Thoughts On Church History, Theology, And Faith Crisis

[Log]

(D)o 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?

He probably is saying exactly that. I can say so for myself - that is, I know for myself of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and this knowledge is independent of the words or actions of any man.

[Jaybear]

I joined as an adult. Treasure hunting was never an issue with me. Kinda expected of a poor young man in the early 19th Century in America.

Who doesn't love a good treasure hunt.

[CV75]

on some level they do but not absolutely.

This is the level the faithful operate on. "Absoluteness" is just a relative or alternatively-chosen level of perception, procesing or operation, and has the same outward appearance as faith.

[Wiki Wonka]

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.

I don't believe that the Church hides this information - I believe that they simply don't emphasize it. Sometimes these things do get printed in the Ensign or the Friend.

The stone and the hat

1997

Ensign

"Martin Harris related of the seer stone: 'Sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin'"

—Neal A. Maxwell, “‘By the Gift and Power of God’,” Ensign, Jan 1997, 36 (emphasis added) off-site

1993

Ensign

"David Whitmer wrote: ' Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine.'"

—Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” Ensign, Jul 1993, 61. (emphasis added) off-site

1988

Not My Will, But Thine

"Jacob censured the "stiffnecked" Jews for "looking beyond the mark" (Jacob 4:14). We are looking beyond the mark today, for example, if we are more interested in the physical dimensions of the cross than in what Jesus achieved thereon; or when we neglect Alma's words on faith because we are too fascinated by the light-shielding hat reportedly used by Joseph Smith during some of the translating of the Book of Mormon. To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark."

—Neal A. Maxwell, Not My Will, But Thine (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1988), 26.

1987

Ensign

The scriptures indicate that translation involved sight, power, transcription of the characters, the Urim and Thummim or a seerstone, study, and prayer.

After returning from a trip to Palmyra to settle his affairs, Martin began to transcribe. From April 12 to June 14, Joseph translated while Martin wrote, with only a curtain between them. On occasion they took breaks from the arduous task, sometimes going to the river and throwing stones.

Once Martin found a rock closely resembling the seerstone Joseph sometimes used in place of the interpreters and substituted it without the Prophet’s knowledge.

When the translation resumed, Joseph paused for a long time and then exclaimed, “Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt.” Martin then confessed that he wished to “stop the mouths of fools” who told him that the Prophet memorized sentences and merely repeated them."

Kenneth W. Godfrey, “A New Prophet and a New Scripture: The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon,”

Ensign

, Jan 1988, 6-13.(both quotations on page 11)

1977

Ensign

"There he gave his most detailed view of 'the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated': “

Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light.

"

—Richard Lloyd Anderson, "‘By the Gift and Power of God’,"

Ensign

(Sep 1977), 79, emphasis added.

off-site

1974

Friend

"To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates “a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.”

Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone.

"

—“A Peaceful Heart,”

Friend

, Sep 1974, 7

off-site

The stone and Nephite interpreters

1977

Ensign

"...the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone."

—Richard Lloyd Anderson, "‘By the Gift and Power of God’,"

Ensign

(Sep 1977), 79, emphasis added.

off-site

The practice of plural marriage during Joseph's lifetime

2007

Lesson manual:

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day....This book also does not discuss plural marriage.

The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime.

—The 2008-2009 lesson manual

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith

, (2007), pages vii–xiii (emphasis added)

1992

Ensign

Her great trial came when the prophet revealed to Emma that they would be required to live the ancient law of Abraham—

plural marriage

. Emma suffered deeply hurt feelings because of it. While she agreed with this doctrine at times, at other times she opposed it. Years later, Emma is purported to have denied that any such

doctrine was ever introduced by her husband

.

—Gracia N. Jones, “My Great-Great-Grandmother, Emma Hale Smith,”

Ensign

, Aug 1992, 30

off-site

(emphasis added)

1989

Ensign

The Prophet introduced several doctrines relating to the temple including the temple ceremonies and

plural marriage, which some could not accept

....

