Taylor Christensen "This is not an anti-mormon video"

[california boy]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Or...

someone has what they consider to be a spiritual experience testifying of the truthfulness of an historic event tied to the restoration and its leaders, only to later find out that the spiritual experience must have been faulty. They must have imagined or misinterpreted the experience because the thing of which they believed the spirit testified was not accurate. The person loses trust in the spirit, in themselves and their ability to discern truth, and they lose testimony of their testimony because it was built upon sand.

I get tired of hearing that people who lose faith in the church and its leaders never had a strong testimony. It's false. Many, myself included, had very strong testimonies built upon spiritual experiences. Those testimonies were developed over time, through much faith, prayer, and service. In many cases, I think there is a correlation between the amount of investment a person made into the church and the level of their disillusionment. It's not because they are weak or superficial but rather because they were strong but then discovered they were wrong about so many things. It's a faith, identity, and trust crisis. Perhaps indoctrination plays a role but I think it is far too simple to pretend that people who lose their faith in the church simply didn't have a testimony. I see that attitude a lot and it is beyond off-putting & self-righteous.

For me, you nailed my experience in the. church to a T.  I was so TBM I would make Scott Lloyd look wishy washy.  I did everything that was asked of me.  My mantra was the words of Marion G Romney who said " Magnifying your priesthood consists of doing more than anyone except God expects or requires."

 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

In the immortal words of a smart man "I was never disillusioned because I was never illusioned in the first place"

 

And Mfbukowski nailed exactly where I was.  I was totally under an illusion.  I believed that God did have a prophet on earth that He communicated directly with.  I believed that when they said something came by revelation from God that it actually was a revelation rather than a consensus.  I believed that Joseph Smith walked into a grove of trees and God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him. There was no room for doubt that he saw that vision.  How could such an overwhelming experience ever have a different narrative.  I believed in the claims of a church literally guided by Jesus Christ.  That it was his church.  Yeah I fell for the illusion.

But life has a way of opening up to more profound truths.  Truths based much stronger on God and His ability to guide me personally in my life.  I do miss a lot about the church.  I miss the Saints.  But as far as my spiritual journey, I am in a much better place.  My relationship with God is no longer tied to historical events or claims of miraculous moments.  It is why none of the historical issues are not issues for me.  None of the writings of Joseph Smith are what make God real to me.  The Book of Abraham can be complete fabrication.  Not an issue.  I no longer have to figure out how to reconcile my beliefs with logic of the historical record.  It is why I never really participate in these kinds of threads.  Though I do read them.  I am interested in how others wrestle with some of the jarring historical facts.  That part I find fascinating.

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

For me, you nailed my experience in the. church to a T.  I was so TBM I would make Scott Lloyd look wishy washy.  I did everything that was asked of me.  My mantra was the words of Marion G Romney who said " Magnifying your priesthood consists of doing more than anyone except God expects or requires."

 

And Mfbukowski nailed exactly where I was.  I was totally under an illusion.  I believed that God did have a prophet on earth that He communicated directly with.  I believed that when they said something came by revelation from God that it actually was a revelation rather than a consensus.  I believed that Joseph Smith walked into a grove of trees and God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him. There was no room for doubt that he saw that vision.  How could such an overwhelming experience ever have a different narrative.  I believed in the claims of a church literally guided by Jesus Christ.  That it was his church.  Yeah I fell for the illusion.

But life has a way of opening up to more profound truths.  Truths based much stronger on God and His ability to guide me personally in my life.  I do miss a lot about the church.  I miss the Saints.  But as far as my spiritual journey, I am in a much better place.  My relationship with God is no longer tied to historical events or claims of miraculous moments.  It is why none of the historical issues are not issues for me.  None of the writings of Joseph Smith are what make God real to me.  The Book of Abraham can be complete fabrication.  Not an issue.  I no longer have to figure out how to reconcile my beliefs with logic of the historical record.  It is why I never really participate in these kinds of threads.  Though I do read them.  I am interested in how others wrestle with some of the jarring historical facts.  That part I find fascinating.

Well of course we have not always gotten along but I appreciate your position and I am glad you feel and understand your own progression

I see your position as more truly "Mormon" than it was ever before because you are following your own path which you have defined for yourself.  That is about all any of us has really

I have no idea how this is all going to work out "in reality" after we are on the other side and get all the answers, but I certainly agree with your present understanding regardless of our existing disagreements.   We must follow our own consciences or we are nothing but robots.  Agency is the key

My best to you!

I must note however that for some the classic Mormon path works perfectly and despite what you have said there are other ways of seeing it

I believe that Joseph saw God in a grove of trees.  I believe that God communicates with ALL of us directly even prophets who are ahead of us all regardless of being fallible humans as we are.   But I have no illusions about that. 

