Thoughts On Church History, Theology, And Faith Crisis

[DBMormon]

sorry about spelling throughout posts... in a hurry on my lunch breaks....no time to check spelling

[Calm]

But again, could we have looked before it happened and said this or that person was likely to have their faith shattered because they were rigid? And what would we have meant by "rigid"? Narrow? Bigoted?

What I mean by "rigid" is "unwilling to change or compromise".

And the very few faithful people that I have personally been worried about them likely losing their faith prior to their actual loss of faith (IOW I expected them to lose their faith significantly before doubts appeared) were of a rigid personality type in the area concerned, most often the problem they 'shattered' on was why they or someone they loved or were suffering.

[Calm]

we are told afterward that a prophet can not lead the church astray

Does "astray" here mean "into error" or "into apostasy, and thus down to hell or at least off the path of salvation"? Edited April 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[why me]

my issues are specifically

ADAM GOD - How does one prophet recieve false revelation and we are told afterward that a prophet can not lead the church astray. (call it what you may but Brigham was confident in his writings that this was revealed to him.

Thank You

Brigham did not lead the church astray. I think that you are getting much of your information from the internet and you must be getting the perspectives from the critics. But I can tell you this: Adam/God was being talked about in the 70's. I remember discussions with members about it. It was no secret back then. it was in the Journal of Discourses but since the JoD was not doctrine the discussion usually focused on should it be doctrine and is it true belief. The discussions were lively about it but it wasn't done in priesthood or in sunday school. It was done privately among the members. But the conversation never took the turn of: Brigham was leading us astray. But since there was a statement about it and this statement was official, I haven't heard it talked about anymore. The reason why there was a statement about it was because there was much discussion about it in the church. See my point?

[Calm]

lastly - I need Prophets who prophecy and Apostles who special witness is greater then my "non-specialwitness"

Why would you need then to go to the Lord yourself? (serious question)

[Log]

What I mean by "rigid" is "unwilling to change or compromise".

Rigidity is a contextual thing, then. I am quite rigid on the subject of the truth of the gospel, for example.

And the very few faithful people that I have personally been worried about them likely losing their faith prior to their actual loss of faith (IOW I expected them to lose their faith significantly before doubts appeared) were of a rigid personality type in the area concerned, most often the problem they 'shattered' on was why they or someone they loved or were suffering.

What's your experimental track record? How did you identify the relevant rigidity?

I wonder, too - might a lack of rigidity indicate someone with no investment?

[why me]

Catholic Church / Great Abominable Church - same as Priesthood /Blacks

Thank You

Now I am an old timer and so I do have some experience with this. I can go back in time and relate what was discussed by the members. Back in the day, the members discussed much that was in the McConkie book. And I do remember that some members believed that it was the catholic church. But many others believed that it was communism. So, there was no definite idea just what the abominable church was. But many talked about it in priesthood and in sunday school. But nothing was definite. So what can be said about it? Now, the critics sites are full of nonsense about it. And some of these critics are misleading new members and the exmembers who are old timers know it very well. The church has made a definite statement about it because members were all over the place about it. Finally, we know what the abominable church is: all that leads people away from god.

But really nothing was hidden back in the day when members were discussing these things.

[why me]

Lamanite skin color = curse - We need to do a better job within the manuals to correct the false paradigm.. One no longer has to hold to this.

Thank You

I don't remember anyone believing that the lamanites' skin was turned black. No lamanite is black as in african black. And so the discussion always focused on just what exactly was the curse. But no one said that the skin of the lamanite was black. Have you ever met a black indian? And certainly since the nephites came from the middle east, have you ever met a white jew who was born and raised in judea to semites who are native there? All are different shades of brown. And so, if Joseph wrote the book of mormon he wouldn't use the term black for skin color since black meant the color of slaves.

Also, the discussion also focused on the geopgraphy. Was it limited or hemispheric? During the time when I was a young adult the hemispheric model held sway. But others thought the geography was limited. And if you research it, you will discover that the geography of the book of mormon was always debated within church circles.

[why me]

First Vision - We need to tell people through Sunday manuals that Jospeh may not have been 14 years old, there may not have a been a religious revival just before his vision, and that there are multiple accounts of this vision and what each contains so others can make up there minds with all the facts.

Thank You

Now you may find this hard to believe but members back in the day knew all about this. This was one reason why we have an official version because there were other versions. And joseph wrote the official version to bring clarification of the issue. Here is an example: I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life.

Gordon B. Hinckley Ensign October 1984

Ahh...but you see, the critics do not want you to know this. They want you to believe that the church hides it. But here it is in the Ensign.

[why me]

my issues are specifically

GRACE - mentioned earlier.... Grace up till the last decade or so was spoken of so little compared to it's prominence in the gospel. We need more Grace... enough of guilting people by telling them only after all they can do..... Bullcrap....none of us ever have done all we can do!!!!

