Do People Who Can'T Overcome Doubt And Issues . . .

[Tacenda]

Yes, please do find the whole citation from her. You will find that Joseph tells her dad not to let her go to a set of dances being put on by Emma due to the presence of "blacklegs" being there. Her brother was supposed to be restricted as well so it could hardly be because of Helen's sealing that Joseph warned her family of the impending problem. Her brother does end up conning her dad according to Helen into letting him go because he is supposedly committed to paying for the tickets already and Helen is, IIRC, quite ticked off by this. She expresses her gratitude though afterwards because those girls who did go ended up with tarnished reputations. I believe this occurred at Christmas time and Helen had been going to dances all the time since she had been sealed to Joseph the previous 6 months or so...again IIRC as it's been years since I studied up on this.

I am not saying it wasn't wrong for Joseph and her father to place Helen in the situation of being sealed to Joseph, it is just this case of the dance itself is quite different than how it is usually presented as if Joseph was jealous of Helen or something when it was simply him protecting her and her family in a specific case.

Have some time so here is the cite: http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/HWhitney.html

How dumb of me to provide you with a reference when you have probably read everything there is under the sun. You are the ultimate researcher. I guess I looked at it different at first. And didn't really research it. So embarrassed to have sent the PM with the Fairmormon response to this without even had read the whole article, dunce that I am. Thank you for spelling it out for me. I see now but hope she was allowed future dance/parties that were reputable.

[cdowis]

Rongo's sentiment is nothing new, and in fact is just a thinly cloaked rendition of the age old, TBM sentiment (for example) that if something as basic as Moroni's Promise did not work to make you a believer in the truhtfulness of the Book fo Mormon, then you either must be sinning, or going about your prayer, fasting, questoning/seeking in the wrong manner.

In their view, they cannot fathom that someone could come to a different answer regarding the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, or the LDS faith, than the one that they did, and thus, it must be the fault of the seeker.

They need to read the story of Lorenzo Snow. The issue is that the Lord has his own time, his own schedule. Moroni 10:4-5 has to been considered in the context of Alma 32. For some people, it simply takes time to get an answer, in the wisdom of the Lord. And it tells us to be patient, and let the seed of faith grow.

Moroni's promise does not tell us when, but only that we will get an answer.

If someone gets a "No" answer, then I can only say that I got a different one, and each of us will be responsible for our decisions in this life.

Edited February 8, 2013 by cdowis

[Calm]

How dumb of me to provide you with a reference when you have probably read everything there is under the sun. You are the ultimate researcher. I guess I looked at it different at first. And didn't really research it. So embarrassed to have sent the PM with the Fairmormon response to this without even had read the whole article, dunce that I am. Thank you for spelling it out for me. I see now but hope she was allowed future dance/parties that were reputable.

I think it highly likely the way she described her being involved in music and the theatre and the entertainment the Saints had available to them, she doesn't say she herself wasn't allowed in any other case that I've read about it.

You are one of many who have the impression that Joseph had her father keep her locked up due to sites like wivesofjosephsmith dot org selectively quoting her comments, sometimes even changing the order of them to make it appear she is saying something quite different, sometimes even the exact opposite of what she is saying. It is hard work to try and keep all the details straight. I tend to try and skip commentaries except for finding primary sources from them and just deal with the primary sources as much as possible because that means my brain is less cluttered with other people's ideas and more focused on what people had to say for themselves. Unfortunately when it comes to polygamy and Joseph Smith there is not much there from the two people we are probably most interested in hearing from, Joseph and Emma, so for me I feel it best not to make any actual judgments overall save to feel very unhappy about Joseph's choices to lie to Emma that are documented by others due to the staged second sealings for example.

Edited February 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[Glenn101]

So what you're saying is that you've exercised your personal judgment and come to the conclusion that a doctrine which doesn't seem morally right to you based on your own sense of goodness must "surely" be a sign that the person who taught it is not following God. Which is exactly the point.

If you are replying to my response to you, you have interpreted it very incorrectly. The gist of my idea is that we must seek the truth and that ultimately it must come from God.

