Who has read Jeff Strong why people leave and what we can learn from them?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

RLS isn't a "sleep disorder" because the movements involved can occur whether you're awake or asleep.  Hence it being a "movement disorder".  It wouldn't even be "sleep-related" for the same reason

Again, you are dismissing the experts for your personal theory.  Your choice.  I will rely on the experts.

The rest of your post is ignoring quite a bit of what I said, removing context, etc.  Not worth any more effort.  Don’t know how you came up with this stuff.  Don’t want to know…which surprises me.  I always want to know.

Everyone observing, if you are seriously interested in RLS, don’t take my comments as doctrine.  Just ignore BlipBlap on this subject. (I don’t think I have ever said that before on the board)

RLS Foundation is a good first stop with the easiest to remember and type address (I so miss the days of LDS.org)

https://www.rls.org

also John Hopkins 

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/neurology-neurosurgery/specialty-areas/restless-legs-syndrome

Mayo or Cleveland Clinic if you want less reading. 

Sorry for the detail and my too many posts due to my semi obsession with accuracy.  I wouldn’t have hopped down this rabbit trail if I knew it would be mud all the way down with a disappointing view at the end.

Edited Saturday at 01:55 PM by Calm

[BlipBlap]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you are ignoring the recommendations of actual doctors and researchers based on real life responses to depend on an out dated oversimplification of the process involved?

It gets complicated because dopamine both inhibits and excites.  Then there are the negative side effects of long term use of dopamine agonists, especially augmentation, but also other effects, like compulsive behaviour, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and sedation, which has led to preferring Gabepentin and pregabalin as first line even if not as targeted.  They don’t work for me, but Horizant and Gralise work well for my daughter.  Her doctors, specialists in sleep and pain, have never suggested using the dopamine agonists.

BTW, the current model of RLS isn’t dopamine deficiency.  It’s a complicated interaction of altered dopamine regulation, iron-dependent dopamine biology, circadian effects, and interactions among several neural systems.  It’s not a straight forward drug in, increased dopamine, less RLS process.
 

First line treatment after establishing it is RLS and removing any drugs that may be triggering it is more likely to be test iron and address and deficiency, but that’s difficult at times if people can’t tolerate iron supplements and don’t qualify for iron infusions, which are quite expensive.

Lifestyle recommendations like exercise, reducing or quitting nicotine, alcohol and caffeine, sleep hygiene, and a couple of other things I can’t remember should be suggested as well.  If someone is interested in supplements, magnesium has the best documentation.

Then if medication is still needed, first choices are three α2δ calcium-channel ligands:  Gabapentin, Pregabalin, and Gabapentin enacarbil.  Horizant is the last and Gralise is an extended release that delays it for the small intestine.  Horizant gave me ten days of pure relief, then stopped working.  No vomiting or compulsive behaviour or augmentation thank goodness.  So much better than the agonists.  But it works great for my daughter.  We react very differently to drugs.

You don’t get augmentation with the Gabepentin versions, you do for a high percentage of the agonists according to documentation.  I am not an exception.  The experts working over years with patients knew this and were recommending against the use 20 years ago before I even started on any drugs.  It is foolish to use a drug that is likely to make a disorder worse, not better.

https://www.neurologyadvisor.com/features/restless-leg-syndrome-aasm-guidelines-update/

Your risk of augmentation increases the longer you are on it.
 

https://pure.johnshopkins.edu/en/publications/a-10-year-longitudinal-assessment-of-dopamine-agonists-and-methad-4/

No, because they aren't "recommendations of actual doctors".  This is ONE doctor that already admits short-term efficacy of dopamine agonists while simultaneously ignoring the negative short and long-term effects of his own proposal.

Why are you even bothering bringing up nicotine, alcohol, etc.?  Quitting those are already default considerations in pretty much any condition.

You can see augmentation issues with GABA analogs.

https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article/48/Supplement_1/A625/8135982?login=false

"Occurrence of symptoms earlier in the day with increasing severity suggested augmentation. "

"This case highlights a fairly underreported phenomenon of gabapentin-induced augmentation in pediatric RLS."

So it looks like lower rates are more the product of a lack of sufficient data.

Again, read my initial statement.  The only one trying to bring in long-term problems with dopamine is you.

