How To Keep Your Mormon Testimony

[Daniel Peterson]

Basically, I just see him, over and over again, saying that he finds religious faith in general and Mormon faith in particular to be absurd.

[bob mccue]

I moved from a literalist perspective of interpreting events in the Bible some time early in my educational experience at BYU.

[Ray Agostini]

Yes and this ablility to solve the problem of no plates or the papyri not matching the Egyptian translation is exactly what Bob was talking about.  Many of us invest so much in things that when evidence to the contrary pops up we go to great lengths to explain why it is still OK.  That is what the creation science people have done, that is what believers in pyschics do and on and on and on.

The questions remain. Were the Witnesses duped? Liars? Simpletons? Which ever course you take, you still need to "match" your thesis. The problem with the skeptical approach to the BoM, IOW, the approach which offers altenative naturalistic explanations, is that is has been found just as wanting, all things considered. 32 years on I am still examining all of the pros and cons. I am not persuaded that it is a fraud, to date. My inquiries continue, with an open mind, while not denying the innate and obvious spirituality the BoM brings to me, personally, nor my belief that it was beyond the capability of Joseph Smith, and so far I haven't read any convincing alternative explanations for authorship. I have been invited to do so by Dr.Shades, and I will take up the offer, on his board, when it resumes.

Let me make one thing clear: I don't "make things fit". I have a far from a perfect fit for the BoM, but I am not blind to what positive evidences I see. Still, no one, but you, has tackled the question of the Witnesses, as far as I can determine, having only just returned to the board after work, and perhaps missed a post.

Here is the problem. Let's say, hypothetically, you saw God in vision, and he told you specific things which later came to pass, and revealed things to you which convinced you that it was all real. How do you convey that to others? And the scientific community? Science cannot answer these questions. It is not (yet) the domain of science. Though we could involve ourselves in metaphysical speculation. In the 1970s few people believed or could talk openly about near death experiences, and if you did you were ridiculed. Today, 35 or so years on the skepticism has significantly diminished, to the point that we now even have the Journal of Near Death Studies, and some pretty respectable people with degrees as long as your arm tackling this very seriously, not to mention volumes and volumes discussing this formerly taboo subject. What has enabled this is knowledge, and the ability to break through the myths and undue skepticism, is openmindedness, that which the "naturalists" so pride themselves on possessing.

I have no "interest" in defending the BoM from a church point of view, since my LDS devotional days ended 19 years ago. I have hung on to the BoM because of the evidences I see, mainly internal, but also backed by the spiritual experiences of not just Mormons, but millions worldwide. So if I did like many do, and dump it because of selected problems, where does that leave me? Throwing out both the baby and the bathwater. And then I can go to the library and devour Sagan, Dennett, Dawkins, et.al, so that I can convince myself that all is really explainable, and what is not explainable, science will eventually explain. Sound like Mormons hanging on and shelving problems? Too right. That's my point. Which ever angle you take, you're going to have unanswered problems. The unbeliever, the rationalist, the skeptic, has to bury his head in the sand just as much as the believer, because so much is unexplained. Have you read Hoffer? One of his most salient criticisms is against "intellectuals". Have you read Robert Anton Wilson? Or Llyal Watson's Supernature, or Colin Wilson's numerous books on the paranormal? When you do, you will see that the answers are not so black and white. Ask Colin Wilson, who started out as a confirmed skeptic, and ended up a believer, he says, because the evidence was overpowering and irrefutable.

[Ray Agostini]

However, I bear ill will toward the belief system - the religious organism - that is responsible for his behaviour and the damage my family and I suffered. And I will continue to do my little part to help others avoid the damage it will inflict on many of them if left unattended.

