Respect For An Lds Church

[Deborah]

I find it also interesting the hostility those same individuals receive from those who claim current membership in the LDS Church.

Do you really believe there is hostility for those who leave? I've observed in fact a great deal of reaching out. No doubt there are exceptions but I think those are rare. If there is hostility it seems to be on boards like this where those who leave start attacking the church or the faith of others and are met defensively. It may not be the best approach but seriously some of the vicious remarks don't deserve anything but "whited sepulchre" responses.

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

Where is the physical evidence that your mother loves you?

[bluebell]

Those who have the impression that this individual left the Church because the Church changed would be missing the point. He left the Church because he found out the real history of the Church - the one that was not taught, or even mentioned - in the 1950s and 1960s and most of the 1970s.

We probably missed that point because it's not in there. I have no doubt that it's probably in other posts he may have done, but when all we have to go on is the blip you posted here, there's only so much we can get out of it.

[frankenstein]

While some in vain and vanity claim "well Christ used this language so that means I can too"; such is a flawed presumption. Christ, who knew the hearts, mind and intent with absolute Heavenly certainty was just justified as the king of kings to speak to those who claimed to be his servants in the manner in which He did, the reasoning goes for Him calling Heroes a fox. As for myself, while I can make a good guess as to ones motives, I am not Christ nor the King of kings I do not know the hearts and minds of others with the certainty that the Son of God does, and I am quite sure no one else does either; given that, to elavate oneself to the stature of Christ is quite troublesome.

Love one another, bless them that curse you pray for them that persecute you.

It is disconcerting how such simply instruction is lost so often to those claim Christ; whether the nicien Christ or another Christ.

Edited December 8, 2011 by frankenstein

[bluebell]

While some in vain and vanity claim "well Christ used this language so that means I can too"; such is a flawed presumption. Christ, who knew the hearts, mind and intent with absolute Heavenly certainty was just justified as the king of kings to speak to those who claimed to be his servants in the manner in which He did, the reasoning goes for Him calling Heroes a fox. As for myself, while I can make a good guess as to ones motives, I am not Christ nor the King of kings I do not know the hearts and minds of others with the certainty that the Son of God does, and I am quite sure no one else does either; given that, to elavate oneself to the stature of Christ is quite troublesome.

Love one another, bless them that curse you pray for them that persecute you. it is funny how such simply words are list to those claim Christ whether the nicien Christ or another Christ.

It's a given that we could all sometimes be nicer to those that disagree with us, whether it's a disagreement with our political views, our religious views, or any other views that we have. We are ALL jerks sometimes and we all sometimes feel justified in our jerkiness. Some of us are way better at justifying nasty behavior than others, but we all do it occassionally.

[Sky]

These kinds of claims are really problematic for a lot of people, including the author of the piece in the OP. There is no physical evidence for these claims and, in fact, the vast majority of people who have heard them, especially after understanding them in context, do not believe them to be true. Thus the sense of betrayal when many (if not most) one time believers finally come to really understand the context.

All religions have beliefs in the supernatural, or things we cannot prove, or however you want to say it. What makes Mormonism unique, I think, is that its founding events and stories happened in the much more recent past, and therefore, they are somewhat easier to scrutinize. If the supernatural occurrences happened in the ancient past, people somehow don’t seem to have as many issues with it. Also, Mormonism tends to be much more literal rather than metaphorical in its interpretations than many other religions. This I what I think is problematic for many people.

[Sky]

While I do not for one minute doubt the humanity and good intentions of the leaders of the LDS Church, I also know that good intentions and humanity are not enough when leaders assume for themselves the great responsibilities represented by the unwavering (and in some cases, blind) trust of millions of followers.

If the leaders of the LDS Church are truly living prophets and apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, in spite of their flaws, then that makes all the difference. There is nothing more important in this world. You begin to trust them and follow them because you want to, rather than because you have to. It really feels good.

[Mariner]

Mariner:

Where is the physical evidence that your mother loves you?

To start with, I have a large stack of cards and letters, written by her own hand (though not upon papyrus) that state as much.

[Mariner]

All religions have beliefs in the supernatural, or things we cannot prove, or however you want to say it. What makes Mormonism unique, I think, is that its founding events and stories happened in the much more recent past, and therefore, they are somewhat easier to scrutinize. If the supernatural occurrences happened in the ancient past, people somehow don’t seem to have as many issues with it. Also, Mormonism tends to be much more literal rather than metaphorical in its interpretations than many other religions. This I what I think is problematic for many people.

I agree.

[bluebell]

To start with, I have a large stack of cards and letters, written by her own hand (though not upon papyrus) that state as much.

So, without the cards (physical 'proof'), would you believe that she loves you?

