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

[Tacenda]

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.

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.

Alot of press stuff that came out during the presidency elections touched on one or two.

[Calm]

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.

More like that little jolt after shuffling across the carpets in my new slippers and turning on the light switch.

[Calm]

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.

And all those women sealed to more than one man.....won't be anything wrong with that either.

[Ahab]

Alot of press stuff that came out during the presidency elections touched on one or two.

Like what? What was said exactly? Your understanding of what was said may not be what was meant.

Men are still sealeld to more then one woman today, although usually only when the first woman has passed on or had her sealing loosed, so even today men are being sealed to more than one woman and in the resurrection they'll be restored to those blessings.

As far as "God's" go, we're the same kind of being our Father in heaven is already, even though we're not as perfect as he is, yet.

And a Mother in heaven. Yes. We still have a Mother, as well as a Father in heaven. And we can also still become Fathers and Mothers.

Nothing has been retracted as far as those blessings and facts of life go.

[Ahab]

And all those women sealed to more than one man.....won't be anything wrong with that either.

As I understand it, women will have to choose which man to stay sealed with, as her husband, though.

And you're right, there won't be anything wrong with that.

[Calm]

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

Really? That surprises me you think that. The new Gospel Principles manual discusses the first and talks about parents in heaven IIRC.

Here is something you might find fun: http://cdev.lds.org/semantic/view.xqy?s=/topic/mother-in-heaven

http://cdev.lds.org/...=/topic/godhood

I am looking forward to them filling this stuff out with more substance, nice beginning though.

Edited February 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

As I understand it, women will have to choose which man to stay sealed with, as her husband, though.

Nope, nothing in the doctrine that says sealings for women aren't as long lasting and as meaningful as sealings for men.

People have that understanding, but that doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

Edited February 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

Nope, nothing in the doctrine that says sealings for women aren't as long lasting and as meaningful as sealings for men.

I'm not taking your word for it, but if that's the case I won't have a problem with it, and I'm a man whose wife was sealed to another man who died before we married. He left behind 2 wonderful boys, who I now raise as if they were mine, and I'm sure I wouldn't have any trouble getting along with their father.

People have that understanding, but that doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

People have your understanding, too, but that doesn't mean that isn't wrong.

[Tacenda]

Like what? What was said exactly? Your understanding of what was said may not be what was meant.

Men are still sealeld to more then one woman today, although usually only when the first woman has passed on or had her sealing loosed, so even today men are being sealed to more than one woman and in the resurrection they'll be restored to those blessings.

As far as "God's" go, we're the same kind of being our Father in heaven is already, even though we're not as perfect as he is, yet.

And a Mother in heaven. Yes. We still have a Mother, as well as a Father in heaven. And we can also still become Fathers and Mothers.

Nothing has been retracted as far as those blessings and facts of life go.

They aren't spoken of in conference are they?

[Ahab]

They aren't spoken of in conference are they?

In some way or another, yes, they are. We don't need to keep repeating things we've already said for it to be true, though.

Just keep in mind that the purpose of the atonement is to bring us back into the condition of Adam and Eve before the Fall, which is the same condition of Jesus after he was resurrected. Adam and Eve were commanded or told that they should have children, and that commandment hasn't been rescinded. In the same way we will also have children, even after we are resurrected or restored to that condition with no more bad effects from having gone through the Fall. And we'll still have knowledge of good and evil, which is a benefit we all can have now from having gone through the Fall. That means there will be Mothers and Fathers, having children on a planet, with all of us being like God, just as our Father and Lord said we were when they said we had become as one of them.

[Calm]

I'm sure I wouldn't have any trouble getting along with their father.

Exactly. If there are women are capable of not being jealous, being able to love another woman as a sister wife, surely there must be men out there who are capable of doing the same thing. In fact we already know this is true as there are some societies that do this, often where brothers share the same wife, for example.

And if it is a blessing for women to have this opportunity, it seems that a just and loving God would provide men with the same blessing as well especially when the sealings are already in place.

Edited February 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stroopwafel]

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.

Well, I'll conceide that my post characterizes these members just as you say, and that may certainly seem unfair. For the record, I do know that there are members in good standing who do want to understand, ask questions, and go through an honest intellectual process.

