Episcopalians Flounder..Will Lds Follow?

[mapman]

My opinion:

The Church should hold to the iron rod. What is the iron rod? The word of God. It is not the traditions of our fathers, "conservative" values, "orthodoxy", or whatever. It is the word of God or revelation. If we are depending on the word of God, things shouldn't stay the same. We should be receiving revelation on how to be more in line with what God wants, not dogmatically holding to how we think things should be. We should be charting our own course guided by God, not going along with whatever society (or a segment of society) thinks is right. If you look through church history, the most apostasy usually happens after new revelation is given because people are unwilling to stop believing old beliefs. Polygamy, ending polygamy, end of the priesthood/temple ban, etc.

I hope that the church continues to grow so that as many people as possible can have the blessing of being in it. That being said, whether or not the Church grows or not has nothing to do with whether the church is God's church. Whether or not people like a change has nothing to do with whether or not it was the right thing to do. I figure that the Episcopalian leaders felt that they should do what they think is right no matter what happens.

Edited July 16, 2012 by mapman

[BCSpace]

Is this the inevitable fate of all orthodox religions during this time of social upheaval?

As the article points out, it is the liberalization of the Episcopal church that is causing the decline. Liberalization effectively negates any need for a church and destroys faith so yes, a liberal church leads to no church at all.

Can this happen to the LDS Church too?

I think the LDS Church will ebb and flow with the times but since it has never liberalized it's doctrine nor will it ever, this fate by this method does not appear to be in the cards.

[Tacenda]

As the article points out, it is the liberalization of the Episcopal church that is causing the decline. Liberalization effectively negates any need for a church and destroys faith so yes, a liberal church leads to no church at all.

I think the LDS Church will ebb and flow with the times but since it has never liberalized it's doctrine nor will it ever, this fate by this method does not appear to be in the cards.

IMHO I believe the church has liberalized it's doctrine. It denies some past doctrine, such as polygamy, ban of blacks holding the priesthood because of the curse of cain, no more blood atonement, no more penalties of death in the temple, no more belief that God was once a man. I think that these things might cause some disillusionment for the older folk in the church that held these to be doctrines. But the younger folk are in great agreement over not having them be apart of our doctrine, and it helps that we have a mormon running for president.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

IMHO I believe the church has liberalized it's doctrine. It denies some past doctrine, such as polygamy, ban of blacks holding the priesthood because of the curse of cain, no more blood attonement, no more penalties of death in the temple, no more belief that God was once a man. I think that these things might cause some disillusionment for the older folk in the church that held these to be doctrines. But the younger folk are in great agreement over not having them be apart of our doctrine, and it helps that we have a mormon running for president.

And the nail in the coffin of our church dying off, is if we allow women to hold the priesthood & gays to be sealed in the temple. Not that I would have a problem with either. Edited July 16, 2012 by Tacenda

[Jaybear]

As the article points out, it is the liberalization of the Episcopal church that is causing the decline. Liberalization effectively negates any need for a church and destroys faith so yes, a liberal church leads to no church at all.

I think the LDS Church will ebb and flow with the times but since it has never liberalized it's doctrine nor will it ever, this fate by this method does not appear to be in the cards.

That discussion would lead us down a rabbit hole.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Jaybear

[Mark Beesley]

IMHO I believe the church has liberalized it's doctrine. It denies some past doctrine, such as polygamy, ban of blacks holding the priesthood because of the curse of cain, no more blood atonement, no more penalties of death in the temple, no more belief that God was once a man. I think that these things might cause some disillusionment for the older folk in the church that held these to be doctrines. But the younger folk are in great agreement over not having them be apart of our doctrine, and it helps that we have a mormon running for president.

The Chuch does not deny the doctrine of polygamy. We no longer practice it in.

The Church does not deny that African Americans were once denied the privilege of holding the Priesthood. We no longer practice that ban.

The so-called 'curse of Cain" has never been Church doctrine. It has been an opinion expressed by some members.

