The Grand Fundamental Principles Of Mormonism

[Tsuzuki]

I just don't see that as my own path.

Fair enough.

However, any words of encouragement toward this paradigmal pirate and his own quest would be greatly appreciated from time to time.

One never can tell when two paths may cross.

[Paul Ray]

You've never thought that an experience or evidence indicated one thing, and then later come to see that it didn't? Have you, for instance, ever had an experience you initially took to be personal revelation, and then found that it didn't work out and wasn't what you'd thought?

...

Now, why is it so baffling that a person could at one time see an experience or set of experiences as revelatory, and believe they know that their content is true, and later come to see those same things as not true?

I've had experiences where I've received a specific thought and then thought maybe God inspired that thought, but I wouldn't say, even then, that the thought came from God until I saw, or was really sure, that it did. If I said anything, at the first point, I would only say it might have, and then, later, I would actually see if it did.

For example, when I first read and heard about the Book of Mormon, I received a lot of different thoughts and ideas, and I didn't know for sure then which thought or idea I should believe until God later helped me to see.

Until then I wasn't sure, and didn't claim I could see, that the Book of Mormon is what it, itself, claims to be.

But now I see what I see, and I think I'll always see this. I'm past the point where I don't know and can't see.

[Paul Ray]

Note also, that I came to "no longer see" the evidence as supporting LDS foundational claims because I researched extensively and continually acquired a great deal of additional evidence, which gradually (i.e., over about fourteen years) tip the scale to the "false" side.

If you ever received an assurance from God, and knew for certain that you actually did, what evidence, or type of evidence, could possibly persuade you to not believe it... or to say you didn't see what you saw.

I think I see what you are saying... God never helped you to see. You only seem to have relied on other persons... other than God.

And if you were to tell me that God told you it was true, and then changed His mind, I still don't think I'd see what you see... because the God I know doesn't change His mind on the same issue. What is true, will always be true, forever.... in the sense that it was once true at one time.

Again, this is the sort of thing we do in changing our minds in other areas of life. Why should it be so difficult to understand in this one?

I don't think I change my mind the way you seem to change your mind.

When God tells me an idea is true, I will believe Him. And I will always believe God concerning whatever God tells me... while I try to see things the way I know God sees things. Truth is both relative, and absolute.

[Tsuzuki]

Paul Ray, thank you for proving all of Don Bradley's points. My reason for asking him my question was to see if I could count on him to help me fight the good fight, not to take him to task for any belief or disbelief. You are getting in the way.

[wenglund]

Wade,

I think I do fit into your second category, and will try to explain where I'm coming from on these issues.

I have no illusion that the leaders of the church are part of a conspiracy to dupe the masses. A careful look at the structure of the church will show that the top leaders are drawn from a pool of mid-level leaders (i.e., former bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, and presidents of church universities), and these, in turn, are drawn from the "rank-and-file." If the rank and file are sincere in their belief--as the former LDS themselves presumably were, then why would they suddenly become insincere when called as bishops, stake presidents, and the like? And would these sincere leaders suddenly become insincere when called to even higher positions of leadership? When do they let them in on the Big Secret? And how come nobody ever breaks ranks, and let's the cat out of the bag? Why aren't there even very many rumors about how some GA told his wife, niece, cat, journal, or whomever that it's really all a scam? If it is a secret conspiracy, it's the most successful one in human history, since no one has ever let the secret slip.

Thanks for responding to my query. And, I hope you don't mind if I mention this on the other board and link to this thread.

While I see the LDS leaders as entirely sincere, I think Joseph Smith has to be treated as a special case--either the religion is what it purports to be, or Joseph Smith, to one degree or another, consciously deceived. He brought something down from that hill wrapped up in a frock and claimed it was the ancient gold plates, and if it wasn't that, he was deceiving people about what it was. So, if one doesn't believe in Mormonism's foundational claims, I think one is stuck with the unattractive idea that Joseph Smith, whether for self-serving reasons or pious ones, used substantial deception in inaugurating his religious career.

IOW, Joseph Smith seems to me a necessary and unfortunate exception from my general view that LDS leaders are absolutely and entirely sincere.

I can see what you are saying. However, I think it may only be necessary and unfortunate if one feels obligated to explain the frock-wrapped plates and similar historical data. For example, I don't happen to believe in alien abductions and visitations from outer space, but I don't go so far as to think those who claim to have been abducted, are lying and deceiving, even if they present some physical evidence of their abduction and alien visitations (marks on the skin, eye witness testimonies, burn marks in a field, crop circles, etc.). I feel no need to explain the physical evidence because I don't think that disbelief needs to be justified. The burden is not on me. I am fine with viewing the claims as sincere, though not believable to me.

Besides, there are a variety of other explanations, other than deception, that could be proferred to explain the physical evidence. As such, I don't see it as necessary to conclude that there was deception on Joseph's part (or, in my case, deception on the part of those claiming to have been abducted or visited by aliens).

I mention this not by way of argumentation, but by way of hopefully exposing you to an alternative way of viewing things given your unbelief. In other words, it really isn't necessary that you view Joseph as deceptive, though certainly it is unfortunate if you do.

As to the claim by some ex-LDS that current believers are perfect dupes, what would that make them when they were LDS? If anyone should be able to understand believers it in Mormonism, it is those who have been such believers themselves. Yet, you're right, those of us who've stopped believing often paint those who still believe as arrant fools, deceivers, and the like. I imagine this is partly because of an inability to place oneself (back) in another's shoes, and partly because of a felt need to distance oneself from beliefs that one once strongly held.

