Thoughts On Church History, Theology, And Faith Crisis

[why me]

Tal Bachmann (bitter anti-) said when he was LDS he'd strap himself to a bomb and blow himself up if the prophet told him to.

I am not surprised but perhaps he is overstating it a bit.

I think that many hardcore antis were 140 percenters when they were members and had no tolerance for people who weren't like them. They tend to bring over that dedication when they leave the lds church as a bitter anti. What Tal said sounds like a 140 percenter to me and very extreme. And I am sure that he is just as dedicated as a antimormon.

[Kenngo1969]

1. Doctrinal Mistakes – Neither my testimony nor my salvation hinge of the particulars regarding evolution, the age of the earth, why the priesthood was withheld from blacks, the ancestry of native peoples, light-skinned Lamanites, the Adam-God theory, or whether the great and abominable church refers to any specific organization. For me, if the adversary can get me to discount the spiritual witnesses I have received in favor of straining on these gnats in order to swallow the camel that the Church isn’t true, then he’s won. I’d rather not concede the battle over things that don’t form the foundation of my testimony.

2. Not Providing What Some Believe to be Adequate Focus on Certain Historical Issues – For me, the issue of how the Book of Mormon came to be is secondary. Even if Joseph Smith dictated all or part of it to his scribes while standing on his head, rubbing his tummy in a counterclockwise direction and clucking like a chicken, that does nothing to account for the facts that (1) the Book of Mormon still exists, and (2) for me (certain glaring imperfections of mine notwithstanding, which I continue to labor to overcome) it has succeeded very well in its stated mission of bringing people to Christ.

Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling succeeds very well at putting Joseph Smith into the context of his time while still allowing his story to speak for itself. And just because Rough Stone Rolling isn’t Sunday School curriculum or the Ensign doesn’t mean I can’t resort to it to supplement my knowledge on a given subject. I try not to go to Sunday School an empty vessel, waiting to be “filled” in some manner that’s “Church-approved” (and if I do that, it’s my own fault). I try to follow the admonitions of the scriptures to “seek out of the best books words of wisdom,” to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith,” and to seek out things that are “virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy.”

3. Following/Not Following the Prophets – In order to contextualize this particular allegation, you’d have to bring forth an instance in which you followed prophetic counsel, to your detriment. Any time I have questioned a prophetic pronouncement by appealing to its purported source (something we’re supposed to do, by the way), that prophetic pronouncement has been ratified as having come from that source. I have also received specific guidance as to how to apply that prophetic pronouncement to my own benefit. I do what I do not because Joseph Smith did (or did not) translate the Book of Mormon in a certain way; not because Brigham Young taught (or did not) teach the Adam-God theory/doctrine; not because Lamanite skin did (or did not) become lighter; I do it because it bears good fruit in my life and fills my soul. Your mileage may vary.

Neither doubt nor faith are things that creep upon us like a thief in the night, capturing us unawares. (Or at least, they need not be.) Rather, both of them are choices. Faith isn’t just some harbor in which one puts down anchor and is thereby permanently and comfortably ensconced. It’s a choice. If I am to stay there, it requires work on my part to continually adjust to currents that would sweep me out of the harbor if I let them. My faith, contrary to the allegation of some against me and those who are similarly situated, spiritually speaking, is not rooted in blissful ignorance. It’s not as if I, or any other person who has chosen faith, have never asked myself any of the questions you pose. I’ve found what I consider to be satisfactory answers to many of them. People who have forgotten more about the background underlying the challenging issues you raise than you or I will ever know have, nonetheless, remained faithful. That tells me something; again, your mileage may vary.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[DBMormon]

The issues themselves never really troubled me much....kinderhook, book of abraham, masonry in temples, ect... never really bothered me. 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. I get answers if I wade myself into troubling information but the church doesn't seem (to me I am saying) to want all members to be aware of controversial issues even when they are factual and historical. 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.

[Kenngo1969]

Tal Bachmann (bitter anti-) said when he was LDS he'd strap himself to a bomb and blow himself up if the prophet told him to.

As I once put in my signature line regarding Mr. Bachmann's pronouncement, "Read your scriptures, strap on a bomb; it's all the same to us!"

