"doubt Your Doubts Before You Doubt Your Faith"

[CMZ]

 

Again, I am not trying to get you to change. I am simply positing a different approach, one that isn't focused on whose [sic] right or wrong (though right and wrong may still be important), but focused on who is coming unto Christ and progressing in him.

 

Yes, that's the actual issue here. But so many people never even make it the issue and sometimes don't seem to even know that it should be the issue. Most people see it as, "There's some big organization that's threatening me with hell and damnation if I don't follow their long list of rules. Should I or should I not? Well, let's see... there was that whole Mountain Meadows thing, and then something about polygamy, and I heard Hebrew DNA hasn't been found in ancient American inhabitants, so, yeah, I guess I don't really believe it. Oh, but, that President Uchtdorf guy actually seemed kind of nice earlier today when he acknowledged the Church hasn't always been perfect. So I can give him credit for that. And I had a neighbor who was helped by the Church one time when he lost his job so I can respect that. But, you know, I don't like how the Church was racist and kept the priesthood from blacks and seem to be doing the same with women now. So, no, I really don't like them much now. But I can really respect that Steve Young has given a lot of his income to the Church. He must really believe it to do that," and they go back and forth making all these points (many of which actually are good talking points) but never shift the focus to coming unto Christ and progressing in him.

[Calm]

Scott Gordon, president of FAIRMormon, a group that defends the church, said: “I believe this is the clearest statement made in recent times that church leaders have made mistakes in the past. Coming from a member of the first presidency, the highest level of leadership in the church, makes it especially powerful."

I'll never know why this is such a big deal for FAIRMormon, given Gordon's statement. Which is why I as a lifelong active member of the LDS Church, and a few years younger than Scott Lloyd, as Scott has revealed his mission years, ..which is why I have never been a fan of FAIR. I suspect FAIR will willy-nilly post it on its site and refer to it frequently when promoting the teachings of men, mingled with scripture. And I mean all those entries relating to science contradicting with scripture: evolution, a universal flood vs a local, location of the garden of Eden, bom geography, etc. etc. It'll be interesting to see how Brother Gordon uses it.

Being behind the scenes and understanding both the conversation about his talk as well as the interview, I can assure you that you shouldn't assume the article properly conveys FairMormon's attitude or position on the quote as well as not being on point for Scott.  A reporter who knew Scott called, asked for a short comment about it and that line wasn't even his main point, IIRC.  My impression is the way it was written inflated the level of importance to those in the faith especially aware of many of the doctrinal teaching of the fallibility of leader's point.

 

If you have a particular issue, we welcome suggestions for improvement.  Feel free to point out relevant scriptures we might have missed etc.

[Palerider]

 

Yes, that's the actual issue here. But so many people never even make it the issue and sometimes don't seem to even know that it should be the issue. Most people see it as, "There's some big organization that's threatening me with hell and damnation if I don't follow their long list of rules. Should I or should I not? Well, let's see... there was that whole Mountain Meadows thing, and then something about polygamy, and I heard Hebrew DNA hasn't been found in ancient American inhabitants, so, yeah, I guess I don't really believe it. Oh, but, that President Uchtdorf guy actually seemed kind of nice earlier today when he acknowledged the Church hasn't always been perfect. So I can give him credit for that. And I had a neighbor who was helped by the Church one time when he lost his job so I can respect that. But, you know, I don't like how the Church was racist and kept the priesthood from blacks and seem to be doing the same with women now. So, no, I really don't like them much now. But I can really respect that Steve Young has given a lot of his income to the Church. He must really believe it to do that," and they go back and forth making all these points (many of which actually are good talking points) but never shift the focus to coming unto Christ and progressing in him.

 

Actually I've given some input here regarding my inner approach to the church and it generally isn't viewed very well, which is understandable considering the audience. So I approach things on issues that seem to be of interest to me and where I feel I can make pertinent comment or ask questions that make people think.

Before leaving the church I had the increasing feeling from sacrament, priesthood, and sundayschool meetings that the church curriculum was stagnating and that I wasn't being spiritually fed. Books written by the general authorities seemed to laud the "faithfulness to the church, no matter what" theme, rather than actually giving further insight to Christ and His teachings.

I had always had a testimony of Christ via the New Testament, since before my mission, but even early on I didn't have the same feelings for the BofM even though I read and prayed about it sincerely.

