For Those Who Are Struggling With Their Faith

[mfbukowski]

My '1 year' probation will be up around July or August. We'll see what extends beyond that.

Great post- pm me if you have questions of a philosophical nature- I have solved all I have found at least to my satisfaction. Those might not work for you, but I am very happy and totally convinced both spiritually and intellectually. Your experience may vary

[mfbukowski]

I think that canard can speak for himself. I don't think that he needs anybody to speak for him. But to answer the points you have raised, to me they don't make a lot of sense. It goes contrary to everything we know about the Book of Mormon. It contradicts the text of the Book of Mormon, as well as what the Lord has revealed to us about the Book of Mormon. The authors of the Book of Mormon are constantly talking about their record keeping. From Nephi to Moroni, they are constantly talking about the accuracy and importance of their records, their preservation, their extensiveness, and the commandments of the Lord to keep and preserve them.

The Lord is very meticulous that they should be accurate, and contain all necessary information. When they forget to add something important, he commands them to add it (3 Nephi 23:7–14). When Moroni wants to add information that he shouldn't, the Lord commands him not to (3 Nephi 26:11). When Mormon wants to omit something because he thinks that it duplicates information, the Lord tells him that it should be added (Words of Mormon). That kind of theory just doesn't fit into that kind of paradigm. The Book of Mormon is either true or false, fact or fiction. It can't be half and half. To make it half and half makes all of it fiction. And what about the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon? Is that fiction as well?

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. In another place the Lord has said:

"Nevertheless, my work shall go forth, for inasmuch as the knowledge of a Savior has come unto the world, through the testimony of the Jews, even so shall the knowledge of a Savior come unto my people—

"And to the Nephites, and the Jacobites, and the Josephites, and the Zoramites, through the testimony of their fathers—

"And this testimony shall come to the knowledge of the Lamanites, and the Lemuelites, and the Ishmaelites, who dwindled in unbelief because of the iniquity of their fathers, whom the Lord has suffered to destroy their brethren the Nephites, because of their iniquities and their abominations.

"And for this very purpose are these plates preserved, which contain these records—that the promises of the Lord might be fulfilled, which he made to his people;

"And that the Lamanites might come to the knowledge of their fathers, and that they might know the promises of the Lord, and that they may believe the gospel and rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ, and be glorified through faith in his name, and that through their repentance they might be saved. Amen." (D&C 3:16–20)

Either that is true or it isn't. It can't be half and half.

All this does is put restrictions on someone else's belief- one who has stated his love of the BOM.

Who are YOU to tell someone else what they have to believe about it?? If they have a testimony they have a testimony- it's none of your business, unless you are their bishop, to judge them

You could actually drive people from the church doing that.

[mfbukowski]

I wasn't trying to speak for Canard. It's a discussion board - I was just discussing.

I also wasn't suggesting that the Book of Mormon isn't all true. I believe it is all true.

I put forward two theories... the first is just that I'm not sure everything that occurred had to have been etched into the gold plates in order for it to be revealed to Joseph Smith.

The second is not a theory that I subscribe to. I don't, however, see the usefulness of railing against those who struggle with historicity even though they see the text as full of divine truth and beauty.

Agreed completely.

He has no right to criticize someone's testimony for beliefs different than his

All it does is reflect his own insecurity about his own testimony- that people could not see it his way and yet have what he has- a "real" testimony. It also sets himself up as the judge of what standards others should have.

Totally improper for this board.

[mfbukowski]

Nobody is railing against anybody. Why are you so upset that somebody should express a different point of view?

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?

How can you possibly know who existed and who did not??

The problem is not a difference of opinion- the problem is your judgement of others.

[mfbukowski]

I can't prepare to meet God if I'm finding new ways to doubt.

Welcome and loved your post.

Just know that here you will definitely be exposed to every anti-Mormon argument that exists, and maybe new ones. If you don't want to find new ways to doubt, this might not be the best place!

[mfbukowski]

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?

Of course. I happen to believe in a historic BOM but see why many don't- and have no problem with it.

Can one believe in personal revelation and the principles of Alma 32 while believing there was no Alma or Moroni? I have no problem with that conceptually at all. What those characters teach is inspired by the Lord- regardless of which human being originally wrote them. THAT is what matters- Is it inspired? Do I have a testimony of it?

That is all that matters.

[mfbukowski]

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.

The "Placebo Effect" has always fascinated me and to me it is a proof of faith healing. It is called an "unknown psychological effect" implying that it is not "real"

Yet what IS a testimony if not an "unknown psychological effect"?

