Eternal Salvation In The Hands Of 19-Year-Old Missionaries

[Robert F. Smith]

So, Spammer, you are saying that you spent about a decade of your life (from 17 to 27?) with an intense focus on prayer and study, but without any sort of resultant revelation or inspiration? -- such as D. Michael Quinn describes as a teenager. Moreover, in all that time you no doubt came to be a great scriptorian, right? And very familiar with LDS history, right? You read widely both in and out of the scriptures, right?

Would you therefore be willing to submit to a test of your knowledge of the LDS Canon and Theology? Should be pretty easy for you after all that effort.

I spent that decade faithfully attending church, reading scriptures, studying church history, trying to magnify my callings, praying sincerely, all the things the rank and file do to gain a witness of the spirit. Are you suggesting that wasn't good enough, that I must also have elected to devote my life to becoming a great scriptorian, including obtaining an advanced degree, to merit that witness?  If I failed your test, would that be evidence that I didn't work hard enough to gain that witness?  How many ordinary Mormons who received that witness after trying Moroni's Promise would fail that test?

I don't give much credence to those with advanced degrees, and didn't imply such, but I would be interested in what sort of study you engaged in -- say the top five books on LDS history & theology, in your opinion, and which you have actually read and used.  Use of good sources is crucial in my mind.  One can easily waste precious time on poor quality sources, don't you think?

 

My test would be a short essay series of about 5 central questions, your responses telling me whether you buy into common folkloric Mormonism, or prefer hard-edged, historically-based evaluations of Mormon belief.  Descriptive rather than prescriptive.

[Robert F. Smith]

To make sure an appropriate and fair test is designed, It should be one that an investigator taking discussions could pass.

Milk before meat, maybe, Spammer, but we are dealing here with the claims of someone BIC, who has tried hard to gain spiritual and historical knowledge.  Should be way beyond the investigator level, and well beyond official Correlation.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. (James 1)

26 And after that he came men also were saved by faith in his name; and by faith, they become the sons of God. And as surely as Christ liveth he spake these words unto our fathers, saying: Whatsoever thing ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is good, in faith believing that ye shall receive, behold, it shall be done unto you. (Moroni 7)

 

If you feel I'm prying, please do ignore this post.

 

With humility and respect for you as a son of God, I ask the following question to the end that I might gain further understanding into the workings of God. Here's the question: 

 

In light of the above passages of scripture (especially the words in bold), and looking back on your experience over those ten years when you often prayed to the Lord that you might gain a testimony of the Restored Gospel, do you sincerely believe you were truly unwavering in your faith and fully confident that the Lord would answer your prayers?

Should we set the bar that high?  Does the Lord set the bar that high?  Would the LDS faith have grown so fast with such demands?  I have my doubts.  One might even prefer the Alma 32 approach, which seems quite open-ended.

 

My own experience has been that, when a missionary of the Lord bears testimony, the Holy Spirit automatically provides backup witness to those who are receptive.  As a member of the Church, for example, I was taken by surprise one day by that very witness, which I was not seeking.  The missionary was a sister from Manila, in the Philippines, who was serving her mission in Los Angeles.  I was already a firm believer in the LDS faith, but the Lord apparently wanted to provide direction, and the message seemed unmistakeable.  It wasn't the words said by that sister missionary (I don't even recall them), but the instant feeling which came over me, and which I thought rather odd.  I learned that day that one does not have to pray in order to receive a message.

[strappinglad]

I think Spammer has articulated a situation that some BIC members ( and non-members ) have experienced. He is not the first to present this inability to get a spiritual witness. We are told that we will receive no witness until after a trial of faith. Is it possible that such a trial will last a lifetime? It is apparent that some trials do last for all of mortality. Paul said that he had prayed many times to have a particular affliction remove and his prayers went unanswered . He concluded that it was God's will that his affliction remain. One could come to the conclusion that one was a second class spiritual citizen when it came to a witness. When I look around at the trials of others which last for years if not for life, I'll keep the ones I have.

This endure to the end stuff is really tough.

