The Dehlin Affair–The Current Uncivil War

[Calm]

.

When someone determines it is true do you ask the same question?

Me? Yes, I do.

[ALarson]

Would that not depend on how they determined the faith is false?

I feel that it does not depend on HOW they determined the faith is false, but what they do after their beliefs have changed. If they go out and start trying to speak out at church or causing problems for the church, then the leaders have a right to act and at least call that person in and ask them to stop. However, I know of many people who no longer believe the church is the one true church who still attend, hold callings and enjoy participating. They have every right to do this and have not been called on the carpet by their leaders.

I really believe it's a persons actions and who they try to influence, not so much where their beliefs are at any given moment.

Edited March 3, 2013 by ALarson

[alter idem]

Lou is criticized for attacking Palmer personally, where it would have been enough to just address the content of his book.

He gave an example of where he had knowledge that Grant Palmer lied. Is he supposed to remain silent on this because to bring it up would be considered a personal attack? He also mentioned that this incident regarding seeing a seer stone in the first Presidency's Vault WAS mentioned in the book, therefore, he was addressing the content of Palmer's book.

Sometimes, it seems like we've gotten to the point where any criticism is perceived as an attack--in this instance, truth is perceived as an attack. Is it the pervasive need to always be 'politically correct' rearing its ugly head? If so, I doubt the long-standing pracitice of reviewing other people's works will have much of a future--who wants to read something that's been censored of anything deemed critical.

[Tacenda]

He gave an example of where he had knowledge that Grant Palmer lied. Is he supposed to remain silent on this because to bring it up would be considered a personal attack? He also mentioned that this incident regarding seeing a seer stone in the first Presidency's Vault WAS mentioned in the book, therefore, he was addressing the content of Palmer's book.

Sometimes, it seems like we've gotten to the point where any criticism is perceived as an attack--in this instance, truth is perceived as an attack. Is it the pervasive need to always be 'politically correct' rearing its ugly head? If so, I doubt the long-standing pracitice of reviewing other people's works will have much of a future--who wants to read something that's been censored of anything deemed critical.

I was taken aback when I heard about Palmer lying. Yes, I didn't think he seemed the type to lie. I guess I've been leaning too far in the direction of critics having substancial legs to stand on.

[Calm]

Not all critics are created equal.

[rodheadlee]

.

When someone determines it is true do you ask the same question?

When someone determines it is true the answer should always be the same, The Holy Spirit bears the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ/Church/ Scriptures. It's the only way to know the truth of these things.

[why me]

.

When someone determines it is true do you ask the same question?

I would. I would like to know if they experienced a spiritual witness and if so, what was it like.

[why me]

I was taken aback when I heard about Palmer lying. Yes, I didn't think he seemed the type to lie. I guess I've been leaning too far in the direction of critics having substancial legs to stand on.

I have always tried to make the point that no one should believe a book at face value. Nor a human being either. Many people have made the mistake of believing in Palmer's or Quinn's books. They are after all just books of interpretations.

[Teancum]

I feel that it does not depend on HOW they determined the faith is false, but what they do after their beliefs have changed. If they go out and start trying to speak out at church or causing problems for the church, then the leaders have a right to act and at least call that person in and ask them to stop. However, I know of many people who no longer believe the church is the one true church who still attend, hold callings and enjoy participating. They have every right to do this and have not been called on the carpet by their leaders.

I really believe it's a persons actions and who they try to influence, not so much where their beliefs are at any given moment.

I would agree that if one decided the Church is false, or even not what they once believed but they want to participate they should not speak out at church and attempt to cause problems. But if someone does not beleive and resigns they can speak out about it wherever they wish can they not?

[Teancum]

Me? Yes, I do.

Great. If you ask how someone determined the Church is true I have no problem you asking someone how they came to the conclusion the Church is not true and by what means.

[Teancum]

I would. I would like to know if they experienced a spiritual witness and if so, what was it like.

Is it fair for a person to reinterpret a personal spiritual experience that they previously had in light of new found knowledge?

[why me]

Is it fair for a person to reinterpret a personal spiritual experience that they previously had in light of new found knowledge?

I think that 'rationalize' is a better word than reinterpret. However, isn't it interesting that not one of the 11 witnesses felt a need to reinterpret their spiritual experience with the book of mormon. What it says in d & c 20 verses 10-11 still stands.