[DBMormon]

1. Doctrinal Mistakes – Neither my testimony nor my salvation hinge of the particulars regarding evolution, the age of the earth, why the priesthood was withheld from blacks, the ancestry of native peoples, light-skinned Lamanites, the Adam-God theory, or whether the great and abominable church refers to any specific organization. For me, if the adversary can get me to discount the spiritual witnesses I have received in favor of straining on these gnats in order to swallow the camel that the Church isn’t true, then he’s won. I’d rather not concede the battle over things that don’t form the foundation of my testimony.

the above quotewas froma reply above..... to me this quote is hard to swallow. Every believer of some religious belief has spiritual feelings and a testimony. Doesn't mean they are right or it is true. If we are not asked to confront false things in our beliefs then we get no converts as others can't be asked to do the same. Feelings do not make things absolutely true. on some level they do but not absolutely. Buddhist get feelings, muslims get feelings, jehovah witnnesses get feelings

[Log]

Tss,

That you are denying the definition of evolution indicates how you've managed to reconcile the irreconcilable truth claims of the gospel with evolution. You've denied evolution. Now, it remains to be explained why you adhere to the form, while denying the power thereof.

[Kenngo1969]

The issues themselves never really troubled me much....kinderhook, book of abraham, masonry in temples, ect... never really bothered me. 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. I get answers if I wade myself into troubling information but the church doesn't seem (to me I am saying) to want all members to be aware of controversial issues even when they are factual and historical. 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.

Allowing such issues to be tackled in a devotional setting would be a good way for the Church of Jesus Christ, its leaders, and its members to lose sight of the forest for the trees. If the Church's mission is to bring people to Christ, I fail to see how this would be accomplished by such a shift in focus. Could the Church, and those associated with it, do a better job dealing with such issues in appropriate fora? Yes, and it's moving in that direction, as evidenced by the increasing visibility of such organs as FAIR, the Maxwell Institute, and even the Church itself with the publication and on-line availability of the Joseph Smith papers.

[GingerRed]

1. Doctrinal Mistakes – Neither my testimony nor my salvation hinge of the particulars regarding evolution, the age of the earth, why the priesthood was withheld from blacks, the ancestry of native peoples, light-skinned Lamanites, the Adam-God theory, or whether the great and abominable church refers to any specific organization. For me, if the adversary can get me to discount the spiritual witnesses I have received in favor of straining on these gnats in order to swallow the camel that the Church isn’t true, then he’s won. I’d rather not concede the battle over things that don’t form the foundation of my testimony.

2. Not Providing What Some Believe to be Adequate Focus on Certain Historical Issues – For me, the issue of how the Book of Mormon came to be is secondary. Even if Joseph Smith dictated all or part of it to his scribes while standing on his head, rubbing his tummy in a counterclockwise direction and clucking like a chicken, that does nothing to account for the facts that (1) the Book of Mormon still exists, and (2) for me (certain glaring imperfections of mine notwithstanding, which I continue to labor to overcome) it has succeeded very well in its stated mission of bringing people to Christ.

Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling succeeds very well at putting Joseph Smith into the context of his time while still allowing his story to speak for itself. And just because Rough Stone Rolling isn’t Sunday School curriculum or the Ensign doesn’t mean I can’t resort to it to supplement my knowledge on a given subject. I try not to go to Sunday School an empty vessel, waiting to be “filled” in some manner that’s “Church-approved” (and if I do that, it’s my own fault). I try to follow the admonitions of the scriptures to “seek out of the best books words of wisdom,” to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith,” and to seek out things that are “virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy.”

3. Following/Not Following the Prophets – In order to contextualize this particular allegation, you’d have to bring forth an instance in which you followed prophetic counsel, to your detriment. Any time I have questioned a prophetic pronouncement by appealing to its purported source (something we’re supposed to do, by the way), that prophetic pronouncement has been ratified as having come from that source. I have also received specific guidance as to how to apply that prophetic pronouncement to my own benefit. I do what I do not because Joseph Smith did (or did not) translate the Book of Mormon in a certain way; not because Brigham Young taught (or did not) teach the Adam-God theory/doctrine; not because Lamanite skin did (or did not) become lighter; I do it because it bears good fruit in my life and fills my soul. Your mileage may vary.

