An Evening With A General Authority 2015

[Bobbieaware]

It is absolutely rational to reevaluate personal spiritual or metaphysical experiences Mormonism calls revelation in light of new information that may not have been had when one experienced them. It seems irrational not to do so at least. You may still end up interpreting them the same way and you may not.

I do not know the nature of your experiences that you call revelation and miracles. Maybe they were more powerful for you than mine though I have had a few significant ones that I still beleive have meaning to me but is a different way than I used to.

Why don't we just settle on the scriptural principle that the things of God are foolishness to the natural man (I.e. those guided mostly by human learning and wisdom) and leave it at that. Trying to bridge the gap that exists between a testimony born of the Spirit and the understanding and perceptions of the human mind unaided by the input of the Spirit is like trying to mix 140 weight gear oil with water -- ain't gonna happen. This debate between those who rely on revelation and those who conversely rely on human wisdom will just continue to go on and on without satisfactory resolution unless someone on one side is converted to the other. As a man of good will, I doubt your intent in participating on this board is to try to get members of the church to doubt their own testimonies and fall away from the church. So why not just give it a rest and be happy with the fact that you've found your own truth and leave it at that? As a gentleman, playing the role of a squabbling anti Mormon doesn't become you.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Teancum]

Why don't we just settle on the scriptural principle that the things of God are foolishness to the natural man (I.e. those guided mostly by human learning and wisdom) and leave it at that. Trying to bridge the gap that exists between a testimony born of the Spirit and the understanding and perceptions of the human mind unaided by the input of the Spirit is like trying to mix 140 weight gear oil with water -- ain't gonna happen. This debate between those who rely on revelation and those who conversely rely on human wisdom will just continue to go on and on without satisfactory resolution unless someone on one side is converted to the other. As a man of good will, I doubt your intent in participating on this board is to try to get members of the church to doubt their own testimonies and fall away from the church. So why not just give it a rest and be happy with the fact that you've found your own truth and leave it at that? As a gentleman, playing the role of a squabbling anti Mormon doesn't become you.

First I am not anti Mormon. I am a member, still a High Priest. In fact I still attend church, tithe, etc. why brand people who disagree or debate a position different than you anti Mormon?

Second I am not the one who keeps initiating and insisting i have the truth and that the only way to find it is by a supernatural means. That may be a way or may not be. If you recall I actually am still open to that and trying to use the same methods you likely use. My prayers can be pretty passionate in my pleadings. But no I have not found "my truth" whatever that really means.

Third you are correct. I am not trying to get any one to leave the church. Most of my closest friends are members as I are many of my family. I would never do that. Everyone has their own journey.

Fourth, what you call squabbling is what I call discussion. This is after all a discussion board. I seem to get under your skin as well as a few others I guess. That is not my intent. But your post above essentially tells me I should not discuss the very thing this thread is about.

[Thinking]

so we should ignore our personal revelations from God and the miracles we've seen and participated in just because we learn she learn something about josephs relationships?

why on earth should something others do or don't do influence my relationship with God? Does Joseph being sealed to several women mean I should somehow ignore God when He says Joseph is a prophet and more importantly that Jesus is the Christ?

I don't see why we should ignore our personal experiences with God because you say someone else made a mistake. Especially when it's questionable whether it was really a mistake? It is not rational at all.

 

Is there anything that you could discover about the foundational claims of the LDS Church that could cause doubt?

[Avatar4321]

Is there anything that you could discover about the foundational claims of the LDS Church that could cause doubt?

God being a liar. I don't expect that to happen.

[Thinking]

God being a liar. I don't expect that to happen.

 

Is it even conceivable to you that what you thought was God giving you answers really wasn't?

[Bobbieaware]

Is it even conceivable to you that what you thought was God giving you answers really wasn't?

Why does it seem some who lack faith won't be satisfied until those who do have faith are somehow constrained to "admit " they secretly have doubts? Is it because misery loves company?