Blood atonement remains a doctrine that has never been practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and since it has never been practiced, it has been unnecessary to teach what it actually entails.

The presentation of the endowment in the temple has changed over the years. The presentation is not doctrine, it is a practice and it is symbolic.

I still believe Heavenly Father was once a man. I believe He is still a man. So, I'm not sure what doctrinal shift you are referring to.

If younger people are finding it easier to stay in the Church because practices change over time to meet the needs of the members, wonderful. But if they are not staying because they have an abiding testimony of the truth of this work, they won't stay for long.

[BCSpace]

IMHO I believe the church has liberalized it's doctrine. It denies some past doctrine, such as polygamy, ban of blacks holding the priesthood because of the curse of cain, no more blood atonement, no more penalties of death in the temple, no more belief that God was once a man. I think that these things might cause some disillusionment for the older folk in the church that held these to be doctrines. But the younger folk are in great agreement over not having them be apart of our doctrine, and it helps that we have a mormon running for president.

For sure your first two (and most recognizable to most people) have never changed. Plural marriage remains doctrine. The scriptures ensure that; particularly Jacob 2:30 where we see the Lord can insitute plural marriage at any time. But add to that the fact that the Church has never undone, repudiated, or apologized for previous plural marriages as well as the fact that a man may be sealed to more than one woman today.

As for blacks and the priesthood, the official doctrine remains that:

Abraham 1:24–27. The Pharaoh and the Priesthood

At times in the past, the power and authority to act in the name of the Lord was bestowed upon only a few worthy males and withheld from all others.

http://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

Again with no repudiation of previous practice.

The upshot of course is that neither of these doctrines have changed but that existing flexibility (for lack of a better term) within the doctrines are merely in effect.

[SamIam]

How would that work as the Church comes under increasing pressure to abandon traditional standards

from within?

Bernard

Again, as I so often ask what does separating the wheat from the tares/chaff look like? The church very much understands these things will occur and many, many, many, saints will be deceived. The nature of this telestial organization is perfectly meted to give every opportunity for those looking for a way out, or not able to sustain truth, Prophets or Christ as the head, to find the points of their character flaws and weakness that will enable them to leave. It is by design that this telestial standard is in place to protect the celestial environs from those who might qualify by ordinance for access to the highest level of Glory but now can be sifted out by their clear willingness to abide by a telestial law.

It is one of the functions of the last days to provide for that process to occur in a naturally, only discerned by the spiritually sensitive, way. The church has every expectation of fulfilling its part in the winnowing process and is not trying to protect its ultimate acceptance by acquiescing on points of true doctrine to appease the wicked. At some point in time the membership of the church will split and those on the Lords side will prevail while the imposters of necessity will be attending the marshmallow roast. As a point of etiquette, if any are invited to the roast, don’t forget your sticks. It sounds like there may not be enough to go around.

[BCSpace]

Blood atonement remains a doctrine that has never been practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and since it has never been practiced, it has been unnecessary to teach what it actually entails.

The presentation of the endowment in the temple has changed over the years. The presentation is not doctrine, it is a practice and it is symbolic.

None of these represents a "liberalization" or change of doctrine either.

Edited July 16, 2012 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

I can see a stake president/counselors being exed but the whole 3000+ members ??? I hereby call a CFR to this.

There is a story that circulates out here in which an entire ward, comprising a small town, went apostate for one year over an issue of the Church asking it's members to buy for $50 a new fangled washing machine from ZCMI rather than from a mail order catalogue for $35. Am still looking for CFR on that one but it sounds like a fun read if true. Supposedly happened nearly a century ago.

[SamIam]

IMHO I believe the church has liberalized it's doctrine. It denies some past doctrine, such as polygamy, ban of blacks holding the priesthood because of the curse of cain, no more blood atonement, no more penalties of death in the temple, no more belief that God was once a man. I think that these things might cause some disillusionment for the older folk in the church that held these to be doctrines. But the younger folk are in great agreement over not having them be apart of our doctrine, and it helps that we have a mormon running for president.

