For Those Who Are Struggling With Their Faith

[mathonihah]

Yes, but I'm not in favor of living one's life according to a program. John Calvin can keep his determinism. If doubt is not part of the gospel, at least it is part of life. You say that doubt is of the devil? I say you don't know Satan half as well as I do, for such a declaration is utter nonsense. Doubt is a natural opposition without which we might never know faith.

Life is music, malthonihah. It is pleasing when the last bar resolves to the perfect harmony of the gospel, but that only serves to make beauty of the tension that came before it.

Doubt may be part of life, but it is not part of the gospel program. It is antithetical to the gospel program. You are not saved by just living a life. You are saved by conforming your life to the gospel. And doubt and the gospel are diametrically opposed. You don't get saved by doubting. You get saved by believing.

[mathonihah]

Does the salvation come from believing that Lehi and his posterity existed? Or can one strive to live what is taught in the book, believing it is of God, and still be saved whilst not believing in the literal existence of the people?

Salvation comes from believing in, and accepting the restored gospel; and the Book of Mormon is the keystone of that Restoration. You can't accept the Restoration without accepting the Book of Mormon as true, as the Lord has said.

[omni]

You appear to have bought into the infallible prophet notion, which is utter nonsense. Not that many others don't buy into it as well. However, sociological and anthropological reality don't match your version of erehwon.

Actually your assertion that I've bought into the infallible prophet notion is utter nonsense. I stated that I know of no one who believes the prophets are perfect or infallible in the truest sense of the word. I do however believe there's a perception among the membership (especially among the most devout) that when speaking on doctrinal or spiritual matters that a prophet will not lead the church astray/teach false doctrine.

We've been taught this concept by many church leaders over the years that a prophet will never lead us astray. What do you call it when a prophet proclaims over and over, year after year racist teachings, Adam/God, and blood atonement? As you stated previously, "man up" and call a spade a spade. These teachings aren't mere imperfections they're false doctrine.

[canard78]

Glad to hear it. President Ezra Taft Benson used to teach that those whose testimonies are founded on the Book of Mormon do not easily fall away from the Church.

He's right. So is the talk by Elder Holland few years ago. The Book of Mormon remains a foundational element of my testimony.

I don't know what that means. You have to explain.

I'll try to. I know it has been taught as an all or nothing position. I'm fine with that approach because it's useful for the majority of members.

But it's not made a 'test of membership.' There's nothing, for example, in the TR questions about Lehi being a real person in history.

I recognise my position is a contradiction for some people. I'm fine with that too. In church I'm also sensitive to the beliefs of others so don't impose them or teach them. I might use 'tactful' language like 'Joseph said he...' and when I bear my testimony of the Book of Mormon I tend to be more specific 'I know the principles taught by king Benjamin help me...'

So I believe there are many vehicles to travel the same paths. I believe God intentionally created an environment that would create religious diversity because his children are so diverse. I believe Mormonism is an effective vehicle for me. Perhaps the 'only true and living' vehicle for me. But not for others.

I consider the Book of Mormon to be the a large part of the fuel that powers the LDS vehicle. As such, it's a positive influence, an influence for good. A tool for influencing change. All those make me consider it to be inspired and to be of Devine origins. But all those things are independent of origins.

I know some will say it's not possible, that it's all or nothing. I notice in a later post you call on the D&C as evidence it's all or nothing. As I said, I'm fine being in a faith that teaches absolutism for effect, because it's more effective for the majority.

I think Elder Holland's PBS interview also made it clear that I have a place in the church too. That my partial acceptance of origins and full compliance with gospel principles means it's working.

God is less interested in what I believe and much more interested in what those beliefs lead me to do.

I won't go into detail here about why I believe the BoM to be inspired but perhaps not historical. That's about 100 pages worth of content (and that's if I keep it brief). And it doesn't really matter. I believe the Book of Mormon's teachings and principles. It is fulfilling the measure of its creation in my life. The means of creation is immaterial.

