Thoughts On Church History, Theology, And Faith Crisis

[wenglund]

Wade: what game do you think is being played?

The game of using anti websites to tell LDS what they believe.

Do you really think Reelmormon came in here to say "Gotcha! The church is false because of all this historical crap I dug up off an anti site!"?

Not necessarily, though I haven't ruled it out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

I also googled and got different quotations from an lds site. You could have done the same. Here are the quotations for mercy:

http://www.readthesc...ercy_quote.ashx

If you sleep with the bedbugs you will get bit. That is just the way it is. You are cruising anti sites trying to find information and then using the arguments there for your posts here. You are also not listening to what the lds are saying to you. At least that is my impression. Here is a good quotation on grace:

"In all our forgiving and seeking forgiveness, we must recognize that, despite whatever restitution we may be capable of providing or receiving, our efforts and those of others are woefully insufficient to meet the demands of eternal justice. How, then, is true forgiveness possible? Paul, in speaking to the Ephesians, wrote that it is in Christ that "we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace" (Eph. 1:7)."

--Cecil O. Samuelson Jr, "Words of Jesus: Forgiveness", Ensign, Feb. 2003, 48

I am not making an argument that it is never taught the right way, only that at times he has been taught incorrectly and we should address that so people are clear that there is only one name under heaven whereby a man can be saved and only through the merits mercy and grace of Christ.

[Log]

Wade,

When I asked what game you thought Reelmormon was playing, you wrote:

The game of using anti websites to tell LDS what they believe.

Reelmormon is LDS. That he found a convenient cache of relevant quotations on a topic of interest from an anti site and used them to support a claim of his is hardly playing any such game as you accuse him of playing.

Personally, I see Cobalt-70's posts as far more damaging in playing this game on this board than anything Reelmormon has posted, yet I seem to not see you responding to his posts terribly often.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Log

[DBMormon]

this isn't about gotcha.... in the future regardless of how much you seem to dislike me simply bacause I have a different vantage point, will you show any others who come here with this struggle the empathy they need to resolve the issue. I don't see how your methods differ from how a defender for a false faith would try to defend their postion. That is how it comes off. your too rifid, too fundamental, your expectations are too high.... with that jargon I might as well be a universalist.

I'll be fine but many of them may not. Don't suppose anything about me or others like me as if one left the church due to your judgement ..... that may sting a little at the great and last day

[why me]

I think the Lord has power to transform us once we are humble and willing to follow him regardless of our own best efforts to fix any problem. I am not advocating saved by grace alone, but Absolutley no salvation by any amount of your own merits, only the merits of Christ

I don't think so. First, we have to have the will to change and then the lord will take care of us that we can do so. We need to take the first step. Husbands can be humble and still beat their wives. Husbands can go to church on sunday, and still beat tjheir wives. I posted several quotations on the previous page and yet, you have no comment about them. This is not a good way to have a conversation. I have seen it on exmormon sites. They talk, we listen and respond. They don't answer the response and post something new. I feel like I am on an exmormon thread.

[Log]

. I have seen it on exmormon sites. They talk, we listen and respond. They don't answer the response and post something new. I feel like I am on an exmormon thread.

You're following the wrong narrative, bluntly.

[why me]

I didn't know have a struggle of faith was a sin, but it gets treated that way here!

Yep, I feel like I am on an exmormon thread...playing the victim is a trademark of exmormon threads. No one said that you are sinning. All have been responding to you, with links etc. And they get no response from you except a generalization and a new complaint. Have you read my mercy quotations. They came from an lds site and they sound good to me. I certainly didn't get a response from you.

I think that we are the victims.

[why me]

You're following the wrong narrative, bluntly.

Not really. I have seen it many times before. It is beginning to read like an exmormon thread. The game is simple: make a statement critical of the lds church. Have apologists respond. Give a generalization in return and have the apologists respond once more. Make a new critical remark to keep it going. Apologists respond. More general statments from the doubter and a new issue. Apologists respond and round and round it goes.

[Log]

By such reasoning, God should cast into hell whomever commits the least sin - after all, they're going to keep sinning ad nauseam.

[why me]

this isn't about gotcha.... in the future regardless of how much you seem to dislike me simply bacause I have a different vantage point, will you show any others who come here with this struggle the empathy they need to resolve the issue.