Glenn

Edited February 8, 2013 by Glenn101

[The Grimace]

Rongo,

When it comes the LDS church (or any religion for that matter), 'truth' as a blanket attribute is not useful. People evaluate the church based on a number of factors.

1. Reconciliation of Church-supplied historical information with externally supplied historical information.

2. Reconciliation of Church's stance on social issues with personal stance on social issues

3. Reconciliation of Church culture with personal culture

Those are just three examples where 'truth' is a useless measure.

You thesis further breaks down when you consider the outcomes. People may chose to stay in the church despite any conflict in the above (or more) factors, but staying isn't necessarily based on truth. For instance, people may stay because they enjoy the sociality. They may stay to reduce familial conflict. They may stay to save their marriage. They may stay out of habit. There are a number of reasons people stay and they stay DESPITE what they think is true about the church.

Staying LDS is a decision. Truth is not.

[Nevo]

I tend to try and skip commentaries except for finding primary sources from them and just deal with the primary sources as much as possible because that means my brain is less cluttered with other people's ideas and more focused on what people had to say for themselves.

If Helen's social life wasn't affected in any way by her sealing to the Prophet, then I'm curious to know how you interpret these lines from her autobiography:

"They saw my youthful friends grow shy and cold. / And poisonous darts from sland’rous tongues were hurled, / Untutor’d heart in thy gen’rous sacrafise, / Thou dids’t not weigh the cost nor know the bitter price; / Thy happy dreems all o’er thou’rt doom’d alas to be / Bar’d out from social scenes by this thy destiny, / And o’er thy sad’nd mem’ries of sweet departed joys / Thy sicken’d heart will brood and imagine future woes, / And like a fetter’d bird with wild and longing heart, / Thou’lt dayly pine for freedom and murmor at thy lot."

[cinepro]

This will probably ruffle some feathers, but it’s an observation I can’t help making.

Those whose faith in the Restored Gospel and in the Church has cooled or completely tanked often bristle at the thought that their crisis is in some way related to sin. While I would not say this is always the case, sin is often involved, in my experience. Often, too, those who most bristle at the thought of the “sin factor” seem to me to resemble those who mocked Jesus for saying that they wanted to kill Him. “Thou hast a devil. Who goeth about to kill thee?” (when, in fact, that was exactly what they had in mind).

My observation is this: much more of a factor than sin is the fact that some people simply don’t want the gospel/Church to be “true” (completely independent of sin). This observation in my experience has led to passionate protests that they wanted nothing more than for the gospel/Church to be “true,” but that it simply couldn’t be made to work. The problem with this is that I have known people for whom I was a confidant, people who struggled about equally, some of whom were able to work out their issues, and some of whom could not. The determining factor seems to be whether or not they ultimately want it to work out or not (notwithstanding their protests to the contrary).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It struck me at this time that he always wanted the gospel/the Church to be true, and that is what enabled him to hang on and effectively work through his problems. Other people I know who equally struggle(d) with testimony doubt and fear have not been able to work it out, and it strikes me that they didn’t want it to be true, ultimately. Some seem to have a hypochondriac-like tendency to be thrown for a loop by every single new and old claim and attack, great and small, silly and formidable.

Is it scandalous to suggest that a tendency towards such a hypochondriac-like reaction points to not actually wanting it to be true?

It's a great observation, but I think you might be selling yourself short by limiting it to faith "in the Restored Gospel and in the Church" (assuming you mean The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

What you are describing applies to just about any organized religion. If you can expand your thoughts to book form, you could make versions for Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Muslims...almost anyone.

Each version of the book would explain how people who leave that religion do so because of some sort of personal failing on their part (didn't want to go to church on Christmas eve, wanted to eat bacon, didn't want to do missionary work, couldn't handle the auditing process etc.) , and if they had only made the mental and spiritual effort, they would still be [Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, JW, Scientologist, Muslim...].

You could also explain how people who leave just didn't want their faith to be true, and you could show examples of a Catholic, Orthodox Jew etc. who had faced their doubts and remained in their Church.

Since each of these religions has to deal with the problem of formerly faithful members leaving, and they have to explain how this can happen in the paradigm of that religion to help their other members deal with it, I suspect you could sell a lot of books.

