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

[Bob Crockett]

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"?

Jesus didn't teach that knowledge would come that way. John 7:17. Under Jesus's teaching, it is impossible to fall out of knowledge of the truth of the resurrection, the atonement and the restoration as long as one is adhering to the teachings of Jesus.

Now, I fully acknowledge the inherent problems with that approach. One must do and walk the act of a Christian before one really knows. But, it seems to be the Lord's approach.

rcrocket

[BishopRic]

Phaedrus

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

//*I stole that from Marcus Borg

Nice! I went to Marcus Borg's talk a few months back. One phrase he used that I like was:

"The Bible is true, and some of it happened."

[BishopRic]

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.

I guess I don't know the history, or if you are a family member...but if not, is it your responsibility to fix him?

[J Green]

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

One principle or paradigm I have come to appreciate is what I would call the "Lehi Principle." Given the same set of circumstances in Jerusalem, several prophets were asked stay and give their lives, others to go into exile in Babylon, others to Egypt, and Lehi to a different, promised land--all presumably through inspiration or revelation to some extent (or by divine will). Speaking of politics, in his biography President Faust says that he believes the Lord would want good, inspired men in both major political parties, leading me to the opinion that two good, honest men could equally be inspired or led to contribute to causes that may seem mutually exclusive to us or them. I've seen this in my own life as well. After comparing revelatory notes, one option--as you suggest--is to question the revelation itself. However, an altenative, as David suggests, would be to look at the assumptions we hold about revelation and about LDS doctrine vis-a-vis revelation among all God's children, whether in or out of the LDS Church. Like others here, I too have an abiding faith in the truthfulness of the Gospel as taught in the LDS Church, and yet some of my most rewarding experiences have been discussing and comparing spiritual experiences with some of my childhood friends from different faiths and denominations.

[David Bokovoy]

I guess I don't know the history, or if you are a family member...but if not, is it your responsibility to fix him?

I'm a Church educator; I'm in the buisness of fixing people.

[Severian]

Nice! I went to Marcus Borg's talk a few months back. One phrase he used that I like was:

"The Bible is true, and some of it happened."

Gotta love Marcus Borg.

[Olavarria]

You are so right on David. Like Nibley pointed out, for most people our first hearing of a story, especially a childhood hearing, tends to become the unchanging version, the only true version we will ever accept. But first childhood hearings tend to be oversimplified and are presented as fairytales.

One of the things I like about Rough Stone Rolling is what I see as a more complete depiction of Joseph. He was an ordinary man with extraordinary faith, his faith was so great that like the brother of Jared, the Lord could no longer hide from him. So, he was the chosen messenger, a prophet, but still an ordinary man with failings and short comings who did his best to present power, authority,ordinances, laws and a view of reality that is extraordinary, perfect and eternal. He was a man trying to do the work of God and that ain't easy; just look at Noah. I personally find the idea of an imperfect, and some times clumsy, prophet far more uplifting; because it makes me think I still have a chance.

Its not my role to judge anyone, but I have a sneaking suspicsion that some people find it alot easier to stop paying tithing, being chaste, excerting faith in living prophets, attending temple regularly, sanctifying the sabbath, attending meetings, magnifying a calling etc than to rethink the misconceptions they learned during primary. I hope Im wrong.

I for one am very "fundamentalist mormon" in many of my doctrinal views, so much so that I dont share them with others, especially girls. But, I will say this: I think missionary work, strenthening families and the work of the temple is far more important than any 19th centuary doctrinal flavor that I prefer.

Or in other words, what you do with the restored gospel is far more important that what you think about it.

[phaedrus ut]

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?

My studies led me to question the historicity of the BOM.

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.

Yes I agree with you Paul. What I was saying is that I acknowledge the validity of not only my own answer but theirs. That positive a religious answer or feelings should not be the sole basis for accepting the BOM, Scientology, or the Primacy of the Pope.

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.

