Don Bradley'S Return To The Church

[canard78]

As I look around my house I have pictures of the Savior all around. And scriptures lay nearby. But I really wonder if all these years it's all for looks. I've never really known my Savior. I think I'm a complete fake. To the outsider it looks as if I'm close to the Lord. But in actuality I choose the remote or mouse over the scriptures. In the past I'd choose a movie over the temple for date night. What a pathetic loser. And when I see the real Christlike behavior of those that don't appear to be at first, I notice their actions and it speaks volumes compared to my pictures on the wall, etc.

I appreciate your honesty. I wish more LDS were more openly honest in this way. There's a lot of face and 'saying the right thing' in some Sunday School lessons/LDS communities. I think your humility is a positive aspect of your religious approach. I've not read the rest of the thread yet, but I hope others aren't showing themselves up by criticising this post.

[canard78]

Because "all the evidences" are not very many; nor are they very compelling.

Yes I do. "Different" than what?

We believe in the Christ described in the Bible, not the one produced by committees of philosophers. Please note that the "different Christ" claim of the anti-Mormon propagandists -- namely, the assertion (or insinuation) that we worship someone other than Jesus of Nazareth -- is an utterly discredited anti-Mormon canard.

No informed person believes it, and no honest person argues it.

It is utterly and inexcusably false.

Now Tacenda, if you really don't know which Jesus you worship, then maybe you should seek the Lord while He may be found. And maybe this forum isn't the place to seek Him.

And what is it that you've seen on this thread? That we are not bibliolaters?

What have you seen on this thread, Tacenda? That Latter-day Saints don't accept the silly notion that "The Word of God" exactly and only equals "The (Protestant) Bible?" How, after lo, those two-and-forty years, could this possibly come as a surprise to you?

Not to anyone who knows what they are talking about.

While even more of it "might contradict" American Protestantism.

"Different" from what, precisely?

Tacenda, from just about the first week this forum was founded (then known as the FAIRboard) we have had regular visits from people with the same schtick: they all claimed to be oh so faithful lifelong Mormons with "just one little question" about something or other. And as soon as that "just one little question" was answered, they would immediately trot out "just one [more] little question," and then just one more after that, and so on and so forth.

Funnily enough, all of these little questions were either bog-standard anti-Mormon talking points, or minor variations on the same.

And the more they talked, the less they sounded like Latter-day Saints, and the more like EV's or apostates with a cover story.

Sometimes we'd stumble across that same poster on another forum, saying things like "Come on over to the Mormon board and watch those gullible apologists dance to my tune."

So as you can see, we have ample experience of this sort of thing, and ample reasons to mistrust those who come to this board with that particular schtick. But despite that, we have taken you at your word and fielded question after question after question after question, and all of them rather standard anti-Mormon talking points.

Now I don't know for sure that you are one of those, Tacenda. But the more time goes by, the more you sound just like them.

So, given the fact that we have been extraordinarily patient with you, might I suggest that instead of trotting out your umpteenth "just one little question," how about you cut to the chase and tell us where you are really coming from?

Regards,

Pahoran

What an unpleasant reaction. Why presume that all questioning LDS are antis in disguise?

[Calm]

Why presume that all questioning LDS are antis in disguise?

Having watch Pahoran for over a decade, he does not presume all questioning LDS are antis in disguise. And if you reread his post above, he doesn't do it there either. Edited October 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[canard78]

Having watch Pahoran for over a decade, he does not presume all questioning LDS are antis in disguise. And if you reread his post above, he doesn't do it there either.

Fair enough - I over-reacted. I guess I feel a little sensitive at the moment. Being in the middle of trying to responsibly wade through a lot of questions, I'm sometimes made to feel like an 'anti' by people I know for asking them. I love the gospel and until recently have not had much interest in church historicity. But having lost a close family member and a close friend to historicity issues I decided I needed to address them and understand them. It's challenging and uncomfortable.

Having said all that, I'm a new-comer, so don't know the history of the conversations on here or the reputations of Tacenda and Pahoran, so shouldn't jump to conclusions. Thanks for being reasonable in your response to my criticism.

[Stargazer]

Looks to me like something has led you away from... rather than nearer...to the word of God, the bible.

I don't know why you would think that.

It is a cast-iron fact that archaeology does not "prove" the Bible to be the Word of God. It is also a cast-iron fact that the DSS does not "prove" the Bible to be the Word of God. Archaeology and the DSS prove only that the Bible is ancient.

