Church History And Faith Crisis Part 3

[Jim B.]

RM,

You said that you have worked your way to the other side of the tunnel. I'm curious is you have only been through this once? Do you ever expect it to happen again? I ask because I'm going through this type of thing for a second time (maybe that makes me an alpha wolf).

In response to your first post, when I find myself in a bad place with respect to the church, I have found it helpful to just return to the basics. By the basics, of course, I mean the teachings of Jesus Christ, as set forth in the New Testament and Book of Mormon. I find it helps to eliminate a lot of the "background noise" that can be so overwhelming at times. I believe that the teachings of Christ are uplifting and beautiful in their simplicity.

By the way, I'm BIC. I was raised to not question the church.

[Log]

I swear; it is as if boneheads had never read the Bible, both OT and NT. ... I shake my head in wonder as to how prophets became perfect; tell me how many perfect prophets have we had in the OT and the NT? Guess what? We are going to have the same number today.

This bonehead has quite a different view.

"43 Because he (Seth) was a perfect man, and his likeness was the express likeness of his father, insomuch that he seemed to be like unto his father in all things, and could be distinguished from him only by his age."

"3 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause."

"5 ¶There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judæa, a certain priest named aZacharias, of the course of bAbia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and aordinances of the Lord blameless."

"2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach...."

Regarding the word "perfect," I feel to cite Inigo Montoya:

Edited June 12, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

You might contend that my portrayal puts a twist to the old saying by switching from the man as the 'loving enough', but I disagree. The salient word is "enough". There is never "enough" when someone is looking to place fault. It's as useful as "if only". "If only" you had done this or "if only" you had done that, things would be different. Cute...trite....and useless.

For the most part I would agree it is useless.

Commitment to the Church and any other relationship is not a one dimensional experience, one can be extremely committed in some ways and hardly committed or not committed at all in other ways. Just as it is important to define "faithful" in a marriage relationship so that both partners have the same level of expectations from each other, it is wise to define "faithful" in regards to the Church. I think if one looks deeply at what one expects from the Church and examines to see if they are fair and important expectations and not just assumptions carried over from youth or other experiences, it can help how one approaches doubts and other concerns.

[Darren10]

Even then, we are talking about adulterers, murderers, and pretty disreputable people.

Yup. and Jesus' mortal lineage is that of the King David. How did David turn out?

Good points made there.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Darren10

[Calm]

Having been a student of history my entire life I have never felt like there was a problem between the history of the Church and my faith. I reject the mere assumption that history should or would pose a crisis of faith. I reject any attempt to portray a "faithful" representation of Church history as anything other than a faithful representation of Church history.

I swear; it is as if boneheads had never read the Bible, both OT and NT. You want to tell me that it is not a faithful accounting of history? Even then, we are talking about adulterers, murderers, and pretty disreputable people. Get people, that the apostles sat the feet of the Savior and still chose to deny him! Who does that? That's right; the chosen of God did that, do that, and will do that. The very elect did that and now you want to tell me that Joseph was human? Wake the crap up, children! We are human; all of us are. Just because a man is called of God does not mean he is perfect or will be perfect. ALL IT MEANS IS....WAIT FOR IT....THAT HE IS CALLED OF GOD.

Critics, the faithful, each of us can be so incredibly boneheaded at times. I shake my head in wonder as to how prophets became perfect; tell me how many perfect prophets have we had in the OT and the NT? Guess what? We are going to have the same number today.

The Old Testament has been my favourite scripture as long as I can remember, used to read it in SM when things got boring to me at least by the time I was ten. My mother one day made the observation to me that in the lineage of Christ there was pretty much every sin that could be committed; she found this both symbolically and practically important when it came to the redemption of Man.

It never occurred to me growing up that my leaders were perfect or even close to perfect. I think I even had the attitude it was much more likely I would not like them too much just like those in the OT didn't come across as the most likable characters for the most part.

