Can The Church Admit Some Fault In Order To Heal And Move On?

[Craig Paxton]

There are reasons for leaving the church but who is to define valid. I actually think if you have to find reasons they aren't valid. If it's not working then leave. Period.

Where's my fly swatter...

[Libs]

Where's my fly swatter...

lol...at least, that made me laugh! Thank you.

[Jeff K.]

This is very difficult for some because that bottom line is in question for a lot of people as a reliable method for truth (this point is being discussed right now on the personal revelation thread so no need to reply to this line of thought in this thread).

Faith is never meant to be easy, in fact when it is difficult, that is when you are on the right tract. I think it has been a reliable method for many many people.

[cinepro]

Faith is never meant to be easy, in fact when it is difficult, that is when you are on the right tract. I think it has been a reliable method for many many people.

I find this tract to be difficult, so does that mean I should have faith in it?

But seriously, are you saying that if it's easy to have faith in something, then that might mean we're on the wrong track?

[rodheadlee]

REALLY???? I'd be interested in knowing what constitutes a "good reason" in your mind...

Good reasons would include but not limited to (and in no particular order)

Temple weddings are not really a forever marriage, it's just made up B.S.

Jesus Christ didn't really come to the Americas

The Church members really don't have the authority to dispense priesthood holdings, or baptize new members, or bind ordinances in Heaven and Earth

The Church really isn't The Church of Jesus Christ, He really is not the head of our Church, it is not His Church

There is no Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ or Holy Spirit or Atonement, no Atonement is even needed.

I'm sure there are more but I can't think of them right now, I have to go to work.

[Jeff K.]

I find this tract to be difficult, so does that mean I should have faith in it?

But seriously, are you saying that if it's easy to have faith in something, then that might mean we're on the wrong track?

You presume difficulty obtaining faith without the other aspects including use of the spirit. Difficult faith is not difficulty in believing so much as difficulty in following the will of the Lord.

[Libs]

You presume difficulty obtaining faith without the other aspects including use of the spirit. Difficult faith is not difficulty in believing so much as difficulty in following the will of the Lord.

I just don't see that. I had no difficulty in following what I believed to be "the will of the Lord". It was only when my belief was shaken that I began to have doubts that what I was doing really was the will of the Lord.

[Jeff K.]

Then you still aren't quite understanding. Following the will of the Lord often means overcoming many obstacles that sometimes lead one to question their faith. That is when faith is exercised. When we aren't sure something will work and do it all the same. Usually faith grows when it is tested. Some have never had it tested, perhaps they have great faith? It is not for me to know.

[cinepro]

Then you still aren't quite understanding. Following the will of the Lord often means overcoming many obstacles that sometimes lead one to question their faith. That is when faith is exercised. When we aren't sure something will work and do it all the same. Usually faith grows when it is tested. Some have never had it tested, perhaps they have great faith? It is not for me to know.

I have an EV friend who struggles with his Church's teachings about the Trinity. His questions are leading to a crisis of faith on that subject. Obviously, I've suggested he open his mind to other ideas about God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost. But is it possible he is just encountering an obstacle to his faith, and that by overcoming it, he will find greater faith in the trinity?

[Jeff K.]

Faith being things without evidence but which are true....

So no, your posited scenario doesn't seem to work.

[Libs]

But, Cinepro is making my point.

You have to believe something is true, before you have faith in it. When you stop believing (or start doubting), then your faith starts waning (because, you're not so sure, anymore, that it is true).

In the case of the Evangelical, starting to have doubts about the Trinity, his lack of faith would be justified, per LDS teaching, yes? You wouldn't tell him to simply exercise "more" faith. Exercising more faith, doesn't make something true.

[cinepro]

Faith being things without evidence but which are true....

So, should we verify the truth of something before we have faith in it?

And if my friend doesn't have "faith" in the Trinity, than what does he have?

[Jeff K.]

Yes, what do you think the Holy Ghost does?

[Tramper]

This is the point. I don't know that the church ever commissioned anyone to paint a picture of how this happened. They appear to have used various artists' renditions at different times.

The purpose of a piece of art, whether it's from one of the masters or an amateur is to present that person's interpretation and feelings about a subject or event. The person viewing the piece also uses his experience to process his own interpretation of the artists interpretation. The great masters are able to evoke emotion that many people can relate to. The less experienced usually introduce something simple to show an event, not necessarily in total accuracy.