—William G. Hartley, “The Knight Family: Ever Faithful to the Prophet,”

Ensign

, Jan 1989, 43

off-site

(emphasis added)

1978

Ensign

How a family accepts members who join it by marriage is, in some ways, analogous to how a Church accepts members who join it by baptism. The experiences of

plural marriage

make the analogy even closer....

the Prophet Joseph Smith recorded a revelation to the Whitneys on plural marriage

....The Whitneys gave their daughter into the system of plural marriage and received into their family other plural wives.

—D. Michael Quinn, “The Newel K. Whitney Family,”

Ensign

, Dec 1978, 42

off-site

(emphasis added)

1977

Ensign

Starting

during Joseph Smith’s own lifetime

but limited to a few dozen families until its official announcement in 1852,

plural marriage brought a powerful new challenge

to the equanimity of Latter-day Saint family life...

—Davis Bitton, “Great-Grandfather’s Family,”

Ensign

, Feb 1977, 48

off-site

(emphasis added)

1973

New Era

The great prophet Elias, whom Joseph Fielding Smith says is Noah..., appeared and bestowed upon their heads the keys of the dispensation of Abraham, or in other words, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie says in

Mormon Doctrine

...the keys of celestial and

plural marriage

.

—Jerry C. Roundy, “The Greatness of Joseph Smith and His Remarkable Visions,”

New Era

, Dec 1973, 7

off-site

(emphasis added)

Joseph's marriages to young women

The

Ensign

June 1979

Ensign

: Although little Don Carlos Smith died a short time later, Emily and Eliza continued to live in the Smith home, where, in the summer of 1842,

both girls “were married to Bro. Joseph about the same time, but neither of us knew about the other at the time; everything was so secret”

(Emily, “Incidents,” p. 186).—Dean Jessee, "‘Steadfastness and Patient Endurance’: The Legacy of Edward Partridge,"

Ensign

(Jun 1979), 41.

off-site

(emphasis added)

December 1978

Ensign:

How a family accepts members who join it by marriage is, in some ways, analogous to how a Church accepts members who join it by baptism. The experiences of

plural marriage

make the analogy even closer....

the Prophet Joseph Smith recorded a revelation to the Whitneys on plural marriage

....The Whitneys gave their daughter into the system of plural marriage and received into their family other plural wives.—D. Michael Quinn, “The Newel K. Whitney Family,”

Ensign

, Dec 1978, 42

off-site

(emphasis added)

The papyri and the Book of the Dead

August 1968

Improvement Era:

The largest part of the papyri in the possession of the Church consists of fragments from the Egyptian Book of the Dead.—Hugh Nibley, "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price,"

Improvement Era

(August 1968), 56–57. This issue contains color photographs of the papyri. A scan of the page from the article can be viewed

here

.

March 1976

Ensign:

A Book of Breathings text that closely matches the Joseph Smith version (and there are precious few of them) is the so-called Kerasher Book of Breathings. It too has a frontispiece, only in this case it is the same as our Facsimile No. 3, showing that it too is closely associated with our text."—Hugh Nibley, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Mar. 1976, 34–36

off-site

July 1988

Ensign:

Why doesn’t the translation of the Egyptian papyri found in 1967 match the text of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price?—Michael D. Rhodes, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, July 1988, 51–53

off-site

Edited April 12, 2012 by Wiki Wonka

[Buzzard]

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

Ah, but since I don't expect perfection in either people or the church, I'm rarely disappointed.

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?

Get real. You really think I'm going to follow the Bickertonites? Or follow my fourth cousins down to that train wreck in Colorado City? At the very least I have eliminated the Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, and lots of non-Mormon groups.

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.

If by looking around, you mean I haven't looked into joining other "mormon" groups, then OK, if you mean a lack of intellectual curiosity, you are mistaken.

[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?]

Disdain all you want, no skin off my nose.

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.

You do see where this leads don't you? I go through and look at all the issues that reelmormon raises, then he or someone else comes along with a new list, and another, and another. According to you, I need to investigate each and every objection to the church or I am guilty of..something. Not being cynical enough, maybe. But it becomes an endless circle. And frankly, although I am familiar with the points reelmormon raises-and others-I generally prefer to spend time reading things that uplift me and bring me closer to Christ. Not to mention hanging around on internet forums, but that's pretty much for entertainment purposes only.

[selek1]

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.

Ran out of rep points.

