You Can Believe Whatever You Want, You Just Can'T Teach It

[Libs]

Brock, thank you for your post. I think I'm going to hold off commenting on any of that, for now, as it is quite a lot to absorb. Will get back to it later, if I have questions.

[Libs]

If it didn't happen and was "holy fiction" then the atonement must also be "holy fiction" and I should just have spent my time in more raucous persuits. However, I have received assurance that it is not fiction. I do beleive we tend to read present day context into ancient settings which tends to cause us some grief.

Yes, as I said, above, I do think the part about Christ would have to be considered real history, in order to have value.

[DBMormon]

I don't think we should ever fake it at all.

There is a comment made from those who try to stay in the church when they no longet believe that they must

Conform, Lie, or Leave. Personally, to me this is unacceptable. If one is worried that others will judge them or persecute them for non-belief then shame on those who do that. I think it should be acceptable for one to come to an LDS church and participate in the very least in attendence without having others condemn them. I think personal integrity is so important. Now I will say it is easy for me to say that. I am the only member in my side of the family and my wife and I have a strong marriage that doesn't rely on our both being of one mind in the church. With that said if I ever decided once and for all that the church wasn't what it claimed. I at the very least have to acknowledge that to myself and others. I may still participate on some level but there would be no guesswork from others on where I stood. Would I or Do I teach my side beliefs - no if it distracts from the gospel but I also am not afraid to put my two cents in when someone asks or when something is said in a lesson that more flexibility is permited. Ex: someone says Evolution is false, and whether it is or isn't the gospel doens't force one to make a choice so I don't fear telling them and that other members may believe either way and still be faithful

Also the basics to be a active member in "this" gospel.

1.) Joseph Smith believed to be a prophet

2.) Book of Mormon and must be considered scripture and historical AKA Real Gold Plates with the record scribed on them. (If it isn't historical, the claims of this church are completely false and it simply becomes a fun place to be and not true in the least regard) By the way it is fine to say it is enjoyable and it is where I want to be, but not true.

3.) That on some level if God chooses to give the world another revelation he will do so through the current church leadership.

4.) Jesus is the Son of God and made an atonement for mankind

5.) Bible must be believed as scripture as well though there is flexibility to pick and choose and blame it on not being translated correctly

6.) On some level one must see eternal value in the temple's ability to help us covenant with GOD leading to extended blessing

there may be more but this makes a good list

[mbh26]

I have never known an active member who admitted that they didn't believe the Book of Mormon was literal history....but, on reflection, perhaps, they were just not saying so.

I've come to find that happens more than I once thought as well.

[DBMormon]

remember one can be active in the church and not active in the gospel... they are different things

[mbh26]

In fact, when I was a 17-year old seminary student I accepted Moroni's challenge and received a very strong witness that the BoM was true... and that stayed with me through many years of being inactive.

Is it possible that you were receiving a witness that the book was inspired but the witness you received really wasn't testifying that the book was a historical account?

What is the definition of lying. I've seen what I believe to be less than the truth told at best and some untruths at worst accepted as good Mormon preaching by the leadership as long as it was faith promoting and helped to build up the kingdom.

Edited May 26, 2012 by mbh26

[Libs]

remember one can be active in the church and not active in the gospel... they are different things

Yes, I think that's true. How would you distinguish between the two?

Do you think that holding a few unorthodox beliefs would, necessarily, make one "not active in the gospel"?

[Libs]

Is it possible that you were receiving a witness that the book was inspired but the witness you received really wasn't testifying that the book was a historical account?

Yes. I have to say, for many years, I did accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon (or I should say, I didn't question it). When I did start questioning it, I became unsure about it...then, I became unsure about all of it, even the spiritual experiences I had with it. But, more recently, I have come to accept that God can speak to us through any means he chooses. So, I re-embraced the spiritual experiences, but remained unsure about the historicity.

