Does The Lord Put Stumbling Blocks In Our Path?

[Thinking]

On another thread...

But He has also allowed just enough troubling historical information, teachings that seem out of step with human reason and lack of convincing scientific evidence to persuade those who don't learn how to hear and heed the voice of the Spirit of revelation to lose faith and thereby find themselves mired in faith destroying and spiritually debilitating doubt.

 

Now that we can't deny the troubling aspects of LDS history, let's reclassify them as part of some great test by God to see if we can tune out the noise and hear the real message.

 

I have long been aware of the principle that the Lord would leave just enough uncertainty regarding whether the claims of the Church are true or false to make it necessary for sincere and humble seekers to exercise faith.

 

Is this principle pseudo doctrine or can you point me to an authoritative source?

 

I probably could. But you are hi-jacking my thread.

 

Start another thread for this subject. I may or may not contribute to it.

 

Is there a principle, as claimed by Scott Lloyd, that the Lord would leave just enough uncertainty (such as troubling historical information, teachings that seem out of step with human reason and lack of convincing scientific evidence) regarding whether the claims of the Church are true or false to make it necessary for sincere and humble seekers to exercise faith?

 

Or..

 

Is the uncertainty caused by the adversary?

[Garden Girl]

I don't think the Lord puts stumbling blocks in our paths... we are quite capable of doing that ourselves.  In fact my patriarchal blessing gave me warnings about stumbling blocks I would encounter, and counseled me on how to prevent or overcome them.  I ignored the counsel and tripped over every one... He patiently waited for me to get up and back on the path... helping me...  

 

GG

[janderich]

I would say uncertainty is permitted by God but caused by the adversary. As evidence that it is permitted, I would give the account of Jesus' teachings to Mormon, who was about to write the greater things but the Lord forbade it saying, "And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them" (3 Ne 26:9). Specific issues with history or lack of scientific evidence are just outgrowths of our limited knowledge.

 

A follower of Christ has always needed to find truth within him or herself. I do believe some day more evidence will be given but, the more evidence given on this level of form the less spiritual growth will occur. 

[JLHPROF]

I think the title of your thread and the question posed in your OP are two different issues.

1. I don't think God puts stumbling blocks (things designed to trip us up) in our path. That is the work of the adversary. God never nudges us towards falsehoods or sin.

2. God does choose to withhold some things that we might live by faith, seek additional revelation, learn, and grow.

These are two very different things.

[ksfisher]

I think the stumbling block is called the Second Estate. It's pretty much full of doubts and uncertainties.

[JAHS]

I don't think God actually puts individual stumbling blocks in our path, although He does allow them to happen. Most of these appear due to man's exercize of agency or by acts of nature. I don't even think Satan is the one to blame for it all. He will however, put thoughts or feelings of despair and hoplessness and temptation in our minds to encourage us to stumble over those blocks if we are not careful or to be the ones to place stumbling blocks in others paths. 

[HappyJackWagon]

The stumbling block issue seems to be an excuse used to brush off anything we can't explain. It rings very hollow and a bit desperate.

 

Simply coming to this world with a veil over our eyes that prevents us from remembering our premortal life seems requires a great deal of faith. So why then, if someone is faithful enough to trust in God, despite this limitation of knowledge, would God's path back to him be littered with so much rubbish? Does having a church with such difficult history really sanctify the faith even more? To me, these explanations sound more like a child playing a game with us, rather than a loving father. 

[CV75]

Is there a principle, as claimed by Scott Lloyd, that the Lord would leave just enough uncertainty (such as troubling historical information, teachings that seem out of step with human reason and lack of convincing scientific evidence) regarding whether the claims of the Church are true or false to make it necessary for sincere and humble seekers to exercise faith?

 

Or..

 

Is the uncertainty caused by the adversary?

The Lord both gives and allows trials of our faith:

 

"And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith." – Ether 12:6

 

"I have heard their prayers, and will accept their offering; and it is expedient in me that they should be brought thus far for a trial of their faith." – D&C 105:19

 

These trials come in many forms—some designed by God, some by the adversary, some by our fellow human beings, some come about simply by the nature of this probationary state. The trials aren’t all about history; they are also about discerning light and darkness, the commandments, our callings, temptations, beguiling and conspiring people, the human condition, etc.

 

From what I can tell, the scriptural use of the term “stumbling block” is less about a trial of faith than a consequence of wickedness (lack of faith). Rarely does the Lord place a stumbling block, but when He does, it is in the path of the wicked (Ezekiel 3:20). Usually the wicked bring it upon themselves or impose it on others. Typically the Lord removes stumbling blocks for the faithful, but becomes one for the unbelieving (1 Corinthians 1:23).

