"i've Come To The Conclusion That The Church Is Not True!"

[jwhitlock]

In my reading of D&C 1, LDS claims are expressly non-exlusive with respect to truth, revelation, and human virtue. Hence, the presence of truth, revelation and virtue outside the LDS experience has nothing whatsoever to do LDS truth claims.

Very well put. This non-exclusive aspect of the restored gospel is not well understood by some inside the Church, and by many outside the Church. Hence, the attempts to mischaracterize what we mean by "the true Church of Jesus Christ".

[jwhitlock]

The problem with Mormonism, is that the institution does not recognize that others can find it and discover such truths without them. The LDS church believes that the peace, harmony, joy etc, originate only through their rules and rituals of religion. If a person could separate the dogma from these "Christ centered principals", then people could pick and choose the parts or beliefs of Mormonism that resonated with them, and drop the ones that do not (drinking wine, sunday activities, non-church participation, certain doctrinal beliefs, to name a few). Since Mormonism does not work well this way, the rules and dogma of Mormonism actually force people on conviction of conscience to leave the organization altogether.

This is simply incorrect. As noted earlier, Mormonism does not claim to have a corner on truth, or peace, or joy, etc. Hence, those who leave Mormonism based on this premise have left it for the wrong reason.

[Luigi]

Well, because I have had spiritual confirmation that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true and that â??truthâ? is relative; truth is simply whatever God declares.

I have prayed to God to know whether Mormonism was true and whether it was not true, I received spiritual confirmations of both conclusions being 'correct'-what do you suggest I do? If we cannot get 'answers' from God in consistent ways then we conclude nothing from it.

"Why," because what a shame it would be to abandon the peace of a Gospel-centered life over a faulty paradigm.

I think if you tell people that you accept Mormonism because it gives you peace that's one thing, going around saying you know it's true and that it will give everyone peace because it gives you peace is quite another.

[Son]

I think that god would rather have a 'good' catholic than a catholic that would make a 'bad' mormon. What I am trying to say is that god knows us quite well. And a catholic can feel the spirit and god's pressence in their lives because he is in their lives. He is not abandoning people according to faith. Howewver, since mormonism does have the fullness of the gospel, he may expect more from the lds and satan may spend just a little extra time with the lds.

I understand that you have been taught and believe that the CoJCoLDS has the fulness of the gospel, but that does not make it so. I would agree that it's doctrine when properly understood gives one a great tool to receive a fullness of the gospel, but even Joseph Smith could not teach, nor take the church to the fullness, that is for Christ to do, to those that seek and find.

I have also heard this rational put forth about catholic priests. Because the catholic priesthood is god's priesthood, satan spends just a little extra time with priests and nuns. Perhaps so. Both the lds and catholic church still teach pure moral values.

yes, but they put themselves between God and His children.

[David Bokovoy]

David - How do you reconcile those in other faiths who have some sort of similar truth revelation about their respective faith or religion? Is someone wrong? Both churches cannot be true in the matter-of-fact way that religions believe themselves true.

No, not if God has told a person that his or her respective faith is true. Perhaps itâ??s all the truth that the individual needs at that point in his or her life.

Then you do not need a religion as the exclusive provider of truth if this scripture is true. The truth is independent and it exists in its "spheres" only to be discovered by the truth seeker, not given exclusively by an organization.

I agree with you in principle, but what if God has defined the religion itself as true. In that case, you and I clearly need the religion in our lives.

How do you know that the peace you have is not something already independent of the LDS church? The church may direct you to the principals that create this harmony, but per the scripture already cited, the truths that are currently bringing you happiness are independent of the LDS church.

I absolutely believe that the truths that are bringing me peace and spiritual harmony are independent of the LDS church.

If this were not true, then it would be impossible for non-LDS to find similar peace, and harmony that you describe. I think we both know that others outside of Mormonism have found it and some to a very profound degree.

Of course.

The problem with Mormonism, is that the institution does not recognize that others can find it and discover such truths without them.