I don't overestimate my influence.  It is tiny.  I am simply doing what I wish others had done for me - let me know about the whole range of their religious experience; the doubts; the pains; the troubles; as well as the highs.  I am have experienced a far richer life since releasing myself from the relatively narrow Mormon way of looking, hearing and experiencing our miracle of life and growth.

best,

bob

I could say exactly the same. Except that I had a shattered family, divorce, alienated children, and three years of rage against the church (1987-1990), for "causing" all this. Heck, if I had never seen Mormon missionaries I would be driving a turbo-charged Skyline with chicks hanging on to me like barnacles to a boat, or I could have run in the 1984 Olympics (I was a promising athlete), or played professional football. I could have been successful in business, or finished university and gone on to a Ph.D. But "that church" got in the way.

So when I recovered from the rage, circa.1990, I finally realised it was not the church, or God, but my personal choices. No one beat you over the head to be a bishop, or even to stay in the church. Accept responsibility for your choices, and your actions, and be a man and graciously move on without rancour. Your bitterness shows. When you rise above that, as Rudyard Kipling suggested, taking victory and defeat in life for the imposters they are, you will be a better person, and a more lucid writer without cankering biases.

Whatever you may think of Jesus, he had the right formula, and it is found in his teachings on behaviour and attitudes. Even the dictatorial Napoleon recognised that.

[USU78]

[W]hen I recovered from the rage, circa.1990, I finally realised it was not the church, or God, but my personal choices. No one beat you over the head to be a bishop, or even to stay in the church. Accept responsibility for your choices, and your actions, and be a man and graciously move on without rancour. Your bitterness shows. When you rise above that, as Rudyard Kipling suggested, taking victory and defeat in life for the imposters they are, you will be a better person, and a more lucid writer without cankering biases.

Whatever you may think of Jesus, he had the right formula, and it is found in his teachings on behaviour and attitudes.

Even the dictatorial Napoleon recognised that.

Outta the park, Ray.

Beautifully expressed.

[juliann]

Both my experience and my reading indicate that a threshhold of cognitive dissonance must be reached before what amounts to a mental phase transition can occur.

This cracks me up...do you have a McDiss bumper sticker? The cognitive dissonance you experience now must be overwhelming if you allowed yourself to be told what to do when your wife was ill.

[Del March]

Again, I say, there are so many voices of god out there.

So say you, indeed.

Which god?  Whose god?  Which and whose commandments do I follow or dismiss?

Just God, whatever name He goes by in your mind or culture. And His commandments, whatever He reveals them to be to you. (And yes, I know that this opens the door to "what if God commands someone to kill a baby?", which is a complicated question at best, but not an invalid one IMO.)

But what makes your personal revelation any more keen that mine, or the Jehovah's Witnesses or Catholics or Jews?

Where did I say it is?

If I tell you that I received personal revelation that showed me Mormonism was false, you would say I was wrong.. or deceived.

Wrong, yes, but in the long term. Decieved, maybe, but I wouldn't base that kind of judgement simply on the fact that I don't agree with your revelation. Other possibilities include:

- It was wishful thinking.

- You misunderstood.

- God really wants you to believe that at the time for whatever reason.

Among other possibilities.

  If a Jew can show you plainly how Jesus was just a man, you would tell him that he was wrong.

No. Jesus was indeed fully a man.

I assert that personal revelation is a flawed method for banking on truth.

That's your right to believe that.

Jews have personal revelation... so do all of the religions.

I know that.

Oh, but yours is special, that's right.  Well?  They believe that theirs is just as special.

I know that too. Doesn't mean they are right though.

All the above is based on "personal revelation".  Kind of puts things into perspective.

A perspective I acquired many many years ago.

A better approach is to take what facts the communities of science, statistic and social studies have to say.  Not the facts that contradict each other... but the facts that universally agree.

1- Those facts are very much subject to change.

2- The various communities of science don't necessarily agree with each other.

3- The various communities of science don't even necessarily agree within themselves.

Those points are enough to drastically reduce my trust in those facts.

Can you give me an example of "the facts that universally agree"?