[Scott Lloyd]

Where I suspect we might find a great deal of commonality is the fundamental humanness of the leaders of the Church. I deeply respect the mantle they carry, but I do not afford them any more respect than I do others. If I meet them and come to know them my respect will either grow or decrease depending upon them and their actions. After all is said and done, they put their pants on just like I do. They are human just like I am.

While I agree that there was only one perfect mortal to have ever lived on the earth, the Church leaders I have known and interacted with deserve admiration and respect for their sterling character and greatness, if for no other reason.

[Calm]

To start with, I have a large stack of cards and letters, written by her own hand (though not upon papyrus) that state as much.

So having something in writing proves the truth of it?

[Mariner]

So, without the cards (physical 'proof'), would you believe that she loves you?

The belief that my mother loves me comes from the direct face to face interaction with her as a young child, and that belief has been reinforced by direct and indirect interactions since.

To provide you with a counter example, let's say that my birth mother had been unable to care for me and had given me up for adoption at birth. Unless she had kept in contact with me, I would have no idea whether she loved me or not. And I certainly would not bet my life and well being on the someone else's assurance that she did.

The case with God is even more tenuous. Unlike my absent birth mother in the above example, the fact that I am here does not support the existence of God in any logical or rational way. By far the best hypothesis for how I got here - the one that is consistent with all of the physical data available - has nothing to do with God. In fact, the best hypothesis specifically excludes God, or at best, reduces the probability of his having anything to do with my existence to a vanishingly small number.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Mariner

[Mariner]

So having something in writing proves the truth of it?

It does not prove it, but does provide supporting evidence for the hypothesis. Please see my above post (#38).

Edited December 8, 2011 by Mariner

[Saints Alive]

I don't have any letters from my mother... Guess she doesn't love me

[Avatar4321]

Sigh. I get so tired of this idea that faith in the leaders is blind. You know some of us have been around long enough we have learned to trust the leaders and it is anything but blind. Most faithful members have had their faith tested time and again but they continue in faith because of their experiences through such trials; the don't just keep believing because that is what is expected.

But opponents have to propagate the idea that the faithful are putting blind faith in leaders. Because to accept that the faithful aren't "blind" is to admit they might know something you don't.

[Mariner]

I don't have any letters from my mother... Guess she doesn't love me

Despair not. There are many types of evidence that can be interpreted to support the love hypothesis.

Maybe she tells you she loves you.

Perhaps she fed you for free for 18 years.

[Grundelwalken]

Despair not. There are many types of evidence that can be interpreted to support the love hypothesis.

Maybe she tells you she loves you.

Perhaps she fed you for free for 18 years.

Methinks that might be the correct answer to whether there is a God or not. MW

[Mariner]

But opponents have to propagate the idea that the faithful are putting blind faith in leaders. Because to accept that the faithful aren't "blind" is to admit they might know something you don't.

I would be more willing to consider this assertion if it were not for the fact that Church leaders are always warning against reading non-approved or non-correlated versions of Church history, discouraging the use of supplemental materials when preparing lessons, telling members that the mantle supersedes the intellect, and claiming that when the leaders have spoken, the thinking has been done.

I am sure you can see my point here.

[Deborah]

I would be more willing to consider this assertion if it were not for the fact that Church leaders are always warning against reading non-approved or non-correlated versions of Church history, discouraging the use of supplemental materials when preparing lessons, telling members that the mantle supersedes the intellect, and claiming that when the leaders have spoken, the thinking has been done.

This is the problem with not considering things in context. The Church leaders have always encouraged studying on one's own. The idea that one can't read many different ideas is ridiculous. What is discouraged is when you are teaching in a church class on Sunday where you have many people at different levels of knowledge and faith that it is wise to stick to what is in the lesson or to be very careful with any outside materials. This only makes sense. A person who wants to study more can do so or can take Institute or church classes where some of the deeper matters are discussed.

There is also a great misunderstanding of the "the thinking has been done." It is basically saying that those in charge have studied, prayed and thoughtfully spoken. That doesn't mean that one rolls over and doesn't do his own study and prayer to confirm the words.

I have never in all my years in church felt inhibited in studying many different materials, including some anti-Mormon ones. I have taught many classes of all ages and brought in supplemental materials, which I carefully selected depending on the class and its needs.

Seriously these pronouncements from people who are just taking things out of context and using blurbs from anti-Mormon sources need to stop. If you really want to know what happens ask someone who actually goes to church.

[Mark Beesley]

Those who have the impression that this individual left the Church because the Church changed would be missing the point. He left the Church because he found out the real history of the Church - the one that was not taught, or even mentioned - in the 1950s and 1960s and most of the 1970s.

The Church is not a history class, nor is it the mission of the Church to spoon feed history to its members. The Church is the vessel of the Priesthood, the entity through which the Father makes salvic ordinances available to all of HIs children. For anyone to leave the Church because they didn't like the history lessons is tragic. There is a lot of collateral stuff in the Church that I don't necessarily care for.

