The Deeper I Dig The More I Question

[Dance in the Light]

I have been a member for many years. I guess I have been a simple minded member and have pretty much aligned myself with every teaching of the church exercising complete faith and moving what I believed to be forward. The truth is, I can no longer subscribe to fear-based religion of any kind. Any religion that uses fear as a way to control the masses is in my opinion in error. When I started questioning fear as a way to play on the emotions of the innocent masses, I started questioning other teachings of the church. SNIP Oh this is just the beginning of many discoveries which begged the question "IS MORMONISM JUST ANOTHER RELIGION?"

No discussion of temple content, please.

[dangermom]

Can you explain how you feel that the gospel of Christ according to the LDS Church is fear-based? I do not see it as such.

[Uncle Dale]

Oh this is just the beginning of many discoveries which begged the question

"IS MORMONISM JUST ANOTHER RELIGION?"

You wouldn't have lasted very long in Caldwell Co., Missouri during the spring of 1838, now would you?

Uncle "Whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned" Dale

[Daniel Peterson]

The more I dig, the more I believe.

I can no longer subscribe to fear-based religion of any kind.

I reject fear-based religion, too. I'm a Latter-day Saint.

Any religion that uses fear as a way to control the masses is in my opinion in error.

That's my opinion, too.

When I started questioning fear as a way to play on the emotions of the innocent masses, I started questioning other teachings of the church.

You must belong to a different church than I do. My church doesn't use fear as a way to play on the emotions of the innocent masses.

I read the similarities between the Masonic and Mormon temple ceremonies. There is absolutely no way Joseph Smith did not get his entire temple script from the Masonic rituals.

There is absolutely no way that Joseph Smith could have gotten his entire "temple script" from the Masonic rituals. The differences are numerous and fundamental.

There are some very good articles and books out there on the Latter-day Saint temple (e.g., by William Hamblin, Matthew Brown, Hugh Nibley, and others). Many of us are convinced that the evidence for the genuine antiquity of the temple ordinances is considerable and deep.

There is not one mention of the temple ceremony in the Book of Mormon. Not one mention of Baptism for the dead and yet the book of Mormon was supposed to contain a fullness of the gospel.

Which ought to lead one to wonder precisely what is meant when it is said that the Book of Mormon contains "the fulness of the gospel."

It turns out that the Book of Mormon is quite clear about what it means. (Noel Reynolds has written several excellent pieces treating this subject.)

Oh this is just the beginning of many discoveries

Noticing that the Book of Mormon doesn't mention baptism for the dead and contains no explicit discussion of the temple ceremony is, umm, scarcely much of a discovery. I've heard of at least three people -- a Dutchman, a lady from Idaho, and a nineteenth-century farmer down near Nephi -- who had already noticed it.

which begged the question "IS MORMONISM JUST ANOTHER RELIGION?"

Actually, if it did anything at all, it provoked or inspired or raised that question.

"Begging the question" [Latin petitio principii] is a specific kind of logical fallacy, and it has nothing at all to do with what you've just described. Misuse of the term begging the question is a common error, but it's an error all the same.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Technically, Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith created the majority of the script for the endowment. Joseph gave him the important parts and told him to make it flow. Even then, it wasn't until somewhere between the 1860's and 1880's (I can't remember the exact date) that it was standardized. The St. George temple before then actually had their endowment ceremony lasting over 9 hours.

The important parts are the covenants, key words, symbols, and token. The rest is just a motif to make it interesting and teach lessons, whether the motif is literal or not.

[Beowulf]

Dance in the Light reports:

The truth is, I can no longer subscribe to fear-based religion of any kind. Any religion that uses fear as a way to control the masses is in my opinion in error.

Me:

I wholeheartedly agree. And when you come across such a nasty religion, please inform us (since I don't see any around here).

Seriously, when was the last time you spotted "fear" in Sacrament Mtg.? Or in the eyes of your Bishop (certainly not in mine, a truly gentle man)?

Not in my family, which has generations of Mormons, many active, many not, but all loved by each other. Where is this fear that you are so concerned about?

Truly puzzled.

Beowulf

[kamenraider]

There is absolutely no way Joseph Smith did not get his entire temple script from the Masonic rituals.

His entire script? Do you somehow have access to Joseph's original endowment ceremony script? If you're familiar with both ceremonies, then you must realize that there is plenty of stuff in the LDS temple endowment that is not related to Freemasonry at all. I don't think that anyone can say with certainty that at least some of the similar elements in both ceremonies couldn't have had a common origin in still older ceremonies. Could not the Knights Templar be a link between the ancient and the modern endowment ceremonies?

There is not one mention of the temple ceremony in the Book of Mormon. Not one mention of Baptism for the dead and yet the book of Mormon was supposed to contain a fullness of the gospel.