Just as the divinity of the Book of Mormon must be proven to each person by personal revelation, so too must the Bible. Although in fact, once the Book of Mormon is established as the Word of God, it automatically follows that the Bible is also the Word of God -- this because the BoM testifies of the Bible. And in actuality, that is how I ganined my testimony of the Bible, via the Book of Mormon.

[Stargazer]

Not lead from God, I never said that. I said the word of God, the bible. I know having been LDS for 42 yrs. that I rarely heard the bible be openly described as "the word of God".

You live in the wrong Ward, then.

[Stargazer]

As I look around my house I have pictures of the Savior all around. And scriptures lay nearby. But I really wonder if all these years it's all for looks. I've never really known my Savior. I think I'm a complete fake. To the outsider it looks as if I'm close to the Lord. But in actuality I choose the remote or mouse over the scriptures. In the past I'd choose a movie over the temple for date night. What a pathetic loser. And when I see the real Christlike behavior of those that don't appear to be at first, I notice their actions and it speaks volumes compared to my pictures on the wall, etc.

I don't think we have a single picture of the Savior in our house. Or, at least, a supposed picture. Nobody knows what He looked like on earth.

You've said that you worry about that "other Jesus" thing. Have you considered why they think we worship a "different" Jesus? It's because we don't worship their Nicene Creed Jesus. Their Jesus is a 3-in-One Jesus, and in effect, I guess you could say that makes "our" Jesus different. But even if it were true that their Trinity was a true fact, they would not be able to know their Savior either. He'd be a big unknowable.

But the fact is that NONE of us know who He really is. Not the Creedal Christians, and not us either. We all "see through a glass darkly", and the best we can hope for is to become the best mirror of what He is. It's do-able, but it will take us all quite some time.

Have you ever sat down and considered all the wrong-doing which you have done? Though I am sure in absolute terms you are quite a righteous lady, compared to some, there are doubtless some things you are not proud of, and some that you are downright ashamed of. Does this cause you distress? I know that my own shortcomings and ill-doing cause me a great deal of distress. But I have come to realize that there is no way that I am going to be able to completely mirror my Savior, at least in this life, and especially because of my sins, there is no way for me to be saved, except by way of His sacrifice. And that is the sine qua non of existence. This means that without Him we are quite literally Nothing.

But with Him, we can be quite literally Everything. For this is what we are promised, to receive of the fullness of God the Father, if we will realize who we are and access that great sacrifice which He made for us, since we could merit nothing of ourselves. And though you may feel that you are some fraud, and a complete loser, please remember that many of Father's other children have come back from far far worse than you are right now. All it takes is each day at a time to make some little improvement, to choose the Lord's path just one day at a time, one moment at a time, and never give up.

There are so many scriptures, both in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants, that make clear the debt which we owe Him, and the ease by which we can access His mercy. Don't let yourself be discouraged, Tacenda.

[Stargazer]

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were eyewitnesses. And as long as it is written down within a generation, typically 70 yrs. then they are deemed accurate.

Some don't give these witnesses a lot of credit. Some don't even credit that the books named after these men were actually written by them, either. This word, "deemed", does not mean what you think it does. Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the Synoptic Gospels because they appear to be the same view of Christ, with some variation. Some scholars consider that Mark was the Ur-Gospel, and the other two are simply restatements of him with some things added and some things taken away. John of course is independent, but many scholars doubt that John the Beloved actually wrote it. None of these works are actually known to have been written within even 70 years of the events they describe. And if any of them were written even 60 years after those events, then they weren't written by the purported authors. Mark was the youngest, and he might have survived to a ripe old age, but Matthew was older and if he may have died before he wrote his gospel (a neat trick).

And regardless of whether these books were written by the people they are attributed to, and regardless of whether they were written shortly after the events they purport to describe, all this proves is that some men collaborated in telling a story. And the story need not have taken place as they report it. This is especially the case when it comes to the Synoptic Gospels, for it looks very much like they collaborated and were not independent witnesses.

I hate to tell you Why Me but the BoM witnesses saw the plates with visionary eyes and they were related to JS. So some don't give these witnesses alot of credit either.

