What if you want the church to be true,

[Mark Beesley]

B b b b b but, he/she started it mom.

[Abulafia]

B b b b b but, he/she started it mom.

[Dill Pickles]

from the Pickle jar: now, now, mbeesley, telling someone to humble themselves is not the action of a humble person, unless that is the calling the tell-er holds. Are you in some way in stewardship over redman? If not, calling him to repentence is the action of a prideful person who's so full of him/herself, he thinks he/she's qualified to point out the pride in others. Blinded by his/her own self-importance, he/she don't recognize the whole moat/beam thing. From my vantage point, your call to redman to repent is misplaced, and might be better utilized by taking your own advice. Perhaps it's not your fault though. You claim, after all, to be an attorney, don't you? And I am just a Pickle.

[Mark Beesley]

Dill Pickle observed:

telling someone to humble themselves is not the action of a humble person, unless that is the calling the tell-er holds. Are you in some way in stewardship over redman?

In general, I agree with this statement. However, let's recall the first post in the thread. Redman concluded his post with the following query:

Is there an explanation for people like me?

Yes. there is an explanation: Pride and sin. Consistent with these factors that are the root of doubt, I offered the following:

If redman has issues, he needs to humble himself, throw himself on the ground, and cry unto the Lord for forgiveness. And he needs to stay there until he gets it. He doesn't need 38 pages of TBMs, trolls, apostates, and the like. He needs to be humble. That's all it takes. Humility. Let me say it again . . . Humble yourself before God and beg for forgiveness.

So I only responded with what I believe to be an explanation for people like redman, just like he asked.

Perhaps Dill Pickle would prefer that I simply stroke redman, tell him not to worry, that all is well in Zion. Flattering words might sound nice, but they are not useful in showing someone the way to Christ. Repent and be humble. And lest I be misunderstood, I recognize in my own life, on a daily basis, my failings and the need to cast off pride and sin.

[cacheman]

Yes. there is an explanation: Pride and sin

Is this the only possible explanation?

cacheman

[Dill Pickles]

from the Pickle jar: that is one explanation. It is not the only explanation, nor could it even be considered the most common or the accurate, without documentation. What other explanations did you examine before reaching your conclusion? Or did you simply leap to the explanation that might more accurately describe your own foibles and failures, as I have also been known to do, to my shame and embarrassment?

One of my favorite passages of scripture is Alma 29:1-3. After Alma expresses his desire so eloquently, "O, that I were an angel... !", he then reminds himself: "But behold, I am a man, and do sin in my wish; for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted unto me".

Until God grants you (or me, or anyone without proper authority and stewardship) the responsibility to declare repentence, advice from someone who doesn't take his/her own advice has a hollow ring, don't you think? Just a gentle reminder. You (and the rest of us), like Alma, are just a man, and it's a sin to overstep one's stewardship and take on that which is not ours.

[Mark Beesley]

Dill Pickle wrote:

One of my favorite passages of scripture is Alma 29:1-3. After Alma expresses his desire so eloquently, "O, that I were an angel... !", he then reminds himself: "But behold, I am a man, and do sin in my wish; for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted unto me".

One of my favorite passages is Alma's counsel to his son Shiblon:

11 See that ye are not lifted up unto pride; yea, see that ye do not boast in your own wisdom, nor of your much strength.

12 Use boldness, but not overbearance; and also see that ye bbridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love; see that ye refrain from idleness.

Alma 38

I have to remind myself often not to be overbearing. Sometimes I don't listen so good.

Regarding my suggestion that pride and sin can be offered as an explanation for redman's apparent loss of faith, Dill Pickle wrote:

It is not the only explanation, nor could it even be considered the most common or the accurate, without documentation.

You want documentation?!?!? Read the Book of Mormon. It's 531 pages of documentation of the effects of pride and sin. I'd post it here, but . . .

[Dill Pickles]

Regarding my suggestion that pride and sin can be offered as an explanation for redman's apparent loss of faith, Dill Pickle wrote:

It is not the only explanation, nor could it even be considered the most common or the accurate, without documentation.