  Those are the "voices" that lead to sound bases for living and being.

I disagree. But we are both entitled to our opinion, our belief.

Not that your Mormon base is so bad.  It just relies on subjective and biased personal revelation.

As we have always claimed.

Del

[Daniel Peterson]

In case anybody's interested, "Deconstructor" has responded (on the oddly-named "Recovery" board) to my response (earlier on this thread) to his list of "things-the-angel-didn't-warn-Joseph-Smith-against" (originally, and mistakenly, ascribed to "Randy J."):

"I'm . . . left wondering why this TBM apologist is such a blatant liar. I can't believe it is out of ignorance."

To which, carrying on the rich tradition of vigorous debate and dissent that is so cherished a characteristic of the ironically-titled "Recovery" board, another poster answers:

"How does he get away with such dishonesty? How can he live with himself? I was repulsed."

However, lest anybody think that all of the "Recovering" folk attribute any and all failure to agree with them to simple dishonesty, here is a comment (made today in another context), from Tal Tales Bachman:

"I would like them [he's referring to Morgbot 'apologists' like me] to speak and publish as much as possible, because their stuff strikes everyone but totally gone Mormons as bloody daft. I don't know of any way to better illustrate to people that there is something profoundly screwed-up with Joseph's church than to show them Mormon apologetic writing. That's one big fat difference between me and them: They'd shut all of us up forever if they could, whereas I'd put Dan Peterson and Gee and the other dudes over there on TV as much as possible, especially with sharp interviewers. To most people, they sound like madmen."

So I may not be deliberately dishonest. I may be insane.

Bwahahahaha!

[grego]

bob mccue wrote:

But the question people like you need to answer is why do you live your life according to the best information science can offer until you get to Mormonism, and suddenly you reject that information.

Wow, that's one of the easiest I've ever answered! I believe in revelation.

And to cap that off, Am I actually rejecting a PROOF that horses didn't live??

About "Keeping [My] Mormon Testimony":

That's also a major point of how I keep faith--revelation, and remembrances of it.

[Ray Agostini]

I said I wouldn't do this again, but the distortions are too much to contain me.

Bob wrote:

How about the age of the earth? There is a well developed apologetic literature in defence of the earth

[bob mccue]

The cognitive dissonance you experience now must be overwhelming if you allowed yourself to be told what to do when your wife was ill.

Things get curiouser and curiouser here. A lapsed Mormon/reborn agnostic has to give a so-called Mormon a lesson in how Mormonism works. But, relativists like you are easily confused. In fact, that is their usual state.

So Juliann, there is this thing called faith in God

[Bernard Gui]

The stake president who called me as Bishop was a wonderful man. He acted ethically within his "boundedly rational" framework. And he is largely responsible for ruining my wife's health and doing a host of other terrible things to me and my family. My oldest daughter, in particular, was damaged by the position our family was put in while I served as bishop and how long it took me to unwind from that experience.

The SP promised me that if I accepted that calling at a time when it made no sense to do so professionally or from my young family and ill wife's point of view, that the Lord would strengthen us, and of course used the various relevant scriptures from the BofM to back up his point. And so we played Superman for five years. It was utter madness.

I bear him no rancour. He was smart, pleasant, and well intentioned. I would still enjoy his company if we could be together.

However, I bear ill will toward the belief system - the religious organism - that is responsible for his behaviour and the damage my family and I suffered. And I will continue to do my little part to help others avoid the damage it will inflict on many of them if left unattended.

[Del March]

When those who follow the rules with the most precision; who exercise the most faith; who are consitently held out as the ideal toward which the rest should strive; are the most damaged, it says something profoundly negative about the system.  My case is far from unique.  I knew many like it while I was Mormon and know lots more know.

I don't see any mention of asking God in here. I don't see any mention of pondering it in your hearts, and then asking for spiritual confirmation. In fact, I do not see any trace of faith in GOD! I see lots of faith in your SP and his word, but I can't see a straight communication with God entering anywhere in your equation.

