Truth Vs Faith Which Are We Bound To Uphold When In Conflict

[canard78]

Brigham Young said that there were keys yet to be restored including but not limited to the keys of the resurrection.

 

Brother Brigham said a lot of things (cough, cough)

[DBMormon]

Brother Brigham said a lot of things (cough, cough)

If Brigham said it, and no one has disputed it or said otherwise, I am left with no other point of view other then a prophet telling me he doesn't have all the keys.  While you are right in that we throw several things out as opinion that BY taught, this seems a little more official since he should know what keys he has and hasn't.

[canard78]

Of course it is not OK to let people believe false things in lieu of true things when you have the opportunity to let them believe the truth.

 

MFBukowski brought a video to my attention recently https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjhVk-0Vhmk (in the thread called "47 minutes that will change your life")

 

In it, Rorty says:

 

Abandon the idea that there is one way the world really is and Science & Religion are competing to tell us what way that really is.

 

There is no such thing as the search for truth if that search is distinct from the search for greater human happiness.

 

We call a belief true when no competing truth serves the same purpose equally well.

 

 

God has clearly been happy with people believing things that are not strictly true but work, "for effect."

 

If something is taught or said in weakness or in imperfection but still leads and persuades people to do good, then it doesn't matter that the thing said was not perfectly true.

 

Nephi taught this message when he taught that “…the words which I have written in weakness will be made strong unto them; for it persuadeth them to do good.”

(2 Nephi 33:4) 

 

And in D&C 19 the Lord states:

 6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

 7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

 

 

If it persuadeth men to do good, altogether for his name's glory then it probably doesn't matter if it is written/understood in weakness - especially if it ends up being more express.

 

Maybe, Bill Reel, this is the answer to your question. If people's weakness of speaking or understanding leads to misunderstandings that still persuade them to do good, does it matter? Clearly if their misconceptions lead them to do evil then it's in need of correction, but does it matter if it's the opposite?

[canard78]

DB, just read this and thought it pertinent:

 

‘Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal;’ ...don’t be limited in your views with regard to your neighbor’s virtue, but beware of self-righteousness, and be limited in the estimate of your own virtues, and not think yourselves more righteous than others; you must enlarge your souls towards each other, if you would do like Jesus...

 

Joseph Smith

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-37?lang=eng

[DBMormon]

DB, just read this and thought it pertinent:

 

 

Joseph Smith

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-37?lang=eng

 

 

If your assuming I think myself more righteous then others, you would be mistaken.  I would rather word it less righteous then others.  I have serious flaws for which I am pressing forward with steadfastness to correct but with me anyway it truly shall be an eternal work of Glory as I am millions of years away from being Christlike.

 

Now that is a completely separate issue from whether I think I am right about a point of view or a take on a certain policy.  I can be a terrible sinner and still be right on some discussion.

 

So maybe to prevent a misunderstanding, you should clarify why it is pertinent?

Edited October 30, 2013 by DBMormon

[thesometimesaint]

We will have to agreeably disagree.  When we look back I don't believe we will see a higher number of LDS (in this life) having achieved exaltation versus people who were not LDS in this life.  I just don't see it.  God's plan is to bring to pass the immortality AND Eternal life of his Children and I don't see him disadvantaging those who did not join the Church either because they didn't have the chance, didn't see it as having more value then their current belief system, or were swayed by critical comments.  And for those who simply did not want to change.... their are plenty of them on our rolls as well.

 

Christ guaranteed that all would recieve immortality. Eternal Life is Gods Life. Not everyone has/will choose that. God will not one deny anyone all the blessings of God they are entitled to. We do that ourselves. Does "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian" sound familiar?

[wenglund]

As I understand things, within the restored gospel both "truth" and faith are means to the end of becoming like Christ, and not ends in themselves. As such, when "truth" and faith are presumed to be in conflict, then logically the one that should be upheld is the means that will better serve in achieving the end in becoming like Christ.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[canard78]

If your assuming I think myself more righteous then others, you would be mistaken.  I would rather word it less righteous then others.  I have serious flaws for which I am pressing forward with steadfastness to correct but with me anyway it truly shall be an eternal work of Glory as I am millions of years away from being Christlike.