Edited February 8, 2013 by cinepro

[pmccombs1]

Is it scandalous to suggest that a tendency towards such a hypochondriac-like reaction points to not actually wanting it to be true?

No, you're right. Faith stands or falls alongside desire. People are dynamic creatures and find that they desire different things during the course of a lifetime. I believe that the banana is a very sweet and desirable fruit, though I did not always find it to be so; and I know many today who despise it and prefer to partake of other things instead. Whether or not one view is more sinful than another, I can't say. Such judgments seem to arise from whatever camp you happen to be in.

[Calm]

If Helen's social life wasn't affected in any way by her sealing to the Prophet, then I'm curious to know how you interpret these lines from her autobiography:

"They saw my youthful friends grow shy and cold. / And poisonous darts from sland’rous tongues were hurled, / Untutor’d heart in thy gen’rous sacrafise, / Thou dids’t not weigh the cost nor know the bitter price; / Thy happy dreems all o’er thou’rt doom’d alas to be / Bar’d out from social scenes by this thy destiny, / And o’er thy sad’nd mem’ries of sweet departed joys / Thy sicken’d heart will brood and imagine future woes, / And like a fetter’d bird with wild and longing heart, / Thou’lt dayly pine for freedom and murmor at thy lot."

I don't doubt that she was affected by it, I can only report what she describes as her activities. Speculating....one could look at the arrangement of the phrases and note that it is her friends' reactions of withdrawing that she notes first and the slanderous gossip second while she doesn't speak of her parents or some authority restricting her. Perhaps it was the reactions of others that no longer invite her to join with them or her wanting to avoid hearing the gossip that sprung up at her appearance that caused her to choose herself to withdraw from some social activities.

[Questing Beast]

...

Is it scandalous to suggest that a tendency towards such a hypochondriac-like reaction points to not actually wanting it to be true?

I am sure that typifies some/many who have problems with testimony. But not everyone. So what you say is true in those cases where people don't really want the gospel/church to be true.

My situation is different. Judeo-Christianity fails to satisfy, because it isn't big enough, it doesn't go far enough toward answering my metaphysical questions, and it makes too many exclusive, dogmatic assertions to be accepted as "the true faith", in any of its forms. I think the entire premise of a "chosen people" is flawed from the getgo. And covenants, ordinances required for salvation equally flawed as doctrine. Added in is the Mormon theology which makes God the Father into a "Man", not the Cause of Existence in the first place. So I practice Mormonism as strictly as I ever, yet I do not believe in it as an exclusive revelation. No religion is a revelation, as all are man-made, yet God works within them all, as in all things....

[BlueDreams]

I can understand the sentiment behind the post....not all that deep down I'm aware that the idea of simply looking at the evidence is not enough to make or break a testimony/belief in the church. After all, most of us here have looked at something or another and have varying degrees of belief or disbelief. I've also seen that knee jerk reaction where it gets to the point where it seems like almost nothing can be done right in the church. Where the church becomes almost demonized. The same evidence pointed against the church has had little effect on me personally and you can't help but wonder, what's the difference?

I don't know how much it has to do with wanting it.....I think that might be a little simplistic....maybe other desires outweighed certain others. Maybe their sins weren't so much wanting more overt freedoms but more so the ones that are less seen like pride and vanity. But I can't claim to know....I don't believe people are simple formulas to get you to belief or non. I do believe that faith is in many ways a choice. The people I've personally known left or became inactive for a variety of reasons that fit just about every thought pattern imaginable: sin, doubt, fear, pressures, exhaustion, outside problems, family pressures, apathy, feeling different, etc.

I think at the root is wondering what makes me different from those who leave. Because the arguments for why someone would leave just aren't convincing. Intellectual integrity? Doesn't fit. I'm perpetually curious, dig at my interests, rarely take claims for granted. Individual thought? doesn't work. Things I couldn't reconcile or ignore? Never had an issue. Living in a bubble? Ok, maybe now, but most of my childhood was outside of mormon dominant areas. My life didn't fit mormon stereotype in the first place. Social views that don't entirely allign with the culture? Yep, that's about right...and it's never been an issue for me. Most of the descriptive terms that I've seen describe someone who has doubts (at least at the beginning of them moving away from the church) should fit me...and yet I don't doubt. I know it's true. So, yes I'm very curious about how I got here and they got there. (Then again I'm curious about how most people get to their current life choices....it's part of why I study psych).

