why me Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) No, I cannot deny my testimony of the Book of Mormon. But, I don't consider myself in the church, mainly because I no longer attend or participate. I do not consider the LDS Church "the only true church on the planet".So, you are still in the church just as the witnesses were. They left but they could not leave it alone because of what they experienced. True, they were away from it but still very much a part of it and they are honored today by the church. Edited July 9, 2012 by why me
ERayR Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 Well, you're probably correct. I guess they don't shun outright. But they aren't best friends either. I hate divisions like these. I truly believe it isn't as prevelant in the mission field just by reading on some boards other than this one. But I did read just today on Nom a story similar to what I just said. The guy had this friend and mentor that had helped him cope with abuse in his younger life. And when he told him he no longer believed in the church... this guy became curt in his conversations and the dynamics in their relationship has since changed. And no longer does he have his best friend and confidant.Maybe but maybe it was like I have observed. He became so obnoxious with his anti-Mormon wisdom that his mentor had to separate himself.
why me Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 Maybe but maybe it was like I have observed. He became so obnoxious with his anti-Mormon wisdom that his mentor had to separate himself.Now this can be true. I think that the problem comes up with the person who leaves the church becomes overbearing about why they left the church and their hostility can show itself. The experson become obnoxious to the point of unbearable.
wenglund Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 That doesn't mean some of the things he taught are not universal truths. I believe some of the things he taught are true. I don't think that, necessarily, makes him a prophet, anymore that it makes you or I a prophet.I agree.What makes him a prophet or not is whether God called him to be such. And, we can only rightly find out if he did so by him telling us so (Moroni 10) and by whether the divinely revealed precepts work as they are designed (Alma 32). This is God's way, and the way of his gospel. Anything else, like appealing irrelevantly and surreptitiously to one's own 21st century cultural biases, is man's way and some other gospel than Christ's.As always, we are free to choose Christ's path or our own, and to follow either to where they go.Thanks, -Wade Englund- 1
Craig Paxton Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 What does it mean to hide? How often should the lds church have all the controversial information claimed by the critics in their magazines or manuals? Once a year? Once every five years? How often? Should the lds church be depended on critics? Should the lds church give their magazine editorship over to the critics? Because quite frankly the lds church will never win this argument. The critics are too demanding and they demand the impossible. No church can live up to what the lds critics want the lds church to do.I never mentioned the LDS church but if the shoe fits...
Deborah Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 I don't, honestly, know if he was or not. That doesn't mean some of the things he taught are not universal truths. I believe some of the things he taught are true. I don't think that, necessarily, makes him a prophet, anymore that it makes you or I a prophet.Except I don't know any other church that teaches these "universal truths". I know people who believe these things without being taught by their churches; it's instinctual.
CV75 Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 She lives in the Mormon corridor, her friends and family are LDS, her neighbors are LDS, I believe she'd be better off inactive, I believe some people, not all, shun people like her that resign. I know of someone in my neighborhood who is a member but hasn't stepped foot in the LDS chapel for over 4 years and has been actively going to the K2 evangelical church. But because she's still a member the ward involves her. IMHO I believe people will be more receptive to people that keep their names on the records. I think it's going to create problems if someone resigns because it creates a stigma. Sounds cultish, but people are cruel. Therefore my plea to her not to resign, but we'll see.I took the post to mean that she made up her mind. In any case, if she confided in me this much, I would still be her friend.
CV75 Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 I have never met a catholic who left the catholic church when they discovered the history of some of the popes or the crusades or the inquisition. And they certainly do not read these things from an official history of the catholic church sponsored by the vatican. But I could be wrong.I was thinking the exact same thing--and many people also convert to the Catholic Church. This is why the LDS Church may be even more justified in seeming aloof about those issues that arise from poorly documented or poorly explained history.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 ... In fact I suspect one reason we will not see multiple sealings again in mortality is because we are failing so miserably at monogamy.Oh, I don't know! As the world sees it, polygamy = bad; serial monogamy, on the other hand, it thinks that is pretty cool!
Kenngo1969 Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 I have a testimony of some of those things, as well, Deborah, but it doesn't, necessarily, follow (in my judgment) that Joseph was a prophet. I don't, honestly, know if he was or not. That doesn't mean some of the things he taught are not universal truths. I believe some of the things he taught are true. I don't think that, necessarily, makes him a prophet, anymore that it makes you or I a prophet. [Numbers 11] 29 And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were aprophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them! 2
Calm Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) When you mention that we don't even know anymore if we will become gods, if we don't know about it now, that is a change in our doctrine because it used to be taught unequivocally prior to President Hinkley publicly stating it is just an interesting couplet that we don't know much about and that he didn't know if we even teach it.Ah no, Pres. Hinckley was speaking about the first part of the couplet, "as man is, God once was". That is what we don't know much of nor do we teach or emphasize it at all that I have found in the manuals. As far as "as God is, man may become", it is not taught all that often, but it is consistently taught in several classes including Gospel Principles (which manual all adults should be familiar with now as even investigators of the past year should have read it) and the Young Men and Young Women's classes. Just do a search on lds.org on "become Gods" and one comes up with a number of manuals and other references (the count is 70 total, but likely some are duplicates).OTOH, do a search on "as man is, God once was" and you will find, I believe that most don't even refer to that, it is merely listed because it is a part of the couplet and the real theme that is being discussed is the second part, becoming gods. If members are saying we do not teach that men may become gods, I suspect what they mean is that we will not become God in the sense of replacing him in any fashion, possibly even in holding that function for others we might create, rather we will be divine helpers to God as he continues in his role as the Father for others (in their view we will never hold that role of Father ourselves....I personally think whether or not this he remains the Father or some of us take on that role for others has not been specifically revealed....nor do I think it matters all that much as if we are truly one, any glory we might accrue will be God the Father's glory as well). Edited July 10, 2012 by calmoriah
Calm Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) I believe our whole premise in this church rests on that concept, that's the extra that people say we are adding to other's religions when we say we believe their church is true but we have more to add.If you are talking about the fundamental relationship between God and Man, that we view it as fundamentally a family one with all that implies for theosis while others view the relationship as between Creator and creature, with a gap that can never be completely bridged with all that implies with theosis (if that is even taught), then I would agree.Not that we are adding to doctrine or scripture, but rather we have a dramatically different interpretation on the (IMHO) fundamentally core principle of the Christian faith. Edited July 10, 2012 by calmoriah 1
Calm Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Background from Church Historian..... (Sidney Rigdon Biography by Richard S. Van Wagoner, p.295)Why do you title it "Background from Church Historian" and then cite it as from RSVan Wagoner? Is that title a direct quote from his book? If so, why does he use it?