Well, it's too bad you're largely wrong about this. It is true that the 3 Witnesses saw the plates in vision, with an angel showing the plates and a voice proclaiming their authenticity. However, the 8 Witnesses saw no vision and in fact handled the plates with their own hands and saw them with their own eyes. Thus the Lord covered all eventualities -- both those who couldn't handle spiritual matters, and those who couldn't believe a mere physical appearance.

If you can't accept the spiritual, then there's the physical. Can you escape the trap and willfully disbelieve? Lots of people have, but that doesn't mean that the Book of Mormon isn't true.

Oh, and yes, you've overstated the relationship of Joseph to the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Joseph was related to none of the Three. And to three of the Eight. But the Apostle Peter was brother to the Apostle Andrew. Does this then lead to the discounting of their testimony? I should hope not.

Actually, if Joseph's relatives DIDN'T testify as to his calling as a prophet, then there would be those who would say "See!! His own family didn't believe him!" But since they did testify of his calling, they say "See!! They are all in it together!" You can't please some folks. Jesus, by the way, got this kind of thing, too. The same people who mocked him because he went to dinners and parties and other social activities, mocked John the Baptist for doing none of it. And how many made snide remarks about James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem, and brother to Jesus Christ, because they were "in it together"? You better believe they did.

Pardon the observation, but you appear to be working hard to come up with what amount to trivial excuses for discounting testimony that could lead you closer to the Church.

On the one hand, you make much of the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because they were supposedly written down within 70 years of the described events, yet the testimonies of the Three and the Eight Witnesses were written down within days of the described events, and you pooh-pooh their witness. What is up with that? Do you have a preference for which you want to believe? The Testimony of the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon is actually admissable in court because the statements are well-documented as to who made them, and their very existences are not in question. Whereas while Matthew, Mark, Luke and John's testimony cannot be admitted as evidence in court because those gospels cannot be proven to have been written by those who are purported to have written them, and the very existence of the four gentlemen is also not provable beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[Tacenda]

Some don't give these witnesses a lot of credit. Some don't even credit that the books named after these men were actually written by them, either. This word, "deemed", does not mean what you think it does. Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the Synoptic Gospels because they appear to be the same view of Christ, with some variation. Some scholars consider that Mark was the Ur-Gospel, and the other two are simply restatements of him with some things added and some things taken away. John of course is independent, but many scholars doubt that John the Beloved actually wrote it. None of these works are actually known to have been written within even 70 years of the events they describe. And if any of them were written even 60 years after those events, then they weren't written by the purported authors. Mark was the youngest, and he might have survived to a ripe old age, but Matthew was older and if he may have died before he wrote his gospel (a neat trick).

And regardless of whether these books were written by the people they are attributed to, and regardless of whether they were written shortly after the events they purport to describe, all this proves is that some men collaborated in telling a story. And the story need not have taken place as they report it. This is especially the case when it comes to the Synoptic Gospels, for it looks very much like they collaborated and were not independent witnesses.

Well, it's too bad you're largely wrong about this. It is true that the 3 Witnesses saw the plates in vision, with an angel showing the plates and a voice proclaiming their authenticity. However, the 8 Witnesses saw no vision and in fact handled the plates with their own hands and saw them with their own eyes. Thus the Lord covered all eventualities -- both those who couldn't handle spiritual matters, and those who couldn't believe a mere physical appearance.

If you can't accept the spiritual, then there's the physical. Can you escape the trap and willfully disbelieve? Lots of people have, but that doesn't mean that the Book of Mormon isn't true.

Oh, and yes, you've overstated the relationship of Joseph to the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Joseph was related to none of the Three. And to three of the Eight. But the Apostle Peter was brother to the Apostle Andrew. Does this then lead to the discounting of their testimony? I should hope not.

Actually, if Joseph's relatives DIDN'T testify as to his calling as a prophet, then there would be those who would say "See!! His own family didn't believe him!" But since they did testify of his calling, they say "See!! They are all in it together!" You can't please some folks. Jesus, by the way, got this kind of thing, too. The same people who mocked him because he went to dinners and parties and other social activities, mocked John the Baptist for doing none of it. And how many made snide remarks about James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem, and brother to Jesus Christ, because they were "in it together"? You better believe they did.

Pardon the observation, but you appear to be working hard to come up with what amount to trivial excuses for discounting testimony that could lead you closer to the Church.