There's plenty of temple related stuff in the Book of Mormon though. Sometimes the relevance is implied rather than specific, though.

[herringbone]

Congratulations for snapping out of it. yes the church is just another church, but its also a culture and has some very good points. Dont feel like you need to run from it or change who you are, you dont, but you will find you have a much clearer view on life from here on. You may also find no one else down at the white house actually agrees with your new opinions. Good luck with it all.

I forgot to mention about the fear thing, I can understand the church making you feel a little guilty but I have never experianced fear so will also disagree on that point - unless you mean fear of catching germs from the stinky old guy up the back who cant stop coughing.

[bjw]

I have been a member for many years. I guess I have been a simple minded member and have pretty much aligned myself with every teaching of the church exercising complete faith and moving what I believed to be forward. The truth is, I can no longer subscribe to fear-based religion of any kind. Any religion that uses fear as a way to control the masses is in my opinion in error. When I started questioning fear as a way to play on the emotions of the innocent masses, I started questioning other teachings of the church. I read the similarities between the Masonic and Mormon temple ceremonies. There is absolutely no way Joseph Smith did not get his entire temple script from the Masonic rituals. I ask anyone to read the two ceremonies and you will be amazed. Even more amazing is the fact that the revelation for the temple ceremony was received two months after Joseph joined the Free Masons. Coincidence? I would say "not". There is not one mention of the temple ceremony in the Book of Mormon. Not one mention of Baptism for the dead and yet the book of Mormon was supposed to contain a fullness of the gospel. Oh this is just the beginning of many discoveries which begged the question "IS MORMONISM JUST ANOTHER RELIGION?"

Dance,

I was an EV for 26 years and I can tell you that Mormonism is not fear-based compared to the alternatives out there, and I've seen quite a few. Since I am a conspiracy buff I am pretty familiar with the masonic rituals from the scripts I have read of second-hand accounts of blue lodge, york, and scottish rite. I'll admit the similarities are there, but JS admitted that he believed that much of masonry and the temple were from the same ancient sources. While masonry isn't ancient many of its rituals have ancient origin. Also, some mention is made in some of the masonic rituals of "that which is lost" or "lost words." Could it be a veiled reference to a "restoration of all things?" Also, many of the doctrines taught in the higher levels of york and scottish rite are absent from Mormonism, like "holy saints John" as Messiahs," paladism, and men only going through rituals at all levels.

I suggest reading "Endowed from on High" available at FAIR and "Hidden Treasures of Knowledge" by Robinson. "Endowed from on High" shows in one part that JS prayed to know what the masonic rituals meant and he received the endowment in response. "Hidden Treasures of Knowledge" shows that there are similarities in the Egyptian temple ritual and the early Christian ritual that are similar to the current LDS temple endowment. Also, go on FAIR, FARMS, and Jeff Lindsay's website for some more good answers. There are good apologetics supporting the church, I'd consider them carefully before doing anything rash.

As for baptism for the dead, it's mentioned in I Corinthians, which predates the BoM and was therefore practiced by the early Christians.

[Maidservant]

I have come across the things you say in one form or another and my conclusions either strengthen or are irrelevant to my belief of and service of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost -- who, by the way, love me a lot and think I'm cool and take care of me.

Not that I have never been angry at Them. They've heard about it when I have been. I've accused my Father on more than one occasion of screwing up my life. The only thing is -- um -- He always answers me.

My Father, His Son and the Holy Ghost have been revealed to me through the Book of Mormon, the Bible, Joseph Smith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the temple experience, my trials and my faith -- and so forth. I'm sure exactly how I would turn my back on the totality of that experience (speaking only of myself).

If you want to, you can ask your questions; feel and explore your doubts in the context of your relationship to your Heavenly Father and through what is offered in the Church of Jesus Christ (of Latter-day Saints). Having these kinds of questions doesn't put you in contradiction to any of that, I'm sorry you feel that it does. That bespeaks to me of a error in relationship of people, not the information itself. I'm sorry you are hurt. Been there.

(And, ditto, DCP.)

[Maidservant]

BTW, "fulness of the gospel" has a specific meaning, and it does not translate to "all possible information of the universe and of godliness". (In other words, we are going to learn a lot more stuff as the future unfolds that will come straight from God that will have nary a whisper in the Book of Mormon.)

[Christian]

Daniel Peterson Said:

You must belong to a different church than I do. My church doesn't use fear as a way to play on the emotions of the innocent masses.

Mr. Peterson, you often say this when folks complain about negative experiences in the "Church". This makes me wonder when you say "My church", what does that mean to you? How do you define "Church"?

Is it an organization? an experience? Is the "church" only official sanctioned doctrine? Correlated material? Does it include "Mormon Culture"? or is culture distinct from the "Church" in your view?