Which is worse?  Augmentation due to long-term use of dopamine agonists or the 40% increased risk of suicide associated with long-term GABA analog use?  Hard to study long-term effects if your patients are offing themselves before you get a chance.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

You can see augmentation issues with GABA analogs.

https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article/48/Supplement_1/A625/8135982?login=false

"Occurrence of symptoms earlier in the day with increasing severity suggested augmentation. "

"This case highlights a fairly underreported phenomenon of gabapentin-induced augmentation in pediatric RLS."

 

Possibly.  Another possibility is the sad fact that gabepentin loses effectiveness for many over time and what might look like augmentation is simply return of symptoms, unlike the dopamine agonists that increase symptoms from the original baseline.  There is a difference between a med slowly not working and so upping the dose to try to get the same relief and the drug making symptoms worse so one increases it, compounding the problem.

Also note it’s a pediatric case.  

Quote

While gabapentin shows low augmentation rates (~0.9%) in adults, limited data exist for pediatric cases

That rate for adults is much lower than for the dopamine agonists (given in an above study), but I did overstate that there was no augmentation.  Good you corrected me.  Thank you,

Most people revert to pretreatment levels with the dopamine agonists after a few weeks, though it may be more gradual, thankfully.  However some won’t completely reverse.  Can be hard to tell because the disorder is progressive.  I suspect mine had a substantial increase that wasn’t resolved given the dramatic difference between the increase over the 3-4 years I was on them vs the 25 years I have been on the other drug (RLS never increased for ten years based on no change in meds and has decreased some the last ten years).  I know I am not the only one with permanent significant effects because of the group I was in, but I am grateful that I am atypical at least in this way.

But thanks for bringing this study to my notice.  It appears to be new, so may end up with other studies countering the usual explanation.  Gabapentin has been used much more extensively in general than the dopamine agonists, so there’s some related data that’s been available through that already.  I don’t know the extent of RLS studies on Gabapentin to know if the issue is not enough cases of long term use,   I will be rather surprised if it is, but will research it before making any conclusion.

Added:  sorry for the additional post.  There was actually a valid, informative link in this one, I felt it appropriate to respond to since I had already responded to the rest.  

Edited Saturday at 11:13 PM by Calm

[bluebell]

On 8/13/2026 at 2:12 PM, BlipBlap said:

I mean, they've been doing it for a while.  The Gospel Library app was launched back in 2008-2009.  Before then, published material was disseminated to regular members, and there was nothing preventing them from sharing it with non-members.

True, kind of.

When the church has been around for as long as it has, starting to disseminate a more accurate history in the late 90s (being generous) isn't really 'a while'.  It's the last 30 years (again, if we are generous).   It's an awesome thing that I am so grateful for, but it's also fairly recent, all things considered.

There are a lot of reasons that even the generous estimates for transparency don't always hold up.  For example, before it was closed down for renovations around 2023 the Beehive House tour focused on teaching about FHE, trying to give away copies of the Book of Mormon, and testifying of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  The tour guides followed a script that pretended BY had one wife and polygamy wasn't a thing.  They even went out of their way to point out "BY's wife's" bedroom.  When I asked (a very friendly and not at all contentious) question about how polygamy worked in the house (I was getting my history degree at the time and was legitimately curious) with just the one wife's bedroom, the sister missionaries had no idea what to say and tried hard to move on and sidestep the question.  Thankfully my family was the only people on the tour so the sisters weren't embarrassed or anything.   Also thankfully, we are a very active family and the sidestepping didn't impact any of our feelings about the church or the gospel it teaches.  My opinion of its 'historical' tours took a hit though. 

I've heard that the tours are going to be historically accurate once it reopens to the public.  Hopefully that is true.  The reviews for the place are really bad on tripadvisor and yelp because the tour promised was not the tour that was delivered and being more open about the history will go a long way to fix that I think.  But, it's still the case that if these changes do happen, they are happening in 2026.  Again, that's not 'for a while'.  That's recent.

I think our leaders understand the need for more transparency now and are very happy to work on getting things right.  The correlated materials now prize accuracy over faith-promoting and that's a very good thing.  I agree that some critics of the church like to really focus on the church "lying" and refuse to acknowledge the information that did exist or the changes that have been rolled out over the years.  Some also tend to not like to discuss how their own family dynamics growing up led to some (or sometimes many) of their issues with the church.

But, we don't need to fall into the all bad vs. all good dichotomy.  If a critic cannot acknowledge anything good from the church or the gospel then that is their own issue.  We don't have to lay the other side of the coin on thick to counter them.  We don't have to defend mistakes just because it's a critic pointing them out. 

 

[bluebell]

On 8/13/2026 at 3:12 PM, BlipBlap said:

It isn't that "We claim truth, prophets, revelation, etc.", it's that we bluntly and openly claim it. 

Yes, but we don't always understand what we claim, and sometimes it's a faulty understanding that ends up being what hurts our faith.

For example, if someone believes that claiming prophets and revelation means that the prophet has 24/7 access to personal visits from Christ, history such as Blacks and Priesthood become a huge stumbling block.  That is what I meant when I said that our perceptions and expectations of scripture and our doctrine can make our history really painful.  This is especially true when our perceptions and expectations began in childhood and were reinforced by locals leaders and parents. The faith crisis in those circumstances isn't from the doctrine or the history.  It's from trying to reconcile perceptions and expectations of the doctrine with a newly discovered history.

That's no small thing and I don't fault anyone for finding that a real struggle and not always being able to overcome it.

Edited Saturday at 09:08 PM by bluebell

[Tony uk]

It is easy, I presume, for a person to fault find in something they do not understand, or want to understand. If there is an issue with an institution, whatever that institution maybe. Then the issue itself should be addressed in a calm, reasonable and sensible manner. As with an institution such as the Church of Jesus of Latter Day Saints, as with my own institution (RCC). A person may pick up a actual issue, or consider to be an issue and run with it. I admit I can not comment on the the things Bluebell as mentioned in her post. It is a good thing when people feel they are able to stay within their Church, and able to overcome issues in a sensible mature way.

[Navidad]

The fact that people come and go does not diminish the faith that I have that the LDS church is a true church. Notice the indefinite article (did I say that right?). That fact confirms for me that the LDS church is just like every other church in Christianity. It is not the only one, forcing my church to be another. It is simply another as well. The Church of Jesus Christ is indeed the gathering of all believers in the world, regardless of specific affiliation. We are all, and each one of us is, subject to lapses of faith, crises of faith, and failures of how we live our respective faith. That is our great commonality. We are all human; the world-wide Church of Jesus Christ is the collective gathering of imperfect humanity; therefore, the ekklesia itself is imperfect, be in Mormon or Methodist. 

I just finished reading another brand new book about how Joseph Smith borrowed directly from the Iroquois myths and beliefs in crafting the historic part of the Book of Mormon.  I can see that book being destined to win some awards for modern academic LDS literature. What the author has discovered and believes in no way diminishes the Book of Mormon in the sense of its truth, unless you structure truth as strictly truth in a binary sense. I don't. 

I am not LDS but respect and admire many of my LDS friends. At the same time, I have seen enough warts and imperfections in my LDS friends, as I am sure they have seen in me. The LDS church is a wonderful gathering of believers, but it is far from perfect or the only one, just like every other place where humans gather, including all other churches. It is only when my LDS friends insist they are theeeeeee one and only true one that I feel left out and distant. Just like I do when some of my Orthodox Presbyterian friends or other Fundamentalist friends do the same thing.

There is now a new bishop in the ward I attended for six or seven years. It will be interesting to see his perspective on the interpretation of the general handbook related to non-members. Take care all and very best wishes. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

just finished reading another brand new book about how Joseph Smith borrowed directly from the Iroquois myths and beliefs in crafting the historic part of the Book of Mormon. 

Title?  Author please?

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Title?  Author please?

Thomas Murphy; Unsettling Scripture: Iroquois and the Book of Mormon. Very in-depth study and excellent from a historical research perspective. 

Edited Sunday at 02:11 AM by Navidad

[BlipBlap]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but we don't always understand what we claim, and sometimes it's a faulty understanding that ends up being what hurts our faith.

For example, if someone believes that claiming prophets and revelation means that the prophet has 24/7 access to personal visits from Christ, history such as Blacks and Priesthood become a huge stumbling block.  That is what I meant when I said that our perceptions and expectations of scripture and our doctrine can make our history really painful.  This is especially true when our perceptions and expectations began in childhood and were reinforced by locals leaders and parents. The faith crisis in those circumstances isn't from the doctrine or the history.  It's from trying to reconcile perceptions and expectations of the doctrine with a newly discovered history.

That's no small thing and I don't fault anyone for finding that a real struggle and not always being able to overcome it.

Faulty understanding is not unique to us, but that doesn't matter to my point.  Every church claims to be the one true church.  All of their leaders claim to be speaking the word of God.  The only difference is that we openly state it, while other churches have to jump through hoops.