On the one hand, you make much of the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because they were supposedly written down within 70 years of the described events, yet the testimonies of the Three and the Eight Witnesses were written down within days of the described events, and you pooh-pooh their witness. What is up with that? Do you have a preference for which you want to believe? The Testimony of the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon is actually admissable in court because the statements are well-documented as to who made them, and their very existences are not in question. Whereas while Matthew, Mark, Luke and John's testimony cannot be admitted as evidence in court because those gospels cannot be proven to have been written by those who are purported to have written them, and the very existence of the four gentlemen is also not provable beyond a shadow of a doubt.

http://signaturebooks.com/2012/03/book-of-mormon-witnesses-revisited/

Thanks for all the comments to mine stargazer, it gave me alot of food for thought. I posted above a link to an article by Dan Vogel. Have you read this about the witnesses? I'm not trying to tear down the church. It's just that I'm trying to make it work or figure out if it's all what has been told to me.

[Garden Girl]

http://signaturebook...sses-revisited/

Thanks for all the comments to mine stargazer, it gave me alot of food for thought. I posted above a link to an article by Dan Vogel. Have you read this about the witnesses? I'm not trying to tear down the church. It's just that I'm trying to make it work or figure out if it's all what has been told to me.

Well, there you go...

Many of us are familiar with the writings of Mr. Vogel...

GG

[bubbachen]

First post ever; going to give you, Tacenda, one of my two cents. I grew up in Texas and attended different Baptist churches, a methodist church, and even attended a catholic school in Taiwan in my very early youth. I became a born-again Christian during my time at UT Austin and after trying to convert a pair of LDS missionaries who moved in next door to me, I joined the LDS church against the advice of family and friends. My conversion came through the New Testament, not the BOM, Joseph Smith, etc. It had to be that way for me because of the enormous amounts of anti literature and rhetoric I had been exposed to, so that I could not trust church materials. I had faith in my God, in Christ the Rock, and in the Bible.

To make a long story less long, I later married a bishop's daughter, had a bunch of kids, built my career, and... fell away from the church. I never could bring myself to actually READ the BOM through the years due to feelings of anger, indignation whenever I looked at it. My sources of scriptural comfort came from the Bible and works by CS Lewis and George MacDonald, and eventually my cynicism killed whatever testimony I had. I walked around with a massive black hole inside me for years, and after pleading through the years to God to "fix" me and my family (by this time when I prayed I was praying to the "biblical" God and Christ), He answered me by totally, absolutely breaking me. Over the past year, I wished for death for many months, but instead, He gave me back all He took away plus the knowledge, understanding, and miracles I had been seeking for during my adult life.

So with this background in mind, let me give you the second of my two cents. Do not fall into the trap of worshiping a book, whether the Bible, BOM, or other scripture. There exists no such thing an an inerrant, infallible work of scripture. They are God breathed but not GOD Himself. The story of the BOM may be difficult to swallow on first or even second impression; it's easy as an outsider to argue against its claims. But if one is honest and consistent in how he or she applies criticism to all scripture, then one will find that mainstream Christian/Jewish beliefs of the Old and New Testaments will not be tenable. I believe that the main reason there are so many demoninations in the Christian world is the presence of fundamental contradictions within the foundational theology of Protestantism, leading to the most recent rise of fashionable "reformed" Calvinistic churches and theologians, ala John MacArthur, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Paul Washer, etc. They have to keep coming up with answers to relieve the cognitive dissonance inherent in the corrupted theology they inherited through the Catholic church; they gotta work with what they have.

Worship the Living Christ and His Father as witnessed by the Bible, but do not worship the Bible. When you find that the Bible is not inerrant, and you WILL if you research all materials, then you will be able to set down that evangelical false idol and give worship to the One who is worthy of it. Then you do the only thing you can in this foggy world, and that is to obey His commandments as best as you are able (if you love me, obey my commandments). Through this gate, Christ will change your heart and give you more light. My entire office is composed of evangelical Christians, all of whom I love dearly, and I will tell you what I've told them: I'm Mormon because I believe the Bible and I live for and live through Christ. He is my Rock and my salvation, and if I'm wrong, I know He will correct me.

I encourage you to read George MacDonald's Unspoken Sermons; it can be found free online. His literary works converted an athiestic C.S. Lewis to Christianity. That old anglican minister man was full of truth and light, and that book helped to solidify my faith in my Christ outside of any church or organization. Strangely enough, the vast majority of modern mainstream Christians consider him a heretic... Praise God.

