How Confident Are You That Your Beliefs Are True?

[SeekerB]

I am confident enough that I have based my eternal destiny in the promises of the Restored Gospel.

 

I also teach and encourage these beliefs to my children and grandchildren, risking, as the OP might say, their eternal future as well on the soundness of the Church. 

 

I'm not worried about it.

[Kenngo1969]

you believe you know whether fruits have demonstrated in my life or not?  sounds like quibbling.  by the way true principles have borne good fruit.  false ones have not.  some I am undecided.

I was simply inviting you to consider the question of whether the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is true from the standpoint of what good fruit it has borne in your life.  If you do not wish to do so, there are other approaches, I suppose. It might surprise you to learn that I probably have questions about some of the same things you do, but I'm not willing, simply based on a lack of information, to conclude that those questions mean that those principles (though I'm not fond of talking about "principles" in the abstract) are false. And whatever questions one has, by definition, I don't think it's possible for a "false" Gospel principle to exist: Whatever questions I might have, if it's a principle of the Gospel, it's true. Even though I don't have answers to all of my questions, all of the Gospel seeds I have planted and nurtured (vis-a-vis Alma 32) have borne good fruit, so I know those seeds are, to use Alma's phrasing, "true" and "good."

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/gospel?lang=eng

 

I meant no offense.  I wish you well.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Tacenda]

I believe that a lot people in Joseph's time believed that much in the Bible are parables that teach truth. And think the church that Joseph Smith started is a continuation of that.

[CCRW]

Ken,

 

When you mentioned the fruits across the spectrum of hope -> faith -> know, I stopped and reflected.  My life is full of excellent fruit.  The problem is that some of it came an an incredible cost, which may or may not have been required.  I think I shopped at a very expensive stand.

[why me]

BTW, I'm pleasantly surprised that anything short of 100% might not be bannable here anymore.  It's scary to admit/talk about doubt.  I hope that this is a trend in the church and that the danger/fear of individuals being able to express doubt and speak about it among even a ward family continues and grows.

There is a progression going on in the church. For example, back in the 70s if one was a priesthood holder and fornicated, excommunication was a given. This is not the case anymore. The world has changed and the sexualization of society has led the church to loosen its 'rule book'. Doubt has become rather common in the western world. The secularization of society is rather strong. And this has led to doubt among members. Not easy to be a believer in a god or in Joseph Smith etc. So, what is the church to do? Just accept that doubt is very strong now in the western world and they must adjust and adapt accordingly. And they need to address the issue more because doubt has become more common inside the church.

Edited April 12, 2015 by why me

[JLHPROF]

There is a progression going on in the church. For example, back in the 70s if one was a priesthood holder and fornicated, excommunication was a given. This is not the case anymore. The world has changed and the sexualization of society has led the church to loosen its 'rule book'.

 

That is VERY disturbing, and if I am reading it accurately, not very scriptural either.

 

 

Doubt has become rather common in the western world. The secularization of society is rather strong. And this has led to doubt among members. Not easy to be a believer in a god or in Joseph Smith etc. So, what is the church to do? Just accept that doubt is very strong now in the western world and they must adjust and adapt accordingly. And they need to address the issue more because doubt has become more common inside the church.

 

Doubt however is not a sin of the same sort as sexual misconduct for a priesthood holder.

[why me]

I believe that a lot people in Joseph's time believed that much in the Bible are parables that teach truth. And think the church that Joseph Smith started is a continuation of that.

When charles darwin published his book The Origin of the Species, many people experienced a faith crisis because of it. It stood christianity on its head. Many fell away from establish churches. Modern human civilization has been through various phases of doubt but they have usually recovered faith. Faith and doubt ebb and flow with the times. At the moment in the west we are experiencing doubt phase. Too much secularization around us. And for church members it is even worse since lds history is not that deep or long and so much can be investigated and interpreted. And much is now being done to sow doubt in lds minds. Why?

[why me]

That is VERY disturbing, and if I am reading it accurately, not very scriptural either.

 

 

Doubt however is not a sin of the same sort as sexual misconduct for a priesthood holder.