[Log]

Oh wow. Just read some of that Jensen transcript on how, if he had it to do today, he would have a FHE on polygamy.

Because I just did, yesterday. Told my daughter that Joseph had, what, 30 wives? And Brigham had a lot too. And I told her why. She picked up on it instantly - "It's like waving a red handkerchief!"

[Darren10]

In response to your first post, when I find myself in a bad place with respect to the church, I have found it helpful to just return to the basics. By the basics, of course, I mean the teachings of Jesus Christ, as set forth in the New Testament and Book of Mormon. I find it helps to eliminate a lot of the "background noise" that can be so overwhelming at times. I believe that the teachings of Christ are uplifting and beautiful in their simplicity.

By the way, I'm BIC. I was raised to not question the church.

Very good approach to haivng a faith crisis. Returning to the basics has helped me to ease doubts and to found my faith upon the basics is immensely helpful. Also include prayer. The way I see it, prayer provides a road to travel on and scriptures help you to run on it. Questions on the history of the church I have found LDS scholars very helpful as well. They help make my outlook and apologies for the Church much more coherent and fact-based than I would otherwise.

I too was born in the church though I do not have any inherent opposition to questioning the Church. In fact, questioning could prove healthy. It could help you and others to find answers.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Darren10

[Storm Rider]

This bonehead has quite a different view.

"43 Because he (Seth) was a perfect man, and his likeness was the express likeness of his father, insomuch that he seemed to be like unto his father in all things, and could be distinguished from him only by his age."

"3 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause."

"5 ¶There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judæa, a certain priest named aZacharias, of the course of bAbia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and aordinances of the Lord blameless."

"2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach...."

Regarding the word "perfect," I feel to cite Inigo Montoya:

Alas, a bonehead born every minute! Please now join the human race. You win the prize; here's your sign.

Another insult and you are out of the thread.

[Darren10]

The Old Testament has been my favourite scripture as long as I can remember, used to read it in SM when things got boring to me at least by the time I was ten. My mother one day made the observation to me that in the lineage of Christ there was pretty much every sin that could be committed; she found this both symbolically and practically important when it came to the redemption of Man.

It never occurred to me growing up that my leaders were perfect or even close to perfect. I think I even had the attitude it was much more likely I would not like them too much just like those in the OT didn't come across as the most likable characters for the most part.

From this and Storm Rider's post, it seems that the "betrayal" is that of LDS members having an idea picture fthe LDS Church and its leaders and it's this ideal that is damaged by reading about its history, not the history itself

[DBMormon]

Now it seems you are going off of reports that many are doubting the Church and feeling betrayed by what they perceive as its leaders having covered up its dubious history. Is that correct.

First me - I have gone through a faith crisis several times in my life though the most recent several months ago was the worst. I came on here at the peak but found new ways to see old information from a few kind others here (LOG, Kevin Christiansen, and a few others) I also listen to even those of you who have bad approaches as the points you share can on some level still add new info.

Now answer to the question above..... I think there are adequate answers to every difficult issue. I think the Faith Crisis we are talking of is related to the church's inadequate methods of addressing those issues. elder Jensen says as much and says they are working to fix it. But becasue it was reactionary instead of proactive they have lost and are losing a lot of folks who didn't have to go.. Do I think the Church handles it with dishonesty.... no for the most part. I am sure a person or two along the way has withheld troubling info but that can't be blamed on the institution. could they do better - absolutely. and they say as much