I have no doubt personally that this church is directed by Christ because I know little old ME is directed by Christ as a low level leader in his Church.   I have seen miracles in my life, in fact I had a miracle happen to me today, but that is personal.  Today is a day I will never forget as long as I live.

THOSE are not "illusions" they are the daily reality of millions of members, but it does not work for you.  Fine!  There are billions who are not Mormons who believe they are guided by God as well.  Live and let live - I am not their judge any more than I want them to judge me.

So one mans "illusion" might be another's "truth".  That is as important a point in a world of relativism as a consistent relativist.

God leads us to Him in his own way- so calling another person's reality an "illusion" is really not consistent with following your own path since your own path is an "illusion" to that individual.   One can be just as dogmatic in being what they think is "non-dogmatic" by condemning other's dogma.

It's just not consistent relativism.

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"Settled" or not, facts are irrelevant to beliefs

WHY do you think it is IMPORTANT that they be "settled"?   It is "settled" that there is no evidence for God

Why do you believe anyway??

Where are your "settled facts" for God's existence?  And yet it is right to believe in God because you known him in your heart.

IF we really believe the most important things in life are based on personal revelation, FACTS BECOME IMMATERIAL.  As Alma 32 teaches what matters is the "FRUIT" of belief which becomes certain knowledge over time as we live it.

Those here who are looking for "settled facts" are actually arguing AGAINST personal revelation if you know it or not.  You all in this camp are the true anti-mormons without even knowing it.

Either you stake your life on personal revelation or not.  There is no middle way because there ARE no facts for morals or what is important.  Facts by definition have nothing to do with what is important- facts are supposed to be and designed to be "impartial"

What is IMPORTANT is NEVER "impartial" it is that about which we are PASSIONATE.  Right and wrong are passions, not factual.  What we regard as important is never fact based ultimately.

That Christ was crucified may or may not be a fact. No evidence that is "settled" or could be.   The BELIEF that He died for our sins has changed the world for each and every believer.

Either you get that or you don't, but that is the crux of it all.

I am not sure where all this came from.  You are reading into my post things I did not write.  It almost sounds like you have a big chip on your shoulder.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

I am not sure where all this came from.  You are reading into my post things I did not write.  It almost sounds like you have a big chip on your shoulder.

This was not addressed to you- I don't know what you are talking about

This reply was to Steve-O about people who insist on a "settled" history for religious belief and was a general comment not even an attempt to refute Steve-O with whom I almost always agree anyway.

[Glenn101]

22 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think you're example is apropos here.  If polygamy was commanded of God, then it must be considered a fruit of the claimed prophet Joseph from which one must test.  When one looks at the details of what happened regarding polygamy one can certainly see negative fruit or conclude negative fruit (even if others do not).  I can see how that would work.  Thus, one can see Joseph as a fallen prophet and one could see Joseph as not a prophet at all by judging by the historical sources on this particular principle alone.

 
And more to the point.  The elements of the story of the first vision can be debated, afteralll Joseph gave differing accounts.  So it could be that one could feel strongly that the first vision had happened, as per their learning about the official version.  But later when one learns about the earlier versions and later versions and reconsiders that one could think that the previous spiritual confirmation was more of a biased confirmation.  Also, that the elements that they thought were true might not have been (again there is room to debate this I know).  The historical records on the matter could very well influence how the person views his/her personal spiritual experience.  So it might not matter to some that Joseph gave differing accounts.  But to others, just as legitimately, and maybe more, it does matter as to their testimony, and faith, that Joseph gave different accounts.  it could very well explain it quite different than previously thought. 

In my mind, I'm still see no way to divorce the history and the story of the history from each other.  

 

If one were to take that approach, God would have to be thrown into outer darkness. I have a daughter who has done just such. She concluded that the fruit of human existence, God's alleged creation is decidedly negative on the whole, with all of the misery, suffering, violence, etc. that is a large part of this world's environment. She has not brought herself to the point of actually denying that there is not a God, as she is "open to the existence of a God." But logically, when one starts down that path of judging the spiritual by history, because the history of mankind is such a horrible mess, the fruits are so horrific, there just cannot be a wise, kind, merciful, and just God at the helm.

One has to apply the same standards to all, and that is where so many, in my opinion, stop short and do not carry their judgments to the logical conclusions.

Apply history as the standard by which to judge whether any person was a prophet would take out most of the major (well known) prophets of the Bible.

Noah, a so called prophet that was prone to drinking heavily and lying around naked.

Abraham took a handmaid to wife, then drove her out into the desert. Hagar reportedly survived and their rejected son, Ishmael, became the head of a violent nation. He also was not exactly honest with the Pharaoh either.

Then there was Moses. Look at his fruits. He killed a man and ran. Then forty years later came back, caused the death of a lot of Egyptians, had had the children of Israel "borrow" (steal) gold, silver items from their neighbors, then cons many thousands of people to follow him into the wilderness where he has them wander from place to place for forty years, while ruthlessly putting down any challenges to his leadership.

