be All In with the church. This is the problem I was speaking about earlier. I would hope that they could shift rhetoric from the implied "if you leave us you will have nothing" to a "if you leave us, don't leave Jesus. Find another home/ship where you can nourish that relationship".

Please provide a scriptural basis for the Lord's servants teaching this (other than the institution of the Law of Moses or the calling of judges in Israel, which were instituted en masse).

[CV75]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Being totally honest is the only ethical way for them to deal with it. Sure, they'll take hits in membership but they can also regain some trust. Maybe they wouldn't be trusted as God's only mouthpiece and only true church, but as a good part of Christ's body, working with all other parts for the greater good. The longer they obfuscate the more people will lose trust. They need to bite the bullet and do it, become more welcoming of diversity, and humbly take their place as part of the body of Christ.

It comes down to how they prioritize their role. Does the church want to bring people to the church, or do they want to bring people to Christ. Honesty and authenticity are the only ways to do that, but it would require a massive amount of humility.

Naturally the Church wants to do both: bring people to Christ and bring them into the Church. The former is done by all she does for people before and irrespective of membership. The latter, along with a continuation of the former, is done by all she does for people from an individual's commitment to baptism onward. 

I've mentioned elsewhere the difference, for the purposes of this level of discussion, between trust in men and faith in Christ. Faith in His Church can only be established through faith in Him, and the prophets and apostles make that pretty clear.