[Spammer]

Milk before meat, maybe, Spammer, but we are dealing here with the claims of someone BIC, who has tried hard to gain spiritual and historical knowledge. Should be way beyond the investigator level, and well beyond official Correlation.

I made no claims to knowledge. What I claimed is that I never received any kind of response to my efforts to put Moroni's Promise to the test, beginning with my first serious effort to gain a spiritual witness at 17 (I first read the Book of Mormon in its entirety at the seminary teacher's invitation). I lasted ten years or so, going on a mission, temple marriage, church and temple attendance, trying my best to magnify my callings, studying the gospel within the context of official correlation, etc. etc., the standard things the ordinary church member who isn't aiming for a scholarly post at BYU might do, before I did have an epiphany of sorts. One morning I woke up with the clear, unbidden thought present in my mind "it isn't true". I was 27. Instantly, I was an atheist. I didn't seriously begin to seek to acquire historical knowledge outside the bounds of official correlation until after that point. Your test of my knowledge acquired since then has no relevance to whether I merited a spiritual witness of my own, the same kind of experience you described in post #28 and that BIC and convert church members claim to receive when they sincerely pray about the Book of Mormon seeking that witness. Something, anything, remotely resembling the kinds of experiences Mormons all around me claimed to have would have sufficed, but no, what I got after a decade of concerted effort was nothing. Your test is relevant to my post-Mormon studies of such topics as polygamy, Book of Abraham issues, early LDS church history as documented in diaries and journals, issues surrounding the First Vision accounts, and LDS temple theology and liturgy, but is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Contrary to expectations, some LDS church members do faithfully and sincerely seek the witness of the spirit and end up with a big fat zero.

[Spammer]

I think Spammer has articulated a situation that some BIC members ( and non-members ) have experienced. He is not the first to present this inability to get a spiritual witness. We are told that we will receive no witness until after a trial of faith. Is it possible that such a trial will last a lifetime? It is apparent that some trials do last for all of mortality. Paul said that he had prayed many times to have a particular affliction remove and his prayers went unanswered . He concluded that it was God's will that his affliction remain. One could come to the conclusion that one was a second class spiritual citizen when it came to a witness. When I look around at the trials of others which last for years if not for life, I'll keep the ones I have.

This endure to the end stuff is really tough.

 

Why would a loving and just God deny the witness of the Spirit to someone who sincerely seeks to know which church is true?  The church makes specific spiritual and historical claims.  Given those claims and the importance of knowing which church is true, a witness-denying trial of faith that lasts a lifetime would only be imposed by a cruel God

[teddyaware]

Why would a loving and just God deny the witness of the Spirit to someone who sincerely seeks to know which church is true?  The church makes specific spiritual and historical claims.  Given those claims and the importance of knowing which church is true, a witness-denying trial of faith that lasts a lifetime would only be imposed by a cruel God

 

Perhaps folks in similar positions should consider the possibility that the Lord has been very merciful to them? Given the negative attitudes toward the Church exhibited by some of these people, it's possible that if the Lord had given them a testimony, and they then turned away, their lot would be much worse than those who never obtain a spiritual witness. Although some the people in this category are negative toward the Church, in all probability they will be judged much more mercifully than will the hardened, formerly-enlightened apostates. 

[Spammer]

Perhaps folks in similar positions should consider the possibility that the Lord has been very merciful to them? Given the negative attitudes toward the Church exhibited by some of these people, it's possible that if the Lord had given them a testimony, and they then turned away, their lot would be much worse than those who never obtain a spiritual witness. Although some the people in this category are negative toward the Church, in all probability they will be judged much more mercifully than will the hardened, formerly-enlightened apostates. 

 

So, a witness of the spirit and the absence of such a witness are both evidence the church is true?

[strappinglad]

The questions that begin " Why would a loving and just God ...? " can be asked about every sad, bad, or miserable event. Apparently this life is supposed to be a walk in the park with the occasional stubbed toe but nothing more. The question could be turned around and asked " why would a cruel and unjust god allow people to be kind and forgiving and helpful?" If survival of the fittest is the rule , then why would anyone send money and resources to tsunami victims half a world away ? Becoming an atheist is a logical response to all the negative in the world. You still have the choice to be a kind, loving, forgiving atheist, or a cruel, spiteful, ruthless one.

