Thoughts On Church History, Theology, And Faith Crisis

[Glenn101]

There is not enough time time in a two hour block, one day of the week, to teach church history. As others have pointed out, the purpose of the Sunday activities is to teach the gospel.

I don't know of any other religion that teaches the history of their religion in their worship services either. I would not expect them to. I would be expecting to learn their doctrines.

When we read history books, we are learn a few facts and are also exposed to the particular historical bias and conclusions of the historian(s) who produce the material. The facts do not change, but viewpoints and conclusions do. Try reading a U.S. History book from the fifties as opposed to today.

I read an essay some years back by an LDS member titled "I do not Have a testimony of LDS History." The title said it all for me. My testimony is of the truthfulness of the restored gospel. (I am not bearing my testimony here, just relating some facts.) It is based upon my study of the scriptures in part, but even more strongly upon a few very powerful spiritual experiences. They are as real to me as the experience I had with an automobile radiator erupting its steaming volcano over my body. (An actual experience also.)

I have read enough history concerning many of the Christian religions that if I were basing my belief's on certain aspects of their history, I would have to reject them. But the history is not the test that God requires to discern truth.

I do not have Abrahams's level of faith, but every time I have encountered a dissonance between the gospel and life, I am brought back to the reality of those experiences. I realize, like Abraham, that there is some tension, but like Abraham, I also trust that the Lord will resolve that tension.

All have been promised that experience, to know whether the gospel is true, to know if the Book of Mormon is true, to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet, if they sincerely wish to know, and seek the answer with real intent.

It is not a matter of intelligence. There are men of great intelligence on both sides of the LDS fence, some who believe, and some who do not. It is a matter of who has received that spiritual confirmation and who has not.

I cannot answer the question of why some seemingly sincere men receive an affirmation of the truthfulness of the restoration and why some, maybe the majority, do not. I can only look to my own experiences.

I have discussed spiritual experiences with some former LDS. One such told me that he had received a confirmation as if some one was yelling "YES! YES!" when he took the Moroni challenge, but as he read articles about Book of Mormon problems, he came to doubt the reality of that experience and began to believe it was just the result of wishful praying, and hoping that he would have an affirmative answer.

That is not unlike reports about some members of the early church. in addition to the eleven official witnesses, prayed for and received an opportunity to view the plates shown them by the angel Moroni, but later began to doubt the reality of that experience.

I have read up on most if not all of the issues raised by the OP of this thread. I feel I have adequate critical thinking skills, and for most if not all, I have found very reasonable explanations, at least for me.

Take Adam_God for instance. I don't know if a full treatise has been done on it. But when one reads that Brigham taught that every world has its Adam and Eve who go on to become gods and goddesses in their own right, a little light begins to dawn. Add that to the fact that Brigham specifically stated that this viewpoint was not binding upon the church, and most problems disappear, especially after reading a little more fully Brigham's teachings on the relationship between God the Father, Christ, and Adam.

There is not enough time and space to deal even with that issue, but researching beyond the material presented against some particular issue will most often unearth enough facts to support an alternative explanation.

But they will not be taught in Sunday School or priesthood. (I don't know about Relief Society.)

Glenn

[Log]

I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church by Davis Bitton.

Some stuff on Adam-God that I found helpful.

I think it might behoove mature teachers to incorporate some of the "controversial" material as an inoculatory precaution in their lessons. Just a thought.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Log

[why me]

I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church by Davis Bitton.

Some stuff on Adam-God that I found helpful.

I think it might behoove mature teachers to incorporate some of the "controversial" material as an inoculatory precaution in their lessons. Just a thought.

And there is nothing wrong in bringing it all up in sunday school or other meetings where appropriate. I do this. But I just don't bring up something without it being on subject. As someone attending the meetings, listening to the lessons, the inoculation begins with you with your comments.

[why me]

Ben, Most people are not leaving the church over these issues you right... but many are... and it could easily be prevented "in my humble opinion" if they felt we were up front with them. it may not be a matter of reality.. but rather feelings and perception.... regardless we have to fix it. These losses are preventable... that's my point. We should have moved on this long ago

And according to your link on page 11, the lds church may be doing this. From the link:

"What we have in mind is to develop a response to the tough issues – whether that's polyandry, or DNA in the Book of Mormon ... we do have another initiative that we have called, "Answers to Gospel Questions". We are trying to figure out exactly what channels to deliver it in"

I believe that it was Jensen who said this. So, what is the problem? The church seems to know the problem and will be doing something about it.

[Pahoran]

Didn't you notice the passages I cited in the Book of Mormon?

Yes, I did.