Again, I am glad to hear it. But there is more to the Book of Mormon than parables and stories. And how about the Doctrine and Covenants? Do you find that equally engaging?

No. But I still find it useful. I consider it a combination of instruction, inspiration and speculation. With some documentation of events thrown in.

I think the original intro to the Book of Commandments is useful:

Another one from Shawn:

“These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.”

Here's the intro from the Book of Commandments (page 9)

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSumma ... ed&sm=none

Given Joseph was comfortable going back and adapting, updating here and there I think we have a good picture of this being an expression of Joseph's inspired understanding of God's will. But within the limitations of his human ability to understand and express it.

[canard78]

There are some people who believe that the Bible is a great book of literature; but do not believe in any of the miracles, prophecies, revelations, or commandments. Well, so what? There is no salvation in believing that the Bible is a great book of literature. Likewise there is no salvation in believing that that the Book of Mormon is beautiful and sublime, but Lehi never existed. If Lehi didn't exist, why should anybody else exist?

Completely disagree. Salvation has never ever been dependent on believing Lehi to be historical.

I accept that it might be the case for you. I can remember a time when I put myself in that sudden death position. I told myself that it was either all true or none of it was. That helped to do all the stuff expected of me. I was quite scathing of those who said they weren't sure but still considered it a good way of life. Back then, it was either all true or I wanted nothing of it. That was when I believed it to be all true. Now that it has come to the crunch, when I don't believe it's all true, I've also not been willing to have nothing of it. Even though there are elements I doubt, I still consider to be a a great way to live. The principles lived still have the effect that they had when I believed them. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

A placebo drug can still cure someone if they believe it works. Some people are still cured by a placebo even after the doctor has told them it's a placebo. I heard a doctor on the radio not long ago talking about this. He'd had patients (and read studies of the same) where he would tell them that the placebo they were using wasn't proven to work. The patients would just shrug/smile and reply 'I know it works for me.'

I'm comfortable with that spiritual approach. I know it works for me.

[canard78]

Salvation comes from believing in, and accepting the restored gospel; and the Book of Mormon is the keystone of that Restoration. You can't accept the Restoration without accepting the Book of Mormon as true, as the Lord has said.

All of which is possible to do without Lehi having a place in history.

I know the Book of Mormon is true in that: It points me in a true path (the right direction). It is also true for me that reading it makes me feel good, impacts my perspectives and teaches principles that help me fulfil the requirement of Matthew 25 (know the master, multiply on your opportunities and serve others). In that measure it is true. I don't need Lehi to have lived for the book to be true. The book does not become untrue if the origins, taught as fact, are only allegorical.

As I've said before, Jesus taught us how to be. It matters far less what we believe as long as the 'be' is achieved.

[canard78]

Doubt may be part of life, but it is not part of the gospel program. It is antithetical to the gospel program. You are not saved by just living a life. You are saved by conforming your life to the gospel. And doubt and the gospel are diametrically opposed. You don't get saved by doubting. You get saved by believing.

Nope. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. (James 2:19)

Being, not believing matters more. The belief is important as it leads to being. Christ said follow me, not only believe me.

[PoisonWell]

Let's get a little perspective here. I see the root of your problem. You're thinking Old School prophet, which is the sort of prophet that would hear the voice of God and write it down, just so. "For verily the voice of the Lord is unto all men, and there is none to escape; and there is no eye that shall not see, neither ear that shall not hear, neither heart that shall not be penetrated." Remember that sort of language? The sort that wasn't afraid to boom, "I, the Lord..."?

D'you hear that anymore? Me either. No, nowadays it's a Church policy pronouncement, and it's "inspired." Because these are credentialed men whom the Lord has called! See, the Lord calls skills these days--more so than people. If he calls an educator, it's because the Lord needs education in his Church, factory-style, like what we got from Prussia back in the day. If He calls a businessman, that's because the Church needs professional administration. Ever notice the demographic of those whom the Lord has called? Experts, all. And I daresay the Church is expertly led and will prosper wonderfully. But the pronouncements and warnings issued by the Church these days are statements from those abstractions called "The Church" or "The Brethren." They are bereft of the active, penetrating voice of God and have been for years.

