What if you want the church to be true,

[nikaya]

I have talked to family members about my concearns, but I wanted some concrete facts. My family has been great, but there are some things they say they can't tell me becasue they aren't supposed to. They are also more about the faith aspect than the evidence. Since I don't have the testimony they have, I feel I need the details.

[Tragic Mind]

I have talked to family members about my concearns, but I wanted some concrete facts. My family has been great, but there are some things they say they can't tell me becasue they aren't supposed to.  They are also more about the faith aspect than the evidence. Since I don't have the testimony they have, I feel I need the details.

Your problem (and mine, and redman's, and anyone else who is struggling with faith-promoting vs. actual truth) is that, in the end, there is no evidence that trumps faith... according to the LDS dogma, at least.

Charity would be able to put it in the proper TBM terms, but the long and short of it is that you can't have a spiritual witness of the Church without already believing its truth, and no amount of physical or historical evidence will ever be able to supplant that belief.

See, here's the conundrum. You can't prove the Church to be false without first proving that Joseph Smith wasn't what he claimed to be. It all rests on him. Fortunately for the Church, according to Spencer Kimball Joseph Smith's calling and mission and history is not only exactly as the Church says it is, it is also an immutable "absolute truth," less challengable and more fundamentally unchangeable than the law of gravity.

If indeed you follow the prophets as you are urged to by the Primary song, you have just lost any possible way of arriving at any conclusion other than that the Church is true. One must prove Joseph's story is not what the Church claims it is to conclude that the Church is untrue, and since the prophets preach that there is no way to disprove the former because it is an "eternal truth," the latter is -- for Mormons -- a complete and utter impossibility.

So, basically it comes down to whether you can essentially deny gravity or whether you can neuter your brain so that you can accept everything in the faith without doubt or question.

Me... well, I think of it this way. I always thought the speed of light was an immutable, unchangeable constant. Until I discovered that scientists have successfully sped up and slowed down light particles. Thus, it is conceivable to me that Joseph Smith could have been exaggerating the truth (or lying outright), that the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with the papyrus because Joseph Smith made it up (instead of the many fascinating "new theories" like papyral inspiration or whatnot), and that the reason why it was okay for Joseph Smith to marry other people's wives was because of his appetite for the female gender rather than some weird, egalitarian Abrahamic test.

It seems, however, that my willingness to reject blind faith for skepticism and doubt puts me in the minority. I don't have a problem with that, because I realize that it is a peculiarly human trait to crave contact with (and, more importantly, approbation from) the supernatural. Heck, for most of my life as a TBM I reveled in the fact that I was one of the chosen, one of God's favorite sons, with the authority to act in His name that only the elect could possess. I felt pity and sadness for those who didn't enjoy such wonderful blessings. That has changed for me. I accept that it won't change for others.

So, what it comes down to is how you believe you arrive at truth. If you believe that truth flows from the scriptures, from the prophets, and from personal revelation based on your belief in LDS theology, then you need to do everything in your power to regain your testimony. Spend hours on your knees praying for repentance and spend more reading the scriptures. The only way you will ever be truly happy is if you conform to each commandment, to each instruction, and to each ordinance of "the restored Gospel," nothing wavering.

If, however, you are like redman and me, you owe it to yourself to explore every avenue of research, source documentation, and history that you possibly can. Do so cautiously, because there are agendas on both sides that skew facts in order to make them conform to a particular worldview. Above all, you must strive for as much objectivity as you can. Do not dismiss evidence that may prove to bolster the Church's case simply because you have already decided the Church is false (remember, presupposition and a priori assumption is just as bad regardless of which side of the debate you're on). Conduct an honest investigation and I promise you that if you assemble the evidence from all sides, eventually a simple picture will emerge from the many and varied building blocks that is independent of bias. It will then be up to you to interpret that picture according to your conscience and your inner voice. It may lead you closer to the Church, or it may lead you farther away.

I wish you all the luck in the world. It is not an easy road -- I can speak from personal experience. But for all of the agony born of having to redefine my entire perspective on the world and on life, it has been one of the most rewarding journies of my life.

Regards,

TM

[Abulafia]

Tragic Mind, you have my vote on pretty much everything you said. Very eloquent, extremely well-put.

Thanks

Abulafia

[charity]

Tragic Mind wrote: "See, here's the conundrum. You can't prove the Church to be false without first proving that Joseph Smith wasn't what he claimed to be. It all rests on him."

