Thoughts On Church History, Theology, And Faith Crisis

[Pahoran]

Accuracy in the sense that we don't exclude troubling info or info that is way different from what we shared in the past allowing others to see the full story hasn't always been on the table. Obviously you can't include everything but you can include the biggest issues.

hypothetical, and as you can see I didn't put much time into this next paragraph but here it goes anyway - What if I told you Joseph saw an angel from the other side. Or if I told you Joseph saw Truman Angell on the other side working on the Temple Glass. Did I include a factual telling... yes but by leaving out the full historical context I left the reader assuming one thing when the story was another. Could a critic say we weren't honest... absolutely and they would be right.

you guys never give one drop of admiting there is any kind of issue at all. Yet the church even says their manuals are out of date. And that they could do a much better job teaching it's history.

points from Elder Jensen recent comments

• The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve realize that "maybe since Kirtland, we never have had a period of, I'll call it apostasy, like we're having right now"
  
• "What we have in mind is to develop a response to the tough issues – whether that's polyandry, or DNA in the Book of Mormon ... we do have another initiative that we have called, "Answers to Gospel Questions". We are trying to figure out exactly what channels to deliver it in"
  
• Where has the prophet laid his emphasis right now? It's on something called 'The Rescue'
  
• "There's no sense kidding ourselves. We need to be very upfront with [this generation], tell them what we know, and give answers to what we have, and let them fall on their faith for things that we don't completely understand."
  

.. you guys don't budge. You tow the line never willing to take a step back and say we could do a much better job. The church says it, yet very few of you can say that. I can understand being fearful in bringing undue negative commentary on Church leaders as they try to do the best they can but it is ok to say all is not perfect... we should be better here or better there.

You guys can continue to think all is well in Zion but that want bring to folks back who are leaving. If anyone comes on here with the challenges that I and numerous others others before me presented (yes same ones over and over) and yet you continue to take the same approach and not try to work with them on acknowleding their difficulty and rather simply point out how the problem is with their faith, or they never had a testimony to begin with, or perhaps they sinned, or maybe they just are not thinking about it the right way becasue they came to a different conclusion then you, ..... if you continue that way then many will continue to leave for reasons that could have been prevented. Trust me when I say that while a few of the people replying to this post have had empathy and understanding, and where some even took the time to talk to me and doubtless countless others, most of you don't work with the people at the level they are at. And I can speak personally it makes them hurt worse and see it as a me versus you mentality. Your missing empathy... when all it would have took to help them was to slow down and work with them where they are at.

Thank you to those who were kind and understanding..... you help more then you will ever know

While some may feel I am in apostacy I will live by the following Quote

I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent -- if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression.

- Hugh B Brown

For the record he is not the only one who allows for dissension

President Joseph F. Smith said, "We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the First Presidency require it? No, never." (Journal of Discources (JD) 16:248)

Apostle Charles W. Penrose, who would later serve as counselor to President Smith, declared: "President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when 'Thus saith the Lord', comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill." (Millennial Star 54:191)

"And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God... would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves." (Millennial Star, vol.14 #38, pp. 593-95)

Brigham Young said:

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)

"How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves." (JD 4:368)

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied...Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord." (JD 3:45)

"...Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold sceptres of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer." (JD 1:312)

"President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel [see, for example, verses 9-10: 'If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing...the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him.']...said the Lord had declared by the Prophet [Ezekiel], that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church -- that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls -- applied it to the present state [1842] of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall -- that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 237-38)

George Q. Cannon, Counselor to three Church Presidents, expressed it thus: "Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone;" (Millennial Star 53:658-59, quoted in Gospel Truth, 1:319)

So, in a nutshell: you expect us to hold your concerns as being exactly as important as you do. Is that it?

Has it occurred to you that not everyone sees the world exactly as you do? That there are many for whom the historical conundrums, gaps in the record, unresolved questions and anti-Mormon sound-bites that you seem to think we should spend all our time addressing are of no importance at all?

Were you aware that the Church continued to grow throughout the Kirtland period?

In response to your stack of GA quotes, I have a quote -- just one -- from the very first LDS GA. He said, "Be not faithless, but believing."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

you guys never give one drop of admiting there is any kind of issue at all.

I think if you actually hung around longer and got to know the posters better, you might change your mind about several being willing to "admit" there are issues. Just because someone isn't troubled by the same things you are in the same way and want to provide the same solution you do, doesn't mean they don't express concerns or think there are ways to improve what is available to members, etc. It is not an all or nothing package where one is either always troubled by issues or one is always denying there are issues. Most posters have areas they have commented on where they'd like to see changes. They are just not the same areas that you want to change so you might not see it in a thread on the topic that is your concern, but is not one of their concerns.

If you are concerned with accuracy, you should keep this in mind before making such accusations as you have done.

Edited April 17, 2012 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

So, in a nutshell: you expect us to hold your concerns as being exactly as important as you do. Is that it?

Has it occurred to you that not everyone sees the world exactly as you do? That there are many for whom the historical conundrums, gaps in the record, unresolved questions and anti-Mormon sound-bites that you seem to think we should spend all our time addressing are of no importance at all?

Were you aware that the Church continued to grow throughout the Kirtland period?

In response to your stack of GA quotes, I have a quote -- just one -- from the very first LDS GA. He said, "Be not faithless, but believing."

Regards,

Pahoran

I am not faithless.... that is quite a judgement. you must be a bishop with that kind of dicernment. Anytime you want to get to know me please ask.

In regards to sterotyping the gorup, i left room for exceptions. I am not asking you to admit that each of you personally struggle with these issues but that enough people do that it is a valid concern. One worth taking the time to find better ways to deal with and resolve. While I know thousands deal with the same concerns I rasied, I was made to feel by most of you that I was alone and on an island.

sorry if my pointedness strikes a nerve.

[why me]

I am not faithless.... that is quite a judgement. you must be a bishop with that kind of dicernment. Anytime you want to get to know me please ask.

