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

[gitxsanartist]

No exmormon has explained to me why JS would need to write a book to create a religion. He would have made a wonderful Methodist minister.

Your are correct, if JS simply wanted to start a new religion he would have done just that. The BofM was an attempt to make some money. Recall his wanting to sell the copyright in Canada...

[grego]

Imputing motives to others is, indeed, a fatal flaw in many instances, Ric.

Your are correct, if JS simply wanted to start a new religion he would have done just that. The BofM was an attempt to make some money. Recall his wanting to sell the copyright in Canada...

[LifeOnaPlate]

Your are correct, if JS simply wanted to start a new religion he would have done just that. The BofM was an attempt to make some money. Recall his wanting to sell the copyright in Canada...

Speaking of imputing motives...

I wonder why he didn't abandon it after deciding not to sell it for the copyright. I also wonder why on earth he thought anyone would be interested in it given his story behind it with angels and visions, and all that crazy stuff. Money! The obvious motive! There was such a huge market for pseudo-Bibles back then; it was a brilliant scheme.

[BishopRic]

Imputing motives to others is, indeed, a fatal flaw in many instances, Ric.

Yes it is...and I'm sure we see it on both sides of the LDS debate aisle. But I think civility has a better chance when both of us cease attempts to describe another's experiences and thoughts.

[David Bokovoy]

But they wouldn't even know without the proverbial putting on the other person's shoes would they? I will gladly plead guilty to a bit of post-modernism but I don't think we can know what we can't experience. That is why spirituality is so critical to me...it is one of the few things that does not depend on the knowledge of others. They can't experience my spirituality and I can't transfer it..and vice versa. It gets back to all of our knowledge being socially constructed. We can only know what we know. If there is something out there that we don't know about we can't know about it no matter how real it is. So anyway, I don't think we can know what someone else would think or feel...but I can certainly believe it.

I'm quite serious when I suggest that I really like Juliann's perspective. The prospect of directing programs, even on a local level, has always made me feel a bit nauseous.

This summer I read Boyd Petersenâ??s biography on Nibley. I really couldn't believe what a kindred spirit he was on so many levels; believing LDS, politically liberal Democrat, etc. Though over the years, I've disagreed with some of his perspectives, I've always held a somewhat reverential respect for Nibley as pioneer. After reading the book, however, one would be hard pressed to find a bigger Nibley fan.

The best quote from the book honestly couldnâ??t have resonated more with my persona:

â??For nothing do I thank my Heavenly Father more fervidly than his singular bounty in sparing me all the days of my life from the toils and distractions of Administrationâ? Hugh Nibley, as cited in Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life, 336.

Of course I was the Ward Sunday School President for a short while, so I canâ??t quite say that like Nibley Iâ??ve been spared all my life from the toils and distractions of Administration. So if I can somehow skip out on the whole governing worlds option, you won't hear any complaints.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yes it is...and I'm sure we see it on both sides of the LDS debate aisle. But I think civility has a better chance when both of us cease attempts to describe another's experiences and thoughts.

In a perfect world, Ric!

David: you ought to read Sgt. Nibley. Excellent book.

[Mighty Curelom]

Though Iâ??m not preachy about my position, in truth, however, Iâ??m actually a pretty staunch universalist, with a belief that all human beings will eventually progress to the exaltation envisioned within Mormonism.

Which means that my view actually allows for people of other faiths to receive revelatory experiences leading them along a different course, dependent entirely upon how much truth and light they are currently prepared to receive.

This doesn't resolve the issue. It doesn't address the problem inherent in distinguishing genuine revelation from naturalistic experiences that only seem divine. Even if you sidestep the issue of contradictory revelations by chalking up those contradictions to God leading people "along a different course," we still have no way to establish that anyone is receiving divine transmissions. It could be that God is directing you to be Mormon, the Pope to be Catholic, and your next door neighbor to practice Voodoo, or it could be that you're all reacting to a completely naturalistic experience that has nothing to do with God. There's no way to tell, so putting all your eggs in the "spiritual witness" basket is unjustifiable.

Also, the fact that you're a Universalist is irrelevant to the issue. Just because you believe everyone will be saved doesn't make it so. If you're basing your universalism on information received via revelation, you would be guilty of circular reasoning.