I do believe that desire and what we want most probably plays a role in it. When I was 14 and just beginning to peruse the internet and find all the usual crazy stuff....I was also beginning to grow in my faith period. Answers weren't my main concern. For me it was more of a simple formula: I wasn't happy, the people I was surrounded by were, and I needed that....I needed something stable and good in my life. The arguments against the church seemed in direct conflict with what I saw....not what I knew, because I wouldn't claim to have known much back then I wasn't exactly concrete in my faith. I guess I figured if they couldn't get even basic things right, things that even I, at 14 could see weren't matching up with the reality right in front of me, why would I trust them on any other piece of information? So every claim used against the church I took with a grain of salt.

There were only a few issues that I really dug into (history of blacks and the priesthood, women in the church, evolution, somewhat polygamy....basically social related issues etc)....most of it, I'd start but to be honest most of it bored me. I could care less about the nuances of things that just seemed so minor in my life. Meanwhile what I needed spiritually was beginning to be satisfied and I wanted more. I never grew tired of learning about the gospel In the end so at least for me, I guess I chose what I wanted most. I wanted peace, I wanted love, I wanted God. And the want and need was by far more powerful than any random historical document, quote, or controversy. It was like I was hungry and they gave me the choice between the most delicious thing I've every had that satisfied all my needs....and a graham cracker. Why the heck would I take up eating graham crackers?

But if my experiences had been different. If I didn't have much sense of peace from studying the gospel. I could have ended up somewhere else. I already was. And I couldn't say it was simply from lack of wanting, but lack of opportunity. So personally I'm loathe to describe someone's doubt simply on terms of not desire.

With luv,

BD

[Stroopwafel]

Jeremy and Walden are pointing out to something crucial, that is, the tendency of "members in good standing" or TBMs to brush off anything that doesn't fit / go along with their world view. They have a limited concept of Truth since they cannot think it in any other way than through the paradigm (to borrow Jeremy's term) they have come to adopt.

Glenn, though this looks like it, I don't want to pick you apart but simply use two quotes from you to illustrate my point. So this is not so much a direct reply as it is the use of an example:

Not wanting something to be true is one of the reasons people do struggle with their faith."

To me, that is the exact opposite of what many struggling members who are genuinely seeking answers experience. They wish something to be true, but when they are faced with material that points against it or that brings another facet to light, they are not content with simply brushing it off: they want to understand, they ask questions, they go through an honest intellectual process. This tension what causes the conflict within, what causes the struggling.

It is because they do wish the claims of the Church to be true that it is hard for some members to come at peace with their struggle between faith, doubt, and intellectual honesty when faced with Truth.

Quote continued...

But I would submit that the search for the truth is more important than what one wishes to be true and no matter what the personal outlook, the desire to know the truth needs to become the driving force in anyone's life.

And that is exactly the point. Members will believe that truth ultimately is to be found within what the Church offers. But on the other hand, there are outsiders that have this very same desire to know the Truth, no matter what it entails, as their driving force in life; and yet they will / would reject the Church's claim.

The member replies that these outsider doesn't know how to find Truth and may not even know what it really is.

The outsider says that the believer is blinded by his desire to belief and is not honestly seeking nor even understanding what Truth really is.

So who's right?

p.s. I think The Grimace answers the OP best:

Staying LDS is a decision. Truth is not.

[Bart Burk]

Last week I heard Patrick Madrid say on his radio show on EWTN that Catholics who aren't practicing Catholicism often have left because of sin. I know there are a lot of divorced Catholics who have gone to Protestant churches. So I suppose ex-Catholics don't want the Catholic Church to be true either. So if any of you here used to be Catholic, it must have been because of sin -- you wanted to practice birth control or get divorced or quit going to confession. Or something.

[BlueDreams]

Sorry, I wish my testimony was stronger than that . I still need to work on it and maybe I'll get that lighting bolt that it is. Hopefully not get kicked to the curb for not fully believing. I can verify that I've never really been offended, the only thing that could and does, is the dishonesty. You might find that alot of people that leave because they were offended didn't start out that way but became that way after their crisis.