You want documentation?!?!? Read the Book of Mormon. It's 531 pages of documentation of the effects of pride and sin. I'd post it here, but . . .

from the Pickle jar: by documentation, I meant more information from redman, not a reference to scripture. We have no way of knowing if sin and/or pride had anything to do with redman's choices. We simply don't have enough information to make that kind of leap. Yes, the BoM has pages upon pages of references to what happens when entire nations get mired in sin and pride, but that may have no bearing on redman's situation at all. So documentation from the BoM is not going to be helpful in this case.

[randyc]

randyc wrote:

You got into comparing humility when you said that humility was what was keeping me from belief. I use a literary device called "sarcasm" quite often.

Whoa!!! Slow down cowboy. I entered this thread with a response to redman's problem. (Are you an alias of redman? If so, humble yourself, get on your knees, and pray with all of your might . . . and ignore the rest of this post.)

You jumped in and told me to shut up. I don't think I EVER said anything about your belief or your level of humility. So, I'm a little confused where you're coming from.

Here you go:

Is there an explanation for people like me?

Yes. there is an explanation: Pride and sin. Consistent with these factors that are the root of doubt, I offered the following:

If redman has issues, he needs to humble himself, throw himself on the ground, and cry unto the Lord for forgiveness. And he needs to stay there until he gets it. He doesn't need 38 pages of TBMs, trolls, apostates, and the like. He needs to be humble. That's all it takes. Humility. Let me say it again . . . Humble yourself before God and beg for forgiveness.

So I only responded with what I believe to be an explanation for people like redman, just like he asked.

I am person like Redman.

[Dale]

I personally feel issues with a church might be compared to issues between a married couple heading towards divorce. A couple either resolves issues, or the marriage ends.

[Abulafia]

The only problem I have with people leaving the church being accused of sin and pride, is that we are ALL guilty of it. From the prophet down, or up as the case may be!!!

It's a totally fallacious claim, and I don't know why some active members continue to use it.

I will repeat, I have seen active members struggle with ...let me see...pride, guilt, theft, adultery, fornication, sexual impropriety, avarice, greed, gossip, and so on and so forth, and they STAY in the church, and work through their issues, and some don't work through their issues!!!. They do this I assume because they still BELIEVE the church to be what it professes to be, or they are comfortable with the lifestyle, or they have family and cultural links with the church.

Others leave. People who leave are not perfect. People who leave probably have as many issues with 'not being perfect' as those who choose to say.

I left because I didn't believe it. I didn't believe Joseph Smith, I didn't believe in the divinity of the Book of Mormon. I didn't believe that being active was making me a better person. I didn't believe that I would find happiness and fulfillment within the LDS church. That's it. I didn't believe it.... I repeat.... I didn't believe it.

Abulafia

[Kenngo1969]

Redman, what is your path? If you leave the Church, or activity in it, what will you do?

[redman]

Por supuesto no lleva bien conmigo Redman, pero si no fueran por mis esfuerzos, y los esfuerzos de mis compa

[Jan]

Redman,

I live in the Carlsbad Mission boundaries. When and where did you serve? I usually feed the missionaries once/month so maybe we've met?

[Mark Beesley]

Abulafia wrote:

The only problem I have with people leaving the church being accused of sin and pride, is that we are ALL guilty of it. From the prophet down, or up as the case may be!!!

It's a totally fallacious claim, and I don't know why some active members continue to use it.

A "totally fallacious claim?" You believe that NO ONE leaves the Church because of sin and pride?

....

I started to paste a slew of scriptures where the Lord warns against sin and pride because they lead to destruction, but thought better of it. I'm pretty sure, upon further reflection, that you will agree that sin and pride do cause people to leave the Church, as well as the most other churches.

Since sin and pride are so frequently the cause of people falling away, I think it only fair to bring it up in any discussion where someone says they don't believe any more. Not to bring up sin and pride as possible catalysts would be irresponsible, IMHO.

Furthermore, the Lord does not require that someone be perfect before they raise a voice of warning. Otherwise, the only cries we would hear would be the lamentations of the wicked.

So, if someone chooses to use a public forum such as this Board to vent their feelings and declare that they no longer believe, they ought to expect that someone will suggest some serious introspection and perhaps find that sin and pride are indeed at the root of their problem.