In spiritual matters, what do you suppose should trump spiritual sensory witnesses?

I don't understand the question. What are "spiritual matters"? If you mean "emotional matters," then objective truth is irrelevant. Any truth you discover through emotion is tautological, and can only give insight into your emotions themselves. If praying on a rosary or sacrificing chickens makes you happy, then it makes you happy. It doesn't, however, mean that sacrificing chickens will appease the Gods and make the crops grow better.

The flip side to this question is: what do you suppose should trump physical sensory witnesses?

Objective sensory information via mechanical, non-biological sources. Even if I feel chilly, I can be persuaded that it's warmer than my subjective experiences tell me if a thermometer says so. Two thermometers would be even better.

[LifeOnaPlate]

This doesn't resolve the issue. It doesn't address the problem inherent in distinguishing genuine revelation from naturalistic experiences that only seem divine.

The problem with this is believing revelation can't involve natural aspects.

[Ron Beron]

David writes,

In these moments, perhaps before doubting our spiritual convictions, we should approach our concerns from the perspective of a paradigm shift, meaning a change in the basic assumptions concerning Mormonism that we hold to be true.

In other words, perhaps the only thing that we have encountered that is untrue is our basic assumption concerning the doctrine and/or historical information rather than the Church itself.

Rather than abandoning the Church of Jesus Christ, I believe that every issue that ever troubles our members may simply require a paradigm shift.

I was confronted with issues similar to this years ago. In fact, because I was finding areas of conflict I had considered leaving the church. I then remember something I read in a book called "Musashi" by Eiji Yoshikawa which is about the famous swordsman, Musashi Miyamoto. There is a passage in the book where Musashi is confronted with his fears and apprehensions about his skills and the abilities of others. In response he draws his sword and cuts a statue of a Buddha in half. After that he could then confront any danger without fear.

In Chan or Zen philosophy this argument is quite simple. Many of us in our desire to achieve enlightenment or truth too quickly often succumb to desire truth all at once and too fast. We become bound to earthly desires and fears. Our "Buddhas" are simply the illusion of our fantasies of the truth as we see it. By ridding ourselves of the "paradigms" in which you speak we can then free ourselves of phony truth and replace it with real truth. It actually did a lot to save my spiritual life. In other words, if you want to change your life, change your mind.

[John Williams]

Juliann's perspective is no doubt much more congruent with basic LDS beliefs than my position. My views cannot be taken as reflective of LDS/CES/ or anyone else's position. It's just the way I see the world and I've posted my thoughts in the hope that they might prove of some assistance to those who struggle.

Your statements here seem eerily similar to things I said in the past. I suspect that we all have a breaking point at which we realize that we might be wrong, after all. If we're wrong about basic spiritual beliefs, no amount of paradigm adjusting is going to make a bit of difference.

What you are describing is a privileging of a certain kind of paradigm as being better at discovering truth than all others. But in the end it's just a paradigm with no special relationship to "truth." But if it works for you, then it works for you.

[spinner]

Is there ever a good reason to abandon Mormonism?

Not if one has obtained a spiritual witness from God concerning the truthfulness of the Church. Still, throughout our lives, many of us encounter pieces of doctrinal and/or historical information that appears to indicate that we have been deceived, that in fact Mormonism is not true.

In these moments, perhaps before doubting our spiritual convictions, we should approach our concerns from the perspective of a paradigm shift, meaning a change in the basic assumptions concerning Mormonism that we hold to be true.

In other words, perhaps the only thing that we have encountered that is untrue is our basic assumption concerning the doctrine and/or historical information rather than the Church itself.

Rather than abandoning the Church of Jesus Christ, I believe that every issue that ever troubles our members may simply require a paradigm shift. I could provide many examples that support my view, but the one that comes immediately to mind is 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 â??when a messenger comes saying he has a message from God,â? we should offer him our hand and â??request him to shake handsâ? (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, â??for it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his messageâ? (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 â??contradictionâ? that he/or she had come to the conclusion that the Church is not true.

In this instance, I tied to explain that perhaps what is not true is not the Church itself, but rather the paradigm that the student used to interpret the endowment. 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.

I explained that since I do not hold that assumption that I have never found the contradiction troubling. Rather than a literal portrayal of actual events, I view the endowmentâ??and the story of Eden for that matterâ??as a ritual drama intended to covey important doctrine and principles concerning our spiritual journey into the presence of God.