[Calm]

Perhaps folks in similar positions should consider the possibility that the Lord has been very merciful to them? Given the negative attitudes toward the Church exhibited by some of these people, it's possible that if the Lord had given them a testimony, and they then turned away, their lot would be much worse than those who never obtain a spiritual witness. Although some the people in this category are negative toward the Church, in all probability they will be judged much more mercifully than will the hardened, formerly-enlightened apostates.

Seems like that is a removal of their agency though.

[teddyaware]

Seems like that is a removal of their agency though.

God has agency too. And He's smart enough to know how to use His agency to produce the most good.

24 He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world... (2 Nephi 26)

Anyway, it's common knowledge God answers prayers in His own time and according to His own infinite wisdom and good will.

[teddyaware]

So, a witness of the spirit and the absence of such a witness are both evidence the church is true?

From God's vantage point it's evidence the Church is true. When you get the whole picture, you'll know it too.

[Robert F. Smith]

So, a witness of the spirit and the absence of such a witness are both evidence the church is true?

Of course not.  That's just silly.  The suggestion was that God's failure to answer prayer(s) may be a blessing.  Only He can see us as we really are, and only He knows what is best for us.  Absence of evidence is not evidence for something.  Of course, an atheist will necessarily deny the possibility of God, or of His mercies.  In such a case, perception can be everything.

[Robert F. Smith]

The questions that begin " Why would a loving and just God ...? " can be asked about every sad, bad, or miserable event. Apparently this life is supposed to be a walk in the park with the occasional stubbed toe but nothing more. The question could be turned around and asked " why would a cruel and unjust god allow people to be kind and forgiving and helpful?" If survival of the fittest is the rule , then why would anyone send money and resources to tsunami victims half a world away ? Becoming an atheist is a logical response to all the negative in the world. You still have the choice to be a kind, loving, forgiving atheist, or a cruel, spiteful, ruthless one.

You mean that we were never promised a rose garden?  How cruel of [nature, God, etc.] . . .

[Robert F. Smith]

Why would a loving and just God deny the witness of the Spirit to someone who sincerely seeks to know which church is true?  The church makes specific spiritual and historical claims.  Given those claims and the importance of knowing which church is true, a witness-denying trial of faith that lasts a lifetime would only be imposed by a cruel God

A "lifetime"? Have you actually been around that long yet, Spammer?  You might need to stick around a little while before making final conclusions.  You may be very surprised at the directions your life takes.

[Robert F. Smith]

I made no claims to knowledge. What I claimed is that I never received any kind of response to my efforts to put Moroni's Promise to the test, beginning with my first serious effort to gain a spiritual witness at 17 (I first read the Book of Mormon in its entirety at the seminary teacher's invitation). I lasted ten years or so, going on a mission, temple marriage, church and temple attendance, trying my best to magnify my callings, studying the gospel within the context of official correlation, etc. etc., the standard things the ordinary church member who isn't aiming for a scholarly post at BYU might do

Admirable, but with the caveat that stringent adherence to the perceived "context of official correlation" might be inadvisable for those who know of other materials.  LDS Correlation is not meant to be the sole and final word, but merely a guide for Church lessons.  As a set apart teacher I always felt free to bring in anything which I considered important or useful to enhance the lesson, and did so even when a member of the Stake Presidency was in class.  No one ever complained.

 

Based on your remarks, I would surmise that you have not read anything but Church manuals and the Scriptures -- unlike the prophets of the Restoration, who have read widely outside the Church, e.g., I was baptized before David O. McKay became President, and note that (from his time to ours), he and all the other Prophets have read widely outside the Church:  From the quotations of outside sources by President McKay to those of President Monson, I have never seen slavish or incestuous reading of only LDS literature.  Moreover, a lot of fine LDS literature is published outside official Correlation which is worth our attention.  Indeed, much of it was published in Church magazines, e.g., Hugh Nibley, including his 1957 Melchizedek Priesthood Manual, An Approach to the Book of Mormon.  You may have hamstrung yourself by not reading more widely.