Since the Church is made up of imperfect men and women holding various assignments of leadership given to them by God, certainly the institution has and will run into challenges. These shouldn't interfere with our spiritual commitment to the Restored Gospel.

The LDS church believes that the peace, harmony, joy etc, originate only through their rules and rituals of religion.

Iâ??m not convinced that this is what the LDS Church believes.

If a person could separate the dogma from these "Christ centered principals", then people could pick and choose the parts or beliefs of Mormonism that resonated with them, and drop the ones that do not (drinking wine, sunday activities, non-church participation, certain doctrinal beliefs, to name a few).

Are you really suggesting that somehow the LDS Church prohibits members from picking and choosing the parts and/or beliefs of Mormonism that they will or will not apply?!

Man, youâ??ve never been to any of my Wards!

[why me]

I understand that you have been taught and believe that the CoJCoLDS has the fulness of the gospel, but that does not make it so.

But for the lds it is so. And that is my point. It has more truths than other faiths according to the lds. However, I can see god's life in the lives of many people who are not lds. They believe in god and worship god in their own way. And I am sure that god is happy with this. I also believe that god could lead someone out of the lds church and into another church if that would mean a more righteous lifestyle for that person. I am referring to an inactive mormon who lives unrighteously.

[Son]

But for the lds it is so. And that is my point. It has more truths than other faiths according to the lds. However, I can see god's life in the lives of many people who are not lds. They believe in god and worship god in their own way. And I am sure that god is happy with this. I also believe that god could lead someone out of the lds church and into another church if that would mean a more righteous lifestyle for that person. I am referring to an inactive mormon who lives unrighteously.

I can agree with the more truths part, but not all truth, which is what a fullness represents. Only the Light of Christ (the Holy Spirit) can lead one into all truth, or the fullness of the Gospel. Being a member of any church does not give one the fullness, only living according to Christ does. Which is to grow in love to the point of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. The only acceptable sacrafices....

son

[why me]

I can agree with the more truths part, but not all truth,

son

I can agree with this. I suppose that what David is saying is having much to do with the reasons why mormons leave the church. What I have noticed is that many of those who have left were the unquestioning members, the dedicated ones who had church perfection drilled into them. For these people, any information that would not fit into this perception was deadly to their testimony. I think that David is only trying to get these exmos to see the church differently from the one they perceived which led to their resignation from the church membership roles. And he has a good point.

I remember many years ago as a young adult seeing very faithful young adults. Solid in their testimony and seeing perfection as a church institution. Now many years later I was told that some have left the fold. And yet, my inactive soul is still around. How to explain it?

[wenglund]

I appreciate very much David"s thougts on "paradigm shifts" or adjustments. I think that for those who may be struggling with faith, and who may wish to retain their faith, his points may prove very useful--though readily acknowledging that some people may experience, for reasons of their own, such a radical shift in paradigm that it no longer comports with the foundational beliefs of the Church or even religion in general.

Interesting thoughts...thank you. I like the term "paradigm shift," and offer a different view. Another possible paradigm shift may come when events in one's life creates logical conflict. The person may feel strongly about his/her spiritual witness, but is it possible that the interpretation of what it meant was not true? IOW, one may feel strongly that a particular story gives enlightenment and an intense feeling of love and compassion for others. Is it possible the story, thoughts, and prayers are all very positive events for the person, and because the person was taught/instructed that the feeling meant something more than that, he perceived it into his preconceived paradigm to be true?

In some ways, I see it the same as you. There have been several occasions where I have received what I believe to be divine directives, and after acting on the directives, was deeply disappointed to learn that the outcome that I had thought was supposed to happen, never came close to materializing.

However, rather than doubting the directive as divine (I have reasons of my own for unwavering confidence to this day that they were from God), I have come to realize that I had inadvertantly embued the directive with my own personal interpretations and wishes, whereas the directives were meant by God to be understood somewhat differently. In this way I experienced a paradigm shift which enabled me to retain faith in personal revelation, while increasing my ability to more accurately understand the personal revelations, or at least be patient and let the meaning or intended outcome of the revelation unfold to my mind in due time.