That may have been true at one time, when the Book of Mormon had to be held in faith because of the many claims against its authenticity which could not be refuted by modern knowledge. That is no longer true. President Packer said, in April conference this year, "We do not have to defend the Prophet Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ will defend him for us. Those who reject Joseph Smith as a prophet and revelator are left to find some other explanation for the Book of Mormon."

The balance has tipped. The claims against the Book of Mormon are falling. There is no increasing weight of evidence against its authenticity. On the other hand, the evidence for the authenticiy of its ancient origin is increasing almost daily. If the Book of Mormon is what it is claimed to be, an ancient record of God's dealings with His people, then no matter what is said about Joseph Smith, he is what he said he was, a man called of God to restore God's Church.

[ave maria]

If the Book of Mormon is what it is claimed to be, an ancient record of God's dealings with His people, then no matter what is said about Joseph Smith, he is what he said he was, a man called of God to restore God's Church.

And if it's not, in your view does that discredit the LDS Church? Or can the Church be true without both (1) Joseph Smith being a prophet and (2) the Book of Mormon being true?

[Kenngo1969]

[A]re we just getting treated to your special brand of hypocrisy and judgementalism?

Yes. I

[Tragic Mind]

President Packer said, in April conference this year, "We do not have to defend the Prophet Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ will defend him for us. Those who reject Joseph Smith as a prophet and revelator are left to find some other explanation for the Book of Mormon."

All that tells me is that President Packer is trying to intimate that there is no other explanation for the Book of Mormon. I think it is an extreme exercise in either blind faith, naivete, or a complete disregard for anachronism that people can believe that.

The balance has tipped.  The claims against the Book of Mormon are falling.  There is no increasing weight of evidence against its authenticity.  On the other hand, the evidence for the authenticiy of its ancient origin is increasing almost daily.

I'd be interested to see any of this new evidence that isn't circumstantial evidence or strained parallels. Heck, I'd be interested to see the evidence, period... because all I've seen lately are a ragtag collection of malleable theories that, taken separately, are somewhat believable... but put together create a contextual nightmare.

Forgive me for being anecdotal, but I served my mission in an area flooded with Mayan ruins. At one of the ruins, I saw an area dug out of the ground that featured a box about the length and width of a human body with a small set of stairs leading down into it. Guess what I concluded that it was? You guessed it -- a baptismal font. Another proof of the Book of Mormon!

Of course, I had to ignore a huge weight of historical context and common sense to jump to that conclusion, but that's an easy thing to do when you've been brought up all your life to be inordinately credulous about anything that might possibly build faith in the LDS church. That faith-building comes at the expense of Occam's razor, common sense, historical fact, or the search for new discoveries and knowledge is unimportant in the "grander scheme of the Gospel."

If the Book of Mormon is what it is claimed to be, an ancient record of God's dealings with His people, then no matter what is said about Joseph Smith, he is what he said he was, a man called of God to restore God's Church.

I could go into the circular reasoning that caused you to say this, but I'm sure that there have been plenty of other people in past threads who have tried to without success... Let me simply say that I cannot pay my MasterCard bill with my Visa card and leave it at that.

EDIT: Woops, still having problems getting accustomed to Invision's quoting system... don't you folks know that vBulletin is the one true forum system?

[Pokatator]

Charity wrote:

I can tell you, that even the first time I went through the temple ordinances, there was nothing so weird I wanted to stop everything and get an explanation.

Well I was different then, the first time I went through I thought it was the wierdest thing I had ever done. I had dozens of questions, and I asked in appropriate places and at appropriate times of people to explain and discuss some of my questions. All I got was a rendition of the old "sacred not secret" routine. I have never gotten any answers from Bishops, SPs, home teachers, missionaries, or anyone else for that matter. I welcomed, and was surprised at the things in the thread nikaya started. I asked a question at the time of the washings, the first time, and was told I couldn't ask questions. I was told to continue the process or stop and talk to my Bishop about my Reccomend. So I was surprised to learn that you could talk to Temple authorities, after the ceremony. I can understand not being able to interrupt, but I wanted to stop and ask questions. I have been to the temple dozens of times after the first time, but a large part of my motive was to answer my questions. It has been weird everytime.

Charity wrote: "If you are seeking answers, ask away." boy I would like to, but we can't here. AveMaria said there are sites for that, I am not sure that's the way I to do it, but the church process doesn't answer questions.