Not really The power of satan is very strong and many members succumb to his ways. I think that the church has an understanding of this. Likewise for doubt. The church teaches good wisdom but some members have difficulty in seeing it these days. Doubt is coming easy these days. But why? If one searches the internet about the lds church, one can countless interpretations from critics that attempt to cast doubt in members minds. So much energy for such a purpose is hard to understand. And yet, the church teaches goodness, well being, spirituality, good neighborness, prayer and charity, chasity, helping the poor and other members etc. And yet, so much time spent on casting doubt to get members to fall away.

 

Why so much energy in this direction from critics and exmembers?

Edited April 12, 2015 by why me

[VideoGameJunkie]

I should probably have been excommunicated, but I wasn't. Instead my Bishop gave me a priesthood blessing and in it he choked up and said I was forgiven and I felt the spirit stronger then than any moment of my life. I don't like when the church is quick to punish. Everyone deserves multiple chances to make it right and repent.

[why me]

I should probably have been excommunicated, but I wasn't. Instead my Bishop gave me a priesthood blessing and in it he choked up and said I was forgiven and I felt the spirit stronger then than any moment of my life. I don't like when the church is quick to punish. Everyone deserves multiple chances to make it right and repent.

Especially in todays world. It was different in the past. Society had a different value system going on. Very few people were living together. And many married within their faiths. TV and the media had a social conservative direction. Now, everything has been turned upside down. There needs to be more understanding of people trying to survive such a world who may be religious. It is not easy to have confidence in religion or in religious beliefs. I remember Leave it to Beaver, Father know best, Hazel etc. All good family kid and family shows. And all with a moral message. And now?

 

Much more was expected of people in the past. But now, with temptation everywhere, something had to give in.

Edited April 12, 2015 by why me

[Kenngo1969]

Ken,

 

When you mentioned the fruits across the spectrum of hope -> faith -> know, I stopped and reflected.  My life is full of excellent fruit.  The problem is that some of it came an an incredible cost, which may or may not have been required.  I think I shopped at a very expensive stand.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/15.8-10?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/13.45-46

[Kenngo1969]

I should probably have been excommunicated, but I wasn't. Instead my Bishop gave me a priesthood blessing and in it he choked up and said I was forgiven and I felt the spirit stronger then than any moment of my life. I don't like when the church is quick to punish. Everyone deserves multiple chances to make it right and repent.

Excommunication is not about punishment, my young Padawan.  It's about motivating and helping people to repent, and protecting them from the harm that would ensue if they were to continue to be bound by covenants they can no longer keep.

[Freedom]

The bretheren have a much better understanding of the human psyche today. We now know about mental illness and learning disabilities, and have a greater understanding of how people are able to respond to different situations. The bretheren have also leaned that you cannot correct a persons behavior by casting them out of the only support network that is interested in helping them. Having attended a few church disciplinary councils I have learned that the process is about protecting the innocent. If the innocent are protected and if the good name of the church is not affected, the next aim is to help the sinner. 

[CCRW]

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/15.8-10?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/13.45-46

 

I'm a bit thick ... I don't understand what your message is here.

 

The cost I was alluding to was having my children and grandchildren indoctrinated into the inner depths of the monoculture.  Where the costs of personal pain, family and community isolation are too great.  I have at least one child, likely two who's marriage depend on them remaining silent no matter where they might be.  And yet I believe the same fruits would be found in other paths to Christ, not leaving family held hostage to an community with the family being the ransom.

 

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2382761-155/op-ed-mormon-fringes-should-speak-up

Edited April 12, 2015 by CCRW

[Teancum]

There is a progression going on in the church. For example, back in the 70s if one was a priesthood holder and fornicated, excommunication was a given. This is not the case anymore. The world has changed and the sexualization of society has led the church to loosen its 'rule book'. Doubt has become rather common in the western world. The secularization of society is rather strong. And this has led to doubt among members. Not easy to be a believer in a god or in Joseph Smith etc. So, what is the church to do? Just accept that doubt is very strong now in the western world and they must adjust and adapt accordingly. And they need to address the issue more because doubt has become more common inside the church.

