The Church Isn'T Perfect But The People Are?

[pogi]

I completely agree, though my study of other faiths led me in the exact opposite direction as you....in helped confirm my atheism.

Confirmation of truth can and never will be an intellectual matter alone.

Edited January 8, 2013 by pogi

[Calm]

IMHO the bolded part of your post of Pres. Hinckley makes it terribly difficult for the middle of the roader or NOM. They feel they need to choose either/or and either leave or stay.

I think this may be as much of a confusion over terms as much as anything else. There is nothing in his quote that says the decision is one that has to be made immediately or is not a decision that can be come to over time, just that it is a decision that must be made sometime (the sooner the better probably) but like one anticipating marriage, one has to say the "I do" sometime or the marriage will always remain a potential in one's life, not a reality.

The Church's culture generally uses "middle of the road" in my experience in a different way than it is used outside...well at least in the belief systems I believe those who are using the label are borrowing it from. And this can lead to confusion. And what surprises me is that most of those who claim the label are aware enough to realize that contradictory uses of the term and yet still continue to insist on using it even while realizing the confusion and even resentment it might cause, especially if their intent is to bring greater acceptance and understanding for their ideas. Makes me wonder why they are so fond of the label when such attachment actually seems contrary to the principles of the "middleway" as known in certain philosophical and spiritual communities. I would think that they would try to look for a term that works both among the culture they state they want to be a part of, even if in their own unique way (all our ways are unique, of course) and among the culture from which they borrowed the original term.

There are those who have come to the label through others who may not understand all of the connotations floating around it in and outside the LDS faith so think the label itself is no big thing, not realizing that it may send a contradictory message from what they are intending.

Edited January 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[why me]

Looks are deceiving aren't they.

I don't think so. You need to give yourself more credit. You are active in the lds church if you hold two callings and attend the meetings. I wouldn't let the internet tell you any different. Most members can have a doubt here or there. But you do have a commitment to the lds church. So, back when there were two main titles active and inactive, you would be active.

[why me]

And makes you all the more open to others views. I'm trying to figure out a way to attend others faiths without hurting my family or marriage.

Why would you wish to attend another faith's service? I see nothing wrong in it per se. However, from my own experience, usually other faith's come up short even though they are very nice faiths. I attend the catholic service and the lds service. I find good things in both faiths. But I cannot deny my witness in the book of mormon. But I can find great people in the catholic faith and I have wonderful cathoilc friends that I have met at the coffee hour after Mass.

[why me]

Weird, I personally know two other people (not including myself) who were former LDS (one a returned missionary) who both now claim to be atheist. Their actions and their words appear, to me, to confirm their atheism. The other three people that I personally know who have left the LDS church now attend different churches and consider themselves christian.

I think that this happens in all faiths. People become atheists for various of reasons..mainly because of science and evidence or lack of evidence of a god. It is not just a mormon thing.

[pmccombs1]

Confirmation of truth can and never will be an intellectual matter alone.

Indeed; all manner of conflicting truths have been spiritually confirmed through the most glorious manifestations and in the most diverse people imaginable. I have observed that we may receive godly confirmation of any desired truth whatsoever, and many that we don't desire besides.

[pogi]

"My friends and family that have left, feel completely disillusioned and lied to because of historical facts that they believed were never told about."

In my experience this is more accurate, usually a combination of somethings they probably had not heard, but some they had as in several cases I was living the same life in the same ward and the same teachers and I heard it taught. Sometimes when we are not currently aware of things, it is because we are not currently invested in them enough. There are quite a few teaching moments in the Church I have completely lost track of though I know I must have experienced them since they were so generally out there (could I really have managed to avoid seeing Johnny Lingo? I don't remember ever having seen it, but I know that it was constantly being talked about as being encountered over and over by my friends and family so how did I manage to avoid seeing it if I was a regular church goer....and yet I have no memory of it).