And that is the point. I don't think that you are trying to resolve the issue at all. And nobody dislikes you. Again you are playing the victim. Personally, I just don't that you are serious. People have bent over backwards to answer your questions. I know that I have done so. But you never give a direct response to what we are saying. You just repeat your feelings about the issues. I have shown that Jensen addressed your issue about troubling aspects of church history. You ignore this. i have given quotation about mercy from church publications. You ignored them. I have tried in other areas too. You ignored what I wrote.

I am sure that other people feel the same way that I do. I have this strange feeling that you will be posting on a exmormon site about your horrible experiences here. But hopefully I am wrong.

[why me]

By such reasoning, God should cast into hell whomever commits the least sin - after all, they're going to keep sinning ad nauseam.

We all sin. But I also know that I can attempt to change my behavior. I may fail but I am trying and repenting. I also attempt to do good works and have mercy and give grace to others who may harm me. But I don't continue in the sin without attempting to change. I don't think that god in his mercy will forgive me upon death unless I have been attempting to change. Even catholics get the last rites so they can repent of their sins and receive communion. .

[Log]

Therefore, let us emulate God and work to see that the sincere seekers don't start harping on their hard treatment on this board by "why me" as part of the reason they left. Assume they're sincere unless you have definitive proof otherwise.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Log

[wenglund]

The church teaches the gospel in a fundamental Manner.

Yes and no. The curriculum is designed, as it should be, to teach fundamentally to church members in the formative stages of spiritual growth in faith (typically primary aged children and new converts), and decreasingly so to youth. Adult instruction in the church isn't fundamentalist.

Perhaps that is why People set up that paradigm for some reason.

Yes. The reason lessons are taught in a fundamentalist way during the formative period is because such is necessary for building a solid and clear epistemic foundation and infrastructure. However, the reason it phased out as one grows towards spiritual maturation is so as to build in some measure of epistemic flexibility needed to deal with the increasingly apparent, non-black/white, messy, vague and uncertain, and nuanced aspects of spiritual life. Where once rigidity of thought was a virtue while first attempting to make sense of the world and learning to stand up in the gospel, it may later become a flaw by causing one's faith to break instead of healthily bend when the winds of diverse ideas and understanding begin to blow.

So you would rather address where the quote was found rather then it's substance?

I did address the substance--or at least I addressed the fundamentalist way I thought you were interpreting the quotes. Is that a problem?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Thanks again Log, I again appreciate your empathy. Dan Peterson is not the only one. Richard Bushman, Teryl Givens, and many other "experts" seem to address this kind of thing with empathy. It is what these folks are looking for. Again the kinderhook plates do not bother me, nor adam god, nor blacks and PH, nor Seer Stones, but rather how we address our history and the way in which we teach authority and being looked down upon for questioning.... I didn't know have a struggle of faith was a sin, but it gets treated that way here!

I am not sure you are in the best position to play the victim card here. It isn't your struggle of faith that is being challenged, but seemingly your remarkable resistance to input on how to turn your struggle into a strength. There is a wealth of edifying insights on this thread for those humbly open to receive them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

I don't think so. First, we have to have the will to change and then the lord will take care of us that we can do so. We need to take the first step. Husbands can be humble and still beat their wives. Husbands can go to church on sunday, and still beat tjheir wives. I posted several quotations on the previous page and yet, you have no comment about them. This is not a good way to have a conversation. I have seen it on exmormon sites. They talk, we listen and respond. They don't answer the response and post something new. I feel like I am on an exmormon thread.

You have power to change... true... but ultimately you can not change enough on your own to merit anything .... Ether 12:27 = God wants you humble so that his grace ultimately changes you.... not within your power to be anything more then an uprofitable servant just like me who sins everyday.

[Log]

I am not sure you are in the best position to play the victim card here. It isn't your struggle of faith that is being challenged, but seemingly your remarkable resistance to input on how to turn your struggle into a strength. There is a wealth of edifying insights on this thread for those humbly open to receive them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Vinegar vs. honey.

[DBMormon]

Yep, I feel like I am on an exmormon thread...playing the victim is a trademark of exmormon threads. No one said that you are sinning. All have been responding to you, with links etc. And they get no response from you except a generalization and a new complaint. Have you read my mercy quotations. They came from an lds site and they sound good to me. I certainly didn't get a response from you.