What is the definition of lying. I've seen what I believe to be less than the truth told at best and some untruths at worst accepted as good Mormon preaching by the leadership as long as it was faith promoting and helped to build up the kingdom.

What I meant about, perhaps having to lie, was if one doesn't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and kept it to themselves, they could easily be put in a position of having to teach something (in class or in a talk) that they didn't really believe.

[cinepro]

I just finished listening to Scott Gordon, John Dehlin & Rosemary Avance, participating in a discussion panel at UVU (very interesting discussion, btw). Scott Gordon made a statement that kind of surprised me, and so I wanted to bring it here and see what you all thought about it, and how exactly this might work, in reality.

The statement was, something to the effect that you can believe whatever you want, in the church, you just cannot teach it. He further said, that you can even believe the Book of Mormon is not literal, and still be a member in good standing. I took that to mean you can believe the Book of Mormon is not literal history. This statement caught my interest because my own belief about the Book of Mormon leans in that direction. I do believe the book is inspired, but I'm not sure it is true history.

Unless Scott Gordon was talking about The Church Of Scott Gordon, and this were were the Gordon Dialogue and Discussion Board, I'm not sure what relevance his comments would have for us.

The Church is pretty clear on what we're supposed to believe or not believe. If someone doesn't believe those things, their course of action is best decided between them and God, and them and their Church leaders down to their Bishop.

And as far as I can tell, the "Church" has never, ever said it was okay to "believe whatever you want" as long as we didn't teach our unorthodox beliefs. That's just not an LDS concept.

[Libs]

Unless Scott Gordon was talking about The Church Of Scott Gordon, and this were were the Gordon Dialogue and Discussion Board, I'm not sure what relevance his comments would have for us.

The Church is pretty clear on what we're supposed to believe or not believe. If someone doesn't believe those things, their course of action is best decided between them and God, and them and their Church leaders down to their Bishop.

And as far as I can tell, the "Church" has never, ever said it was okay to "believe whatever you want" as long as we didn't teach our unorthodox beliefs. That's just not an LDS concept.

Ah...reading through the Articles of Faith...there is actually nothing in there about needing to believe the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Only that it is the Word of God.

Would you consider it a requirement?

[Garden Girl]

I do not know what to say if it was holy fiction. I believe it is an account of things that really happened. I agree with Dr. Peterson.

Me too, CAS...

In my previous post I spoke about accepting the Moroni challenge (to ask if the things contained were true) and so that was the frame of my prayer, from my depths, with utter faith... and the witness I received was so strong because I believe a loving Heavenly Father knew that this daughter was going to stumble and fall away in the ways he tried to counsel me about in my Patriarchal Blessing (which I did not heed). Now that I look back at my blessing, received when I was 14, I marvel at how He did try and give counsel... and how through the over 30 years that I was inactive I used to pray and say.... it's me Father, your wayward daughter... and always through those years I could not deny the spiritual experiences of answers to prayers, and the promptings to return to Church, which I finally did heed.

I still believe in the BoM... and, particularly now when I'm reading the BoM through again, I am struck for one thing by the fact that there was no reason... if it wasn't historical... to go into the detailed names, people, and circumstances, etc., the family/patriarchal relationships etc., so many things could have been simplified or even eliminated and still made a good fictional account. Holy fiction... as someone suggested.

And I believe there are other records still to come forth, even the sealed portion of the BoM.

GG

[CA Steve]

Okay, thanks.

How about the belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet?

I think this is a gray area. The term prophet may mean different things to different people. For some it may mean defending Joseph Smith's every action and for others it is accepting what he did in some areas and rejecting others. I have known some LDS who consider Muhammad a prophet.

Edited May 26, 2012 by CA Steve

[Calm]

A good rule of thumb regarding holding beliefs is that if one can hold a temple recommend having given truthful answers to the interview, they are members in good standing.

I agree that it is a good rule of thumb when dealing with members over the age of 25, but do you know of any policy that defines "member in good standing" as "temple recommend holders".