The same held true for the prophet Joseph Smith, but intellectualy I figured he must be a prophet since I felt so strongly about the Savior and had reached that encounter while in the Mormon church. (not necessarily the right conclusion but an understandable one.)

Enjoyed some aspects of temple worship but didn't feel like it truly brought me any closer to Christ than I already was.

Didn't really enjoy reading the BofM. It's confusing and actually raises more questions than it answers.

The New Testament brings me closer to the Lord than the BofM ever did and somehow has the "ring" of true scripture for me. D&C seems to have some interesting "principles/doctrines" but is even worse than the BofM for increasing spirituality.

After starting some research on some old questions I had regarding the church, one thing led to another until finally the "light came on" as to why I was feeling the way I did both about the quality of my church meetings and about Joseph and the BofM.

The more I read the less satisfactory church apologetics and answers were, and the more I knew why I didn't get answers to my prayers about Joseph and his book.

Do I miss the "LDS family"?

Sure, they're a great bunch in general. No better place for good clean fun and really caring people.

Do I miss the correlated curriculum? Not even a little.

Do I miss serving others in the way the church prescribes? Yes and no. I like doing good of my own volition rather than being "assigned" to "watch over" someone who may or may not want me in their home. I do enjoy working as a group to help someone in need like tending to a widow's yard.

Do I miss serving in leadership positions? Would never accept that sort of calling again in my life, not no how, not no way. Never been to so many pointless "rah rah" meetings in my life.

Really enjoying being free to read and listen to the really intelligent and deep thinkers of current and past Christian writers. I know now why LDS general authorities quote C. S. Lewis so much and have "appropriated" his thinking so many times. He's far advanced beyond most of them. They stand in his shadow.

So can you come to Christ through the LDS faith? Sure. Is an individual wrong for leaving when they can't swallow the history and doctrines that are untenable? Not at all.........

Edited October 7, 2013 by Palerider

[Hamba Tuhan]

He has a hard time acting on something that is a feeling.

 

Obviously I can't engage with your husband, and please don't feel obligated to engage on his behalf, but I find his position interesting. For example, I know of no other way to verify what may be merely a feeling than by acting on it. It's not like the acting is an irreversible commitment to something that may in the end turn out to be misleading; instead, it's a valid form of experimentation. I remember engaging with a rather vocal critic on this board some years back, and I asked him whether, if he woke up one morning and thought/felt that he had received communication from an angel during the night about a book buried near his home, he would actually go to the spot he thought he'd seen and look to see if anything was there. No, he said. Since he already knew that there's no such thing as angels, then it would be silly to go look. But how else does one really know?

 

He has a hard time deciding to have faith, because what is that really?

 

Well, the Greek word translated as 'faith' in the New Testament means both 'trust' and 'loyalty'. In its simplest terms, therefore, it's no different than the trust we have that a public bus driver knows her/his job and will perform it with care and safety. We may be wrong in the end, but the initial faith is what empowers us to get on buses.

 

[H]e said he is tired of waiting to 'know'...

 

Is this because he wants to know before he acts? My knowledge (and not just Church-related) has all come to me in the midst of acting or even after the fact.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Spammer]

As someone who accepts that your whole list is potentially correct (though not conclusively) I can tell you that attendance still has merit.

 

The Book of Mormon's ability to teach true principles and persuade people to do good is not dependent on the books historical origins but on the willingness to take the experiment of planting seed. The environment to associate with people who are trying to become better people is a great one for making progress on the path to godliness.

 