 

Now that is a completely separate issue from whether I think I am right about a point of view or a take on a certain policy.  I can be a terrible sinner and still be right on some discussion.

 

So maybe to prevent a misunderstanding, you should clarify why it is pertinent?

 

Don't worry - I'm not making any accusation. I was really applying it to myself, not pointing it in your direction. I know that sometimes my awareness of the nuances within the gospel and the slightly different perspectives that can be reached depending on reading one talk or another leads me to feel a little superior to others who haven't studied so widely. 

 

In wanting to share the more expansive and inclusive message of Mormonism with my fellow-mormons I know I need to work hard to make sure I'm not seeing myself as having more intellectual or doctrinal virtue (virtue can mean any good and admirable quality... not just righteousness/obedience).

 

So yes, I do want to re-educate some of my fellow members but I have to take care in my motives and attitudes while doing so.

 

Joseph also said:

 

“When persons manifest the least kindness and love to me, O what power it has over my mind, while the opposite course has a tendency to harrow up all the harsh feelings and depress the human mind.” 

 

 

I'm aware that, like you, I can sometimes see some of the cultural teachings that float around as "nonsense." I know I need to be aware that calling someone else's beliefs nonsense is not a very kind approach. Kindness has a great power over the human mind and that's what I'm suggesting should be the priority in any attempt to correct a misconception.

[3DOP]

I appreciate the liberality of allowing that people are "called of God" in other churches. But what can this mean in a setting where there is only one valid priesthood? Would it not mean that God calls some people to give and receive invalid baptisms? If that is what it means to be "called of God" in other churches, it seems like a very distant and less meaningful calling in comparison to those who are what I would prefer to designate as "truly called of God." I am Catholic, and believe in one valid priesthood. I am sure there are many numbers of Catholics who would similarly prefer by reason of a generous heart, to downplay the implications of a valid priesthood. I cannot think of a way that Mormons or Catholics can meaningfully represent themselves as believing that the ministers or people of other churches are "called of God". Such a statement seems incompatible with the fact that unless they ignore their "calling", they will never be baptized in this life (if LDS have the priesthood), or receive any of the other sacraments and ordinances which we believe God has exclusively given to our respective churches. 

 

Rory 

Edited October 30, 2013 by 3DOP

[canard78]

I appreciate the liberality of allowing that people are "called of God" in other churches. But what can this mean in a setting where there is only one valid priesthood? Would it not mean that God calls some people to give and receive invalid baptisms? If that is what it means to be "called of God" in other churches, it seems like a very distant and less meaningful calling in comparison to those who are what I would prefer to designate as "truly called of God." I am Catholic, and believe in one valid priesthood. I am sure there are many numbers of Catholics who would similarly prefer by reason of a generous heart, to downplay the implications of a valid priesthood. I cannot think of a way that Mormons or Catholics can meaningfully represent themselves as believing that the ministers or people of other churches are "called of God". Such a statement seems incompatible with the fact that unless they ignore their "calling", they will never be baptized in this life (if LDS have the priesthood), or receive any of the other sacraments and ordinances which we believe God has exclusively given to our respective churches. 

 

Rory 

 

These are some leaders' perspective on the role of those who don't join our faith:

 

"Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of His Church to help it along... They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else. … Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the truth; while others remain unconverted … the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in His own due time. God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people."

 

Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve

Quoted by President Ezra Taft Benson in 1972:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/07/civic-standards-for-the-faithful-saints?lang=eng

And more recently here on the church interfaith page:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interfaith

 

“While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men; and it is one of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth yet he is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. God raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend. … All the great teachers are servants of God; among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them.”

 

B.H. Roberts

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/08/a-latter-day-saint-perspective-on-muhammad?lang=eng

 

"...we claim that God’s inspiration is not limited to the Latter-day Saints."