For example, if the originator of this thread were to discuss examples where their parents made them feel scared if they didn't tow the church line (e.g., "if you don't come to church with us, then you'll ruin the family and be the reason we are not all together in Heaven!"), could such experience attributable to the "Church"? ?

What about a similar comment from a Bishop (e.g. "If you start petting, then you wont be able to stop, you'll ruin your life and it will be all over for you!") .

I assume each person will define what a "church" is differently, but it'd be useful to understand what each person means when considering the terms they use.

What's your take?

[Maidservant]

For example, if the originator of this thread were to discuss examples where their parents made them feel scared if they didn't tow the church line (e.g., "if you don't come to church with us, then you'll ruin the family and be the reason we are not all together in Heaven!"), could such experience attributable to the "Church"? ?

Absolutely not. This is exactly the kind of thing I had to learn, and indeed learned that God wanted me to learn this as quickly as possible so He could connect with me and teach me things without all that falsehood. Families are always a special case -- they can be quite toxic just as easily as they could be life giving. Toxicity is not the church. A life-giving family is a fruit of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What about a similar comment from a Bishop (e.g. "If you start petting, then you wont be able to stop, you'll ruin your life and it will be all over for you!") .

Sexual purity is a commandment from Jesus Christ, and thus a part of His Church. Your bishop's bedside manner, not so much. (I'd be curious to know if that is a direct quote, it might make a difference in my response, lol .)

[mms]

Your completely totally off-topic posts are now being deleted. If you want to stick your tongue out at people do it on somebody else's boar. Meanwhile, take a break. You are suspended for a week so you can think of a way to post civily at least half the time. ~ Mods

[Christian]

Absolutely not. This is exactly the kind of thing I had to learn, and indeed learned that God wanted me to learn this as quickly as possible so He could connect with me and teach me things without all that falsehood. Families are always a special case -- they can be quite toxic just as easily as they could be life giving. Toxicity is not the church. A life-giving family is a fruit of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

But isn't this "toxity" based in a teaching and ideal espoused by church doctrine? Isn't what the parent is saying true under church doctrine--that if one family member chooses not to do the plan, they won't be part of the family in the after life, which presumably would make the other family members sad? (BTW, I've never found an emotionally believable answer beyond divine amnesia to explain how a righteous parent could be eternally happy if they were denied a familial connection to their evil offspring).

If the person felt this conflict--that they'd make the rest of their family sad if they weren't in heaven together--without any suggestion from the parent, but simply a result of their understanding of church doctrine and how the rest of the family feels about it, would this change things?

Sexual purity is a commandment from Jesus Christ, and thus a part of His Church. Your bishop's bedside manner, not so much. (I'd be curious to know if that is a direct quote, it might make a difference in my response, lol .)

I didn't record the conversation, but that's my recollection.

So is this a teaching of the Church? You should be sexually pure or it will ruin your life?

I guess part of the point in asking this is to suggest that almost any or organization that attaches consequences to behaviors is guilty of using fear in a way. I'm afraid of killing my boss at work because I'm afraid that it will inhibit my ability to provide for my family in the future, among other things. Is this a "fear based" teaching I'm being subject to? In the sexual purity context, there is always the fear of damnation available if the fear of pregnancy, STD's and psychological drama (all of which millions of promiscuous people outside of the church are able to succesfully navigate) can't be used to promote chastity.

Regardless, it raises the question--is "bedside manner" of a church official part of the Church? and where does bedside manner start and stop?

[alex71va]

The Deeper I Dig The More I Question

I'd like to be the first one in the culture of Mormonism to condemn any individual or institution in the future that tries to marginalize anyone for sincere questioning.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Dear Dance:

Welcome to the board. I am glad you say you've broken out of an "accept anything" mentality. I recently wrote in my blog dealing with the Book of Mormon containing the fullness of the gospel, and encourage you to check it out and see what you think.

http://lifeongoldplates.blogspot.com/2007/...-all-truth.html

[Avatar4321]

Questions are good. without questions Joseph never would have gone into the grove.

I indeed have some questions of my own:

1)Since there is nothing at all fearful about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, why do you pretend as though there is?

2)Can you claim to have had complete faith while at the same time failing to follow the counsel of the Apostles which instructs us to study, learn, pray, and know the reality of what they say is true? Mormonism cannot be faithfully followed on blind faith. Because anyone who tries "blindly follows" anything cannot truely be following it.

3)Why do simply parrot common anti mormon answers which have long been addressed and pretend as though their claims are accurate?

4)Why are you afraid to admit the truth? The truth is you havent stopped believing because of any supposed error, but rather because you have chosen to stop believing.