Hence, according to my assumptions the contradiction that troubled the student was simply a symbolic portrayal that the student had misinterpreted.

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.

David, thank you for starting a very interesting thread. I am a late joiner but nevertheless hope to add a couple of thoughts here, and I've skimmed all the posts but my apologies if I'm repeating points that others may have already made.

You conclude that "paradigm shifts [are] a far superior course of action than abandoning one's spiritual convictions." This idea (i.e., shifting paradigms is superior to modifying a person's spiritual belief) is, however, a very questionable paradigm itself. In reality you are advocating the enshrinement of this particular paradigm--always trusting and deferring to supposed spiritual witnesses--above all others.

I find this advocation troubling for two reasons: first, as many others have pointed out, is the subjectivity and mutability of 'spiritual experiences'.

Secondly, I do not believe that other paradigms should be abandoned so casually. For instance, one factor that people frequently point to in leaving the church is surprise/dismay over Joseph Smith's actions. Leaving aside the historical question over whether their dismay is justified, let's consider the competing paradigms. These people leave because they subscribed to a paradigm that leaders (and particularly one so notable as Joseph Smith) should be honorable and moral men. Such is not a paradigm that I think should be so lightly abandoned; on the contrary if forced to choose between this paradigm and the paradigm of always deferring to spiritual evidences, I feel it is justified to question those spiritual experiences. These 'paradigms' are not mere points of view but are often foundational moral principles which should not be readily discarded or casually modified.

[why me]

Your are correct, if JS simply wanted to start a new religion he would have done just that. The BofM was an attempt to make some money. Recall his wanting to sell the copyright in Canada...

At times I just go for the basics. Why would JS or Sidney need a book of mormon for starting a new religion? Heck, if JS was that intelligent in understanding the bible, he would have made a great preacher. And Sidney too. Together they could have formed a great protestant sect. I see no purpose in writing the book of mormon at all. It would have been a useless and thankless task. In fact it was a thankless task to bring it forth when one reads what happened next. In fact, if the lds church is ever proven to be a fraud, I would lose my respect for Joseph based on that book of mormon blunder.

I even have some names that would have been successful for Joseph or Sidney in naming a church:

The United Methodist Reformed Church

The Universal Methodist Church of Palmyra

The Unitarian Reformed Church of Christ, Jesus

The list is endless.

No I see no reason for slaving away on the book of mormon. A great preacher could have introduced some BofM doctrine in sermons without publishing the book. For after all, if the book is a fraud, those ideas in it would still make great sermons. King Ben's speech would have been a classic from the pulpit with slight modifications.

[why me]

I think that the biggest problem with the statement: I've come to the coclusion that the church is not true' is that it works for some people. It is a great line to give out. Then, the victimization role takes root for extra flavor.

I think that both David and Juliann have interesting takes on it all. However, I also see it as one of making the simple, complicated. The lds church in its simplicity can come across as a great church with a great story behind it. But when people take the simple and make it complicated, the trouble begins. I believe that this why the bible warns us against complicating that what is simple. For after all, the bible more or less says that we should look at god as a child looks at a butterfly.

Likewise, with the lds church. We should look at its story as a child would. There is nothing unbelieveable in the story from a child's eyes. The story contains great beauty in its simplicity and it makes a lot of sense in its simplicity.

[Deborah]

I don't understand the question. What are "spiritual matters"? If you mean "emotional matters," then objective truth is irrelevant. Any truth you discover through emotion is tautological, and can only give insight into your emotions themselves.

I know it's hard to understand for someone who hasn't experienced it, but once again a spiritual conversion is not based on emotion. In fact emotion may not even be involved. It is based on impressions, yes, and insights. But those don't come out of nothing. They are preceded by study and meditation and prayer. There is work that goes with it. Sometimes our spiritual confirmation of what is right doesn't even conform to what we may emotionally want to do.

[Kevin Christensen]

FWIW, I have written a few long essays on what paradigms are, how they structure our experience, and how we choose between and occasionally move between paradigms. For instance, "Paradigms Crossed" in RBBM 7/2.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...view&id=193

And I have a three part Meridian essay that offers "A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience," which shows that there is far more to it than subjective sentimentality.

