Are LDS members in danger of losing their belief in Christ if they leave the church?

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

It does not exclude children, it protects them......

It teaches little children to judge other little children. 

Edited July 7, 2016 by Jeanne

[Mystery Meat]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It teaches little children to judge other little children. 

No it doesn't. However, people repeating over and over again that they should feel excluded probably does.

[ladyshanae]

I don't know if this has any bearing in this thread, but it's been brought up and not for the first time.

Has anyone who disparages the phrase "Doubt your doubts" read the actual talk by Uchtdorf its entirety? Do you realize this isn't something that is preached every Sunday? Do you know the entire phrase?

"Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith."

Do you know that he was quoting someone else? A protestant minister - F. F. Bosworth (Christ the Healer (1924)).

His entire talk is about welcoming everyone, inviting everyone to come and join with us. I encourage those who take issue with this statement (which has been used in one talk and referenced in one other talk) to read the full talk. It might change your perspective, but, then again, it might not.

https://www.lds.org/liahona/2013/11/saturday-morning-session/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

[Jeanne]

20 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

No it doesn't. However, people repeating over and over again that they should feel excluded probably does.

It isn't right whether they repeat it or not. 

But little children of gay parents are free to show up to church right?  Absolutely generous. 

Edited July 7, 2016 by Jeanne

[Mystery Meat]

32 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It isn't right whether they repeat it or not. 

But little children of gay parents are free to show up to church right?  Absolutely generous. 

Of course, as are their gay parents.

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not for me.

The implication of your response is that you are no longer relying upon faith for some critical component(s) of your testimony.  Is that really what you are claiming?  If so, please describe the circumstances of this sure knowledge.  Frankly, I'd like to hear it for my own benefit (not as a challenge to your reasoning); if I've been doing it wrong all these years, I'd sure like to know.

Edited July 7, 2016 by ttribe

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said:

I don't know this vengeful God you speak of; the God I know and have learned of as a member of the LDS Church certainly isn't that. Rather my God is perfectly loving and has given me sure witnesses and unmistakeable answers when I needed them and AFTER I struggled to find them, and yes even doubted I would ever get them, for over fifteen years. Yet, I never gave up. I continued exercising faith. For that much I was rewarded. My answers came in ways that transcend simple feelings and warm and fuzzies. My answer came by POWER of the Holy Ghost. It shook me. No made up feeling can cause what I felt; no self manipulation or delusion could replicate it. I don't know everything and what I don't know I am more than willing to take on faith. But there are things I absolutely 100%, no doubt whatsover, know. You can try all you want to tell me I don't, but I am telling you that I do. You don't have to believe me. I don't really care if you don't. You have chosen to abandon faith as a means of obtaining truth, and you will therefore never obtain eternal truth, and will doubt those of us who have reaped its fruits after decades of constant struggle to find it by faith (for that is what FAITH REALLY IS and no one can truly exercise it until there is real opposition).

You are responding to something I posted in response to another poster.  

Really your comments above are more than not a dogmatic rant. 

Do you know means know my heart and mind?

Do you know I have abandoned faith as a way of knowing truth?  But assuming I have done so explain to me why faith is the best way to find truth rather than reason, critical thinking and rational thought? 

You say there are thngs your allegedly KNOW 100%.   Really?  Show us your evidence.   Otherwise your alleged knowledge is only good for you.  I would imagine an Isalamist extremist knows that their atrocious acts are purée and true under a similar faith approach.  

I struggle mightily ro find the truth.  I simply don't trust some of the methods that apparently you do.  Perhaps that means I am less than you.   But I ask you, why is faith seemingly the most paramount attribute in finding truth?  Who deemed it as such because that really is the gist of your comments above.

and by the way I don't care of your beleive me either.  

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I gave you a rep point for this because, largely, I agree with it, but my agreement comes with a caveat.  Concerning the passage that begins, "You have chosen to abandon faith ..."  I agree that Teancum would be better off by more fully embracing faith as a means to truth/revelation, and so on, but I cannot see into his heart such that I can determine that he has completely abandoned faith.  Perhaps he is at the, "If-thou-canst-do-no-more-than-desire-to-believe" stage, and I think he would be better off letting that desire work in him rather than trying, to use Elder Holland's memorable phrase, to "stuff a turkey through the beak," but I doubt he would be here on the Board if he had chosen to abandon faith.  My $0.02.  Your mileage may vary.  