Tacenda, your misrepresentation of things by your subtle efforts at intentionally misunderstanding the church speak to some sense of angst that will not allow you to accept the clarity of the points made over and over and over. Polygamy has changed in its current exercise in the church but that is hardly a denial. It is still a true principle and if conditions warrant it will return at the appropriate time....haven't a clue as to when that may be. I am sure you understand, or could choose to understand if you really didn't have some other major grudge you are trying to nourish instead. I guess my point is I am trying to candidly but respectfully point out you cannot hear the truth if you must protect some other point in life that has taken precedence over hearing the message. You are bright, intelligent, but clearly unwilling to receive more accurate perspectives. You espouse the same things over and over independent of the explanations that should mitigate your misunderstanding if you possessed a more receptive attitude for correct information. I think you can understand my point if you make a genuine effort.

[Tacenda]

The Chuch does not deny the doctrine of polygamy. We no longer practice it in.

The Church does not deny that African Americans were once denied the privilege of holding the Priesthood. We no longer practice that ban.

The so-called 'curse of Cain" has never been Church doctrine. It has been an opinion expressed by some members.

Blood atonement remains a doctrine that has never been practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and since it has never been practiced, it has been unnecessary to teach what it actually entails.

The presentation of the endowment in the temple has changed over the years. The presentation is not doctrine, it is a practice and it is symbolic.

I still believe Heavenly Father was once a man. I believe He is still a man. So, I'm not sure what doctrinal shift you are referring to.

If younger people are finding it easier to stay in the Church because practices change over time to meet the needs of the members, wonderful. But if they are not staying because they have an abiding testimony of the truth of this work, they won't stay for long.

I thought Pres. Hinckley mentioned in his interview with Larry King that polygamy isn't doctrinal. Or is there a difference between doctrinal and doctrine? Also, I think there is a fuzzy line between practice and doctrine sometimes. I wish it could be spelled out a little better.

And the blood atonement one I think has been practiced several times in church history. Some men were castrated or put to death on different occasions. And the MMM is one where it was carried out.

http://www.truthandgrace.com/1857castration.htm (Yes, I know it is probably an anti mormon site. But is all anti stuff false?)

[Tacenda]

Tacenda, your misrepresentation of things by your subtle efforts at intentionally misunderstanding the church speak to some sense of angst that will not allow you to accept the clarity of the points made over and over and over. Polygamy has changed in its current exercise in the church but that is hardly a denial. It is still a true principle and if conditions warrant it will return at the appropriate time....haven't a clue as to when that may be. I am sure you understand, or could choose to understand if you really didn't have some other major grudge you are trying to nourish instead. I guess my point is I am trying to candidly but respectfully point out you cannot hear the truth if you must protect some other point in life that has taken precedence over hearing the message. You are bright, intelligent, but clearly unwilling to receive more accurate perspectives. You espouse the same things over and over independent of the explanations that should mitigate your misunderstanding if you possessed a more receptive attitude for correct information. I think you can understand my point if you make a genuine effort.

Thanks for your honesty. I really believe the church needs to own and not misrepresent the polygamy issue. And the issue of polygamy in the eternities. No one told me before I made sacred covenants in the temple that this would occur in the hereafter. I guess it's never sat well for me. I only wish I had the intelligence of so many on this board. I'm very plain in my thinking. And really need answers, because the consequence of my acting on certain things would be dire. Things like leaving and starting over in my faith walk, to put it honestly. I know for a fact I'm a broken record and some people here are patient beyond compare.

[cwald]

I think there is a real danger of apostasy in the church, (any church) if members get too focused on orthodoxy and following the traditions and cultures of their fathers, rather than relying on the revelation from the prophets.

Let me give an example. Someone said in this thread said that women would "NEVER" hold the priesthood, and I have heard this at church recently too, and if so, that would be a sign of apostasy. Really? BRM said the samething about blacks and the priesthood.