I do not blame them for not knowing about church history. I am not necessarily blaming the church either. But, I can assure you that I never knew about polygamy until I was 18 years old, and I grew up in an active family in the heart of Utah valley. You will not find it in any of the curriculum and lesson manuals. I certainly did not learn that Joseph married multiple other women including minors and married women in the church. I didn't learn this until I read the book Rough Stone Rolling. I never learned about mountain meadows until my mission. There is a lot of our history that you will never hear about in church. If you do, it is because the teacher decided to talk about it, not because it is in the manuals.

This discovery will inevitably be quite the shock and lead an individual to search for understanding. One method is the internet and books, the other method is prayer and fasting. I chose the second approach first, which is why I am still around.

[Calm]

Why would you wish to attend another faith's service? I see nothing wrong in it per se. However, from my own experience, usually other faith's come up short even though they are very nice faiths. I attend the catholic service and the lds service. I find good things in both faiths. But I cannot deny my witness in the book of mormon. But I can find great people in the catholic faith and I have wonderful cathoilc friends that I have met at the coffee hour after Mass.

Why are we to experience the bitter with the sweet (not saying other faiths are the bitter, just using the juxtaposition metaphor)? Contrast can help shine light on beliefs in new ways and we are taught that there is good in other faiths...perhaps it will be easier for us to see such in a new environment where it is too familiar for us to really examine or even notice in our home surroundings.

[why me]

And yes, I would agree with a previous poster who stated that a significant number of mormons who leave the faith end up being atheist, due, in large part, to the teachings in the LDS church that it is the one, true church on this earth that holds all of the "keys to the kingdom" so to speak. After hearing it for so many years, I guess it just becomes ingrained, so that when one leaves, it is just assumed that it all must be hogwash if the "one and only true church on the face of the Earth" has already been dismissed as hogwash.

Here is my take on it: these people have had wonderful spiritual experiences in the lds church but for some reason, they had forgotten them or downplayed them. When leaving, they need to consider it and the lds church to be hogwash and then they can move on and yet, not leave it alone. To have such spiritual experiences and end up in unbelief of the lds church, can leave one a little naked in the garden of eden. Then they put on their fig leaf and leave the garden and downplay the whole experience of being in the garden. And when they attempt to find another garden, many can't do it and choose to live somewhere else without the garden because there is no such thing as a garden, so they try to convince themselves.

[pogi]

I have observed that we may receive godly confirmation of any desired truth whatsoever, and many that we don't desire besides.

I take it you are atheist, and yet you have observed "Godly confirmation"?

Conflicting truths will never be revealed by God. Conflicting interpretations of revealed truths abound. Line upon line, our understanding of truth evolves. If you discredit spiritual manifestations due to conflicting accounts, you simply do not understand personal spiritual evolution.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

...

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

[pmccombs1]

I take it you are atheist, and yet you have observed "Godly confirmation"?

Conflicting truths will never be revealed by God. Conflicting interpretations of revealed truths abound. Line upon line, our understanding of truth evolves. If you discredit spiritual manifestations due to conflicting accounts, you simply do not understand personal spiritual evolution.

I am no atheist. I am an agnostic, which means that I don't know. It doesn't mean that I don't care, or that I have not experienced what I believed to be God, or that I don't have what is commonly called "a testimony." It means that I can't be certain and am not justified in my knowledge. I also believe, in spite of claims to the contrary made by others, that it is not possible to come to a justified knowledge of God.

Now, regarding the witness of the Spirit, I don't think I am talking about "interpretations" in this case. That is a simplistic way to dismiss that which is not understood or examined very deeply. If a good Catholic comes under the unmistakable influence of the Holy Spirit, hears the voice of God declaring the holiness and primacy of the Catholic church, and witnesses a vision of Mary, I do not expect that what was really meant by the experience was that God wished to reveal the holiness and primacy of the LDS Church, if only it had been interpreted correctly! And yet, I am familiar with at least several recent accounts of just such testimonies among Catholic faithful. This is to give an example of the sort of religious experience that I believe cannot simply be dismissed as a misunderstanding, or some stop on the way to a wholly-LDS understanding of truth.