And if you want answers, the place is not an anti-mormon website where you can feel the anger and bitternes. You may get pseudo-intellectual information, but the Spirit cannot testify to you of truth surrounded by such negative emotions.

I had all my questions long before the internet existed, I don't need those websites to have questions or get the answers. But I am not convinced that they are all pseudo-intellectual information either. Your comment; "the Spirit cannot testify to you of truth surrounded by such negative emotions" raises a question in me. In one of the accounts of the first vision, JS claims that darkness, evil attacked him in the grove, and the spirit,the visitation came and saved him. If that can happen for JS, I think it can happen for someone on the internet. Knock, ask and you can recieve.

Is there someone you know who could answer all your questions, without you feeling defenseive (such as you might asking questions of familiy members), such as a seminary or institute teacher?

I am convinced you can't get the answers from seminary or an institute teacher I tried that too.

[charity]

Ave wrote: "And if it's not, in your view does that discredit the LDS Church? Or can the Church be true without both (1) Joseph Smith being a prophet and (2) the Book of Mormon being true?

If it isn't, yes, it discredits the Church. Can the Church be true without both? No. Are both (1) and (2) true? Yes.

But I think the difference is that acceptance of Joseph Smith as a prophet used to hinge on a belief that he had the visions he did. The visions were not provable by any wordly investigative method. So, you either had a spiritual witness or you didn't believe. The Book of Mormon, with its apparent anacrhonisms, could only stand on a spiritual witness, as well. A witness of one "proved" the other.

Now, however, the weight of evidence is for the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient document. While faithful believers will still obtain a spiritual witness of its truthfulness, there are wordly investigative methods which are substantiating its claim.

To Tragic Mind: Have you read much lately on FARMS and FAIR? The Nephi project has lots of interesting material, too. The Dead Sea Scrolls project is also adding to the confirmation of the Book of Mormon as an authentic document. I am not a scholar in any of the multitudes of fields, but you can certainly access those who are. If you are interested in finding out.

[charity]

Tragic Mind: Circular reasoning is not involved. Circular reasoning is the old Freudian dilemma--"I hate my father. How do I know? Because I am afraid of horses. Why am I afraid of horses? It must be that I hate my father."

Circular reasoning occurs when the neither event is provable without the existence of the other.

So can Joseph Smith be proven to be a prophet without reference to the Book of Mormon? Now, more than when he was 20 years old, because we have the proof of a prophet, that is, what he prophesied comes to pass. This takes a passage of time, because prophecies occur over time. There is a backlog of evidence now, that wasn't available in the 1840's, that yes, what he prophesied has come about.

Can the Book of Mormon be proven independently without a knowledge of Joseph Smith? Yes. We don't need to identify archeological sites in America. There is plenty of evidence which cannot be explained except that it is an ancient record, translated.

[Abulafia]

Ave wrote: "And if it's not, in your view does that discredit the LDS Church? Or can the Church be true without both (1) Joseph Smith being a prophet and (2) the Book of Mormon being true?

If it isn't, yes, it discredits the Church.

[Tragic Mind]

To Tragic Mind:  Have you read much lately on FARMS and FAIR? The Nephi project has lots of interesting material, too.  The Dead Sea Scrolls project is also adding to the confirmation of the Book of Mormon as an authentic document. I am not a scholar in any of the multitudes of fields, but you can certainly access those who are.  If you are interested in finding out.

Yes, I've read FARMS, I've read FAIR, I've read about the Nephi project, and I've perused Jeff Lindsay's site.

I have found no evidence. Only conjecture. Theories that are plausible if taken singly, but not within the broader context of the overall theology.

You tell me that your logic is not circular, and yet you say that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record, translated. The Book of Mormon cannot be proven to be so without the translator being proved accurate. And you cannot prove that without proving that Joseph Smith was a prophet. The long and short of it is that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon. Thus, in order to prove the Book of Mormon true, one must first prove that it was translated by Joseph the way he described it; else, all of the parallels, circumstantial evidence, or proofs that you could ever provide are moot.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnyway....

My purpose in posting in this thread was to support redman, not to trot out a variety of subjects that, I would assume, have already been beaten to death by TBMs and their counterparts here and elsewhere. The long and short of it is, you believe in everything you're posting about evidence, truth, and enlightenment, so nothing will sway you. While I hesitate at your methodology, I admire you for your total committment.