Is that the point here? no I need most of you to come to grips with the fact you handle those in faith crisis the wrong way and you make matters worse... that to me is what is frustrated me from the moment I registered here. you see somewhat saying things you don't like so you let them have it... give it right back to them... that never works with those in faith crisis. They are frustrated and are looking for answers and you decide they are out to get you and bully them into a corner and make it personal. You need to find a way to say to yourself, I don't see it this way, but others do. If i am going to help I need to allow them to vent and kindly address their issues... old missionary addage BRT - build a relationship of trust... get them to let their walls down. You don't, you go on the offensive.. you say mean things, you ridicule, embarass and make it go beyond the line of no return. I absolutley believe in my heart some of you have casued folks to leave the church when they came here for answers and you handled them just like you do me. Instead of getting the love they need they feel attacked and off they go, final straw. Ease up boys, I am your brother. We may have sibling rivalry and we may disagree but do it with Love... that is the point

off to the doctor to xray the broken leg see progress,,,,, brb

Edited June 12, 2012 by reelmormon

[bcuzbcuz]

Oh wow. Just read some of that Jensen transcript on how, if he had it to do today, he would have a FHE on polygamy.

Because I just did, yesterday. Told my daughter that Joseph had, what, 30 wives? And Brigham had a lot too. And I told her why. She picked up on it instantly - "It's like waving a red handkerchief!"

But bulls are colorblind, at least to a red-green differation. It's the waving that gets their attention. Are you dong the waving?

[ksfisher]

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2005-fair-conference/2005-believest-thou-faith-cognitive-dissonance-and-the-psychology-of-religious-experience

This FAIR presentation by Wendy Ulrich deals a lot with faith and feelings of betrayal. She deals specifically with the following three questions:

• How do I decide what to believe in religious matters?
  
• How do I deal with doubt, disillusionment, or betrayal?
  
• How do I free myself once and for all of self-doubt, doubts about the Church, or doubts about the existence or trustworthiness of God?
  

[Calm]

I need most of you to come to grips with the fact you handle those in faith crisis the wrong way and you make matters worse

I would like to see a number given (no need to use names) of those you think are 'handling' those who come here in faith crisis the wrong way. From what I've seen on the board over the years, I would disagree even though I believe what I think is the most effective approach is probably close to what you perceive is effective. From what I have seen of your responses and threads you are involved in and quoting as examples, etc. I think there are a very limited number of posters who are responding and thus do not include "most" of those who post on the board but it seems to me you apply your experience to these individuals as typical when from what I've seen I think it is more that those who find your way ineffective respond (often focusing on your personal comments), while those who are pretty much comfortable with it or have a variation of it of their own don't.

Also I think that you have presented the idea that you want to hammer out an approach that works. If so, then I think it is important to first identify what the various problems are and identification includes challenging the authenticity of a claim in order to most accurately frame it. It is not effective to just assume a problem is precisely what a person first describes it as even if one believes that person is being completely honest about his experience. And if the purpose is to use that individual's problems to help create a framework to address others' difficulties than simply accepting it as portrayed and not refining it for specific details as well as identifying generalities will actually, imo, cause more problems than it will solve.

If my expectation is correct, then it is good that there have been assertive challenges to yours and others' claims as it will help refine your search and come up with a more robust approach. However, assertiveness can often feel like aggression to those who it is directed against especially if emotions are highly involved. Perceived aggression leads to defensiveness which often leads to actual aggression as it can then appear like a person is insincere in their claims to want to address problems rather than just air their complaints.

I absolutley believe in my heart some of you have casued folks to leave the church...

This itself is a very aggressive statement/claim. I am wondering if you see it that way though.

You seem to be asking others to handle those who come with questions with kid gloves even if they have the appearance (to the individual) of a 'wolf in sheep's clothing', to give pretty much all the benefit of the doubt. You don't seem from your posts, however, to be much into using kid gloves with those you disagree with on this subject as evidenced by the comment above. Do you see a disconnect here or do you think there is a good reason that gentleness is required for some and not for others?

Edited June 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[bcuzbcuz]

'

I too was born in the church though I do not have any inherent opposition to questioning the Church. In fact, questioning could prove healthy. It could help you and others to find answers.