[Tacenda]

First post ever; going to give you, Tacenda, one of my two cents. I grew up in Texas and attended different Baptist churches, a methodist church, and even attended a catholic school in Taiwan in my very early youth. I became a born-again Christian during my time at UT Austin and after trying to convert a pair of LDS missionaries who moved in next door to me, I joined the LDS church against the advice of family and friends. My conversion came through the New Testament, not the BOM, Joseph Smith, etc. It had to be that way for me because of the enormous amounts of anti literature and rhetoric I had been exposed to, so that I could not trust church materials. I had faith in my God, in Christ the Rock, and in the Bible.

To make a long story less long, I later married a bishop's daughter, had a bunch of kids, built my career, and... fell away from the church. I never could bring myself to actually READ the BOM through the years due to feelings of anger, indignation whenever I looked at it. My sources of scriptural comfort came from the Bible and works by CS Lewis and George MacDonald, and eventually my cynicism killed whatever testimony I had. I walked around with a massive black hole inside me for years, and after pleading through the years to God to "fix" me and my family (by this time when I prayed I was praying to the "biblical" God and Christ), He answered me by totally, absolutely breaking me. Over the past year, I wished for death for many months, but instead, He gave me back all He took away plus the knowledge, understanding, and miracles I had been seeking for during my adult life.

So with this background in mind, let me give you the second of my two cents. Do not fall into the trap of worshiping a book, whether the Bible, BOM, or other scripture. There exists no such thing an an inerrant, infallible work of scripture. They are God breathed but not GOD Himself. The story of the BOM may be difficult to swallow on first or even second impression; it's easy as an outsider to argue against its claims. But if one is honest and consistent in how he or she applies criticism to all scripture, then one will find that mainstream Christian/Jewish beliefs of the Old and New Testaments will not be tenable. I believe that the main reason there are so many demoninations in the Christian world is the presence of fundamental contradictions within the foundational theology of Protestantism, leading to the most recent rise of fashionable "reformed" Calvinistic churches and theologians, ala John MacArthur, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Paul Washer, etc. They have to keep coming up with answers to relieve the cognitive dissonance inherent in the corrupted theology they inherited through the Catholic church; they gotta work with what they have.

Worship the Living Christ and His Father as witnessed by the Bible, but do not worship the Bible. When you find that the Bible is not inerrant, and you WILL if you research all materials, then you will be able to set down that evangelical false idol and give worship to the One who is worthy of it. Then you do the only thing you can in this foggy world, and that is to obey His commandments as best as you are able (if you love me, obey my commandments). Through this gate, Christ will change your heart and give you more light. My entire office is composed of evangelical Christians, all of whom I love dearly, and I will tell you what I've told them: I'm Mormon because I believe the Bible and I live for and live through Christ. He is my Rock and my salvation, and if I'm wrong, I know He will correct me.

I encourage you to read George MacDonald's Unspoken Sermons; it can be found free online. His literary works converted an athiestic C.S. Lewis to Christianity. That old anglican minister man was full of truth and light, and that book helped to solidify my faith in my Christ outside of any church or organization. Strangely enough, the vast majority of modern mainstream Christians consider him a heretic... Praise God.

Thanks Bubbachen, for those thoughts. There is only one or two problems I'm having...forgiving someone or more than someone...and that would be the early prophets. My biggest hurdle is polygamy and the destruction it caused. The more Warren Jeffs was in the news the more anxious I became and the more I realized the principal was wrong. I don't believe in one church but one faith. Is that doable in the LDS church or would my outlook prove me to be a heretic if I believe in the current prophet but not the early prophet or should I walk away now?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Although in fact, once the Book of Mormon is established as the Word of God, it automatically follows that the Bible is also the Word of God -- this because the BoM testifies of the Bible. And in actuality, that is how I ganined my testimony of the Bible, via the Book of Mormon.

Same here. I'd read the Bible through, from Genesis to Revelation, but it was later reading the Book of Mormon that got me to believe it (the Bible).

Edited October 10, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[bubbachen]

Thanks Bubbachen, for those thoughts. There is only one or two problems I'm having...forgiving someone or more than someone...and that would be the early prophets. My biggest hurdle is polygamy and the destruction it caused. The more Warren Jeffs was in the news the more anxious I became and the more I realized the principal was wrong. I don't believe in one church but one faith. Is that doable in the LDS church or would my outlook prove me to be a heretic if I believe in the current prophet but not the early prophet or should I walk away now?