So... it's normal you crashed. I did the same, when I tried to do things the way I thought I was supposed to do them, instead of actually asking God what He wanted me to do.

I was faithful, Juliann, not stupid.  I was obedient, not stupid.  I was an ideal Mormon.  The stake presidency used my wife and I as examples on a regular basis for how young LDS families should try to live.

Yes, you were faithful and obedient - to your SP! NOT TO GOD! If crashing was what it took for you and your wife to learn the difference between supporting our leaders and obeying God's will, then you should be grateful you crashed. I am. I have drawn so much closer to God through my crashing, and I am such a better teacher at Church because of this important knowledge. I would never dream of turning against God and the Church because God had to teach me such a hard lesson. It was my fault if I was too proud to refuse to be anything other than the perfect Molly Mormon, I was too proud to actually ask God what He wanted me to do, I just gathered all the commandments and suggestions from throughout the scriptures and the talks, and I proudly decided to obey them all, no matter that God never designed me to be able to do that. I was a hammer deciding to be every tool in the box because all the other tools have been praised at one time or another. I wanted to be everything to everyone, and I mistakenly assumed that God would necessarily support me in such a foolish enterprise, even though I hadn't actually bothered to ask Him what He thought of it!

I was proud, and I needed humbling. It's entirely my fault if it took my crumbling apart to bring this important lesson home. The fact that I was encouraged in my foolishness by my Church leaders is irrelevant: they are not the stewards of my life, I am. They can, and WILL, always ask for more than I can give, but so what? It was up to me to draw the line, but I was too proud and too foolish to even acknowledge that I needed a line!

My fault, not theirs, not God's. Your fault, not theirs, not God's.

Del

[T-Bone]

Bob McCue is a troll of the highest order.

dbs

Look at the post and then look at the signature!

Irony.

Ummm. He uses his real name. He is not deceptive about who he is or what he stands for. What's trollish about that?

[charity]

The troll behavior I object to is the extremely lengthy posts, and then his lack of attention to what he has posted and the replies to him. This is supposed to be dialogue and discussion. Pretty much all we get from him is diatribe. That is trollish.

[Del March]

The troll behavior I object to is the extremely lengthy posts, and then his lack of attention to what he has posted and the replies to him.  This is supposed to be dialogue and discussion.  Pretty much all we get from him is diatribe.  That is trollish.

Agreed. If any nobody came on here and did what Mr McCue does, they would be put on the queue. It's only because of his relative fame that Mr McCue has escaped the usual treatment.

Del

[urroner]

From Flame Warriors - Trollers

Troller is looking for a response...ANY response, and he will chum the waters with complaints, insults, compliments, and inflammatory tidbits hoping that someone...ANYONE, will take the bait. Generally quite harmless - practices a form of catch and release. Nonetheless, he can upset the delicate ecology of a discussion forum. Once a forum becomes aware of his presence, however, all feeding activity ceases and Troller must move on to more promising waters.

I don't see anything about them having to say or not say who they really are.

[The Dude]

Urroner--your post followed by your tagline (fishers of men etc.) Too funny.

[KevinG]

O.K. let me get this straight. If someone swallowed the call whole, without taking responsibility for verifying if it was the right time and place for his family. Then went on to continue under hardship, to the harm of his family. Thenlater wants to blame the system?

The system includes safeguards that some fail to use out of his own blind faith in the system.

I've seen this before professionally and in the Church. It's a basic failure to take responsibility for one's self, and then blaming the results on others.

Where was agency, counsel and the ability to decline a volunteer service on the basis that it would create a hardship (all things taught frequently in the Church - but appearently forgotten)?

I think I have new insight into why some rail against the Church and claim there is no revelation. They fail to understand their responsibility to use revelation in the first place. Same problem, different expression.