This goes back to my previous point.  We are far more open about our history than most.  For example, where am I able to read the works of Arius?  The short answer is nowhere.  They were burned because they were considered heresy.  What happened to Jan Hus?  Oh right, he was excommunicated first over the sale of indulgences, and then he was invited to an ecumenical council to explain himself.  Upon arriving, he was arrested and promptly murdered.  The Catholic church then spent 15 years trying to kill all of his followers.

"Christianity" has a long history of murdering heretics and detractors and destroying their works, acts that were all sanctioned by the respective church leadership.  What happened to those who left our church over polygamy?  They went their own way.  Their personal affects weren't seized and destroyed on the orders of any prophet, they weren't hunted down by assassins or church-sanctioned armies.

[BlipBlap]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Possibly.  Another possibility is the sad fact that gabepentin loses effectiveness for many over time and what might look like augmentation is simply return of symptoms, unlike the dopamine agonists that increase symptoms from the original baseline.  There is a difference between a med slowly not working and so upping the dose to try to get the same relief and the drug making symptoms worse so one increases it, compounding the problem.

Also note it’s a pediatric case.  

That rate for adults is much lower than for the dopamine agonists (given in an above study), but I did overstate that there was no augmentation.  Good you corrected me.  Thank you,

Most people revert to pretreatment levels with the dopamine agonists after a few weeks, though it may be more gradual, thankfully.  However some won’t completely reverse.  Can be hard to tell because the disorder is progressive.  I suspect mine had a substantial increase that wasn’t resolved given the dramatic difference between the increase over the 3-4 years I was on them vs the 25 years I have been on the other drug (RLS never increased for ten years based on no change in meds and has decreased some the last ten years).  I know I am not the only one with permanent significant effects because of the group I was in, but I am grateful that I am atypical at least in this way.

But thanks for bringing this study to my notice.  It appears to be new, so may end up with other studies countering the usual explanation.  Gabapentin has been used much more extensively in general than the dopamine agonists, so there’s some related data that’s been available through that already.  I don’t know the extent of RLS studies on Gabapentin to know if the issue is not enough cases of long term use,   I will be rather surprised if it is, but will research it before making any conclusion.

Added:  sorry for the additional post.  There was actually a valid, informative link in this one, I felt it appropriate to respond to since I had already responded to the rest.  

There's also the dependency/addiction factor to consider with GABA analogs, as well as how they interact with other medical procedures.  I'd already linked an article regarding high rates of respiratory depression in surgical cases involving patients on GABA analogs, while dopamine agonists can be continued prior to surgery.  Seems to me that it's far safer to start at a low dose of a dopamine agonist and taper up if needed versus starting with a GABA analog, especially since we have quite a bit of data for dopamine agonist safety due to Parkinson's.

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

Every church claims to be the one true church.  All of their leaders claim to be speaking the word of God.

I would quietly suggest that your first statement does not represent the truth. Of the thousands of Christian groups in the world, I would suggest that very few insist that they are "the one true church." I would suggest that most suggest they are "a true church," and most probably are. As far as their leaders claiming to be speaking the word of God, I would agree with you, with the caveat that various leaders would claim that with varying amounts of humility, certainty, and confidence. When I pastored, I prayed  every week that I would have wisdom and judgment in my teaching and preaching ministry. I recognized that on many points of doctrine, my teachings were just one view of many. I have also learned that just within the LDS church, local leaders, like bishops and stake presidents, have varying understandings of both scripture and the church general handbook, which on a local level. the interpretation is often varied. I should welcome you to the forum. So welcome! We are a widely diverse group with many varying degrees of beliefs and certainty in our midst. Oh, and as far as Hus; his case is quite a bit more complicated than you make it. I thoroughly enjoy the Moravian history and teachings. The Catholic Church, in the person of a recent pope, has apologized for his death. In fact, my wife and I just watched a Moravian church service from Pennsylvania this morning. As far as Arius, you can look up on Cambridge University websites his extant letters and other documents, which offer an excellent summary of his doctrinal beliefs. 

Edited Sunday at 04:34 PM by Navidad
clarification

[MiserereNobis]

17 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

Faulty understanding is not unique to us, but that doesn't matter to my point.  Every church claims to be the one true church.  All of their leaders claim to be speaking the word of God.  The only difference is that we openly state it, while other churches have to jump through hoops.