No, it's poor farm boys who need the voice of God. What are they going to do otherwise? I mean, take Joseph Smith. That kid was a piece of work and his dad was a drunk! The Lord had to speak constantly to that guy or the whole thing would have gone to pot in twenty minutes. Keeping a loose canon like our Joseph Smith in line is a lot of work, as you can imagine. It shouldn't surprise anyone that we have a constant stream of revelation from a situation like that. Get the right expert at the helm, though, and it all goes away. That's efficiency for you. We are a practical Church, after all.

Anyway, my point, and defense of prophets, is simply this: That the word "prophet" doesn't mean what it used to. The word has passed to become a "title" for the men who are the vessels of God's authority on earth. With this understanding, you see how your concern can be alleviated. Look at "prophet" as a title and, with the proper expectations in place, the problem of prophecy fades into the background! If God had hired these men to speak for Him, why wouldn't we hear the living words of the Lord's own voice through them, just as we have heard in the past? We wouldn't hear the very passive, "the brethren have unanimously agreed..." So, if what the brethren say today doesn't agree with past unanimity, please don't pin it on God. He is the general manager. He has experts handling the situation. They'll get it sorted out eventually.

I really appreciate the reply and it has prompted me to study up some more on prophetic mantle apologetics.

Unfortunately I still can't bring myself to believe in a God that would abandon His flock to experts (who do claim to still receive His revelation) and then allow them to run a muck. If God desired for me to believe this church, why would he allow contradictions and mortal men to corrupt it?

[Tacenda]

All of which is possible to do without Lehi having a place in history.

I know the Book of Mormon is true in that: It points me in a true path (the right direction). It is also true for me that reading it makes me feel good, impacts my perspectives and teaches principles that help me fulfil the requirement of Matthew 25 (know the master, multiply on your opportunities and serve others). In that measure it is true. I don't need Lehi to have lived for the book to be true. The book does not become untrue if the origins, taught as fact, are only allegorical.

As I've said before, Jesus taught us how to be. It matters far less what we believe as long as the 'be' is achieved.

What you said here is a "like" from me, especially the last sentence. Edited April 9, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

As I've said before, Jesus taught us how to be. It matters far less what we believe as long as the 'be' is achieved.

I think the major issue with belief is when it interferes with the "being" myself. If eternal life is to "know God" then it seems to me that the purpose of righteous belief and knowledge is to lead us to be one with him, implying that much of that knowledge is about what we are and can become as well as what God is.

Not that eventually we won't have to accept the truth of God and pure knowledge whatever that ends up being. Surely one cannot be one with God while accepting something that is false....but that is a long way down the road and I think the Lord will forgive ignorance as long as that ignorance is not an intentional choice...as long as we don't become so fond of our position that we persist in essentially saying the sun is in the sky when it is nighttime because earlier that day we held that belief.

Edited April 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

Let's get a little perspective here. I see the root of your problem. You're thinking Old School prophet, which is the sort of prophet that would hear the voice of God and write it down, just so. "For verily the voice of the Lord is unto all men, and there is none to escape; and there is no eye that shall not see, neither ear that shall not hear, neither heart that shall not be penetrated." Remember that sort of language? The sort that wasn't afraid to boom, "I, the Lord..."?

D'you hear that anymore? Me either. No, nowadays it's a Church policy pronouncement, and it's "inspired." Because these are credentialed men whom the Lord has called! See, the Lord calls skills these days--more so than people. If he calls an educator, it's because the Lord needs education in his Church, factory-style, like what we got from Prussia back in the day. If He calls a businessman, that's because the Church needs professional administration. Ever notice the demographic of those whom the Lord has called? Experts, all. And I daresay the Church is expertly led and will prosper wonderfully. But the pronouncements and warnings issued by the Church these days are statements from those abstractions called "The Church" or "The Brethren." They are bereft of the active, penetrating voice of God and have been for years.