However, I guess my caricatural portrayal stems from my life-long, albeit limited, experience in the Church. Most often I seem to have come across members who are content with answering Sunday School / Priesthood questions with the typical answers expected of them, without giving a second thought. Giving the typical answers is not all that bad in itself, but if they are given because "this is what the answer should be" (read/pray/go to church anyone?), well, I think that we may be missing a whole lot on the spiritual experience if we stick to that in our discussions within the Church.

Now, I know members will share personnal experiences, will look for ways on how these answers / teachings may be applied to their life, and will spiritually uplift and support each other. So, in that sense they do give a second thought to the typical answers and have meaningful spiritual experiences. However, that is still within the confines of the Church. If they stick to that paradigm only, I believe they are limiting themselves and missing on other things of importance. I know the Church actually has invited its members to open up their minds and gather the truth wherever it may be found. But it is strange how too often this seems to find little echo in actual deeds.

Another observation: those members described above are also usually those who are the least comfortable in talking about the Church to non-members (but then again experiences may vary). And if par malheur an issue is raised that falls outside the curriculum, they are taken off, having no mean to address it, and most often end up brushing it off.

My portrayal may not be fair to what you've experienced in the Church, but I guess this is how I understood the terms "members in good standing" and "TBMs" when I used them, at least in that post. Well, I wish there was a more appropriate term that I could use to express what I meant, because I understand that I ascribe a meaning to these terms which may be foreign to what they really refer to. Anyways.

(Thinking / writing out-loud for myself) Now that I come to think of it, isn't it impossible for someone to really know if somebody else's intellectual process is honest or not? I mean, honesty here is a deep personnal / internal matter impossible to objectively measure from the outside.

Note to self: do not derail threads...

[Ahab]

Exactly. If there are women are capable of not being jealous, being able to love another woman as a sister wife, surely there must be men out there who are capable of doing the same thing. In fact we already know this is true as there are some societies that do this, often where brothers share the same wife, for example.

And if it is a blessing for women to have this opportunity, it seems that a just and loving God would provide men with the same blessing as well especially when the sealings are already in place.

As I see it, the main issue is not so much about getting along with an additional spouse, but in determining whose child it is when a child is born. When a woman has only one husband, and she's devoted to him, that's easy to determine, but if she has more than one husband then whose child would it be? I'm sure even our Father wants to know which of his children are really his.

[Calm]

As I see it, the main issue is not so much about getting along with an additional spouse, but in determining whose child it is when a child is born. When a woman has only one husband, and she's devoted to him, that's easy to determine, but if she has more than one husband then whose child would it be? I'm sure even our Father wants to know which of his children are really his.

Well that's not a problem for us now, so I doubt it is a problem for the one who created DNA.

[Ahab]

Well that's not a problem for us now, so I doubt it is a problem for the one who created DNA.

Kinda puts a pause on the celebration, though, don't you think?

Congratulations, it's a boy!

Okay, time for tests, now. Let's find out who is the Father. If both of you, or all 70 of you, will now go into this little room and...

Not quite the same as automatically knowing who the Father is, I think.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Ahab

[Calm]

Kinda puts a pause on the celebration, though, don't you think?

Congratulations, it's a boy!

Okay, time for tests, now. Let's find out who is the Father. If both of you, or all 70 of you, will not go into this little room and...

Not quite the same as automatically knowing who the Father is, I think.

You really think someone who can see into man's hearts and who is capable of giving us the Plan of Salvation, knowing that there would need to be a redeemer, healing the infirm and raising the dead through his Power, who knew there would be a need for Nephi's small plates as well as the large ones and all those other things he anticipates for us before we even need them is going to need to run tests to know who belongs to him heart, soul and body? Edited February 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[rongo]

Here’s another interesting case study: the Bremen Apostasy. I was kind of at the epicenter of it, although I didn’t realize it until after my mission. The mission president who succeeded my second mission president provided a lot of detail I was unaware of that is meaningful. I’m reposting something from years ago I posted here at MDDB:

The “Bremen apostasy” is relatively famous in LDS apologetic circles, and I have a personal connection with that. It involved a large falling–away of some prominent church members (including a BYU professor and priesthood leaders) in this large city, which had two wards. About a third of the members apostatized during the “Bremen Apostasy,” and Bremen now has only one ward.