I think that we are the victims.

no, I am nost casting out all your great quotes on mercy. Though your right, Haven't read them yet, but will tonight When I get home. Believe me when I say I understand the Doctrine of Christ well, and I feel members and even LDS leaders get it worng at times and try to attribute salvation to there merits in some form. We are commanded to be perfect and to keep the commandments, and we should, but they do not in any way shape or form pay the debt who help us in earning salvation. Anyone who thinks that might want to read more from

Elder McConkie's what think ye of salvation by grace

Brad Wilcox - Grace is suffcient

Robert Millet - Grace after all we can do

Gene R Cook - Salvation by grace

Robert Millet - what we believe

and several others.

[wenglund]

Vinegar vs. honey.

Even if one uncharitably looks at it that way, vinegar is far preferred to honey as a disinfectant.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Benjamin McGuire]

Some final (short) comments, and I think I will bow out of this thread and leave to the discussion to everyone else.

For Log, this is not the first time I have had some discussion with reelmormon. So I do in fact have some additional insight.

For me the issue is about the demands and the assumptions. When did the issue of a seer stone become an essential element in understanding the gospel? Reelmormon isn't just presenting us with conflicting accounts and asking us what to do about it. In fact he tells us he has already made up his own mind. He is instead using the conflict to illustrate the point he wants to make. So when he asks if the church has been keeping things from us, it is kind of a rhetorical question in some ways.

There is a certain irony in the claim that he shouldn't have to read Bushman to get these "facts". And then, he goes right out to google (which is exactly what Elder Jensen mentioned) to look for this or that bit of information - completely uncaring about the source he found. Perhaps he is an example of what the leadership is most concerned about and not simply the herald that he claims to be.

At any rate, what is fascinating to me about the whole seer stone issue is that reelmormon hasn't just found a few historical facts, he found an entire interpretation and a narrative and he accepted them. The church can present these issues all they want - they might, for example, teach my version of what seer stones are - my narrative account. And then we will still have two very different narrative accounts. Mine, which suggests that we should recognize that they played a role for a short while in the early church but were eventually rejected as being a necessary thing, and this other narrative which is championed by John Dehlin (whom reelmormon seems to be a fan of) in which the seer stones are of supreme importance in understanding the gospel, and the church's hiding them and keeping them from us, including all of these terribly inaccurate portrayals of the event in art and so on, constitutes some gross breach of trust. There will still be these two narratives, and reelmormon will still encounter another version of that history. And in fact, it will the one he most likely encounters first, as he turns to google as his guide. Reelmormon's message is inconsistent. He tells us "Anyone who thinks that might want to read more from ..." and provides a list while at the same time he earlier suggests he shouldn't need to read from Bushman.

My opinion? The church has certainly created some of this issue as it constantly reminds us of the history of the church. And if the church wants to continue to do so, then it needs to continue to work at removing faith promoting myths and introducing real history. But, the kinds of issues that reelmormon is asking for won't in my personal opinion correct the problems that he is illustrating, or that Elder Jensen was really talking about. Personally, I don't know the best way to do this. I wish that every member of the church was interested in reading, and in forming opinions for themselves. I wish that our members were better able (as a whole) to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty in life. I don't know how to teach these things, because my own path to where I am was uniquely my own.

What I do know is that what reelmormon is doing here in this thread is counterproductive to his cause.

Ben M.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Benjamin McGuire

[wenglund]

no, I am nost casting out all your great quotes on mercy. Though your right, Haven't read them yet, but will tonight When I get home. Believe me when I say I understand the Doctrine of Christ well, and I feel members and even LDS leaders get it worng at times and try to attribute salvation to there merits in some form. We are commanded to be perfect and to keep the commandments, and we should, but they do not in any way shape or form pay the debt who help us in earning salvation. Anyone who thinks that might want to read more from

Elder McConkie's what think ye of salvation by grace

Brad Wilcox - Grace is suffcient

Robert Millet - Grace after all we can do

Gene R Cook - Salvation by grace

Robert Millet - what we believe

and several others.