 

before I did have an epiphany of sorts. One morning I woke up with the clear, unbidden thought present in my mind "it isn't true". I was 27. Instantly, I was an atheist.

You can only follow your conscience -- "To thine own self be true," and all that.  Again admirable.

 

I didn't seriously begin to seek to acquire historical knowledge outside the bounds of official correlation until after that point. Your test of my knowledge acquired since then has no relevance to whether I merited a spiritual witness of my own, the same kind of experience you described in post #28 and that BIC and convert church members claim to receive when they sincerely pray about the Book of Mormon seeking that witness. Something, anything, remotely resembling the kinds of experiences Mormons all around me claimed to have would have sufficed, but no, what I got after a decade of concerted effort was nothing.

Sounds to me like you have only begun to get serious.  At long last.  Hey, even Zen masters take around 30 years to get where they are going.  And what was that line from George Harrison's wonderful "My Sweet Lord" -- "But it takes so long, my Lord."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI8XY5BX_CE .

 

Your test is relevant to my post-Mormon studies of such topics as polygamy, Book of Abraham issues, early LDS church history as documented in diaries and journals, issues surrounding the First Vision accounts, and LDS temple theology and liturgy, but is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I think not.  Closing the barn door only after the mare got loose seems pointless.  After all, she might just come back of her own accord.  Once again, that you are now taking the subject matter seriously is a good thing, even if it is an example of leaving but not being able to leave it alone.

 

Contrary to expectations, some LDS church members do faithfully and sincerely seek the witness of the spirit and end up with a big fat zero.

I haven't taken a poll, but my question about where that "big fat zero" came from should be of some interest to both of us.  I have no problem with your complaint, and am only trying to understand it.  Sincerity should always count for much, and receive much respect.  And patience isn't just a virtue.

[ChristKnight]

Spammer, if I may ask, in light of current queries, could you comment (if you'd like to) on whether you've had spiritual witnesses/answered prayers in relation to your journey to the Orthodox Church?  Thanks.

[Spammer]

Admirable, but with the caveat that stringent adherence to the perceived "context of official correlation" might be inadvisable for those who know of other materials.  LDS Correlation is not meant to be the sole and final word, but merely a guide for Church lessons.  As a set apart teacher I always felt free to bring in anything which I considered important or useful to enhance the lesson, and did so even when a member of the Stake Presidency was in class.  No one ever complained.

 

Based on your remarks, I would surmise that you have not read anything but Church manuals and the Scriptures -- unlike the prophets of the Restoration, who have read widely outside the Church, e.g., I was baptized before David O. McKay became President, and note that (from his time to ours), he and all the other Prophets have read widely outside the Church:  From the quotations of outside sources by President McKay to those of President Monson, I have never seen slavish or incestuous reading of only LDS literature.  Moreover, a lot of fine LDS literature is published outside official Correlation which is worth our attention.  Indeed, much of it was published in Church magazines, e.g., Hugh Nibley, including his 1957 Melchizedek Priesthood Manual, An Approach to the Book of Mormon.  You may have hamstrung yourself by not reading more widely.

 

You can only follow your conscience -- "To thine own self be true," and all that.  Again admirable.

 

Sounds to me like you have only begun to get serious.  At long last.  Hey, even Zen masters take around 30 years to get where they are going.  And what was that line from George Harrison's wonderful "My Sweet Lord" -- "But it takes so long, my Lord."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI8XY5BX_CE .

 

I think not.  Closing the barn door only after the mare got loose seems pointless.  After all, she might just come back of her own accord.  Once again, that you are now taking the subject matter seriously is a good thing, even if it is an example of leaving but not being able to leave it alone.

 

I haven't taken a poll, but my question about where that "big fat zero" came from should be of some interest to both of us.  I have no problem with your complaint, and am only trying to understand it.  Sincerity should always count for much, and receive much respect.  And patience isn't just a virtue.