 

James E. Faust, “Communion with the Holy Spirit,” Ensign, Mar 2002, 2–7

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=59&sourceId=e1e08c6a47e0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

 

“[God] is using not only his covenant people, but other peoples as well, to consummate a work, stupendous, magnificent, and altogether too arduous for this little handful of Saints to accomplish by and of themselves. …All down the ages men bearing the authority of the Holy Priesthood—patriarchs, prophets, apostles and others, have officiated in the name of the Lord, doing the things that he required of them; and outside the pale of their activities other good and great men, not bearing the Priesthood, but possessing profundity of thought, great wisdom, and a desire to uplift their fellows, have been sent by the Almighty into many nations, to give them, not the fulness of the Gospel, but that portion of truth that they were able to receive and wisely use.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1921, pp. 32–33.)

 

 

Elder Orson F. Whitney, (In Conference Report, Apr. 1921, pp. 32–33.)

Quoted by Howard W. Hunter http://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1991/10/the-gospel-a-global-faith?lang=eng

[3DOP]

These are some leaders' perspective on the role of those who don't join our faith:

 

Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve

Quoted by President Ezra Taft Benson in 1972:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/07/civic-standards-for-the-faithful-saints?lang=eng

And more recently here on the church interfaith page:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interfaith

 

B.H. Roberts

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/08/a-latter-day-saint-perspective-on-muhammad?lang=eng

 

James E. Faust, “Communion with the Holy Spirit,” Ensign, Mar 2002, 2–7

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=59&sourceId=e1e08c6a47e0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

 

Elder Orson F. Whitney, (In Conference Report, Apr. 1921, pp. 32–33.)

Quoted by Howard W. Hunter http://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1991/10/the-gospel-a-global-faith?lang=eng

 

canard,

 

Thanks for that perspective. Earlier I said,  "I cannot think of a way that Mormons or Catholics can meaningfully represent themselves as believing that the ministers or people of other churches are 'called of God'." I am far from adopting the position, but I concede that what you have quoted would represent ideas about "God's calling" that are at least "meaningful" in a meaningful sense. Heh. 

Edited October 30, 2013 by 3DOP

[canard78]

canard,

 

Thanks for that perspective. Earlier I said,  "I cannot think of a way that Mormons or Catholics can meaningfully represent themselves as believing that the ministers or people of other churches are 'called of God'." I am far from adopting the position, but I concede that what you have quoted would represent ideas about "God's calling" that are at least "meaningful" in a meaningful sense. Heh. 

 

I lived in Asia for a while. I asked this kind of question and appreciated the teachings of the church. "...the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true." Alma 29:8

 

Based on this I believe Mormonism should be renamed Univeralism. It teaches that every one of His children is part of the process and the plan. Confucius was a prophet as much as Joseph Smith or Buddha was. They have filled different roles within the great human family but the church certainly teaches they are called of God.

 

I should add that some members are a little surprised by these quotes when I share them. I think they sometimes forget how expansive our doctrine is.

[jkwilliams]

My wife has always believed that often people of other faiths are called by God to their positions because they could not accomplish God's will if they were Latter-day Saints. She uses the example of Mother Teresa, who could not have done what she did outside of her position within the Catholic church, where she had access to resources and connections that would have been unavailable to a Latter-day Saint.

 

I think I had a narrower view of things for a long time, but my wife straightened me out. Like her, I do not believe God is limited by earthly organizations.

[CV75]

God has clearly been happy with people believing things that are not strictly true but work, "for effect."

This: “God has clearly been happy with people believing things that are not strictly true but work, "for effect."

 

Is a non-sequitur to this: “Of course it is not OK to let people believe false things in lieu of true things when you have the opportunity to let them believe the truth.”

 

Clearly, a person believing a lie in lieu of a truth is not the same thing as believing things that are not strictly true (whether “for effect” or not), since such things are also not strictly false. In the first instance, the individual has lost the agency to act upon the truth until it is pesented to him and he is assisted to believe it. In the second instance, individual agency still has breathing room to prompt the individual toward a belief in truth, since it hasn’t been completely supplanted and is still somewhere in sight.