Those I shall discuss in this paper (following Barbour) can be seen as generally framing a movement:

From responses to external impressions regarding:

Order and creativity in the world, the

Common mythic symbols and patterns underlying most religious traditions

Key historical events that define separate traditions and bind individuals

Through the innermost experiences of the individual:

Numinous awe and reverence [1]

Mystical union

Moral obligation

Reorientation and Reconciliation with respect to personal sin, guilt, and weakness, the existence of evil, suffering, and death, and tensions between science and faith.

Then returning to the external world as human action:

Personal dialogue where you begin interpret external events as God speaking to you, and you answer through your own actions.

Social and Ritual behavior

These matters cannot objectively prove the existence of a God (whether personal or impersonal), but, as I hope to demonstrate, they do constitute the core of religious experience for believers. They provide the ground of experience on which reasoned and feeling assessments of the validity and worth of faith are based. They encompass the ways in which spirituality is manifest in history and symbol.

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/0...Experience.html

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/060215model.html

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Daniel2]

Is there ever a good reason to abandon Mormonism?

Of course there is. There are many.

Is there ever a good reason to stay within Mormonism?

Of course there is. There are many.

In my experience, the decisions we face in life are often a mixture of decisions which may have "good"--but conflicting--ramifications, just as they are often a mixture of decisions which may have "bad"--and conflictin--ramifications. The challenge is to personally discern between "good" and "better," not necessarily "good" and "bad."

That which is "good" for me may not considered to be "good" for others. For me, life's oppurtunities and abudnance have been much greater outside the church, than in. The "good reasons" to leave FAR outweighed "the good reasons" to stay, even as leaving meant painfully loosing some of those "good things." I've never second-guessed my decision to leave, even as I regret and/or mourn the loss of "the good stuff."

Darin

[Son]

"Receive a fullness now"? So why are you still here, and not with the city of Enoch?

Because I am a weak hypocrite that still holds to the possibility of becoming a son of God.

I'm not even worthy to be a member of the CoJCoLDS nor get a temple reccomend.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thomas B. Marsh, the senior apostle of the Quorum of the Twelve, left the Church after losing confidence in Joseph Smith. It is likely the rift developed over land deals of which Marsh disapproved, and he also felt Joseph was giving more honor to the High Council in Kirtland rather than the Twelve who were supposed to stand "equal" in authority with the First Presidency.

His example is not all-inclusive, but illustrates a common attitude I've seen in some folks who leave the Church. Marsh described his feelings later after rejoining the Church:

"I became jealous of the prophet, and then I saw double and overlooked everything that was right and all my time in looking for the evil ... I felt angry and wrathful; and the Spirit of the Lord being gone, as the Scriptures say, I was blinded, and I thought I saw a beam in brother Joseph's eye, but it was nothing but a mote, and my own eye was filled with the beam; but I thought I saw a beam in his, and I wanted to get it out; I got mad and wanted everybody else to be mad.

I talked with Brother Brigham and Brother Heber and I wanted them to be mad like myself; and I saw they were not mad, and I got madder still because they were not."

Marsh had left the Church and didn't return until almost two decades later.

[wenglund]

I don't understand the question. What are "spiritual matters"?

It is not possible for you to understand the question as long as your mind is closed to or denies the very thing being asked about. So, never mind. ;-)

Objective sensory information via mechanical, non-biological sources. Even if I feel chilly, I can be persuaded that it's warmer than my subjective experiences tell me if a thermometer says so. Two thermometers would be even better.

Ah...but how can one know what the thermometer says absent biological senses? How could the thermometer even exist absent biological senses? And, how can one have gained confidence in the thermometer absent biological senses? The thermometer, then, is meaningless without the biological senses, and dependant upon the biological senses, and thus the biological senses ultimately trump the thermometer.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tchild2]

I know it's hard to understand for someone who hasn't experienced it, but once again a spiritual conversion is not based on emotion. In fact emotion may not even be involved. It is based on impressions, yes, and insights. But those don't come out of nothing. They are preceded by study and meditation and prayer. There is work that goes with it. Sometimes our spiritual confirmation of what is right doesn't even conform to what we may emotionally want to do.