No, it's poor farm boys who need the voice of God. What are they going to do otherwise? I mean, take Joseph Smith. That kid was a piece of work and his dad was a drunk! The Lord had to speak constantly to that guy or the whole thing would have gone to pot in twenty minutes. Keeping a loose canon like our Joseph Smith in line is a lot of work, as you can imagine. It shouldn't surprise anyone that we have a constant stream of revelation from a situation like that. Get the right expert at the helm, though, and it all goes away. That's efficiency for you. We are a practical Church, after all.

Anyway, my point, and defense of prophets, is simply this: That the word "prophet" doesn't mean what it used to. The word has passed to become a "title" for the men who are the vessels of God's authority on earth. With this understanding, you see how your concern can be alleviated. Look at "prophet" as a title and, with the proper expectations in place, the problem of prophecy fades into the background! If God had hired these men to speak for Him, why wouldn't we hear the living words of the Lord's own voice through them, just as we have heard in the past? We wouldn't hear the very passive, "the brethren have unanimously agreed..." So, if what the brethren say today doesn't agree with past unanimity, please don't pin it on God. He is the general manager. He has experts handling the situation. They'll get it sorted out eventually.

I gave you a rep point for wonderful, cynical, homespun blarney.

One could also classify this sociologically as the phase a religion goes through when it becomes an institution and drops out of "sacred time" (Jan Shipps). I kept hearing also (during this Conference) that the LDS Church is a world church, which makes it tough to manage. The Prophet and his Brethren become CEO and Board of Directors. The Vatican long since had to deal with this very problem. The real question, ultimately, is whether the LDS Church is in fact authorized and directed by God. Is there any satisfactory way of getting at the question without a personal testimony?

[Robert F. Smith]

Actually your assertion that I've bought into the infallible prophet notion is utter nonsense. I stated that I know of no one who believes the prophets are perfect or infallible in the truest sense of the word. I do however believe there's a perception among the membership (especially among the most devout) that when speaking on doctrinal or spiritual matters that a prophet will not lead the church astray/teach false doctrine.

We've been taught this concept by many church leaders over the years that a prophet will never lead us astray. What do you call it when a prophet proclaims over and over, year after year racist teachings, Adam/God, and blood atonement? As you stated previously, "man up" and call a spade a spade. These teachings aren't mere imperfections they're false doctrine.

The only person who makes such extreme remarks without at the same time understanding that this is human nature (even among prophets) is precisely someone who has bought into the notion of infallible prophets, followed by bewilderment, and apostasy. You fervently believed in a false premise and are now devastated to find that it was false all along. Maturity should have taught you otherwise. I remember all the wusses in boot camp whining about this or that, when what they really needed to do was to grow up and get over it. Their fairy faith was nonsense to begin with.

As to the "most devout" believing in that sort of nonsense, I consider that a contradiction in terms. Brigham worried that they lived on "borrowed light" and didn't bother to find out for themselves whether what he said is true. The most devout are those who have a mature faith and a deep understanding that prophets are not infallible.

[PoisonWell]

As to the "most devout" believing in that sort of nonsense

It really isn't the 'most devout.'

I'd say you have to be significantly more devout than these 'most devout' to know all the flaws of the church and still be here.

It's anyone who believes doctrine like the Fourteen Fundamentals, and iirc, the church hasn't taken that back and still preaches it. So it's probably most people.

[Robert F. Smith]

It really isn't the 'most devout.'

I'd say you have to be significantly more devout than these 'most devout' to know all the flaws of the church and still be here.

It's anyone who believes doctrine like the Fourteen Fundamentals, and iirc, the church hasn't taken that back and still preaches it. So it's probably most people.

I don't know if it is most people (most Mormons don't even live in the USA, much less in Utah), but I think that you are certainly on to something on proper devotion, in the absence of a poll. Most converts are Mormon due to the testimony of the Holy Ghost. I hope that the Holy Ghost helps them get beyond human foibles and to concern themselves first and foremost with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. My experience with most Mormons is that Jesus is front and center in their lives, and they don't seem to have time for a personality cult developing around someone in leadership who is pretty much as human as they are. At the same time, most Mormons are humble and respectful of leaders. After all, the burden born by leaders is immense, and we should try to sustain them in manifold ways.

