The Workings Of The Restored Gospel

[wenglund]

And I suppose no "obscure historical facts" have any bearing whatsoever on your testimony like --where Joseph was on April 6, 1820 --whether or not Joseph ever had any Gold Plates --whether or not Ancient American prophets recorded revelations from God in reformed Egyptian on gold plates --whether or not angels came to Joseph to restore God's priesthood --or even whether not Jesus' body was in the tomb --or whether or not a person named Adam married to a person named Eve ever lived I suppose you can carve out an evaluation process for religion which completely removes any historical fact, just hear the teaching and if it sounds right go with it. I disagree, but I'm fine if that's how you look at world.

You seem to be fighting very hard to avoid acknowledging or perhaps grasping my point. I am not suggesting that all church historical events, or written accounts thereof, are insignificant and irrelevant. Some certainly are important, more so than others, while some are relatively insignificant and irrelevant to the intent and purpose of the gospel--these are only what I am speaking to. For that matter, there are many events that are key to the restoration. Some stories strike at the very heart of the gospel. The Church is filled with stories. And, if you would look more closely at the passage in Moroni 10 that I quoted, it talks about remembering and reading "these things," clearly suggesting the importance of certain events in history as well as the means for evaluating them in relation to the things of God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

If I understand you correctly, you hold the view that one can evaluate truthfulness of a gospel principle without needing to vet its origins. For example, if you receive a spiritual confirmation of the plan of salvation itself, you can ultimately trust that it is true regardless its origins of how came to be revealed or how it evolved. Is this accurate?

Yes and no. It depends upon the degree to which the origins are integral to or significant and relevant to the workings of the restored gospel.

I take a more “bottom up” approach I guess and ask the following questions when evaluating certain truths: -How can one learn about the plan of salvation? Through prophets, or scriptures or written by prophets. While Christ is the ultimate source of truth, we can only learn about him through things written or said by men. And since man sometimes can fool us, we have to be careful of man, and evaluate their "fruits", as I mentioned earlier. -How can one learn which supposed prophet teaches the “correct” plan of salvation? One must discern which prophet is true. I have to rely on history to evaluate whether Joseph’s claims and fruits (along with the BOM) to evaluate whether he is as he claimed to be, prophet of the restoration, who properly restored the true teaching of the plan of salvation. In context of the restoration, one cannot simply trust in the plan of salvation without Just because the plan of salvation though is true; though, doesn’t necessarily mean the church as it stands today is the only institution with exclusive authority to preach the gospel and administer the ordinances thereof.

In other words, your first and primary trust and faith is in man (particularly you, yourself). You prefer a secular approach in discerning the things of God rather than the Christ/God-centered approach outlined in the gospel. And, you are certainly free to do so. To each their own.

However, my point is, you are following your own way, and not the way of the gospel. You aren't using the gospel as it is designed, likely because you don't get what the gospel is really all about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

As just intimated, it makes most sense that if we wish to come to Christ and to become like the Father, that we let them tell us how to do so, rather than us try to tell them. Since they would know, it makes most sense to use their approach rather than our own.

So, how is it that we let them tell us? What is the approach they have set forth?

Well, according to the restored gospel, for us personally, the approach that God has set forth, which puts faith and trust in him--letting him tell us, is mentioned in general terms in James 1:5:

It is explained in more detail in Moroni 10:

...and Alma 32:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Okay. I understand what you're getting at, now. I agree with this method of seeking truth, even though I know it is not perfect and we do, often, reach, what appears to be different "answers" from God. But, I think, in essential basic truths, many religions converge.

Why do you think it is that we don't all get an answer in the affirmative that Joseph Smith is a prophet? Too much emphasis on the "obscure" and unimportant?

[Verum]

In other words, your first and primary trust and faith is in man (particularly you, yourself). You prefer a secular approach in discerning the things of God rather than the Christ/God-centered approach outlined in the gospel. And, you are certainly free to do so. To each their own.

However, my point is, you are following your own way, and not the way of the gospel. You aren't using the gospel as it is designed, likely because you don't get what the gospel is really all about.

Glad to find someone who “gets what the gospel is really all about”! Foolish of me to follow my own way, and not the way of the gospel, which is the way you follow, independent of the fact that all of it is revealed through man.