What if god decided to allow woman to excercise their priesthood, and directs the prophet to tell the people? I would say that would be a "liberalization" of the doctrine, and I hope the conservatives would listen and not break away from the church.

I guess, I just think it works both ways. God is going to be god...and I don't think he cares what the "conservative" members think, anymore than he cares what the "liberal" members think? I hope ALL THE MEMBERS will be receptive to the prophet's counsel, and not get bogged down in "traditions and cultural commandments."

[USU78]

And the blood atonement one I think has been practiced several times in church history. Some men were castrated or put to death on different occasions. And the MMM is one where it was carried out.

http://www.truthandg...7castration.htm (Yes, I know it is probably an anti mormon site. But is all anti stuff false?)

That this is a slander apparently causes no hiccups . . . The Church never practiced blood atonement: indeed, it's impossible that the Church should attempt to do so.

Now, why is this the case? It is because blood atonement as taught holds that an individual should of his own free will give himself up to have his blood shed in order to atone for particularly grievous sins.

The insanity that was MMM was not blood atonement in any sense of the teaching. Neither was the alleged emasculation of an alleged rapist.

As to the latter, assuming it really happened (and I've yet to see decent evidence), it is likely to be of a kind with frontier justice in the American West: lynch mobs did some pretty awful things during their heyday. And rapists were not infrequently unmanned by the fathers or brothers of their victims.

As to the former, how could the involuntary massacre of a group of individuals be a free-willing sacrifice of self in atonement for one's own grievous sin?

[SamIam]

Thanks for your honesty. I really believe the church needs to own and not misrepresent the polygamy issue. And the issue of polygamy in the eternities. No one told me before I made sacred covenants in the temple that this would occur in the hereafter. I guess it's never sat well for me. I only wish I had the intelligence of so many on this board. I'm very plain in my thinking. And really need answers, because the consequence of my acting on certain things would be dire. Things like leaving and starting over in my faith walk, to put it honestly. I know for a fact I'm a broken record and some people here are patient beyond compare.

May I provide an example that may help? All of my children are very different and as a parent I have learned to be very flexible on responding to the nuances of their personalities to make sure, that my overwhelming sense of confidence and "rightness" does not create a sense of rejection in them of the things I find important. I do not mandate as a father in my home but my children are very clear on what is expected and then they must choose. One of my sons is a nearly perfect person, except for one aspect of his personality. Perhaps it is because he tries so hard to be right, that when he is wrong he does not handle at all very well being taught what is right.

This was clearly illustrated to me one night as we had the typical 14 year old discussion about why he needed to go to church and that perhaps he would like to not go to church. I have only two rules that I hold very strongly to in my home. On these two points I will push more adamantly than any other because if they remain intact everything else will fall into place. The first rule is you do not mistreat your mother. The second is all that live in my home receive the nice things of growing up like access to cars and such by always supporting my desire that as a family we attend church. You may choose to breach either of these two rules but the consequences are a greater burden than any have been willing to risk.

My one son at 14 was a little ahead of the curve on declaring his independence from parental authority and a conversation ensued about church attendance. As I observed his demeanor carefully in the 2 hour discussion, I realized that in another year or two of growth, I would lose the capacity to entreat him strongly as his willingness to rebel against my authority was going to exceed my ability to entreat him with determination as I could not rob him of agency. I consider that a horrible breech of gospel understanding.

I also knew by night’s end that I had to prevail in this discussion as I did not want to accelerate his sense of independence from his parents. However, it was very clear that if I had to resort to too many head butting sessions, which I detest, he also was going to get there much quicker on his own. So, contrary to how I raised all of my other children, I completely backed away from direct correction and chose very subtle careful measures. Here’s the point of all of this. It was clear to me that if I persisted based on my personality without giving proper consideration to how he was developing that I would drive him from the church. Not on principles of him having decided the church was true or false but on principle of alienating him due to unnecessary domination. Like I said he was a good person and I knew I could back well away and he would do fine 99 % of the time.