In regards to sterotyping the gorup, i left room for exceptions. I am not asking you to admit that each of you personally struggle with these issues but that enough people do that it is a valid concern. One worth taking the time to find better ways to deal with and resolve. While I know thousands deal with the same concerns I rasied, I was made to feel by most of you that I was alone and on an island.

sorry if my pointedness strikes a nerve.

I think that you are playing the victim among us. You are not a victim. People have tried to address your issues. Ben has tried. I have tried. Others have tried. But...to no avail. After awhile, it just becomes a circular discussion with no end in site. You can write to the church office building requesting a definitive history book on church history that addresses all your concerns. In the letter you can write the issues that concern you and request a book on these issues with a particular type of answer that you are looking for. Maybe the church will help you and do the book for you and for others.

Of course the problem is: no answer will satisfy the vast majority who are looking for answers because each individual has their own way they wish the church to resspond. Certainly a 2000 page book will not satisfy the vast majority of exmembers and owners of exmormon sites. The only answer that they want is: the church is a fake and a fraud.

Then they can all go home and relax in the knowledge that they made the right decision.

[why me]

Find out where the misunderstandings are - both yours and theirs. If you cannot communicate with someone within their own paradigm, then you are not communicating. The Lord communicates with us within our own paradigms. We should emulate that.

The Lord encourages you to keep your shoulder to that wheel.

Or they are not communicating. Sometimes people only want to hear the answer that will satisfy them. All other answers will not do. I have seen this many times on this forum. I am not the Lord. Just a human being.

[why me]

I 100% agree that it is the church's primary purpose to bring all unto Christ by teaching the gospel and not focus on history. But if we are going to teach some history along the way and we do, we are obligated to teach it accurately.

I think the following three suggestions are both reasonable and answer the majority of my issue.

1.) If we are going to teach some historical background in the midst of teaching the gospel we need to include in the manual accurate historical accounts not just the story we used to tell. People should know the difference between a seer stone and Urim and Thummim. that is basic and part of the translation proces. important to the basic facts of the restoration

2.) we need to be more open about weaknesses of modern leaders. We all learn from weaknesses from those in the Bible and Book of Mormon plenty of those examples.... yet we are afraid to share actual flaws of modern leaders... double standard. Bible prophets flaws are on the table... this dispendsations should be as well. It sounds silly but it helps people to not think so lowly of themselves thinking others are near perfect.

3.) We need to have a resource on LDS.ORG where everyone of the troubling issues is discussed by the church in the open where we state what we know and what we don't so again others can "fall on their Faith"

1 ) We don't know the difference between the seer stone and Urim and Thummin since they are used interchangeably. Thus, the confusion. Most know this when the translation process has been discussed in church. Nothing is hidden there.

2 ) I think that the last general conference mentioned that the leaders are not perfect. In fact, I have heard this before during stake conference when a GA said the same thing. Have you listened to conference?

3 ) I think that this will be done to a certain extent but it will not satisfy anyone. People need to reason with themselves and discuss the issues with themselves and others. A church website covering your issues will not do it. The critics will counter with their own take on it, call the church a liar because they have not given the answer that they should have given. As I said, the only answer most exmormon critics want is: the church is false and all made up by the sex addict Joseph Smith.

However, we have books, blogs, forums where this is done from an lds perspective. No church to my knowledge has such a website that discusses the historical issues. that trouble people of their faith. But there are apologetic sites that do so.

Edited April 17, 2012 by why me

[Calm]

One worth taking the time to find better ways to deal with and resolve. While I know thousands deal with the same concerns I rasied, I was made to feel by most of you that I was alone and on an island.

So what is your plan to change things now that you have expressed your issues? Are you doing anything about them right now? (serious question) Edited April 17, 2012 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

So what is your plan to change things now that you have expressed your issues? Are you doing anything about them right now? (serious question)

I believe as with all ideas, people's perception have to change. I and many others are calling for change. It could just be my view point, but others seeing the same issues I have has caused the Top 15 men to see there is a problem and they are begininning to address it. But the voice needs to be constant and enlarging that whatever changes occur to protect the testimonies of as many people as possible can be safeguarded. I plan to continue to be voice that there are issues.

I hope each of you can see that with me the individual issues are not the problem. It is my perception of how they are handled by the institutional church. this can be fixed and it is begininng to happen.

http://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/2012/01/rescue-plan-to-address-difficulties-of.html

I and others will continue to call for change

[DBMormon]

reelmormon writes:

I think this is an argument that goes nowhere (and I explained why in some detail earlier).

Let me ask you a personal question. Which is harder to believe - that a) an angel appears to Joseph Smith, leads him to the gold plates, which he finds buried in a box, he takes them, and using the "magic spectacles" buried with the plates, he translates them. or, b) an angle appears to Joseph Smith, leads him to the gold plates, which he finds buried in a box, he takes them, and using a seer stone that he had found previously while excavating a well, he translates them.

It is a serious question. I would appreciate it if you would answer the question.

You see, missionaries also teach a very specific process to learn if the Book of Mormon is true. Is that process changed in any way if we provide one or the other of the two explanations above?

What I see is that you jump from topic to topic. You don't provide any indication that you have more than a superficial awareness of the issue. You don't seem to have done any real study. You complain about conundrums (i.e. which of these two conflicting perspectives should you adopt) without seeming to be interested in actually choosing a point of view to follow yourself. And your main argument is that the church should be doing something which is, in my opinion, entirely unreasonable. Not only that, you try to support this unreasonable demand by appealing to authority (in this case Elder Jensen) with absolutely no understanding that what Elder Jensen means or intends is the same as what you mean or intend. And, as I pointed out, your dialogue follows a script that I have seen others follow. Your point of view is not your own. You need to make some decisions for yourself about what you believe.