Not every church necessarily claims that. And the Catholic Church doesn’t jump through hoops; it most definitely openly states it. 

17 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

This goes back to my previous point.  We are far more open about our history than most. 
 

You can read all about the Catholic Church’s history. How are we not open about our history? It’s the history of Europe. 

17 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

For example, where am I able to read the works of Arius?  The short answer is nowhere.  They were burned because they were considered heresy. 

Which is an absolute shame. 

17 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

What happened to Jan Hus?  Oh right, he was excommunicated first over the sale of indulgences, and then he was invited to an ecumenical council to explain himself.  Upon arriving, he was arrested and promptly murdered.  The Catholic church then spent 15 years trying to kill all of his followers.

Which was absolutely wrong and terrible, as stated by 2 popes who condemned it and asked forgiveness. 

17 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

"Christianity" has a long history of murdering heretics and detractors and destroying their works, acts that were all sanctioned by the respective church leadership.  What happened to those who left our church over polygamy?  They went their own way.  Their personal affects weren't seized and destroyed on the orders of any prophet, they weren't hunted down by assassins or church-sanctioned armies.

Earlier you spoke against presentism. You might consider that here, too. Also size and politics come into play. Finally, there were the Danites. 

[3DOP]

32 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Not every church necessarily claims that. And the Catholic Church doesn’t jump through hoops; it most definitely openly states it. 

You can read all about the Catholic Church’s history. How are we not open about our history? It’s the history of Europe. 

Which is an absolute shame. 

Which was absolutely wrong and terrible, as stated by 2 popes who condemned it and asked forgiveness. 

Earlier you spoke against presentism. You might consider that here, too. Also size and politics come into play. Finally, there were the Danites. 

So good to see you Jesse. Happy 20th Sunday in Ordinary time, and 12th after Pentecost. We probably won't meet in this life. But we are sure we will if neither of us falters. God save us both.

Edited Sunday at 09:01 PM by 3DOP

[Calm]

On 8/15/2026 at 8:27 PM, BlipBlap said:

Every church claims to be the one true church. 

No, they don’t.  They may claim to be true (and even that is not precise) but not all claim uniqueness in being the “one true church”.  

And technically (at least for revealed truth) it’s “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased” which may not be the same thing.

https://benspackman.com/2017/01/quick-thoughts-dc-130-true-living-church/

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70969-what-does-it-mean-that-this-is-the-true-church/page/2/#findComment-1209849454

Quote

It helps to notice that the phrase "one true church" does not appear in D&C 1.   That is a misreading, conditioned…What D&C 1 has is this, 29 words, rather than 3.  A proper reading ought to account for the 29 words…

  Quote

And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

It helps to read carefully, in particular to consider that the Biblical uses of the words "true" and "living" in passages like "living waters", "true vine", living bread, etc. match the themes of D&C 1 overall.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69911-one-true-church-virtue-or-vice/page/12/#findComment-1209789097

Quote

What I did decades back was to look at the Biblical uses of "true" and "living".  True vine, true treasure, living bread, living waters, tree of life, living way through the veil, living stones, truth and life, the true God, the living God in a "voice of warning" passage in Jeremiah...  I found that all of the imagery points consistently to a voice of warning, covenants, priesthood, ordinances, revelation, temple which happen to match the themes of D&C 1 point for point, verse for verse.  And none of your complaints address this, but rather veer off again into "exclusive truth, virtue, and revelation" misreading.

It's not about exclusive truth, virtue, or revelation, and cannot be about exclusive truth, virtue, and revelation because D&C 1 formally states that the LDS DO NOT possess exclusive truth, virtue. or revelation.  

added:  I see Navidad already addressed this sufficiently 
 

Edited yesterday at 03:31 AM by Calm

[bluebell]

On 8/15/2026 at 8:27 PM, BlipBlap said:

Faulty understanding is not unique to us, but that doesn't matter to my point.  Every church claims to be the one true church.  All of their leaders claim to be speaking the word of God.  The only difference is that we openly state it, while other churches have to jump through hoops.

This goes back to my previous point.  We are far more open about our history than most.  For example, where am I able to read the works of Arius?  The short answer is nowhere.  They were burned because they were considered heresy.  What happened to Jan Hus?  Oh right, he was excommunicated first over the sale of indulgences, and then he was invited to an ecumenical council to explain himself.  Upon arriving, he was arrested and promptly murdered.  The Catholic church then spent 15 years trying to kill all of his followers.