[Stourme]

Doubt may be part of life, but it is not part of the gospel program. It is antithetical to the gospel program. You are not saved by just living a life. You are saved by conforming your life to the gospel. And doubt and the gospel are diametrically opposed. You don't get saved by doubting. You get saved by believing.

Well said. We are commanded to not doubt. Because you can't have faith if you continue to doubt.

[mathonihah]

He's right. So is the talk by Elder Holland few years ago. The Book of Mormon remains a foundational element of my testimony.

I'll try to. I know it has been taught as an all or nothing position. I'm fine with that approach because it's useful for the majority of members.

But it's not made a 'test of membership.' There's nothing, for example, in the TR questions about Lehi being a real person in history.

It is an implicit test, though not an explicit test. The explicit tests are belief that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and that he restored the gospel in the latter days. Belief in the truth of the BOM and the D&C is the lynchpin of the above. I don't see how one can accept the former, and still reject the latter.

I recognise my position is a contradiction for some people. I'm fine with that too. In church I'm also sensitive to the beliefs of others so don't impose them or teach them. I might use 'tactful' language like 'Joseph said he...' and when I bear my testimony of the Book of Mormon I tend to be more specific 'I know the principles taught by king Benjamin help me...'

So I believe there are many vehicles to travel the same paths. I believe God intentionally created an environment that would create religious diversity because his children are so diverse. I believe Mormonism is an effective vehicle for me. Perhaps the 'only true and living' vehicle for me. But not for others.

I consider the Book of Mormon to be the a large part of the fuel that powers the LDS vehicle. As such, it's a positive influence, an influence for good. A tool for influencing change. All those make me consider it to be inspired and to be of Devine origins. But all those things are independent of origins.

I know some will say it's not possible, that it's all or nothing. I notice in a later post you call on the D&C as evidence it's all or nothing. As I said, I'm fine being in a faith that teaches absolutism for effect, because it's more effective for the majority.

I think Elder Holland's PBS interview also made it clear that I have a place in the church too. That my partial acceptance of origins and full compliance with gospel principles means it's working.

God is less interested in what I believe and much more interested in what those beliefs lead me to do.

I won't go into detail here about why I believe the BoM to be inspired but perhaps not historical. That's about 100 pages worth of content (and that's if I keep it brief). And it doesn't really matter. I believe the Book of Mormon's teachings and principles. It is fulfilling the measure of its creation in my life. The means of creation is immaterial.

I am sure partial belief is better than no belief; provided that one is moving towards full belief, and not moving away from it.

No. But I still find it useful. I consider it a combination of instruction, inspiration and speculation. With some documentation of events thrown in.

I think the original intro to the Book of Commandments is useful:

Another one from Shawn:

Here's the intro from the Book of Commandments (page 9)

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSumma ... ed&sm=none

Given Joseph was comfortable going back and adapting, updating here and there I think we have a good picture of this being an expression of Joseph's inspired understanding of God's will. But within the limitations of his human ability to understand and express it.

It seems to me that you have difficulty accepting revelation; without which a belief in the Restoration is not possible either.

Edited April 9, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

All of which is possible to do without Lehi having a place in history.

I know the Book of Mormon is true in that: It points me in a true path (the right direction). It is also true for me that reading it makes me feel good, impacts my perspectives and teaches principles that help me fulfil the requirement of Matthew 25 (know the master, multiply on your opportunities and serve others). In that measure it is true. I don't need Lehi to have lived for the book to be true. The book does not become untrue if the origins, taught as fact, are only allegorical.

As I've said before, Jesus taught us how to be. It matters far less what we believe as long as the 'be' is achieved.

If Lehi never existed, then neither did Nephi, Jacob, Joseph, Laman, or Lemuel; and if they never existed, then the whole of the Book of Mormon is a fiction; and if the the Book of Mormon is fiction (and so is the D&C, as you apparently believe), then how can you have a viable Restoration? What was Restored, and how?