Perhaps you may recognize the irony I see in your comments here. You didn't arrive at these confrontational issues by reading the Joseph Smith Papers. I am absolutely certain of this. Part of my certainty comes from the (to me) obvious recognition that the JSP provide a context that is missing from all of your comments. People who get to these notions by reading sources in context tend to have an entirely different perspective than the one you present. So I am not at all worried about people going through the JSP and actually reading them. They allow people to form their own conclusions, to make their own judgment calls. These are important elements in understanding. It is not the church's responsibility to try and put a condensed version of all of this material into your Sunday School Class. Is there any church that you can point to that does what you want to see that we can use as an example?

I want the everyday member to develop a deep love for their savior and their fellow man. I want them to be deeply compassionate, to love their families, to help the sick and afflicted, to take care of those in need. This is the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not an attempt to replace these issues with some kind of historical, factual narrative. A faith based on historical narrative will always be a problem since history seems always subject to revision. I also dispute what you seem to be implying with your notion of a "more honest approach". As I noted, that is a goal post that keeps moving by those who have already decided what the history really is, and want an official narrative that matches what they have intuited (correctly or incorrectly).

At some point, now that you have learned things that you didn't know in the past, you have to decide if that new knowledge has real relevance for the decisions you make. If you believe that these issues make the gospel false, then you act on that decision. If you think that they don't make the gospel false then you can act on that decision. I cannot make that decision for you.

Ben M.

I answer both of them

which story is easier to believe?

1.) I can just as easily believe both if my church gives me the chance to. But if I find the second account never told to me or countless others and it is true... it makes one wonder

Does any other church do what I ask?

2.) I am only concerned with true and Living church which is obligated to be better then anyone else. In fact other churches hiding their histories of killing non believers and of having major corruption would cause me to have a faith crisis if I attended them as well. I asked my catholic co-workers the other day if they were aware of the 100's of people the institution had violently killed due to there rebellion against the church... they were not. Never told to them. Does that increase or decrease your confidence in the Catholic church? .... now apply that on a smaller scale to ours

[why me]

Does any other church do what I ask?

2.) I am only concerned with true and Living church which is obligated to be better then anyone else. In fact other churches hiding their histories of killing non believers and of having major corruption would cause me to have a faith crisis if I attended them as well. I asked my catholic co-workers the other day if they were aware of the 100's of people the institution had violently killed due to there rebellion against the church... they were not. Never told to them. Does that increase or decrease your confidence in the Catholic church? .... now apply that on a smaller scale to ours

Obligated to do what? Address critic complaints against the lds church? Write a definitive history of the lds church, written by a board of GAs? Offer their interpretation of the events and address all your issues? And what is a true and living church? It is made up of imperfect members who will make mistakes now, in the future and in the past. And give a yearly update to its history, eventually the book will have varous editions updated every 5 years. All members will be required to read the book and it will be discussed in class for a 5 year period so no one can claim ingnorance. In fact, sunday school will be replaced by a lds history class until all members know their church history.

If you go to the byu website that handles church history, much is there, nothing is hidden that I can see. Members can go there too.

No church is based on its history since history is made by human beings who are far from perfect. Any one who bases their faith on history will be disappointed. Past catholic history does not bother me at all. What bothers me is when catholics take a holier than thou position about the truth claims of their own church, pretending that their history is pure as they bash lds history.

[why me]

http://mormon-chroni...culties-of.html

I and others will continue to call for change

And like I told your previously it will be happening as stated in your link. So, I just don't see your problem. It seems that the lds church is doing what you asked. From your link:

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

Now of course, if you want it to happen tomorrow, well, maybe not. But it is being discussed. Is that okay for the true and living church? Or would you want to see something else done. Please let me know so i can give your concerns to the brethern.

I am here to serve you.

Edited April 17, 2012 by why me

[Antoni]

Ignorance of Church History is common in almost ALL churches I've experience with (and that's LOTS!). The general person in the congregation of any denomination is blissfully ignorant of the ills their church has done in the past. My experience too is that they are happy to be ignorant too. When something comes to light it can lead to a crisis or a simple dismissal or a period of growth. Depending on the information and the person.

In my current quest I'm reading copious amounts of stuff on LDS history. Both the good and the bad. I'm finding it a challenge but I do feel I'm growing due to it. Some of the missionaries I've met seem to be quite surprised by amount I've read, but that's just who I am, I need to know as much as possible. I've not found any information hard to come by and I've yet to come across something church haven't addressed somewhere. I've also been surprised by how much discussion goes on within the LDS, change is occuring maybe not as quickly as some would like, but that will always be the case.

[selek1]

Ignorance of Church History is common in almost ALL churches I've experience with (and that's LOTS!). The general person in the congregation of any denomination is blissfully ignorant of the ills their church has done in the past. My experience too is that they are happy to be ignorant too. When something comes to light it can lead to a crisis or a simple dismissal or a period of growth. Depending on the information and the person.

In my current quest I'm reading copious amounts of stuff on LDS history. Both the good and the bad. I'm finding it a challenge but I do feel I'm growing due to it. Some of the missionaries I've met seem to be quite surprised by amount I've read, but that's just who I am, I need to know as much as possible. I've not found any information hard to come by and I've yet to come across something church haven't addressed somewhere. I've also been surprised by how much discussion goes on within the LDS, change is occuring maybe not as quickly as some would like, but that will always be the case.

Well said, Antoni!

And welcome to the boards

[Benjamin McGuire]

reelmormon writes:

1.) If we are going to teach some historical background in the midst of teaching the gospel we need to include in the manual accurate historical accounts not just the story we used to tell. People should know the difference between a seer stone and Urim and Thummim. that is basic and part of the translation proces. important to the basic facts of the restoration

Actually, it isn't basic and part of the translation process. You see, as I have been repeating myself in this thread - that claim is part of the narrative that you have bought into. Let's back up just a minute.

First point: often, when the historical accounts use the term "Urim and Thummim" they mean what you term here as a seer stone. That means that in Mormon thought, since 1828, there is no difference in Mormon thought and in Mormon writings between a seer stone and a Urim and Thummim. That is, they are all called the same thing, they are used in the same way, and there is no effective difference - particularly in the published narratives produced by Latter-day Saints since that time.