I decided to chime in on this thread because some of my family members are very excited and hopeful about Pres. Uchtdorf's talk.  For years, those family members who don't believe I was lazy or lacking in faith have been saying things like Pres. Uchtdorf said, pleading with me to hold on, 'the church is changing and getting better', 'nobody is perfect', 'the church is a good place'.  Like I said in my earlier post, it was very encouraging to hear a senior leader acknowledging this view of a minority of my family members, that people leave for many different reasons, not just because of being offended, laziness, or sin.  It was a good talk, but no matter how excited my family members are, when Pres. Uchtdorf says "Come, join with us" or “those who have separated themselves from the Church,” come, and add your talents, gifts, and energies to ours. We will all become better as a result", does that invitation apply to those like me who believe there was never an apostasy?  My family still doesn't understand this, even after years of trying to explain it to them.  That means no Restoration, no First Vision, no Book of Mormon, no modern prophets, etc. It seems the invitation is really intended for inactivies or exmos who really haven't made up their minds about the church's truth claims.  I'm very glad that a senior church leader has publicly acknowledged that there are other reasons people leave than the standard twaddle about desire to sin, being offended, or laziness.  That's a very encouraging development and it will help make it easier for me to attend with my family, especially as the sentiment (hopefully) spreads among the rank and file.  I don't know that I'll ever really get over the feeling of sticking out like a sore thumb, though, even sitting there silently like I do.  What I believe as someone who left the church to join the ancient church directly contradicts what the church stands for in terms of the Restoration claims.  There is common ground in our shared beliefs in the teachings of Jesus and on traditional morality.  That's definitely something I can hang on to to make going to an LDS ward easier.  I agree that the church provides a great environment.  But the frequent references to 'restored gospel', 'priesthood', and 'modern prophets' are still distracting.  It's hard not to be affected by such statements since deep down I'd rather have my family with me in the ancient church, and that thought enters my mind every time I'm sitting with them in sacrament meeting, every time I pass the bread tray along without taking any.  At such times, I'm often sad at how intractable it all seems.  The logical implication of my belief that there was no apostasy is that the LDS church really doesn't have a good reason to have come into existence in the first place.  That makes it hard to feel comfortable sitting there in church with my family, despite Pres. Uchtdorf's encouraging sermon. That's also why I have to gently break the news to my excited family members that Pres. Uchtdorf's talk still isn't going to help.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Spammer

[Palerider]

 

I decided to chime in on this thread because some of my family members are very excited and hopeful about Pres. Uchtdorf's talk.  For years, those family members who don't believe I was lazy or lacking in faith have been saying things like Pres. Uchtdorf said, pleading with me to hold on, 'the church is changing and getting better', 'nobody is perfect', 'the church is a good place'.  Like I said in my earlier post, it was very encouraging to hear a senior leader acknowledging this view of a minority of my family members, that people leave for many different reasons, not just because of being offended, laziness, or sin.  It was a good talk, but no matter how excited my family members are, when Pres. Uchtdorf says "Come, join with us" or “those who have separated themselves from the Church,” come, and add your talents, gifts, and energies to ours. We will all become better as a result", does that invitation apply to those like me who believe there was never an apostasy?  My family still doesn't understand this, even after years of trying to explain it to them.  That means no Restoration, no First Vision, no Book of Mormon, no modern prophets, etc. It seems the invitation is really intended for inactivies or exmos who really haven't made up their minds about the church's truth claims.  I'm very glad that a senior church leader has publicly acknowledged that there are other reasons people leave than the standard twaddle about desire to sin, being offended, or laziness.  That's a very encouraging development and it will help make it easier for me to attend with my family, especially as the sentiment (hopefully) spreads among the rank and file.  I don't know that I'll ever really get over the feeling of sticking out like a sore thumb, though, even sitting there silently like I do.  What I believe as someone who left the church to join the ancient church directly contradicts what the church stands for in terms of the Restoration claims.  There is common ground in our shared beliefs in the teachings of Jesus and on traditional morality.  That's definitely something I can hang on to to make going to an LDS ward easier.  I agree that the church provides a great environment.  But the frequent references to 'restored gospel', 'priesthood', and 'modern prophets' are still distracting.  It's hard not to be affected by such statements since deep down I'd rather have my family with me in the ancient church, and that thought enters my mind every time I'm sitting with them in sacrament meeting, every time I pass the bread tray along without taking any.  At such times, I'm often sad at how intractable it all seems.  The logical implication of my belief that there was no apostasy is that the LDS church really doesn't have a good reason to have come into existence in the first place.  That makes it hard to feel comfortable sitting there in church with my family, despite Pres. Uchtdorf's encouraging sermon. That's also why I have to gently break the news to my excited family members that Pres. Uchtdorf's talk still isn't going to help.

Exactly.

I'd be interested to hear what you consider the "ancient church". I've had some thoughts in that direction but never heard anyone here express it that way.