 

I moved well beyond materials approved by official correlation years ago.  I didn't really begin reading in non-LDS historical and spiritual sources, though, until I got to the university after my mission.  That wasn't because I chose to adopt a stringent adherence to correlated materials, I really didn't know any better.  I had no reason to ask questions and begin looking outside of those materials until I began to wonder why I wasn't having any spiritual experiences.  That didn't really start until I was on my mission, was increasingly troubling for the duration, and became acute a couple of years after I got home.  Like I said, while I was seriously seeking that elusive witness of the spirit, I more or less stuck to going to church, reading the scriptures and other correlated materials, and praying.  I reject any notion that the reason I never received that witness is because I didn't read much outside of official correlation.  It seems that's what you're implying. 

[Spammer]

Spammer, if I may ask, in light of current queries, could you comment (if you'd like to) on whether you've had spiritual witnesses/answered prayers in relation to your journey to the Orthodox Church? Thanks.

I battle with atheism every day. Apart from feeling pulled in a very particular direction, a direction that took me away from the faith of my family and spouse (if feeling pulled to do something can be viewed as spiritual), I have yet to have any kind of recognizable spiritual experiences, including noticeable answers to prayer. My faith in the existence of God is grounded on the philosophical presuppositions of classical Christian theism (Aristotle through Aquinas). Take that away and I'm an atheist again. My journey to Orthodoxy resulted from reading the New Testament, all of the writings of the apostolic church fathers and ante-Nicene church fathers, and the writings of the most well-known of the Nicene and post-Nicene church fathers. My faith in Christ and the ancient Nicene church is grounded on those readings and on philosophy. I see no evidence for a Great Apostasy in the ancient sources, so for me it's rational to follow the ancient way if I want to be a Christian. I don't pay much attention to scholars whose specialty is the ancient writings, LDS or not, except for when the meaning of a certain word or phrase in English translation is in dispute. If I have a question about what the ancient church was like and/or taught, I'll just go to the source and read it for myself. I suppose that's all I have to go by.

Speaking to Robert's point about sources, besides the ancient writings, I also read, among others, a lot of history (ancient and medieval), Orthodox and Catholic spiritual writings, C.S. Lewis, philosophy, and lots of novels. I also enjoy Margaret Barker's books, but I don't see Mormonism there, I see the ancient orthodox Catholic liturgy explained. But all of this is a digression from the OP. Some sincere, faithful folks just don't receive what Moroni promised.

[ChristKnight]

I battle with atheism every day. Apart from feeling pulled in a very particular direction, a direction that took me away from the faith of my family and spouse (if feeling pulled to do something can be viewed as spiritual), I have yet to have any kind of recognizable spiritual experiences, including noticeable answers to prayer. My faith in the existence of God is grounded on the philosophical presuppositions of classical Christian theism (Aristotle through Aquinas). Take that away and I'm an atheist again. My journey to Orthodoxy resulted from reading the New Testament, all of the writings of the apostolic church fathers and ante-Nicene church fathers, and the writings of the most well-known of the Nicene and post-Nicene church fathers. My faith in Christ and the ancient Nicene church is grounded on those readings. I see no evidence for a Great Apostasy in the ancient sources, so for me it's rational to follow the ancient way if I want to be a Christian. I don't pay much attention to scholars whose specialty is the ancient writings, LDS or not, except for when the meaning of a certain word or phrase in English translation is in dispute. If I have a question about what the ancient church was like and/or taught, I'll just go to the source and read it for myself. I suppose that's all I have to go by.

Speaking to Robert's point about sources, besides the ancient writings, I also read, among others, a lot of history (ancient and medieval), Orthodox and Catholic spiritual writings, C.S. Lewis, philosophy, and lots of novels. I also enjoy Margaret Barker's books, but I don't see Mormonism there, I see the ancient orthodox Catholic liturgy explained. But all of this is a digression from the OP. Some folks just don't have spiritual experiences.

 

Thanks for sharing.