So, what is the difference? Usually, there is no difference.

Second point: Joseph Smith used both what you refer to as a Urim and Thummim and what you refer to as a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. He stopped using what you refer to as a Urim and Thummim after he discovered that he could use the seer stone for the same purposes, and because, as he told others, the apparatus to use what you refer to as the Urim and Thummim was difficult for him to use (they were placed into bows like a pair of glasses, but they were too big for his face, and so he could only look through one side or the other). After November of 1830, he stopped using the seer stone to produce revelations, and gave the brown stone to Oliver. The white stone he continued to use from time to time, and (although the record isn't very clear) he may have used it in connection with the Book of Abraham. As he said, he no longer needed it - these objects having been there primarily to teach him how to receive revelation from the Spirit. So by November of 1830 (only seven months after the church is organized) revelation is received without the use of this crutch.

Third point: What we learn, primarily from these notes in the historical record is that neither the Urim and Thummim or the seer stone is in fact a necessary part of the translation process. They were helpful up to a point for Joseph Smith, who needed them apparently as a kind of crutch until he became capable of translating and receiving revelation without them. They weren't terribly easy to use (which probably encouraged him to stop using them).

This brings us back to your comment:

"People should know the difference between a seer stone and Urim and Thummim. that is basic and part of the translation proces."

I have several issues with this statement. On the front end, it does exactly what I described earlier. I am reminded of the parable of the Lover's Letter written by Kierkegaard:

Imagine a lover who has received a letter from his beloved. I assume that God's Word is just as precious to you as this letter is to the lover. I assume that you read and think you ought to read God's Word in the same way the lover reads this letter.

Yet you perhaps say, "Yes, but Scripture is written in a foreign language." Let us assume, then, that this letter from the beloved is written in a language that the lover does not understand. But let us also assume that there is no one around who can translate it for him. Perhaps he would not even want any such help lest a stranger be initiated into his secrets. What does he do? He takes a dictionary, begins to spell his way through the letter, looks up every word in order to obtain a translation.

Now let us imagine that, as he sits there busy with his task, an acquaintance comes in. He knows that the letter has come, because he sees it lying there, and says, "So, you are reading a letter from your beloved." What do you think the other will say? He answers, "Have you gone mad? Do you think this is reading a letter from my beloved! No, my friend, I am sitting here toiling and moiling with a dictionary to get it translated. At times I am ready to explode with impatience; the blood rushes to my head, and I would just as soon hurl the dictionary on the floor – and you call that reading! You must be joking! No, thank God, as soon as I am finished with the translation I shall read my beloved's letter; that is something altogether different."

So, then, with regard to the letter from his beloved, the lover distinguishes between reading with a dictionary and reading the letter from his beloved. The blood rushes to his head in his impatience when he sits and grinds away at reading with the dictionary. He becomes furious when his friend dares to call this the reading of a letter from his beloved. But when he is finished with the translation, he reads the letter. All the scholarly preliminaries were regarded as nothing but a necessary evil so that he could come to the point – of reading the letter from his beloved.

So here we are back to your statement. We can talk of translating as the process of moving text from the Gold Plates to the English that is written down by Joseph's scribes. We can create a description of that process - we can talk about how Joseph looks into the hat, or through the crystal, we can talk about how or when there are issues and problems - we could discuss what happened when Martin Harris substituted a different rock for the stone that Joseph used just to see what would happen. We might mention how we are told when things weren't recorded properly, how we are told that it was repeated until it was right. And yet, at the end of the discussion we are only talking about descriptions of what happened - we haven't actually said a single thing about the relationship between the text on the gold plates and the text produced by the scribes. And yet, when all is said and done, what you want to do is to make this shift. You want to substitute the one for the other. You want to call these descriptions the basic piece of the translation process - when in fact, most of this material doesn't actually have anything to say about the translation process at all (including the issue of when a Urim and Thummim was used, or a seer stone was used, or in later cases, when no crutch was used at all).

The issue you raise has already made a whole host of assumptions about the subject matter - assumptions that I do not hold to, and which I assume are not held by many members of the church. More importantly, the assumptions you bring to the table are caused by an issue called presentism. You don't want to look at the historical issues in a historical context. After all, as far as we can tell, Joseph Smith did not believe (or at least did not believe for long) that the Urim and Thummim or the Seer Stones were the essential part of the translating process, or an essential part of receiving revelation. In a sense, your narrative makes them quintessential - and this then creates the problem with disclosure about what is not the absolute essence of the process.

2.) we need to be more open about weaknesses of modern leaders. We all learn from weaknesses from those in the Bible and Book of Mormon plenty of those examples.... yet we are afraid to share actual flaws of modern leaders... double standard. Bible prophets flaws are on the table... this dispendsations should be as well. It sounds silly but it helps people to not think so lowly of themselves thinking others are near perfect.

What rubbish (the part about how we aren't open about the weaknesses of our leaders). I actually find more resistance when teaching Sunday School classes towards portraying the the negatives that the Bible provides about Biblical figures than about any concern over modern leaders. And our leaders are quite open about their own limitations. This seems to be simple posturing on your part. I am not sure you could even provide us with a coherent notion of how you propose that this should be done.

3.) We need to have a resource on LDS.ORG where everyone of the troubling issues is discussed by the church in the open where we state what we know and what we don't so again others can "fall on their Faith"

The church simply isn't that dogmatic. When was the last time you looked at a Temple Recommend and read the questions? You can have a valid temple recommend and believe a lot of things that aren't entirely orthodox. The church doesn't have an established view on most difficult topics. Nor does the church like to live in the past. Our religion and our faith isn't valued based on what happened in the past, but on what we do now.