I do not question spiritual manifestations because they are unclear and misunderstood; I question them because they are perfectly clear and often witness to evidently contrary truths. These spiritual witnesses are not unique to the LDS faithful but confirm those of many other faiths. I know of former LDS faithful who have followed this sense to greater fulfillment in other gospels! I question these experiences also because they may be called forth and elicited while in altered mental states where the impetus is clearly suggestive rather than concrete; I have witnessed this phenomenon firsthand in others as well as myself. Supposing that a spiritual sense is a part of our epistemology, that it makes up a part of how we know truth, then if it is possible to arouse this through an illegitimate source, how are we to know what is legitimate and what is not? This is a question many times answered very weakly with, "If it brings one closer to Christ, it is genuine" (and not Vishnu?), or that it encourages one to become charitable ("Good Fruits," which hardly eliminates the Pentecostal affirmation in favor of the Catholic one, or the LDS, and leads us nowhere).

That is the problem of a spiritual epistemology; its source cannot be reliably confirmed and people will argue over whose Holy Spirit is genuine and whose is not. I see no possible way to settle the question. We are left only with our subjective feelings on the matter, for our own experiences necessarily hold most sway over us yet are rarely justified when viewed impartially. I assure you that these claims of LDS Revealed Truth, equaled in majesty, glory, and power by no other theology on the earth, are viewed as rather impoverished and wanting by the faithful of other traditions.

Edited January 8, 2013 by pmccombs1

[CV75]

IMHO the bolded part of your post of Pres. Hinckley makes it terribly difficult for the middle of the roader or NOM. They feel they need to choose either/or and either leave or stay.

I don’t see how. He is in support of people deciding on the matter of the Church’s truthfulness, not on the matter of its perfection. He is not saying that not having made the decision is cause for leaving the Church.

No matter what one’s conclusion about the Church’s truthfulness, its imperfections are really immaterial as to whether one stays or leaves. I think your OP suggests this.

I think President Hinckley is saying, "Don't focus on the imperfections (real or imagined) before finding out if the Church is true, and whatever your conclusion, if you decide to stay, sustain it and deal with the imperfections charitably." This seems to be the approach your OP suggests: members who can't decide whether the Church is true, don't mind the imperfections, and love the people.

[Walden]

Here is my take on it: these people have had wonderful spiritual experiences in the lds church but for some reason, they had forgotten them or downplayed them. When leaving, they need to consider it and the lds church to be hogwash and then they can move on and yet, not leave it alone. To have such spiritual experiences and end up in unbelief of the lds church, can leave one a little naked in the garden of eden. Then they put on their fig leaf and leave the garden and downplay the whole experience of being in the garden. And when they attempt to find another garden, many can't do it and choose to live somewhere else without the garden because there is no such thing as a garden, so they try to convince themselves.

Maybe the "reason" that former members disavow "wonderful spiritual experiences" is a result of their realization that these experiences were not real in the first place, that in fact, they were manufactured or manipulated experiences, essentially natural experiences that they incorrectly categorized at the time as being "supernatural."

You seem to be of the opinion that coming to the realization that the church is not true, nor what it claims to be, is some jolly experience in which the person who comes to this realization is doing it so that they can just "move on" and live some version of the easy life, unencumbered by belief. You do realize, don't you, that the act of leaving the LDS faith can be a gut-wrenching, fearful and lonely experience, a matter not taken lightly by those who have invested their entire life in the church, as well as their sense of self-worth and their once confident worldview?

It can certainly make one feel "naked in the garden of eden" as you state, but many of us have come to the realization that the garden was just a mirage.

[Calm]

I don’t see how. He is in support of people deciding on the matter of the Church’s truthfulness, not on the matter of its perfection. He is not saying that not having made the decision is cause for leaving the Church.

No matter what one’s conclusion about the Church’s truthfulness, its imperfections are really immaterial as to whether one stays or leaves. I think your OP suggests this.