I was the leader of the Bremen Zone in the Germany Hamburg Mission from October 1995 to early April 1996. Dietrich Behl, the main figure in it, was a high councilor assigned to Oldenburg (my city) and Wilhelmshaven on the North Sea coast. He was a powerful man, and one whom I and others thought might make an excellent native German mission president. My father also knew him as a young bishop from his mission in the North German mission. I also had a personal experience with Brother Behl which I won’t get into here, but through which I know that he was strong in the Church at the time (he helped me pray for guidance about something I needed, and God answered that prayer).

I returned from my mission in September 1996, and called my last companion (a greenie I had trained) in July 1997 to let him know I was engaged. He was in Bremen and told me what had happened, and I was floored. Because of Brother Behl’s history and influence there, his apostasy had taken many other people with him (not because of aggressive efforts to take them with him, but simply because of who he was). I later learned through the then–mission president (who is a member of the FAIR e–list) that what had happened was that some of the Tanners’ material had been translated into German and distributed.

Concerned members went to their bishops and stake president, but they weren’t very helpful with these new and previously unknown claims (the usual stuff). That compelling, reasonable answers weren’t immediately available further threw the group of concerned people into a spiritual crisis. When this came to the mission president’s attention, he contacted the people and offered to meet with them and work with the questions and concerns they had. He arranged for a speakerphone conference call with some BYU professors, and was able to completely answer the concerns and questions (this was acknowledged by Brother Behl and others).

It didn’t matter, though. Their initial loss of faith and trust, a very emotional reaction, was not overcome by the fact that each individual concern was able to be answered and explained in a satisfactory manner. Brother Behl said as much: although the specific questions were more than satisfactorily answered, the damage had been done. His faith and trust in the restored gospel were irreparably shaken because answers were not readily available or known by German-speaking people. In the end, it was this emotional reaction, this feeling of betrayal, disappointment, and disillusionment, that reigned, even in the face of reasonable, compelling, and satisfactory answers. It was emotion, not “just the facts.”

Here is some further detail I provided the FAIR list:

As I alluded to in my list post this morning, one of my greenies was district leader in Bremen when I was Zone leader over the Bremen Zone (back in the huge zone days; it encompassed the Wilhelmshaven, Bremerhaven, Oldenburg, Delmenhorst, and Bremen districts). When working with him, he shared some concerns he had about Brother von Wellnitz and comments he increasingly made (show–offy and know–it–all, constantly stirring the pot, etc.). Dietrich Behl, one of the main figures in the apostasy, was a beloved and spiritually powerful high councilor over Oldenburg and Wilhelmshaven. My father knew him as a young bishop when he was in the North German Mission under President Reese. When I learned a year and a half later (after returning home) from another greenie of mine what had happened, my father and I were shocked.

Interestingly, I attended that Bremen ward (there were two) around the time all of this was percolating, and witnessed about a third of the ward voting in the negative during routine sustaining votes (i.e., for non–leadership, housekeeping positions in the ward). I found this to be striking at the time, and I have never personally witnessed votes in the negative other than there, and of course the sequel and aftermath shows that there were major issues in the ward.

It was also around this time that I had a spiritual experience with Dietrich Behl (he and I prayed together in private for something, and he was instrumental in helping me receive and discern my answer), so it's much more complicated than to simply be able to say that he was devoid of the Spirit and sinking fast at this time.

I won’t quote at length the details that President Kühne added (he put together a collection of my experiences and his so they would be in one place), but some small quotes and paraphrases are necessary.

[After giving more extensive background as to the various figures in the brewing apostasy, and mentioning arranging the phone conference with them to answer their concerns]:

“Then we hooked in to FARMS folks for a telephone discussion of the points we had agreed would be discussed during this meeting. Brent Hall, Daniel Peterson, John Gee, and Scott Faulring were on the line, one of FARMS' senior researchers who wrote the "Papers of Joseph Smith." What a magnificent crew that was! . . . My note of sadness was that I didn't have a recorder hooked up to my telephone. A big mistake! What I learned I couldn't write fast enough to capture everything I was learning (I noticed that Bishop _____ was writing even faster than I was). For about 90 minutes we were hooked by speaker–phone to FARMS. When we were done with the call, we talked a bit about the discussion. Br. ______ said all of his questions had been answered; he was satisfied. Bp. ______ said some of his questions had been answered, but he still had some. Von Wellnitz was the skeptic yet, but admitted he had learned a little from John Gee. And Bp Behl was the hardest to figure. He really didn't admit he had learned anything . . . We had agreed to meet from 1600–1900. As they were leaving, Br. ______ told me in English as he was leaving (holding my hand), thanks President, I don't know what you could have done more for me. And let me know his questions were satisfactorily answered. Brent Hall called a while later to see how things had gone. I told him as per my above description, then told him that they had saved a soul tonight, I was also asked, if a couple of the FARMS brethren were over here, would it help to hold a fireside? I told him, definitely. But finances for such a visit became a problem along with schedules.