A year later though to illustrate that he was still willing to exercise a bit of independence, when it came time to advance to the office of a priest. He chose to wait. He said he felt like a hypocrite to advance in a position simply by virtue of age, when he didn’t feel it was true.

This was an interesting turn of events for me but his mother and I discussed it and we held our tongues. After all he was still going to church with us as a family, only because we played the first discussion properly and because we were careful thereafter. We turned the problem over to the Lord. After about 8 months, one day he was in seminary, when something happened. He had some level of experience that completely altered his heart and he came home and announced it was time. Since then it has removed from our home that little underlying angst of his unspoken dissatisfaction of attending church and things are very smooth all around. This is why I feel agency is such an imperative. If we show the Lord we are willing to abide by his rules he helps do what we could never accomplish.

Now remember this point I made earlier; “. It was clear to me that if I persisted based on my personality without giving proper consideration to how he was developing that I would drive him from the church. Not on principles of him having decided the church was true or false but on principle of alienating him due to unnecessary domination.”

Now, briefly the churches stance on polygamy and other such controversial points…They have realized the same thing as I have posited about my son. It is an interesting day and age when people who are well educated and competent in negotiating the demands of the world, are still nonetheless only children in their spiritual age and testimonies. The challenge for the church is the same as was for me and my son. They are still going to church in many cases which is the priority. The church has taken a stance of being very careful, and in my mind it is remarkably wise to do so. If we can keep them coming, and just avoiding the areas of offense that in time they can develop testimony on their own according to the pace they set for themselves we don’t lose them for the nature of their developing personalities and the world’s great effort to take advantage of this place of weakness in the lives of so many. As long as they will keep the basic tenants of moral obedience etc we must as good stewards protect them from being unnecessarily alienated on lesser principles for the moment. They will get there in time, if we don’t shove them out the door.

The availability of information is far more risky now than in my day. I had to go out on my own and actually check the book No Man Knows My History out from a library. Now it’s an ebook online, I understand. Since, I have encountered it all, but I am spiritually mature enough and my testimony sufficiently grounded that I can handle it. So many are not spiritually mature and incapable of negotiating the very difficult task for spiritually weak individuals to negotiate the common challenges of any religious organization for the emphasis and barrage of the detractors to make it look like we are the only ones that have these issues of mortality and it is all just a mouse click away and spun to be very appealing to those who are faltering. My point is the church is not true because it is perfect but because it is lead by a perfect being who is setting the standard for how we also can advance to becoming as he is. I’m going to mess up on the way as will others. It is patently disingenuous to hold the actions of individuals and the requirements of making way to allow for the greater good of not alienating the spiritually weak, if we can give them time that some may choose to stay and continue their progress when they have seasoned in maturity and understanding of what is really important – that Jesus Christ can even save a retch like me even though I’m not perfect and he can save you and all the others too if they will only work within the process.

Edited July 16, 2012 by SamIam

[why me]

There have been times in the past when the organization given the Gospel and its Ordinances has strayed so badly it was abandoned by God. I believe we are every bit as capable of that today, if not more. However, we are promised that God will keep us aright.

If the church survived Kirkland and the great falling away that happened, it could survive anything the world can throw at it. Kirkland was a dark time for the church and yet, it survived when the odds were against it. Likewise for the death of Joseph Smith. The mobs believed if they killed Joseph the church would disappear into the nauvoo swamps. It didn't. Someone is on the side of the lds church.

[why me]

Let me give an example. Someone said in this thread said that women would "NEVER" hold the priesthood, and I have heard this at church recently too, and if so, that would be a sign of apostasy. Really? BRM said the samething about blacks and the priesthood.

I don't think that he said that. I know that many members were expecting the blacks to get the priesthood. It was just a matter of when. I think that this was the official position of the church. Also, Bruce R. was very much aware what the conversations were about when it came to the priesthood issue. It was openly discussed by the GAs for years.