"Christianity" has a long history of murdering heretics and detractors and destroying their works, acts that were all sanctioned by the respective church leadership.  What happened to those who left our church over polygamy?  They went their own way.  Their personal affects weren't seized and destroyed on the orders of any prophet, they weren't hunted down by assassins or church-sanctioned armies.

I think other posters have already said this, but most other churches don't believe they are the 'only true and living church'.  They almost all believe that Creedal Christianity is the only true belief system, but that is different than what we claim.  Many don't have leaders that claim to speak for God either.  They claim inspiration and authority from God to lead (either through an extension of papal authority--if I understand that right--or through the priesthood of all believers and feeling called to lead), but that is another thing that is very different from what we claim.

I don't know that we are more open about our history than most, maybe.  Most Christian religions have the luxury of much older history for sure, and that does blunt its impact a lot.  But our unique claims of authority and revelation mean that our history can hit differently, depending how someone interprets those claims.  We just can't remove the obstacles that our history can present to people by pointing to other Christian churches.  That's a chapter in the discussion but it's not the whole discussion.  

[Calm]

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

don't know that we are more open about our history than most, maybe.  Most Christian religions have the luxury of much older history for sure, and that does blunt its impact a lot. 

The lack of centralization of most Protestant churches as well as some other denominations makes for a very different history.  Do you just document since the specific group started to be considered “open” or do you trace back to Luther and others, then down through the Catholic Church back to Christ?  

Then there’s the fact one could go to the library and find pretty detailed histories of Catholic and Protestant faiths in general.  

Iirc, some of the Catholics here have reported part of the catechism of investigators in the Catholic Church is teaching the history.  

That’s quite accessible and open history (assuming it’s accurate and somewhat detailed, but that’s a lot to cover, so I assume some stuff gets left out unless asked about) imo if my memory is correct.  

Edited yesterday at 04:37 AM by Calm

[Tony uk]

As a Church attending member (RCC). I has been my understanding, that the Papacy, is inspired by God, through the Holy Spirit, to instruct the faithful in the teachings of Jesus. That is the very basic view of the matter, in my understanding.

As for the right Church, I would much prefer to leave the big calls to God. It is easy for people to adopt the approach of I am correct, but you are wrong. I personally feel that this stance can only cause division rather than unity.

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

They almost all believe that Creedal Christianity is the only true belief system

I would suggest that the majority of Protestants are not creedal Christians. “Almost all” is quite a stretch. Certainly, Catholicism, including Orthodox Christianity, is creedal, but they don't represent “almost all” of Christianity. Then I would also suggest that not “almost all” of the rest of Christianity, who are not creedal, believe theirs is “the only true belief system.” They certainly might believe that their belief system is the best interpretation of the Scriptures, but that is very different than believing theirs is the “only true” belief system.  Probably some Fundamentalists (capital F) believe that, but they are neither a majority nor are they creedal.

There also seems to be increasing diversity within Catholicism. I don't observe “almost all” Latin American Catholics holding such a strict interpretation. Latin American Catholicism is a significant percentage of Catholicism in the world. There also seems to be diversity within Mormonism on the “only true” belief claim.  African, Latin, and Asian Christians are significant populations that we often ignore in such claims.

We have had these discussions before. I think many in the LDS church find some comfort and identity in thinking of themselves as "unique," in the Christian community but at the same time seem to resist being labeled as "onlyists." I have a bunch of "new" Mormon history friends who are not so comfortable defining their faith as "thee only true belief" system. I think I see a significant increase in LDS church members  who question aspects of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, for example, just as I see an increase in non-LDS Christians who question the strict interpretation of Biblical history as has been traditionally held. We have young LDS missionaries, both Anglo and Latino, in our home almost every week for one reason or another. They seem much more diverse in their view of onlyism than perhaps were the missionaries we meet of even ten years ago. 

I would suggest that, for good or bad, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, the worldwide Christian community is becoming increasingly diverse in many ways. Of course, my observations are not a scientific survey. They are simply my observations as I live my life in a wide interfaith and cross-cultural existence. There certainly seem to be conservatives and progressives in virtually all faith communities, even in non-Christian faith communities. Perhaps both ends are increasing, thus changing the shape of the normal curve when it comes to certainty of believers.  I am not sure I said that well, but I have to go! Blessings on all. 