I hope this clarifies my perspective. I appreciate your own work to break down bigotry against Latter-day Saints, and I hope you will also break down bigotry toward those of us who no longer believe. We frequently get lumped together with the loudest and angriest among us, and are often also associated with the ugly likes of Korihor and the other Book of Mormon anti-Christs. But these categorizations serve to obscure, not to illuminate. Don

It does clarify things quite well, and you do have a point. For what it may be worth, my intent is to encourage respect for each other's beliefs (or disbeliefs as the case may be), and to focus less on being "right", and more on doing what works, and doing what builds relationships and helps us become our best selve, in spite the differences in beliefs. I think there is great room for imrovement on both sides of the perceived divide.

I honor you for choosing the more amicable and charitable road, and I would suspect that both you and your friends and relations who are still believing members have been all the better off because of it--not that everything may have been rosy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Paul Ray]

You are getting in the way.

Heh, sorry Tsuzuki.

I didn't realize that I was preventing you from speaking with Don.

I will now leave so I will not be in your way.

[Avatar4321]

I've commented on the article before. The principles are all true. I simply disagree with the premise that the principles are completely ignored. Last time i went through General conference addresses one by one, almost all of them had some aspect of the fundamental principles in them. I highly doubt its changed much this Conference either.

[DonBradley]

SIGH

Sorry to be redundant, but I pointed out in the paper that one can attend LDS services for a lifetime without every hearing that the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism are friendship, relief, and openness to truth from all sources. And, to reiterate from our previous discussions, the abstraction "truth" isn't identical to the principle of openness to truth from all sources. Every faith claims to have "the truth," very few commit themselves to searching it out regardless of its source.

If you live in a ward where these principles are declared the basis of the faith, and treated that way, wonderful! I've never heard of such a ward, and would love to know where I'd have to move to be in it. And I'm certain I wouldn't be alone in that sentiment.

Don

[Tsuzuki]

Every faith claims to have "the truth,"

Not every faith.

[Hyrum Page]

Don,

You must understand that when you as an outsider, because now you are as a former member of the Church, say anything that can be construed as critical of the LDS Church in any way, you are motivated by your prejudice against the LDS Church to do so. I cannot trust you, man. Sorry. Those who continue to be members of the Church, like me, are duty-bound to tell you that you are wrong. It is not a member's place to empathize with you because to do so would be tantamount to embracing apostasy.

I can also tell you that at every church meeting I have attended the Grand Fundamental Principles of Mormonism have been taught. Just because they no longer go by that name doesn't mean the leaders of the Church or its members have forgotten them. If the word truth is mentioned, the concept of receiving truth from any source is implicit in it. The existence of the Relief Society proves that the fundamental principle of relief is alive and well to this day. I have many friends who are Mormon. See?

Man, I am sorry that you wasted your time writing that paper. If you had just kept your ears and heart open in Church, you would never have lost your testimony or bothered to write such stuff. Your words have revealed your whole soul to me, and now I can read your mind. You were never really converted to the Gospel like me. If you had been, you never would have left. I should know, my name is still on the records of the Church.

Peace be with you brother. I will be praying for your soul. I really mean it. You are invited to my ward any time, and you will see that the grand fundamental principles are alive and well. After all, you need to be very open to truth from any source to stay awake during my priesthood lessons. Only a friend would listen to me blather on when I read them from the manual, and everyone will tell you what a relief it is when I have finished. GFP. Rock on.

HP

[DonBradley]

[salvar774]

I find it difficult to see intelligent people leave the Church. Leaders in the Church are not perfect. I agree some leaders do not teach these fundamental truths .Most leaders try their best to teach what is right and good . As a leader in God's Church , you can do more good .In other words by leaving the Church you are leaving God's Church in the hands of some of those leaders that do not teach the truth and good . I for one will never leave the God's Church to these people.

You could do so much more good than the average leader. Intelligence is some thing that everybody respects ,but when intellegence gets in the way of faith, it is dangerous.

Faith is better than intelligence in some cases .

In this Stake ,those fundamental truths you discuss , are seen most of the time and when they are not seen ,we teach them again and again.

Alvarado

[DonBradley]

Wade,

I'll try to respond to your post later tonight or early tommorow. And I'm fine with you linking to my post. BTW, what board are you linking to it from?

Don

[kantgomo]

From the outside looking in, it seems to me to be more like let the truth come from where it may insofar as it comes from JS, JS's writings, the prophets/pres. of the church. As far as the friendship thing goes, I admit, I intrude into the lives of LDS. Otherwise, I'd not have contact with them. Now if relief has to do with charitable doings, I have to give the LDS church that one.

[consiglieri]

Interesting thread. I will voice my own experiences, gained over 29-years as a Mormon.

Relief--The Relief Society tends to do well on this score, especially if "relief" is spelled "delivered dinners to members in distress." The Priesthood largely hasn't a clue because, well, that's what the Relief Society is for.

Friendship--When I was in a student ward in college at the University of Texas, the members were quite friendly. All my other experiences since then have been mostly the other way. I have attended JW meetings from time to time with my brother, and have found that the JW's were much more friendly to me than the Mormons of my own ward.

Truth--There are certainly those in the LDS Church who are thirsting after truth, let it come from whatever source it may. But it seems that the formal Church organization would like to see the dispersion of truth limited to what has been systematized and sanitized by the Correlation Committee. (I really liked the way the Gospel Doctrine class reading material steered clear of the miracle of turning water to wine.) My understanding is that this is what accounts for the homogenization of Conference talks. Stray too far from approved Church manuals in Church meetings, and it will be met with resistance and complaints to the bishop. Believe me, I know.

So, not having read the article yet, but having printed it out and planning on it, I would have to say I can see the need for an emphasis on these three principles in the LDS Church today.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri