Belief In Church As Taught Rather Then Belief Supported By Apologetic Rhetoric

[Johnnie Cake]

Could you believe in the church as its taught as opposed to the one that must be supported by apologetic rhetoric?

Understandably this does not apply to everyone who posts here...but I would dare say that many remain believers only due to their ability to craft a different version of Mormonism, one supported by apologetic rhetoric, than the one commonly taught in LDS chapels.

So I ask this question to those whom this situation applies. Could you remain an active believer if you had to strictly adhere to the Mormonism taught in church. The one that teaches a literal creation with an Adam and Eve as first humans, a universal flood , a historic BoM with horses, various grains etc, witnesses that saw physical angels and real plates, a translation process that actually involved golden plates, priesthood that was restored in accordance with currently taught timelines,prophets that talk with God as one man speaks to another, a near demigod Joseph Smith

Many of the difficulties in the church can be shirted using the mind tricks of LDS apologetics...but if you had to base belief only on what is taught rather than having the support of apologetic safe harbors...could you still believe and if you could, how would you keep your back burner from boiling over?

This is an are you still beating your wife question. If you can't speak with civility when you disagree you need to find another board.

[Stargazer]

Can I? Of course! I do it every day, no training wheels at all.

Thing is, I do apologetics (or what passes for apologetics) because I want to help out wobbly souls, or perhaps, maybe, steady someone who is investigating but has run into some anti- baloney.

Not sure you were asking for my chiming-in. Your question seems to be for others whose testimony hangs on apologetics.

I actually don't know anyone personally that fits in that category, in my ward. There may be more here, considering the venue.

[Glenn101]

Could you believe in the church as its taught as opposed to the one that must be supported by apologetic rhetoric?

Understandably this does not apply to everyone who posts here...but I would dare say that many remain believers only due to their ability to craft a different version of Mormonism, one supported by apologetic rhetoric, than the one commonly taught in LDS chapels.

So I ask this question to those whom this situation applies. Could you remain an active believer if you had to strictly adhere to the Mormonism taught in church. The one that teaches a literal creation with an Adam and Eve as first humans, a universal flood , a historic BoM with horses, various grains etc, witnesses that saw physical angels and real plates, a translation process that actually involved golden plates, priesthood that was restored in accordance with currently taught timelines,prophets that talk with God as one man speaks to another, a near demigod Joseph Smith

Many of the difficulties in the church can be shirted using the mind tricks of LDS apologetics...but if you had to base belief only on what is taught rather than having the support of apologetic safe harbors...could you still believe and if you could, how would you keep your back burner from boiling over?

Most normal believers do not even read this board or apologetic material. They are content with uing the spirit to gyide them to the truth.

Glenn

[Lightbearer]

Could you believe in the church as its taught as opposed to the one that must be supported by apologetic rhetoric?

Understandably this does not apply to everyone who posts here...but I would dare say that many remain believers only due to their ability to craft a different version of Mormonism, one supported by apologetic rhetoric, than the one commonly taught in LDS chapels.

So I ask this question to those whom this situation applies. Could you remain an active believer if you had to strictly adhere to the Mormonism taught in church. The one that teaches a literal creation with an Adam and Eve as first humans, a universal flood , a historic BoM with horses, various grains etc, witnesses that saw physical angels and real plates, a translation process that actually involved golden plates, priesthood that was restored in accordance with currently taught timelines,prophets that talk with God as one man speaks to another, a near demigod Joseph Smith

Many of the difficulties in the church can be shirted using the mind tricks of LDS apologetics...but if you had to base belief only on what is taught rather than having the support of apologetic safe harbors...could you still believe and how would you keep your back burner from boiling over?

YES ABSOLUTELY! This site or any other site on the web (including Anti-Mormon sites) has zero effect on my testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Because my faith is not based in the wisdom of men or apologetics and I do not give any creedence to the Anti-Mormon swill that seems to float to the top of the internet sewer. I came into contact with Anti-Mormon hogwash at a young age... I was in the 8th grade and I was attending a Baptist School so I was "innoculated" early on. But the lies that I was exposed to had no effect because I was taught well by my parents, in fact my father had an experience with Anti-Mormon literature (this was way before the internet) and he taught me to inquire of the Lord for answers. The spirit speaks the truth and lies not, and Anti-Mormon garbage is designed to drive away the spirit of the Lord by getting it's readers angry, fosters contention and raises doubts and fears. But if a person can have faith (by faith I do not mean "blind faith") I mean looking with the eye of faith instead of canonizing the words of Anti-Mormon traitors and the devil inspired propaganda who's agenda is to lead people away from the truth when claiming to give them the "complete truth."