People are healed by these "unknown psychological effects" all the time. All you have to do is replace that phrase with "faith" and healing by faith becomes a proven medical phenomenon.

We know the answers, but we often are deluded by the way we ask the questions.

For me, the very existence of the placebo effect actually proves faith healing.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Each time you say "as" here you are really saying "as if". This helps a lot to define the problem more clearly.

One can accept the BOM "as if" true without it actually having to be historical. One has "bracketed" the question of historicity and accepted it "as if" historical, even though it might not be. It simply becomes irrelevant as to whether or not it IS historical, which is unknowable in a scientifically historical sense anyway.

Even if they dig up a sign someday saying "Welcome to Zarahemla" written in Reformed Egyptian, that doesn't prove any of the spiritual content of the BOM anyway- so the distinction doesn't really matter for our salvation.

If we found the "true cross" tomorrow and if that could be somehow verified as historically accurate (not possible) it would still not prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God and atoned for your sins and mine.

The scientific facts and the religious significance we give them have nothing to do with each other.

[mfbukowski]

You are only 'not sure' that it wouldn't work for you. I'm fine with that. But I'm not sure how you can say it doesn't work for me. It IS working for me.

Given this thread is about 'a plan' for people 'struggling with their faith' then I admit that there are aspects of LDS teachings and history that I struggle to accept as being important, truth or a historical reality and I have a plan for dealing with that.

If the alternative you propose to me is that I must accept every 'sunday school answer' or leave, that that is a scenario that will not work. I currently can't and don't accept every one. At least not in the way you seem to believe them. I'm fine with you having your personal understanding of what the answers are. I'm forming mine. If you ask me to accept what I perceive to be your understanding then I think (if I understand them) that I couldn't.

For the sake of the conversation: If the beliefs you have were mandated by the church as a test of faith and a requirement for membership (which thankfully they aren't), then it probably would not work for me.

However... they are not. And it does work for me.

Well said!

[mfbukowski]

I am not questioning his spirituality at all. He has already told us he is having doubts. If his analysis of the BOM and D&C worked for him as well as he thinks it does, he shouldn't be having the kind of doubts that he says he does. I should have thought that was obvious.

What it is is baloney.

[mathonihah]

Welcome and loved your post.

Just know that here you will definitely be exposed to every anti-Mormon argument that exists, and maybe new ones. If you don't want to find new ways to doubt, this might not be the best place!

The gospel I believe in is the gospel of faith, not a gospel of doubt. If anybody prefers to believe in a gospel of doubt, be my guest; who am I to try to stop anybody from believing in a gospel of doubt. I just let it be known that that is not the kind of gospel I believe in.

[mfbukowski]

The gospel I believe in is the gospel of faith, not a gospel of doubt. If anybody prefers to believe in a gospel of doubt, be my guest; who am I to try to stop anybody from believing in a gospel of doubt. I just let it be known that that is not the kind of gospel I believe in.

I don't even know what that means. What is a "gospel of doubt"?

If it is based on faith then it is based on faith. Faith is not certainty, though it has grown to certainty for me. I am certain about the gospel but that certainty is based on an exercise in faith- just as Alma 32 says it should be. I recommend you read it.

Edited April 10, 2013 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

Each time you say "as" here you are really saying "as if". This helps a lot to define the problem more clearly.

One can accept the BOM "as if" true without it actually having to be historical. One has "bracketed" the question of historicity and accepted it "as if" historical, even though it might not be. It simply becomes irrelevant as to whether or not it IS historical, which is unknowable in a scientifically historical sense anyway.

Even if they dig up a sign someday saying "Welcome to Zarahemla" written in Reformed Egyptian, that doesn't prove any of the spiritual content of the BOM anyway- so the distinction doesn't really matter for our salvation.

If we found the "true cross" tomorrow and if that could be somehow verified as historically accurate (not possible) it would still not prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God and atoned for your sins and mine.

The scientific facts and the religious significance we give them have nothing to do with each other.

Great points!

[garza4411]

I'll respond to the OP. First, let me say that I found this forum and I appreciate the civil and diverse dialgogue between people--great persepectives and it's refreshing.