You will never find the answer you're looking for with regard to polygamy, especially looking to a modern apostate group, so it's up to you to decide if it is a dealbreaker or not.

Part of what I was trying to say is that you'd be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire if you thought leaving the LDS church and joining mainstream Christianity would free you from internal strife (if you apply the same critical standards to Christian history in general). I seriously doubt its only "one or two problems" you are having, after reading some of your posts. I say leave the church, find a local community church you can enjoy, and put your whole heart into worshiping Jesus and following Him. If you can do that in good faith towards God and relieve yourself of all the conflicts you find in LDS history, BOM historicity, etc., I think God would understand. You need to build your relationship with Christ somehow, and if you just can't do it in the LDS church, do it somewhere else.

My instincts tell me you are you are already well on your way out of the church or you are someone pretending to have been LDS. Either way, focus on your own relationship with Jesus, and if you are pure in heart and look to Him with real intent, I'm confident you'll be just fine.

[Calm]

Same here. I'd read the Bible through, from Genesis to Revelation, but it was later reading the Book of Mormon that got me to believe it (the Bible).

If the BoM is true, the Bible has to be true. I don't believe there is a greater witness for the Bible than the BoM.

[Tacenda]

You will never find the answer you're looking for with regard to polygamy, especially looking to a modern apostate group, so it's up to you to decide if it is a dealbreaker or not.

Part of what I was trying to say is that you'd be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire if you thought leaving the LDS church and joining mainstream Christianity would free you from internal strife (if you apply the same critical standards to Christian history in general). I seriously doubt its only "one or two problems" you are having, after reading some of your posts. I say leave the church, find a local community church you can enjoy, and put your whole heart into worshiping Jesus and following Him. If you can do that in good faith towards God and relieve yourself of all the conflicts you find in LDS history, BOM historicity, etc., I think God would understand. You need to build your relationship with Christ somehow, and if you just can't do it in the LDS church, do it somewhere else.

My instincts tell me you are you are already well on your way out of the church or you are someone pretending to have been LDS. Either way, focus on your own relationship with Jesus, and if you are pure in heart and look to Him with real intent, I'm confident you'll be just fine.

No you couldn't more wrong about me. I'm active in the church, TR holder, VT but no other calling. I don't tell anyone of my faith problem now. In the past only my bishop and a couple of people knew of my feelings on polygamy. It would be so difficult to leave especially for my family and extended family. I was putting out my feelers to see what you thought I should do, walk or stay. I'm surprised you pretty much said walk. So is there a place for those like me? Because I know there are many who struggle out there. But want to stay for various reasons.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I don't believe there is a greater witness for the Bible than the BoM.

I don't know where to locate the quote I read, but I think it was Elder Widtsoe who said, basically, that, as time goes on, trust in the Bible will diminish amongst many Christians but not amongst the Latter-day Saints because we have our second witness verifying the first.

[Tacenda]

You will never find the answer you're looking for with regard to polygamy, especially looking to a modern apostate group, so it's up to you to decide if it is a dealbreaker or not.

Part of what I was trying to say is that you'd be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire if you thought leaving the LDS church and joining mainstream Christianity would free you from internal strife (if you apply the same critical standards to Christian history in general). I seriously doubt its only "one or two problems" you are having, after reading some of your posts. I say leave the church, find a local community church you can enjoy, and put your whole heart into worshiping Jesus and following Him. If you can do that in good faith towards God and relieve yourself of all the conflicts you find in LDS history, BOM historicity, etc., I think God would understand. You need to build your relationship with Christ somehow, and if you just can't do it in the LDS church, do it somewhere else.

My instincts tell me you are you are already well on your way out of the church or you are someone pretending to have been LDS. Either way, focus on your own relationship with Jesus, and if you are pure in heart and look to Him with real intent, I'm confident you'll be just fine.

These are the messages that keep me in the middle.

http://adamsroadband.com/

Especially the video "Unveiling Grace" Are these former LDS totally off the mark?

Edited October 11, 2012 by Tacenda

[Bart Burk]

These are the messages that keep me in the middle.

http://adamsroadband.com/

Especially the video "Unveiling Grace" Are these former LDS totally off the mark?