You guys can continue to think all is well in Zion but that want bring to folks back who are leaving. If anyone comes on here with the challenges that I and numerous others others before me presented (yes same ones over and over) and yet you continue to take the same approach and not try to work with them on acknowleding their difficulty and rather simply point out how the problem is with their faith, or they never had a testimony to begin with, or perhaps they sinned, or maybe they just are not thinking about it the right way becasue they came to a different conclusion then you, ..... if you continue that way then many will continue to leave for reasons that could have been prevented. Trust me when I say that while a few of the people replying to this post have had empathy and understanding, and where some even took the time to talk to me and doubtless countless others, most of you don't work with the people at the level they are at. And I can speak personally it makes them hurt worse and see it as a me versus you mentality. Your missing empathy... when all it would have took to help them was to slow down and work with them where they are at.

Now, what I see here is the tripe that John Dehlin hands out. So again, let me ennumerate a few points:

1) My experience is that most people that I know who have left the church have not left over historical issues or because they have difficulties with things like the seer stone verse the Urim and Thummim. It is a personal issue with John Dehlin. It seems to be a big issue with you. The entire argument is flawed (as I point out above) and its not an issue that has ever become a major contention of faith with anyone I know personally who has looked at the historical record and tried to understand it. It is an issue for some who are told about the difference and then given a flawed narrative for understanding it (as seems to me to be the case with you). Because of this, it seems clear that simply raising the issue isn't going to be able to correct the problem. Its not an issue of awareness. It's not an issue of dishonesty or hiding things. It clearly is an issue with people looking for some other authoritative voice and then accepting it blindly (as blindly as they might have accepted what they feel is a whitewashed LDS version). A fundamentalist like mind set isn't going to be changed by providing more information (as any political pundit will tell you).

So, to be quite honest with you, I think your problem isn't the one you are presenting to us here. And that makes things difficult in these discussions. Others come with these kinds of questions and have them answered quite satisfactorily. So it isn't just the question. And in fact, I note that you love lists, and the lists don't go away, they morph a little bit, but, you keep coming back to the same complaints and the same issues. So the pot calls the kettle black right?

2) Adding in the history will not keep these people from leaving the church. As you yourself said to me:

1.) I can just as easily believe both if my church gives me the chance to. But if I find the second account never told to me or countless others and it is true... it makes one wonder

So, you avoid the other question. Obviously (or at least this ought to be obvious), if the Book of Mormon is a translation of some historical record, than it is in fact a translation of some historical record independent of how the church portrays its production. If faith in the Book of Mormon as a historical record is based on the narrative of production instead of the actual work itself, there isn't a lot I can do in that case. It certainly isn't how Mormon missionaries teach people to build faith in the book as a historical record. So, I am left wondering how you think an understanding of the Book of Mormon should be developed. Should we focus on the narrative of its production and not at all on the text? Does our limited understanding of the narrative of its production somehow keep us from understanding the text of the Book of Mormon itself? What you are doing, whether you recognize it or not, is an illicit movement from the historical cultural based reality back onto the ontological claims of the church. You want the truth claims of the church - the theology, the salvific message to be based not on some sort of faith narrative and personal revelation (where it rightly belongs) but on some kind of historical narrative that is constantly becoming more distant and less accessible, and which is only available through interpretation. It is not something that is either useful or necessary. It is the wrong way to approach God and faith. You suggested above that "it makes one wonder" - but I ask, what is it that are wondering? Are you incapable of deciding for yourself how the Book of Mormon was translated? Are you incapable of finding out if the book represents a revelation from God? These are two seaprate questions that deal with the two different aspects of the restored gospel. In your mind are they so inseperably linked that you cannot answer one of those questions without some sort of answer to the other? Do you even understand my frustration with your comments here?

At some point, this kind of challenge isn't fixable by adding factual data to Sunday School lessons. You have accepted this idea of what faith in the church ought to entail and what ought to be there. You have created an entire set of expectations (although I should say, others have helped you create those expectations). But those expectations weren't created in good faith. They are designed by John Dehlin and others to help make it easier for you to leave the church and the gospel. Their purpose is to suggest that the gospel itself is only as good as the fallible people who try to live it every day of their lives. It's primary method is to say that the absolute most important part of the gospel is for us to understand that it was a seer stone, damnit, and not a Urim and Thummim, while ignoring the message of the church to love our neighbors as ourselves. In painting the church in a certain way, it avoids all of the truth claims of the gospel which can only be really tested through our own experience and interaction with the divine, and replaces it with the idea that the church is most appropriately judged through interpreting its history in the way that suits us best.

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

And for the rest of those following this thread. I am not opposed to more history in our lessons. There are things I would like to see changed (lets get rid of Thomas Marsh and the pint of cream story right?). My issue isn't with this notion. My issue is that the things that Reelmormon is suggesting should be done. His proposed solutions won't in my opinion help with his issues, because his issues seem to me to be more fundamental than the basic question of the accuracy of the narratives of the early LDS Church. How we appropriately deal with these underlying challenges is very much a necessary and important topic - and I think that gets more to what Elder Jensen was referring to - not the question of Urim and Thummim versus Seer Stone. Can we encourage people to study, to learn, and to make their own informed decisions and take ownership of the narrative they come to understand? In my opinion, Reelmormon has no narrative of his own, and this complicates the discussion.

One way I have found to see the difference is the simple illustration. If we drive down into the facts in any case (if we start talking about the problems with reelmormon's views on seerstones for example, and the barrier caused by the language used by early LDS that embraces the similarities between Seer Stones and the Urim and Thummim instead of differences and makes the terns interchangeable) instead of finding some kind of resolution, or the creation of a personal understanding and personally built narrative of those historical events, we simply get shifted to another topic. And when we return to the seer stones, its as if the earlier discussion never happened. It's not about the data (as reelmormon suggests) - its about the suggestion that the history is the core of the truth claims of the gospel and not simply a separate aspect of the gospel that happens because the church exists in a real place and time.

Ben M.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Benjamin McGuire

[Pahoran]

I am not faithless.... that is quite a judgement. you must be a bishop with that kind of dicernment. Anytime you want to get to know me please ask.