[mfbukowski]

I've seen you discuss this before and it's an interesting question. In some ways I see the need to be a members' missionary to help smooth out some of these falsely held perspectives.

 

In doing this I consider the things I was taught 15 years ago as a missionary. Build on common beliefs, build relationships of trust... etc, etc.

 

Alma 18 is a nice reminder of how to go about teaching people based on slightly 'skewed' beliefs. 

 

So, to answer your question - yes, I would think it important to help re-educate misconceptions. But I think it would be important to do it as lovingly and gently as one would teach a non-member investigator.

It's that last part that gets me every time!

[mfbukowski]

I discussed these issues, such as what "true and living" means in D&C 1, in my recent Interpreter review.

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

And you did a great job imnsho.

[canard78]

I discussed these issues, such as what "true and living" means in D&C 1, in my recent Interpreter review.

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

 

I'm really pleased you're getting a wider platform to teach this reading of D&C 1. I think it's a really important perspective. Maybe one day we'll see it in an Ensign or even a conference talk. That would make my day

[canard78]

This: “God has clearly been happy with people believing things that are not strictly true but work, "for effect."

 

Is a non-sequitur to this: “Of course it is not OK to let people believe false things in lieu of true things when you have the opportunity to let them believe the truth.”

 

Clearly, a person believing a lie in lieu of a truth is not the same thing as believing things that are not strictly true (whether “for effect” or not), since such things are also not strictly false. In the first instance, the individual has lost the agency to act upon the truth until it is pesented to him and he is assisted to believe it. In the second instance, individual agency still has breathing room to prompt the individual toward a belief in truth, since it hasn’t been completely supplanted and is still somewhere in sight.

 

If a belief leads someone to do good then it is truth. Whether you consider it to be true or not is immaterial. If the same belief would lead you to do evil then it is not true for you, even though it is true for another.

 

So when I say "not strictly true but for effect" what I should really say is, when God finds a way of communicating with one or more of his children in a way that has an effect He's happy for that to become their truth. This is how a Hindu, a Mormon and a Buddhist can all believe different and contradictory things with all of them still being true beliefs.

 

As such, I've decided to be very careful trying to correct the perspectives and beliefs of my fellow Mormons. If I remove their belief in a principle that I consider to be not true but that is currently persuading them to do good then I would consider myself, in part, responsible for them no longer doing good.

 

For example: if a Hindu believes that his actions in life define his reincarnated state in the next life then he could be lead to do a great deal of good. This might be God's equivalent for this person of D&C 19:7. This belief works on the heart of this man and leads to him becoming more Christlike. If I spend 6 months convincing him that there is no reincarnation and as a result he stops pursuing "good" it has not been of benefit to him.

 

I'm not certain that my perspectives on life are "the way things really are" but the do persuade me to do good. They work. That's all that really matters.

[mfbukowski]

That was more important to me than accepting that the Nephites almost certainly did not exist.

I am just curious about what you would count as proof that the "Nephites did not exist".  You know, the old "proving a negative" problem

 

Suppose there was another group called the "Nabutos"- pick any name, it's irrelevant-  who came from the mid-east and landed somewhere in the Americas, bringing with them some Hebrew scriptures, and who believed from Isaiah that the Messiah would be born some time in the future, as also, incidentally the Zoroastrains believed.  Note also that there were many many Zorastrian groups in that area who had substantially similar beliefs to the tribes of Israel.

 

Perhaps these people claimed they had "prophets" and developed a religion very close to what we would define as "Christianity".  Perhaps they had records of their teachings, and lived among other peoples, perhaps the Maya, as a sub-culture perhaps much as LDS live among peoples of the world as a sub-culture of their own making.

 

1- In your estimation COULD such a culture be classified as "Nephites" under another name?  Why or why not?

 

2- How would one prove that this hypothetical culture did not exist?  Clearly proving that it DID exist is not a requirement of the analogy since it is unlikely that the "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign written in English will ever be found, thereby proving that "Nephites" existed.