I do have some struggles with my faith. I believe the gospel, I belive in God, I believe in sacrifice of tithing....I believe in so much. But I struggle and push back when I feel like the leadership uses guilt to move me to some activity. The prime example is going to the temple more frequently. I've been a couple dozen times in 26 years since I received my endowment, but it's suggested that if it's not more like once a month a member is not doing what they should. I remember seminary and Sunday school stories about how a family in Africa saved their entire lives and and went to the temple once--and think, "If it's good enough for them, why must I go more often?"

I know the reasons are to provide salvation to more departed souls. And it's got to good for a person to experience that connection with God more often. But I dislike the notion that doing X [whatever it is] is what "I need." Regular church attendance is strongly encouraged--I have no problem with that--but it didn't do much for my two older brothers growing up because now they are inactive. I guess my issue is that I know what I believe and because I don't do something regularly doesn't mean I have any less faith. Yet that's the message I get (my perception, I know) and it causes me to struggle. Doing something out of guilt doesn't strengthen my faith.

And for what it's worth I'm independent enough that I don't often give in to the guilting I perceive--I just don't like hearing it.

OK, that's my reason. I'm not looking for any answers or ideas from the forum, and actually don't want any, I just wanted to respond to the OP.

[bcuzbcuz]

Each time you say "as" here you are really saying "as if". This helps a lot to define the problem more clearly.

One can accept the BOM "as if" true without it actually having to be historical. One has "bracketed" the question of historicity and accepted it "as if" historical, even though it might not be. It simply becomes irrelevant as to whether or not it IS historical, which is unknowable in a scientifically historical sense anyway.

Even if they dig up a sign someday saying "Welcome to Zarahemla" written in Reformed Egyptian, that doesn't prove any of the spiritual content of the BOM anyway- so the distinction doesn't really matter for our salvation.

If we found the "true cross" tomorrow and if that could be somehow verified as historically accurate (not possible) it would still not prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God and atoned for your sins and mine.

The scientific facts and the religious significance we give them have nothing to do with each other.

I often agree with the things you say. I find your comments stimulating and uplifting, even when I don't agree with them. I usually read all the posts but leave the board without adding a comment. But this evening I wish to add a twist to your closing statement. "The scientific facts and the religious significance we give them have nothing to do with each other."

I have seen a part of the "true cross". A tiny sliver of wood certified to be from the cross of Christ. Apparently these slivers, that are certified, would add up to the mass of at least three crosses. But be that as it may, you're right. The sliver is only proof of the sliver being made of wood and proves nothing about the cross nor of the religious significance the world attaches to the cross. And were we to gather in all the slivers from around the world they would prove little else than that there are a lot of charlatans peddling religious symbols to gullible believers.

But what happens when we gather in a very considerable amount of facts, information provided either by the Bible or the LDS scriptures, and each one of them comes up a blank?

In the world of scientific theory, one disharmonious fact does not destroy a theory. However, when a whole series of events or facts or even one event of major significance shows up on the horizon, the whole theory can come crashing down and a new one must be stipulated. In my lifetime I have seen major shifts in tectonic plate theory (forgive the pun), gene theory and space exploration. New theories have outpaced and replaced old ones. I'll probably see many more before I die.

Is it really so that scientific facts and religious significance have nothing to do with each other? Haven't plate tectonics, gene theory and space exploration revised church stances on a number of issues?

[mathonihah]

I'll respond to the OP. First, let me say that I found this forum and I appreciate the civil and diverse dialgogue between people--great persepectives and it's refreshing.

I do have some struggles with my faith. I believe the gospel, I belive in God, I believe in sacrifice of tithing....I believe in so much. But I struggle and push back when I feel like the leadership uses guilt to move me to some activity. The prime example is going to the temple more frequently. I've been a couple dozen times in 26 years since I received my endowment, but it's suggested that if it's not more like once a month a member is not doing what they should. I remember seminary and Sunday school stories about how a family in Africa saved their entire lives and and went to the temple once--and think, "If it's good enough for them, why must I go more often?"

I know the reasons are to provide salvation to more departed souls. And it's got to good for a person to experience that connection with God more often. But I dislike the notion that doing X [whatever it is] is what "I need." Regular church attendance is strongly encouraged--I have no problem with that--but it didn't do much for my two older brothers growing up because now they are inactive. I guess my issue is that I know what I believe and because I don't do something regularly doesn't mean I have any less faith. Yet that's the message I get (my perception, I know) and it causes me to struggle. Doing something out of guilt doesn't strengthen my faith.

And for what it's worth I'm independent enough that I don't often give in to the guilting I perceive--I just don't like hearing it.