The Savior taught those who believe the gospel to "doubt not, but be believing." Yet without due regard to this critically important admonition of the Savior, you seem to cling to an unwholesome desire to want to hear those who obey the Savior's admonition to doubt not to come around to "confessing" they have doubts when they really don't.

In the Book of Mormon, a wonderful promise is made that those who ask of God with genuine sincerity and living faith can KNOW of a surety the truth of the restored gospel.. Yet, to make you happy, those who have accepted Moroni's challenge, and by that means gained a sure testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel, are supposed throw their witness of the Spirit out the window and begin to doubt because it's now sheik among intellectul former believers to think any truly honest LDS church member, including those with the most powerful testimonies, should admit they have doubts even when they don't

Meanwhile, the greatest heroes of scripture became those heroes by virtue of the fact that they did not doubt.their testimonies (see the list of the heroes of faith in Hebrews). But in spite of the sterling examples of the heroes of faith who did not doubt, it seems as if you won't be satisfied until today's testimony-bearing Latter-day Saints reject the examples of the great heroes of faith and wear doubt as some sort of badge of intellectual honor. No thanks...

Edited February 16, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Hamba Tuhan]

Is there anything that you could discover about the foundational claims of the LDS Church that could cause doubt?

 

'Foundational claims' by nature are in the past, and as a historian, I'm painfully aware of how nebulous, contestable, and multi-interpretable the past is. Sometimes, of course, it's all we have, but that's not the case with the Restored Church. The artefacts of those foundational claims are immediately accessible to me in the present and in ways that the past never can be.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Is it even conceivable to you that what you thought was God giving you answers really wasn't?

 

I know this question wasn't addressed to me, but my answer is a resounding yes. Until I've acted, assessed, acted again, compared outcomes, acted again, compared notes with others, then acted again, and repeated until I'm satisfied, my default assumption is that something may or may not be God giving me answers.

[KevinG]

Building testimony isn't a singular event...  it is an eternal process.

[Mystery Meat]

Why does it seem some who lack faith won't be satisfied until those who do have faith are somehow constrained to "admit " they secretly have doubts? Is it because misery loves company?

The Savior taught those who believe the gospel to "doubt not, but be believing." Yet without due regard to this critically important admonition of the Savior, you seem to cling to an unwholesome desire to want to hear those who obey the Savior's admonition to doubt not to come around to "confessing" they have doubts when they really don't.

In the Book of Mormon, a wonderful promise is made that those who ask of God with genuine sincerity and living faith can KNOW of a surety the truth of the restored gospel.. Yet, to make you happy, those who have accepted Moroni's challenge, and by that means gained a sure testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel, are supposed throw their witness of the Spirit out the window and begin to doubt because it's now sheik among intellectul former believers to think any truly honest LDS church member, including those with the most powerful testimonies, should admit they have doubts even when they don't

Meanwhile, the greatest heroes of scripture became those heroes by virtue of the fact that they did not doubt.their testimonies (see the list of the heroes of faith in Hebrews). But in spite of the sterling examples of the heroes of faith who did not doubt, it seems as if you won't be satisfied until today's testimony-bearing Latter-day Saints reject the examples of the great heroes of faith and wear doubt as some sort of badge of intellectual honor. No thanks...

 

This kinda surprises me. I find it odd how those who either lost testimonies or have weakened testimonies go out of their way to sow seeds of doubts in the minds and hearts of others. It's exactly what happened to my sister. People had to convince her first that she didn't really know. Then it became her job to try and convince those around her that they didn't really know either. I just can't understand the motivation I guess.

[Bobbieaware]

This kinda surprises me. I find it odd how those who either lost testimonies or have weakened testimonies go out of their way to sow seeds of doubts in the minds and hearts of others. It's exactly what happened to my sister. People had to convince her first that she didn't really know. Then it became her job to try and convince those around her that they didn't really know either. I just can't understand the motivation I guess.