Well my paradigm can easily be explained by the signature line I used above "nonabsolutist, nonexclusivist, nondoctrinal, and nonliteral Mormon". I have no trouble being nice that's why I've been around here for so long and have never been queued . As far as telling you what I think about anything/everything that might derail the thread but I'd be happy to discuss what's on topic.

Phaedrus

[phaedrus ut]

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

I too have liked David and our conversations. But I'd have to say I'm a bit surprised by this. It seems to be a bit of argumentum a silentio and a big assumption. I don't doubt that you believe exactly what you said is true and I don't think you said it with malice.

I was very happy living in full church activity. I enjoyed teaching, leadership, working in the temple, even my home teaching. And surprising enough I'm at least as happy and fulfilled not if not more. I hope David can live a life where he is fully content either inside or outside the church.

Phaedrus

[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.

Am I reading this right? The unquestioning ones and the dedicated perfectionists left when they found errors in doctrinal interpretation or actions of leaders that did not reflect the teachings of the church?

So the church no longer teaches the importance of perfection due to people leaving?Or they have tempered the possibility or ?

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?

So you don't agree with perfection as being something to be had, so you remain a member? Whereas those that thought it possible left, mostlikely due to failing in the pursuit? Or due to the church teaching something they thought to be innaccurate?

I'm just trying to understand this, I did not realize that the church no longer expects perfection to be held as a pursuit.

[Paul Ray]

What I was saying is that I acknowledge the validity of not only my own answer but theirs. That positive a religious answer or feelings should not be the sole basis for accepting the BOM, Scientology, or the Primacy of the Pope.

... that positive a religious answer or feelings should not be the sole basis for accepting... something?

What does that mean ???

What do you believe should be our basis for (knowing and) accepting the truth concerning something?

Well my paradigm can easily be explained by the signature line I used above "nonabsolutist, nonexclusivist, nondoctrinal, and nonliteral Mormon".

So you don't believe in absolute truth, in any sense?

Are you absolutely sure about that?

And what do you mean by saying you're a "nondoctrinal"... Mormon?

What is your ideas of doctrine? Can you teach me a little something about that?

As far as telling you what I think about anything/everything that might derail the thread but I'd be happy to discuss what's on topic.

That would be nice.

Please feel free to begin... and/or continue... when you are ready to share.

[David Bokovoy]

I too have liked David and our conversations. But I'd have to say I'm a bit surprised by this.

I apologize if my comment came across as judgmental. It certainly wasnâ??t intended that way. Iâ??m not assuming anything about your life, other than the fact that you are an intelligent, thoughtful, kind hearted individual. However, Iâ??ve seen enough evidence to believe that this perspective is not a mere assumption on my part.

Since I believe that the Church is true, I therefore believe that no one can ever experience complete happiness in this life outside of regular participation in not only the Gospel standards, but also outside the Church as an institution.

And since I do quite like you, and since you refer to yourself as a â??nonabsolutist, nonexclusivist, nondoctrinal, and nonliteral Mormon,â? based upon what I believe will bring the greatest happiness to you and your family, I simply offered my genuine hope that the non-traditional paradigm you espouse will never keep you away from the Church that I personally believe will bring the greatest spiritual return.

[BishopRic]

Since I believe that the Church is true, I therefore believe that no one can ever experience complete happiness in this life outside of regular participation in not only the Gospel standards, but also outside the Church as an institution.

Is this a common attitude in the church today? I grew up with it, but have been told it is not expressed much anymore. I was surprised to read this.

[wenglund]

Or in other words, what you do with the restored gospel is far more important than what you think about it.

I liked this so much I thought it worth repeating.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[oats]

Ric,

D+C 14:7 "And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God."

This was at the end of Dallin H Oaks' recent talk titled "Good, Better, Best". There are lots of good things, but the gospel is the best.

[David Bokovoy]

Is this a common attitude in the church today? I grew up with it, but have been told it is not expressed much anymore. I was surprised to read this.

I suppose it's expressed enough to lead a fairly impressive missionary force into the world in order to bring the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ into the lives of those who are presently outside the Church.