How can one “get what the gospel is really all about”? The “Christ/God –centered approach” that you are certain of following comes from what source exactly? Scriptures? Modern day prophets? Exclusively to you? Either way, like or not, you have to put your faith in man, since all of those sources, including even the life and teaching of Christ, are all officially revealed to us by MAN.

Also, not sure of what “secular approach” you say I am advocating here. Combined with spiritual confirmation, I said that I would head the counsel of what the scripture says, which is to evaluate a prophet by their “fruits”. Following counsel from scripture is not secular…

[Libs]

You know, when it comes to a "test" of the prophet, or the path, or the whether or not something is scripture, I think the only reasonable "test" is the kind of fruit it produces in your own life, when you apply it.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Libs

[Verum]

You know, when it comes to a "test" of the prophet, or the path, or the whether or not something is scripture, I think the only reasonable "test" is the kind of fruit it produces in your own life, when you apply it.

Good comment, and I agree to a certain extent. The only problem is that not everyone sees "good fruit" when applying counsel from the prophet, which is why church histroy in this example is relevant. There were many who followed the prophets counsel or command to do something and saw really bad fruit. Is that necessarily proof that he is false? No. But that is why I think just living by the counsel itself may not always be a good measure.

But if it is constantly bringing forth good fruit for something, then I think they are valid in continuing to do that which they feel is bringing forth the most blessing in their life...

[Libs]

Good comment, and I agree to a certain extent. The only problem is that not everyone sees "good fruit" when applying counsel from the prophet, which is why church histroy in this example is relevant. There were many who followed the prophets counsel or command to do something and saw really bad fruit. Is that necessarily proof that he is false? No. But that is why I think just living by the counsel itself may not always be a good measure.

But if it is constantly bringing forth good fruit for something, then I think they are valid in continuing to do that which they feel is bringing forth the most blessing in their life...

Good point, about the occasional "bad fruit" the path may produce. I agree, that doesn't mean the path is, suddenly, "bad". I guess, we have to make some exceptions for the failures of man (even prophets) along the way. A path may be perfect, but the people following it are still going to lose their way or get sidetracked, occasionally. It occurs to me that a prophet could even get so sidetracked as to no longer be a fit leader on the path. I had, seriously, contemplated that as a possibility for Joseph Smith. That he started out as a prophet, but lost his way, when he became entangled in polygamy/polyandry, etc. But, now, I don't really know. I just know the doubts caused me to loss faith in Joseph (as a leader).

I think we do have to go directly to God and keep our own counsel, in regards to our spiritual path.

[wenglund]

Okay. I understand what you're getting at, now. I agree with this method of seeking truth, even though I know it is not perfect and we do, often, reach, what appears to be different "answers" from God. But, I think, in essential basic truths, many religions converge.

Why do you think it is that we don't all get an answer in the affirmative that Joseph Smith is a prophet? Too much emphasis on the "obscure" and unimportant?

This is tangential to the topic of this thread, so let me just say in passing that the most common reason I can think for people not getting an affirmative answer to that question, is that they tend not ask God about it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Glad to find someone who “gets what the gospel is really all about”! Foolish of me to follow my own way, and not the way of the gospel, which is the way you follow, independent of the fact that all of it is revealed through man.

The word "foolish" is your word, not mine. And, nobody is denying the unavoidable human component in all of this. Rather, it is a matter of where to put the preponderance of trust and faith--in God or man.

How can one “get what the gospel is really all about”? The “Christ/God –centered approach” that you are certain of following comes from what source exactly? Scriptures? Modern day prophets? Exclusively to you? Either way, like or not, you have to put your faith in man, since all of those sources, including even the life and teaching of Christ, are all officially revealed to us by MAN.

Again, it is a matter of where one puts the preponderance of their trust and faith.

Also, not sure of what “secular approach” you say I am advocating here. Combined with spiritual confirmation, I said that I would heed the counsel of what the scripture says, which is to evaluate a prophet by their “fruits”. Following counsel from scripture is not secular…

I must have missed the part where your approach included spiritual confirmation. Aside from that, how is your approach any different from secular approaches like historiography, anthropology, sociology, political science, etc.? And, more important, how heavily does spiritual confirmation weigh in relation to the rest of your approach?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

This is tangential to the topic of this thread, so let me just say in passing that the most common reason I can think for people not getting an affirmative answer to that question, is that they tend not ask God about it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think most of our esteemed critics would disagree with that.