[Robert F. Smith]

I moved well beyond materials approved by official correlation years ago.  I didn't really begin reading in non-LDS historical and spiritual sources, though, until I got to the university after my mission.  That wasn't because I chose to adopt a stringent adherence to correlated materials, I really didn't know any better.  I had no reason to ask questions and begin looking outside of those materials until I began to wonder why I wasn't having any spiritual experiences.  That didn't really start until I was on my mission, was increasingly troubling for the duration, and became acute a couple of years after I got home.  Like I said, while I was seriously seeking that elusive witness of the spirit, I more or less stuck to going to church, reading the scriptures and other correlated materials, and praying.  I reject any notion that the reason I never received that witness is because I didn't read much outside of official correlation.  It seems that's what you're implying. 

I'm implying no such thing, Spammer.  Only God knows why or whether you never rec'd a witness by the Holy Spirit.

 

Maybe you didn't notice (a chip on your shoulder?), but I was congratulating you on finally getting serious and reading a wider array of literature.  By that I do not mean anti-Mormon, non-Mormon, or Mormon literature published outside Correlation, but rather serious and good historiography and theology.  I see that you have finally mentioned some of the works you have read in your reply to ChristKnight, and that sounds good, although your antipathy to professional historians is curious and perhaps self-destructive.  I recommend college courses on logic, critical thinking, and theology.

 

I find that many people who are raised in a tightly disciplined home, with narrow-minded parents, suffer as much as those raised in homes that lack discipline and direction, in each case crippled by bad parenting and not able to think outside the box or to consult sources which suit themselves.  Sorry for the pain you have been through, but please know that you are not alone.  There are many treading that same path, looking for answers.  May your search be productive.

[Spammer]

I'm implying no such thing, Spammer.  Only God knows why or whether you never rec'd a witness by the Holy Spirit.

 

Maybe you didn't notice (a chip on your shoulder?), but I was congratulating you on finally getting serious and reading a wider array of literature.  By that I do not mean anti-Mormon, non-Mormon, or Mormon literature published outside Correlation, but rather serious and good historiography and theology.  I see that you have finally mentioned some of the works you have read in your reply to ChristKnight, and that sounds good, although your antipathy to professional historians is curious and perhaps self-destructive.  I recommend college courses on logic, critical thinking, and theology.

 

I find that many people who are raised in a tightly disciplined home, with narrow-minded parents, suffer as much as those raised in homes that lack discipline and direction, in each case crippled by bad parenting and not able to think outside the box or to consult sources which suit themselves.  Sorry for the pain you have been through, but please know that you are not alone.  There are many treading that same path, looking for answers.  May your search be productive.

 

Hello Robert. I wouldn't call it antipathy to professional historians.  I prefer to read the primary sources in their entirety for myself and draw my own conclusions, rather than read someone's book or article about the sources and what the ancient writer was trying to say.  That's not to say scholarly books and articles aren't important.  They provide context and I do factor in the scholarly consensus when it comes to the meaning of an obscure term, phrase, or nuance.  Also, I've had critical thinking and logic at the university level.  I was nearly a philosophy major, then decided I couldn't make a decent living at it.  Regarding theology, the theologians I study are the fathers of the ancient church and medieval and modern theologians who belong to that same tradition.  In the Orthodox tradition I belong to, a true theologian is someone who is filled with the Holy Spirit, as evidenced through the life of repentance and humility he leads and the fact that his writings are firmly within the same Patristic tradition, tracing back to the very first theologian.  The model of the true theologian is the original, the Apostle John, whom we call John the Theologian (not John the Beloved).  He was an uneducated fisherman who became a theologian solely through a holy life lived in Christ.  His credentials as a theologian derive from the fact that John was illumined by the Holy Spirit, the product of his union with the divine, obtained through a life of prayer, repentance, and humility.  No university study or degree is required.  In fact, such study can be a hindrance, as it relies on the discursive reason for its interpretations, rather than on Spirit-breathed knowledge acquired the way John acquired his knowledge - the only way such knowledge can be obtained.  Someone with a couple of PhDs who is not a Christian and has not yet been purified of the passions and illumined by the Holy Spirit cannot be considered a theologian.  That's why we look to the ancient fathers and saints of the church.  Those are the only theologians I pay attention to.