 

Remember we are dealing with a spiritual "translation" here.  I really don't think the group we are looking for were actually named "N-E-P-H-I-T-E-S", do you?

 

I mean how does one determine what is the correct "pronunciation" of the name of a tribe with an unknown dead language, whom no one living has heard?

[DBMormon]

If a belief leads someone to do good then it is truth. Whether you consider it to be true or not is immaterial. If the same belief would lead you to do evil then it is not true for you, even though it is true for another.

 

So when I say "not strictly true but for effect" what I should really say is, when God finds a way of communicating with one or more of his children in a way that has an effect He's happy for that to become their truth. This is how a Hindu, a Mormon and a Buddhist can all believe different and contradictory things with all of them still being true beliefs.

 

As such, I've decided to be very careful trying to correct the perspectives and beliefs of my fellow Mormons. If I remove their belief in a principle that I consider to be not true but that is currently persuading them to do good then I would consider myself, in part, responsible for them no longer doing good.

 

For example: if a Hindu believes that his actions in life define his reincarnated state in the next life then he could be lead to do a great deal of good. This might be God's equivalent for this person of D&C 19:7. This belief works on the heart of this man and leads to him becoming more Christlike. If I spend 6 months convincing him that there is no reincarnation and as a result he stops pursuing "good" it has not been of benefit to him.

 

I'm not certain that my perspectives on life are "the way things really are" but the do persuade me to do good. They work. That's all that really matters.

 

Believing in the Tooth Fairy was good, it is not true as in there being an actual Tooth Fairy.  This logic is a way to dodge historicity and simply say because something gives you value, you should never have to deal with it factuality.  Then Santa should still be still on the table.  My best most valuable Christmases were based on my believing something that was false even though it was true in that it brought value.

[mfbukowski]

Depends on what you mean by "true." For some people, "true" means demonstrably "in accordance with the actual state of affairs" or "conformable to an essential reality." For others, it means "ideal" or "legitimate," which is a much more subjective matter. Believers in the former tend to be folks who need the Nephites to have existed; believers in the latter gravitate more towards a narrative that espouses beliefs and practices that exalt people, whatever the "facts" of the narrative.

 

Me, I lean more toward the latter, such that I no longer ascribe to beliefs that, regardless of "essential reality," made me unhappy. That was more important to me than accepting that the Nephites almost certainly did not exist.

I also find it interesting that in the first portion you give a rather post-modernist interpretation of "truth".

 

On this you and I agree.

 

In the last sentence however, you give a statement affirming certainty that a group "did not exist".

 

I really have trouble reconciling the attitude of the first part of the post, acknowledging the ambiguity of vague terms like "truth" with the certainty of the last comment about a group who's "existence" can be taken in so many different ways.

 

I guess "truth" is ambiguous, but "existence" is not?  How can one be "certain" about non-existence of something while holding that truth is ambiguous?

 

I am really confused, as usual, I guess.

[jkwilliams]

I am just curious about what you would count as proof that the "Nephites did not exist".  You know, the old "proving a negative" problem

I never said there was "proof." I believe it is extremely unlikely that they existed, and that's based on my field of study in college and years of study afterward. But as I said, the bottom line for me is that, for me, the church isn't true by your definition because it made me quite unhappy. Everything beside that is pretty much window dressing. If it makes you happy, and you believe it has the capacity to exalt humans, that's excellent.

 

Suppose there was another group called the "Nabutos"- pick any name, it's irrelevant-  who came from the mid-east and landed somewhere in the Americas, bringing with them some Hebrew scriptures, and who believed from Isaiah that the Messiah would be born some time in the future, as also, incidentally the Zoroastrains believed.  Note also that there were many many Zorastrian groups in that area who had substantially similar beliefs to the tribes of Israel.