Edited July 16, 2012 by why me

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

How would that work as the Church comes under increasing pressure to abandon traditional standards

from within?

Bernard

If others leave they would have to go another or start their own. Edited July 16, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[why me]

IMHO I believe the church has liberalized it's doctrine. It denies some past doctrine, such as polygamy, ban of blacks holding the priesthood because of the curse of cain, no more blood atonement, no more penalties of death in the temple, no more belief that God was once a man. I think that these things might cause some disillusionment for the older folk in the church that held these to be doctrines. But the younger folk are in great agreement over not having them be apart of our doctrine, and it helps that we have a mormon running for president.

I don't think that the church denies polygamy as doctrine. It just doesn't practice it anymore. But nowhere does it deny polygamy. Of course, it practice it, it needed to be doctrine. And the belief that god was once a man is certainly still a belief.

God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ are separate and distinct beings with glorified bodies of flesh and bone. As such we stand with the historical position that ‘the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament].’ We take literally at His word that Christ ‘came down from heaven, not to do [His] own will, but the will of him that sent [him]’ (John 6:38). … However, having made the point of Their separate and distinct physical nature, we declare unequivocally that They were indeed and are ‘one’ in every other conceivable way—in mind and deed, in will and wish and hope, in faith and purpose and intent and love. They are most assuredly much more alike than They are different in all the ways that I have just said, but They are separate and distinct beings, as all fathers and sons are. In this matter we differ from traditional creedal Christianity, but we do feel we agree with the New Testament.

http://www.lds.org/study/prophets-speak-today/unto-all-the-world/mormonism-101?lang=eng&query=mormonism+101

[why me]

Thanks for your honesty. I really believe the church needs to own and not misrepresent the polygamy issue. And the issue of polygamy in the eternities. No one told me before I made sacred covenants in the temple that this would occur in the hereafter.

I knew about this many years ago. Also, I saw men get sealed who were once sealed to another woman. It was no secret. And the polygamy issue is in the D&C. Difficult not to have ownership of it. And it is on the church website:

http://www.lds.org/study/topics/polygamy-plural-marriage?lang=eng&query=joseph+smith+polygamy

I guess the point is: if one receives a testimony of the book of mormon though the holy ghost, it really doesn't matter what we may learn in the future. The confirmation that the book of mormon is true is enough. However, I think that questioning other things is fine but not to the extent of leaving the church.

[CASteinman]

If the church survived Kirkland and the great falling away that happened, it could survive anything the world can throw at it. Kirkland was a dark time for the church and yet, it survived when the odds were against it. Likewise for the death of Joseph Smith. The mobs believed if they killed Joseph the church would disappear into the nauvoo swamps. It didn't. Someone is on the side of the lds church.

There are some who believe in each of those cases, the LDS Church went astray. I disagree with them though.

[Libs]

I knew about this many years ago. Also, I saw men get sealed who were once sealed to another woman. It was no secret. And the polygamy issue is in the D&C. Difficult not to have ownership of it. And it is on the church website:

http://www.lds.org/s... smith polygamy

I guess the point is: if one receives a testimony of the book of mormon though the holy ghost, it really doesn't matter what we may learn in the future. The confirmation that the book of mormon is true is enough. However, I think that questioning other things is fine but not to the extent of leaving the church.

I think you need to look at this from the perspective of a new convert. I read the Book of Mormon, before I was baptized...that was it. Between that and the missionary lessons (which are pretty basic) that was all I knew about the church, before I joined. I have known converts who hadn't even read the Book of Mormon (let alone D & C, etc) before they joined. I didn't read Doctrine and Covenants all the way through, until I had been in the church for about four years (or more?). The point is, if you are a convert, unless you're very diligent about study, you probably only going to know what is being taught in Gospel Principles and later Gospel Doctrine. There is a lot to know and absorb, so it takes time...plus, many of these issues that cause members to stumble are not really talked about, much, or at all, in Sunday School. So, to simply say that the information is out there, is fine, but that doesn't mean your average member has actually been exposed to it. I really think it would be beneficial to talk about some of these more difficult issues (like polygamy) in church, where people (who are reasonably active) are going to definitely be exposed to the information.