 

As for my chip, I think you're right.  I'm sorry if I lumped you into a certain category.  The issue of why I never have spiritual experiences is a very sore topic for me. When you suggested I should have my knowledge tested, that got my hackles up.  I interpreted that as questioning whether I knew enough or had learned the right things to make me able to gain the spiritual witness I was seeking.  In my mind, it was just another aspect of the LDS blame game.  It's difficult to go through a major spiritual crisis and be named as the source of the problem by LDS family, in-laws, friends, and church leaders.  You know the mantra.  Those for whom Moroni's Promise is not kept are typically blamed by the rank and file.  Either they did something, didn't do something, or something happened to them to make them incapable of hearing the whisperings of the Spirit.  They're insincere, harboring an unrepented sin, faithless, not listening when the spirit whispered, not willing to put in the effort needed, they secretly wish they could sin, etc. etc.    Ugh.  I heard all of this from my own family, church leaders, and my in-laws. Even worse, in addition to accusing me of not listening and not having enough faith, the in-laws also blamed my parents.  They, and my wife, believe I was raised in "a tightly disciplined home, with narrow-minded parents" and think I don't like the church because that upbringing ruined the church for me.  Yes, that's the kind of home I was raised in, but linking that to my spiritual problems is a load of crap.  I'm no victim.  Hearing the blame game repeated so frequently in church and outside church by family and friends for so many years (my 'atheist moment' at 27 happened over twenty years ago and spouse, family, and in-laws are still all LDS) has turned me into a brutal cynic with some major anger issues, particularly when it comes to blaming my parents. When my dad passed recently, I told my spouse to tell her family I didn't want to hear one, single word of condolence from them.  No phone calls, no Facebook posts, no texts, no cards, no flowers, nothing.  The in-laws are a large, extended group.  The message evidently spread.  I got my wish.  I'm still sitting here angry thinking about all the years I've had to put up with the blaming by the LDS people in my life.  Yea, you got caught up in that and I'm sorry.

[Avatar4321]

I battle with atheism every day. Apart from feeling pulled in a very particular direction, a direction that took me away from the faith of my family and spouse (if feeling pulled to do something can be viewed as spiritual), I have yet to have any kind of recognizable spiritual experiences, including noticeable answers to prayer. My faith in the existence of God is grounded on the philosophical presuppositions of classical Christian theism (Aristotle through Aquinas). Take that away and I'm an atheist again. My journey to Orthodoxy resulted from reading the New Testament, all of the writings of the apostolic church fathers and ante-Nicene church fathers, and the writings of the most well-known of the Nicene and post-Nicene church fathers. My faith in Christ and the ancient Nicene church is grounded on those readings and on philosophy. I see no evidence for a Great Apostasy in the ancient sources, so for me it's rational to follow the ancient way if I want to be a Christian. I don't pay much attention to scholars whose specialty is the ancient writings, LDS or not, except for when the meaning of a certain word or phrase in English translation is in dispute. If I have a question about what the ancient church was like and/or taught, I'll just go to the source and read it for myself. I suppose that's all I have to go by.

Speaking to Robert's point about sources, besides the ancient writings, I also read, among others, a lot of history (ancient and medieval), Orthodox and Catholic spiritual writings, C.S. Lewis, philosophy, and lots of novels. I also enjoy Margaret Barker's books, but I don't see Mormonism there, I see the ancient orthodox Catholic liturgy explained. But all of this is a digression from the OP. Some sincere, faithful folks just don't receive what Moroni promised.

 

Interesting. I read the New Testament and see nothing BUT Apostasy. Practically very single letter was written because the Apostles had to correct something the Saints were going astray on. The scriptures stated at one point that everyone in Asia had turned away from them. John addressed Revelation rebuking many of the few churches still following them because even they were going astray.

 

If that was happening during the Apostles life time, what the heck happened after they were martyred?