I agreed that the first one was standard LDS doctrine. Since you insist that I deal with the second one, I shall do so now.

You said:

In fact, according to Moroni 7:6-10, it is impossible for a person who has not been reconciled to God to do good works, even if they pray, give to the poor, or do other things that seem outwardly to be good works.

And your interpretation (I am being generous here) shows only the most casual acquaintance with the text. Here is what it actually says. I include verses 5 and 11 for context:

5 For I remember the word of God which saith by their works ye shall know them; for if their works be good, then they are good also.

6 For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing.

7 For behold, it is not counted unto him for righteousness.

8 For behold, if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God.

9 And likewise also is it counted evil unto a man, if he shall pray and not with real intent of heart; yea, and it profiteth him nothing, for God receiveth none such.

10 Wherefore, a man being evil cannot do that which is good; neither will he give a good gift.

11 For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he follow Christ he cannot be a servant of the devil.

That bit about "a person who has not been reconciled to God" is not in the text, but is your own entirely original contribution thereto. Moroni actually defines the key to the situation as "real intent," a favourite theme of his.

The Book of Mormon is not a Protestant screed, and it's high time you stopped claiming that it is. Apart from anything else, if it were, the local Protestants would not have gone into paroxysms of rage at the sight of it.

I disagree that saying we are saved by grace "alone" means that nothing we do is relevant.

If something, however trivial, that we do is relevant to our salvation, then grace is not alone. "Alone" means alone: by itself, unaccompanied, without help from anyone or anything else. If you say "grace alone" when you mean something like "grace mostly alone" then you are equivocating.

It just means that our works do not justify us, even a little. Frankly, I think that Mormons intuitively believe this, but they think they are restrained to disagree with it because of a 20th century Mormon tradition of thumbing our noses at Protestant soteriology.

This is amazing. With absolutely no evidence to back you up, you assume that "Mormons intuitively believe this," and then explain away the lack of support for your assumption by claiming that you know their minds better than they do!

Frankly, I think that Mormons "intuitively believe" that we cannot be saved by our own efforts, but that we cannot expect to be saved without them, either. Such, at least, is what I "intuitively believe" and it is consistent with how I have heard salvation discussed by informed Latter-day Saints all my life.

In fact, I think that Mormons could be taught to honestly say they believe sola fide as well, because yes, we baptize for the dead, and yes, we say that you cannot be saved in the Celestial kingdom without baptism. But why? Mormons don't believe that baptism has magical powers that supersede the grace of God. Rather, baptism is required because failure to be baptized, particularly when you have an opportunity to do so both in this life and the next, is an expression of a lack of faith. Unless you were baptized, you didn't really have faith.

Which is also true of every act of obedience. As far as I can tell, it always has. But I see no point in claiming to believe in an unscriptural formula like sola fide when we have no need for Latin catchphrases, creeds or confessions. Haven't you heard? We have continuing revelation.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

And according to your link on page 11, the lds church may be doing this. From the link:

"What we have in mind is to develop a response to the tough issues – whether that's polyandry, or DNA in the Book of Mormon ... we do have another initiative that we have called, "Answers to Gospel Questions". We are trying to figure out exactly what channels to deliver it in"

I believe that it was Jensen who said this. So, what is the problem? The church seems to know the problem and will be doing something about it.

AFAICT, the problem is that you can't claim the glory for steadying the ark if those whom the Lord has commissioned to bear it are already steadying it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[why me]

AFAICT, the problem is that you can't claim the glory for steadying the ark if those whom the Lord has commissioned to bear it are already steadying it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Reelmormon seems to have overlooked his own link. I just don't understand the complaint that he or she has. I think that reel has studied too many critical writings and immersed himself or herself in the words.

[Cobalt-70]

...I don't know of any other religion that teaches the history of their religion in their worship services either. I would not expect them to. I would be expecting to learn their doctrines.

The LDS situation is a little bit different than other faiths. Mormonism is intricately tied up with its history. The D&C, for example, makes little sense at all unless you understand its historical background. Plus, we have since the early 1900s made Joseph Smith's history into the foundation of our faith. Everything is said to rise or fall on Smith's history and visions. So there has to be a fair amount of history taught in Sunday meetings. I agree that the purpose of church is not, ultimately, to learn history, but whatever history is taught there ought to be presented in a way that doesn't cause anybody to feel they were deceived when they learn the full story about Joseph Smith from other sources.

[Storm Rider]

Some people really do get hung up on this topic. For me, I understood that Joseph was an instrument in God's hands and never really thought more about it or him. Some LDS seem to have a strong affinity to Joseph and the work he died at the direction of the Lord. I never experienced this affinity, but I can appreciate it in others.