I would think that "member in good standing" is actually equivalent to "baptism in force" member, IOW a baptized member who is not on probation in some fashion.

Edited May 26, 2012 by calmoriah

[Libs]

I agree that it is a good rule of thumb, but do you know of any policy that defines "member in good standing" as "temple recommend holders".

I would think that "member in good standing" is actually equivalent to "baptism in force" member, IOW a baptized member who is not on probation in some fashion.

So, you don't believe you have to be an "active" member, to be a member in good standing?

[Calm]

There are plenty of shut-ins that never attend any function of church that are considered to be members in good standing.

[Libs]

There are plenty of shut-ins that never attend any function of church that are considered to be members in good standing.

Yes, that's true.

I guess I was thinking more about people who choose not to be there, but are still on the membership rolls.

[SamIam]

I think this is a gray area. The term prophet may mean different things to different people. For some it may mean defending Joseph Smith's every action and for others it is accepting what he did in some areas and rejecting others. I have known some LDS who consider Muhammad a prophet.

I always try to understand the venue someone is posting from. I really do want to understand and agree where possible those things that seem sensible. Then I read something like this...

I have this transcript of some unpublished lectures that Bruce R. McConkie gave at BYU in 1967 to a bunch of the college professors and other prominent types...Elder McConkie asks the question, If you are sanctified, what happens to your body. One brave soul (based on the context it sounds like it is Rodney Turner) says, " It becomes a spiritual, physical body, which is a celestial body." Now Rodney is a bright guy but Bruce responds with "You use words that I do not even know what they mean..."

That's what things like this remind me of...What the heck does believing Joseph Smith was a prophet have to do with being a grey area as a foundational principle of testimony? What sort of rational tries to equivocate into splitting hairs on specious definitions of prophet means this and prophet means that. The gospel is absolutely not predicated on the varying definitions that individuals may or may not have about what is and what is not the meaning of this or that. It has one principle of understanding truth and that is simply to understand it as God means it to be understood and that's why he provides the Holy Ghost to testify of meanings that can be universally understood and accepted by His standard.

My question is why is this not an obvious perspective problem? Why do we have a tendency to couch things in terms that seems to speak to the ascendency of a man or woman's personal interpretation of something as of significance? That is precisely what D & C 1 is warning us of when it states,

D & C 1:16

16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world...

God actually calls Joseph Smith a prophet, therefore he is a prophet. What ever distinctions we want to raise as to what others may think a prophet is are worthless and irrelevant. We should forget those approaches to viewing ours and others perspectives and realize we are to subject our opinions to Gods and our whole responsibility is to defend and understand what it means to God. For me that means "defending Joseph Smith's every action."

No I don't know if Muhammad was a prophet because I can not find anywhere in my four standard works that speaks directly enough to the point of his being such. So I'll just leave that one alone for now. However, I do want to advocate standing for something and being bold in defending your properly placed loyalties. It just seems to me there is nothing noble in letting lesser patterns of the philosophies of men and political correctness govern our manner of thought and how we subconsciously speak of the things of importance as being the fickle viewpoints of men.

My real point is this thread was initiated on this principle of not being sure and wondering about how to view something and maybe I can get away with looking at it this way or that way. This has attracted that sense of equivocation in a majority of the responses. It scares me because it becomes habitual to view life through the lenses of the particular shade of glasses that we feel comfortable with. For some a little tint and for others full on reflective sunglasses that block the light entirely. This is the danger of teaching whatever you want. Even believing is only acceptable on the premise that we recognize it for what it is - a process that is leading away from our own understandings as we move forward to seeking God's understanding.

Analyze the nature of this thread and it is perhaps one of the best I have ever seen for illustrating the answer to the question that was asked by the nature of the commentary in the responses. Textbook material, absolutely textbook material. I think this is one of the finest teaching threads ever. It masterfully presents its message. Brilliant. Libs are you a psychology major creating the foundational study for your thesis in this thread? Brilliant.

