Some Mormons Search The Web And Find Doubt

[pmccombs1]

... or even if it is all just in my mind and gives me peace, I don't care- it is all the same to me.

I am happy and fulfilled in my beliefs and being the best person I can be. What more does anyone want?

Mfbukowski, I think I'm an evil version of you. We should have lunch sometime.

[omni]

I took my son to the Electrical museum sometime ago and the guide talked to us for 2 hours (they had maybe 4 rooms) and my goodness I couldn't wait to get outta there! different strokes for different folks I guess!

I think your first mistake was going on a tour to the Electrical Museum;)

[omni]

You will find what you are looking for....every time. If you are looking for what is ugly, you will find it. If you are looking for what is uplifting, you will find it. If you are looking for faith, you will find it. If you are looking for doubt, you will find it. You will find exactly what you are looking for in life. I wonder how often individuals in the Church actually understand the 13 Article of Faith? I cannot tell you why some people talk about a BY one way and not another, but I can tell you one thing; it does not matter a hill of cold beans that he was a polygamist in the eternal scheme of things. I can also tell you that most of you don't know jack about the history of the Old Testament or the New Testament. Guys, it is simple, no one needs to know the vast majority of things about historical activities of most, if not all, prophets. It stuns me that a Christian, any Christian, would get the slightest bit excited about anything any of the latter day prophets have done if they understood what the early prophets had done. It all depends on what we are looking for; where is our focus when we read the scriptures. If we want to spot what offends us, we will find a whole host of things. Yet, if we want to focus on the spiritual, the uplifting, we will find it and remember it. It is almost as if we are to believe that people fell out of the back of a turnip truck, innocent and ignorant as newborn lambs, and finally understood that God calls the weak as his servants and he makes them strong. When you come down off that high horse of shock and dismay I would encourage each of you to look in the mirror for a good long while and see if you can find the sinner staring back at you. Then throw that rock if you haven't broken your arm from having patted yourself on the back so hard. More than anything the internet is an echo chamber and the few become the many because they all talk and no one listens or takes time to think. It is that constant whine that we hear so often from the wannabe victims that our society seems to produce in ever greater numbers. Everyone wants to race to the front of the line of victimhood and so very few take the time to take responsibility for their lives by remembering that the life of a disciple begins and ends with humility. There is far too much mouth and for too little ears being used.

Let me guess, BKP is your favorite apostle.

[Duncan]

I think your first mistake was going on a tour to the Electrical Museum;)

seriously! "And that brings us to 1956 when the power plants installed...."

[mrmcplad]

"History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction."

http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2013/07/22/

[bubbachen]

To those who are disaffected, in the midst of a faith crisis, or who have renounced the LDS faith, do you still believe in Jesus as the Son of God? Do you try to follow Jesus in some form, or have the difficult "Church" issues also hindered your ability to believe in Christ in some form or another? Are your questions related to Church history/authenticity alone, or do you question the validity of biblical records, protestant and catholic histories, God in general? As a former evangelical, I find it quite comforting that the Jesus I know will still strive with me whether or not I proclaim or denounce the LDS faith. Maybe the issue for many LDS isn't a matter of a messy church history but more a matter of having built their foundation upon sand (not trying to sound pompous, really) instead of Christ. Just my two cents...

[bluebell]

"History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction."

http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2013/07/22/

As someone with a history degree, I can say that it seriously feels that way sometimes!

[mfbukowski]

Mfbukowski, I think I'm an evil version of you. We should have lunch sometime.

Sounds good. NARF!

[media=]

Edited July 22, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I want the truth.....

Sometimes the truth creates doubt.

That's the problem.

The law of non-contradiction is more of a suggestion.

[mfbukowski]

As someone with a history degree, I can say that it seriously feels that way sometimes!

And those are the moments of greatest clarity.

[ERayR]

Let me guess, BKP is your favorite apostle.

Let me guess he is not your favorite. That is as irrelevant as your post. You will find what you look for.