I, too, was born in the church. I had, however, a double standard of questioning. We had a handbook on my mission, regarding various beliefs in the Christian world. The ideas of early sainthood, in the Catholic church, was given particular scrutiny and ridicule. The idea that slivers of Christ's cross and bones of the early saints, miracles of gliding over waters, water turned to blood, etc., were referenced and dated and highlighted.

Early LDS history was not given the same scrutiny. That would not have made any difference to me, at that point in time, but would have given a more balanced picture overall.

Later in life there came a time when the double standard of questioning actually was a disservice. I have seen a "sliver from Christ's cross" presented to me by a believing monk and I scoffed at the believer's gullibility. I have also seen the statue of the Salt Lake gull's but I swallowed the story without any credulity. I was not served by my own lack of 'skepticism'.

[Calm]

We had a handbook on my mission

Out of curiosity, was this something gathered up and passed around by the missionaries themselves (I have seen several examples of missionaries' homemade "handbooks") or something more official (coming from the MP for example). Edited June 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

This FAIR presentation by Wendy Ulrich deals a lot with faith and feelings of betrayal. She deals specifically with the following three questions:

I have listened to this twice

[bcuzbcuz]

Out of curiosity, was this something gathered up and passed around by the missionaries themselves (I have seen several examples of missionaries' homemade "handbooks") or something more official (coming from the MP for example).

Good question. I don't know its source. It was bound in those plastic multi-ring binders but I never questioned its validity or source. I probably read it as often as I did scripture. But I don't remember if I got it in Salt Lake at the mission home there or on my mission.

[DBMormon]

Good post Calmoriah

I would like to see a number given (no need to use names) of those you think are 'handling' those who come here in faith crisis the wrong way

I would say there are 6-9 posters who take a bad approach. They look for confrontation in thread when someone is looking for answers... they like it... they want to win the debate. In controversal threads they post a lot. They have to get the last word in. I also notice among many of this group if they say something that turns out to have been an inaccurate judgement, they refuse to admit they crossed a line or to apoligize. they see no reason. twice today I have done that for those who say I don't admit I am wrong. (once with log on Pres/Elder kimbal's comment not being applicable to the thread, and the first vision thread that began today, i removed my post and left an apology). Also I have been told today or late last night I only say nice comment to those who are critical... that's bull. I gave several cred points to folks who were opposed to my thoughts just yesterday. Grundwalken was one of them that i praised even though he was critical of my approach.

The other issue is this. If faithful "Rosey Glasses" members here do not speak out against the negative methods a poster uses, the person seeking help will and does assume others side with him. Who let's a group of people pick on another, who doesn't speak up when that happens in real life? those who enjoy the beating he is taking, those who are too afraid to help, and those who see it as deserved. That speaks volumes. Also i kind of mentioned already but when that half dozen speak they do so in volume, and make up the majority of replies, that also makes it seem bigger then it is. Remember the truth is not important at the very moment they come for help. What is important is they feel safe and you earn their trust. Once you have that then you can slow things down and answer their questions. If you jump right in and say Follow the peophet, do your hometeaching (Elder Jensen's comment - wanted to be sure I included my source), your poisoning the well, your a wolf (posters comments to me the last 48 hours)... they put up a wall and it now becomes disaffected member versus faithful rather then two brothers in Christ lifting each other up and building testimonies.

This itself is a very aggressive statement/claim. I am wondering if you see it that way though.

You seem to be asking others to handle those who come with questions with kid gloves even if they have the appearance (to the individual) of a 'wolf in sheep's clothing', to give pretty much all the benefit of the doubt. You don't seem from your posts, however, to be much into using kid gloves with those you disagree with on this subject as evidenced by the comment above. Do you see a disconnect here or do you think there is a good reason that gentleness is required for some and not for others?

Yes, Kid gloves are a must it is how you drop their wall and build that trust. Let me ask is it worth it to offend one member who could have been rescued if along the way you also uncover 10 trolls and show them for what they are in doing so? NO!!!! NEVER. But the actions of that half dozen says YES....