What the Church taught me was to know my Father in Heaven, his son, Jesus Christ, and to strive to work with the Holy Spirit as a constant companion. I do recognize that some feel differently about the history of the Church than I do, but I cannot deny the truthfulness of the Church due to the relationship I have with God.

This does not indicate that I don't have problems with leadership, but it does indicate that those problems belong in a box separate from the reality of God and his plan for each of us.

A crisis of faith is real and I am famliar with its effects, but that crisis can easily be kept separate from our relationship with God.

[Calm]

An expression of faith is an act of faith, iow, one is acting on faith....faith is the motivator but it is not the expression or act itself and therefore one cannot apply the term "sola fide" to it anymore than one could substitute the word "love" for "giving my wife her favourite flowers" and mean the same exact thing, it is the combination of the two that explains what is going on AND why...."I am giving my wife her favourite flowers out of love".

grace mostly alone

I am just waiting for a clip of Miracle Max.

[Cobalt-70]

That bit about "a person who has not been reconciled to God" is not in the text, but is your own entirely original contribution thereto. Moroni actually defines the key to the situation as "real intent," a favourite theme of his.

The first part of Moroni 7 could have been written by a Methodist. Here we have verse 5, which says that "by their works ye shall know them; for if their works be good, then they are good." A "good" person, in Book of Mormon soteriology, is one who has been "born again" and therefore escaped from his total depravity (Mosiah 27:25).

Moroni says that a person who is not good (meaning the fallen, carnal, and sensual "natural man") "cannot do that which is good." If he does what seems like a good work, like offering gifts or praying, it is "not counted unto him for righteousness" because he is still a "depraved" man, and can form no righteous intent. A person is either in a state of grace, or he is completely depraved, ruled by the devil, and incapable of doing good works (v. 11-12).

If something, however trivial, that we do is relevant to our salvation, then grace is not alone. "Alone" means alone: by itself, unaccompanied, without help from anyone or anything else. If you say "grace alone" when you mean something like "grace mostly alone" then you are equivocating.

You are confusing two things. There are two issues: (1) what causes our salvation, and (2) what is necessary for our salvation. The answer to #1, according to Mormons, is "grace and works." The answer to #1, according to Protestants, Catholics, and the Book of Mormon, is grace, and many of them (including the Book of Mormon) say that the answer to #2 is good works.

The Book of Mormon never says that works are a cause of our salvation. Even though it says that the omission of good works (like baptism and obeying the commandments) will result in damnation. It never says that anyone is saved by works, even in conjunction with grace.

This is amazing. With absolutely no evidence to back you up, you assume that "Mormons intuitively believe this," and then explain away the lack of support for your assumption by claiming that you know their minds better than they do!

Frankly, I think that Mormons "intuitively believe" that we cannot be saved by our own efforts, but that we cannot expect to be saved without them, either. Such, at least, is what I "intuitively believe" and it is consistent with how I have heard salvation discussed by informed Latter-day Saints all my life.

Your own answer proves me right. I hereby dub thee honorary Methodist.

[Antoni]

The LDS situation is a little bit different than other faiths. Mormonism is intricately tied up with its history. The D&C, for example, makes little sense at all unless you understand its historical background. Plus, we have since the early 1900s made Joseph Smith's history into the foundation of our faith. Everything is said to rise or fall on Smith's history and visions. So there has to be a fair amount of history taught in Sunday meetings. I agree that the purpose of church is not, ultimately, to learn history, but whatever history is taught there ought to be presented in a way that doesn't cause anybody to feel they were deceived when they learn the full story about Joseph Smith from other sources.

Agree.

Of course the gospel should be taught primarily, but the history (now that's a very dry word, how about "stories") of earlier saints and their trials/struggles and failures, are excellent teaching tools for us and can illuminate the Gospel and Doctrines. I admit I'm still new, I've been blessed reading the Scriptures, but equally the stories of faith and the foolish things LDS people have done too. Paul talks about Milk and Meat, if people are only fed milk, when the crisis hits (and I speak from personal experience), they won't be strong enough to cope.

Also there is much to be proud of in LDS history.

[why me]

The LDS situation is a little bit different than other faiths. Mormonism is intricately tied up with its history. The D&C, for example, makes little sense at all unless you understand its historical background. Plus, we have since the early 1900s made Joseph Smith's history into the foundation of our faith. Everything is said to rise or fall on Smith's history and visions. So there has to be a fair amount of history taught in Sunday meetings. I agree that the purpose of church is not, ultimately, to learn history, but whatever history is taught there ought to be presented in a way that doesn't cause anybody to feel they were deceived when they learn the full story about Joseph Smith from other sources.