[Teancum]

So when I recovered from the rage, circa.1990, I finally realised it was not the church, or God, but my personal choices. No one beat you over the head to be a bishop, or even to stay in the church. Accept responsibility for your choices, and your actions, and be a man and graciously move on without rancour. Your bitterness shows. When you rise above that, as Rudyard Kipling suggested, taking victory and defeat in life for the imposters they are, you will be a better person, and a more lucid writer without cankering biases.

Whatever you may think of Jesus, he had the right formula, and it is found in his teachings on behaviour and attitudes. Even the dictatorial Napoleon recognised that.

So Ray,

How long did you take to recocer from the "rage" and can you give other time and space to do the same?

Teancum

[Teancum]

Both my experience and my reading indicate that a threshhold of cognitive dissonance must be reached before what amounts to a mental phase transition can occur.

This cracks me up...do you have a McDiss bumper sticker? The cognitive dissonance you experience now must be overwhelming if you allowed yourself to be told what to do when your wife was ill.

Since you tend to take offense when men are perceived as speaking for woman I would sugges that you have little idea of what pressures it is on a faithful LDS man to accpet a calling of leadership regardless of what is going on in his personal life.

Teancum

[urroner]

Urroner--your post followed by your tagline (fishers of men etc.) Too funny.

Didn't see that. It is funny.

[Tchild2]

Dadof 7 wrote:

O.K. let me get this straight. If someone swallowed the call whole, without taking responsibility for verifying if it was the right time and place for his family. Then went on to continue under hardship, to the harm of his family. Thenlater wants to blame the system?

D&C 84: 33

For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.

1 Ne. 3: 7

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

Dad - What do these scriptures mean to you? Callings ONLY come from within the priesthood hierarchary and are believed to be inspired, are they not? Some members (myself included in the past) actually believed these passages of scripture and believed that if followed, the promises would apply.

The system includes safeguards that some fail to use out of his own blind faith in the system.

I would be curious to know these "safeguards". A member may decline a calling but when the calling is done by the protocol of the church within its priesthood structure, is a member going to doubt the entire church system of priesthood power?

I've seen this before professionally and in the Church. It's a basic failure to take responsibility for one's self, and then blaming the results on others.

Some members utilize reason (or maybe it is personal selfishness to decline a calling?), while other members exercised faith despite the realization that they had limitations to perform a certain calling. Who can say where our limitations end and the power of God begins? Anyway, this is the Mormon mindset I had once, so I can understand both your perspective and Bob's position.

I think I have new insight into why some rail against the Church and claim there is no revelation. They fail to understand their responsibility to use revelation in the first place. Same problem, different expression.

Dad- but there is no cut and dried formula in Mormonism for "understanding revelation". Is there some exactly process where total knowledge is known for every situation, for every calling? I know dozens of people who have accepted difficult...time consuming, (due to current life situations) callings that have gushed later in fast and testimony meeting how much they have grown, or how much the Lord "blessed" their lives by putting their trust in him (God). You haven't heard any examples of this where you live?

Mormon members are different, and no one here can judge how we interpret the scriptures and the teachings of Mormonism within the context of our unique life experiences.

Just some thoughts

[juliann]

So I may not be deliberately dishonest. I may be insane.

Bwahahahaha!

I'm going to have to go start reading the commentary. It is better than anything they put up here. I take it they are mad because FAIR won't allow them to come and dump whatever they want on our board, eh...ironic since we can't post on their board at all. Well...unless we adulate and agree with them, of course.

[urroner]

So I may not be deliberately dishonest.  I may be insane.

Bwahahahaha!

I'm going to have to go start reading the commentary. It is better than anything they put up here. I take it they are mad because FAIR won't allow them to come and dump whatever they want on our board, eh...ironic since we can't post on their board at all. Well...unless we adulate and agree with them, of course.

I have often found that those who demand the most tolerance of their beliefs are usually the least tolerant of other's beliefs.