If the Church is so full of error, why is it no one can honestly contend with it? Why does it always have to be this misrepresentation and caricature? If your positions are so strong, why not just speak the truth?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Good luck. You are likely to find yourself condemned for seeking to codemn those who "marginalize" (which is an extremely mild word for some of what goes on here). You see, some here believe that unless they attack the supposed doubter, they somehow allow themselves to be damaged. It is a very strange approach and one that I do not quite fully understand, but it is an approach nonetheless. Take a look at a this thread that I started when I first came here. You will see that the question I asked had to do specifically with "feeling" the spirit and how to distinguish it from the "warm fuzzies" that many feel in their own churches. In introducing the topic, I explained reasons that I was moving away from the "intellectual" approach to determining the truthfulness of the Church and toward the spiritual. In doing so I began to doubt what I had felt in the past. As you will see, the conversation quickly turned to outright attacks on me. Why? There does not seem to be a good reason, as no one took any risk by simply believing I was who I said I was. As you read, you will see that your hope that no one will condemn sincere questioning is unlikely to be met, here. Of course, you will see some sincere responses and efforts to assist, but these were largely drowned out by the shouting of those who chose to condemn. But here's to hoping.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...c=26106&hl=

With all due respect, mms, you may be returning "evil for evil,": rather than good for evil. Like begets like.

[Avatar4321]

In addition, can one be faithful without receiving Divine revelation? I would say no. It seems impossible to claim faithfulness to a religion calling for every individual to receive revelation for themselves if you never receive it.

[Figs&Grapes]

I have been a member for many years. I guess I have been a simple minded member and have pretty much aligned myself with every teaching of the church exercising complete faith and moving what I believed to be forward. The truth is, I can no longer subscribe to fear-based religion of any kind. Any religion that uses fear as a way to control the masses is in my opinion in error. When I started questioning fear as a way to play on the emotions of the innocent masses, I started questioning other teachings of the church. SNIP Oh this is just the beginning of many discoveries which begged the question "IS MORMONISM JUST ANOTHER RELIGION?"

No discussion of temple content, please.

"Fear to control the masses?" What do you mean by that?

We are supposed to fear God. It is for our own good that we fear before Him. God will judge all mankind by our works and by the thoughts and intent of our hearts.

If we have no fear of punishment for wrongdoing, then what is the use of any moral teaching?

What religion would you pursue that teaches it's followers not to fear the consequences of wrongdoing?

[ERMD]

OP seems to have disappeared.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Indeed, could be a troll. Or a sock puppet.

[Daniel Peterson]

Mr. Peterson, you often say this when folks complain about negative experiences in the "Church".

Yes, I do.

When critics claim that the Church seeks to control them by terror, that the Church teaches them to hate non-Mormons, that the Church favors and supports child molesters, that the Church teaches that science is satanic, and etc., this isn't even remotely consistent with my own experience (which is considerable on several of the inhabited continents, and rises to at least passing acquaintance on the rest). I don't recognize it.

This makes me wonder when you say "My church", what does that mean to you? How do you define "Church"?

It means the classes, conferences, scriptures, teachings, leadership, and typical membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

That there are likely to be outliers, anomalies, and exceptions in any very large group is obvious but not obviously significant.

The simple fact is that one doesn't hear sermons in the Church like Jonathan Edwards's famous "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." We don't have "hellfire and damnation" preachers. We don't emphasize hell. (Indeed, quite the opposite.) We don't emphasize Christ's sufferings but, rather, his resurrection. We don't teach the total depravity of humankind. We're a very sunny group, with a very optimistic theology. If we can be criticized on anything as a religious culture on this issue, it might be for sometimes going too far in the positive direction.

[Doctor Steuss]

I have been a member for many years. I guess I have been a simple minded member and have pretty much aligned myself with every teaching of the church exercising complete faith and moving what I believed to be forward. The truth is, I can no longer subscribe to fear-based religion of any kind. Any religion that uses fear as a way to control the masses is in my opinion in error. When I started questioning fear as a way to play on the emotions of the innocent masses, I started questioning other teachings of the church. SNIP Oh this is just the beginning of many discoveries which begged the question "IS MORMONISM JUST ANOTHER RELIGION?"

No discussion of temple content, please.

Hello Dance in the Light.

I'm sorry you see it as "fear-based." I happen to see it as more of a "rewards-based" religion. From my perspective, it doesn't try to motivate through fear, but through the promise of joy and a more enriched and full life. I might have trouble believing in the existence of G-d the majority of the time, but the philosophical and social systems of the church tend to not cause fear within me, but they seem to give me a more peaceful existence.

I hope that you are able to find the answers to whatever may have brought you to this. Sometimes when we find ourselves looking at the glass as half-empty, the best thing is to get a smaller glass.

Best of luck in your journeys, and I hope you find the peace that you seem to be longing for.

-Stu