[SamIam]

Let me give an example. Someone said in this thread said that women would "NEVER" hold the priesthood, and I have heard this at church recently too, and if so, that would be a sign of apostasy. Really? BRM said the samething about blacks and the priesthood.

What if god decided to allow woman to excercise their priesthood, and directs the prophet to tell the people? I would say that would be a "liberalization" of the doctrine, and I hope the conservatives would listen and not break away from the church.

CWALD, for you consideration...First this quote:

"The gospel's principles do require synchronization. When pulled apart from each other or isolated, men's interpretations of these doctrines may be wild." (Neal A Maxwell, Ensign, May 1993)

The issue with Blacks and the priesthood is not at all like women receiving the priesthood.

As Neal A. Maxwell is stating if you put the gospel message together as a whole then it becomes supportive of better understanding. As one half of a whole, Husband and Wife each has distinct abilities, talents , and duties that create a better whole. Overlaping in the areas of holding the priesthood is like begging that God give men a womb so that he can bear children when his wife gets tired of having children. We cannot afford to look at the marriage union as two seperate individuals. We have to understand that it is the process of becoming one and the state of being such that defines the conditions that are divided between two halves of a whole.

[Tacenda]

May I provide an example that may help? All of my children are very different and as a parent I have learned to be very flexible on responding to the nuances of their personalities to make sure, that my overwhelming sense of confidence and "rightness" does not create a sense of rejection in them of the things I find important. I do not mandate as a father in my home but my children are very clear on what is expected and then they must choose. One of my sons is a nearly perfect person, except for one aspect of his personality. Perhaps it is because he tries so hard to be right, that when he is wrong he does not handle at all very well being taught what is right.

This was clearly illustrated to me one night as we had the typical 14 year old discussion about why he needed to go to church and that perhaps he would like to not go to church. I have only two rules that I hold very strongly to in my home. On these two points I will push more adamantly than any other because if they remain intact everything else will fall into place. The first rule is you do not mistreat your mother. The second is all that live in my home receive the nice things of growing up like access to cars and such by always supporting my desire that as a family we attend church. You may choose to breach either of these two rules but the consequences are a greater burden than any have been willing to risk.

My one son at 14 was a little ahead of the curve on declaring his independence from parental authority and a conversation ensued about church attendance. As I observed his demeanor carefully in the 2 hour discussion, I realized that in another year or two of growth, I would lose the capacity to entreat him strongly as his willingness to rebel against my authority was going to exceed my ability to entreat him with determination as I could not rob him of agency. I consider that a horrible breech of gospel understanding.

I also knew by night’s end that I had to prevail in this discussion as I did not want to accelerate his sense of independence from his parents. However, it was very clear that if I had to resort to too many head butting sessions, which I detest, he also was going to get there much quicker on his own. So, contrary to how I raised all of my other children, I completely backed away from direct correction and chose very subtle careful measures. Here’s the point of all of this. It was clear to me that if I persisted based on my personality without giving proper consideration to how he was developing that I would drive him from the church. Not on principles of him having decided the church was true or false but on principle of alienating him due to unnecessary domination. Like I said he was a good person and I knew I could back well away and he would do fine 99 % of the time.

A year later though to illustrate that he was still willing to exercise a bit of independence, when it came time to advance to the office of a priest. He chose to wait. He said he felt like a hypocrite to advance in a position simply by virtue of age, when he didn’t feel it was true.

This was an interesting turn of events for me but his mother and I discussed it and we held our tongues. After all he was still going to church with us as a family, only because we played the first discussion properly and because we were careful thereafter. We turned the problem over to the Lord. After about 8 months, one day he was in seminary, when something happened. He had some level of experience that completely altered his heart and he came home and announced it was time. Since then it has removed from our home that little underlying angst of his unspoken dissatisfaction of attending church and things are very smooth all around. This is why I feel agency is such an imperative. If we show the Lord we are willing to abide by his rules he helps do what we could never accomplish.