[Scott Lloyd]

 A reporter who knew Scott called, asked for a short comment about it and that line wasn't even his main point, IIRC.  My impression is the way it was written inflated the level of importance to those in the faith especially aware of many of the doctrinal teaching of the fallibility of leader's point.

It was my suspicion when I read the quote from Scott that this had been the case.

 

As you might imagine, I have some acquaintance with how this sort of thing goes down. All too often, the writer is so hell-bent on conveying a certain message with his/her story that he/she won't be swayed from it regardless of where the fact-finding and interviews take him or her.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

Wade I tried to nav to your blog using the link in your sig, but it 404'd. 

 

I deleted it and started a different blog, though I thought I left a page on the old blog directing the reader to the new blog. I will look into it. Thanks for letting me know.

 

[Edit: I have changed my signature to now link to my new blog]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 7, 2013 by wenglund

[Spammer]

 

Exactly.

I'd be interested to hear what you consider the "ancient church". I've had some thoughts in that direction but never heard anyone here express it that way.

 

Palerider - It's the ancient, liturgical church of the early church fathers, e.g., Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, Maximos the Confessor, John Chrysostom, Isaac the Syrian, to name just a few of them.  It was one worldwide church with five great ancient centers (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople) that all confessed the Nicene, Chalcedonian orthodox faith.  This church existed in unity (with some early splintering, just like Joseph Smith's movement) for the first thousand years until the unfortunate major split in 1054 into Western (Roman) and Eastern (everyone else) halves.  The Western half fragmented further during the Reformation, producing thousands of heterodox offshoots, but the majority core of the Roman original in the West is still with us, thriving.  I belong to the Eastern half of the ancient church, the Eastern Orthodox communion, which comprises all of the various Greek, Russian, Slavic, Syrian, Antiochian, and the other smaller middle eastern, Orthodox churches.  Egypt's Copts are part of the Eastern church, though Orthodxy and the Copts have not been in formal communion since the 5th century.  It's a long, complicated history.  The Syrian and Egyptian Christians of these churches (many of whom belong to the Roman church; they all live side by side, along with the muslims in these communities) are the ones who are currently being persecuted, having their property stolen and homes confiscated, churches and monasteries looted and burned, with many of these Christians even giving their lives for their faith, just like their ancient forebears who were persecuted by various Roman emperors in the late 1st through early 4th centuries.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Spammer

[wenglund]

 Feel free to give me your definition of "fundamental" if you like.

 

Fundamental: "Adherence to fundamentalism"

 

Fundamentalism: "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles."

 

While the Church teaches fundamentalism to members in the early stages of spiritual development ("thou shalt not commit adultery," and "choose the right"), it also teaches practical and nuanced and figurative adherence to a set of advanced principles ("But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart," and "do unto others as ye would have them do unto you.")

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[WmLaw]

 

I think my husband is in a bit similar position.  He is still attending church with me and our children but he has told me he doesn't know if he believes in God.  He has a hard time acting on something that is a feeling.  He has a hard time deciding to have faith, because what is that really?  He has talked to me about the faith-gene etc.  He grew up in the church, served a mission, we were married in the temple, but he said he is tired of waiting to 'know' and that he just doesn't feel like he'll ever be like members of the church who fully accept and are at home in the church.  He is highly introverted and very logically minded.  The Church is a very social environment and tends to be heavy on the feely-side in many settings.  I know it is not the easiest environment for him to say the least.  He believes nobody can really know unless they see God and that if God is real, He knows him and will understand him as he is because he made him.  He said he is basically a Mormon agnostic.  He is keeping the commandemnts in every way but tithing.  He stopped paying 2 years ago when he had shared his feelings with me and said it feels like giving money to an organization, not to God, and he would like to use his money towards savings and other goals.