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

or do you trace back to Luther and others, then down through the Catholic Church back to Christ?  

As always, you say things really well. I would simply suggest that there are numerous Protestants who claim a crimson or a scarlet thread back to Christ as well! For many, Luther and his other magisterial reformers were a "johnny come lately"(whatever that means) reformationist group. Reformation often carries a connotation of change from within, as well as change from outside. That is an aspect of Church history that is often ignored. For a portion of Protestantism, that reformation (or restoration, if you will) goes back to Irenaeus and other Christian leaders all the way to Erasmus and beyond to modern times. Truth in a New Testament Koiné Greek sense is a revealing. Christ was the first great revelator of this dispensation of grace. He personified truth as truth was often personified in ancient times. In that sense, Christ was the first reformer personified. Oh, and so as not to offend, restorationists fit in there too! For many, in a modern sense, there is little difference between a reformer and a restorer! Gotta run!

[Tacenda]

I listen to a lot of podcasts and this one with Jeff Strong was a good one. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-live-discussion-with-jeff-strong/id1682941294?i=1000783523700

I know some don't like to listen but read instead, not sure if it has a transcript.

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

 

The lack of centralization of most Protestant churches as well as some other denominations makes for a very different history.  Do you just document since the specific group started to be considered “open” or do you trace back to Luther and others, then down through the Catholic Church back to Christ?  

Then there’s the fact one could go to the library and find pretty detailed histories of Catholic and Protestant faiths in general.  

Iirc, some of the Catholics here have reported part of the catechism of investigators in the Catholic Church is teaching the history.  

That’s quite accessible and open history (assuming it’s accurate and somewhat detailed, but that’s a lot to cover, so I assume some stuff gets left out unless asked about) imo if my memory is correct.  

I think you're right.  It allows for a level of separation between the history of Christianity and the church a person attends.

[manol]

5 hours ago, Tony uk said:

As for the right Church, I would much prefer to leave the big calls to God. It is easy for people to adopt the approach of I am correct, but you are wrong. I personally feel that this stance can only cause division rather than unity.

I agree with you.  I think Christ is more interested in how we perceive and treat one another than in whose religion is the best. 

The accounts of near-death experiences have found their way into my personal "open canon", and the following is from notes taken while listening to one of them:  

On the other side there are no lines of separation.  On the other side we are all family. 

I aspire to see that way down here, and @Tony uk I think you set a wonderful example.  Thank you. 

[Tony uk]

22 minutes ago, manol said:

I agree with you.  I think Christ is more interested in how we perceive and treat one another than in whose religion is the best. 

The accounts of near-death experiences have found their way into my personal "open canon", and the following is from notes taken while listening to one of them:  

On the other side there are no lines of separation.  On the other side we are all family. 

I aspire to see that way down here, and @Tony uk I think you set a wonderful example.  Thank you. 

Many thanks for your post Manol, much appreciated. I am glad, that sometimes, I am able to get my thoughts across in an acceptable way. 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, manol said:

I agree with you.  I think Christ is more interested in how we perceive and treat one another than in whose religion is the best. 

The accounts of near-death experiences have found their way into my personal "open canon", and the following is from notes taken while listening to one of them:  

On the other side there are no lines of separation.  On the other side we are all family. 

I aspire to see that way down here, and @Tony uk I think you set a wonderful example.  Thank you. 

Very well said. I consider myself to be a “wideness in God's Mercy" kind of a Christian. That term comes from an old hymn that I really treasure. Here are the words,

1. There’s a wideness in God’s mercy,
   Like the wideness of the sea;
   There’s a kindness in God’s justice,
   Which is more than liberty.
2. There is welcome for the sinner,
   And more graces for the good;
   There is mercy with the Savior,
   There is healing in His blood.
3. But we make God’s love too narrow
   By false limits of our own,
   And we magnify its strictness
   With a zeal God will not own.
4. For the love of God is broader
   Than the measures of the mind,
   And the heart of the Eternal
   Is most wonderfully kind.
5. If our love were but more simple,
   We should rest upon God’s word,
   And our lives would be illumined
   By the presence of our Lord.
   
   "If our love were but more simple.". . . . I'll say Amen to that! The song is by Frederick Faber from 1862. Oh, and if anyone is interested—Faber was an Anglican migrant to Roman Catholicism. So he was a religious migrant seventeen years before he wrote this song as a faithful Roman Catholic! I like that!

Edited 19 hours ago by Navidad