Calm Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 And when he told him he no longer believed in the church... this guy became curt in his conversations and the dynamics in their relationship has since changed. And no longer does he have his best friend and confidant.There are always three (at least) sides to a story like this. We should not make any judgements until we are aware of all three (both participants and what someone who was observing their interaction would have seen).
DBMormon Posted July 10, 2012 Author Posted July 10, 2012 "as man is, God once was"While we assume this was regarding Heavenly Father it could have been describing Christ.... and if so... 100%true beyond a shadow of a doubt.... ponder that 1
Tacenda Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Why do you title it "Background from Church Historian" and then cite it as from RSVan Wagoner? Is that title a direct quote from his book? If so, why does he use it? I c/p this from some site. So I didn't create the heading, sorry about that.
Libs Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Except I don't know any other church that teaches these "universal truths". I know people who believe these things without being taught by their churches; it's instinctual.There are actually many churches that teach some of the truths I found in the LDS Church. Things like matter and intelligence/spirit being eternal, you will find in many eastern religions. Also, the concept of Heavenly Mother. There are dozens of things that Joseph Smith taught that are out there in other religions, some of which are not Christian religions and some which are liberal Christian religions. Rob Bell, for example, talking about everyone being saved. I think this is an intuitive belief...and he even discusses the possibility of an eternal progression and many heavens. Those truths are out there, in many different forms, but the same basic ideas. It's wonderful and pretty amazing, when you start seeing the connections.
Tacenda Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Welcome- I can be sarcastic with those who seem to be flinging mud for the sake of it... but I am equally serious about people finding a good support network to ask the difficult questions. I had a great friend in college who loved to dabble in the darker corners of history but who did not let it shake his conviction that this is Christ's work.Everyone should have at least one crazy friend like that who can help parse the serious questions of faith from the very human and sometimes unclear history of our people. Ever since my faith crisis, I'm feelin' crazier by the minute.
Libs Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I agree.What makes him a prophet or not is whether God called him to be such. And, we can only rightly find out if he did so by him telling us so (Moroni 10) and by whether the divinely revealed precepts work as they are designed (Alma 32). This is God's way, and the way of his gospel. Anything else, like appealing irrelevantly and surreptitiously to one's own 21st century cultural biases, is man's way and some other gospel than Christ's.As always, we are free to choose Christ's path or our own, and to follow either to where they go.Thanks, -Wade Englund-I choose Christ's path. I just don't completely define it through the LDS Church, anymore....but, I do include the Church as a part of that path....it has most definitely been a part of the path down which Christ has led me.
Libs Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Ever since my faith crisis, I'm feelin' crazier by the minute.It gets better.
why me Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) There are actually many churches that teach some of the truths I found in the LDS Church. Things like matter and intelligence/spirit being eternal, you will find in many eastern religions. Also, the concept of Heavenly Mother. There are dozens of things that Joseph Smith taught that are out there in other religions, some of which are not Christian religions and some which are liberal Christian religions. Rob Bell, for example, talking about everyone being saved. I think this is an intuitive belief...and he even discusses the possibility of an eternal progression and many heavens. Those truths are out there, in many different forms, but the same basic ideas. It's wonderful and pretty amazing, when you start seeing the connections.I think that it is interesting just how Joseph Smith put all the basics together to make a nice cohesive whole. Now how he did this would be a question for us to reflect on. The connections he made were truly wonderful and amazing. Edited July 10, 2012 by why me 1
why me Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I choose Christ's path. I just don't completely define it through the LDS Church, anymore....but, I do include the Church as a part of that path....it has most definitely been a part of the path down which Christ has led me.What is christ's path? Does Christ's path also include the new testament outside the four gospels?
Libs Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I think that it is interesting just how Joseph Smith put all the basics together to make a nice cohesive whole. Now how he did this would be a question for us to reflect on. The connections he made were truly wonderful and amazing.Actually, I don't disagree with that. I think he definitely had some inspiration, at times. (Then, other times, perhaps, not so much..)
Libs Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 What is christ's path? Does Christ's path also include the new testament outside the four gospels?It includes the New Testament, yes. "Christ's path" is wherever the spirit leads us. Whatever it is that keeps us close to God and listening to the spirit within.
Recommended Posts