Edited May 27, 2012 by SamIam

[Lightbearer]

The statement was, something to the effect that you can believe whatever you want, in the church, you just cannot teach it. He further said, that you can even believe the Book of Mormon is not literal, and still be a member in good standing. I took that to mean you can believe the Book of Mormon is not literal history. This statement caught my interest because my own belief about the Book of Mormon leans in that direction. I do believe the book is inspired, but I'm not sure it is true history.

The problem I see, with holding that kind of view, and maintaining activity in the church is that, if you can hold the view, but not "teach it" (I would assume, not speak it), wouldn't that put one in a position of potentially having to lie? I was trying to remember if there was anything asked in the Temple recommend interview, about the Book of Mormon, that would cause one to have to lie, if their views were a bit unorthodox?

Comments?

The problem with this idea is that we could try to spiritualize or fablize all of scripture. What comes to mind is the old saw "Jesus was a great moral teacher, yet he was not the son of God!" Such a thought is untenable! We could say, did Joseph really see God and Jesus or was this a "holy fiction" that Joseph made up? Did he really have Gold Plates given by an angel from God or did he and Martin Harris fabricate some metal plates to try to fool the 3 and 8 witnesses? Did Jesus disciples really steal his body to give the idea of his resurrection? You see there is no stopping something as outrageous as something like this is!

The statement "a member can believe anything they like as long as they do not teach it" is very troubling because it makes one think that it really does not matter what you have faith in, even if it true or not!

The Book of Mormon are the words of Christ given through real living prophets who lived anciently, I do not think one can have it both ways, one cannot follow God and worship at the altars of the wisdom of the world at the same time! One must accept the one or the other, or somehow make one fit into the other.

What we LDS claim is fantastic, and against many so-called "laws of science". Science denies the possiblity of a literal bodily resurrection. The existance of the spirit of man, or of life after death! Science denies the possiblity of the healing power of the priesthood. It denies the power to part the Red Sea. To walk on water. To calm a stormy sea. To raise the dead or make the blind see. For someone to somehow atone for the sins of all mankind. For angels to appear to men in any age. Or to translate an unknown language by the gift and power of God through faith. For a farm boy prophet to see God and Christ in a sacred grove. All of these thing are foolishness to the natural man and unless the scales of darkness falls from his eyes he will never know them. He will never feel the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, the comfort and love that comes from the fruit that is most precious above all others.

The point is the words of the Book of Mormon are the words of Christ, and if we demean His words or cause doubt to their validity in any way we are denying the power of God. So while it might be soothing to the carnal mind to say "we can believe whatever we like, we just cannot teach it" to me it is a cowardly way to have heritical doctrines without accepting the consequences.

Edited May 27, 2012 by Lightbearer

[CASteinman]

My real point is this thread was initiated on this principle of not being sure and wondering about how to view something and maybe I can get away with looking at it this way or that way. This has attracted that sense of equivocation in a majority of the responses. It scares me because it becomes habitual to view life through the lenses of the particular shade of glasses that we feel comfortable with. For some a little tint and for others full on reflective sunglasses that block the light entirely. This is the danger of teaching whatever you want. Even believing is only acceptable on the premise that we recognize it for what it is - a process that is leading away from our own understandings as we move forward to seeking God's understanding.

You do know, don't you, that the OP specifically did say its not permissible to teach whatever you want?

I don't disagree with you that some equivocation seems petty and pedantic. Sometimes people do try a bit too hard to be understanding and convert their sympathy into something weird and maybe even verging on apostasy and worshiping false gods.

You get your assurance out of the scriptures -- and worry about people who make gods in their own images. Have you possibly thought about the idea that adhering to scripture too rigidly is also a form of apostasy? Jesus, in his life had to contend with that and you can easily see many anti-Mormons who use the Bible as a cudgel and, by reasonable standards would seem to worship the Book more than God. Hence, even your position is not without some problems.