The thing I have learned over the years is that one of humanity's biggest failings is that people tend to aggregate their beliefs, motivations, feelings, and suppositions, and then transliterate them onto other people. In other words, I think your brain works the same way as mine, and you believe that I would think the same way as you do if I did the same things you did. That of course is an utter fallacy. We believe other people think and act the way they do because of motivations and feelings that we project upon them. One of the few bright spots in the movie Solaris (which I STILL can't believe I sat through) was the way that George Clooney's character kept generating a living, breathing image of his dead wife that acted and behaved as he remembered her -- not as she actually was.

It's that assumed like-mindedness that is behind the most acrimonious debates about religion and one of the biggest causes of rancor at boards like this one.

The most valuable teaching in the Bible is, "Love one another." Everything else is just the trappings of humanity, the detritus of people's desire to belong and be in the right. But whether Christ lived and died doesn't matter; whether the Bible or the Koran is the One True Book doesn't matter; it doesn't matter if you believe in heaven, hell, Celestial Kingdom, or oblivion after death. What matters is truly loving one another -- from that principle, all good flows, regardless of whether you are Mormon, Buddhist, or Muslim. What comes later is of no importance if you cannot help and love other people now. It's purely a matter of focus.

And that's why I posted to support redman. I believe that the Church's attitude towards people who cannot accept its origins as truth is as far from love as possible. So are the attitudes of Mormons towards "apostates" or "unbelievers." The substitute that TBMs default to is a pale copy of love, a self-ennobled impersonal "love" that is more theoretical than practical. If redman's family truly loves him, then it will not be affected by his departure from the LDS church. After all, isn't what matters in a marriage the love, respect, honor, and lovingkindness -- for better or for worse?

I used to pity people who weren't Mormon. Now I pity people who allow an institution to come between them and their friends and family. No God I could ever worship would let a bureaucracy stand in the way of being decent to one another.

Regards,

TM

[charity]

Pokatator, Joseph Smith didn't go where evil influences lurk. And the evil spirit had to be banished before the vision came.

I am sorry your temple experience has been so much different than mine. I first went in 1961. In the temple, I have had my husband to talk to, friends to talk to, I have talked with temple matrons, and everyone has been helpful. In the temple no one ever said it was too sacred to talk about! E-mail me, if you would like, and I will see what I would feel comfortable about discussing in that way. I don't know many answers to "why" questions. Why would God do this, etc. I don't know.

[charity]

TM, I would not reply to anything you said in your post, seeing that you will think they way you want to think, as I will think the way I wan to think. Except I cannot let one thing stand without speaking.

It matters very much whether Jesus lived or died. Without Jesus there is no love. If you do not recognize the source, it doesn't make it so you can't experience love. But it matters very much that God lives, that He sent His Son to atone for our sins, and to die for us.

[Tragic Mind]

It matters very much whether Jesus lived or died.  Without Jesus there is no love.  If you do not recognize the source, it doesn't make it so you can't experience love.  But it matters very much that God lives, that He sent His Son to atone for our sins, and to die for us.

Whatever motivates you to feel love, great. As long as you feel it and use it proactively. Because it's not about what your beliefs, it's what you do with them.

Regards,

TM

[redman]

Kennogologonogo1969 wrote:

Yes. I

[Ron]

Redman,

I just noticed this thread and decided to jump in late.

What you describe is almost exactly what I have been going through over the last several years. I have several children in the mix which makes this a very complicated situation.

I still go to church and I haven't gone public with my lack of belief (Only my wife and immediate family know).

If you want to preserve your family happiness and stability I'd recommend moving very, very slowly. Don't underestimate the importance of the church in the lives of your family members. It likely is a tremendous source of meaning to them and threating that meaning will cause them to be understandably defensive.

I believe you are going through a transition that for some is an important part of psychological development and maturity. Or as in a book by James Fowler " from the intuitive, imitative faith of childhood through conventional and then more independent faith to the universalizing, self-transcending faith of full maturity."

My attitude towards the church has changed dramatically and I've just now after 2 years feel like I've hit solid foundation that I can base the future on.

At first I moved too quickly for my wife and caused her to go into depression which was not good. Things have been improving but I've had to change my attitude.

The church has thrived and been successful because of a culture that discourages members from going through the development you are experiencing.