 

 

The comment about fornication and excommunication in the 70s is simply false.  Some leaders were heavy handed and others were not. I had plenty of friends that fornicated and then repented and went on missions.  Course they were not Elders but priests at the time.  Maybe an MP holder and endowed member like and RM.  This is odd coming from you Why Me given your ideas I have seen you share on the permissibility of other sexual as a young member in the 70s that did not go to the act of intercourse.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm a bit thick ... I don't understand what your message is here.

 

The cost I was alluding to was having my children and grandchildren indoctrinated into the inner depths of the monoculture.  Where the costs of personal pain, family and community isolation are too great.  I have at least one child, likely two who's marriage depend on them remaining silent no matter where they might be.  And yet I believe the same fruits would be found in other paths to Christ, not leaving family held hostage to an community with the family being the ransom.

 

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2382761-155/op-ed-mormon-fringes-should-speak-up

I'm disappointed that those you care about feel they face a Hobson's choice of remaining silent simply to preserve family harmony (or speaking up and risking sacrificing that harmony).  Obviously, I don't know how difficult that can be.  One of the blessings of being single, I suppose, is that I've never had to worry about anyone else's reaction as my commitment to the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ has waxed and waned, and that I've never had to worry about how I would react as their commitment to it, likewise, has waxed and waned.  Such situations do, however, serve to illustrate the point that being true to oneself often is more complicated than it seems (though, from another perspective, as important as being true to oneself might be, there might actually be other priorities or other considerations that deserve greater weight than they often get.)

 

Alas, there's not much else I can say.  I wish you and yours well.

 

P.S.: Alas, nor do I agree with many of the premises in your linked Op-Ed.  I reject a God who, although he is described as omniscient and omnipotent, is, in fact, so impotent that the only thing He can do is wait for a bunch of old men to die off before He can finally make the changes He wants to make in His Church.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[CCRW]

P.S.: Alas, nor do I agree with many of the premises in your linked Op-Ed.  I reject a God who, although he is described as omniscient and omnipotent, is, in fact, so impotent that the only thing He can do is wait for a bunch of old men to die off before He can finally make the changes He wants to make in His Church.

 

Of course there are other possibilities here.  The whole fruits thing is a double edged sword.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

The purpose of the thought experiment is not to objectively determine a feeling, assuming that is even remotely possible. Think about what you are saying about feelings. It's like saying, "Robert feels happy right now, but happiness is a feeling and feelings can't be determined by how one feels. To determine whether he feels happiness, Robert would need a control group, and some very sophisticated scientific sampling techniques.  He would also need some very good algorithms based on calculus in order to track his moving targets (rising and falling moods and hormones).  Moreover, his research design would have to include some way to theoretically falsify the results." This is nonsense! How someone feels is how someone feels. The goal of the thought experiment is to see if statements and feelings are congruent; i.e., does a statement reflect feelings, not does a feeling reflect feelings. If someone asserts certainty regarding a religious belief but feels "wishy washy," then they are not certain. I reiterate why below.

............................................................................  

Ridiculous.  You even admit that your purpose is not to find an objective result, and you seem to doubt that such is even possible.  So, what's the point?

 

You might as well be trying to herd kittens . . .  

[SmileyMcGee]

Ridiculous. You even admit that your purpose is not to find an objective result, and you seem to doubt that such is even possible. So, what's the point?

You might as well be trying to herd kittens . . .

I've been saying that this whole time! Do you even read my responses or are you just wanting to create some nonsensical straw man? Like I've been saying, the experiment assists the participant in applying probabilities, subject to their feelings. It does not assist outside experimenters in objectively determining what those feelings are. The participant can know their feelings because they are feeling them (something you apparently think is near impossible). An outside observer has no objective way to know what the participant is feeling, making any outside observer irrelevant.

I think you take for granted that we do this all of the time without even being concious of it. why select particular investments? Why do you vote for a particular political candidate? No one can objectively assign probabilities to your beliefs regarding the success of a particular investment or political candidate. Only you can do that subjectively, and you do it all of the time, subconciously.