I do not use kid gloves once a poster has decided to make assumptions about me rather then ask. No kid gloves when someone says I wouldn't last 5 minutes as a LDS bishop when I have magnified my calling for 3 1/2 years. I joined the church at age 17. I was called to be a bishop at 29. Imagine that. Only member on my side of the family. I don't live out west, I live in ohio. Never went to primary, never went to seminary, YM's for less then 6 months. Then imagine having a faith crisis and still turning to the Lord when others sought your help and receiving answers and knowing what to say and having people tell you the good you've done when you are in a dark place yourself. God called me right? then some of you question that! Please take two steps back and ponder that. would you wear kid gloves? That is like spitting in my face. So no, none of you get kid gloves when you proclaim your the faithful and i am the troll. no sorry. is that fair. Maybe not but remember your the one saying I am not faithful and proclaiming from the rooftops you are (one poster criticizes me and then tells me he keeps all the commandments). so now ask yourself after you take your own personal emotion out of it, would you wear kid gloves? I need some of you to see the approach you use doesn't work.

I think when you stand on the faithful side. You are obligated especially if you judge another of not being the kind of Saint God is happy with, you are obligated to represent Christ and leave the 99 and go after the one and come back with twice as much love after reproof. I would challenge any of you to find a critical comment of mine towards another individual here who didn't first think it was his right to tell me I was unfaithful in some direct way first (the only exception I know of is my comment to John Dehlin that his podcast was no longer what it started to be. That one can't be used

Edited June 12, 2012 by reelmormon

[Calm]

That is like spitting in my face.

So you justify when you choose a more aggressive approach because you feel someone is treating something you value with extreme disrespect.

Is this not the same justification (at least it is that I have seen) for many of the 6-9 posters you have identified as overly aggressive to questioners?

[DBMormon]

So you justify when you choose a more aggressive approach because you feel someone is treating something you value with extreme disrespect.

in some ways yes though I see differences. But yes.

[Calm]

in some ways yes though I see differences. But yes.

And I suspect many of those you are critical of in this way see their reasons for aggressiveness as more valid because they don't see themselves as defending their own honour, but someone else's (leaders or the Church itself).

Me, once upon a time I saw value in confrontation of aggressive behaviour on this board and boards like it, but after a decade of being a poster and a mod (on another board), I have come to see little value in direct confrontation as it just increases contention. Anyone 'brave' or committed to a viewpoint enough (no matter what 'side' they are on) to be aggressive and believing that aggression is a valid response ---as would all that use it in the first place---isn't going to stand down because of being challenged on that aggression. So if one wants to remove that aggression, the best way is to report it to moderators. Of course that generally does not mean an immediate response, but in my view that is better than having pages of additional aggression, contention, even nastiness and false accusations.

After having reported it, the best thing one can then do is simply interact with the questioner/poster in the way you think they should be treated rather than telling others who they are doing it wrong. This can be done either privately to avoid distractions or publicly. This gives the individual a choice on what to react to...the emotional laden aggression or the posts that deal with what they have claimed to want to deal with.

If at that point the questioner/poster focuses more on the aggression and adds to the contention him/herself, then it seems to me that they have demonstrated what is most important to them and are culpable in adding to it. If they then choose to view the Church in negative ways because they have themselves chosen to focus on the negative instead of the positive, I don't see either the Church or even those who are aggressive in their responses as being responsible for "driving out" anyone. Pointing the finger at someone else for an individual's choice of the negative when there is a valid choice for the positive present is treating that individual as a child or idiot not in control of himself and does no one benefit, imo.

Edited June 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

One more comment....

I have never seen aggressive posters (of any stripe) change because they have been confronted on their aggressive behaviour. I have seen them changed due to seeing others' examples of a better way.