[ERayR]

To those who are disaffected, in the midst of a faith crisis, or who have renounced the LDS faith, do you still believe in Jesus as the Son of God? Do you try to follow Jesus in some form, or have the difficult "Church" issues also hindered your ability to believe in Christ in some form or another? Are your questions related to Church history/authenticity alone, or do you question the validity of biblical records, protestant and catholic histories, God in general? As a former evangelical, I find it quite comforting that the Jesus I know will still strive with me whether or not I proclaim or denounce the LDS faith. Maybe the issue for many LDS isn't a matter of a messy church history but more a matter of having built their foundation upon sand (not trying to sound pompous, really) instead of Christ. Just my two cents...

It does sound pompous and condescending. I am more convince their problem is the inability to get and heed personal revelation.

[bubbachen]

It does sound pompous and condescending. I am more convince their problem is the inability to get and heed personal revelation.

Yay! At least I don't have to worry that I will come across as a jerk, because I already do! Nonetheless, I'm interested in answers to my questions directed at the disaffected, because if LDS members are looking for answers to the secondary questions of LDS Church authenticity instead of the primary question, "Was this Yeshua Messiah walking around the Palestinian countryside The Son of God," then I wouldn't expect the ability to get or ability to heed personal revelation to come into play whatsoever. It's in effect putting the cart before the horse, in my not so humble opinion. Jesus is the foundation, not Joseph Smith or the BOM or the 12 apostles. I'm just starting the think that the reason some LDS have faith crises is because they have placed their faith in the wrong things. They have "missed the mark". Maybe their faith isn't worth keeping, and surely so if their spiritual lives are built over culture/church instead of Christ.

[cursor]

To those who are disaffected, in the midst of a faith crisis, or who have renounced the LDS faith, do you still believe in Jesus as the Son of God? Do you try to follow Jesus in some form, or have the difficult "Church" issues also hindered your ability to believe in Christ in some form or another? Are your questions related to Church history/authenticity alone, or do you question the validity of biblical records, protestant and catholic histories, God in general? As a former evangelical, I find it quite comforting that the Jesus I know will still strive with me whether or not I proclaim or denounce the LDS faith. Maybe the issue for many LDS isn't a matter of a messy church history but more a matter of having built their foundation upon sand (not trying to sound pompous, really) instead of Christ. Just my two cents...

edit to say ... t'aint worth it.

Edited July 23, 2013 by cursor

[Thinking]

Jesus is the foundation, not Joseph Smith or the BOM or the 12 apostles. I'm just starting the think that the reason some LDS have faith crises is because they have placed their faith in the wrong things. They have "missed the mark". Maybe their faith isn't worth keeping, and surely so if their spiritual lives are built over culture/church instead of Christ.

Can you pass a temple recommend interview by only proclaiming your belief in Jesus Christ?

"A testimony is a spiritual witness given to an individual by the Holy Ghost. The foundation of a Mormon’s testimony is the knowledge that Heavenly Father lives and loves us; that Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God, and that He carried out the infinite Atonement; that Joseph Smith is a prophet, which God called to restore Jesus Christ’s church to the earth; that we are led today by a living prophet; and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior’s Church restored on the earth today." Link

[canard78]

You will find what you are looking for....every time. If you are looking for what is ugly, you will find it. If you are looking for what is uplifting, you will find it. If you are looking for faith, you will find it. If you are looking for doubt, you will find it.

That sounds like a recommendation to wear blinkers.

In China there's a story about a frog down a well: 井底之蛙– Jing Di Zhi Wa

The frog likes the view from the well and is happy with his small piece of the sky. One day he realises it's a much bigger sky.

[canard78]

LITERALISM not liberalism.

Oooooooh! Was that my bad eyes or your typo?

The rest of what you said makes far more sense in that context. And in many ways I agree with you.

Sometimes the frustrations of the leaking roof outweigh the feeling that this is home.

I agree that what Mormonism is, at the very core, resonates with me. The rest is just fluff. Sometimes the fluff/leaks are annoying.

I am also willing to believe all those things, and in fact do, but if any or all of them are false, I really don't care.

Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief.

Look, I am a philosophy guy. Before i found this church all I had was philosophy. Who cares what Bertrand Russel did in his private life. Who cares if he plagerized everything he wrote and was a murdering rapist who killed 19 people (all of this is untrue incidentally- it is a what if) WHAT COUNTS IS HOW GOOD HIS PHILOSOPHY IS.