Even in the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon, there are instances of doubt, equivocation or speculation. It is OK to not know everything. It is OK to have some doubts and fears -- after all -- this is the earth and we are mortal and behind a veil. I have never met anyone yet who was not profoundly affected by the "spell" we are under in this moral life of testing.

I think we can spare some empathy for people whose doubts and fears may be different than our own. We are in the same boat. And we agreed when we got in, that when someone's hands get tired of rowing, we would help lift them up.

[CASteinman]

The statement "a member can believe anything they like as long as they do not teach it" is very troubling because it makes one think that it really does not matter what you have faith in, even if it true or not!

Maybe the concern you have would be handled if someone had said:

A member can believe anything that they like as long as they do not teach it, and they will still be a member -- but they should also not be under the impression that merely being considered a "member" is any assurance of entrance into the Celestial Kingdom.

Would that make you happier about all of this?

I think it was sort of understood if not expressed outright, but I might be wrong.

[SamIam]

You do know, don't you, that the OP specifically did say its not permissible to teach whatever you want?

I don't disagree with you that some equivocation seems petty and pedantic.

First, let me show you how this works for me. I’ll use your post as an example. In a very polite way you are saying don’t be such a putz. I arrive at this conclusion not by reading the politeness of your tone or by what you specifically state but by the feel and tenor of the under lying message of your post. I am being somewhat putz like and you have detected that from the overall tenor of my posts.

I agree with you. I can be very polite and thoughtful and at other times I tend to be just a touch overly direct and sarcastic.

I do not think the sarcasm is very valuable but sometimes the personal entertainment value gets the better of me.

The point is that in both cases, yours and I’s there is a message not in the actual words but in the underlying themes that can be discerned from how we present our efforts. Sometimes we say one thing but illustrate an entirely different thing in how we develop out a topic. No one intends any harm in a thread like this but there is the perceived authorization that its okay to critique the scriptures or such. Already in this thread we have gone from the Book of Mormon is not to be taken literally to it is a grey area to consider it necessary to believe Joseph Smith is a prophet. In our responses to these various messages it is obvious that people just race through the threads of interest without really pondering that much upon what is said. I just want to make the best of the one-time read through that I might get from those perusing this thread.

You get your assurance out of the scriptures -- and worry about people who make gods in their own images. Have you possibly thought about the idea that adhering to scripture too rigidly is also a form of apostasy?

Absolutely, again you are correct in part for the fact that private interpretation of scripture is a significant issue. Christ did contend with that issue. However, the question is more to the point of this – does it appear to you that I used the scripture I posited as evidence of my conjecture in a manner that indicates excessive “rigidity.” Or instead can you see the potential of what I am saying? I try to develop my thoughts completely so as to illustrate my points. I don’t generally send little texts that make no sense, or tweets that convey even less. If you examine my examples I don’t believe I am taking anything out of context and I am genuinely trying to catch the real meaning of what is said. From my perspective the attitude of personal point of views as the measure to judge truth is everywhere and I often think that people do not realize we are obligated to go way beyond our opinions when searching for the truths of the gospel. I firmly believe that it is a god of our own making when we continue to measure everything against how that makes me feel, or what that means to me is…

Do I really sound like an apostate to you though? I mean really? Do I? I don’t hold it against you for implying such. It is just one of those knee jerk things we say to get someone’s attention I suspect. However, if you will just think back to one of the clearest means of noting an apostate according to Joseph Smith - it is their willingness to speak against the prophets and leaders of the church. If you ever detect anything I say as demeaning to the prophets, then, please slap me upside the head. I have never been inclined, and hope I never fall to making such a grievous error in judgment. For this reason I am very protective when others so casually dismiss the significance of God’s chosen. They hopefully are simply being innocent in their mistaken judgment but frankly you do not have to travel far to find your genuine apostates.

Jesus, in his life had to contend with that and you can easily see many anti-Mormons who use the Bible as a cudgel and, by reasonable standards would seem to worship the Book more than God. Hence, even your position is not without some problems.