[Craig Paxton]

Good post Calmoriah

I would say there are 6-9 posters who take a bad approach. They look for confrontation in thread when someone is looking for answers... they like it... they want to win the debate. In controversal threads they post a lot. They have to get the last word in. I also notice among many of this group if they say something that turns out to have been an inaccurate judgement, they refuse to admit they crossed a line or to apoligize. they see no reason. twice today I have done that for those who say I don't admit I am wrong. (once with log on Pres/Elder kimbal's comment not being applicable to the thread, and the first vision thread that began today, i removed my post and left an apology). Also I have been told today or late last night I only say nice comment to those who are critical... that's bull. I gave several cred points to folks who were opposed to my thoughts just yesterday. Grundwalken was one of them that i praised even though he was critical of my approach.

The other issue is this. If faithful "Rosey Glasses" members here do not speak out against the negative methods a poster uses, the person seeking help will and does assume others side with him. Who let's a group of people pick on another, who doesn't speak up when that happens in real life? those who enjoy the beating he is taking, those who are too afraid to help, and those who see it as deserved. That speaks volumes. Also i kind of mentioned already but when that half dozen speak they do so in volume, and make up the majority of replies, that also makes it seem bigger then it is. Remember the truth is not important at the very moment they come for help. What is important is they feel safe and you earn their trust. Once you have that then you can slow things down and answer their questions. If you jump right in and say Follow the peophet, do your hometeaching (Elder Jensen's comment - wanted to be sure I included my source), your poisoning the well, your a wolf (posters comments to me the last 48 hours)... they put up a wall and it now becomes disaffected member versus faithful rather then two brothers in Christ lifting each other up and building testimonies.

Yes, Kid gloves are a must it is how you drop their wall and build that trust. Let me ask is it worth it to offend one member who could have been rescued if along the way you also uncover 10 trolls and show them for what they are in doing so? NO!!!! NEVER. But the actions of that half dozen says YES....

I do not use kid gloves once a poster has decided to make assumptions about me rather then ask. No kid gloves when someone says I wouldn't last 5 minutes as a LDS bishop when I have magnified my calling for 3 1/2 years. I joined the church at age 17. I was called to be a bishop at 29. Imagine that. Only member on my side of the family. I don't live out west, I live in ohio. Never went to primary, never went to seminary, YM's for less then 6 months. Then imagine having a faith crisis and still turning to the Lord when others sought your help and receiving answers and knowing what to say and having people tell you the good you've done when you are in a dark place yourself. God called me right? then some of you question that! Please take two steps back and ponder that. would you wear kid gloves? That is like spitting in my face. So no, none of you get kid gloves when you proclaim your the faithful and i am the troll. no sorry. is that fair. Maybe not but remember your the one saying I am not faithful and proclaiming from the rooftops you are (one poster criticizes me and then tells me he keeps all the commandments). so now ask yourself after you take your own personal emotion out of it, would you wear kid gloves? I need some of you to see the approach you use doesn't work.

I think when you stand on the faithful side. You are obligated especially if you judge another of not being the kind of Saint God is happy with, you are obligated to represent Christ and leave the 99 and go after the one and come back with twice as much love after reproof. I would challenge any of you to find a critical comment of mine towards another individual here who didn't first think it was his right to tell me I was unfaithful in some direct way first (the only exception I know of is my comment to John Dehlin that his podcast was no longer what it started to be. That one can't be used

I've been posting here for a few years now...I used to let "those"posters get under my skin...now I just ignore them..or at least try. There are posters who are more interested in scoring points than building bridges...I've been guilty of both...after awhile you'll know who each of these groups are and can just take their comments with a grain of salt...you will always have flies at a picnic...

Your OP really resinated with me...thank you so much for starting this thread...

Edited June 12, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[MitoticSlime]

ReelMormon, as someone who is currently going through a crisis of faith, I want to thank you for posting this topic. From your posts here, it's obvious you understand how painful it can be to experience that. I also want to echo that the tactics of calling doubters and questioners "wolves in sheep's clothing" and telling them it's their fault they lost faith are not very helpful. For the first, it's impossible to respond to because it's just name-calling, for the second, even if it's true that they are at fault for something, simply accusing them of that is not likely to bring them back to Christ. Some of the posts in this thread make me question if I even want to get my faith back. If those who are in the church don't even want me there, why bother? Luckily, there are other voices as well.