Actually everything rises or falls on the book of mormon and not on joseph's own history.

Also, lds history is used by critics to attempt to prove that the lds church is false. This is not done to any other church that I know of. Let us look at the multiple accounts of the first visions. Gordon B. Hinckley wrote in the Ensign that he is not troubled by the multiple accounts of the first vision. He mentioned that there were multiple accounts. But does this satisfy the critics...no. For critics this information needs to be posted during every lesson, written in the lds magazines every month and taught in class whereever possible.

What the correlation committee can do is have the critics write the manuals. That could work.

I do remember that the Ensign of the 1970's and early 80's covered many issues in its question and answer section. Maybe they can do this again.

Edited April 18, 2012 by why me

[Calm]

This is not done to any other church that I know of.

I've heard critics of Catholics say that all the horrible historical stuff that was done by leaders in the Catholic faith prove that it is a false faith. IIRC, there is a lot of anti-Catholic writing out there based on this idea as well.

I've heard Jews being condemned as a false faith for historical acts (won't link to a site that demonstrates this as it is hateful) as well and Muslims. I wouldn't be surprised to see it done for every faith that has ever existed pointing to the evil that members do somehow proving that the faith itself is false.

[why me]

I've heard critics of Catholics say that all the horrible historical stuff that was done by leaders in the Catholic faith prove that it is a false faith. IIRC, there is a lot of anti-Catholic writing out there based on this idea as well.

I've heard Jews being condemned as a false faith for historical acts (won't link to a site that demonstrates this as it is hateful) as well and Muslims. I wouldn't be surprised to see it done for every faith that has ever existed pointing to the evil that members do somehow proving that the faith itself is false.

I have never seen any correlated attack against the catholic church based on its history as I have seen directed by critics of the lds faith. Joseph Smith has been called a whoremonger, sex crazed, fraudster, conman, power seeking, boaster, liar, cheat, thief, etc. Brigham has been caleed racist, murderer, power hungry etc. The attacks are personal and this makes all the difference.

[Calm]

http://cityroom.blog...tholicism-dead/

The next speaker, James P. McCartin, a historian at Seton Hall University, said that “anti-Catholicism in a sense is at the center of Western modern history,” emerging from the “crucible of violence and hatred” that characterized the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries. Among the major themes of anti-Catholic sentiment, he said, were a revulsion toward that violence; a “long memory of real and imagined Catholic oppression”; a persistent anti-clericalism; and a prurient interest in the sexuality of nuns and priests.

At the same time, Professor Boys said that Catholics too “have a long history of denigration of the religious other, particularly the vilification of Judaism for almost 2,000 years” — a tradition exemplified, in modern times, by the Rev. Charles E. Coughlin, the antisemitic priest who was a popular radio figure of the 1930s.

The rabid antis tend to repeat the same attacks over and over, they just substitute different names for their personal choice of targets.

Read the anti-Christian stuff from the early days of Christianity....same stuff.

Edited April 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[why me]

http://cityroom.blog...tholicism-dead/

The rabid antis tend to repeat the same attacks over and over, they just substitute different names for their personal choice of targets.

Read the anti-Christian stuff from the early days of Christianity....same stuff.

The problem that I have about antimormonism is the direct personal attack not on history per se but on the founders of early mormonism. I think that the idea behind it is simple: if one can tar and feather Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and other church leaders with criticism, one can tar and feather the entire faith. And so, what critics do is peronalize the faith with its leaders. And so, mormon history is interpretedly reduced to the leaders and their actions, words and behaviors.

[DBMormon]

Really? Where?

I find nothing in your post to support your romantic wishful-thinking notion that "the original Mormon doctrine was salvation by grace alone." To say that we rely upon grace -- which we have always said -- is not to say that nothing we do is relevant, which is what that "alone" means.

That's false. Book of Mormon teachings only occasionally coincide with Protestant notions. You've tried to do your revisionist violence to the text before. Let's not pretend that discussion was settled in your favour, 'kay?

Regards,

Pahoran

If you read the lds bible dictionary dictionary on GRACE it says we must expend all our own effort.... which is false. I understand the dictionary is not scripture but it is trusted as scripture by most saints. many quotes from LDS leaders that we must use our works in combination with god's grace... that our works have merit. I will provide quotes if I am doubted.

[Calm]

If you read the lds bible dictionary dictionary on GRACE it says we must expend all our own effort.