I've found you tend to believe what you're fed with. If you read Protestant literature long enough you'll become Protestant. If you pray the Rosary and go to mass you'll become Catholic. If you regularly attend the LDS Church, read the Book of Mormon and attend the temple, you'll probably come closer to Mormonism. Faith in a particular church is a choice we make. I actually believe most everything a Protestant believes and be comfortable in the LDS Church. There are actually people who believe in the Book of Mormon and remain Protestant. As for polygamy, it's a tough nut to swallow. I don't think you can believe every tale told about how Joseph Smith lived polygamy simply because polygamy apologists in the 19th century used every argument they could to advance their cause. It's possible that some of the pro-polygamists exaggerated Joseph Smith's involvement with polygamy in trying to defend it. I have come to believe that while it is controversial, we have to take into account that it was a new concept for 19th century Saints and at times they might have been over-zealous in the manner in which they carried it out. If polygamy were carried out exactly in the manner it was explained in D&C 132 it might have eliminated some of what to us looks strange.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Bart Burk

[bubbachen]

No you couldn't more wrong about me. I'm active in the church, TR holder, VT but no other calling. I don't tell anyone of my faith problem now. In the past only my bishop and a couple of people knew of my feelings on polygamy. It would be so difficult to leave especially for my family and extended family. I was putting out my feelers to see what you thought I should do, walk or stay. I'm surprised you pretty much said walk. So is there a place for those like me? Because I know there are many who struggle out there. But want to stay for various reasons.

So you bring up that you're active in church, hold callings, etc., but I refer to your earlier post saying, "I've never really known my Savior. I think I'm a complete fake", I'd say you need a real change. Coming from a born-again background and with an outsider's perspective, I can see how cultural Mormons can go through their whole lives and not find Christ. Watch Elder Bednar's talk on conversion from this most recent conference - it addresses your issues exactly. Here again is my unorthodox opinion: you need to leave the church. If you want to find Christ, be willing to leave everything for Him, all family, work, comfort zone, just as he commands in the New Testament. Believe in the living Christ and ask Him to find you, knowing He will not lead you astray. You can rely on this if your motives are pure. I have no doubt if you do this that you will find yourself back in the LDS church, but then you will be converted to Christ. Too great of a price to pay? Never, not to gain Him.

I also watched the video from adam's road band which was very well put together I must say. Been there, done that. If that light is what they are able to receive and no more, then so be it. In the end it will be Christ's judgement of our own hearts that will matter, and if you deceive yourself, in out of the LDS church, and have not left all to follow Him, you will be damned. If you leave the church due to self deception and successfully take others with you being thus self deceived, you will have their blood upon your head.

[Tacenda]

So you bring up that you're active in church, hold callings, etc., but I refer to your earlier post saying, "I've never really known my Savior. I think I'm a complete fake", I'd say you need a real change. Coming from a born-again background and with an outsider's perspective, I can see how cultural Mormons can go through their whole lives and not find Christ. Watch Elder Bednar's talk on conversion from this most recent conference - it addresses your issues exactly. Here again is my unorthodox opinion: you need to leave the church. If you want to find Christ, be willing to leave everything for Him, all family, work, comfort zone, just as he commands in the New Testament. Believe in the living Christ and ask Him to find you, knowing He will not lead you astray. You can rely on this if your motives are pure. I have no doubt if you do this that you will find yourself back in the LDS church, but then you will be converted to Christ. Too great of a price to pay? Never, not to gain Him.

I also watched the video from adam's road band which was very well put together I must say. Been there, done that. If that light is what they are able to receive and no more, then so be it. In the end it will be Christ's judgement of our own hearts that will matter, and if you deceive yourself, in out of the LDS church, and have not left all to follow Him, you will be damned. If you leave the church due to self deception and successfully take others with you being thus self deceived, you will have their blood upon your head.