Thank you!

[UtahTexan]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

It teaches little children to judge other little children. 

really?  and you have spoken to how many little children who told you this?  I have spoken to several who understand the intent.

Coming from a broken family...I can tell you it protects them.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

The highlighted word (above) is the problem with your response.

 

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not for me.

 

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

So really?  How do your "know?"  Has God come to you face to face and told you that Joseph Smith really was the prophet of His One and only True Church in spite of all the nonesense which you feel is irreverent?  Pray do tell how do you really "know" outside of some metaphysical experience?  

 

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

The implication of your response is that you are no longer relying upon faith for some critical component(s) of your testimony.  Is that really what you are claiming?  If so, please describe the circumstances of this sure knowledge.  Frankly, I'd like to hear it for my own benefit (not as a challenge to your reasoning); if I've been doing it wrong all these years, I'd sure like to know.

You misunderstand.
I am not claiming to be operating outside of faith.
I am merely stating to ttribe's assertion that it's not a problem for me.

[Tacenda]

 

3 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Of course, as are their gay parents.

Like they'd want to go to church, would you?

[smac97]

On 7/6/2016 at 11:18 AM, Gray said:

I think so, although I was quoting Bushman, not Givens

My mistake.  Thank you for the correction.  I meant to reference Bushman as well.

Quote

Perhaps the problem comes when the church is held in nearly equal esteem with God.

Honestly, I'm not sure I see a problem with that.  To the extent that God has characterized the Church as His, as His Kingdom, as His Body, as His Bride, I think the Church as an institution should be honored.  Cherished.  Treated with decorum and sanctity.  And, yes, "esteem."

Again, the LDS paradigm does not draw a clear distinction between Christ and His Church.  To the contrary, they are very much intertwined.

Quote

It's possible to accept different paradigms about who the bride is without rejecting the bridegroom.

Of course.  I was speaking of the LDS paradigm, within which the identity of "the bride" is pretty much beyond dispute.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

This symbolism {of Christ as the "Bridegroom"} continues in the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants. For example, John the Baptist called himself the “friend of the bridegroom” (John 3:29) or, to use a contemporary term, the best man. Obviously Christ is the Bridegroom of whom John the Baptist spoke. Paul also understood the metaphor. In his epistle to the Ephesians he referred to Christ as the husband of the Church (see Eph. 5). John the Revelator spoke of “the marriage of the Lamb” (Rev. 19:7).

...

The basis for Jesus’ claim that he had purchased us with His suffering is evidence that he wanted us with him for his happiness. This is an insight into the statement that Jesus is a Bridegroom and the Church is like his bride, who he takes with him back into the presence of the Father.

Paul explained that the relationship between the Lord and his bride, or Church, is a model of the proper relationship between husbands and wives:

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

“Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

“That he might sanctify and cleanse it. …

“For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

“This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Eph. 5:22–26, 30–32).

I agree that those outside the LDS paradigm can in good faith believe that they have accepted the Bridegroom but reject the LDS Church as "the Bride."  But I don't think that position is tenable inside the LDS paradigm.

Quote

What you say may be true according to your own beliefs. But there are other views about God that should be available to someone who loses their faith in Mormonism. The problem comes when people are unable to extricate God from Mormonism. 

I agree this is a problem.  I would prefer that people who leave the Church attempt to retain some feeling about or belief in God.  As to why this happens ("this" being "people abandoning God when they abandon Mormonism), I suspect there are myriad reasons.  I have my own thoughts as to the most predominant of these reasons.

Quote

I think Bushman believes that there is value with sticking with the church, but if you can't stick with the church, you should at least stick with God.

Agreed.  Again, you and I appear to be in agreement on the substance of this matter.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 7, 2016 by smac97

[sunstoned]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Do you live in a more intellectual area?  