I wasn't making any "judgement." The purpose of the quote was not to judge anybody, but to point out that Jesus had a rather higher view of faith than you are here espousing.

I find it interesting that your reaction to something you don't want to hear is to mock the gifts of the Spirit.

In regards to sterotyping the gorup, i left room for exceptions. I am not asking you to admit that each of you personally struggle with these issues but that enough people do that it is a valid concern. One worth taking the time to find better ways to deal with and resolve. While I know thousands deal with the same concerns I rasied, I was made to feel by most of you that I was alone and on an island.

sorry if my pointedness strikes a nerve.

No nerve has been struck; but passive-aggressiveness can be annoying, and rattling off a familiar list of old chestnuts as though you are saying something daringly original is boring.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

There was a 5th discussion point I forgot but will add now. GRACE -

The church for almost forever had taught that salvation was weighed heavily on works. Look at grace on your hardcopy LDS bibile dictionary....after expending our best efforts. - Who here has expended their best efforts? none of us. Many of the talks from the pulpit were that we had to do this or had to do that.

Recently it has changed. Elder Holland, Gene R Coook, Robert Millet, Brad Wilcox, Gerald Lund - each have begun pointing out that while are works are nessacary (to refine us and help us to become Christlike) they are nit suffcient. That we are saved by and through only the merits mercy and grace of God. I am thrilled to see this happen and the Book of Mormon taught this all along. So why are your thoughts on this theological change from emphasis on Works to emphasis on grace. Go back and listen to how many time the word grace was used in this most recnet conference and compare that to previous conferences.... not question there is a change occuring.... what do you make of it? should we have touted grace all along? not Grace alone but not Grace through works either.

I am in favor of a return to a focus on grace. I think, in fact, that the original Mormon doctrine was salvation by grace alone. The Book of Mormon does say a lot about works, but it never went so far as to say, as many later Mormon writers have done, that salvation by grace is dependent on a lifetime of works.

I think the problem is that 2 Nephi 25:23 has been consistently misinterpreted and taken out of context. It says that "it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." The "after all we can do" is just a prepositional phrase--the main point of the verse is that "it is by grace that we are saved." In the context, the word "after" here has the purpose of minimizing the "all we can do." It means something roughly like "despite."

Plus, the context clearly indicates that the emphasis here is on grace and faith: the verse says that because "it is by grace we are saved," he labors diligently to convince his children and friends "to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God." Furthermore, down in verse 25, the passage reiterates that even though they keep the law of Moses, "we are made alive in Christ because of our faith."

So I don't see any real difference between what the Book of Mormon teaches about grace and, for example, what Methodists teach about grace. According to both, ultimately nothing we "can do" will ever save us. In fact, according to Moroni 7:6-10, it is impossible for a person who has not been reconciled to God to do good works, even if they pray, give to the poor, or do other things that seem outwardly to be good works. Salvation is, according to the Book of Mormon, an unmerited gift of grace to those who believe in Jesus and reconcile themselves to God. The idea is that works are not what saves us--works are, rather, the "fruits" of the truly converted. If you are not performing good works, the problem isn't that you aren't working hard enough--the problem is that you don't have enough faith.

I think certain prominent Mormon writers have complicated this issue and created yet one more unnecessary hammer for our Evangelical friends to pound us with.

[Pahoran]

I am in favor of a return to a focus on grace. I think, in fact, that the original Mormon doctrine was salvation by grace alone.

CFR, please.

The Book of Mormon does say a lot about works, but it never went so far as to say, as many later Mormon writers have done, that salvation by grace is dependent on a lifetime of works.

CFR, please.

I think the problem is that 2 Nephi 25:23 has been consistently misinterpreted and taken out of context. It says that "it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." The "after all we can do" is just a prepositional phrase--the main point of the verse is that "it is by grace that we are saved." In the context, the word "after" here has the purpose of minimizing the "all we can do." It means something roughly like "despite."

Or perhaps "regardless of." The word "despite" implies that whatever we do would tend to hinder our salvation, which of course is absurd.

Plus, the context clearly indicates that the emphasis here is on grace and faith: the verse says that because "it is by grace we are saved," he labors diligently to convince his children and friends "to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God." Furthermore, down in verse 25, the passage reiterates that even though they keep the law of Moses, "we are made alive in Christ because of our faith."

Yes, this is and always has been orthodox LDS doctrine.

So I don't see any real difference between what the Book of Mormon teaches about grace and, for example, what Methodists teach about grace.

Still sawing away at that one-string fiddle, are we?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

CFR, please.

You don't CFR the topic sentence of a post, when the remainder of the post is devoted to supporting the topic sentence. The references are in the body of the post.

Yes, [that we are saved by grace, because of our faith] is and always has been orthodox LDS doctrine.

I don't think so. I think orthodox LDS doctrine is that we are saved by grace and works. (http://www.lds.org/n...-works?lang=eng; this is also basically what the Encyclopedia of Mormonism says.) The Book of Mormon teaches something much more Protestant: that we are saved by grace alone, and that works are the fruit of faith.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[DBMormon]

And for the rest of those following this thread. I am not opposed to more history in our lessons. There are things I would like to see changed (lets get rid of Thomas Marsh and the pint of cream story right?). My issue isn't with this notion. My issue is that the things that Reelmormon is suggesting should be done. His proposed solutions won't in my opinion help with his issues, because his issues seem to me to be more fundamental than the basic question of the accuracy of the narratives of the early LDS Church. How we appropriately deal with these underlying challenges is very much a necessary and important topic - and I think that gets more to what Elder Jensen was referring to - not the question of Urim and Thummim versus Seer Stone. Can we encourage people to study, to learn, and to make their own informed decisions and take ownership of the narrative they come to understand? In my opinion, Reelmormon has no narrative of his own, and this complicates the discussion.