 

As far as history is concerned, obviously the Lord allows it to happen but it needn’t be a stumbling block, and if / when it does become one, the Lord can remove it through faith. History on the other hand, by its very nature, provides a perfect trial of faith.

Edited April 9, 2015 by CV75

[Gray]

Terryl Givens has articulated that point in one of his books, but it's not something that I think is true for several reasons. One of those reasons is that all churches and religious traditions seem to have skeletons in their closets, and all churches and religious traditions seem to have positive spiritual fruits. If God is trying to send a message this way, the message would seem to be, all Churches are Mine. 

 

I don't think a message is being sent. Rather, I think that all churches are institutions run by fallible human beings, sometimes collectively awakening to greater spiritual truths, and sometimes forgetting those truths. 

Edited April 9, 2015 by Gray

[rpn]

Seems to me that "stumbling blocks" are caused either by human wickedness, or human failure to keep good records ---- both of which we know are not not of God.  Or the natural process that turn records into dust, and misunderstanding His directions.   Which is how He made the world.

 

I've just never understood how we allow all of the above to affect our belief.    We all participate in His work, and all of us pretty much have screwed it up in one way or another even when we were trying to do His will or at least had some desire to want to do His will.    Since we all have had that personal experience, how do we get to a place where we say that He'll let us be a part of His work with all our human frailty and even wickedness, but He would never let [fill in the leader's name] do that and still be [whatever the calling is]?   If He uses us with all our baggage, habits, and un-Christlike actions, then it shouldn't surprise us that He sees people and His prophets and leaders differently than we do, and accepts their best contribution in spite of their worst actions.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

If He uses us with all our baggage, habits, and un-Christlike actions, then it shouldn't surprise us that He sees people and His prophets and leaders differently than we do, and accepts their best contribution in spite of their worst actions

Agreed. But if we are going to accept this level of fallibility among leaders including prophets and therefore also scripture, then it becomes very difficult to accept their words as literal words from God. Instead we must take them with a grain of salt.

[cinepro]

On another thread...

 

 

 

 

 

Is there a principle, as claimed by Scott Lloyd, that the Lord would leave just enough uncertainty (such as troubling historical information, teachings that seem out of step with human reason and lack of convincing scientific evidence) regarding whether the claims of the Church are true or false to make it necessary for sincere and humble seekers to exercise faith?

 

Or..

 

Is the uncertainty caused by the adversary?

 

If lack of evidence and uncertainty were the Lord's plan, then the apologetic search for evidence and conclusive arguments would be the opposite of what God wants.  I can imagine His frustration at all these LDS researchers publishing articles that diminish people's faith by replacing it with knowledge, and Him hiding the evidence as fast as He can lest His eternal purposes be frustrated.

[bluebell]

Agreed. But if we are going to accept this level of fallibility among leaders including prophets and therefore also scripture, then it becomes very difficult to accept their words as literal words from God. Instead we must take them with a grain of salt.

 

If God wants us to take everything His prophets say with a grain of salt, then the question becomes, why does He use prophets?

[bluebell]

If lack of evidence and uncertainty were the Lord's plan, then the apologetic search for evidence and conclusive arguments would be the opposite of what God wants.  I can imagine His frustration at all these LDS researchers publishing articles that diminish people's faith by replacing it with knowledge, and Him hiding the evidence as fast as He can lest His eternal purposes be frustrated.

 

Uncertainty can be the Lord's plan and He can still embrace any effort to provide evidence that will strengthen and help someone's faith.  After all, faith is not meant to exist in a vacuum.

[HappyJackWagon]

If God wants us to take everything His prophets say with a grain of salt, then the question becomes, why does He use prophets?

Excellent question.

 

I see a few options.

 

1- God doesn't really call prophets. Each individual is responsible for discerning the will of God.

2- God speaks to prophets and wants us to believe and follow them even when they are wrong. Fallibility doesn't matter.

3- God speaks to prophets but wants us to receive a personal witness from him about the validity of their words and teachings. He recognizes that they are fallible and wants us to recognize that also. They are a tool but not the final arbiter of all truth or access to God.

[Mormonmaniac]

Excellent question.

 

I see a few options.

 

1- God doesn't really call prophets. Each individual is responsible for discerning the will of God.

2- God speaks to prophets and wants us to believe and follow them even when they are wrong. Fallibility doesn't matter.