It may help to learn that salvation is comprised of more than salvation from the debt of sin. It also includes, among other things, salvation from ignorance--which salvation can't fully come without our active and humble participation. Christ may knock at our epistemic door, but we must also let him in.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[selek1]

To answer that rhetorical question: No, it does not matter where you found the quotes.

Here's a fun fact. Around 9 or 10 years ago, I had an issue about an historical matter. I wrote to Hugh Nibley about it, and, when his response was unhelpful, I went to Dan Peterson about it. He did not waste my time by telling me I was too rigid, or that I had swallowed someone else's narrative, or that I wasn't thinking for myself, or that I was obviously playing games by citing material from an anti's work. He pointed me towards someone who knew more than he did on the topic in question, and I was answered fully by that person, with neither scorn nor upbraiding.

I wish I saw more of that in this thread.

Ironically- you did.

And then you saw ReelMormon dismiss those answers with an airy wave of his hand- and by vomiting up another plagiarized talking point.

The Saints on these boards went out of his way to answer his "questions"- right up to and beyond the point it became clear he wasn't interested in answers.

By the way, the first not-so-subtle clue was his screenname.

My first reaction on reading it was to flash back to an old parody medicine commercial- "I'm not a real doctor, but I play one on TV."

Reel's behavior has screamed loud and clear, "I'm not a real Mormon, but I play one on the Internets".

Edit: I am informed by a plausibly reliable source that "Reel" is a pun on one aspect of said poster's life, rather than "I play one on TV".

I happily concede that my "hunch" on the matter was wrong.

That having been said, I find far too many red flags in his behavior to take his complaints at face value.

Log is right in one respect: quote-mining anti-Mormon sites does not- in and of itself undermine a poster's claims to be a faithful Mormon."

Had that been Reel's only "transgression", his reception here would have been far different.

Where Log goes off the rail, IMO, is that the faithful here have been less-than-fair to ReelMormon's quest for knowledge.

Numerous Saints have tried diligently to answer honestly,humbly, and in good faith- only to have our faith and our leaders mocked, derided, and willfully misrepresented.

The faithful are under no obligation to stand idly while someone slings flaming bags of poo at either ourselves or the Church.

Any distrust, disdain, or hostility that ReelMormon has received has been the harvest of his own diligent labor.

I, for one, would welcome him with open arms and be more than happy to dialogue with him on any subject- provided he showed any evidence of good faith in such interactions.

If he likes, Reel may consider that both an invitation and a challenge.

Edited April 18, 2012 by selek1

[DBMormon]

I am not sure you are in the best position to play the victim card here. It isn't your struggle of faith that is being challenged, but seemingly your remarkable resistance to input on how to turn your struggle into a strength. There is a wealth of edifying insights on this thread for those humbly open to receive them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ok I will try to spell it out...

Very Little advise given here related to the heart of the issue when one percieves the problem of what they are taught be ing very different from the historical account and one needs to be acknowleged how one could see how they got there and take the time to help them see a better paradigm with which to see the issue of this contradiction through. Log did that, Peppermint Patty's comments were helpful, Elder Jenson was helpful, Teryl Givens in an interview was helpful.... most of you... your approach wasn't. I thought originally psoting on here, there would be several folks who took their approach but could help me in a one on one coversation better understand this paradigm of missed expectations and realistic expectations of True and Living Church. one person did that here. they know who they are. But I keep telling you that for others sake you have to handle this strufggle differently. I do in actuality have a real faith crisis, but it is not with Joseph, or with the Book of Mormon. IT is with the above issue first stated in this reply. We could defend any church with the some of methods and reasoning used to defend this one and yet the True church must have more rigidness (true and Living, Prophets and Apostles, keys, Priesthood, ect...) and I struggle with fitting all my round pegs (even if you say they are square and I am just not looking at them from the right angle) in the square holes. I can shelf a couple things but my mind doesn't shelf a lot. I don't see the world the way you do... so be it

[Cobalt-70]

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

I'd say it's split between the Book of Mormon and Smith's personal history, especially his first vision. The idea that everything rises and falls based on the book of Mormon was current in the 1830s, and then again beginning in the 1980s due to Ezra Benson. But the idea that everything rises and falls on Smith's personal history (primarily his first vision) has been with us consistently since at least 1905-ish.

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.