This is a fine line we all must walk. Generally on boards that are home to the intellectual types there is an exceptional lack of scriptural reference. They are seldom used to back any claim and when someone dares there is always someone who wants to rejoinder with …”that may be what it says to you but that’s not what I get out of it at all!”... I may be wrong but I sense a lack of confidence in scripture to validate any point. People seem like they feel it undermines their appearance of intelligence. I say that because I have felt that myself. It was part of my own process of becoming comfortable with scripture independent of the “honors of men.” Hey that resembles a scripture I know…and here’s another:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

My personal greatest risk is that I might be using these tools and my years of study to further my own perceptions of being wise in the eyes of men. However, as I stated I have come to grips with the fact that few consider the use of scripture an act of wisdom, however, I do sometimes like to entertain, which is why I sometimes put things like they “ate refried beans” in my original post. However, overall and with the greatest of sincerity it genuinely troubles me to see what I perceive as “little trust” in God’s word.

When Christ asks the Brother of Jared, “Believest thou the words which I shall speak” just before he brings him into his presence that’s the same question he is asking all who seek him. Will you believe me, will you do what I ask, will you give away everything - all honor, all accolades, all possessions to know him. Sometimes I think we do not realize it because everyone has told us how to think, how to write, what constitutes appropriate resources. Etc. We are so pressured to keep everything in certain boundaries that it obscures the ability to simply testify. That’s what people like me are for – to remind to encourage to sustain, to share etc. I do get a bit preachy and in that I could lose my whole point with some but a few hear and understand, once in awhile. I also know that I do see very clearly on some points in the gospel. I have fought hard and long in pondering, study and prayer and while some may disagree, on some things I can with assurance post correct and accurate gospel perspectives and I feel obligated to do so in some cases to counter mistaken perspectives.

Even in the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon, there are instances of doubt, equivocation or speculation. It is OK to not know everything. It is OK to have some doubts and fears -- after all -- this is the earth and we are mortal and behind a veil. I have never met anyone yet who was not profoundly affected by the "spell" we are under in this moral life of testing.

Perhaps one might call Nephi as doubting before he helps Laban with his headache, perhaps one could characterize Christ as doubt ridden when he inquires 3 times if his Father will remove this cup. I cannot. When I observe the equivocators however, you bring a perfect example of my biggest concerns. Who are the most common equivocators in scripture? Would Sherem, Nehor, and Korihor not take the cake for equivocation and speculation? You may have other examples of where the righteous participants have done such, but you will have to show them to me as I can think of no instance where a righteous participant in the narrative ever does so. I would be interested if you have such examples as that would give me something to ponder upon.

In my first post, I mentioned this observation.

“I find that most often when people want to go with figurative “leanings” it is because we are short on proof. Since we are having trouble finding the types of evidence that satisfy the intellectual necessity, and we want to remain “members in good standing” we feel obligated to cushion our own lack of knowledge and the doubts that lack of knowledge sustains with the unspoken half of the I think it might be figurative statement – the unspoken half being, I don’t have any proof.”

Lib came back in one of his later posts and stated this his experience.

Yes. I have to say, for many years, I did accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon (or I should say, I didn't question it). When I did start questioning it, I became unsure about it...then, I became unsure about all of it, even the spiritual experiences I had with it. But, more recently, I have come to accept that God can speak to us through any means he chooses. So, I re-embraced the spiritual experiences, but remained unsure about the historicity.

I don’t know if anyone noticed the connection but that is precisely the warning message I felt was needed in my first post prior to knowing what Lib's experience had been. However, he resoundingly confirmed my observation. It should have leapt out as a second witness to somebody when Lib shared his own personal observations. I appreciate his openness.