A few days later I spoke with Br ______ in Bremen. He said the meeting exceeded all his expectations and said that Bp ________ had indicated he needed to take a look at coming back into activity — which never happened. Bp Behl and Br von Wellnitz remained hardened. Bp Behl threw up "moonmen" and "4000 changes" issues at Br ______ which he didn't throw up during our meeting after the FARMS phone time — though the FARMS brethren had asked if there were any further question . . . Bp Behl. Behl had too much bitterness, that will take some time, if ever, to overcome. Von Wellnitz disappointed Br ______ greatly. Told him that he really was not that interested in the Church at all, really was interested in Egypt and going back with the University of Boston to do some archeological work. I was pleased that Br ______ finally saw what I had seen. He said that Bp ______ was greatly pleased at the lengths I had gone to provide to provide some answers for them, and the way I had treated them. How else does one treat guests in the mission home, I thought?

Now, to the issue at hand: this is another data point in my experience of those who want to believe, versus those who don’t. For those who didn’t ultimately want to believe (for whatever reason ---- and in this case, I think it was as simple as their crucial time window for urgently-needed answers had expired, and the mistrust and feelings of betrayal and deception were so deep, that the answers no longer mattered) no amount of quality or quantity of answers mattered. Some people left that meeting fully satisfied and reinvigorated, and others acknowledged that the answers were solid, but to no avail.

This squares with my experiences (successful and unsuccessful) counseling people as a bishop, elders quorum president, friend, etc. It really seems to me that those who want the things to be true find a way, and those who don’t do not.

[Tacenda]

In some way or another, yes, they are. We don't need to keep repeating things we've already said for it to be true, though.

Just keep in mind that the purpose of the atonement is to bring us back into the condition of Adam and Eve before the Fall, which is the same condition of Jesus after he was resurrected. Adam and Eve were commanded or told that they should have children, and that commandment hasn't been rescinded. In the same way we will also have children, even after we are resurrected or restored to that condition with no more bad effects from having gone through the Fall. And we'll still have knowledge of good and evil, which is a benefit we all can have now from having gone through the Fall. That means there will be Mothers and Fathers, having children on a planet, with all of us being like God, just as our Father and Lord said we were when they said we had become as one of them.

It was Adam & Eve not Adam & Eve's, if using them as examples.

[Ahab]

You really think someone who can see into man's hearts and who is capable of giving us the Plan of Salvation, knowing that there would need to be a redeemer, who knew there would be a need for Nephi's small plates as well as the large ones and all those other things he anticipates for us before we even need them is going to need to run tests to know who belongs to him heart, soul and body?

Yeah, pretty much. As one big family they'd all be his, and theirs, in one sense, but we're talking about at the very beginning of a person's individuality, before they exhibit any characteristics of any partiular parent. At the very moment the spirit of a child is born, before they start forming habits and showing their likes and dislikes for certain things.

Even if he can read the thoughts and know the feelings of that little bitty baby, he still may not know if he is his. How would he know? What kind of tests would he run on the baby?

As I said, not quite the same as automatically knowing that if his wife hasn't been with another man, then the child must be his.

[robuchan]

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).

Imagine you had a friend who joined a small religion with relatively few members and some beliefs that seemed very odd to you. This friend was very observant to the practices and beliefs of this church. He seemed to be very genuine, he even bore his testimony to you, and tried to get you to join. This religion and belief was very important to him. Then you saw him later and he mentioned he no longer was part of this religion. This came as a surprise to you. You ask why. He says, "well you know I just started digging around more and more into what this religion claimed and the more I read and studied, the more the claims seemed to be unbelievable, and it was very difficult, but I stayed close to God during this, and I felt lead by him, and at some point along the journey, it came to me that I knew it was all false. It's not a bad religion, but I could clearly see the foundational claims were completely bogus. So I'm not sure where I'm headed next, but I'm no longer affiliated with that religion." He seemed pretty sincere.