+1 Kenngo.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ran out of rep points.

+1 Kenngo.

I gave him one in your honor.

[selek1]

I gave him one in your honor.

Thank you.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't believe that the Church hides this information - I believe that they simply don't emphasize it.

This is a very good point. Allegations that the Church "covers up" aspects of its history are groundless. When critics gripe that the Church "hides" or "sanitizes" information, generally what they are actually complaining about is that the Church doesn't emphasize what the critic thinks should be emphasized. So I wonder why the critic thinks he has any greater right, authority, wisdom, prerogative, etc., to say what should be emphasized in a given setting than the next person.

In this regard, I refer the reader to my sig line, the portion in red type.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[spartacus]

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?

Get real. You really think I'm going to follow the Bickertonites? Or follow my fourth cousins down to that train wreck in Colorado City? At the very least I have eliminated the Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, and lots of non-Mormon groups.

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.

If by looking around, you mean I haven't looked into joining other "mormon" groups, then OK, if you mean a lack of intellectual curiosity, you are mistaken.

[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?]

Disdain all you want, no skin off my nose.

What do you have against the Bickertonites? - Don't seem like the true BoM accepting group to you? Why is that? Is it something other than that they accept the BoM?

I hope you have looked a little into other mormon groups considering the way that prophet succession went down. Even just that Emma Smith didn't go with Brigham Young is pretty good reason to consider which group is right. After all, that seems to be the whole point of LDS - it is not the BoM - it's that groups go into apostasy and you have to look into it to know which group is true.

I meant nothing against your nose skin , just that it doesn't look good for an organization to be going around using such an obviously unsound argument as its main teaching apparatus.

[selek1]

Deleted.

I'm just gonna let the mods handle you.

Edited April 13, 2012 by selek1

[Pahoran]

What do you have against the Bickertonites? - Don't seem like the true BoM accepting group to you? Why is that? Is it something other than that they accept the BoM?

Speaking only for myself: yes.

I hope you have looked a little into other mormon groups considering the way that prophet succession went down. Even just that Emma Smith didn't go with Brigham Young is pretty good reason to consider which group is right.

There seems to be a degree of hubris in play when we presume to tell another person what their faith should be based upon, or what they should "look into." Just a thought.

But yes, the fact that various people (not just Emma) didn't follow Brigham is worth investigating as an historical phenomenon. It has nothing to do with the truth claims of the Church, though.

After all, that seems to be the whole point of LDS - it is not the BoM - it's that groups go into apostasy and you have to look into it to know which group is true.

Here's a suggestion: instead of you(!) telling us(!) what "the whole point" of our(!) religion is, why don't you let us tell you?

I meant nothing against your nose skin , just that it doesn't look good for an organization to be going around using such an obviously unsound argument as its main teaching apparatus.

It may be "obviously unsound" to you; but that is because you seem to be relying upon the "obviously unsound" assumption that the various splinter groups are actually relevant to someone who is investigating the Church of Jesus Christ.

Which they are not.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ERMD]

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.

Ooops. I guess many in my ward should start falling away at any time now...

[selek1]

Ooops. I guess many in my ward should start falling away at any time now...

They can come to my ward- and long for the good old days....

[NobodyFamous]

I'm a newbie to the church, so I'm sure that there is something that I'm missing here, but I think part of the problem is our definition of "faith-promoting" discourse, particularly as it applies to sacrament meetings, Sunday school and seminary. In his famous talk, The Mantel is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect, President Packer argues rather eloquently that educators within the Church should avoid introducing extraneous information that serves to only weaken the faith of others.

"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.... That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith."

I think many people in the church have viewed this comment to mean that any mention of the weaknesses or frailties of church leaders is faith-demoting. Yet, I'm not sure that this necessarily follows from President Packer's comments. He mentions specifically those who "delight" in pointing out these salacious details. However, what about the person who has a sincere desire to demonstrate that Heavenly Father can use "cracked vessels" to accomplish His ends on the earth?