I think President Hinckley is saying, "Don't focus on the imperfections (real or imagined) before finding out if the Church is true, and whatever your conclusion, if you decide to stay, sustain it and deal with the imperfections charitably." This seems to be the approach your OP suggests: members who can't decide whether the Church is true, don't mind the imperfections, and love the people.

This would seem to assume that the imperfections are separate from the truthfulness of the Church.

This is a view that many would disagree with, I suspect.

[pogi]

I am no atheist. I am an agnostic

I see.

I also believe, in spite of claims to the contrary made by others, that it is not possible to come to a justified knowledge of God.

I guess it depends on your definition of "knowledge of God." I am entirely assured that God exists and communicates with me. I am as justified in knowing that He exists and loves me, as I am justified in knowing that I exist.

Supposing that a spiritual sense is a part of our epistemology, that it makes up a part of how we know truth, then if it is possible to arouse this through an illegitimate source, how are we to know what is legitimate and what is not? This is a question many times answered very weakly with, "If it brings one closer to Christ, it is genuine" (and not Vishnu?), or that it encourages one to become charitable ("Good Fruits," which hardly eliminates the Pentecostal affirmation in favor of the Catholic one, or the LDS, and leads us nowhere).

I completely understand where you are coming from! Let me explain it as I have done in another thread:

I believe that we all have unique perspectives of truth and God (though there is always overlap), and thus have unique paths and ritual. Words are misconceptions and inadequate symbols of truth and God, and each culture will use different words and descriptions to describe the same truth.

Imagine God as a puzzle, with each piece representing a fruit of the spirit or manifestation of him. We each may hold different puzzle pieces at times, and thus have unique experiences and different perspectives of God. Thus, our overall experience of Him will differ from individual to individual, and from culture to culture. I am not talking about our overall experience of Him though. Yes, culture and ritual play a huge role in how we experience God as a whole. The problem is, we don't experience God as a whole, rather, line upon line, or piece by piece to fit my analogy. We fill in the gaps with the traditions of man. And so, call him by different names, use different rituals of worship, or claim contrasting doctrines, or deny him altogether. Yet, we all hold fundamental pieces in common that we recognize as good, and thus we relate with one another in spirit, and bond with one another in love. We all have overlap. It is required that we experience those common pieces the same, or we would not experience God as he is when the puzzle is all put together. We have to experience those pieces the same in order to be like him. In order to be one with him and one with each other.

Because we don't see him in his fullness. We may incorrectly interpret what we do have, in order to make a cohesive and meaningful picture of the whole. This is usually done based upon cultural experiences. That's how our minds work. We see dots on a screen and fill in the spaces with something that makes sense to us, something that is familiar to us. In relation to God, we may misunderstand what the dots are really trying to show us and thus misunderstand them, and yet be able to relate to others through the individual dots, if not through the whole picture. Even though they have different concepts of what those dots really are trying to show.

The question is how can we know what are legitimate puzzle pieces and what are not? The prophets have taught us what to expect by teaching us the fruits of the spirit. You are right, these fruits can be seen in all religions and cultures, but this to me affirms the existence of God and his love for all of us in sharing his light with all humble seekers of truth.

Edited January 9, 2013 by pogi

[pogi]

Maybe the "reason" that former members disavow "wonderful spiritual experiences" is a result of their realization that these experiences were not real in the first place, that in fact, they were manufactured or manipulated experiences, essentially natural experiences that they incorrectly categorized at the time as being "supernatural."

I guess it depends on how you look at it, whether through physical eyes or spiritual eyes. I view my very breath as a supernatural gift. What you call natural, I call divine. It's all perspective. Christ pleaded for us to let ourselves see, and to allow our hearts to be touched. To discover what we already know. Letting ourselves see means to allow hope into our lives. Doubt is nothing more than closing our spiritual eyes. Once closed, you can no longer perceive breath and other "natural" phenomenon as divinely given. God becomes indiscernible and all things can only be perceived as "natural." No wonder they doubt their previous experiences.