Neither doubt nor faith are things that creep upon us like a thief in the night, capturing us unawares. (Or at least, they need not be.) Rather, both of them are choices. Faith isn’t just some harbor in which one puts down anchor and is thereby permanently and comfortably ensconced. It’s a choice. If I am to stay there, it requires work on my part to continually adjust to currents that would sweep me out of the harbor if I let them. My faith, contrary to the allegation of some against me and those who are similarly situated, spiritually speaking, is not rooted in blissful ignorance. It’s not as if I, or any other person who has chosen faith, have never asked myself any of the questions you pose. I’ve found what I consider to be satisfactory answers to many of them. People who have forgotten more about the background underlying the challenging issues you raise than you or I will ever know have, nonetheless, remained faithful. That tells me something; again, your mileage may vary.

Well said!!

I think the majority of Mormons feel this way, too.

[Kenngo1969]

[Kenngo1969]

1. Doctrinal Mistakes – Neither my testimony nor my salvation hinge of the particulars regarding evolution, the age of the earth, why the priesthood was withheld from blacks, the ancestry of native peoples, light-skinned Lamanites, the Adam-God theory, or whether the great and abominable church refers to any specific organization. For me, if the adversary can get me to discount the spiritual witnesses I have received in favor of straining on these gnats in order to swallow the camel that the Church isn’t true, then he’s won. I’d rather not concede the battle over things that don’t form the foundation of my testimony.

[reelmormon]... Every believer of some religious belief has spiritual feelings and a testimony. Doesn't mean they are right or it is true. If we are not asked to confront false things in our beliefs then we get no converts as others can't be asked to do the same. Feelings do not make things absolutely true. on some level they do but not absolutely. Buddhist get feelings, muslims get feelings, jehovah witnnesses get feelings

I don't see the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vis-a-vis other religions in such binary, black-and-white terms as you apparently do. "Inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward" (Doctrine & Covenants 56:26). This applies to people of whatever religious persuasion, or even of no religious persuasion whatsoever. The scriptures tell us that good trees don't bring forth evil fruit, whether those "good trees" are "Buddhist trees" or "Muslim trees" or "Catholic trees" or "Protestant trees" or some other species of tree. I believe that good trees are good trees, and good fruit is good fruit. I don't think that God gives me grapes and figs while giving people of other religious persuasions thorns and thistles; I don't think that God gives me bread while giving them stones, or that He gives me fish while giving them serpents. I believe He gives good gifts to all of His children who ask Him.

Now, having said all of that, do all good trees bring forth the same amount of good fruit? I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because I believe that it brings forth a hundredfold of good fruit. Does that justify me in condemning people who are members of other faiths because they "only" receive sixtyfold or thirtyfold? Of course not. When it comes right down to it, the only reason for anyone to associate him- or herself with any particular religion is because that belief system bears good fruit in the person's life. Do we tell people, when they come into the Church, "Yes, we know you've got all of this good fruit from elsewhere, but you're just going to have to throw it away"? No, of course not. In the words of President Hinckley (and I believe he got it from Brigham Young), we tell them to bring the good that they have and let us see if we can add to it.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Evangeline]

I don't see the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vis-a-vis other religions in such binary, black-and-white terms as you apparently do. "Inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward" (Doctrine & Covenants 56:26). This applies to people of whatever religious persuasion, or even of no religious persuasion whatsoever. The scriptures tell us that good trees don't bring forth evil fruit, whether those "good trees" are "Buddhist trees" or "Muslim trees" or "Catholic trees" or "Protestant trees" or some other species of tree. I believe that good trees are good trees, and good fruit is good fruit. I don't think that God gives me grapes and figs while giving people of other religious persuasions thorns and thistles; I don't think that God gives me bread while giving them stones, or that He gives me fish while giving them serpents. I believe He gives good gifts to all of His children who ask Him.

You're on a roll today, Kenngo.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Evangeline

[Kenngo1969]

Well, I don't recall Tal Bachman (sp?) saying he'd joyfully sprint to his target destination wearing the C-4 vest either.

Oh, he of little faith! Is Thomas S. Monson God's prophet, or not?

[Kenngo1969]

Well said!!

I think the majority of Mormons feel this way, too.

You're on a roll today, Kenngo.

Thank you both, but give God the praise. I'm a sinner!

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

This is really going off the OP, but here goes. My testimony of the Restored Gospel is not dependent on your lack of understanding of science. I have a testimony of whom I consider the prophets of God to instruct me in the ways I need to comport my life in order to be a faithfull follower of Christ. Whatever their own personal opinions of science, of men being on the moon or on the sun, the age of the earth, what makes for a beautiful woman, or the best thing they ever ate, it has absolutely no bearing on my testimony.