Would you assume he had serious sin in his life that caused him to change his beliefs?

Would you discount his stated reason (digging around about the history, etc, and decided it wasn't true)?

Would you look deeper and theorize about alternative motives?

[Ahab]

It was Adam & Eve not Adam & Eve's, if using them as examples.

I don't know what you mean here. Adam and Eve are typical of all men and women, both before and after the Fall.

[Calm]

Yeah, pretty much. As one big family they'd all be his, and theirs, in one sense, but we're talking about at the very beginning of a person's individuality, before they exhibit any characteristics of any partiular parent. At the very moment the spirit of a child is born, before they start forming habits and showing their likes and dislikes for certain things.

Even if he can read the thoughts and know the feelings of that little bitty baby, he still may not know if he is his. How would he know? What kind of tests would he run on the baby?

As I said, not quite the same as automatically knowing that if his wife hasn't been with another man, then the child must be his.

I guess we will just have to disagree on what omniscience means....

[Ahab]

I guess we will just have to disagree on what omniscience means....

It means he knows everything. It doesn't mean he automatically knows all that he knows.

[The Grimace]

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

Let's break this down by using Mormonism as an example.

The LDS Church asserts that a 14 year old Joseph Smith Jr. was visited by God and Jesus Christ in a grove of trees in Palmyra, New York.

An assertion, however, is not necessarily a true assertion. Let's see what we know to be true:

1. Joseph Smith lived in Palmyra, NY

2. Palmyra, NY was a real place

3. Joseph lived on the same property where he claims he had a vision

4. Joseph was 14 years old at some point

Those are indisputable true facts. What is disputable?

1. Joseph visited a grove of trees

2. Joseph was visited by two supernatural beings

3. The two supernatural beings that allegedly visited Joseph are God and Jesus.

Those are disputable facts. Now, there is evidence available that help support the idea that God and Jesus did visit Joseph, but there is also evidence available that helps support the idea that Joseph was not visited by God and Jesus.

This means that one must choose to believe, based on the weight of the evidence, what to believe. However, one is not choosing truth, one is choosing to believe an assertion.

I would alter your statement thusly:

One chooses to believe or disbelieve religious assertions based on the weight of evidence.

[bcuzbcuz]

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

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?

Your whole argument falls flat if "wanting" has nothing to do with it. External factors to ones own will have nothing to do with wanting. I can "want" someone to be in love with me with all my heart, but the "wanting" will not change reality. I could imagine myself in love with some Hollywood star and their being in love with me, but it wouldn't make it a fact. (Sorry, all you stalkers out there, your yearning will not make it so)

I could "want" the church to be true or untrue with all the willpower in the world but it would have no bearing on the facts. My wanting could, however, change the tolerances I would have to indiscrepancies or variances from the norm. I could willfully ignore certain factors to make my "wish" seem true.

Then there is also the factor of investment. When someone invests time and energy into a belief there comes an apex when a person willfully continues on a pursuit or willfully turns away. Your example of catching a ball is suitable as an example. You stated that you learned to step back and gain perspective in order to gage an incoming balls trajectory. As a very poor ball player, I also learned that there comes a point when stepping back is irreversible and the ball falls disappointedly just out of reach in front of you.

Recently, in fact, just last week, I made a decision to repair the brakes and muffler on my car (1500$) instead of selling it (or junking it) and going for buying a new car. Two days later, while taking my family out for dinner, my car clutch clunked one last time and the car stalled in the middle of a street. A new clutch will cost another 2000$ (European prices....sigh). Now the conundrum. Do I stick with my investment or cut my losses?

Each person with a belief system, and it doesn't matter if it's that Fords are better than Chevys or Catholicism is better than Jamestownism, has an investment of belief. When they meet up with a 'deal-breaker' they must decide to either stick with their investment or dump it. Some people are willing to throw their life after their investment. It's not a matter of whether they want something or not, but whether they can cut their losses or stick it out to the end.

Some people, like your comparison of baseball to real life, can make decisions when to keep backing up and when to step forward. The analogy works as long as you're talking about baseball but has little relevance when using the same analogy to refer to bowling or catching spears.