[Grundelwalken]

I would be more willing to consider this assertion if it were not for the fact that Church leaders are always warning against reading non-approved or non-correlated versions of Church history, discouraging the use of supplemental materials when preparing lessons, telling members that the mantle supersedes the intellect, and claiming that when the leaders have spoken, the thinking has been done.

I am sure you can see my point here.

Over the years, I have had a fair amount of experience with teaching the history of the Church to members of the Church and have never been "warned, counseled, directed, commanded, etc." to leave anything out of that teaching. My teaching has been to the youth and adults and no one has ever chastised me for using outside materials (non-correlated). The only time I see that happen is when a teacher uses materials that are from specious sources (I was going to name some but will take the high road) or when they dwell on or make those subjects "hobby horses." The argument that the "brethren" are running around restricting what we can and cannot know is simply not true. As members of the Church we can know and teach whatever is true, provided the sources for the material are legitimate (meaning not from sources that are patently hostile or untrue) and the doctrines of the Gospel are not shown in a false light.

For instance, while I am not necessarily a Bushman fan, I have had times when members have asked about things he has written and we have spent the time to discuss and analyze the message. We are not afraid of our past, our present, or the things that may happen in the future. The only folks who seem to have trouble with the people and events in Church history are those who choose to not believe or follow the path that history instituted.

BTW, maybe I am a dullard, but I really don't remember hearing a prophet tell me that when he has spoken, the thinking is done. Rather, I think they consistently have taught us to ponder and pray about their words so that we might know for ourselves that they are true. I will say that FOR ME, I am more inclined to accept the words of the Prophets before I may have received my own witness but I always seek for that witness and do not quit until it is confirmed. I call that using the gift of faith until I have a knowledge.

As a Latter-day Saint, I am ..... well offended isn't the right word because we aren't supposed to let that happen .... maybe I will just say concerned that there are so many who believe we have become automatons simply because we choose to follow God's servants. I still have a brain and I still think rationally (well mostly). I just choose to include in my own rationality the belief that God has called men who, though mortal and faulty in their own ways, are imbued with gifts that allow them to know things at a different level than I do at this time. I will get there someday but I choose to let them be my guide as I make the dangerous trek through mortality. Enough. MW

Edited December 8, 2011 by Grundelwalken

[Mark Beesley]

I would be more willing to consider this assertion if it were not for the fact that Church leaders are always warning against reading non-approved or non-correlated versions of Church history, discouraging the use of supplemental materials when preparing lessons, telling members that the mantle supersedes the intellect, and claiming that when the leaders have spoken, the thinking has been done.

I am sure you can see my point here.

Your point being that your are practiced in the art of hyperbole? When was the last time, for example, that your heard a Church leaders say that when the leaders have spoken, the thinking has been done? I've never heard it. I've read it from an early Church apostle, but I'm pretty sure he's been dead a long, long time.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Mark Beesley

[Hamba Tuhan]

What makes Mormonism unique, I think, is that its founding events and stories happened in the much more recent past, and therefore, they are somewhat easier to scrutinize.

To me, what makes 'Mormonism' even more unique is that its claims have refused to stay in the past. Joseph Smith didn't restore Christianity in its purity only to have the heavens close again. Consequently, this is not a matter of 'real history' or the 'real context'--terms which make me, a professional historian, smile just a bit. It is, rather, a matter of personal experience in the here and now. The heavens are still open. Revelation, including the ministration of angels, still occurs. We don't have to figure out what may or may not have 'really' happened in the past; we can, if we choose, experience it for ourselves in the here and now. Contending readings of the Church's past are merely backward projections of our own personal experiences in the present.

[Pahoran]

These kinds of claims are really problematic for a lot of people, including the author of the piece in the OP. There is no physical evidence for these claims and, in fact, the vast majority of people who have heard them, especially after understanding them in context, do not believe them to be true.

Call for references, please. How do you know what "the vast majority of people" believe?

I understand that this apostate mantra of yours is an important part of your un-testimony. But in all my years of interacting with anti-Mormons and apostates on the internet, I have never once met an exMo who knows more about the history of the Church than I do. And believe me when I tell you that knowing more about the history of the Church than I do would really not be a particularly grand achievement.

I have met a considerable number who thought they had the "inside scoop" on what "really" happened in the early history of the Church. Those people are almost always "one book experts." That is, they have read one book (or seen one video or website or chick tract) and formed all their opinions based upon that. Sometimes they may have subsequently read some more stuff, but their only interest in it is the extent to which it confirms their one trusted source.

These one book experts claim to know the "warts and all history;" in reality, they never do. They know only the warts -- the "all" completely escapes them; which isn't hard, because they're not making any effort to grasp it.

Thus the sense of betrayal when many (if not most) one time believers finally come to really understand the context.

In my experience, everyone who does "really understand the context" is a believing Latter-day Saint.

Without exception.

Regards,

Pahoran