Edited March 3, 2013 by why me

[Glenn101]

.

When someone determines it is true do you ask the same question?

I do. I am concerned anytime someone joins the church without a spiritual witness that it is true.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

Is it fair for a person to reinterpret a personal spiritual experience that they previously had in light of new found knowledge?

Can you give us a "for instance". Like maybe finding out about Joseph's polygamy? Or are you thinking of something else?

Thanks,

Glenn

[Teancum]

I think that 'rationalize' is a better word than reinterpret. However, isn't it interesting that not one of the 11 witnesses felt a need to reinterpret their spiritual experience with the book of mormon. What it says in d & c 20 verses 10-11 still stands.

I cannot speak for anyone else. People see and say and think all sorts of things. I cannot say yea or nay to your spiritual experiences. But I can for mine. Personally I do not think it unreasonable for a Mormon, who is brought up hearing a constant about a testimony, witness of the truth, etc to have such an experience. But if that experience is based on limited knowledge and the person later gains more knowledge they may feel they gained a testimony of partial, distorted or even false data. Thus a reinterpretation of the prior experience is not unreasonable.

[Teancum]

Can you give us a "for instance". Like maybe finding out about Joseph's polygamy? Or are you thinking of something else?

Thanks,

Glenn

Can be a variety of issues...varying FV accounts, Priesthood restoration issues, changes in the D&C, changing nature of God from early Momrnism and the Lectures on Faith to todays doctrine, polygamy, polyandry, Adam God, Blood atonement, abandonment of polygamy and post manifesto continuation of it, blacks and priesthood, etc.

[Libs]

It is almost always more than one issue. Often the accumulation is really what finally creates the breakdown.

[Tacenda]

Teancum & Libs, I know what you mean. It was JS's Polygamy, Masonry, MMM, and so on. It was the accumulation and the not knowing of it until I was in the church for over 40 yrs. But it is my heritage, and just like a convert that has seen and compared with other religions and feel it's the best out there, it's like home to me. So a comparable scenerio.

[Louis Midgley]

Would that not depend on how they determined the faith is false?

And why they fashioned their reasons, and whether these reasons are sound.

[Louis Midgley]

Is it fair for a person to reinterpret a personal spiritual experience that they previously had in light of new found knowledge?

We all do that. We call that building line upon line. But explaining away the efforts of the Holy Spirit to capture our attention and direct our way is quite another thing.

[ERayR]

I would agree that if one decided the Church is false, or even not what they once believed but they want to participate they should not speak out at church and attempt to cause problems. But if someone does not beleive and resigns they can speak out about it wherever they wish can they not?

Not without an expectation of being rebutted.

[volgadon]

I sort of agree. I would not mind being set right by a critique of what I have published. If one is going to play the academic game. which is the game I found myself playing as well as I possibly can, given my obviously limited intellectual fire-power, then one must expect being shown to be wrong. And one should even invite it. Why not?

I've started one.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60173-midgley-novak-remembrance-and-modernity/

Edited March 4, 2013 by volgadon

[Glenn101]

Can you give us a "for instance". Like maybe finding out about Joseph's polygamy? Or are you thinking of something else?

Thanks,

Glenn

Can be a variety of issues...varying FV accounts, Priesthood restoration issues, changes in the D&C, changing nature of God from early Momrnism and the Lectures on Faith to todays doctrine, polygamy, polyandry, Adam God, Blood atonement, abandonment of polygamy and post manifesto continuation of it, blacks and priesthood, etc.

Okay, let's take a hypothetical person (who actually is not hypothetical) and say that he/she really wants to know if the restored gospel is true. He/he prays about it fervently, "with real intent", and gets a remarkable, unforgettable, spiritual experience that affirms the truth of the Restored Gospel, that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God, and that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God.

Upon receiving that revelation, the person joins the Church and begins a faithful church member. Then comes the information about any and all of the things that you have mentioned. Does any of those things trump the revelation via the Holy Ghost that the church is true? What actual knowledge have you received that voids that revelation? not to me. I cannot "interpret" the answer I have received differently due to any knew knowledge I have received. I know that the only person from whom we can know the full truth is the Lord, via the conduit of the Holy Ghost. That is the only way that we can ascertain the truthfulness of the gospel.