One way I have found to see the difference is the simple illustration. If we drive down into the facts in any case (if we start talking about the problems with reelmormon's views on seerstones for example, and the barrier caused by the language used by early LDS that embraces the similarities between Seer Stones and the Urim and Thummim instead of differences and makes the terns interchangeable) instead of finding some kind of resolution, or the creation of a personal understanding and personally built narrative of those historical events, we simply get shifted to another topic. And when we return to the seer stones, its as if the earlier discussion never happened. It's not about the data (as reelmormon suggests) - its about the suggestion that the history is the core of the truth claims of the gospel and not simply a separate aspect of the gospel that happens because the church exists in a real place and time.

Ben M.

The "Narrative" for me is this. If I had encountered these issues from the church and not found them elsewhere in my fervent study to learn the gospel Where wncountering both felt like I was given two different historical narratives. If I had encountered them in the church.... they would never have been issues. I have already worked out each of the issues I brought up, whereas what I have not worked out is why my expectation of what I should have been taught and what I was taught through church curriculum. That is yet to be reconciled in some way. I would bet the majority who deal with these issues feel the same way... that the issues aren't the problem but that they felt these things were kept from them in the context of church curriculum.

[DBMormon]

reelmormon writes:Actually, it isn't basic and part of the translation process. You see, as I have been repeating myself in this thread - that claim is part of the narrative that you have bought into. Let's back up just a minute.

First point: often, when the historical accounts use the term "Urim and Thummim" they mean what you term here as a seer stone. That means that in Mormon thought, since 1828, there is no difference in Mormon thought and in Mormon writings between a seer stone and a Urim and Thummim. That is, they are all called the same thing, they are used in the same way, and there is no effective difference - particularly in the published narratives produced by Latter-day Saints since that time.

So, what is the difference? Usually, there is no difference.

Second point: Joseph Smith used both what you refer to as a Urim and Thummim and what you refer to as a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. He stopped using what you refer to as a Urim and Thummim after he discovered that he could use the seer stone for the same purposes, and because, as he told others, the apparatus to use what you refer to as the Urim and Thummim was difficult for him to use (they were placed into bows like a pair of glasses, but they were too big for his face, and so he could only look through one side or the other). After November of 1830, he stopped using the seer stone to produce revelations, and gave the brown stone to Oliver. The white stone he continued to use from time to time, and (although the record isn't very clear) he may have used it in connection with the Book of Abraham. As he said, he no longer needed it - these objects having been there primarily to teach him how to receive revelation from the Spirit. So by November of 1830 (only seven months after the church is organized) revelation is received without the use of this crutch.

Third point: What we learn, primarily from these notes in the historical record is that neither the Urim and Thummim or the seer stone is in fact a necessary part of the translation process. They were helpful up to a point for Joseph Smith, who needed them apparently as a kind of crutch until he became capable of translating and receiving revelation without them. They weren't terribly easy to use (which probably encouraged him to stop using them).

This brings us back to your comment:

"People should know the difference between a seer stone and Urim and Thummim. that is basic and part of the translation proces."

I have several issues with this statement. On the front end, it does exactly what I described earlier. I am reminded of the parable of the Lover's Letter written by Kierkegaard:

So here we are back to your statement. We can talk of translating as the process of moving text from the Gold Plates to the English that is written down by Joseph's scribes. We can create a description of that process - we can talk about how Joseph looks into the hat, or through the crystal, we can talk about how or when there are issues and problems - we could discuss what happened when Martin Harris substituted a different rock for the stone that Joseph used just to see what would happen. We might mention how we are told when things weren't recorded properly, how we are told that it was repeated until it was right. And yet, at the end of the discussion we are only talking about descriptions of what happened - we haven't actually said a single thing about the relationship between the text on the gold plates and the text produced by the scribes. And yet, when all is said and done, what you want to do is to make this shift. You want to substitute the one for the other. You want to call these descriptions the basic piece of the translation process - when in fact, most of this material doesn't actually have anything to say about the translation process at all (including the issue of when a Urim and Thummim was used, or a seer stone was used, or in later cases, when no crutch was used at all).

The issue you raise has already made a whole host of assumptions about the subject matter - assumptions that I do not hold to, and which I assume are not held by many members of the church. More importantly, the assumptions you bring to the table are caused by an issue called presentism. You don't want to look at the historical issues in a historical context. After all, as far as we can tell, Joseph Smith did not believe (or at least did not believe for long) that the Urim and Thummim or the Seer Stones were the essential part of the translating process, or an essential part of receiving revelation. In a sense, your narrative makes them quintessential - and this then creates the problem with disclosure about what is not the absolute essence of the process.

What rubbish (the part about how we aren't open about the weaknesses of our leaders). I actually find more resistance when teaching Sunday School classes towards portraying the the negatives that the Bible provides about Biblical figures than about any concern over modern leaders. And our leaders are quite open about their own limitations. This seems to be simple posturing on your part. I am not sure you could even provide us with a coherent notion of how you propose that this should be done.

The church simply isn't that dogmatic. When was the last time you looked at a Temple Recommend and read the questions? You can have a valid temple recommend and believe a lot of things that aren't entirely orthodox. The church doesn't have an established view on most difficult topics. Nor does the church like to live in the past. Our religion and our faith isn't valued based on what happened in the past, but on what we do now.

Now, what I see here is the tripe that John Dehlin hands out. So again, let me ennumerate a few points:

1) My experience is that most people that I know who have left the church have not left over historical issues or because they have difficulties with things like the seer stone verse the Urim and Thummim. It is a personal issue with John Dehlin. It seems to be a big issue with you. The entire argument is flawed (as I point out above) and its not an issue that has ever become a major contention of faith with anyone I know personally who has looked at the historical record and tried to understand it. It is an issue for some who are told about the difference and then given a flawed narrative for understanding it (as seems to me to be the case with you). Because of this, it seems clear that simply raising the issue isn't going to be able to correct the problem. Its not an issue of awareness. It's not an issue of dishonesty or hiding things. It clearly is an issue with people looking for some other authoritative voice and then accepting it blindly (as blindly as they might have accepted what they feel is a whitewashed LDS version). A fundamentalist like mind set isn't going to be changed by providing more information (as any political pundit will tell you).