I take great solace in knowing that God could use Noah to preserve a remnant of mankind dispute the fact that Noah was a drunkard. Likewise, I'm encouraged by the fact that God would establish the bloodline of our savior through King David and Bathsheba, despite the adultery (and murder) that David committed in the process. In fact, the Bible tells us that Paul was a Christian killer and even after his conversion, he continued to struggle with sin ("For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I"). Yet, God used him to write the vast majority of the New Testament epistles. Perhaps, it's just me, but I find hope that perhaps He can use a sinner like me as well.

In that vain, I think it could be faith-promoting to share some of Joseph Smith's early troubles or the Mountain Meadows Massacre with believers, even those in their teens and early twenties. It seems to me that the young person with, say, a Word of Wisdom problem might find the strength to get the issue under control knowing how mightily God used Joseph Smith after he got over his treasure hunting, etc. In fact, I think even a local church leader might find strength in knowing God's purposes for His church will go forward regardless of their mistakes (none of which will come anywhere close to the magnitude of the MMM).

In short, faith-promoting facts aren't just those that encompass the virtues of past leaders. After all, at root, our faith is in the Savior and not men. And through the weaknesses of men, we truly learn what Paul meant when he told the Corinthians that God's strength is made perfect in weakness.

[DBMormon]

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.

while all have good to offer we make truth claims. One can not feel that the jehovah witness is true and another feel the LDS church is true and both be right. someone is wrong. perhaps both are close to god recieving his grace on a personal path that leads back to him, but one set or both sets of truth claims are wrong it is impossible for both to be right. it is not a statement about the good they offer, so much as it is a statement about their truth claims. If I pray about JW faith or the catholic faith and feel good about that as countless others have, that doesn't make it true. At some point if all the evidence says it is not true then one must use facts as well as spiritual evidences too.

If the qourum of the 12 and first presidencty came out and declared the church false would your spiritual feelings have any weight.....likely not. obviously hypothetical but it points to the impetus many others have towards their faiths truth claims.

[DBMormon]

Well said!!

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

so a prophet revealing false revelation and theology (Adam GOD) is not a factor in your belief system. for me it plays in. It is hard to reconcile prophets who declare god's will and doctrine and get it wrong. Take any doctrine we have..... perhaps they got it wrong too. if it is possible with one facet, it is possible with all the others.

[DBMormon]

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.

This post doesn't say its true or isn't and I say thank you for how you wrote this..... this is how I feel. Thank you

[GingerRed]

so a prophet revealing false revelation and theology (Adam GOD) is not a factor in your belief system.....

Nope! My faith is based on my own personal revelations, experiences, blessings and miracles. I don't care about the past. It has nothing to do with my own salvation and my future. I know this gospel it true or I wouldn't have converted to it in the first place. I look at the big picture.

[DBMormon]

I'm a newbie to the church, so I'm sure that there is something that I'm missing here, but I think part of the problem is our definition of "faith-promoting" discourse, particularly as it applies to sacrament meetings, Sunday school and seminary. In his famous talk, The Mantel is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect, President Packer argues rather eloquently that educators within the Church should avoid introducing extraneous information that serves to only weaken the faith of others.

"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.... That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith."

I think many people in the church have viewed this comment to mean that any mention of the weaknesses or frailties of church leaders is faith-demoting. Yet, I'm not sure that this necessarily follows from President Packer's comments. He mentions specifically those who "delight" in pointing out these salacious details. However, what about the person who has a sincere desire to demonstrate that Heavenly Father can use "cracked vessels" to accomplish His ends on the earth?

I take great solace in knowing that God could use Noah to preserve a remnant of mankind dispute the fact that Noah was a drunkard. Likewise, I'm encouraged by the fact that God would establish the bloodline of our savior through King David and Bathsheba, despite the adultery (and murder) that David committed in the process. In fact, the Bible tells us that Paul was a Christian killer and even after his conversion, he continued to struggle with sin ("For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I"). Yet, God used him to write the vast majority of the New Testament epistles. Perhaps, it's just me, but I find hope that perhaps He can use a sinner like me as well.

In that vain, I think it could be faith-promoting to share some of Joseph Smith's early troubles or the Mountain Meadows Massacre with believers, even those in their teens and early twenties. It seems to me that the young person with, say, a Word of Wisdom problem might find the strength to get the issue under control knowing how mightily God used Joseph Smith after he got over his treasure hunting, etc. In fact, I think even a local church leader might find strength in knowing God's purposes for His church will go forward regardless of their mistakes (none of which will come anywhere close to the magnitude of the MMM).