OK, that's my reason. I'm not looking for any answers or ideas from the forum, and actually don't want any, I just wanted to respond to the OP.

I enjoy visiting the temple, and try to go as often as I can, and at times I haven't gone as often as I would like to have. But I have never been made to feel “guilty” about not doing so, and I can't recall having heard or read anything by a Church leader to have caused me to feel guilty about not having done so. Perhaps I have missed something. Can you point to a talk, a sermon, or a counsel by a Church leader or General Authority that you believe should have made me feel guilty, which I might have missed?

[mathonihah]

Is it really so that scientific facts and religious significance have nothing to do with each other?

That depends on the religion. It may be true of some religions, but not of others.

Haven't plate tectonics, gene theory and space exploration revised church stances on a number of issues?

I am not aware that they have. Do you have specific examples?

[mfbukowski]

I'll respond to the OP. First, let me say that I found this forum and I appreciate the civil and diverse dialgogue between people--great persepectives and it's refreshing.

I do have some struggles with my faith. I believe the gospel, I belive in God, I believe in sacrifice of tithing....I believe in so much. But I struggle and push back when I feel like the leadership uses guilt to move me to some activity. The prime example is going to the temple more frequently. I've been a couple dozen times in 26 years since I received my endowment, but it's suggested that if it's not more like once a month a member is not doing what they should. I remember seminary and Sunday school stories about how a family in Africa saved their entire lives and and went to the temple once--and think, "If it's good enough for them, why must I go more often?"

I know the reasons are to provide salvation to more departed souls. And it's got to good for a person to experience that connection with God more often. But I dislike the notion that doing X [whatever it is] is what "I need." Regular church attendance is strongly encouraged--I have no problem with that--but it didn't do much for my two older brothers growing up because now they are inactive. I guess my issue is that I know what I believe and because I don't do something regularly doesn't mean I have any less faith. Yet that's the message I get (my perception, I know) and it causes me to struggle. Doing something out of guilt doesn't strengthen my faith.

And for what it's worth I'm independent enough that I don't often give in to the guilting I perceive--I just don't like hearing it.

OK, that's my reason. I'm not looking for any answers or ideas from the forum, and actually don't want any, I just wanted to respond to the OP.

Too bad!

And welcome!

The reason we attend the temple is to see the many layers of symbolism found in the endowment. If you take it at face value, you haven't seen anything yet.

It would be like asking Jesus "How come all you talk about is people planting stuff, and pulling weeds, and marriage feasts and all that stuff? Why don't you teach us about God?"

It is all parables.

Edited April 10, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

In the world of scientific theory, one disharmonious fact does not destroy a theory. However, when a whole series of events or facts or even one event of major significance shows up on the horizon, the whole theory can come crashing down and a new one must be stipulated. In my lifetime I have seen major shifts in tectonic plate theory (forgive the pun), gene theory and space exploration. New theories have outpaced and replaced old ones. I'll probably see many more before I die.

Is it really so that scientific facts and religious significance have nothing to do with each other? Haven't plate tectonics, gene theory and space exploration revised church stances on a number of issues?

If they have, it is because people are beginning to understand the philosophies which stand behind what I present here.

It is not that the discoveries have revised the understandings- it's that the understandings OF what such a "discovery" actually IS have changed

Evolution is taught at BYU and no one sees a problem. Plate tectonics is taught and no one sees a problem. All the others are taught as well.

To me that reflects a maturation of thought and in increase in understanding about just those points I represent here (wish I had the smarts to have thought them up- but certainly don't)

Like it or not, the "philosophies of men" eventually become part of the very air we breathe culturally speaking and re-shape generations of the way we think. The church is now coming into the 20th century, philosophically speaking.

And most of 20th century philosophy is about the idea that most of our intellectual confusions are based in the mixed-up ways we use language, and using scientific language for example, to portray religious truths. They are different "vocabularies" and are talking about different things linguistically speaking. The very existence of this board is largely due to these kinds of confused linguistic problems. We argue about a lot of silly stuff around here:

When was murder discovered? What is goodness? What color is virtue? How do we know we exist? Why is there something rather than nothing? http://en.wikipedia....ategory_mistake

"Half of what I say is meaningless, but I say it just to reach you, Julia" - The Beatles.

Edited April 10, 2013 by mfbukowski

[PoisonWell]

It is not that the discoveries have revised the understandings- it's that the understandings OF what such a "discovery" actually IS have changed

i don't understand, could you rephrase this?