Edited April 9, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

Nope. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. (James 2:19)

Being, not believing matters more. The belief is important as it leads to being. Christ said follow me, not only believe me.

Belief precedes being or becoming. What are you being or becoming, if you are not believing in anything?

[rockpond]

Salvation comes from believing in, and accepting the restored gospel; and the Book of Mormon is the keystone of that Restoration. You can't accept the Restoration without accepting the Book of Mormon as true, as the Lord has said.

I'm hesitant to reply because I think that Canard has already given the best response to this, I don't want to take away from his words.

There are, however, two aspects of what you said here that catch my curiousity:

First, the phrase "accepting the Book of Mormon as true"... there would appear to be a number of facets to that use of the word "true". Do we accept the teachings in the book as true? Do we accept it as a true translation? Do we accept it as having been revealed through the power of God? Do we accept the text as divinely inspired? Do we accept it as an accurate historical record of ancient peoples?

The topic of this thread is "for those who are struggling with their faith". For many of those (that I'm aware of) the above distinctions are important.

Second, you indicated that the Lord has said that we must accept the Book of Mormon as true. Can you provide a reference for that? I'm struggling to remember where that might be at this moment.

Thanks.

[mathonihah]

There are, however, two aspects of what you said here that catch my curiousity:

First, the phrase "accepting the Book of Mormon as true"... there would appear to be a number of facets to that use of the word "true". Do we accept the teachings in the book as true? Do we accept it as a true translation? Do we accept it as having been revealed through the power of God? Do we accept the text as divinely inspired? Do we accept it as an accurate historical record of ancient peoples?

The topic of this thread is "for those who are struggling with their faith". For many of those (that I'm aware of) the above distinctions are important.

Thank you, that was a nice comprehensive list. The answer is that the Book of Mormon is true according to all the above.

Second, you indicated that the Lord has said that we must accept the Book of Mormon as true. Can you provide a reference for that? I'm struggling to remember where that might be at this moment.

I had already answered that question in the following post:

It also contradicts what the Lord has told us about the Book of Mormon. In D&C 17:6 the Lord has declared: "And he has translated the book, even that part which I have commanded him, and as your Lord and your God liveth it is true." Either that is true, or it isn't. Either he has "translated," or he hasn't. It can't be half and half.

[rockpond]

Thank you, that was a nice comprehensive list. The answer is that the Book of Mormon is true according to all the above.

I had already answered that question in the following post:

So the "it" in D&C 17:6 refers to a literal word-for-word translation by Joseph Smith? That's what the Lord is saying is true?

[Robert F. Smith]

So the "it" in D&C 17:6 refers to a literal word-for-word translation by Joseph Smith? That's what the Lord is saying is true?

Nice piece of eisegesis, which of course settles the question as to what "true" is.

[rockpond]

Nice piece of eisegesis, which of course settles the question as to what "true" is.

Can you clarify?

I wasn't trying to insert my own bias. Just trying to clarify Mathonihah's use of D&C 17:6 in this context.

Edited April 9, 2013 by rockpond

[mathonihah]

So the "it" in D&C 17:6 refers to a literal word-for-word translation by Joseph Smith? That's what the Lord is saying is true?

I don't know about that, and that is not an issue. When it says that it is true, it means, among other things, that it is correctly translated. Whether it is a word-for-word translation, or a thought-to-thought translation, is beside the point. In either case, it is a correct translation—if not the best possible translation. Either style of translation could be a good or a bad, accurate or inaccurate translation.

[ERayR]

If Lehi never existed, then neither did Nephi, Jacob, Joseph, Laman, or Lemuel; and if they never existed, then the whole of the Book of Mormon is a fiction; and if the the Book of Mormon is fiction (and so is the D&C, as you apparently believe), then how can you have a viable Restoration? What was Restored, and how?

We live in the time of similes and the symbolic. It is all symbolic and the whole life thing is some cosmic university experiment.