As someone suggested on another recent thread, ex-LDS believers are by very nature impelled to become missionaries for their own cause. But by their own experience they know Mormonism makes a powerful and compellingly logical case for its own divine authenticity; and this, in turn, causes them to privately doubt within their own hearts the wisdom of the rejection of their once-beloved former religion. So if in their efforts as ex-mormon missionaries they can convince another soul to follow in their footsteps to abandon his or her own testimony, that helps to calm the nagging doubts that secretly haunt them. Not unlike Korihor, in their heart of hearts they still know the restored gospel is true.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Mystery Meat]

As someone suggested on another recent thread, ex-LDS believers are by very nature impelled to become missionaries for their own cause. But by their own experience they know Mormonism makes a powerful and compellingly logical case for its own divine authenticity; and this, in turn, causes them to privately doubt within their own hearts the wisdom of the rejection of their once-beloved former religion. So if in their efforts as ex-mormon missionaries they can convince another soul to follow in their footsteps to abandon his or her own testimony, that helps to calm the nagging doubts that secretly haunt them. Not unlike Korihor, in their heart of hearts they still know the restored gospel is true.

 

Again, this hits very close to home with my sister. She says with great desperation that she takes great comfort in the fact that one day soon her entire family will be out of the church.

[omni]

As someone suggested on another recent thread, ex-LDS believers are by very nature impelled to become missionaries for their own cause. But by their own experience they know Mormonism makes a powerful and compellingly logical case for its own divine authenticity; and this, in turn, causes them to privately doubt within their own hearts the wisdom of the rejection of their once-beloved former religion. So if in their efforts as ex-mormon missionaries they can convince another soul to follow in their footsteps to abandon his or her own testimony, that helps to calm the nagging doubts that secretly haunt them. Not unlike Korihor, in their heart of hearts they still know the restored gospel is true.

I promise you the world isn't nearly as black and white as you seem to think is. I'd recommend taking some time to talk with or read the profiles of those who doubt or no longer believe. Their stories and perspectives are as diverse and valid as those who continue to believe.

[Bobbieaware]

I promise you the world isn't nearly as black and white as you seem to think is. I'd recommend taking some time to talk with or read the profiles of those who doubt or no longer believe. To

heir stories and perspectives are as diverse and valid as those who continue to believe.

Not if the restored gospel really is true. For if it is, then all that's left is a large and diverse group of people who are sincere but, unfortunately for them, sincerely wrong. But all is not lost because nearly all of them are on a journey that will eventually lead them back to the fold of the religion that the've left but just can't seem to leave alone. And (unbeknownst to them) the reason why they can't leave it alone is because their spirits still know it's true, even as their carnal minds have rejected it.

P.S. The scriptures and the prophets present the gospel in tolerant but very black and white terms, and of this I am not ashamed.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[omni]

But all is not lost because nearly all of them are on a journey that will eventually lead them back to the fold of the religion that the've left but just can't seem to leave alone. And (unbeknownst to them) the reason why they can't leave it alone is because their spirits still know it's true, even as their carnal minds have rejected it.

Do you believe that nearly all who leave the church come back to full activity?

[Bobbieaware]

Do you believe that nearly all who leave the church come back to full activity?

Whether in this world or in the world of departed spirits, I believe nearly all who have left the church will eventually once again come to believe and publicly acknowledge the restored church of Christ is true. Doctrine and Covenants 76 and 138 make it clear the only way one can inherit either a terrestrial or telestial glory in the resurrection will be for them to first exercise faith in and worship the God of the Mormons. Those who won't do this are the sons of perdition.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[telnetd]

Can I believe in the power of the BOM but reject its racism? Can I accept the majesty of the endowment but reject the teaching that I stand between my wife and God rather than at her side? Can I rely on the restoration of the priesthood but believe that historical and modern exclusions from priesthood office are not directed by God? Can I teach the core doctrine of eternal families but maintain hope that same sex couples will be accepted eventually?

 

The Book of Mormon does not teach racism. The endowment does not teach that you stand

between your wife and God (not to my knowledge).   

 

Gail

[Buckeye]

The Book of Mormon does not teach racism. The endowment does not teach that you stand

between your wife and God (not to my knowledge).   