Then there is Joshua. Leader of mass murderers and one himself.

Samuel, a so called prophet who killed an unarmed captive king by chopping off his head with a sword.

Then there is the Prophet King, David, who committed adultery and murder and Nathan the prophet who let him get away with it, declaring that the death of the child resulting from that tryst was the Lord's punishment.

Elijah, a prophet who contrived to kill 450 rivals in one fell swoop.

Elisha, a prophet who anointed a man to be king of Israel, yet prophesying that the newly annointed to be king, Hazael, knowing the "evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child."

If our imperfect understanding and knowledge of history were to be the standard by which we judge God or one of those that have been alleged to have been called as a prophet, I would have chucked the entire religious scene long ago. But rather than evaluate the religous by the secular, I evaluate the religious based upon my own religious experiences and leave it up to God to judge His prophets and everyone else.

Glenn

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No I didnt mean that they get a testimony that it isn't true, but that they accept another unprovable idea instead like "visualize your goals and they will happen".  All that is is faith anyway- no difference.

But if there is no surety about anything that means that it is as rational to believe in the church as not.  If all you can get out of it is that it helps somewhat, that is better than nothing.  Of course it goes far beyond that, but if that is where you are and that is all you get out of it, then that is all you get.   If you are a drunk on skid row spiritually, any doctrine will be better than none, and anything that gives you shelter is an improvement.   If it is only a cardboard box in the winter, it keeps the snow off you and gives a little warmth

That is exactly what Pragmatism and Alma 32 say essentially.  "Try it out, experiment on it, and see if it yields good results in your life".  If it gives you a little warmth it is better than nothing.  And then follow up on it and watch it grow- whatever it is

That is the whole point no one seems to understand.  If it does something to make you feel better and gives you a good life, then you cannot get better.  We have all these non-believer hangers on because they like the sense of community and they feel good perhaps in church, or there are some aspects of it they still like.

If that's all you can get out of it that is a start, but in a world where you are drowning for a lack of meaning in your life, it is at least a log you can hang on to until you find a raft or even build one for yourself.

If there is no truth, then any belief which enriches your life helps you.

Come on, MF. I expect better from you.

Just because there may not be an absolute surety doesn't mean that one doesn't weigh the probability of truth and rightness and come to some reasoned conclusions. Still, one recognizes the limitations and lack of surety which imbues ones beliefs with humility. I think you're relying on a strawman.

Hope is a powerful and important part of life. If one is drowning they will cling to anything that may save them. That argument can be made both for those who shifted in their testimonies of the church as well as those who cling to their traditional testimonies of the church in hope that what they have is better than nothing.

[Glenn101]

22 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I think you are using the words 'proof' and 'disproof' differently when it comes to your sacred vs secular history dichotomy, a distinction that i do not think is valid. I do not believe history can arbitrarily be separated into secular and sacred. Especially in discussion with those who  do not see that same history as sacred. For example if you were talking about the Resurrection in a group of people made up of both Christians and Muslims, is it a discussion about secular or sacred history? To classify it as such is to beg the question, in my opinion. I also don't believe in an either/or situation of "proof" or "disproof" for historical events. There is evidence for an event happening a certain way and evidence against it. This applies to events even as they happen today, just look at the way our own political parties in the US describe the very same current event. Certainly the further back we go the more difficult it is to establish clarity for events, but given that the church  was started  in an era of written history, there is a lot of evidence of what did and did not happen on which to make evaluations of possibilities vs probabilities, just the same as we do for any other event from that time period. For example we could discuss the difference between Jacksonian democracy and Jeffersonian democracy and no one would dismiss such a discussion because we could not prove something. People would find it odd if someone were to testify that Jackson had it right and that those who disagreed were simply using the wrong methodology. Or in the case of Joseph claiming to have been commanded to practice polygamy we could look at the surrounding events to see if such claims were even possible. (For example was he at the place and time when he made such and such a claim? If not, that raises doubt such an event took place, and so on.)

I am not denying anyone's faithful claims to knowing how an event or events happened by way of prayer or spiritual investigation or even claiming that such discussions are not valid just because the claims have been fruitful for the claimant. But those claims are not relevant to a conversation where all participants do not share that common agreement. That would be like a Scientologist bearing his testimony about the efficacy of E-meters in a discussion that focused on the history and use of E-meters. Okay great it has worked for him and maybe even a large amount of other people.  Are we supposed to stop the conversation at that point just because someone believes in how they work?

 

Steve, I am arguing that one cannot reliably use history to determine whether a spiritual event occurred or not. It doesn't matter whether you are LDS or of any other Christian denomination, or anyone investigating the church. Spiritual matters cannot be discerned by secular means. We have no common ground with atheists because they do not believe there is a God at all. I am speaking to people who profess to believe in God and Jesus Christ. The same standards apply to all declared spiritual events. See my reply to stemelbow.

Glenn