For me, Mormon philosophy stands alone, and as I have said before, if I had to invent a church which would work for me, it would be Mormon Doctrine without the plates, visions, angels, strange history etc.

I would believe that God is a glorified Man and that we are gods in embryo and we can grow up to be like our Father. I would believe that one should worship the Family and that community involvement- in one's faith community especially is essential to "filling the measure of one's creation and having joy therein".

I would invent a temple in which these things were taught to a select few, in symbolic fashion, possibly using masonic-like symbols. We need ritual in our lives, especially in our spiritual lives. I would teach that we need to be guided by our inner voice, and do always what that voice tells us, and NEVER do otherwise.

Sound familiar? THAT would be my church.

And it is. I found it and came home, and reside here peacefully and happily, thank you very much, and will never leave because I know these principles are true.

You think I care that it needs a new roof every once in a while? That the hundreds of year old foundation has a few chinks?

Heck no! Get out the mortar and trowel and fix the chinks, or jack the house up and replace the foundation- who cares? It's my home!

You don't demolish your house and go homeless because it has termites and needs a paint job.

That's what I meant.

[Johnnie Cake]

This has always been the case. The wealthy and the well educated rarely join the church (though of course there are exceptions). Most of the wealthy in the church reached that state after joining or are descendants of those who joined.

Jesus could not seem to get the wealthy and educated interested. Why should we expect to do better? The only educated member in the last dispensation mentioned in scripture was Paul and God does not let us schedule our missionary work around angelic visitation. Nicodemus was interested but was not willing to openly support Jesus. Later the educated joined in droves and we got the apostasy. We did not need wealth then and we really do not need it now.

We get the scriptural warning that the learned often imagine this makes them wise.

Nehor,

You've completely missed my point...the path the church is trending down, the demographic the church is attracting, the poor and uneducated...is an unsustainable path that can only lead the church to financial ruin as limited resources remain depleted by an ever demanding church population of takers rather than givers.

Unless you're suggesting that the church can survive as its high income, educated former believing members become non-tithing paying former members and are replaced with firm believing but low income third world tithing paying members. This is the unsustainable path the church is on. Expanding demand on shrinking income

Edited July 23, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[canard78]

To those who are disaffected, in the midst of a faith crisis, or who have renounced the LDS faith, do you still believe in Jesus as the Son of God? Do you try to follow Jesus in some form,

Yes. Certainly.

or have the difficult "Church" issues also hindered your ability to believe in Christ in some form or another? Are your questions related to Church history/authenticity alone, or do you question the validity of biblical records, protestant and catholic histories, God in general?

I agree that most of religious history whether Mormon or not is fraught with historical issues.

I don't consider biblical history to be more accurate nor the prophet less fallible. I take it all as a useful resources. Guidebooks on the path. Not rule books that are followed without question.

As a former evangelical, I find it quite comforting that the Jesus I know will still strive with me whether or not I proclaim or denounce the LDS faith. Maybe the issue for many LDS isn't a matter of a messy church history but more a matter of having built their foundation upon sand (not trying to sound pompous, really) instead of Christ. Just my two cents...

I agree. Even a foundation built on the Book of Mormon is sand. It is, effectively, a man-made product (even when we consider the source of Joseph's inspiration to be divine).

Christ is the foundation or corner-stone for whatever building goes up later. We believe the first one fell within about 100-200 years. If we remove the keystone (the Book of Mormon and the process of it 'coming forth') then in all likelihood the whole building falls. Maybe only on a personal level. The Book of Mormon remains the main thing holding my 'building' together. If it finally crumbles too, then the building will likely come down too.

But new buildings can be built on old, strong foundations. Anyone built on a foundation of the lamb is, in my view, a member of the church of the lamb (even those who may call the lamb by a different name), even if they have a different book at the keystone.

[canard78]

Nehor,

You've completely missed my point...the path the church is trending down, the demographic the church is attracting, the poor and uneducated...is an unsustainable path that can only lead the church to financial ruin as limited resources remain depleted by an ever demanding church population of takers rather than givers

What evidence is there that the church's activity in Asia/LATAM is a net loss? Surely the cost of buildings and maintenance would be lower so still sustainable. The welfare budget is not a blank cheque. As a branch president in UK I was not able to meet every welfare need I wanted to. I wasn't given a fixed budget, but the stake president still wanted accountability and moderation where possible.