 

Gail

 

Here's a sample of what I had in mind. You're free to disagree that this is racism, but that's how I read it.

 

1 Ne. 12: 23: And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.

 

2 Ne. 5:21-22: And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

 

Alma 3:6-8:  And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women. And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

 

 

As for the temple ceremony, without quoting any language, it is sufficient to say that in the temple some covenants are made equally by men and women (e.g., chastity), some laws are applied equally to men and women (e.g. sacrifice) and some promises are made equally to men and women (e.g., entrance into the celestial kingdom). However, other covenants and promises are not equal. Men covenant to obey God's law and are promised to be kings and priests to God. Women covenant to obey their husband's law and are promised to become queens and priestesses to their husbands.

[Mystery Meat]

Here's a sample of what I had in mind. You're free to disagree that this is racism, but that's how I read it.

 

However, other covenants and promises are not equal. Men covenant to obey God's law and are promised to be kings and priests to God. Women covenant to obey their husband's law and are promised to become queens and priestesses to their husbands.

 

This is an inaccurate and incomplete summary.

[theplains]

Here's a sample of what I had in mind. You're free to disagree that this is racism, but that's how I read it.

 

 

As for the temple ceremony, without quoting any language, it is sufficient to say that in the temple some covenants are made equally by men and women (e.g., chastity), some laws are applied equally to men and women (e.g. sacrifice) and some promises are made equally to men and women (e.g., entrance into the celestial kingdom). However, other covenants and promises are not equal. Men covenant to obey God's law and are promised to be kings and priests to God. Women covenant to obey their husband's law and are promised to become queens and priestesses to their husbands.

 

If you equate 1 Nephi 12:23, 2 Nephi 5:21-22, and Alma 3:6-8 to racism (which is something

the 'Lord' supposedly did), what kind of 'ism' would you apply to Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and

Romans 1:26-27?  Would you call it homosexualism?

 

I find nothing in the LDS standard works which say women are queens and priestesses to

their husbands.  I'm not even sure this teaching is in LDS training manuals.

 

Let me know an official reference if you can.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Thinking]

Why does it seem some who lack faith won't be satisfied until those who do have faith are somehow constrained to "admit " they secretly have doubts? Is it because misery loves company?

 

I'm not miserable, and happiness loves company too.

 

The Savior taught those who believe the gospel to "doubt not, but be believing." Yet without due regard to this critically important admonition of the Savior, you seem to cling to an unwholesome desire to want to hear those who obey the Savior's admonition to doubt not to come around to "confessing" they have doubts when they really don't.

 

I was simply responding to a claim that the only way for this believer to be wrong is if God lied.

 

In the Book of Mormon, a wonderful promise is made that those who ask of God with genuine sincerity and living faith can KNOW of a surety the truth of the restored gospel.. Yet, to make you happy, those who have accepted Moroni's challenge, and by that means gained a sure testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel, are supposed throw their witness of the Spirit out the window and begin to doubt because it's now sheik among intellectul former believers to think any truly honest LDS church member, including those with the most powerful testimonies, should admit they have doubts even when they don't

 

I believe the word I used was reconsider, which is a far cry from throw their witness of the Spirit out the window.

 

Meanwhile, the greatest heroes of scripture became those heroes by virtue of the fact that they did not doubt.their testimonies (see the list of the heroes of faith in Hebrews). But in spite of the sterling examples of the heroes of faith who did not doubt, it seems as if you won't be satisfied until today's testimony-bearing Latter-day Saints reject the examples of the great heroes of faith and wear doubt as some sort of badge of intellectual honor. No thanks...

 

I hope you see the irony of this thinking given the fact that Joseph Smith ultimately rejected established Christianity.

[Teancum]

Why does it seem some who lack faith won't be satisfied until those who do have faith are somehow constrained to "admit " they secretly have doubts? Is it because misery loves company?

The Savior taught those who believe the gospel to "doubt not, but be believing." Yet without due regard to this critically important admonition of the Savior, you seem to cling to an unwholesome desire to want to hear those who obey the Savior's admonition to doubt not to come around to "confessing" they have doubts when they really don't.