Thank you to those people who have answered the questions in good faith. I am a little disappointed that there have not been more responses from people who have gone through crises and come out with their faith intact. Hopefully more will still respond to the OP.

[DBMormon]

MitoticSlime and others like you,

First Thank you, It lets me know that these threads have worth. For those of you who didn't see the first two threads on this subject, I recommend them as you can see the whole journey which I think is of worth.

http://www.mormondia..._+faith +crisis

http://www.mormondia..._+faith +crisis

second, I want you to know there are valid ways to still hang onto faith. When I look at the top issues Dehlin says cause Crisis of faith and take them one by one it is not impossible to make each of them work to the conclusion the church is true. The list is as follows. Obviously I am only dealing with faith crisis that revolves around historical and doctrinal issues

Book of Abraham

Polygamy/polyandry

Blacks and the Priesthood

DNA and the Book of Mormon

Masonic influences in the temple ceremony

Multiple, conflicting versions of the First Vision

Women and the Priesthood

Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon (e.g. horses, steel, etc.)

Past church positions on science, age of the earth, evolution, etc.

Changes in the temple ceremony

Issues with the authenticity or credibility of the priesthood restoration

Blood atonement

Joseph's use of peep stones in the translation of the Book of Mormon

Adam-god theory

Mountain meadows massacre

Loss of Credibility of the Three Witnesses

Kinderhook Plates

Joseph Smith's history of treasure digging

Mark Hofmann scandal

View of the Hebrews

Everyone of these in and of themselves do not bother me. The biggest obstacle for me was to allow prophets and apostles to be much more human then I had been taught. To allow them to make mistakes, and in some cases lots of them. Let's assume for a moment that when an apostle is called he is permitted to see the savior. To meet with him and to talk with him. Then from there on out unless a major revelation is given like that in 1978 they are on their own with the companionship of the Holy Ghost. How many mistakes would you expect them to make. I would expect a lot of them. As Bishop I have had some lighting bolt revelations on who to call and what to do, but I have also been left on my own at times and I have made mistakes as well realizing later that God allowed me to learn through mistakes of my own. While I still struggle a little with these historical type issues still I also know we have a heavenly father. I think Elder Holland captures my point best when referring to an apostles testimony and yet allowing them to be imperfect.

Now, I did not sail with the brother of Jared in crossing an ocean, settling in a new world. I did not hear King Benjamin speak his angelically delivered sermon. I did not proselyte with Alma and Amulek nor witness the fiery death of innocent believers. I was not among the Nephite crowd who touched the wounds of the resurrected Lord, nor did I weep with Mormon and Moroni over the destruction of an entire civilization. But my testimony of this record and the peace it brings to the human heart is as binding and unequivocal as was theirs. Like them, “I give my name unto the world, to witness unto the world that which I have seen.” And like them, “I lie not, God bearing witness of it.”

I ask that my testimony of the Book of Mormon and all that it implies, given today under my own oath and office, be recorded by men on earth and angels in heaven. I hope I have a few years left in my “last days,” but whether I do or do not, I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world, in the most straightforward language I could summon, that the Book of Mormon is true, that it came forth the way Joseph said it came forth and was given to bring happiness and hope to the faithful in the travail of the latter days.

Many in the church will not get what your going through but that doesn't make the church not true. The church still has a long way to go

"and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

So you may be frustrated but even God tells us he isn't done with the church yet. If you expect his church to be perfect then you make this article of faith false. Hang on... it's going to be bumpy but It is his church and it is where he wants us.

If you have a specific question how I handle an issue, please ask

Thanks again

Edited June 13, 2012 by reelmormon