This last sentence bothers me a great deal. First you say I should leave the church, second you say if I leave and take others with me I will have their blood on my head? That comment is wrong, the only person that will have their blood spilt for anyone is our Savior. That almost sounded like blood atonement. Hopefully I'm mistaken, it won't be the first time. My mind is fuzzy on occasion. Your comment about the Savior. In this church as a lifelong member, I guess it provided so much in that members are abound to help. It makes it kind of hard to need the Savior very often. So your suggestion that I might need to leave in order to truly find him might in fact be true. Why has it been so difficult to find him in the church? Or is it that I feel like I'm not much of a sinner and really it's Adams transgression not my own. I believe that other faiths especially the EV's believe since Adam & Eve sinned so also we have now and we must rely soley on our Savior not our works. Maybe others in different faiths really feel like they are going to be buried 6 feet under without Him. Where LDS just say we'll be in a lower kingdom. In which I don't mind because I don't want to bear all those spirit babies. Being an angel in heaven would be glorious. See where I'm at? Am I as crazy as a loon? See why I've not really needed my Savior? I've done works all my life, working my way along. Holding callings until now, trying to follow the guidelines etc. Okay I'm babbling on here. I'll close now, but thank you for your input thus far.

[Bart Burk]

This last sentence bothers me a great deal. First you say I should leave the church, second you say if I leave and take others with me I will have their blood on my head? That comment is wrong, the only person that will have their blood spilt for anyone is our Savior. That almost sounded like blood atonement. Hopefully I'm mistaken, it won't be the first time. My mind is fuzzy on occasion. Your comment about the Savior. In this church as a lifelong member, I guess it provided so much in that members are abound to help. It makes it kind of hard to need the Savior very often. So your suggestion that I might need to leave in order to truly find him might in fact be true. Why has it been so difficult to find him in the church? Or is it that I feel like I'm not much of a sinner and really it's Adams transgression not my own. I believe that other faiths especially the EV's believe since Adam & Eve sinned so also we have now and we must rely soley on our Savior not our works. Maybe others in different faiths really feel like they are going to be buried 6 feet under without Him. Where LDS just say we'll be in a lower kingdom. In which I don't mind because I don't want to bear all those spirit babies. Being an angel in heaven would be glorious. See where I'm at? Am I as crazy as a loon? See why I've not really needed my Savior? I've done works all my life, working my way along. Holding callings until now, trying to follow the guidelines etc. Okay I'm babbling on here. I'll close now, but thank you for your input thus far.

Jesus can be found in the LDS Church. All you have to do is seek him -- the entire Book of Mormon is about Jesus on just about every page. I do agree that some people might do better in other churches. It all may depend upon our ability to find Jesus apart from the theology people have created about him.

[KevinG]

Taenda,

I'm getting the idea here that the problem isn't with what the LDS Church focuses on. Hint: http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/

But what you are focusing on. Callings, apologetics, criticisms, speculative doctrines, etc...

[bubbachen]

This last sentence bothers me a great deal. First you say I should leave the church, second you say if I leave and take others with me I will have their blood on my head? That comment is wrong, the only person that will have their blood spilt for anyone is our Savior. That almost sounded like blood atonement. Hopefully I'm mistaken, it won't be the first time. My mind is fuzzy on occasion. Your comment about the Savior. In this church as a lifelong member, I guess it provided so much in that members are abound to help. It makes it kind of hard to need the Savior very often. So your suggestion that I might need to leave in order to truly find him might in fact be true. Why has it been so difficult to find him in the church? Or is it that I feel like I'm not much of a sinner and really it's Adams transgression not my own. I believe that other faiths especially the EV's believe since Adam & Eve sinned so also we have now and we must rely soley on our Savior not our works. Maybe others in different faiths really feel like they are going to be buried 6 feet under without Him. Where LDS just say we'll be in a lower kingdom. In which I don't mind because I don't want to bear all those spirit babies. Being an angel in heaven would be glorious. See where I'm at? Am I as crazy as a loon? See why I've not really needed my Savior? I've done works all my life, working my way along. Holding callings until now, trying to follow the guidelines etc. Okay I'm babbling on here. I'll close now, but thank you for your input thus far.

What I said is that if you leave the church by means of self deception, ignoring or blocking out what light God already gave you that you know to be the truth, and then you deceptively (again ignoring what YOU know to be the truth) and actively try to lead others away, then God you will hold some of the blame of leading others into apostacy. The concept of blood atonement did not once enter into my head. Look, you are obviously on your way out of the church. Please read my posts carefully; what I'm trying to tell you is just to be honest with yourself and to God. Leave the freaking church. It's only purpose on this earth is to lead you to Christ and make you one with Him. If the imperfect people and very imperfect LDS culture has hindered you in your search for God, leave.

[TAO]

bubb, Tacenda isn't on here way out of the church, okay?

She may not be keen on all of the doctrines and such, but she's not going twoards apostacy, nah.