 

I feel I live in a weird space in the church.  I believe their doctrines, I have a testimony of Christ, I attend the temple and pay my own tithing out of my tiny earnings, but I'm not in the same immoveable, undoubting, always sure sort of place I was when I was younger.  From the outside, it probably appears to everyone that we are the Morman-Norman hehe (made that up=normal LDS) type of family.  My dear husband attends with me because he doesn't want us to experience the feeling of being abnormal living here in UT.  It is such a selfless sacrifice on his part to give this service to me and my girls.  I know we are the only reason he goes.  I'm guessing we might also be the only reason he prays and stays in the room for Family Night etc.  I know he doesn't really believe it all anymore, or at least struggles to believe it. He said after telling me how he felt that he know it would be a big deal for me because he'd never vocalized it to me fully, but that it was a relief to him to not feel like he had to keep pretending anymore.  Perhaps some people in the church would jump to the conclusion that he must just be lazy or in sin to have been an active member before but now someone who doesn't accept callings or pay his tithing, but it was such a comfort to have this contradicted at the pulpit by Elder Uchdorf.  I don't fully know everything my husband wrestles with internally when it comes to faith and membership and activity in the church.  But I do know that I love him with all my heart and I told him, maybe when we were first married and I was a 'baby' in life, if he had told me then, I might have made a different choice, but not now.  I don't just love him because he had a check mark on the list of Mormon Marriage Material (lol), I love him for him, I choose him for him - doubts, weaknesses and all.  

 

So, Brian, I believe that you are brave and good in your questions and considerations, you want to have integrity and not false. I honor that. There is room for you in the church, of course there is.  You are not obligated to share your every thought with everyone.  Yes, people will make assumptions about what you believe.  But people make assumptions about everything wherever we go and I'm guessing if someone flat out asked you what you believe, you'd be comfortable sharing an honest answer.  All of us are all in different places regarding testimony to each and every principle, doctrine, and standard of the church.  We hopefully can do better at accepting everyone where they are and really live up to our claim to be Christians - those who will and do love their fellow man.  I hope you continue to feel at home in church/the culture.  I hope you find people who you can confide in and trust and feel of their love.  I'm happy to discuss this in messages further if you wanted as well.  It is nice to find this forum - to find others who have 'left the bubble' but don't fit the stereotypes of what those in the bubble said those outside the bubble are like!  hehe 

 

 

 

If I didn't know better, I'd think that you were my wife posting this...

 

Thanks for sharing.

[jkwilliams]

From what I've seen, "fundamentalist" is usually meant as an insult for those who believe that some aspects of Mormonism can be judged by historical and physical evidence.

[wenglund]

From what I've seen, "fundamentalist" is usually meant as an insult for those who believe that some aspects of Mormonism can be judged by historical and physical evidence.

 

For what it is worth, I don't mean it as an insult, but as a helpful descriptor; and I don't use it based solely on people's choice of methodologies, but more because of their strict and literal adherence to certain fundamental methodologies.

 

But, I get that some people may read that word in the worst possible light and take offense where none was intended.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

For what it is worth, I don't mean it as an insult, but as a helpful descriptor; and I don't use it based solely on people's choice of methodologies, but more because of their strict and literal adherence to certain fundamental methodologies.

 

But, I get that some people may read that word in the worst possible light and take offense where none was intended.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm well past the point where I can be insulted (my sense of insult seems to have been seared at the same time as my conscience), but it is a rather reductive and dismissive way to respond to people's concerns. I suppose it depends on whether one wants to help the struggling or dismiss them. These days, "fundamentalist" is most often used pejoratively, especially in scholarly or academic venues (Terry Eagleton likens it to calling someone "fatso"), but also in popular culture. It tends to conjure up images of snake-handlers and the Westboro Baptist folks. So again, it depends on one's purpose in deploying the word. I don't see it being used in apologetic venues as a neutral descriptor of a methodology.

[wenglund]

I'm well past the point where I can be insulted (my sense of insult seems to have been seared at the same time as my conscience),..

 

..and yet, you presumed an insult where none was intended.

 

...but it is a rather reductive and dismissive way to respond to people's concerns.

 

That, or you could be projecting the alleged reduction and dismissiveness onto the word.  For my part, it simply helps provide a conceptual framework for understanding and analyzing people's concerns and positioning things towards progress.

 

I suppose it depends on whether one wants to help the struggling or dismiss them.

 

It also helps to presume the best rather than the worst. Doing so in this case may have prevented you from jumping to the wrong conclusion.

 

These days, "fundamentalist" is most often used pejoratively, especially in scholarly or academic venues (Terry Eagleton likens it to calling someone "fatso"), but also in popular culture. It tends to conjure up images of snake-handlers and the Westboro Baptist folks. So again, it depends on one's purpose in deploying the word. I don't see it being used in apologetic venues as a neutral descriptor of a methodology.