I don't know what critics think, but speaking as someone whose main interest is to prevent people from leaving the church once they hear the "whole story," I think the manuals could make relatively minimal changes that could avoid the appearance of manipulation.

For example, the manuals could say that the young Joseph Smith had a vision in the woods, and that this was his first prophetic experience. It can say that as a youth, Smith was puzzled about the large number of religious faiths in the Palmyra region, and how they could all disagree on matters of doctrine. It could say that Smith later attributed this vision to his early decision not to join any of the existing churches. If the manuals quote Smith's 1838 version of the vision, it could perhaps note that throughout his life, Smith gave various accounts about what he remembered of his vision, but in the version now found in the Pearl of Great Price, he said X.

[Pahoran]

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."

Evidently in your mind, only a Methodist knows anything about the Sermon on the Mount.

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).

Call for references, please. Apart from the fact that we have already done this dance, and it was clearly established that the Book of Mormon doctrine of the "natural man" is not the same as the false sectarian doctrine of "total depravity," where does the Book of Mormon equate being good with being born again?

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).

Who are you quoting with that "depraved?" Not Moroni! Your approach here is eisegetical from start to finish.

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.

And around and around and around it goes. I think we have reached an impasse here. You are determined to read the Book of Mormon as a 19th century Methodist tract, and I read it for what it actually says. Thus, we are never going to agree.

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

Don't be insulting.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

In response to a profound post by Ben McGuire, Log had this to say:

I would like to interject that while Ben has a well-thought out position, it's incomplete. This is not going to be a fully coherent post, but, then, when do I ever post coherently?

Everyone has a breaking point. What they do when they reach that point is a witness of their character.

Abraham was commanded to slay his sole son. I guarantee you there was nothing else in existence that would have been as great a trial for him.

For others of us, other issues arise which perform the same function. I have personally defeated a couple. I have chosen wickedness in the face of others, to my eternal shame.

I feel that, in Ben's response, the power of a demonstrated contradiction is not appreciated.

It does not help to say "others don't have this problem." The person with the problem has this problem, and that is sufficient for them.

While this is worthy of consideration, to me, Ben's point isn't just that different people have different problems, but rather that there are reasons why only certain people are having certain problems, and this needs to be taken into consideration when formulating solutions.

More particularly, it is wise to consider what is the best way to deal with those certain problems that only certain people are having?

According to reelmormon: "What has always been the focus of my struggles at times has been what felt to me like lack of full disclosure. Like no one really wants to go out of their way to tell the full story...While I am active and have been aware of these issues for many many years it is the lack of info from church sources especially those we use on Sunday that seems to bother me." (see HERE)

Clearly, this is a problem that reelmormon and others have had, though it isn't a problem for all members, if not by far most members.

What, then, is the best way to deal with reelmormon's problem?

Well, presumably in his mind the problem can be solved by the Church fully disclosing things.

However, as Ben astutely pointed out, this really won't solve the problem because reelmormon's problem isn't just with the lack of disclosure, it is also likely with the lack of disclosure of things in a certain expected way.

I would go on to suggest that reelmormon's presumed solution is premature.

One of the first steps of effective problem-solving techniques would be to identify the core cause of the problem, and this is where Ben's point comes into play. A good question to ask at this point would be why is reelmormon is having this problem and other members are not. Could it be that reelmormon's problem may actually be a byproduct or symptom of some other core issue, like a lack of trust or false beliefs and expectations or some other things? And, if so, then were the Church to now fully disclose things in way satisfactory to reelmormon, it may take care of or mask the symptoms, in part or whole, but the core issue may still remain, and may manifest itself through some other symptom.

Also, it is wise to consider solutions to the problem in terms of everyone's interest and in terms of priorities. It wouldn't be wise to propose a solution that may fix one problem while inadvertently creating a number of other problems. And, it wouldn't be wise to give the highest priority to lower priority problems and solutions.

Furthermore, it would be wise to make sure the solution not only solves the specific problem, but it fits the over-all functionality and purpose of the things being fixed. For example, while making a wheel for a race car out of cement might fix the problem of tires going flat, it may not fit the race car's purpose of going fast.

So, if reelmormon is interested, I would be willing to walk him through the process of effective problem resolution for his stated problem, and see if in the end he is still of the opinion that full disclosure by the Church is what is best. Deal?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 18, 2012 by wenglund