[wenglund]

I think most of our esteemed critics would disagree with that.

Some might disagree in their own personal case, but I can't see them disagreeing in general. After all, who would doubt that most of the world's population have likely never heard of Joseph Smith, let alone prayed to God whether he is a prophet or not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

Some might disagree in their own personal case, but I can't see them disagreeing in general. After all, who would doubt that most of the world's population have likely never heard of Joseph Smith, let alone prayed to God whether he is a prophet or not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh sure, if you're talking about the whole world. I was thinking, specifically, of people who say they have asked God and got a "no" for an answer. Some will say, they simply checked in the Bible (God's word) and got a "no" from that.

[Brade]

Ok, here's a concise list of claims and implications made by Wade so far in his effort to help me better understand the workings of the restored gospel so that I can better understand how insignificant obscure elements of church history are to these workings:

1. The gospel isn't an end in itself.

2. The gospel is a means to an end.

3. The end to which the gospel is meant to bring us is to Christ and becoming like him.

4. The restored gospel is entail in the Plan of Salvation.

5. God exists.

6. We are God's spirit children.

7. Our physical earth-birth gives us a body of flesh and we become natural men.

8. To realize (3) the natural self must die and be subsequently raised up as a spiritual self.

9. The ordinances of baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost as performed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are symbolic of the death of our natural self and resurrection to a spiritual self.

10. Realizing (3) is a process.

11. Realizing (3) is a change in our nature.

12. The realization of (3) takes place through growth in faith over time.

13. Ones faith must be in Christ.

14. Ones trust must be in God.

15. God is and ought to be the ultimate authority of his own will and plan for mankind.

16. James 1:5, Moroni 10: 3-5, and Alma 32 explain how we can be told by God and Christ how we can come to Christ and become like God.

17. The scriptures mentioned in (16) don't make mention of using obscure Church history to assess the validity of (1) - (16).

18. Some historical information is more important in assessing whether to commit to participation in Mormonism than other historical information.

19. If a person doesn't assess religious claims of what they ought to believe and to what behaviors they ought to be committed to by using the approach outlined by the claims of the religion, then that person likely doesn't understand what that religion is really about.

I understand the meaning of (1) through (19). I understand that if (1) through (19) were true, then seemingly disruptive (read: obscure) elements of history would be insignificant to these workings.

It's a significant sacrifice of ones time, money, and mental energy to make a serious religious commitment to the workings of the restored gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Why should I, in the first place, give of my time, money, and mental energy to going along with the workings of the restored gospel?

Edited March 1, 2012 by Brade

[mfbukowski]

It's a significant sacrifice of ones time, money, and mental energy to make a serious religious commitment to the working of the restored gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Why should I, in the first place, give of my time, money, and mental energy to going along with the workings of the restored gospel?

Because you have a testimony. That's the "only" reason. If you don't, don't worry about it.

People join PETA because they think it's the right thing to do. They also have a lot of beliefs about how animals should be treated. If you don't believe, you don't join.

It's that simple.

[Freedom]

Brade, as stated by mfbukowski, the only way to know is through personal testimony. By receiving your own personal revelation from God that it is true. No book, sermon or historical event should ever be enough to convince anybody. The power of a personal witness is what helps one realize that some of the actions of some church leaders, or some of the seemingly questionable doctrines are not relevant.

[wenglund]

Why should I, in the first place, give of my time, money, and mental energy to going along with the workings of the restored gospel?

This, too, is tangential to the topic of this thread, so let me briefly answer once again (I believe you asked me this before): in principle, it is a matter of economics. The only reason we devote resources to anything is if we sufficiently desire the objective to which the thing is intended, and we have sufficient faith that it will achieve that objective. It is not entirely unlike asking: "Why give time, money, and mental energy attending college or graduate school?" "Why give time, money, and mental energy to cell phones?" "Why give time, money, and mental energy to a car, or to interpersonal relationships, or charitable organizations, etc.?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

The only reason we devote resources to anything is if we sufficiently desire the objective to which the thing is intended, and we have sufficient faith that it will achieve that objective.