 

I can't speak to how the word may be used in science or popular culture since I haven't sufficiently surveyed either to rightly say,

 

However, I can speak quite authoritatively for myself and what I intended by the word, and it didn't have snake-handlers or Westboro Baptist or "fatso's" in mind. Rather, I had in mind what I actually said.

 

What say we stick to what is actually voiced and meant, and leave the straw for its typical animal use.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Palerider]

 

Palerider - It's the ancient, liturgical church of the early church fathers, e.g., Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, Maximos the Confessor, John Chrysostom, Isaac the Syrian, to name just a few of them.  It was one worldwide church with five great ancient centers (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople) that all confessed the Nicene, Chalcedonian orthodox faith.  This church existed in unity (with some early splintering, just like Joseph Smith's movement) for the first thousand years until the unfortunate major split in 1054 into Western (Roman) and Eastern (everyone else) halves.  The Western half fragmented further during the Reformation, producing thousands of heterodox offshoots, but the majority core of the Roman original in the West is still with us, thriving.  I belong to the Eastern half of the ancient church, the Eastern Orthodox communion, which comprises all of the various Greek, Russian, Slavic, Syrian, Antiochian, and the other smaller middle eastern, Orthodox churches.  Egypt's Copts are part of the Eastern church, though Orthodxy and the Copts have not been in formal communion since the 5th century.  It's a long, complicated history.  The Syrian and Egyptian Christians of these churches (many of whom belong to the Roman church; they all live side by side, along with the muslims in these communities) are the ones who are currently being persecuted, having their property stolen and homes confiscated, churches and monasteries looted and burned, with many of these Christians even giving their lives for their faith, just like their ancient forebears who were persecuted by various Roman emperors in the late 1st through early 4th centuries.

Ah.

I was seeing it as more of a nebulous, un-organized number that are known only to the Father. "Hidden Israel" one might say, that will be revealed and gathered beginning with the Second Coming when all the little churches (including the Mormons) will be set aright.

[Palerider]

 

Fundamental: "Adherence to fundamentalism"

 

Fundamentalism: "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles."

 

While the Church teaches fundamentalism to members in the early stages of spiritual development ("thou shalt not commit adultery," and "choose the right"), it also teaches practical and nuanced and figurative adherence to a set of advanced principles ("But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart," and "do unto others as ye would have them do unto you.")

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

All seemingly innocent as you have described the "nuanced" approach, but any Biblical principle can be perverted and before one knows it they are being led down the slippery slope to say......plural marriage, Adam-God theory, polyandry, etc. etc.......

I'm all for "higher law" until it becomes co-opted, twisted and used a disguise for men to rationalize their highly questionable behavior while in the process of manipulating the "naive innocents" and creating ways to cover their own deviant past blunders.

 

To quote Abe Lincoln: You can fool some of the people some of the time.......

[why me]

 

I think my husband is in a bit similar position.  He is still attending church with me and our children but he has told me he doesn't know if he believes in God.  He has a hard time acting on something that is a feeling.  He has a hard time deciding to have faith, because what is that really?  He has talked to me about the faith-gene etc.  He grew up in the church, served a mission, we were married in the temple, but he said he is tired of waiting to 'know' and that he just doesn't feel like he'll ever be like members of the church who fully accept and are at home in the church.  He is highly introverted and very logically minded.  The Church is a very social environment and tends to be heavy on the feely-side in many settings.  I know it is not the easiest environment for him to say the least.  He believes nobody can really know unless they see God and that if God is real, He knows him and will understand him as he is because he made him.  He said he is basically a Mormon agnostic.  He is keeping the commandemnts in every way but tithing.  He stopped paying 2 years ago when he had shared his feelings with me and said it feels like giving money to an organization, not to God, and he would like to use his money towards savings and other goals.

 

 

 

 

Interesting to see that your husband is waiting to 'know'. But what is he waiting to know? Has he had any spiritual experiences in the church? On his mission did he feel the spirit of the holy ghost? I think that the issue is in the knowinging. But I don't think that anyone can actually know outside a very strong spiritual experience like the apostles had seeing christ after the resurrection. Even the apostles did not know that christ was the christ until that event and if that event did not happen, the apostles most likely would have went back to their routined lives.