[cinepro]

In another thread President Hinckley was quoted, “Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.” The only perfection required is in the matter of making the decision as to whether the Church is true, and if it is true, how to deal with the distractions and detractions from its aims.

Even as Prophet, there are some things about the Church that President Hinckley doesn't get to define.

[Saints Alive]

Technically Hinckley was right, except for the decision making part.

[pmccombs1]

... but this to me affirms the existence of God and his love for all of us in sharing his light with all humble seekers of truth.

I find your calm and optimistic analysis not entirely disagreeable. It is not easy, however, to decide how to orient one's loyalties in the face of so much spiritually-affirmed truth that appears, to the human mind, to be in conflict. I cannot be easily convinced that all of these glimpses of truth can be reconciled in the end, nor that the experience and evidence of one authority is to be considered superior and more authentic than that of another who seeks to gather disciples from the first. I am inclined to think that there are species of truth, and am less willing to accept a universal one that must be acknowledged through a specific liturgy or sacrament claimed to be the exclusive property of one particular, authorized denomination. One flame of Truth tells the Catholic it is his birthright, and another flame grants this certainty to the Mormon! Both have been touched by God; both possess a piece of the puzzle, yet both claim to have the whole thing, uncorrupted. And their Spirit whispers this Truth to them.

It is a trial, perhaps, when one who has supposed himself to have had a fullness of truth, walks out into the world of religious ideas and finds what seems to him to be greater light and knowledge in many other quarters! He looks at his familiar Church and sees not imperfect striving toward a perfect ideal that encompasses all of these puzzle pieces in harmony and completeness, but an ideal that seems tarnished and to have lost its luster and can no longer fulfill the promise of perfection. It appears not to have lost its former qualities through any neglect, but rather in comparison to some brighter jewel.

[pogi]

One flame of Truth tells the Catholic it is his birthright, and another flame grants this certainty to the Mormon! Both have been touched by God; both possess a piece of the puzzle, yet both claim to have the whole thing, uncorrupted. And their Spirit whispers this Truth to them.

I have wrestled with this same conundrum myself. I cannot speak for other men, I can only speak from my experience. I am assured without doubt that God is happy with my path and direction. I am as sure of this as I am sure that God exists and loves me, and as sure as I exist. I have no doubt that honest seekers of truth from other cultures and religions have experienced this same divine assurance and affirmation that God is pleased with their path.

Add on: We do not claim to have all of the pieces to the puzzle as you say, but we do claim to hold the keys to the entire puzzle. Most of it we have to find out on our own by trying different pieces in different places. If we claimed to have the whole picture, I would have been gone long ago.

I will continue in my path without a degree of wavering until God shows me a new direction. I hope to remain humble enough to accept whatever he tells me. Until then, I will remain true to what assurance I have, and cannot waver in fear of displeasing God. I am sure that I am no different from the faithful Jew, Muslim, or Catholic in this regard.

The difference is, I believe that God is leading them in their paths. He is working on their hearts the way they need working. He is teaching them eternal truths of love, service, and sacrifice among others. The rest will easily be accepted when he returns and they recognize Him, if not by name or form, they will know Him by Spirit. They will be very familiar with Him and His inner workings.

From my perspective, I am not afraid for the honest and humble seeker of truth who is not LDS and claims assurance that he is on the right path, nor do I doubt his claims. From their perspective on the other hand, I should have great reason to fear, yet "I am as calm as a summer's morning", as Joseph put it, when I think of the next life; as they should be too.

It is a trial, perhaps, when one who has supposed himself to have had a fullness of truth, walks out into the world of religious ideas and finds what seems to him to be greater light and knowledge in many other quarters! He looks at his familiar Church and sees not imperfect striving toward a perfect ideal that encompasses all of these puzzle pieces in harmony and completeness, but an ideal that seems tarnished and to have lost its luster and can no longer fulfill the promise of perfection. It appears not to have lost its former qualities through any neglect, but rather in comparison to some brighter jewel.