Not to pick everything you've said apart, but I've always been interested in this idea of a "lightning bolt" experience. From what I can tell, the vast majority of us do not have lightning bolt experiences. And yet often I've noticed the more doubt is entered the more extreme the experience is expected from the doubter in order to elicit faith again. IMHO, it's self-defeatist. If you wish to have greater faith but in order for you to have it you must have some grander experience to receive it, it would mean that you're placing an unnecessarily high bar for God to reach you. Plus it's antithetical to faith, which isn't about lightning bolt experiences but putting our trust in God.

Have I had "lightning bolts" on the definition of what's considered big experiences? Probably. But by the time I had them they didn't seem much like lightening bolts. They were precious experiences of God's love to encourage me to continue to trust Him further. They were answers to things I had been earnestly and faithfully seeking answers to. I experienced them not out of the blue, but because I was already growing in my trust of Him and His ways. The "lightening bolts" were unexpected....but spiritually were just as strong as other spiritual moments that were less spectacular.

There are very few Alma the youngers running around and honestly why would you want to go into a coma for 3 days, have complete and immediate recognition of just how wrong you were, and then have to spend the rest of your days in serving God to the end of your being? Cuz, from what I've learned from lightening bolts, it's not without its sacrifice. Yeah Alma had an amazing conversion....spectacular and mind blowing....and then he was called to give up all that he was, to serve people, to bring the gospel to every corner, to watch people burn to death cuz God said no, be imprisoned, etc. That lightning bolt was the beginning of a life of abject consecration...of complete trust in God, even when circumstances seem unbearable. That type of faith isn't given, it's grown. And to insist on a flood when one's faith is closer to a sapling is not wise.

I'm just saying that to say you wish for more faith....that you wish to trust and love, while maintaining a sense that you cannot trust without Him meeting your expectations and insisting God meet on your terms, it's most likely going to fail. That's not really faith in the first place.

With luv,

BD

[ERMD]

Tacenda,

Even IF there were some mandate from "The Brethren" that certain aspects of Church history not be broadcast/taught/publicized, is that a lie? If so, then how can Christ's instructions to many, "See that thou tell no one," be viewed?

Just looking for some consistency here.

[go_utes01]

Jeremy and Walden are pointing out to something crucial, that is, the tendency of "members in good standing" or TBMs to brush off anything that doesn't fit / go along with their world view. They have a limited concept of Truth since they cannot think it in any other way than through the paradigm (to borrow Jeremy's term) they have come to adopt.

Glenn, though this looks like it, I don't want to pick you apart but simply use two quotes from you to illustrate my point. So this is not so much a direct reply as it is the use of an example:

To me, that is the exact opposite of what many struggling members who are genuinely seeking answers experience. They wish something to be true, but when they are faced with material that points against it or that brings another facet to light, they are not content with simply brushing it off: they want to understand, they ask questions, they go through an honest intellectual process. This tension what causes the conflict within, what causes the struggling.

It is because they do wish the claims of the Church to be true that it is hard for some members to come at peace with their struggle between faith, doubt, and intellectual honesty when faced with Truth.

Quote continued...

And that is exactly the point. Members will believe that truth ultimately is to be found within what the Church offers. But on the other hand, there are outsiders that have this very same desire to know the Truth, no matter what it entails, as their driving force in life; and yet they will / would reject the Church's claim.

The member replies that these outsider doesn't know how to find Truth and may not even know what it really is.

The outsider says that the believer is blinded by his desire to belief and is not honestly seeking nor even understanding what Truth really is.

So who's right?

p.s. I think The Grimace answers the OP best:

Your post seems to imply that "members in good standing" or "TBMs" do not truly want to understand, or ask questions, or go through an honest intellectual process. Maybe this is just your definition of members in good standing or TBMs. I'm not sure. As for me, I do not believe that all, or even a majority, of members in good standing or TBMs are as you imply.

Edited February 8, 2013 by go_utes01

[Ahab]

Is it scandalous to suggest that a tendency towards such a hypochondriac-like reaction points to not actually wanting it to be true?