Absolutely nails it!

Hebrews 11:1- Parentheses added

Now faith is the substance (confidence) of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (yet).

The evidence is the testimony itself- with it comes the confidence to act on that evidence.

It's not unlike the first time you see the woman who will later become your wife. If you don't have the confidence to act, even in the face of the unknown, nothing will happen. Maybe she will reject you. Maybe after you are married you will have a child who dies. Maybe you will get divorced. Yet you act on that subjective judgement of your experience with confidence. And that is the first step followed by other similar steps which confirm it again and again- as in Alma 32.

But that action based on faith precedes reaching the objective. It cannot be otherwise. It happens every time we make an important decision in our lives.

[Brade]

This, too, is tangential to the topic of this thread, so let me briefly answer once again (I believe you asked me this before): in principle, it is a matter of economics. The only reason we devote resources to anything is if we sufficiently desire the objective to which the thing is intended, and we have sufficient faith that it will achieve that objective. It is not entirely unlike asking: "Why give time, money, and mental energy attending college or graduate school?" "Why give time, money, and mental energy to cell phones?" "Why give time, money, and mental energy to a car, or to interpersonal relationships, or charitable organizations, etc.?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I sufficiently desire the objective to which acting kindly, charitably, humbly, etc is intended, and I have sufficient faith that acting kindly, charitably, humbly, etc will improve the world around me and make me a happier person. I'm still not getting how I'm supposed to get on the Mormon train. I just don't see any reason, other than proximity and familiarity, that I should prefer Mormonism over, say, the humble pursuit of Catholicism. And it isn't clear to me why I should give preference to either, or any formal religion, over simply sincerely trying to be a decent human being.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Brade

[wenglund]

I sufficiently desire the objective to which acting kindly, charitably, humbly, etc is intended, and I have sufficient faith that acting kindly, charitably, humbly, etc will improve the world around me and make me a happier person. I'm still not getting how I'm supposed to get on the Mormon train. I just don't see any reason, other than proximity and familiarity, that I should prefer Mormonism over, say, the humble pursuit of Catholicism. And it isn't clear to me why I should give preference to either, or any formal religion, over simply sincerely trying to be a decent human being.

Again, this is off-topic, so let me briefly say that what we have is a free and open market, which means you get to brows the various ideational venders and pick and choose to your liking and according to your objective. If becoming a decent human being (however you define it) is your end objective, you can even pick yourself as your own means to that end. You can be your own religion and god, And, depending upon how highly you think of yourself, particularly in comparison to God and the various religions and religious leaders, there may be no reason I can give you (even if I wanted to, which I don't, since I am not the salesman type) to convince you to prefer something else. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Brade]

Again, this is off-topic, so let me briefly say that what we have is a free and open market, which means you get to brows the various ideational venders and pick and choose to your liking and according to your objective.

So, I should primarily base my commitment to a religious program on whether or not I happen to like its stated objective.

[wenglund]

So, I should primarily base my commitment to a religious program on whether or not I happen to like its stated objective.

If that is what you think, then I can respect it. However, it is a bit of an over-simplification from what I briefly stated.

Getting back on topic, though, are you starting to see the irrelevance of obscure historical data to the workings of the gospel?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

So, I should primarily base my commitment to a religious program on whether or not I happen to like its stated objective.

You should certainly, I would think NOT base a commitment to any organization or belief based on what might have happened hundreds of years ago.

For example, should one not make a commitment to Catholicism based on the inquisition or even the present church scandals? Or the fact that it is 2000 years old? Those issues have virtually no relevance to the spiritual truths the Catholic church teaches.

Would it be rational today to NOT move to the Southern US because slavery used to be a major social force there?

Edited March 1, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Brade]

If that is what you think, then I can respect it. However, it is a bit of an over-simplification from what I briefly stated.