The only way to prepare for the onslaught of fiery darts is to have the spirit of the Lord and a testimony that is strong and is based on revelation not on scholarly works. Reading the scriptures and the teachings of the modern prophets and praying with faith and most importantly living the teachings is the only way to secure a true testimony that can shield one from the faith destroying lies of Satan. He was a liar from the beginning and still continues his deceptions.

In fact I could not remain in the Church if it denied revelations, angels, prophets, a real Book of Mormon, a real gold plates, a real priesthood authority, a real flood and a real garden of Eden and a real resurrected Christ. The very nature of the Church demands it to be miraculous and things that many would term "supernatural" if it were not then it would not be the true Church.

In short I do not put my trust in the arm of flesh, or base my testimony in apologetics, I trust in the Lord and His mercy and I have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His servants. One must make the choice, or be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, as for me and my house we choose the Lord.

[Wiki Wonka]

Could you believe in the church as its taught as opposed to the one that must be supported by apologetic rhetoric?

Understandably this does not apply to everyone who posts here...but I would dare say that many remain believers only due to their ability to craft a different version of Mormonism, one supported by apologetic rhetoric, than the one commonly taught in LDS chapels.

So I ask this question to those whom this situation applies. Could you remain an active believer if you had to strictly adhere to the Mormonism taught in church. The one that teaches a literal creation with an Adam and Eve as first humans, a universal flood , a historic BoM with horses, various grains etc, witnesses that saw physical angels and real plates, a translation process that actually involved golden plates, priesthood that was restored in accordance with currently taught timelines,prophets that talk with God as one man speaks to another, a near demigod Joseph Smith

Many of the difficulties in the church can be shirted using the mind tricks of LDS apologetics...but if you had to base belief only on what is taught rather than having the support of apologetic safe harbors...could you still believe and if you could, how would you keep your back burner from boiling over?

I'll tell you what I believed before 2006, which is before I ever even heard of LDS apologetics. Keep in mind that I grew up in California, so your mileage may vary depending upon where you are:

1) a literal creation with an Adam and Eve as first humans - Yes. I believed that God used evolution as a mechanism to ultimately place man on the earth, which was formed over millions of years.

2) a universal flood - No, I never believed in a global flood anyway. I believed that there was a prophet named Noah who built an ark and saved his family and some animals.

3) a historic BoM with horses, various grains etc, - Yes

4) witnesses that saw physical angels and real plates - Yes

5) a translation process that actually involved golden plates - Yes

6) priesthood that was restored in accordance with currently taught timelines - Yes

7) prophets that talk with God as one man speaks to another - No, I never believed that the prophets sat down and had face-to-face chats with Jesus anyway.

8 ) a near demigod Joseph Smith - No. I never believed that Joseph Smith was nearly half-god, half-human, and still don't. Quite the opposite, in fact.

After my introduction to apologetics, I have adjusted my beliefs as follows:

1) a literal creation with an Adam and Eve as first humans - I now believe that Adam and Eve's "world" comprised only the Garden of Eden, and that there was no death within the garden until they fell.

2) a universal flood - No change. I still don't believe in a global flood, despite what has been taught in Church.

3) a historic BoM with horses, various grains etc, - Yes. No change.

4) witnesses that saw physical angels and real plates - Yes. No change.

5) a translation process that actually involved golden plates - I know that the stone and the hat were used, and that the plates played a role in convincing the witnesses.

6) priesthood that was restored in accordance with currently taught timelines - No change.

7) prophets that talk with God as one man speaks to another - Still no.

8 ) a near demigod Joseph Smith - I realize that Joseph Smith was very human and made mistakes, which isn't much a a surprise to me.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Wiki Wonka