Yes. In a sense, you could say that. Some people seem to want everything that is true to be something they think is good or beneficial in some way, so I think it's understandable for them to not want something that is upsetting to them to be true.

Think about some of the reasons people give for doubting the Church is true. It's usually because of something that is upsetting to them, which they view as a negative thing. Seems reasonable to think they wouldn't want anything negative associated with their beliefs, doesn't it? Can you see how they would rather the Church be without that perceived "problem", as they see it?

And sometimes the object of their belief has had some problems or negative issues associated with it. The Church isn't perfect, because the Church is made up of imperfect people. That doesn't mean God isn't true, though, or that he hasn't worked with some of us imperfect people to establish and build up his Church.

We fall down so we can learn to get back up. Usually all people need is a helping hand, patient and willing to help them with their problems.

[ERMD]

Yes. In a sense, you could say that. Some people seem to want everything that is true to be something they think is good or beneficial in some way, so I think it's understandable for them to not want something that is upsetting to them to be true.

Think about some of the reasons people give for doubting the Church is true. It's usually because of something that is upsetting to them, which they view as a negative thing. Seems reasonable to think they wouldn't want anything negative associated with their beliefs, doesn't it? Can you see how they would rather the Church be without that perceived "problem", as they see it?

And sometimes the object of their belief has had some problems or negative issues associated with it. The Church isn't perfect, because the Church is made up of imperfect people. That doesn't mean God isn't true, though, or that he hasn't worked with some of us imperfect people to establish and build up his Church.

We fall down so we can learn to get back up. Usually all people need is a helping hand, patient and willing to help them with their problems.

Makes me think of the reactions of early Church members to the charge to practice polygamy. It was pretty upsetting to them and carried a very negative association. I'm sure they preferred the Church existed without that perceived problem.

Edited February 8, 2013 by ERMD

[Ahab]

Makes me think of the reactions of early Church members to the charge to practice polygamy. It was pretty upsetting to them and carried a very negative association. I'm sure they preferred the Church existed without that perceived problem.

I thought about that too, as one of those things that are perceived as a negative thing. There are good reasons for it, though, and in the right circumstances it can be a very good thing. Some people think it's always best for a man to have only one wife, and a wife to have only one husband. Always, as if there is no good reason to ever have it any other way. But that isn't true. A polygamous marriage can be a very wonderful thing, in the right circumstances, and to everybody involved.

Most women like to have other women to talk with, and some are not jealous about sharing their husband's sexuality with another woman as long as she isn't there at the same time. They see it as something that is good for that other woman, just as they see it as something that is good for her. No jealousy. No feeling of ownership or control, as if only they should have that man in that way. Nothing wrong with it at all. Some people just aren't ready for it, though, or they won't do it the right way. There are men who have been sealed to more than one woman, though, and when they're resurrected they'll still be sealed to all of those women. And there won't be anything wrong with it.

Shocked? Dismayed? The Church can't be true with that kind fo thing going on?

Someday you may be able to understand how and why it is a good thing, and also true. But if you don't, it will still go on anyway.

[rongo]

Rongo's sentiment is nothing new, and in fact is just a thinly cloaked rendition of the age old, TBM sentiment (for example) that if something as basic as Moroni's Promise did not work to make you a believer in the truhtfulness of the Book fo Mormon, then you either must be sinning, or going about your prayer, fasting, questoning/seeking in the wrong manner.

I for one have never expressed this. I know people who believe that they got a "no" answer when applying "Moroni's promise," and I believe that God did tell them "no" (similar to me believing that God told David Whitmer to separate himself from the Mormons at Far West).

In their view, they cannot fathom that someone could come to a different answer regarding the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, or the LDS faith, than the one that they did, and thus, it must be the fault of the seeker.

What a caricature. Even the bluest of TBMs "can fathom" people "coming to different answers." If nothing else, those who served missions, or those who have family and extended family.

And of course, I could recount my own struggles with my disbelief, but like many good TBMs, Rongo already has a pre-determined mindset that the disbelievers struggle is just rubbish

Another caricature. I don't think the struggles of disbelief of people who don't want the Church to be true (deep down) are "rubbish." They are very real, but my thesis was that they stem ultimately from not wanting it to be true.