What your husband is experiencing is rather common among religious people: a crisis of faith. The message that we get from the Western world is that there is no god and this message is quite strong. Not surprising that people are becoming agnostic or atheistic. Not easy to be a believer these days.

[Spammer]

 

Ah.

I was seeing it as more of a nebulous, un-organized number that are known only to the Father. "Hidden Israel" one might say, that will be revealed and gathered beginning with the Second Coming when all the little churches (including the Mormons) will be set aright.

 

Organized or not, any individual or group that reads their Bible to arrive at any other conclusion than one provided by and within the ancient Tradition that compiled and gave them their Bible in the first place isn't the ancient church.  Those are Protestants (or an offshoot). 

Edited October 8, 2013 by Spammer

[Scott Lloyd]

Organized or not, any individual or group that reads their Bible to arrive at any other conclusion than one provided by and within the ancient Tradition that compiled and gave them their Bible in the first place isn't the ancient church.  Those are Protestants (or an offshoot). 

The above presupposes the unBiblical notion that the Bible is the exclusive repository of divine truth and that its content trumps whatever might be revealed by God in clarification of or in addition to what is in the Bible as we have received it.

[jkwilliams]

I can't speak to how the word may be used in science or popular culture since I haven't sufficiently surveyed either to rightly say,

 

However, I can speak quite authoritatively for myself and what I intended by the word, and it didn't have snake-handlers or Westboro Baptist or "fatso's" in mind. Rather, I had in mind what I actually said.

 

What say we stick to what is actually voiced and meant, and leave the straw for its typical animal use.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I just thought you might want to know that, generally speaking, "fundamentalist" is almost always used as a pejorative these days, regardless of what you meant it to say.

If I am trying to have a reasoned and polite discussion with someone, I tend to stay away from words pregnant with negative meaning. If someone points out to me that I unintentionally used a word that is usually pejorative in nature, I thank that person for helping me to avoid possible future offense and move on.

[Spammer]

The above presupposes the unBiblical notion that the Bible is the exclusive repository of divine truth and that its content trumps whatever might be revealed by God in clarification of or in addition to what is in the Bible as we have received it.

 

Actually, the notion that the Bible is the exclusive repository is a Protestant notion.  We Orthodox believe that divine Truth is a person - the Incarnate Christ.  Holy Tradition, scripture, and the decisions of the first eight ecumenical councils together are the exclusive repository of everything we know about His self-revelation outside of directly experiencing the Divine Presence for ourselves.  Naturally, that experience must be checked against the common experience of the Saints within Tradition and the scriptures.  That's how we know whether our experience is real or a product of our own imaginings or external (demonic) influence.  By implication, the buck stops with Tradition, Scripture, and Councils; not with our own experience, which cannot trump the former. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, the notion that the Bible is the exclusive repository is a Protestant notion.  We Orthodox believe that divine Truth is a person - the Incarnate Christ.  Holy Tradition, scripture, and the decisions of the first eight ecumenical councils together are the exclusive repository of everything we know about His self-revelation outside of directly experiencing the Divine Presence for ourselves.  Naturally, that experience must be checked against the common experience of the Saints within Tradition and the scriptures.  That's how we know whether our experience is real or a product of our own imaginings or external (demonic) influence.  By implication, the buck stops with Tradition, Scripture, and Councils; not with our own experience, which cannot trump the former. 

I was not referring to mere personal experience. I was referring to revelation from God. You must accept, in concept at least, the existence of revelation from God. Otherwise, whence came the Bible?

[Spammer]

I was not referring to mere personal experience. I was referring to revelation from God. You must accept, in concept at least, the existence of revelation from God. Otherwise, whence came the Bible?

 

Ah, ok.  Yes, I do accept the existence of revelation from God.  I'm Orthodox, so naturally I believe the fullness of revelation is God's self-revelation in Christ.  Once accomplished, nothing else needed for salvation needed to be revealed.  That doesn't exclude personal revelation, aka experience of the divine presence leading to theosis.   All to be accomplished from within Holy Tradition, however, as exemplified by the saints. 

[Palerider]

 

Organized or not, any individual or group that reads their Bible to arrive at any other conclusion than one provided by and within the ancient Tradition that compiled and gave them their Bible in the first place isn't the ancient church.  Those are Protestants (or an offshoot).

 

Interesting view. I'd never thought of it from that prespective.