A friend has a lovely painting of downtown SLC with the temple standing above the other buildings. We know in actuality the temple is now dwarfed by the buildings around it. However, the artists intentions were to show the temple as the building of primary importance in the area.

This is nothing but nonsense I am afraid. The painter is perhap not commissioned by the Church, but the fact that the Church use the painting reveals how they (dishonestly) tries to present a faith promoting history how the book was translated.

http://mormon.org/book-of-mormon/

Can (and should) faith be increased by untrue fairytale history? Is ethical?

[Deborah]

...the fact that the Church use the painting reveals how they (dishonestly) tries to present a faith promoting history how the book was translated.

Straining at gnats. Seriously, get a life. All the paintings have ever represented is that Joseph had the plates and translated them. The how is irrelevant if you understand that however it was done was by the spirit and power of God.

[Tramper]

Straining at gnats. Seriously, get a life. All the paintings have ever represented is that Joseph had the plates and translated them. The how is irrelevant if you understand that however it was done was by the spirit and power of God.

The plates were not present during the transalation. Joseph translated aided by a seer stone. Why not tell the facts? More facts = increased opportunity for true faith.

[Calm]

The plates were not present during the transalation. Joseph translated aided by a seer stone. Why not tell the facts? More facts = increased opportunity for true faith.

If one only said "the plates were not present during the translation" etc. one would not be telling "the facts".

There were apparently a variety of ways Joseph went about it; at first the plates were present, he even copied characters from them to translate using the Uand T. http://maxwellinstit...=7&num=1&id=167

[Deborah]

The plates were not present during the transalation. Joseph translated aided by a seer stone. Why not tell the facts? More facts = increased opportunity for true faith.

Yes, please stick to the facts, which have been discussed previously.

[Tramper]

Yes, please stick to the facts, which have been discussed previously.

Perhaps you sent that message to the wrong person. You should inform the webmasters behind www.lds.org and www.mormon.org instead... They seem to be misinformed ....

[ERayR]

The plates were not present during the transalation. Joseph translated aided by a seer stone. Why not tell the facts? More facts = increased opportunity for true faith.

And if, notice I said if, your premise were to be correct how would this change what was translated?

[ERayR]

Perhaps you sent that message to the wrong person. You should inform the webmasters behind www.lds.org and www.mormon.org instead... They seem to be misinformed ....

No my little buddy you are the one who has been missinformed. You seem to be of the opinion that the method of translation is important. The method is not important, it is what was interpreted that is important. All your hand wringing and protestations do not mean the sky really is falling.

[Deborah]

And if, notice I said if, your premise were to be correct how would this change what was translated?

They don't get it do they? This really is the issue. It's the fact that we have the BOM that matters, not the details of how it was translated. Only those who want an excuse to complain will use the ruse of how it was translated as the main issue. Joseph Smith said it was translated by the gift and power of God. Other than that we have second and third and even fourth hand accounts.

[ERayR]

They don't get it do they? This really is the issue. It's the fact that we have the BOM that matters, not the details of how it was translated. Only those who want an excuse to complain will use the ruse of how it was translated as the main issue. Joseph Smith said it was translated by the gift and power of God. Other than that we have second and third and even fourth hand accounts.

It is a distraction technique. They are trying to divert attention to something else.

They really do not understand "...the gift and power of God".

[Sleeper Cell]

Can the church admit some fault in order to heal and move on?

Yes, I admit that the church has some crummy artwork. Mea Culpa.

Now I feel better. I am healed.

Finally, I can move on.

[cinepro]

If one only said "the plates were not present during the translation" etc. one would not be telling "the facts".

There were apparently a variety of ways Joseph went about it; at first the plates were present, he even copied characters from them to translate using the Uand T. http://maxwellinstit...=7&num=1&id=167

I think the proper chronology is that the plates were present during the dictation of the 116 pages to Martin Harris. After the loss of the pages, the plates and Urim and Thummim were taken away, and the subsequent dictation of the Book of Mormon to scribes Emma, Oliver, John and "unknown" was done without them. I don't recall anyone claiming they were returned or used during that time.