I have always believed that personal revelation from God is not the sole purview of LDS, but that God interacts, to varying degrees and diverse ways, with all his children. So, when I learn of people of other faiths having spiritual experiences (whether exactly like mine or similar in certain ways), this fits within my paradigm, and requires no shift in order to believe in personal revelation as a part of my own faith.

But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Paul Ray]

I think the focus of the OP mainly addressed the idea of recognizing where our ideas come from.

Is that right?

Our paradigm is basically our own personal perspective, which can be influenced by any number of things.

I think we should simply recognize what is involved in all of our thought processes while seeking to receive assurances from God to help us.

We are all involved in living by our own faith, in some sense, whether our faith comes from God or ourselves, and I think it helps to recognize that only God knows the truth about everything.

[Helorum]

an experience that I had with a student who came to the conclusion that the Church cannot be true because of something portrayed in the temple ceremony.

I will not discuss the details of temple worship, but suffice it to say that the student felt troubled over the fact that in D&C 129, the Lord reveals that "when a messenger comes saying he has a message from God,"â?we should offer him our hand and "request him to shake hands" (v. 4). The revelation states that if the messenger is a spirit of a just man that the angel will not move to shake hands with us, "for it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message" (v. 7).

Without going into details, the student felt that this revelation contradicts part of the ritual portrayal featured in the endowment. The individual felt troubled enough by this "contradiction" that he/or she had come to the conclusion that the Church is not true. . . .

The student assumed that the ritual presentation provided in the endowment was a literal portrayal of the events that actually occurred in the Garden of Eden.

The part this student was troubled about was a modification made, after the Prophet's death, for convenience in teaching. If they would have paid close attention to what is said to patrons at the end of the portion where the 'troubling' part occurs they could figure out that the troubling part does not refer to anything that happened in Garden of Eden times at all, but rather to a modern timeframe (familiarity with Nauvoo-era historical sources is necessary to understand this situation completely) -- hence, D&C 129 cannot be applied to the 'troubling' part in the way that they thought it should be. There really was no problem to begin with.

the contradiction that troubled the student was simply a symbolic portrayal that the student had misinterpreted.

Absolutely true.

The student used their brain to think through a problem (which is commendable), but they failed to use it for a sufficient amount of time.

[Paul Ray]

The student used their brain to think through a problem (which is comendable), but they failed to use it for a sufficient amount of time.

Time is not the cause of the problem.

The student simply didn't use his/her brain in the way that it was meant to be used.

I could think anything and keep thinking it forever. Time, alone, will not solve anything.

[David Bokovoy]

I think the focus of the OP mainly addressed the idea of recognizing where our ideas come from.

Is that right?

To an extent, yes. Itâ??s just that as of late, I have had a few conversations and read some posts where Church members are struggling with their testimonies over specific issues that I consider of secondary significance. Things, for example, that given my assumptions just don't bother me.

I mean what are the issues that lead a person to question LDS theology? Plural marriage, scientific observations, lack of historicity in the Book of Mormon, Blacks and the Priesthood, differences in the First Vision accounts, etc.

What Iâ??m trying to express is that all of these issues that lead people to question their spiritual experiences are really not problematic. Evidence may simply require that a person adopt a new paradigm in order to make sense of the truthfulness of the Church.

For example, the issue of discrepancies between the different First Vision accounts is only problematic in accordance with certain assumptions, some of which may not even reflect reality.

Whereas I suppose that a believing member could upon discovery of these discrepancies get him or herself worked up over the fact that Joseph Smith simply referred to â??the Lordâ? in his initial description of the First Vision, if a person simply shifts his or her paradigm to recognize a perspective in harmony with Matt Brownâ??s suggestions, namely that Josephâ??s first attempt to preserve in writing the details of his spiritual encounter was in direct harmony with the writings of Paul, then this new paradigm regarding the accounts does not present any challenges for the believer.