Edited April 12, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Log]

This is really going off the OP, but here goes. My testimony of the Restored Gospel is not dependent on your lack of understanding of science.

I agree, personal insults are OP.

And, in any event, your perception of our respective understandings of science is, in reality, the reverse of reality.

To wit: random mutation entails undirected mutation, and natural selection excludes intelligent or artificial selection.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

Tell me is Pi equal to exactly 3?

[Log]

Tell me is Pi equal to exactly 3?

Tell me, is the law of non-contradiction optional in your world?

Edited April 12, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

Tal Bachmann (bitter anti-) said when he was LDS he'd strap himself to a bomb and blow himself up if the prophet told him to.

He said this after he had left the Church, this was his then perception of his former state. Whether or not he would have said this as a believing faithful member is another thing altogether. Not everyone is as self aware and analytical as they think they are.

[Hamilton Porter]

I am not surprised but perhaps he is overstating it a bit.

I think that many hardcore antis were 140 percenters when they were members and had no tolerance for people who weren't like them. They tend to bring over that dedication when they leave the lds church as a bitter anti. What Tal said sounds like a 140 percenter to me and very extreme. And I am sure that he is just as dedicated as a antimormon.

Yeah, if you ever read what he writes or watch him, he is an absolute maniac.

[Skylla]

Tell me, is the law of non-contradiction optional in your world?

Stop it.

Skylla

[Hamilton Porter]

The issues themselves never really troubled me much....kinderhook, book of abraham, masonry in temples, ect... never really bothered me. 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. I get answers if I wade myself into troubling information but the church doesn't seem (to me I am saying) to want all members to be aware of controversial issues even when they are factual and historical. 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.

I hope you find some breathing space on this forum. Allow yourself to air it out in a faithful setting.

[spartacus]

You know what, I am aware of these things, but while they are of interest to me, they are not the source of any "faith crisis". One, because if you look for perfection in any person or institution, you are setting yourself up for disapointment.

Second-and the most important-the church really stands or falls on the Book of Mormon. It really is the keystone of our religion. And once you have become convinced of it's truth, all that other stuff is a bit of a sideshow. And I am convinced. Totally, unambigously, no reservations at all.

Not saying this applies to you, but a lot of folks are looking for a reason not to believe. If they really want to find one, no excuse is too small. Heck, a bishop with a sarcastic streak will do the job quite nicely.

1) "the church is perfect, the people are not" (or something like that) - indicates that a lot of LDS are in for disappointment

2) The truth of the Book of Mormon ("the keystone of our religion") does not indicate the truth of the LDS church. There are way too many mormon groups that all accept the Book of Mormon (as truth literally or otherwise) to use it's determination as true as justification to believe in one of those groups over another. So how do you differentiate between all those groups that accept the Book of Mormon?

If you haven't dealt with this fact, then your "no reservations" appear to be from lack of looking around. If I just looked at the person in front of me I might think there was only one other person in the world, but that doesn't make it true.

[This is also one reason why I disdain the missions, their entire program is built on this false logic. Their goal is to get someone to pray about the Book of Mormon and then they believe the LDS church is true - false. They may add praying about the current prophet but, then, how much more do you have to pray about to know the LDS church - a rather large entity with a long complex history is true?]

3) Looking around is what we are supposed to do, see "ponder"-ing. If you do that, it doesn't mean you are looking for a reason not to believe. In fact, looking only for reasons to believe is just as bad as looking only for reasons not to believe. Looking for reasons not to believe is useful in determining falsehood. If you don't want to believe stuff that is false, look for evidence of falsehood. If want to believe stuff that is true, you look for falsehoods - because they are usually easy to spot and wittle down the options quite quickly- then look for evidence of truth from what is left over. Even then you are not done because you will still have multiple non-compatible options to choose from - which is the proper place for prayer and faith in God's leading to come in at (not the very beginning - at least all by itself = without the above steps as well, that is.)

Doing this means you look at all of these issues and much more that reelmormon posted about. And what really causes concern is the claim of the LDS church that it is the only one guided by God through an effective means, a prophet. Given this it would seem that it should have a better track record than everyone else. Or else what's the point of being guided by God through the only effective means? So if there is evidence of not such a great track record, then that is quite pertinent to the main claim of the LDS church - revelation received. It is this grand claim of the LDS church that turns even what otherwise might be gnats into camels. In fact, with such a strong claim, one could say there are no gnats. If the LDS church is so efficiently led by a prophet of God, then all would-be gnats become camels. The LDS church makes great claims that require it to toe a thin line, any deviation puts the whole at risk.