Edited April 13, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Kenngo1969]

I suppose it's up to any individual observer to determine how much weight he wishes to apply to this thought experiment's (in)ability to arrive at an objective result.  As for me, I can only speak to my personal experience.  Whatever my life might leave to be desired, my the ongoing results of my personal test lead me to believe that it's much better with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ than it would be without.  To each, his own.

[mfbukowski]

Confidence comes with what we read too. For example, if I spend my time reading crtical sites of mormonism, my confidence can drop. If I read more faith promoting sites, confidence can increase. But this is true for all faiths. If I read anticatholic sites that stress catholic history the same will result. It is easy to tear down all religious faiths. This was the effect of Dawkins' book The God Delusion or Hitchens' book God is not Great. There is a reason why confidence in religion is dropping in the west but increasing in many other parts of the world. And it doesn't have to do with intelligence and reason.

On the other hand, seeing that their terrible arguments seem to be the best they can offer gives me great confidence. Honestly, we should not be at all intimidated by that stuff, we just need to understand how poor the arguments really are

[mfbukowski]

If "true" = "bears abundant good fruit in my life," then I'm 100% confident my beliefs are true.

 

"But Ken," you say, "that does nothing to resolve the question of the ultimate truth of religious belief, because surely, other people whose beliefs differ from yours can say the same thing."  Touché.  

 

But my response to that is, "And so?  Ergo, what?"

 

I do not believe that God gives me good fruit, bread, and fish when I ask for them while giving the devout who adhere to other religious traditions thorns, thistles, stones and serpents when they ask for fruit, bread, and fish, or giving them "fruit" that's actually kinda thorny and thistly, "bread" that's actually kinda stony, and "fish" that's actually kinda "serpenty."  Good fruit is good fruit, bread is bread, and fish is fish, period.  I am a practicing Latter-day Saint because I believe such adherence is the best way to receive the most bounteous harvest of good fruit, but all harvests aren't created equal.  If someone's adherence to another religious tradition bears good fruit in his life, more power to him.  If, on the other hand, he would like to know if it's possible for him to get a more bounteous harvest (e.g., to get an hundred fold rather than thirty fold or sixty fold), perhaps I have some ideas about that.

 

And I don't believe God is going to tell devout members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "Congratulations!  You get the Grand Prize," while telling the devout adherents to other religious traditions (and even good people of no particular religious stripe), "Oh, so sorry.  You were mostly wrong.  Here's what you should have done instead."  Rather, I think he'll tell them, "Congratulations!  You were mostly right.  Here are some other things you might want to consider."  It's less about what we believe (or don't believe) than it is about what we do: "Inasmuch as men do good, they shall in nowise lose their reward" (Doctrine & Covenants 58:27).

We are babies and God rewards every mini step. "Good job! You know how to crawl!"

It is all a question of personal progression.

[mfbukowski]

I've seen this question introduced several times over the years.  It's always met the same way.  Either people say they're 100% rock solid or they hem and haw and say the question is flawed.  The aversion to taking this experiment seriously has always confused me.

Please explain what truth is, and I will be happy to take on that discussion.

[CCRW]

Hey Ken,

 

I notice that you seem to pretty purposefully use the term “Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ” verses more common terms?

[mfbukowski]

Thou hast answered well, My Young Padawan.   On the flip side of that coin, Bishop Glenn L. Pace (he may have been "Elder," of the Seventy, at the time; not sure) once told a story of a man who told him, "I would've died for Joseph Smith," whereupon Bishop Pace responded, "What are you doing for President Gordon B. Hinckley today?"    President Hinckley himself told a story of his encounter with a young man who had been disowned by his family, had lost his job, had lost social standing, and had made other sacrifices for the Restored Gospel, and President Hinckley asked him how he could do that, whereupon the young man asked him, "It's true, isn't it?"  Moral of the stories?  Most of the time, we're not asked to die for our beliefs; most of the time, we're asked to live for them.

We recently had a GA visit who told a story of the early chuch whre a visiting authority asked a general priesthood meeting for all those to raise their hands if they would die for the church. All the hands went up. Then he said "Wonderful! Now how many will contribute fifty dollars to the building fund?"