[wenglund]

Is this a common attitude in the church today? I grew up with it, but have been told it is not expressed much anymore. I was surprised to read this.

For what it may be worth, whether mentioned much or not, I think David's comment is a fundamental assumption of those with confident beliefs in most any belief system--particularly those of a religious nature. At least it may be found explicitely and implicitly stated in the LDS scriptures, and I personally ascribe to it, though I don't find it all that useful to say in interfaith discussions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[juliann]

Is this a common attitude in the church today? I grew up with it, but have been told it is not expressed much anymore. I was surprised to read this.

That you can't find complete happiness? There is a Mormon theological basis for "complete" you know. Of course...there would be no use for a church that claimed men is that he might have joy if that was not an underlying belief. That has nothing to do with finding happiness and having a successful life without the church, however. Surely you aren't going to tell me that you don't think in your heart of hearts that your loved ones wouldn't really be more complete without the church?

I mean really...can't we just stand back and admit this without it being a condemnation? I sure hope that whatever you center your life around has a basis and you aren't just doing it to be doing it.

[Tchild2]

Since I believe that the Church is true, I therefore believe that no one can ever experience complete happiness in this life outside of regular participation in not only the Gospel standards, but also outside the Church as an institution.

This seems to be a familiar, if not always vocally stated position of active LDS members. That is probaby why continued activity in the church continues for those believers. I don't know if there is much that someone could say to you to convince you otherwise, as it is such a subjectively intrepreted worldview. But, I would hope that you could keep your mind open, at least to the possibility that for non LDS, even ex-LDS persons, such happiness is attainable and possible.

However, you do have the luxury of having multiple testimonials (by virtue of participating on these boards) by all sorts of ex-LDS that finding happiness and contentment outside of Mormonism is indeed possible. If you choose not to accept those "testimonies", that would be information that you consciencely ignore despite the evidence to the contrary.

[BishopRic]

For what it may be worth, whether mentioned much or not, I think David's comment is a fundamental assumption of those with confident beliefs in most any belief system--particularly those of a religious nature. At least it may be found explicitely and implicitly stated in the LDS scriptures, and I personally ascribe to it, though I don't find it all that useful to say in interfaith discussions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As usual, I think you're right all the way around. I know it's easy for me to think my "faith" allows the most happiness in this life...but I know sometimes my spiritual arrogance shines through with bad judgment!

[BishopRic]

That you can't find complete happiness? There is a Mormon theological basis for "complete" you know. Of course...there would be no use for a church that claimed men is that he might have joy if that was not an underlying belief. That has nothing to do with finding happiness and having a successful life without the church, however. Surely you aren't going to tell me that you don't think in your heart of hearts that your loved ones wouldn't really be more complete without the church?

I mean really...can't we just stand back and admit this without it being a condemnation? I sure hope that whatever you center your life around has a basis and you aren't just doing it to be doing it.

I tried to follow your thoughts here, and I may have misunderstood, but I will say that I believe that my two active children are extremely happy with their LDS lifestyle. I wouldn't want to change that in any way.

My two inactive children are equally happy in theirs, and I wouldn't want to change that either. Neither would be as happy in the opposite paradigm, IMO.

[David Bokovoy]

That you can't find complete happiness? There is a Mormon theological basis for "complete" you know. Of course...there would be no use for a church that claimed men is that he might have joy if that was not an underlying belief. That has nothing to do with finding happiness and having a successful life without the church, however. Surely you aren't going to tell me that you don't think in your heart of hearts that your loved ones wouldn't really be more complete without the church?

I mean really...can't we just stand back and admit this without it being a condemnation? I sure hope that whatever you center your life around has a basis and you aren't just doing it to be doing it.

Thanks Sister 666.

One shouldn't have to highlight the term "complete" in order to be understood. Just to clarify, however, Juliann, expressed my views better than I did. I certainly believe that even people who leave the LDS Church can find happiness and lead a very successful life. Since I believe in the Church, however, I do not believe that their happiness can be complete.