Reading books about the nature of religion and psychology/sociology/theology has been extremly helpful to me in understanding what is going on. A book by Roy Bauemeister "Meanings of Life" was really helpful.

I've learned that major changes in life's meaning are like a divorce. Divorcees tend to look back over their history and re-write it in light of their new found understanding. Problems that we previously considered simple or minor become huge. What we once thought was wonderful is re-painted as being all bad.

That is why I say to take it slowly. In a couple of years you may look back and realize that along with that long list of negatives there are also some positives to church membership than you are not able to see right now.

Good luck.

[charity]

Ron, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You are not trying to be condescending. Oops. You blew it. "The church has thrived and been successful because of a culture that discourages members from going through the development you are experiencing." That is condescending.

Leaving the Church is not a sign of increased maturity. When you witness the anger and bitterness of many, not all, who leave the Church, you see the decision not as one of maturity. Mature decisions bring confidence and tolerance.

[ave maria]

Ron, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You are not trying to be condescending. Oops. You blew it. "The church has thrived and been successful because of a culture that discourages members from going through the development you are experiencing." That is condescending.

Leaving the Church is not a sign of increased maturity. When you witness the anger and bitterness of many, not all, who leave the Church, you see the decision not as one of maturity. Mature decisions bring confidence and tolerance.

I'm actually curious to know what you think is the relationship between the two:

1) Whether or not the LDS Church actually discourages members from "going through the development" (redman) is experiencing,

and

2) Whether or not leaving the LDS Church is a sign of increased maturity, based on the resultant anger and bitterness.

That is, do you believe there might be less anger and bitterness if the (LDS) Church didn't discourage the process? Or do you see it as entirely irrelevant and unrelated?

[charity]

Ave, I object to the value laden form of the question which uses the term "development." Development has the connotation of positive change. I do not concede that a change away from the Church is a positive change.

But to skip over that point. "The Church" has no set program for reacting to what happens when people choose to leave the Church. No classes for people losing their testimonies, no special interview schedule. So no, "the Church" does not discourage members from going through developmental change. Rather the Church encourages developmental change, by encouraging those activities which lead to maintaining and strengthening testimonies. However, concerned individuals may very well try to discourage their loved ones from what they see as "undevelopment."

Now to the second question. Is leaving the Church a sign of increased maturity based on resultant anger and bitterness? Do you mean resultant anger and bitterness negate increased maturity? Or do you mean anger and bitterness are signs of increased maturity?

Since positive emotions are usually identified with maturity, you must have meant that the negative emotions of anger and bitterness mean that the person is not developing increased maturity, but must be regressing.

My data base is all anecdotal. I know the problems with anecdotal evidence. But as far I know there is no other data base. So, you may choose to dispute this as well. From what I have seen on this message board, RfM, personal experience at General Conference, these are my observations:

People who are in the process of leaving the Church AND who make themselves known on bulletin boards and in public demonstrations display anger and bitterness. Thus they are not showing that movement toward leaving the Church is one of increased maturity.

[ave maria]

People who are in the process of leaving the Church AND who make themselves known on bulletin boards and in public demonstrations display anger and bitterness. Thus they are not showing that movement toward leaving the Church is one of increased maturity.

The point of my question was how are the two related (if at all), in your view?

Discard the word "development," and see if you can respond to that question.

[charity]

Ave, are you asking the question: If the Church were to discourage leaving the Church would that result in anger and bitterness?

I can't see how. Emotions are internally produced, not externally driven. If you have decided that the Church has nothing to offer, what it were to do or not do would have no power over you to evoke any kind of emotion.

I didn't think you could be asking that, because it is a non issue.

[ave maria]

Ave, are you asking the question: If the Church were to discourage leaving the Church would that result in anger and bitterness?

No, I'm asking how you view any possible interrelationship.

[charity]

Ave, I am still struggling to figure out what you are asking, because I keep answering and then that wasn't the question.

Relationship between leaving the Church and anger and bitterness. Evidently some people experience anger and bitterness when they leave the Church.

Relationship between anything the Church does or doesn't do causing anger and bitterness? No.

Now, did I hit it this time?

[ave maria]

Ave, I am still struggling to figure out what you are asking, because I keep answering and then that wasn't the question.

Relationship between leaving the Church and anger and bitterness. Evidently some people experience anger and bitterness when they leave the Church.

Relationship between anything the Church does or doesn't do causing anger and bitterness? No.

Now, did I hit it this time?

Close enough.