I would go so far as to apply this standard to the Book of Mormon. If a person becomes convinced that there simply is not enough evidence to support the historicity of the work, rather than abandoning oneâ??s spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the book, one simply needs to adopt a new paradigm which allows for God to have used Joseph Smith to produce inspired pseudeopigraphy.

No one ever needs to leave the Church over theology/history. Instead, people need to continually reassess their assumptions to fit whatever it is that the Lord has revealed.

In the end, our paradigms donâ??t really matter. None of us possess all truth. So in the meantime, we should use the critical thinking skills God has given us to evaluate assumptions, but recognize that if something doesnâ??t quite fit the paradigm we ourselves espouse or the paradigm that other well-meaning individuals have taught us, that this contradiction doesnâ??t mean that the Church is not true, only that our paradigm may be off.

[Helorum]

Time is not the cause of the problem.

The student simply didn't use his/her brain in the way that it was meant to be used.

I could think anything and keep thinking it forever. Time, alone, will not solve anything.

Just like the student, you have misinterpreted my meaning.

[juliann]

It dropped so low in my regard

I heard it hit the ground,

And go to pieces on the stones

At bottom of my mind;

Yet blamed the fate that fractured, less

Than I reviled myself

For entertaining plated wares

Upon my silver shelf.

-- Emily ****inson

I don't think I have seen a better expression of how we set ourselves up for disappointment. I think it was Nevo who posted it.

[Severian]

Of course many other illustrations of paradigm shifts could be provided. I have had to employ a variety of such shifts when faced with new evidence that contradicted my assumptions. Rather than doubting the Church, however, I have always doubted the paradigms I have used to interpret Mormonism.

Speaking personally, I view paradigm shifts as a far superior course of action than abandoning oneâ??s spiritual convictions.

This thinking is spot on: Instead of thinking the Earth on which we stand is rock solid, we need to account for continental drift through plate tectonics. Similarly, the lack of archaeological, linguistic and biological data to support the foundations of Mormonism gives rise to an appreciation of it on an allegorical level through the usage of symbolic interpretation.

[Paul Ray]

Just like the student, you have misinterpreted my meaning.

Will time, alone, tell me what you meant?

Will using my own brain, alone, tell me what you meant?

How will I ever know what you meant until you tell me what you meant.

Using my own brain, alone, will not solve anything even if I keep using my own brain forever.

I wonder how I will ever know what you meant.

... or what God meant or now knows about everything.

Paulray knock it off. do not start a personal squabble in this thread. ~ Mod

[phaedrus ut]

I had a spiritual witness regarding the truth of the Church, the Book of Mormon, the restoration and modern prophets. I shared that conviction and belief on many occasion. When I encountered conflicting information regarding my religion I considered it reasonable to not only examine the facts but to question my previous feelings and spiritual confirmations.

In my life I've encountered many many people from different religious backgrounds that have had equal witness and confirmation regarding of their choice of belief and religion. When I acknowledged that their experience was just as valid as my experience I made my paradigm shift. I realized that positive religious experience happened almost universally and wasn't evidence in itself. Two individuals seeking opposing answers could both get positive confirmation. Both would say the other hadn't had a real answer believing their own to be genuine.

Once I removed my requirement to belief my individual experience was a absolute truth it became much easier for me to examine the rest. I suppose that was my paradigm shift.

Phaedrus

[David Bokovoy]

I had a spiritual witness regarding the truth of the Church, the Book of Mormon, the restoration and modern prophets. I shared that conviction and belief on many occasion. When I encountered conflicting information regarding my religion I considered it reasonable to not only examine the facts but to question my previous feelings and spiritual confirmations.

In my life I've encountered many many people from different religious backgrounds that have had equal witness and confirmation regarding of their choice of belief and religion. When I acknowledged that their experience was just as valid as my experience I made my paradigm shift. I realized that positive religious experience happened almost universally and wasn't evidence in itself. Two individuals seeking opposing answers could both get positive confirmation. Both would say the other hadn't had a real answer believing their own to be genuine.