This is all probably a long way off topic though.

[Johnnie Cake]

What evidence is there that the church's activity in Asia/LATAM is a net loss? Surely the cost of buildings and maintenance would be lower so still sustainable. The welfare budget is not a blank cheque. As a branch president in UK I was not able to meet every welfare need I wanted to. I wasn't given a fixed budget, but the stake president still wanted accountability and moderation where possible.

This is all probably a long way off topic though.

It's a trend...look where the church is growing...third world low income, low education, low Internet access countries. Now look where it is struggling to find converts...industrialized highly educated, high Internet access and higher income countries...the trend does not bode well for the financial welfare of the church

[The Nehor]

Nehor,

You've completely missed my point...the path the church is trending down, the demographic the church is attracting, the poor and uneducated...is an unsustainable path that can only lead the church to financial ruin as limited resources remain depleted by an ever demanding church population of takers rather than givers.

Unless you're suggesting that the church can survive as its high income, educated former believing members become non-tithing paying former members and are replaced with firm believing but low income third world tithing paying members. This is the unsustainable path the church is on. Expanding demand on shrinking income

I understood. I just reject the conclusion. We have survived on far less in the past when virtually every member was poor and we can do so again.

I also find your split between takers and givers simplistic, judgemental, and disgusting. It seems to be straight out of Ayn Rand's deluded assessment of mankind. Is this really about is getting on fine without your type? If so we do not need you. We want you (and everyone else) but we do not need you.

[canard78]

It's a trend...look where the church is growing...third world low income, low education, low Internet access countries. Now look where it is struggling to find converts...industrialized highly educated, high Internet access and higher income countries...the trend does not bode well for the financial welfare of the church

Sorry Johnnie, I've tried to back you up at times. But this is nonsense. Even if the church and its objectives were a for-profit corporation (which I would refute), your view would still be nonsense.

Where are all the multi-national brands investing? Where are they shifting most of their marketing budget? It's certainly not USA and Europe. Asia and LATAM are where every corporation wants a consumer.

Anyway, I'll not comment further. I know you can't start new threads, so PM me if you want to discuss this further and I'll open one with your statements in OP.

In the interests of staying on topic in this thread I'll not comment any further.

[Nevo]

Sorry Johnnie, I've tried to back you up at times. But this is nonsense. Even if the church and its objectives were a for-profit corporation (which I would refute), your view would still be nonsense.

I disagree. I think Johnnie is correct that the shift in Church growth to the global south does not bode well for the Church's long-term financial outlook. See, for example, Matt Bowman's bleak assessment in Slate, published a few months back: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2012/10/mormon_church_money_why_the_lds_church_needs_to_save_for_the_future_.single.html

[Analytics]

I'm rather astonished that he claims that he didn't know that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. Last time I checked, the D&C included D&C 132, and for decades, its been easy to go into any LDS bookstore, or any anti-LDS bookstore, even if you don't have the energy to peek at the Journal of Mormon History, or Signature Books, BYU Studies, or Joseph F. Smith's Pamphlet on The Origins of Plural Marriage, or even the Work and the Glory. I showed the article to my wife, and she exclaimed, "I can't remember when I didn't know this stuff!"

Three points. First, if somebody reads D&C 132, they know Joseph Smith was commanded to practice polygamy. They don't know whether or not he eventually got around to obeying the commandment.

Second, the article quotes Richard Bushman as saying, “you would be amazed at the number of Mormons who don’t think Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. It just wasn’t talked about. It was never mentioned in church periodicals. That was policy.”

If the Church's policy is not to talk about it, how surprised should you be that people don't know it?

Third, there is a difference between knowing what D&C 132 says, and knowing how Joseph Smith went about practicing polygamy. D&C 132 lays out specific and strict policy for how polygamy must be practiced in order to be allegedly approved by God (e.g. first wife approves, polygamous wives virgins, etc.). How many of Joseph Smith's marriages meet those criteria? Putting together the pieces is disturbing.