So, to be quite honest with you, I think your problem isn't the one you are presenting to us here. And that makes things difficult in these discussions. Others come with these kinds of questions and have them answered quite satisfactorily. So it isn't just the question. And in fact, I note that you love lists, and the lists don't go away, they morph a little bit, but, you keep coming back to the same complaints and the same issues. So the pot calls the kettle black right?

2) Adding in the history will not keep these people from leaving the church. As you yourself said to me:

So, you avoid the other question. Obviously (or at least this ought to be obvious), if the Book of Mormon is a translation of some historical record, than it is in fact a translation of some historical record independent of how the church portrays its production. If faith in the Book of Mormon as a historical record is based on the narrative of production instead of the actual work itself, there isn't a lot I can do in that case. It certainly isn't how Mormon missionaries teach people to build faith in the book as a historical record. So, I am left wondering how you think an understanding of the Book of Mormon should be developed. Should we focus on the narrative of its production and not at all on the text? Does our limited understanding of the narrative of its production somehow keep us from understanding the text of the Book of Mormon itself? What you are doing, whether you recognize it or not, is an illicit movement from the historical cultural based reality back onto the ontological claims of the church. You want the truth claims of the church - the theology, the salvific message to be based not on some sort of faith narrative and personal revelation (where it rightly belongs) but on some kind of historical narrative that is constantly becoming more distant and less accessible, and which is only available through interpretation. It is not something that is either useful or necessary. It is the wrong way to approach God and faith. You suggested above that "it makes one wonder" - but I ask, what is it that are wondering? Are you incapable of deciding for yourself how the Book of Mormon was translated? Are you incapable of finding out if the book represents a revelation from God? These are two seaprate questions that deal with the two different aspects of the restored gospel. In your mind are they so inseperably linked that you cannot answer one of those questions without some sort of answer to the other? Do you even understand my frustration with your comments here?

At some point, this kind of challenge isn't fixable by adding factual data to Sunday School lessons. You have accepted this idea of what faith in the church ought to entail and what ought to be there. You have created an entire set of expectations (although I should say, others have helped you create those expectations). But those expectations weren't created in good faith. They are designed by John Dehlin and others to help make it easier for you to leave the church and the gospel. Their purpose is to suggest that the gospel itself is only as good as the fallible people who try to live it every day of their lives. It's primary method is to say that the absolute most important part of the gospel is for us to understand that it was a seer stone, damnit, and not a Urim and Thummim, while ignoring the message of the church to love our neighbors as ourselves. In painting the church in a certain way, it avoids all of the truth claims of the gospel which can only be really tested through our own experience and interaction with the divine, and replaces it with the idea that the church is most appropriately judged through interpreting its history in the way that suits us best.

Ben M.

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

[Pahoran]

You don't CFR the topic sentence of a post, when the remainder of the post is devoted to supporting the topic sentence. The references are in the body of the post.

Really? Where?

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

I don't think so. I think orthodox LDS doctrine is that the grace of Jesus saves us only if we devote ourselves to a lifetime of good works. Thus, we are saved by grace and works. (http://www.lds.org/n...-works?lang=eng; this is also basically what the Encyclopedia of Mormonism says.) The Book of Mormon teaches something much more Protestant: that we are saved by grace alone, and that works are the fruit of faith.

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

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

I plan to continue to be voice that there are issues. I hope each of you can see that with me the individual issues are not the problem. It is my perception of how they are handled by the institutional church. this can be fixed and it is begininng to happen.

Honestly, I have never bought into the idea that simply talking about or agitating for change actually brings about change. Change is brought about by doing something ourselves beyond discussion and especially accusation, not by telling someone else they are doing something wrong or even telling them how to do something the way we want it done. Something much more involved is needed. Change is not a spectator sport.

[Benjamin McGuire]

reelmormon writes:

The "Narrative" for me is this. If I had encountered these issues from the church and not found them elsewhere in my fervent study to learn the gospel Where encountering both felt like I was given two different historical narratives. If I had encountered them in the church.... they would never have been issues. I have already worked out each of the issues I brought up, whereas what I have not worked out is why my expectation of what I should have been taught and what I was taught through church curriculum. That is yet to be reconciled in some way. I would bet the majority who deal with these issues feel the same way... that the issues aren't the problem but that they felt these things were kept from them in the context of church curriculum.

Of course. The challenge here is that you haven't gone far enough back. It is this assumption that the church is hiding things because certain things are not in the curriculum that is being given to you in other places - not merely the historical facts. It is this narrative that you have bought into - that the church has some kind of responsibility to educate you ad nauseum in details that are largely trivial and irrelevant to its mission of saving souls. I believe that you feel this way because you have been told that you should feel that way. Somehow the Church (despite its nature as an institution run by us fallible mortals) has become, in your view, something transcendent that should be something other than what it is and what it always has been and what it will continue to be. In the long run, as long as you hold to this view, you will always be disappointed - because you seem to have built an expectation which seems completely unreasonable to me. Where did this expectation come from?

You suggest that "I hope each of you can see that with me the individual issues are not the problem. It is my perception of how they are handled by the institutional church." But it is the individual issues that you keep raising. You suggest that you encountered them in your studies - and yet you seem oblivious to some really easy to access and find details. You keep raising your issues in the least charitable light, you raise them without seeming to have done any kind of real research on your own - and you raise them in exactly the same way that we see them raised by others. You may say its not about the issues, but it is in fact the issues that you keep coming back to. And it seems to me that this is part of the script that I find in other places as well. You are following that script very well.

Ben M.

[Cobalt-70]

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

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

I disagree that saying we are saved by grace "alone" means that nothing we do is relevant. It just means that our works do not justify us, even a little. Frankly, I think that Mormons intuitively believe this, but they think they are restrained to disagree with it because of a 20th century Mormon tradition of thumbing our noses at Protestant soteriology.

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

Edited April 18, 2012 by Cobalt-70