Thank You

Your prayers have been answered. Here is an article in the April Liahona:

http://www.lds.org/liahona/2012/04/amazing-grace?lang=eng

[why me]

Treasure Seeking/Seer Stone - needs to be part of the story we tell in our history otherwise we are hiding something. I need to find seer stones on LDS.org more then just a few references. If we are going to be honest it needs to be part of the historicl account.

Thank You

Seer Stones have always been in the translation process. All knew about them. And we knew about the Urim and Thummin. And I am sure that they are still mentioned in the translation process. What is at times left out is how it was done. We have some statements informing us how it was done but nothing from Joseph himself. And that is the problem.

But the treasure seeking was not widely known. I don't remember it being discussed. But what would it matter? Joseph as a young man decided to try his hand at treasure seeking. However, if I remember correctly in the narrative by the church, it was known that joseph hid the gold plates from his treasure seeking friends.

Edited April 14, 2012 by why me

[Kevin Christensen]

This was the comment you disagreed with Kevin on (if I'm reading correctly):

Yes, any expectation can lead to faith shattering and again they may not....Kevin is exploring what type of expectations are most likely to lead to faith shattering and he identifies these as the "most rigid expectations" possessed by "those who don't stop to consider, reflect upon and remove the eye motes that determine the quality of their vision."

But you yourself said that Abraham didn't shatter, so first off how is he evidence that Kevin is wrong in the above unless you are simply rebutting his claim with the concept that "expectations don't always lead to faith shattering"? But that does not deal with Kevin's claim as he does not deal with all "expectations" but a limited class, his claim necessitates only "the most rigid expectations", he does not claim that all people with mild or even strong expectations shatter after all.

So logically speaking to use Abraham as a counter example to Kevin's claim, Abraham would be one of those who had "the most rigid expectations" so I am assuming that you believe that Abraham possessed such expectations and therefore I am asking you for evidence that the quality of Abraham's expectations were "most rigid", not that he had expectations which I take as a given.

If I am wrong in the assumption that you believe Abraham had most rigid expectations and you are more of the opinion that those expectations were very strong but still at some point included flexibility, then this is an interpretation of scripture that is easily demonstrated, imo, but then Abraham has nothing to do with the set of individuals that Kevin is talking about and thus does not substantiate why you might disagree with his claims here.

Yep, on "most likely."

Also, for the record, regarding Abraham's clear expectations as he went up the hill with Isaac, see Genesis 22:5. "I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you." Genesis 22:8, "My son, God will himself provide a lamb for a burnt offering." Abraham's full history, as Nibley pointed out in "The Sacrifice of Sarah" and "The Sacrifice of Isaac", is full of stories of substitutes being provided. Abraham was saved several times, as was Sarah. So with the theme of substitutes running through his whole life, Abraham could go up the hill, not with blind faith and fanatical obedience, but rather, a well-honed understanding of what was going to happen, and that worked out just as he said. He and the lad worshipped and returned again, since God provided a lamb.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[mercyngrace]

Yep, on "most likely."

Also, for the record, regarding Abraham's clear expectations as he went up the hill with Isaac, see Genesis 22:5. "I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you." Genesis 22:8, "My son, God will himself provide a lamb for a burnt offering." Abraham's full history, as Nibley pointed out in "The Sacrifice of Sarah" and "The Sacrifice of Isaac", is full of stories of substitutes being provided. Abraham was saved several times, as was Sarah. So with the theme of substitutes running through his whole life, Abraham could go up the hill, not with blind faith and fanatical obedience, but rather, a well-honed understanding of what was going to happen, and that worked out just as he said. He and the lad worshipped and returned again, since God provided a lamb.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

The writer of Hebrews, iirc, indicates that Abraham expected that if God took Isaac, God would raise him up again.

[pcarthew]

I've always felt that the treasure digging in Joseph Smith-History was interesting. We should tell primary children about the treasure hunting. Wait tiil they grow up, and they will be offended at the Church for not telling them.

[DBMormon]

Not contradicted, but over simplified. To say that paradigm choice reduces completely to a personal decision regarding which problems are more significant to have solved reduces everything to personal subjectivity. Kuhn insists on the presence of personal subjectivity but does not reduce everything there. The most objective constraining factors for personal choice include a paradigm's performance with respect to puzzle generation and solution, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence with respect to other knowledge and experience, simplicity and aesthetics, fruitfulness (what do you discover as a result of simply assuming that the paradigm is correct and exploring), and future promise. The least objective constraining factors have to do with biographical and personal issues.

But which of the problems in the OP represent creedal statements to which every aspiring LDS member or leader or scholar must publically and permanently submit to, and for which we can demonstrate a perfect historical consistency and unanimity?