I have experienced it -- and deeply. Of course, in retrospect, that connection was to something sacred within, it was not that some organization was "true". If a testimony were only that some external religious body were true, then it stands to reason, that only LDS could ever hope to attain that spiritual witness or sense as is so commonly described. The point that keeps being made and seems to be lost on members, is that if others outside of Mormonism are experiencing this same non-emotional spiritual witness, then the spiritual witness is either an inner experience, or it is not a reliable guide to what is literally true or not. There cannot be two things that are both "true", but not.

How do members reconcile the fact that non LDS can and do have these same, similar and equal spiritual witnesses -- and yet it does not lead to Mormonism, and in fact, it leads to a strengthening of their respective religious faiths, of which some are even opposed to Mormonism and also those that are not even Christian? God is providing a spiritual witness that is actually leading people away from their exaltation?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I have experienced it -- and deeply. Of course, in retrospect, that connection was to something sacred within, it was not that some organization was "true". If a testimony were only that some external religious body were true, then it stands to reason, that only LDS could ever hope to attain that spiritual witness or sense as is so commonly described. The point that keeps being made and seems to be lost on members is that if others outside of Mormonism are experiencing this same non-emotional spiritual witness, then the spiritual witness is either an inner experience, or it is not a reliable guide to what is literally true or not. There cannot be two things that are both "true", but not.

How do members reconcile the fact that non LDS can and do have these same, similar and equal spiritual witnesses -- and yet it does not lead to Mormonism, and in fact, it leads to a strengthening of their respective religious faiths, of which some are even opposed to Mormonism and also those that are not even Christian? God is providing a spiritual witness that is actually leading people away from their exaltation?

If it is for the best interest possible of the person receiving the revelation? God knows what's up.

[Tchild2]

If it is for the best interest possible of the person receiving the revelation? God knows what's up.

Then it is solved. Wait until the next life until God can clear up the mass of confusion he himself perpetrates.

[Hammer]

Because I am a weak hypocrite that still holds to the possibility of becoming a son of God.

I'm not even worthy to be a member of the CoJCoLDS nor get a temple reccomend.

Well, what are you doing about it?

Then it is solved. Wait until the next life until God can clear up the mass of confusion he himself perpetrates.

You don't know how true this is. It is considered a mass of confusion to those who do not have the decoder/Holy Ghost.

It is perfectly clear in the Lord's own due time and way, when one totally submits to Him.

[why me]

Then it is solved. Wait until the next life until God can clear up the mass of confusion he himself perpetrates.

I can not say that confusion is created by god. But I do know that it is created by humans. Don't blame god for human confusion. The gospel is very simple and must be approached with the heart and eyes of a child to be understood. Nothing confusing about god.

[wenglund]

You conclude that "paradigm shifts [are] a far superior course of action than abandoning one's spiritual convictions." This idea (i.e., shifting paradigms is superior to modifying a person's spiritual belief) is, however, a very questionable paradigm itself. In reality you are advocating the enshrinement of this particular paradigm--always trusting and deferring to supposed spiritual witnesses--above all others.

I find this advocation troubling for two reasons: first, as many others have pointed out, is the subjectivity and mutability of 'spiritual experiences'.

What about the value derived from "spiritual experiences"?

I ask because I would think that "value" would be a good criteria, if not the best criteria, for determining paradigmic trust and deference, rather than subjectivity/objectivity and mutability/immutability.

Secondly, I do not believe that other paradigms should be abandoned so casually. For instance, one factor that people frequently point to in leaving the church is surprise/dismay over Joseph Smith's actions. Leaving aside the historical question over whether their dismay is justified, let's consider the competing paradigms. These people leave because they subscribed to a paradigm that leaders (and particularly one so notable as Joseph Smith) should be honorable and moral men. Such is not a paradigm that I think should be so lightly abandoned; on the contrary if forced to choose between this paradigm and the paradigm of always deferring to spiritual evidences, I feel it is justified to question those spiritual experiences. These 'paradigms' are not mere points of view but are often foundational moral principles which should not be readily discarded or casually modified.

I think it important to realize the interdependancies of the paradigms (or sub-paradigms). For religious people, their paradigm of honor and morality are based, in large part, on their spiritual paradigm. So, I am not sure it would make sense to privilege the former paradigm over the later paradigm upon which it is based. That would be, metaphorically, like privilaging the conceptual house over the foundation and infrastructure it is built on. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-