Utah County.  A hot bed on intellectualism

 

[Storm Rider]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Like they'd want to go to church, would you?

Your statement is the most honest of the entire throng of complaints about the policy.  There are no children affected and there are no gay, married couples who want to raise their children in the Church.  All of the fuss is over optics and not reality.  

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Utah County.  A hot bed on intellectualism

Hey!  I resemble that remark.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Your statement is the most honest of the entire throng of complaints about the policy.  There are no children affected and there are no gay, married couples who want to raise their children in the Church.  All of the fuss is over optics and not reality.  

Yours is too, since to me it's basically showing a break up between gays and the church. Before the policy there was some dating and maybe some welcoming back, but no longer.

[consiglieri]

15 hours ago, Jeanne said:

It is just so sad that in the meantime..the policy/revelation excludes children...and now they are going to teach it.  I am ill.

Ten years from now..it will be "we did not teach that'  "not what we meant" ..etc.

And in the meantime, the Church has ensured that all seminary youth, grades 9-12, will learn this coming school year that God gave a revelation excluding not only gays but their children.

How many of those youth will know gay people?

And how many of those youth will be gay themselves?

[Tacenda]

Just now, consiglieri said:

And in the meantime, the Church has ensured that all seminary youth, grades 9-12, will learn this coming school year that God gave a revelation excluding not only gays but their children.

How many of those youth will know gay people?

And how many of those youth will be gay themselves?

This is a scary and sad thought.

[consiglieri]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This is a scary and sad thought.

And it took me all of five minutes to come up with it.

We really deserve a better crop of apostles.

Especially for the money we're paying.

[ERayR]

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

So in other words LDS philosophers are full of it as far as LDS doctrine goes?

Please do not attribute more to me than what I said.  They may be or they might not be but either way I do not entrust them with my salvation.

[ERayR]

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

You don't know.  You just think you know.  And if God is there and he refuses to answer those who honestly seek and question things that they once thought true but which based on much evidence likely is not then this God does not deserve worship.

it seems to me you fear to do honest inquiry because your God is a viscous vengeful God. Most LDS are like this.  I feel sorry for you and them.  While what I have gone through had been and is extremely painful it is worth it.  

And for the record I am not looking for any so called excuse. That argument is from those who need to preserve their testimony at all costs. 

A pretty harsh judgement just because someone doesn't agree with you.  Sounds like your accusations against LDS don't you think?

[ERayR]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

Like they'd want to go to church, would you?

deleted

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by ERayR

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Your statement is the most honest of the entire throng of complaints about the policy.  There are no children affected and there are no gay, married couples who want to raise their children in the Church.  All of the fuss is over optics and not reality.  

I think that is the biggest problem with this policy/now revelation.  There is little point to it except to further alienate gays from the church.  (as if that was necessary).  Certainly it increases the sorrow for many members who have gay children and grandchildren.  Maybe that was the point.  Make those mothers grieve even more because the had the unfortunate experience of having a gay child.  

Since I seem to be missing the whole point of this, maybe you could tell me why the church felt the need to come up with this policy??  Because the effect on me is that the church is willing to contradict the very fundamental teachings of Christ on little children in order to stick it to gay couples once again.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

And in the meantime, the Church has ensured that all seminary youth, grades 9-12, will learn this coming school year that God gave a revelation excluding not only gays but their children.

How many of those youth will know gay people?

And how many of those youth will be gay themselves?

This is where it will hurt LDS kids, No  one is immune from the this said revelation.  No one.  They just can't see it! 

Quote

 

 

[ttribe]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You misunderstand.
I am not claiming to be operating outside of faith.
I am merely stating to ttribe's assertion that it's not a problem for me.

Well, what I was attempting to point out with my "problem" post is that your assertion is problematic for other people because of the reliance upon faith that God is actually speaking to them.  Because faith necessitates some deficit of knowledge, if not the basis for some reasonable doubt, expressions of certitude on whether God is speaking to any of us is rather hollow (IMO).  That being said, if you are willing to elaborate on the basis for your personal certainty, my desire to improve my own spiritual situation still exists and I'd be all ears.