And I can fathom that some might disagree with that, hence my opening sentence.

[Tacenda]

I thought about that too, as one of those things that are perceived as a negative thing. There are good reasons for it, though, and in the right circumstances it can be a very good thing. Some people think it's always best for a man to have only one wife, and a wife to have only one husband. Always, as if there is no good reason to ever have it any other way. But that isn't true. A polygamous marriage can be a very wonderful thing, in the right circumstances, and to everybody involved.

Most women like to have other women to talk with, and some are not jealous about sharing their husband's sexuality with another woman as long as she isn't there at the same time. They see it as something that is good for that other woman, just as they see it as something that is good for her. No jealousy. No feeling of ownership or control, as if only they should have that man in that way. Nothing wrong with it at all. Some people just aren't ready for it, though, or they won't do it the right way. There are men who have been sealed to more than one woman, though, and when they're resurrected they'll still be sealed to all of those women. And there won't be anything wrong with it.

Shocked? Dismayed? The Church can't be true with that kind fo thing going on?

Someday you may be able to understand how and why it is a good thing, and also true. But if you don't, it will still go on anyway.

Oh, I thought the church was getting away from polygamy in heaven and being God's and of there being a Mother in Heaven. If you have recent talks, speeches, writings would you mind posting and I'll eat my words.

[rongo]

They need to read the story of Lorenzo Snow. The issue is that the Lord has his own time, his own schedule. Moroni 10:4-5 has to been considered in the context of Alma 32. For some people, it simply takes time to get an answer, in the wisdom of the Lord. And it tells us to be patient, and let the seed of faith grow.

Moroni's promise does not tell us when, but only that we will get an answer.

If someone gets a "No" answer, then I can only say that I got a different one, and each of us will be responsible for our decisions in this life.

Daniel H. Wells (future FP counselor) was completely unmoved by the Book of Mormon, and only gained his testimony after the martyrdom, mainly through the D&C.

[rongo]

Rongo,

When it comes the LDS church (or any religion for that matter), 'truth' as a blanket attribute is not useful. People evaluate the church based on a number of factors.

1. Reconciliation of Church-supplied historical information with externally supplied historical information.

2. Reconciliation of Church's stance on social issues with personal stance on social issues

3. Reconciliation of Church culture with personal culture

Those are just three examples where 'truth' is a useless measure.

Truth would be just as useful as ever in these three, or any other, factors. As Glen101 aptly put it, people can learn the truth of things (as perceived by the person) that are other than what they want them to be (politically, sociologically, etc., not just in religion), and they reject it because they don't want it to be so. People do that all the time.

Your thesis further breaks down when you consider the outcomes. People may chose to stay in the church despite any conflict in the above (or more) factors, but staying isn't necessarily based on truth. For instance, people may stay because they enjoy the sociality. They may stay to reduce familial conflict. They may stay to save their marriage. They may stay out of habit. There are a number of reasons people stay and they stay DESPITE what they think is true about the church.

But the myriad of reasons why people stay other than actually believing was not part of my thesis at all. I was specifically addressing those who ultimately make shipwreck of their faith. In other words, not the staying or not staying, but the actual belief or not.

Staying LDS is a decision. Truth is not.

Is what one believes about the truth a decision? Is belief or unbelief?

[Ahab]

Oh, I thought the church was getting away from polygamy in heaven and being God's and of there being a Mother in Heaven.

Nope. Where did you get the idea that we were getting away from those things? The "God's" things may be better understood as "persons who are God", but we're still going to have as many people like him as were going to have before.

If you have recent talks, speeches, writings would you mind posting and I'll eat my words.

I'd look for retractions from our Church saying the things we said before no longer apply. Otherwise what we have taught is still in effect.

[rongo]

It's a great observation, but I think you might be selling yourself short by limiting it to faith "in the Restored Gospel and in the Church" (assuming you mean The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

What you are describing applies to just about any organized religion. If you can expand your thoughts to book form, you could make versions for Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Muslims...almost anyone.

I agree. It also applies to people in other walks or traditions wanting/not wanting to believe.