In short, faith-promoting facts aren't just those that encompass the virtues of past leaders. After all, at root, our faith is in the Savior and not men. And through the weaknesses of men, we truly learn what Paul meant when he told the Corinthians that God's strength is made perfect in weakness.

avoiding things that hurt faith is also exactly what a false church would tell it's members to keep them from dealing with troubling historical and theological information. Again we may have less converts if people listened to their churches not to hear the mormons they because they are a cult and evil

[why me]

I'm a newbie to the church, so I'm sure that there is something that I'm missing here, but I think part of the problem is our definition of "faith-promoting" discourse, particularly as it applies to sacrament meetings, Sunday school and seminary. In his famous talk, The Mantel is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect, President Packer argues rather eloquently that educators within the Church should avoid introducing extraneous information that serves to only weaken the faith of others.

"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.... That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith."

I think many people in the church have viewed this comment to mean that any mention of the weaknesses or frailties of church leaders is faith-demoting. Yet, I'm not sure that this necessarily follows from President Packer's comments. He mentions specifically those who "delight" in pointing out these salacious details. However, what about the person who has a sincere desire to demonstrate that Heavenly Father can use "cracked vessels" to accomplish His ends on the earth?

You are correct with those who delight in pointing our these salacious details. However, the critics interpreted it a different way: to stifle the truth. But what needs to be considered is the interpretation from the historian and I think that lds historians can give a very faith promoting interpretation of historical details as can be found in Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman. And the lds church needs to begin to do this.

[DBMormon]

You are correct with those who delight in pointing our these salacious details. However, the critics interpreted it a different way: to stifle the truth. But what needs to be considered is the interpretation from the historian and I think that lds historians can give a very faith promoting interpretation of historical details as can be found in Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman. And the lds church needs to begin to do this.

AMEN

[why me]

so a prophet revealing false revelation and theology (Adam GOD) is not a factor in your belief system. for me it plays in. It is hard to reconcile prophets who declare god's will and doctrine and get it wrong. Take any doctrine we have..... perhaps they got it wrong too. if it is possible with one facet, it is possible with all the others.

http://en.fairmormon..._not_infallible

The critics will have a different interpretation, especially when they use the Journal of Discourse. But these discourses have been around for many years in book form and can be found in many old timer lds libraries. No one that I know who read them thought that every word or statement was a revelation. But they did find the comments in the discourses interesting. It is the internet and the critic interpretation that is the problem.

Edited April 13, 2012 by why me

[why me]

The way that I saw the Journal of Discourses was always in simple form: these men of the frontier spoke from the hip. I do not remember anywhere that they said: I kneeled with the twelve and we received this revelation and it will be in the updated D&C. I just saw them as someone speaking their mind about a variety of issues.

We need to remember that the church of yesteryear was different from today. In the beginning there would be people jumping up and down, speaking in tongues, enjoying the lord. And the frontier leaders were speaking about this and that, trying to come to terms with a new church with direct revelation. I am sure that it was exciting to be a member, even being a danite must have been exciting. And brigham was a part of it. The lds church has matured since then and one thing I do know: the lds church has not lead anyone away from what it means to be a human being who has faith that god lives. And now the church is fighting against worldly values and our youth are examples for others to follow.

But I like Brigham for being a frontier pioneer with a fighting spirit.

[cdowis]

so a prophet revealing false revelation and theology (Adam GOD) is not a factor in your belief system. for me it plays in. It is hard to reconcile prophets who declare god's will and doctrine and get it wrong. Take any doctrine we have..... perhaps they got it wrong too. if it is possible with one facet, it is possible with all the others.

Prophets can make mistakes. I still believe in the New Testament, even though Peter and James the apostles warned us about some of Paul's teachings.

2 Peter 3 [15] And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

BY warned us about accepting everything that the leaders taught. I prefer a prophet that may slip up occasionally than theologians that continue to teach false doctrines.

The church has living prophets, and we can be assured that the Lord will correct any errors.

Edited April 13, 2012 by cdowis