[Spammer]

Interesting. I read the New Testament and see nothing BUT Apostasy. Practically very single letter was written because the Apostles had to correct something the Saints were going astray on. The scriptures stated at one point that everyone in Asia had turned away from them. John addressed Revelation rebuking many of the few churches still following them because even they were going astray.

 

If that was happening during the Apostles life time, what the heck happened after they were martyred?

 

The NT evidence is ambiguous and can be interpreted different ways.  For instance, I read the NT and see partial apostasy, not a total or Great Apostasy.  The fact that SOME apostles wrote letters to SOME of the churches is not evidence for a total apostasy.  Even with a majority in apostasy, historically in both ancient Israel, the ancient Christian Church, and in modern times, a faithful core, however small, always persists.  You reference Paul writing to Timothy and his statement that everyone in Asia (what we now call Asia Minor, or Turkey) had turned away from him.  Assuming that your interpretation of 'turned away' as denoting apostasy is correct, is that evidence of total, worldwide apostasy?  No.  

 

In the patristic writings, we have direct evidence of the original apostolic teaching being handed down over time, persisting at least through the end of the second century.  After the apostles' martyrdom, the bishops appointed by the apostles handed on the apostolic teaching  they received from the apostles to their bishop successors, and so on.  We see this clearly described in Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, all of them sounding a lot more orthodox Catholic than Mormon in their writings.  You mention John rebuking certain Asian churches in Revelation.  Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in Asia Minor was a student and disciple of the Apostle John and Irenaeus, from Asia Minor and bishop in Lyon, France, was a student and disciple of Polycarp, contemporary and friend of Ignatius and bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor and also a student and disciple of the Apostle John.  Neither Antioch nor Smyrna were on John's list of Asian churches having problems.  Both of these orthodox Catholic bishops and their churches remained faithful to John.  There's no clear evidence in the NT or afterward that ALL of the Saints went astray, that every single church went apostate, only some of the saints and churches fell away.  To the contrary, we see continuity of the church and the apostolic teaching, despite the presence of apostate groups in the universal church. There's a clear parallel to this process in what happened to the Mormon movement after Joseph Smith's martyrdom.  There was fragmentation and apostasy, with notable spin-off groups, but a stable core comprising the mainstream and led by legitimate successors, who faithfully handed down the traditions that Joseph Smith established, persisted and flourished. It was no different anciently.  

 

The only plausible way the LDS claim can be substantiated (not counting personal testimony of the Restoration) is to point to the loss of priesthood authority.  Using the NT, this is typically supported by interpreting the account of Matthias, Judas' replacement in the Twelve, a particular way.  That only works as evidence if you first assume that the apostleship is a priesthood office that was intended to persist in the church.  That's only one interpretation, however.  The Matthias evidence can be interpreted differently, particularly since Peter lays out the criterion for an apostleship - the man must have been a witness of the resurrected Christ and Matthias was chosen by lot from among men who knew Jesus personally both before and after the Resurrection.  Paul claimed the title of an apostle on the same basis.  He saw the risen Christ on the road to Damascus.  Once the men who knew Jesus personally, or to whom Jesus made a personal post-Resurrection appearance, had all been martyred or passed on to the other world, no one was left who met Peter's criterion.  Thus, the apostleship became moot and the teaching authority passed to the bishops.  This interpretation of the NT works just as well.  In fact, it works better once you take the evidence of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Ireneaus into account.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

So, there was this article today, by Andrea Bennett of the Atlantic...

 

http://news.msn.com/in-depth/putting-eternal-salvation-in-the-hands-of-19-year-old-missionaries-1

 

I didn't particularly enjoy the MTC either, but "boot camp"?  I don't think so. 

 

Also, is it just a typo where she says the MTC "stretches several miles alongside BYU"? A few blocks, maybe.  But definitely not several miles. 

 

I do agree that there is somewhat of a stigma in the church, when a young man decides not to serve a mission.  I saw it with my own boys.

The young can do great things! Throughout Biblical, BoM and Church History it has been so. Samuel called at age 12, David was not much older, so called from before life. BoM the same and so on...we old people are too set in our ways, the young are still teachable.