Now remember this point I made earlier; “. It was clear to me that if I persisted based on my personality without giving proper consideration to how he was developing that I would drive him from the church. Not on principles of him having decided the church was true or false but on principle of alienating him due to unnecessary domination.”

Now, briefly the churches stance on polygamy and other such controversial points…They have realized the same thing as I have posited about my son. It is an interesting day and age when people who are well educated and competent in negotiating the demands of the world, are still nonetheless only children in their spiritual age and testimonies. The challenge for the church is the same as was for me and my son. They are still going to church in many cases which is the priority. The church has taken a stance of being very careful, and in my mind it is remarkably wise to do so. If we can keep them coming, and just avoiding the areas of offense that in time they can develop testimony on their own according to the pace they set for themselves we don’t lose them for the nature of their developing personalities and the world’s great effort to take advantage of this place of weakness in the lives of so many. As long as they will keep the basic tenants of moral obedience etc we must as good stewards protect them from being unnecessarily alienated on lesser principles for the moment. They will get there in time, if we don’t shove them out the door.

The availability of information is far more risky now than in my day. I had to go out on my own and actually check the book No Man Knows My History out from a library. Now it’s an ebook online, I understand. Since, I have encountered it all, but I am spiritually mature enough and my testimony sufficiently grounded that I can handle it. So many are not spiritually mature and incapable of negotiating the very difficult task for spiritually weak individuals to negotiate the common challenges of any religious organization for the emphasis and barrage of the detractors to make it look like we are the only ones that have these issues of mortality and it is all just a mouse click away and spun to be very appealing to those who are faltering. My point is the church is not true because it is perfect but because it is lead by a perfect being who is setting the standard for how we also can advance to becoming as he is. I’m going to mess up on the way as will others. It is patently disingenuous to hold the actions of individuals and the requirements of making way to allow for the greater good of not alienating the spiritually weak, if we can give them time that some may choose to stay and continue their progress when they have seasoned in maturity and understanding of what is really important – that Jesus Christ can even save a retch like me even though I’m not perfect and he can save you and all the others too if they will only work within the process.

I knew about this many years ago. Also, I saw men get sealed who were once sealed to another woman. It was no secret. And the polygamy issue is in the D&C. Difficult not to have ownership of it. And it is on the church website:

http://www.lds.org/s... smith polygamy

I guess the point is: if one receives a testimony of the book of mormon though the holy ghost, it really doesn't matter what we may learn in the future. The confirmation that the book of mormon is true is enough. However, I think that questioning other things is fine but not to the extent of leaving the church.

Thanks for both your replies. If this church is true, you both are to be rewarded in heaven for your patience in trying to get people like me to see the light.

I understand that position, I've been there. I had two of my 5 children go inactive. Now here I sit. Either deceived by Satan, or maybe just getting a fuller picture and the test is for me to see if I want to believe it or not. I've never received the burning in my bosom of the truthfulness of the BOM. So I guess that's how shallow my testimony started out.

I really appreciate the missionary efforts by both of you, but I have to say, that the church neglected in teaching me the meat earlier in my life unless I didn't listen somewhere along the line. I feel I had to find out through anti sites and get the wrong picture somewhat. Just like when we are told to teach our children the birds & the bees while young, however tough it might be, we are to do that so that they won't get taught it by their friends and get a distorted view of it. That's what I feel happened to me concerning learning about the way polygamy was taught etc. or other doctrines I was unaware of. And SamIam, I believe that the church shouldn't take the approach or stance to be careful as to not scare some new converts away or people that are starting out in the faith. What happens to them when they find out what they contracted themselves to do and they didn't have it first in writing? So to speak.

But thanks again, and really you guys don't bother with me. I'm learning lots on here. And am better for it.