Please do (provide quote)

[Calm]

The problem that I have about antimormonism is the direct personal attack not on history per se but on the founders of early mormonism. I think that the idea behind it is simple: if one can tar and feather Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and other church leaders with criticism, one can tar and feather the entire faith. And so, what critics do is peronalize the faith with its leaders. And so, mormon history is interpretedly reduced to the leaders and their actions, words and behaviors.

And how is that different from attaching anticatholicism to the Popes?

Personally I don't think it does anything for the conversation to claim ultimate victim status or victim status at all. I think we need to point out the error, hate where it appears, etc. but as soon as we take it personally, it shifts the conversation away from the error and the lies.

Edited April 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Glenn101]

If you read the lds bible dictionary dictionary on GRACE it says we must expend all our own effort.... which is false. I understand the dictionary is not scripture but it is trusted as scripture by most saints. many quotes from LDS leaders that we must use our works in combination with god's grace... that our works have merit. I will provide quotes if I am doubted.

This is the direct quote from the LDS Bible Dictionary, and a little bit more to provide amplification and context: "However, grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. Hence the explanation, “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Ne. 25:23)."

The Bible has never taught a grace alone doctrine.

Revelation 20:12 "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works."

Paul himself, the champion of grace also said this:Philippians 2:12 "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

A grace alone doctrine requires taking a passage or two out of context and ignoring the other scriptures relating to faith and works. The Bible does not say that our works have no merit, but that we will be judged by our works.

Glenn

Edited April 18, 2012 by Glenn101

[DBMormon]

Please do (provide quote)

• Spencer W. Kimball states: "however powerful the saving grace of Christ, it brings exaltation to no man who does not comply with the works of the gospel" (The Miracle of Forgiveness, pg. 207); "Each command we obey sends us another rung up the ladder to perfected manhood and toward godhood; and every law disobeyed is a sliding toward the bottom where man merges into the brute world" (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, pg. 153); "living all the commandments guarantees total forgiveness of sins and assures one of exaltation...trying is not sufficient. Nor is repentence when one merely tries to abandon sin" (The Miracle of Forgiveness, p.164-165, 354-355).
  

• Keeping the whole law: "To enter the celestial [kingdom] and obtain exaltation, it is necessary that the whole law be kept...Do you desire to enter the celestial Kingdom and receive eternal life? Then be willing to keep all of the commandments" (Joseph Fielding Smith, in The Way to Perfection, p.206).
  

• James Talmage explains: "...redemption from personal sins can only be obtained through obedience to the requirement of the Gospel, and a life of good works" (James Talmage, in A Study of the Articles of Faith).
  

Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Salvation is twofold: General—that which comes to all men irrespective of belief (in this life) in Christ—and, Individual—that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. - Doctrines of Salvation - In a section where he explains blood atonement.

Marion G Romney -

"The truth is that we are saved by grace only after all we ourselves can do. (See 2 Ne. 25:23.) There will be no government dole which can get us through the pearly gates. Nor will anybody go into the celestial kingdom who wants to go there on the works of someone else. Every man must go through on his own merits. We might just as well learn this here and now."

13

- (should be Christ's merits)

"All of us have sinned and need to repent to fully pay our part of the debt. When we sincerely repent, the Savior’s magnificent Atonement pays the rest of that debt. - JAmes E Faust (we do not pay any of the debt, Christ paid the whole price. I know what he meant but bad choice of wording)

"For," said this prophet, "we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." (2 Nephi 25:23.) Truly we are redeemed by the atoning blood of the Savior of the world, but only after each has done all he can to work out his own salvation - (none of us truly do all we can, he is right we must be willing and move forward and while we are asked to do all we can, the all we can do is not nessacary to specifically save us, only to contribute to sactifying us or changing our heart - Alma ch 5)

[DBMormon]

Please do (provide quote)

LDS BIBLE DICTIONARY

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/grace?lang=eng&letter=g

It is through the grace of the Lord Jesus, made possible by his atoning sacrifice, that mankind will be raised in immortality, every person receiving his body from the grave in a condition of everlasting life. It is likewise through the grace of the Lord that individuals, through faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ and repentance of their sins, receive strength and assistance to do good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means. This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts.

(in my opinion none of us expend our very own best effort..... each of us could always do more.)

[Buzzard]

(in my opinion none of us expend our very own best effort..... each of us could always do more.)

OK, fine. Your entitled to your opinion. Interesting that it contradicts the statements of apostles. But now we have wandered far afield from the OP, as threads tend to do.

It's always easy to come up with reasons to be "troubled", or that "cause me to question", or whatever cliche you choose. But it's a lot more profitable to come up with reasons to be inspired, to be drawn closer to God, and to believe. And in my experience, those reasons are just as easy to find.

[thesometimesaint]

Two sides of the same coin.