 

Perhaps these people claimed they had "prophets" and developed a religion very close to what we would define as "Christianity".  Perhaps they had records of their teachings, and lived among other peoples, perhaps the Maya, as a sub-culture perhaps much as LDS live among peoples of the world as a sub-culture of their own making.

 

1- In your estimation COULD such a culture be classified as "Nephites" under another name?  Why or why not?

They could, I suppose, if you discount the cultural and technological descriptions in the Book of Mormon. Chuck the smelting of ore, etc., and it could work.

 

2- How would one prove that this hypothetical culture did not exist?  Clearly proving that it DID exist is not a requirement of the analogy since it is unlikely that the "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign written in English will ever be found, thereby proving that "Nephites" existed.

Again, I've never said anything about proof. What I have said consistently, is that the culture and technology described in the Book of Mormon has no possible home in ancient America. Not only is there a lack of evidence, but there is specific evidence that shows that the technologies could not have been in use. Does that prove anything? No, but as I said, it makes it rather unlikely.

 

Remember we are dealing with a spiritual "translation" here.  I really don't think the group we are looking for were actually named "N-E-P-H-I-T-E-S", do you?

 

I mean how does one determine what is the correct "pronunciation" of the name of a tribe with an unknown dead language, whom no one living has heard?

I'm just going by what the text says about "Nephites." Knowing what I do about ancient American, it's extremely unlikely that a civilization with the technologies and culture described in the Book of Mormon lived in the Americas at that time period.

If you want to argue that they didn't actually do what the book says they did, that's another issue. And if we're just talking about stories meant to exalt people, that's fine, and in that case whether they existed is of no consequence.

But if I take the text seriously as describing actual people doing actual stuff, no, it doesn't work very well in the Americas. One thing I ask myself is, if there were no Nephites, how would ancient American development look different from what we see in the archaeological record?

[jkwilliams]

I also find it interesting that in the first portion you give a rather post-modernist interpretation of "truth".

 

On this you and I agree.

 

In the last sentence however, you give a statement affirming certainty that a group "did not exist".

 

I really have trouble reconciling the attitude of the first part of the post, acknowledging the ambiguity of vague terms like "truth" with the certainty of the last comment about a group who's "existence" can be taken in so many different ways.

 

I guess "truth" is ambiguous, but "existence" is not?  How can one be "certain" about non-existence of something while holding that truth is ambiguous?

 

I am really confused, as usual, I guess.

Again, you're talking about certainty and proof, and I am not. My background is in Latin American studies, and based on my formal and informal study, I not only see no evidence of any civilization remotely like the one described in the Book of Mormon in the Americas in that time period, but I see clear evidence that such a civilization did not exist. Could I be wrong? Sure, anything's possible. But based on what I know, it's extremely unlikely that a civilization like the one described in the Book of Mormon existed in the right time and place.

In the end, none of that would matter if being a member of the church had helped me be a better or happier person.

[ERayR]

I've seen you discuss this before and it's an interesting question. In some ways I see the need to be a members' missionary to help smooth out some of these falsely held perspectives.

 

In doing this I consider the things I was taught 15 years ago as a missionary. Build on common beliefs, build relationships of trust... etc, etc.

 

Alma 18 is a nice reminder of how to go about teaching people based on slightly 'skewed' beliefs. 

 

So, to answer your question - yes, I would think it important to help re-educate misconceptions. But I think it would be important to do it as lovingly and gently as one would teach a non-member investigator.

.

A bit pretentious to declare ones self as the arbiter of what is correct and what isn't.

[ERayR]

Again, you're talking about certainty and proof, and I am not. My background is in Latin American studies, and based on my formal and informal study, I not only see no evidence of any civilization remotely like the one described in the Book of Mormon in the Americas in that time period, but I see clear evidence that such a civilization did not exist. Could I be wrong? Sure, anything's possible. But based on what I know, it's extremely unlikely that a civilization like the one described in the Book of Mormon existed in the right time and place.

In the end, none of that would matter if being a member of the church had helped me be a better or happier person.

 

Perhaps you haven't got a good grasp on what kind of civilization the Book of Mormon describes.