You see, Abdulafia, the Gospel is true. Joseph Smith was a prophet. The Book of Mormon is true. The Church is true. These are absolute truths. So when someone who used to believe in these truths turns from them, like a dog to its vomit, those who have a sure witness of truth will look to the scriptures for the explanation. And more often than not, the answer is sin and pride.

This is not to say that those with a sure witness do not sin. We all do. It is also not to say that we all do not struggle with pride. Most of us do. But it is not pride to boldly state the truth.

In my experience, those who rail and kick against others who raise the spectre of sin and pride as the catalyst for unbelief are most often those most guilty of sin and pride. Throw spritual blindness into the mix and you get . . . well, you get the idea.

[Dale]

All of us can be guilty of sin & pride. Come to Jesus, and confess to him you are a sinner.

I left the LDS but it was about doubts & questions that developed over years. But instead of becoming evangelical I became a Reorganized Latter Day Saint. I suppose I didn't develop as many permanent doubts and questions as some do.

[Alpha_FemaleCA]

If I remember correctly, the Smithsonian basically laughed at the BoM, saying that it wasn't factual at all. Plus, there's just too much DNA evidence showing that it's nothing more than fiction, and that Mark Twain was right in calling it "chloroform in print."

[cacheman]

The only problem I have with people leaving the church being accused of sin and pride, is that we are ALL guilty of it. From the prophet down, or up as the case may be!!!

It's a totally fallacious claim, and I don't know why some active members continue to use it.

A "totally fallacious claim?" You believe that NO ONE leaves the Church because of sin and pride?

I believe you have misread what Abulafia posted. The totally fallacious claim is that All that leave are guilty of it. It wasn't implied that no one leaves due to sin and pride.

cacheman

[charity]

Alpha, the story that the Smithsonian "laughed" at the Book of Mormon is one of those falsehoods that keeps getting replayed, even though the truth is well known to most of those who make the claim. What the Smithsonian really said was they aren't engaged in any kind of research to prove or disprove any religious claims. Look it up. After that, if you repeat the story, you will fall in the category of those who lie with a straight face.

But as for now, you can't be blamed for passing on a rumor. Except that that is gossip, which is a sin.

[Pahoran]

If I remember correctly, the Smithsonian basically laughed at the BoM, saying that it wasn't factual at all.

You probably do. The Smithsonian published a letter debunking The Book of Mormon by denying a bunch of things it doesn't claim. They have subsequently withdrawn that letter, although it is still popular in anti-Mormon circles.

Plus, there's just too much DNA evidence showing that it's nothing more than fiction,

Actually, there is no "DNA evidence showing that it's nothing more than fiction."

and that Mark Twain was right in calling it "chloroform in print."

You actually believe that the DNA evidence shows that The Book of Mormon is boring?

All I can say to that is, "Oh."

Pahoran

[Mark Beesley]

Abulafia wrote:

The only problem I have with people leaving the church being accused of sin and pride, is that we are ALL guilty of it. From the prophet down, or up as the case may be!!!

It's a totally fallacious claim, and I don't know why some active members continue to use it.

So, I wrote:

A "totally fallacious claim?" You believe that NO ONE leaves the Church because of sin and pride?

To which cacheman responded:

I believe you have misread what Abulafia posted. The totally fallacious claim is that All that leave are guilty of it. It wasn't implied that no one leaves due to sin and pride.

I don't think I misread what Abulafia wrote. Her use of the word ALL was in reference to the fact that we are all guilty of sin and pride, not that ALL who leave the Church are accused of doing so because of sin and pride. Perhaps that is what she meant to say, but it isn't what she said, and I really don't want to get into a discussion of the meaning of "it" thank you very much.

(I don't understand your last sentence at all. Sorry.)

Alpha_FemaleCA wrote:

If I remember correctly, the Smithsonian basically laughed at the BoM, saying that it wasn't factual at all. Plus, there's just too much DNA evidence showing that it's nothing more than fiction, and that Mark Twain was right in calling it "chloroform in print."

Did these little gems of intellectual pornography get posted before or after you got queued?

I think Pahoran and Charity adequately address your first two gems. The last one, ie. "Mark Twain was right in calling it 'chloroform in print,'" is often true for me. Many a night I have fallen asleep with an open Book of Mormon in my lap.