In the Book of Mormon, a wonderful promise is made that those who ask of God with genuine sincerity and living faith can KNOW of a surety the truth of the restored gospel.. Yet, to make you happy, those who have accepted Moroni's challenge, and by that means gained a sure testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel, are supposed throw their witness of the Spirit out the window and begin to doubt because it's now sheik among intellectul former believers to think any truly honest LDS church member, including those with the most powerful testimonies, should admit they have doubts even when they don't

Meanwhile, the greatest heroes of scripture became those heroes by virtue of the fact that they did not doubt.their testimonies (see the list of the heroes of faith in Hebrews). But in spite of the sterling examples of the heroes of faith who did not doubt, it seems as if you won't be satisfied until today's testimony-bearing Latter-day Saints reject the examples of the great heroes of faith and wear doubt as some sort of badge of intellectual honor. No thanks...

 

 

Personally I don't think I ask people of faith not to have faith.  Perhaps I am poor at expressing myself in writing.  Really what I want the person of faith to do is stop telling me that my way of seeking for truth is less noble, special, valiant, righteous, pious or whatever.  The tone you and a number of others have is just what I described, You have derided me for really doing something I try to avoid yet you do it.... in spades. 

 

If your method works for you I am not going to tell you to abandon it.  I have told you I used to rely pretty much on the same method. For a variety of reasons it just does not seem to work for me now. Maybe it will in the future again.  Who knows. 

 

But it would be nice if persons of faith and testimony bearers of THEIR OWN UNIQUE TO THEM personal experience would not demean others who are seeking for truth in other ways. 

 

Edited to add:  I think the Elder Holland's comments in his talk that is the topic of his thread strongly does what I describe above.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Teancum

[rockpond]

Personally I don't think I ask people of faith not to have faith.  Perhaps I am poor at expressing myself in writing.  Really what I want the person of faith to do is stop telling me that my way of seeking for truth is less noble, special, valiant, righteous, pious or whatever.  The tone you and a number of others have is just what I described, You have derided me for really doing something I try to avoid yet you do it.... in spades. 

 

If your method works for you I am not going to tell you to abandon it.  I have told you I used to rely pretty much on the same method. For a variety of reasons it just does not seem to work for me now. Maybe it will in the future again.  Who knows. 

 

But it would be nice if persons of faith and testimony bearers of THEIR OWN UNIQUE TO THEM personal experience would not demean others who are seeking for truth in other ways. 

 

Amen.

[rockpond]

Meanwhile, the greatest heroes of scripture became those heroes by virtue of the fact that they did not doubt.their testimonies (see the list of the heroes of faith in Hebrews). But in spite of the sterling examples of the heroes of faith who did not doubt, it seems as if you won't be satisfied until today's testimony-bearing Latter-day Saints reject the examples of the great heroes of faith and wear doubt as some sort of badge of intellectual honor. No thanks...

 

I hope you see the irony of this thinking given the fact that Joseph Smith ultimately rejected established Christianity.

 

But it would be nice if persons of faith and testimony bearers of THEIR OWN UNIQUE TO THEM personal experience would not demean others who are seeking for truth in other ways. 

 

I think all three of you are touching on important points.  The Prophet Joseph did not doubt his faith in God but he certainly doubted the religious teachings of his upbringing.

 

This blog post might be of interest to you... it offers a different approach to this subject stepping away a bit from the doubt-faith paradigm to instead discuss the "productive edges".  I really enjoyed the perspective.

 

https://medium.com/@ungewissen/wetlands-the-future-of-mormonism-f1c1b3b62256

Edited February 17, 2015 by rockpond

[bluebell]

I think all three of you are touching on important points.  The Prophet Joseph did not doubt his faith in God but he certainly doubted the religious teachings of his upbringing.

 

This blog post might be of interest to you... it offers a different approach to this subject stepping away a bit from the doubt-faith paradigm to instead discuss the "productive edges".  I really enjoyed the perspective.

 

I think you forgot to link to the blog post.