[CV75]

I am hoing that the replies to this post might be serious answers from your perspective on how you deal with several faith crises issues.

1.) How do you handle repeated major doctrinal mistakes taught by prophets and apostles from the pulpit or in their books.

ex: evolution is one of the 7 deadly heresies - bruce R. McConkie, age of the earth - Joseph Fielding Smith, Blacks and the Priesthood - several leaders, all indians = lamanites, Indians getting lighter skin - Spencer W Kimball, ADAM GOD - Brigham Young, great and abominable church = Catholic Church = Bruce R. McConkie.

2.) The lack of sharing historical and theological issues with everyday members.

ex: not finding seer stones and treasure Hunting in any of the info we are taught from on sundays, no mention of polyandry anywhere.... try typing that in LDS.ORG's search engine, no effort in the material to correct any of these fasle teachings mentioned above.

3.) the effort to teach everyone that we should all follow the prophet, that he can not lead the church astray, that we will be blessed for following him regardless of what he asks and then on the other hand being told to know that these are men and they make mistakes and you are not obligated to follow them when they are wrong. That you should have the spirit and it will direct you when one is acting as a prophet and when they are not.

4.) lastly, Now with the internet the church is forced to deal with much of the above issues but until their hand was forced they did all they could to let this stuff stay below the surface and went out of their way to dismiss having to deal with any of it. ex : prior to 1990 when did we hear of seer stones, evolution can be true, polyandry, treasure hunting, Mormon leaders were racist in their comments about afircan americans, ADAM GOD was taught by Brigham Young and was wrong. Do you feel like things were kept from you? and if so how do you reconcile that?

Much of this might be a function of personality, but here goes:

#1. 1 Nephi 19: 5, “…And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself.” So I excuse them, if indeed the proper interpretation of the teachings of concern proves them to be “major doctrinal mistakes.”

#2. This information can be found elsewhere. I think the Church focuses on presenting things, both by way of content and method, in a way that facilitates and emphasizes personal revelation about the truthfulness of the claims made. This vastly, in my opinion, reduces the scope of what is presented in various settings (Sunday School) and expands it in others (The Joseph Smith Papers).

#3. That every member has the Gift of the Holy Ghost is a great advantage in following this kind of counsel to simultaneously obey, discern and learn in and by faith.

#4. Both people and the Church have always used the tools and technology at their disposal, just as they do now. The Internet, like advances in transportation 200 years ago, facilitates the spread of information. I heard of all the things you listed in the 1970s and ‘80s without the Internet.

[CV75]

Who here has expended their best efforts?

I have, but that takes nothing away from any current guidance our leaders give as required by the changing dynamics of the times and culture we live in.

[spartacus]

Log:

This is really going off the OP, but here goes. My testimony of the Restored Gospel is not dependent on your lack of understanding of science. I have a testimony of whom I consider the prophets of God to instruct me in the ways I need to comport my life in order to be a faithfull follower of Christ. Whatever their own personal opinions of science, of men being on the moon or on the sun, the age of the earth, what makes for a beautiful woman, or the best thing they ever ate, it has absolutely no bearing on my testimony.

Thesometimesaint,

Correct me if I am reading you wrong. But, do you mean to imply that it doesn't matter what the "prophets of God" say or have said, or done for that matter? Are you saying that your testimony is untouchable by the independent reality of their behavior or performance as prophets? Surely this can't be the case. If it is not the case, then that means some of their statements and actions are informative to your "ongoing" testimony - so if it isn't reelmormon's list, it may be another.

The other side of this possible "my untouchable testimony" is where did you get your testimony? How do you know it came from God? Is it possible the testimony came about from other less-authoritative source(s) or means?

But, again, surely you are not making such a strong claim about your testimony.

[CV75]

What has always been the focus of my struggles at times has been what felt to me like lack of full disclosure.

"Full disclosure" from the perspective of a student/learner is a very relative term, and depends entirely on what they want or are ready to learn. It also depnds on the tools they use, who they want to teach them, and how matched their interest is with one who is interested in their learning (and about what they learn), etc. On teh other hand, from the perspective of the Holy Ghost in preaching the Gospel, it represents a much more fundamental set of principles and tehse are what those with the keys are responsible for disclosing.