Once I removed my requirement to belief my individual experience was a absolute truth it became much easier for me to examine the rest. I suppose that was my paradigm shift.

Phaedrus

And you know, as long as you're living the Gospel standards and participating in full membership, I'm fine with your perspective. I think we need to have tolerance for the paradigms that each of us employs.

[BishopRic]

And you know, as long as you're living the Gospel standards and participating in full membership, I'm fine with your perspective. I think we need to have tolerance for the paradigms that each of us employs.

I don't know why you need to qualify this to be "fine" with his perspective. How 'bout "as long as you're living a life that gives you happiness and doesn't interfere with my ability to do so, I'm fine with your perspective"?

[Paul Ray]

When I encountered conflicting information regarding my religion I considered it reasonable to not only examine the facts but to question my previous feelings and spiritual confirmations.

Are you saying you questioned your own feelings or spiritual confirmations simply because somebody else disagreed with you?

How would someone else's feelings and spiritual confirmations cause you to question your own?

In what way did you question them?

... and why?

In my life I've encountered many many people from different religious backgrounds that have had equal witness and confirmation regarding of their choice of belief and religion. When I acknowledged that their experience was just as valid as my experience I made my paradigm shift. I realized that positive religious experience happened almost universally and wasn't evidence in itself. Two individuals seeking opposing answers could both get positive confirmation. Both would say the other hadn't had a real answer believing their own to be genuine.

So what is your goal now?

Do you realize you will never agree with everyone, no matter how you feel or what you think about something?

There will always be believers and unbelievers... always.

There will never come a day when everyone is in agreement.

Once I removed my requirement to believe my individual experience was a absolute truth it became much easier for me to examine the rest. I suppose that was my paradigm shift.

Please explain what your paradigm is now for all of us?

Please tell us how you truly feel and what you think about anything/everything, while being nice.

Do not make this personal. These questions are inappropriate. ~ Mods

[Luigi]

I don't know why you need to qualify this to be "fine" with his perspective. How 'bout "as long as you're living a life that gives you happiness and doesn't interfere with my ability to do so, I'm fine with your perspective"?

Amen

[phaedrus ut]

And you know, as long as you're living the Gospel standards and participating in full membership, I'm fine with your perspective. I think we need to have tolerance for the paradigms that each of us employs.

I've recognized that you've been able to maintain your belief because of your ability to be flexible and step away from a lot of the black and white orthodoxy on many issues. I respect that.

As far as living the "Gospel standards" and being active . . . I hate to disappoint you but neither of those are relevant to me. I have neither resigned not been ex'd. I do deliberately live a moral giving life trying to help the poor, needy and improve the world around me. I'd say I take the teachings of Jesus the man from Nazareth as very important but I take a non-literal approach to the Bible in general.

It's funny but since my paradigm shift I am a much better husband, father, son, man, person, human etc. I don't follow a set of arbitrary rules and define my success by such conformity but rather I choose specifically to be good, compassionate, helpful, loving. It may be my life needed the extra bandwidth of inactivity but it's been nicely liberating.

Phaedrus

The "nonabsolutist, nonexclusivist, nondoctrinal, and nonliteral Mormon"*

//*I stole that from Marcus Borg

[David Bokovoy]

I don't know why you need to qualify this to be "fine" with his perspective. How 'bout "as long as you're living a life that gives you happiness and doesn't interfere with my ability to do so, I'm fine with your perspective"?

Because I've interacted with Phaedrus ut on line now for a couple of years, recognize the specific issues that led to his shift--including the unique education and academic environment he experienced, and I honestly care about the man's spiritual and emotional well-being.

I also care about his family.

And because I don't believe Phaedurs Ut will ever be fully content outside of active and complete Church participation.

[David Bokovoy]

It's funny but since my paradigm shift I am a much better husband, father, son, man, person, human etc. I don't follow a set of arbitrary rules and define my success by such conformity but rather I choose specifically to be good, compassionate, helpful, loving. It may be my life needed the extra bandwidth of inactivity but it's been nicely liberating.

Well, perfect then. What more could I want for you.