I too have experienced finding "greater light and knowledge" in "other quarters." I find peace and joy in the injunction to search out truth wherever it may be. I cannot tell you the spiritual growth that I have experienced from studying the Catholic practice of contemplation, and the Buddhist practice of mindfulness meditation. I view these principles as adjuncts and catalysts to mighty prayer. My spirituality has blossomed in their practice. I am certain of their divine origins and am inspired by their enlightened practitioners. The difference is, I am yet to perceive of a tarnished ideal in Mormonism. In fact, it's luster glows brighter through the incorporation of that brighter jewel. As a whole however, I see no brighter jewel than I behold in Mormonism. It makes me smile!

Edited January 9, 2013 by pogi

[Storm Rider]

Anyone that has studied the words of the prophets and scripture knows that complete truth is not found within the LDS Church. In fact, quite the opposite is taught. We claim all truth as our own wherever it is found. It is our responsibility to seek out all truth and to live by Truth.

There is a single source of truth in the world and that is God. It is not surprising that God leads, influences, guides, and directs others in their path of truth. Why would anyone doubt God’s influence in the lives of others and in their membership and belief in their path? Additionally, why would we deny the opportunity to teach the truths we have been given to them? Our job is to testify to the truths we know and if others find that truth then God is glorified. However, we seek only for those that are seeking themselves. We are not interested in finding or teaching those who are not seeking.

Many of us come to an understanding that the Church’s history is not perfect; that leaders are men and have their own opinions; that we need to refine and adjust our understanding of God’s actions through the Church. We take off the rose colored glasses and understand that there is no pedestal for any man. There is only God and his Son that are worthy of our worship through the power of the Holy Spirit. No man, no church, no organization, is worthy of being placed between our God and ourselves. The Church is the organization through which we glorify God and express his love for all. However, it is only his instrument for us just as the Catholic Church or other religions are used by others in the same fashion.

We should find it just as easy to pray with a disciple of Christ who attends another church as it is to pray with a disciple in our own church. Why would it be different?

If your perception of the jewel of the Church of Jesus Christ is tarnished, it may be that your eyes have become more clouded and your focus is not on God’s actions and his living gospel. The eye must be single and not refracted in any way to the Light that clearly shines.

[pmccombs1]

I too have experienced finding "greater light and knowledge" in "other quarters." I find peace and joy in the injunction to search out truth wherever it may be. I cannot tell you the spiritual growth that I have experienced from studying the Catholic practice of contemplation, and the Buddhist practice of mindfulness meditation. I view these principles as adjuncts and catalysts to mighty prayer. My spirituality has blossomed in their practice. I am certain of their divine origins and am inspired by their enlightened practitioners. The difference is, I am yet to perceive of a tarnished ideal in Mormonism. In fact, it's luster glows brighter through the incorporation of that brighter jewel. As a whole however, I see no brighter jewel than I behold in Mormonism. It makes me smile!

My good pogi, if only I had your eyes, all would be well. But I must work through hard things before I can see clearly. Who knows what the view will be?

[pogi]

Who knows what the view will be?

It will be uniquely beautiful from a distinct perspective and entirely un-whole until He returns. Best of wishes!

Edited January 9, 2013 by pogi

[canard78]

The Church is the perfect vehicle for the perfecting of the Saints. Notice it is perfecting not perfect already.

I'm late arriving and it has probably been said.

It depends on your definition of the word perfect.

Do you mean:

"As good as it is possible to be" or "Being entirely without fault or defect"

I think my definition of 'perfect' is the second. In which case, the church isn't perfect. It can't be perfect. Not even a perfect vehicle. Even if God sent perfect instructions, they were received and implemented by an imperfect human. As such the perfection disappears.

Imagine sending perfectly pure through the water pipes. The pipes are not perfectly pure and as a result pick up some impurities. The water is still drinkable and usable. But it's not perfectly pure.

That's fine, I agree it's a vehicle. It's a very effective, productive, useful vehicle. Possibly even "the best it can be" - given our imperfections - but not flawless.

As for the people. Not even the best they can be. Not me anyway. Occasionally, but not often. I'm working on that.