[Abulafia]

You see, Abdulafia, the Gospel is true. Joseph Smith was a prophet. The Book of Mormon is true. The Church is true. These are absolute truths. So when someone who used to believe in these truths turns from them, like a dog to its vomit, those who have a sure witness of truth will look to the scriptures for the explanation. And more often than not, the answer is sin and pride.

Mbeesly, this is the only part of your post that I will comment on.

I admire your belief. I admire your surety. I don't wish to change your belief in the truthfullness of the church of which you are a part. Good for you, and if it makes you a better, more loving person then good for you double plus!!!

I admire you, I really do.

I have come to different conclusions based on my own study, experience both spiritual and secular, and research. Isn't that okay? Does it make me any less or more of a person than you? Does it make me any less or more guilty of sin and pride than you? I am just doing the best I can with the brain I have been given to work out things that have been important to me for many years. Where do we come from? Why am I here? What happens after I die(if anything)?

I don't think life is as black and white as you make out. Oh that it were.

Abulafia

[dimbulb]

It is kind of funny in a way.

Person A, through study and prayer, decides that the church is what it claims to be.

Person B, through study and prayer, decides that the church is not what it claims to be.

Person A decides that Person B is guilty of sin and pride.

As you all know, I struggle with a lot of things about the church. Maybe it's just me, but I find "shut up and believe" and "you are just too sinful and prideful" to be inadequate and unhelpful answers to my questions.

[Dill Pickles]

from the Pickle jar:

mbeesley says:

  I'm pretty sure, upon further reflection, that you will agree that sin and pride do cause people to leave the Church, as well as the most other churches.

Sometimes. Not always. And there's no way to know how often that dichotomy is the problem, because there's no study done that shows reasons why people leave their religious affiliations. Where there's no data, there's no conclusion. Jumping to a conclusion such as yours without adequate or even any data is sloppy scholarship at best and gossip at worst.

mbeesley says:

Since sin and pride are so frequently the cause of people falling away, I think it only fair to bring it up in any discussion where someone says they don't believe any more.  Not to bring up sin and pride as possible catalysts would be irresponsible, IMHO.

To bring up sin and pride as the only catalysts is what is irresponsible. No one objects to them being possible catalysts, the objections comes when they're given as the only catalysts.

mbeesley says:

You see, Abdulafia, the Gospel is true.  Joseph Smith was a prophet.  The Book of Mormon is true.  The Church is true.  These are absolute truths.

Absolute truths are provable, like the law of gravity. What you've listed are not provable, nor does the evidence especially weigh heavily on their side. They are what you believe, and they work for you, but that doesn't make them universal truths, applicable to everyone. You would be infinitely more believable if you stopped short of absolutism and expressed yourself in what is believable, ie what you believe.

mbeesley says:

So when someone who used to believe in these truths turns from them, like a dog to its vomit, those who have a sure witness of truth will look to the scriptures for the explanation.  And more often than not, the answer is sin and pride.

Again, you cannot say this, without some documentation to back it up. You don't know what answer is "more often than not" because there is no study that gives any sort of definitive answer to that question. If there was, you and many others here would have used it and since the only thing you use for a resource is your personal testimony that says you have no resource that anyone can test as applicable to the stated problem.

mbeesley says:

But it is not pride to boldly state the truth

It is if said "truth" has not been proven. And what you've written has not been proven, and even the body of evidence supporting it is less than overwhelming. You have a belief; you don't have proof.

mbeesley says:

In my experience, those who rail and kick against others who raise the spectre of sin and pride as the catalyst for unbelief are most often those most guilty of sin and pride.

Your experience is not universal nor is it in any way binding or applicable on anyone else. Please find another way to express yourself, or produce a study that supports your premise.

[dimbulb]

Your experience is not universal nor is it in any way binding or applicable on anyone else. Please find another way to express yourself, or produce a study that supports your premise.

We're kind of damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Here we who question are accused of sin and pride. Why? Because sin and pride are the reasons why people question. And if we deny that we're guilty of sin and pride, well, that just proves that we are guilty of sin and pride.

I suppose one's approach to questioning depends on one's motivation. If one wants to help people regain their faith and commitment, I can't imagine a less-effective way of doing that than making unsupportable accusations of sin and pride.