3- God speaks to prophets but wants us to receive a personal witness from him about the validity of their words and teachings. He recognizes that they are fallible and wants us to recognize that also. They are a tool but not the final arbiter of all truth or access to God.

Option #4

4- God speaks to prophets and gives them the keys of his power which, when exercised correctly, is the very power of God on earth to perform miracles, proclaim prophecy, give warning and counsel, etc.

[HappyJackWagon]

Option #4

4- God speaks to prophets and gives them the keys of his power which, when exercised correctly, is the very power of God on earth to perform miracles, proclaim prophecy, give warning and counsel, etc.

Unless you are claiming #4 is - God's prophets are infallible, then this really doesn't have a place on the list. It fits closely with #2. I just don't see how anyone could possibly claim infallibility of the prophets; words, deeeds, teachings etc. Not even the church claims that. So it leaves us with a big blind spot of believing in prophets but not always believing what they teach.

[Mormonmaniac]

Unless you are claiming #4 is - God's prophets are infallible, then this really doesn't have a place on the list. It fits closely with #2. I just don't see how anyone could possibly claim infallibility of the prophets; words, deeeds, teachings etc. Not even the church claims that. So it leaves us with a big blind spot of believing in prophets but not always believing what they teach.

Its sort of telling that you do not believe in prophets.

[HappyJackWagon]

Its sort of telling that you do not believe in prophets.

Telling of what? Try answering the question or make an argument without personal attack.

 

To quote myself since you clearly didn't understand this...

 

So it leaves us with a big blind spot of believing in prophets but not always believing what they teach.

 

If you believe that prophets are fallible, just like every other person who has ever lived on the earth (except Christ), then you accept that they make mistakes. Is there value in believing their mistakes? No. That is known as putting trust in the arm of the flesh when we should be putting trust in Christ.

[The Nehor]

The Lord can put stumbling blocks as he wishes. One of the perks of being God.

If some people put a quarter of the time they spent forming justifications for questioning the prophets into following the prophets we would have more translated people and no need for a new subdivision in hell.

[Mormonmaniac]

Telling of what? Try answering the question or make an argument without personal attack.

 

To quote myself since you clearly didn't understand this...

If you believe that prophets are fallible, just like every other person who has ever lived on the earth (except Christ), then you accept that they make mistakes. Is there value in believing their mistakes? No. That is known as putting trust in the arm of the flesh when we should be putting trust in Christ.

It appeared as if you were making a personal attack on a prophets ability. Just sayin...

[HappyJackWagon]

The Lord can put stumbling blocks as he wishes. One of the perks of being God.

If some people put a quarter of the time they spent forming justifications for questioning the prophets into following the prophets we would have more translated people and no need for a new subdivision in hell.

Come on Nehor. You're better than that.

 

Do you believe the prophets are perfect/infallible and therefore above question? It's not a justifiable position although I'd be open to review any authoritative source you can supply that states prophets are perfect and that we should follow them blindly.

 

If you don't blindly follow then you must question. I'd hate to think of people who have reasonable questions being damned to a new subdivision of hell.

[HappyJackWagon]

It appeared as if you were making a personal attack on a prophets ability. Just sayin...

I'm stating the obvious, that prophets make mistakes. They, and God, have never claimed otherwise. If you don't agree, defend your position, otherwise you may want to read the posts a little more closely.

[The Nehor]

Come on Nehor. You're better than that.

 

Do you believe the prophets are perfect/infallible and therefore above question? It's not a justifiable position although I'd be open to review any authoritative source you can supply that states prophets are perfect and that we should follow them blindly.

 

If you don't blindly follow then you must question. I'd hate to think of people who have reasonable questions being damned to a new subdivision of hell.

No, I am clearly not better then that.

I do not believe they are infallible. I do believe they will never lead us astray. I do not encourage blind obedience. I encourage people to use the Gift of the Holy Ghost to receive confirmation of a prophet's words and to unlock additional insights from them.

I would like to see an authoritative source that encourages second-guessing the prophets.

People who have reasonable questions should seek out revelation. If they do not they are going to hell. Kind of sad but it is what it is.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I would like to see an authoritative source that encourages second-guessing the prophets.

 

It would seem that the counsel to seek our own spiritual confirmation is itself a recognition that prophets will not always be correct and that we should test their words.

 

So even though you state that prophets make mistakes (like erroneous teachings about black inferiority) you do not acknowledge that those mistakes can lead the church astray. Fine. Certainly people define "astray" differently but the black/priesthood doctrine certainly seems to me a case of prophetic fallibility that had a negative influence on an entire race of people as well as the church as a whole. The essay admits the error even if you may be unwilling to.