I am stating that when we encourage this type of pandering to equivocation we actually foster the experiences that Lib actually recognizes as his own. It is dangerous ground. Somewhere there is a fine line between innocent questions of genuine seekers and innocently making the mistakes in questions that open venues of thought that other questioning folks feel drawn too. My hope is that of the hundreds that will read this thread, and it his generating an awful lot of attention based on how short a period it has been out here, my hope is that I can be the other perspective, the other viewpoint the other approach to the subject that allows the readers two options to consider as they wind their way through all of the posts looking for the door in the darkness that leads them away from the dangerous alligators that threaten to eat them. However, I probably could do a better job if I toned down a touch and I am always working on it.

I think we can spare some empathy for people whose doubts and fears may be different than our own. We are in the same boat. And we agreed when we got in, that when someone's hands get tired of rowing, we would help lift them up.

I’m not so concerned about things that are different from my own doubts and fears. Different doesn’t scare me in the least. After all, I’m pretty different in my own right. I enjoy the differences and people often share something that makes me think in a different way about something and I am glad for it. I'm agreed with your whole rowing analogy and maybe some of us just row more boldly than others. Rest assured though if you see someone rowing in circles repeating the same mistakes, covering the same path they have already covered that it will shorten the energy they must expend if you point out to them that the shore they are trying to reach is straight ahead. Don't lean right and don't lean left when you row and you will get there much quicker.

Still some things are more than different they are dangerous.

My posts tend to do two things: I thoroughly treat a subject with accuracy and from a staunch believers point of view. These are my most common posts. However, for whatever reason sometimes I feel to warn and make mention of dangerous territory.

There is an article at this link found on ABC4news:

http://www.abc4.com/...om9IYJYnRA.cspx

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is losing a record number of its membership. A new report quotes an LDS general authority who said more members are falling away today than any time in the past 175 years.

I have the actual talk on an MP3 and Elder Jensen gave several perceived reasons for this decline. There were several but the intellectual priority that people are demanding in their need for proof of the truth is causing the loss of our young people by the masses. They miss entirely how destructive the concept of proof before belief is to faith and set proof as the priority. It is a difficult paradigm to fight but I am concerned that the gentle approach is too easily perceived as nonchalance. So I tend to direct and hopefully over all respectful responses that may be very opposing in their fashion. I only started on this board a few months back after I was reminded of this statement by Elder Ballard from 2008:

“Church leaders must not be reluctant to participate in public discussion. Where appropriate, we will engage with the media whether it’s the traditional, mainstream media or the new media of the Internet. But Church leaders can’t do it all, especially at the grass-roots, community level. While we do speak authoritatively for the Church, we look to our responsible and faithful members to engage personally with blogs, to write thoughtful, online letters to news organizations, and to act in other ways to correct the record with their own opinions.

“However, I emphasize that it is not always about correcting misinformation. Sometimes it is about getting solid information and ideas out there in the first place. Share your experiences – those from your own life – that show how your values and your faith intersect. It doesn’t matter whether that’s face to face with another person, or whether you do it by participating from your own blog or contributing to someone else’s blog. The most important thing is that you let people know that you are a Latter-day Saint, and that your behavior and attitude always reflect the high standards of the Church and what is expected as a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, you will be speaking as an individual member and not as an official representative of the Church.

Now I may be a bit remiss in reflecting high standards but I have taken to heart his encouragement and I try to put the correct ideas out there. I try but this is new to me and I am always working on not sounding too self-righteous in my responses. I do not post on everything and this is not just a way to pass the hours. I only post where I feel a nudge to try to add a needed perspective that may be missing or may be being overlooked.

I am not trying to spare empathy but in other duties I have had in the church, I have found that the approach that seems to catch people’s attention best is to be direct and bold – others might add brief as well…I just haven’t mastered that one yet. There are already a lot of soft and gentle types that will carefully slide into and out of a conversation with such pleasantness that you can’t even figure out what side of the fence they are on. I am not one of those and hope to illustrate and teach when I think I can make a point correctly.