Kuhn:

"There are, I think, only two alternatives: either no scientific theory ever confronts a counterinstance, or all such theories confront counterinstances at all times." (Kuhn, Structure, 80)

"To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted." (Kuhn, 17-18)

"If any and every failure to fit were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times."(Kuhn, 146)

"Most anomalies are resolved by normal means; most proposals for new theories do prove to be wrong. If all members of a community responded to each anomaly as a source of crisis or embraced each new theory advanced by a colleague, science would cease. If, on the other hand, no one reacted to anomalies or to brand-new theories in high-risk ways, there would be few or no revolutions. In matters like these the resort to shared values rather than shared rules governing individual choice may be the community's way of distributing risk and assuring the long-term success of its enterprise." (Kuhn, 186)

Since my faith has never shattered, I have to say no. The one serious challenge lasted just a few days and led to my first published essay, "New Wine and New Bottles: Scriptural Scholarship as Sacrament" in Dialogue, Fall 1991.

One of the things I learned is neatly expressed by Ian Barbour:

"a network of theories and observations is always tested together. Any particular hypothesis can be maintained by rejecting or adjusting other auxiliary hypotheses." (Ian Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion, 99).

The age of the earth, according to the Bible, as interpreted by readers of a fundamentalist mindset, does not represent an existential, objective fact, but is consequence of reading based on a network of interrelated assumptions, most of which do not represent the cultural assumptions of the authors of the texts being interpreted. Genesis was originally a temple liturgy, based on the ritual erection of the desert tabernacle. The tabernacle, a portable temple, represented a model of the cosmos. That temple could be erected via a seven day ritual. That Heavens and Earth could be created in seven days and leave not a trace for modern geology and cosmology to touch.

And as I keep pointing out, D&C 1:24-28 expressly declares that LDS leaders are neither omniscient nor perfect. If you read as far as D&C 3, you find that the assumption that God would never allow his prophet to make a mistake is completely unfounded. Loosing a 116 pages of the translation? How could God let that happen? And Why? (And no quoting Isaiah 55:11 as that immediately calls into question the essential assumption that if there is a God, he will behave as I would if I were God.)

If I'm looking for evidence of Real inspiration from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or President Monsen, I adopt a completely different set of methods and look in different places than if I'm looking for evidence of ANY contradiction. It is the assumption that ANY contradiction represents an objective ground for existential crisis that provides the interpretive basis that makes the crisis.

Kuhn: the "more precise and far-reaching a paradigm is, the more sensitive an indicator it provides of anomaly and hence an occasion for paradigm change." Kuhn, 65.

One of the consistencies in LDS debates is that those who shatter are those who have the most rigid expectations, those who don't stop to consider, reflect upon and remove the eye motes that determine the quality of their vision.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

So if we unrigid ourselves...

- Prophets don't need to prophesy

- The church has no obligation to teach a factual historical history

- Strengthening members Committee is only providing surveliance which is needed for the good of all... lol

- Horses really can be Tapirs

- The book of mormon is great regardless if it is true or not.

- Marrying other men's wives is aways a good thing

- correlation was even a better idea then marrying other men's wives

now I have removed all rigidness and now I can move back into the bubble of safety..... Thank you guys so much

Edited April 15, 2012 by reelmormon

[LDS_RM]

Didn't Jospeh Fielding Smith write that Joseph Smith was a treasure hunter but not horse thief?

As to things in personal books of persons who happen to be Apostles, well its there personal book therefore their nonDoctrine nonbinding on the Church opinion.

[Peppermint Patty]

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

reelmormon,

Good post. Every LDS has their doubts (whether or not they will admit it). That's what is so good about faith. We don't have to come to an understanding or acceptance of every single part of our history or doctrine. It is sufficient that we have faith in Christ and follow his example and teachings.

I have struggled with many of the same issues that you brought up. Honestly, you will find troubling issues in every single religion in the world (Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, etc.). There is MUCH good in the LDS faith and millions of LDS have found comfort, peace and a closer relationship to the Savior.

Just remember that it's okay to have doubts and questions that may never be adequately answered in your life. Every member of every world religion (and atheist) have doubts and questions. It's part of the human condition.

[selek1]

So if we unrigid ourselves...

- Prophets don't need to prophesy

- The church has no obligation to teach a factual historical history

- Strengthening members Committee is only providing surveliance which is needed for the good of all... lol

- Horses really can be Tapirs

- The book of mormon is great regardless if it is true or not.

- Marrying other men's wives is aways a good thing

- correlation was even a better idea then marrying other men's wives

now I have removed all rigidness and now I can move back into the bubble of safety..... Thank you guys so much

The dismissiveness and snark implicit in the above post are the primary reasons you're not being taken seriously.