If you rely upon your own understanding, unaided by any spiritual resource, your understanding will only take you as far as your own intellect can carry you. Your intellect will not carry you to the celestial Kingdom.

When it comes to the polygamy and so called polyandry question, I have received a witness that Joseph was (and is) a prophet of God. So, if he was wrong, lied about the polygamy thing, then God will handle that, just as he handled other of his prophets who erred.

The varying first vision accounts are not even a blip on my radar. I have read the varying accounts that Paul gave of his conversion in the New Testament. And I still have received that spiritual confirmation that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God.

The same goes for each and every stumbling block you have mentioned. I have received a spiritual confirmation that the Gospelis true. I never received a spiritual confirmation that the "Adam-God Doctrine" was ever a doctrine. I have read as much as I can on the affair and I think I understand what Brigham was saying, but Brigham himself said that it was not binding on the church. So I let it rest.

Once one really receives that spiritual conviction, it cannot be "reinterpreted". It can be denied, maybe or rationalized away, but I cannot do that for myself. I know what I experienced. And I cannot describe it any more than I can describe the color orange to someone who has never seen color.

I don not know what level of spiritual experience that you or any of the others posting here that have doubts have gone through. I can only know what I have gone through and I cannot, and do not even want to, deny it, or forget it. I know that at some point of time in the future, all will be revealed. I am not ashamed of my testimony and do not worry about anything or anyone that mocks the source of my knowledge.

Glenn

[Teancum]

Not without an expectation of being rebutted.

Sure rebutt anyone you want to rebutt. Free speech is a wonderful thing. I just think many,most get beyond the influence of many rebuttals. Hard to put the genie back in the bottle sometimes.

[Teancum]

Okay, let's take a hypothetical person (who actually is not hypothetical) and say that he/she really wants to know if the restored gospel is true. He/he prays about it fervently, "with real intent", and gets a remarkable, unforgettable, spiritual experience that affirms the truth of the Restored Gospel, that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God, and that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God.

Upon receiving that revelation, the person joins the Church and begins a faithful church member. Then comes the information about any and all of the things that you have mentioned. Does any of those things trump the revelation via the Holy Ghost that the church is true? What actual knowledge have you received that voids that revelation? not to me. I cannot "interpret" the answer I have received differently due to any knew knowledge I have received. I know that the only person from whom we can know the full truth is the Lord, via the conduit of the Holy Ghost. That is the only way that we can ascertain the truthfulness of the gospel.

If you rely upon your own understanding, unaided by any spiritual resource, your understanding will only take you as far as your own intellect can carry you. Your intellect will not carry you to the celestial Kingdom.

When it comes to the polygamy and so called polyandry question, I have received a witness that Joseph was (and is) a prophet of God. So, if he was wrong, lied about the polygamy thing, then God will handle that, just as he handled other of his prophets who erred.

The varying first vision accounts are not even a blip on my radar. I have read the varying accounts that Paul gave of his conversion in the New Testament. And I still have received that spiritual confirmation that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God.

The same goes for each and every stumbling block you have mentioned. I have received a spiritual confirmation that the Gospelis true. I never received a spiritual confirmation that the "Adam-God Doctrine" was ever a doctrine. I have read as much as I can on the affair and I think I understand what Brigham was saying, but Brigham himself said that it was not binding on the church. So I let it rest.

Once one really receives that spiritual conviction, it cannot be "reinterpreted". It can be denied, maybe or rationalized away, but I cannot do that for myself. I know what I experienced. And I cannot describe it any more than I can describe the color orange to someone who has never seen color.

I don not know what level of spiritual experience that you or any of the others posting here that have doubts have gone through. I can only know what I have gone through and I cannot, and do not even want to, deny it, or forget it. I know that at some point of time in the future, all will be revealed. I am not ashamed of my testimony and do not worry about anything or anyone that mocks the source of my knowledge.

Glenn

I appreciate you efforts Glenn but almost nothing you write above resonates with me except perhaps this. While much of what I once thought was true, thought the Holy Ghost had born witness to me about, all what you say above so much of that is gone. However, I had at least three very powerul spiritual experiences in my life that resonate deeply with me. These keep me grounded and and remaining a Latter-day Saint even though I interpret how I view the Church, God really all religion in a very much different way. I am still happy to remain LDS unless God tells me differently. I ask, and he has not so directed.