[canard78]

Canard is a very fine individual, and I have a lot of respect for him. Everyone's faith is weaker than it should be, including mine. We can all do with more faith than we have got. As the disciples said to Jesus, “Lord, Increase our faith” (Luke 17:5).

Well thank you very much

I recognise my faith also needs to be stronger. I hope that as we've gone through this thread you've been able to appreciate that different faith expressions are personal and a part of a process. I would love to one day regain a certainty of the BoM's historicity. But I am glad my salvation and ability to live the gospel today is not dependent on it.

I hope you always retain the certainty you have. But if you don't, I hope you will take strength from the impact and evidence of living the gospel. As I've said, I know what it helps me become even without knowing how the materials became. Letting go of that need to know is what has allowed me to still live it.

[canard78]

Great post- pm me if you have questions of a philosophical nature- I have solved all I have found at least to my satisfaction. Those might not work for you, but I am very happy and totally convinced both spiritually and intellectually. Your experience may vary

Thank you (and for the several other posts after). I'll bear that in mind. Many of your posts have been part of the process of helping me separate knowing history and knowing the impact of gospel principles. They are two separate things and are (surprisingly) independent of each other.

[mfbukowski]

i don't understand, could you rephrase this?

The understandings of what scientific observations about plate tectonics and evolution mean, have changed our understanding of the religious depictions- we know that believing in Adam as a religious figure has nothing to do with evolution, nor that theories of continental drift have anything to do about Biblical references to the earth being "divided", though perhaps in the past people might have seen it that way.

We know that scientific discoveries are about what can be verified and replicated in experience, whereas religious experience is about giving meaning and significance to our lives.

Science is not about significance or value- and it should not be. Science describes the Kennedy assassination, say, in terms of the physics of the bullet and what tissue was destroyed whereas religion would look at the tragedy caused and the nature of evil, and the significance of those factors.

Bullets are not "evil", and putting one into someone's brain is all about physics- but their results may result in a "tragedy". Yet if the person killed is an evil tyrant dictator who has killed millions, is THAT an "evil" thing? Is the death of Stalin a "tragedy?" That judgement has nothing to do with the "facts" of what killed him.

The two events are not replicable- one does not have the same perceived significance as the other. Religion is about perceived significance and importance of events to our lives.

Science looks at both events without any "value judgements".

The story of Adam is the story of how sin came into the world. It has nothing to do with scientific facts- its meaning is far deeper than the scientific view of the origins of species, which is actually pretty shallow when you analyze it.

Edited April 10, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Thank you (and for the several other posts after). I'll bear that in mind. Many of your posts have been part of the process of helping me separate knowing history and knowing the impact of gospel principles. They are two separate things and are (surprisingly) independent of each other.

Thanks- exactly!

That point is my main reason to post here- so that others understand it. I am glad that somebody gets it!

Edited April 10, 2013 by mfbukowski

[garza4411]

I enjoy visiting the temple, and try to go as often as I can, and at times I haven't gone as often as I would like to have. But I have never been made to feel “guilty” about not doing so, and I can't recall having heard or read anything by a Church leader to have caused me to feel guilty about not having done so. Perhaps I have missed something. Can you point to a talk, a sermon, or a counsel by a Church leader or General Authority that you believe should have made me feel guilty, which I might have missed?

Just local discussions....and again, I freely admit that I may just have selective hearing! But it's not just temple attendance, it's other things. For example, recently it's been "rescue visits." I'm perhaps not the most compassionate person, but I'm sure the inactive members know when services are and I know they've been invited to attend; I don't particularly see them as lost sheep, but rather people who don't want to be engaged or found. I've asked, "How many people have we 'rescued' over the last several years?" Nobody can cite an example. Yet I feel like if I don't participate in the efforts I'm not doing my part. I'm still working on rescuing myself and my family!

Missionary work? I'm sorry, but I feel uncomfortable sharing the gospel with co-workers and neighbors. Particularly the former, since I'm in a significant position of authority at work and it could be seen as a form of pressure. Sorry, I just don't have the vision I guess. I served as a full-time missionary and worked extremely hard during those two years....but again, if I don't participate in splits it's like I'm somehow neglecting a calling.

Did I mention I'm a counselor in the bishopric? Maybe that's the issue....I just don't feel like I'm able to actually worship on Sunday. Meetings, extending callings, sitting apart from my family, etc. I'm getting tired of feeling like it's a job and not an opportunity to focus on my own spirituality on my own terms.