I agree that it's a bit of an over-simplification but I think it captures the major thrust of what you're saying. But here's my problem. I actually do happen to like the object of Mormonism - becoming godlike. But, I'm agnostic about the existence of such things as gods, God, Jesus-God, the Holy Ghost, etc. as described by Mormon authorities. Furthermore, I do think the humble practice of Mormonism will, on the whole, make a person more godlike in the sense in which being godlike is just to be good and the humble practice of Mormonism will make a person good-er. But I don't think the tendency of the humble practice of Mormonism to make a person godlike in the sense I just described is a unique feature of Mormonism, and I think the humble practice of lots of religions, and even merely the non-religious humble practice of being a decent person, can make a person godlike in the sense I just described every bit as well as the humble practice of Mormonism can.

I simply have no reason to believe that any unique Mormon teaching or practice is necessary to becoming godlike in the sense I've described. Now, that's actually fine with me because here's at least one reason I want to participate in Mormonism - it's my tradition and, thus, the practices of Mormonism and its organizational structure just happen to be in close proximity to me. It's like, I look around my environment and I see lots of organizations and religions that I believe will help me improve myself, and there's a certain set of them for which I see no reason to think any one of them is inherently better equipped than the others. But, oh, over here, among the set for which I think they're all well equipped I find one that I happen to have been brought up in. I'm familiar with it's structure, idiosyncrasies, culture, practices, etc. And so, perhaps I'll pick that one purely out of convenience.

But here's the wrinkle. For purposes of full participation, this proximal organization is explicitly not merely interested in whether I exhibit the right organizational behavior (praxis), it's interested also in whether I hold the right beliefs (doxy). And, as it happens my assessment of the best available historical evidence, including Wade's obscurities, and my assessment of various philosophical issues, compels me not to hold many beliefs which the organization teaches that I must hold for (1) for the sake of my own eternal soul, and (2) in order to fully enjoy the praxis (which is the part I actually happen to like).

I'm inactive right now, not because I'm a vile sinner, or because I hate Mormonism, or however lots of people prefer to characterize it. I'm inactive right now because my sincere beliefs, and my honest reporting of those beliefs in interviews with Church authorities prevents me from participating in the praxis of Mormonism which I do think is spiritually beneficial (I'm using "spiritually" loosely here; I hope you understand the gist of what I'm saying).

Getting back on topic, though, are you starting to see the irrelevance of obscure historical data to the workings of the gospel?

To answer your question as directly as I possibly can, yes. I think I've already stated as much. Obscure historical data, or perhaps any historical data, are irrelevant to the workings of the gospel, but not irrelevant to lots of dogmatic issues for which thinking the wrong way can prevent one from fully participating in Mormon praxis (i.e. the workings).

Edited March 2, 2012 by Brade

[mfbukowski]

Brade

It seems clear that you have a clear conception of what "becoming godlike" means, and that Mormonism helps one to achieve that state.

Why not just take that for what it is- metaphorically. You used those terms yourself.

Regarding "doxy"- the only place that enters into the equation is in a temple recommend interview. Suppose one was active in participating in the organization in order to engage in "becoming godlike" but never desired a temple recommend?

I don't think there is a bishop on the planet who would reject such an individual.

[Brade]

Brade

It seems clear that you have a clear conception of what "becoming godlike" means, and that Mormonism helps one to achieve that state.

Why not just take that for what it is- metaphorically. You used those terms yourself.

Regarding "doxy"- the only place that enters into the equation is in a temple recommend interview. Suppose one was active in participating in the organization in order to engage in "becoming godlike" but never desired a temple recommend?

I don't think there is a bishop on the planet who would reject such an individual.

That's part of the problem. The Mormon praxis I'm most moved by is the temple. I love the symbolism life after death and of social life continuing on. I like the idea of participating in a creation drama and how it moves me to think deeply about my origin and how I can derive purpose and meaning in life. It's a beautiful environment for meditation about the possibility of life after death and so on. I happen not to believe one way or another about life persisting after death. I don't believe that the gestures, words, and phrases presented in the temple are literally needed by me to have the best possible afterlife, assuming that there is such a thing as life after death. I'm essentially agnostic as to the existence of God, or gods. I don't see any reason to believe that Jesus was literally the son of God, or that he was resurrected, etc. Nevertheless, I've come to believe that religious practice can be valuable even if one does not assent to religious dogma. The unfortunate trouble for me is that I'm drawn to a religious practice for which the Church demands I assent to certain dogma, and I don't.