If I did, well.... I suppose that I wouldn't be a member of the Church. I can think of a lot of easier life styles than the Mormon Country Club. Heck, I don't even like to hometeach!

[jwhitlock]

Thanks Sister 666.

One shouldn't have to highlight the term "complete" in order to be understood. Just to clarify, however, Juliann, expressed my views better than I did. I certainly believe that even people who leave the LDS Church can find happiness and lead a very successful life. Since I believe in the Church, however, I do not believe that their happiness can be complete.

If I did, well.... I suppose that I wouldn't be a member of the Church. I can think of a lot of easier life styles than the Mormon Country Club. Heck, I don't even like to hometeach!

I agree that many outside the Church lead very happy and fulfilled lives. The more the better.

I don't think that even many in the Church understand fully what this concept of "complete" happiness is. Many members of the Church are no happier in general than many outside of the Church. However, those who have experienced, only for short moments, the unspeakable joy of complete happiness that occurs in those rare times when the covenants we have made all come together, will understand that "complete" happiness can only truly occur within the covenant structure of the Church.

[Mighty Curelom]

Since I believe that the Church is true, I therefore believe that no one can ever experience complete happiness in this life outside of regular participation in not only the Gospel standards, but also outside the Church as an institution.

That's too bad, considering the Church "as an institution" has only existed for the last century and a half, and for most of that time membership numbers were even more minuscule than they are today. Which means nobody in the history of the human race has achieved "complete happiness" outside a numerically insignificant group of recent invention. That's a pretty dim view of humanity, if you ask me. A God whose plan includes sending virtually every one of his children into the world without even the hope of "complete happiness" sounds like a rather nasty individual.

But then, maybe that's another "assumption" that requires a "paradigm shift." Speaking of which, it seems to me that in the context of this conversation, paradigm shift is just another word for ad hoc rationalization. Whenever a negative conclusion can be drawn, it isn't the facts that make the church look bad, it's your assumptions. Joseph changed his first vision story? Not a problem. The assumption that people don't change essential elements of life-changing events when relating them is the real problem. Joseph tricked people into paying him to find treasure with a magic rock (unsuccessfully)? Not a problem. The real problem is the assumption that future prophets don't dabble in the occult, and dupe the credulous into paying for spurious services.

The interesting thing is, nobody has to be indoctrinated into these "problematic assumptions." One needn't even be reminded of them for their impact to be significant. When a critic points out that Joseph neglected to mention God and Jesus in his earliest account of the first vision, the critic doesn't have to explicitly inform the reader of the implications. Our life experiences have taught us, universally, the signs of deception. Our life experiences have taught us that if a man would con his neighbors into paying him to use a magic rock to find buried treasure, that man cannot be trusted when he claims to use the same magic rock to produce scripture. And now, when we apply the lessons life life to the origins of Mormonism, we are told our assumptions are wrong. Your life experiences--the sum total of all you have learned by living day in and day out, by dealing with people in social and business settings--are wrong. Who are you going to believe--me or your lying eyes?

[juliann]

My two inactive children are equally happy in theirs, and I wouldn't want to change that either. Neither would be as happy in the opposite paradigm, IMO.

But you don't really know that. We are talking about what we think and believe. There are things I do because I have to do them...but the things that give me joy and hope are those things I do because I have a conviction of rightness or ultimate good. There is no way I would be in a church this high maintenance if I didn't truly believe it offered the best possible way to access the meaningful things in life. Having lost a spouse, there is no way I would ever be convinced that the LDS church did not offer the most hope and peace and we have unique thoughts on that. However, we all have an inherent interest in improving everyone's lives and ensuring that they are happy and productive citizens. I don't need to convince everyone to think like I do....but I most certainlly don't need to tear them down and then expect them to be good neighbors or take the world in a positive direction. That is where I fault the antis.

Our life experiences have taught us, universally, the signs of deception. Our life experiences have taught us that if a man would con his neighbors into paying him to use a magic rock to find buried treasure, that man cannot be trusted when he claims to use the same magic rock to produce scripture.

Rock in the strawman alert!