Sneering and smug condescension are the antipathy of genuine curiosity and a willingness to learn.

Given the above, we have zero reason to believe you are anything other than a troll.

Edited April 15, 2012 by selek1

[Bikeemikey]

Since the revelation about blacks getting the priesthood has our church had any substantial transformative revelation?

Seems more small and simple

Things to me.

(null)

[Calm]

Since the revelation about blacks getting the priesthood has our church had any substantial transformative revelation?

Seems more small and simple

Things to me.

(null)

I would think substantial transformative revelations would come maybe once in a lifetime if that if one looks back at the long scriptural tradition. Progression of the Saints as a whole is unlikely to be most effective by constantly changing the parameters and expecting members to keep up, especially when our faith is so much more "doing" than "thinking" so to speak (orthopraxis vs. orthodox). Slow consistent changes that build on the foundations of the past will yield a strong membership able to endure sudden changes in attitudes and environment.

[Scott Lloyd]

The dismissiveness and snark implicit in the above post are the primary reasons you're not being taken seriously.

Sneering and smug condescension are the antipathy of genuine curiosity and a willingness to learn.

Given the above, we have zero reason to believe you are anything other than a troll.

I'm having my doubts as well. I would find it disquieting if I thought my bishop were posting this kind of stuff on the Internet.

Some days ago, reelmormon listed among his bones of contention the Bible story of woman being formed from a rib of man. I pointed out that the Church has taught for a long time that the story is merely figurative. I haven't seen him mention it since. Makes me wonder how acquainted rm is with what the Church does or does not teach.

[DBMormon]

reelmormon,

Good post. Every LDS has their doubts (whether or not they will admit it). That's what is so good about faith. We don't have to come to an understanding or acceptance of every single part of our history or doctrine. It is sufficient that we have faith in Christ and follow his example and teachings.

I have struggled with many of the same issues that you brought up. Honestly, you will find troubling issues in every single religion in the world (Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, etc.). There is MUCH good in the LDS faith and millions of LDS have found comfort, peace and a closer relationship to the Savior.

Just remember that it's okay to have doubts and questions that may never be adequately answered in your life. Every member of every world religion (and atheist) have doubts and questions. It's part of the human condition.

Thank you.....

[DBMormon]

sarcasm has been inserted due to the majority of you giving answers that do not seriously address the issues. When your approach didn't seem empathetic my choice was to duck out and see this as non useful to me or to be a little sarcastic and try to ask the questions in a way that would provke you to address the issue. Rigidness on an issue may be needed but a church that has truth claims forces some amount of rigidness. This isn't a game. People have placed their trust in the institution to be the Lord's church. It has an obligation to be forthright and honest at all times. Whether it has or hasn't is up for discussion. I see momensts where it appears it hasn't been forthright and I have been looking this whole time for someone to emphatically explain how they understand each issue and why one would see it the way they do and and yet through new eyes reconcile all this. Sarcasm.... yes..... troll.... no. PM me and I will be happy to chat personally. When I contact FAIR and share my issue once I display the problem is harder to solve for me then they have info for I stop getting emails from their folks. I am struggling.... but the foo foo answers don't work on some of these issues. Faith is great, but where I have been over the last 6 months is not easy to just fall on faith. I am trying. I have spoken to Elder Jensen one on one and he didn't take this issue as lightly as you have. So .... keep calling me a troll or someone help me. Either way... so far other then a few sympathetic answers this hasn't been useful at all

[DBMormon]

I would hope from here on out that if anyone wants to make an assumption about me or wants to know where I personally stand, Ask me. Don't assume about those on this board who ask questions. It is never good for one's cause. I have a testimony of the Book of mormon. I have a testimony of the church but It has been a struggle for several months as I need to better fit my issues into an acceptable way without "mental gymnastics"? Saracsm yes. But we are on a discussion board, one has to expect that a little... right? Any way Message me if you want this to be one on one who or at least show you understand my concern and not just throughout the standard foo foo as I have the standard answer given on most of this. For me and many others we need more substance then that. Anyway Good day... I am late have to go

[why me]

So if we unrigid ourselves...

- Prophets don't need to prophesy

- The church has no obligation to teach a factual historical history

- Strengthening members Committee is only providing surveliance which is needed for the good of all... lol

- Horses really can be Tapirs

- The book of mormon is great regardless if it is true or not.

- Marrying other men's wives is aways a good thing

- correlation was even a better idea then marrying other men's wives

now I have removed all rigidness and now I can move back into the bubble of safety..... Thank you guys so much

You obviously have not read my last posts to you. Are you sure that you wish to change your mind? I think that I addressed most of your concerns. Also, yourr statement that the book of mormon is great whether true or not. Has the book of mormon been proven false? I must have missed it. Where was it determined to be false?