Edited May 27, 2012 by SamIam

[Libs]

Sam, I appreciate your input and I am not afraid of "boldness" or a different perspective (when it is respectful). I can appreciate where you are coming from. I have some LDS friends who are rather bold and straight forward, in that way. I honestly do appreciate that you are trying to keep people from becoming lunch for the alligators.

On reflection, I guess, I'm kind of wondering why I even made this thread. I don't recall ever hearing anyone say "you can believe whatever you want" in regards to the church...so, it was just kind of a new concept to turnover and examine. I thought to myself, wow, really? Wonder how that would work out, in reality? I was thinking, probably, not very well...but, I wanted to throw it out there to see what others might think. I had to laugh at your question about this being a foundational paper for my Psych thesis, because I do have an BA in Psychology. Not working on my Master's, though, so no worries.

Anyway, I do understand what you're saying...but, I don't see myself following after the "philosophies of men" (although, I suppose no one does). I have tried to follow the spirit and allow God to be my guide. It is easy for you to believe that people should just "follow the prophet", but when you don't have the faith required, it's easier said than done. If I believed with all my heart that Joseph Smith was a prophet, then, I would, of course, follow him without reservation. But, since I don't have that kind of faith, it is kind of like a Muslim saying to you, why do you walk out on a cliff (following the world or falling into a pit of alligators), when you should just be following Muhammad and all of your troubles would cease. Would that convince you to follow Muhammad?

P.S. (I am a woman, btw )

Edited May 27, 2012 by Libs

[cinepro]

My real point is this thread was initiated on this principle of not being sure and wondering about how to view something and maybe I can get away with looking at it this way or that way. This has attracted that sense of equivocation in a majority of the responses. It scares me because it becomes habitual to view life through the lenses of the particular shade of glasses that we feel comfortable with. For some a little tint and for others full on reflective sunglasses that block the light entirely. This is the danger of teaching whatever you want. Even believing is only acceptable on the premise that we recognize it for what it is - a process that is leading away from our own understandings as we move forward to seeking God's understanding.

The danger doesn't come from having other people in the Church that think differently than you do.

The danger comes from acknowledging that they might be right.

[Calm]

Yes, that's true.

I guess I was thinking more about people who choose not to be there, but are still on the membership rolls.

Unless the leaders know for certain why they aren't attending, then I think most give people the benefit of the doubt....at least I would.

I know a woman who wanted to attend but wouldn't because her exmormon husband said he felt that she was rejecting him in preference for the Church if she went....and she felt manipulated by his insistence that she and their kids stay home from church, so unfortunately I don't know if her sacrifice accomplished anything. Looking from the outside of the relationship with no knowledge of the dynamics that went on in the home, one could just assume that she had fallen into as much disbelief as her husband and yet in reality, she had full faith and should be counted as a member in good standing.

because I do have an BA in Psychology. Not working on my Master's, though, so no worries.

We have much in common. Though I feel I got a good deal of my postgraduate work completed through raising kids and being roommother and shoulder to cry upon and sincere listener etc. over the years. Nothing like "practical work" to give one insight into psychological dynamics. Edited May 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[Libs]

Unless the leaders know for certain why they aren't attending, then I think most give people the benefit of the doubt....at least I would.

I know a woman who wanted to attend but wouldn't because her exmormon husband said he felt that she was rejecting him in preference for the Church if she went....and she felt manipulated by his insistence that she and their kids stay home from church, so unfortunately I don't know if her sacrifice accomplished anything. Looking from the outside of the relationship with no knowledge of the dynamics that went on in the home, one could just assume that she had fallen into as much disbelief as her husband and yet in reality, she had full faith and should be counted as a member in good standing.

Yes, I understand. Sad that she allowed her husband to keep her and the children out of church. My husband was a non-member, but thankfully always very supportive.

We have much in common. Though I feel I got a good deal of my postgraduate work completed through raising kids and being roommother and shoulder to cry upon and sincere listener etc. over the years. Nothing like "practical work" to give one insight into psychological dynamics.

Haha! Isn't that the truth!