"Faith Crisis" support group?

[Bernard Gui]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

When we stop getting the same answers for different questions.  Which is why when I seek the Glory of God, I know longer go through the leaders of any church.

If that is your answer, why do you stay here? Why don’t you move on? Are you still hoping to find something else that will resolve your issues? Sincere questions, please do not take offense. 

Edited June 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

There is no inherent power in the teachings of our prophet and apostles?  I disagree. 

And that some members manage to move into stages of faith that are beyond stage 3, doesn’t mean that those messages I identified aren’t stage 3 messages.  For me, those teachings (the ones I identified) were principles that I had to reject to be able to move beyond a stage 3 faith   Accepting those three teachings at face value locks you into stage 3.  Are you expecting me to believe that when the Brethren send those messages out to church members what they are actually hoping for is that members will reject or re-interpret them so that they can move into a stage 4-5 faith?

 

Explain how you disagree. There is power in faith, and faith in true teachings is what makes them powerful. The Spirit in their transmittal and reception also makes the messages powerful. Without such power, in and of themselves the messages fall flat.

Referring to your own experience demonstrates my point. Each of us has a personal experience, but that doesn’t translate into others’ experiences; our individual, personal experiences don’t set the general rule. You can define the world around you that way if you want, but the reason we use models to get outside of that and open ourselves up to explanations of how we can function better within the larger world around us; one we may not have keyed into before.

I expect nothing of you, but I believe that when the Brethren send those particular messages out to Church members they are hoping that members assess and interpret them as appropriate for whatever stage of faith they are in, in a way that they can progress* in their journey to becoming like Christ. I think they hope that the members are amending their soil (parable of the sower) despite our varied challenges and distraction. The model they are using seems to be the plan of happiness.

* progress could certainly entail the rejection of a previously dysfunctional understanding of a true principle. I think they hope the members that need to do this are doing it. I don’t think it entails the wholesale rejection of that principle with a correct understanding of it, so I don’t think they’re hoping for that; I do think they hope the members are amending their soil.

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If that is your answer, why do you stay here? Why don’t you move on? Sincere question, please do not take offense. 

I do not take offense..as it is, the very reason I signed up many years ago is because I so much love the mormons..especially my family members.  In sincere questions before I resigned, there was a hole left that needed to be filled..an understanding that I keep seeking.  I don't know why.  But a big reason is because of the love I have for my mother..her own struggles were like a lot of mormon women.  I have been trying to understand why mormon women stay...and it in that perspective..see if I have missed something. 

Edited June 29, 2018 by Jeanne

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The source I am speaking of is the Holy Spirit. 

And when a member prays and the Holy Spirit responds by leading them to where they can find truth regarding some of the difficult topics (not discussed at church) or leads them to others who are also searching, then that's what they should do.  Many feel inspired to search for the truth after earnestly praying.  They then read actual sources and find more transparent church history accounts....they ask questions of their leaders who in the past haven't had answers or didn't even know about these issues themselves.  They desire to be with others who are also searching, so they don't feel alone and can discuss their feelings.  This is all very natural and very human and there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to do this.  It all sounds very controlling to hear how you feel they should handle what we term a "faith crisis".  There's also a great deal of fear it seems regarding this topic and if the church has nothing to hide or fear from its past, then why discourage members from searching and finding the true history?

Edited June 29, 2018 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I do not take offense..as it is, the very reason I signed up many years ago is because I so much love the mormons..especially my family members.  In sincere questions before I resigned, there was a hole left that needed to be filled..an understanding that I keep seeking.  I don't know why.  But a big reason is because of the love I have for my mother..her own struggles were like a lot of mormon women.  I have been trying to understand why mormon women stay..and why..and it in that perspective..see if I have missed something. 

We have a very close friend who was secretly abused by her now supposedly righteous ex-husband, unfortunately and unjustly not believed by her priesthood leaders, tormented for years, but is rock solid in her testimony of the Savior and chooses to be a strong active member in spite of it all. I stand in awe. She stays because of the witness of the Spirit she has in the Book of Mormon and the Restoration. 

Edited June 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[SouthernMo]

3 hours ago, changed said:

 

The thing is, my faith crisis is a result of the actions of those who had "keys".  I'm not quite able to trust an organization who calls pedophiles to occupy leadership positions... One bad apple?  Two in my case?  and everyone else who was "supposed" to be led by G-d calling and supporting these brethren...   Either there are quite a few "leaders" in the church who are not led by G-d, or G-d is a monster... I'm trying to believe G-d is not a monster.  People without "keys" have helped me quite a bit more than those with.  

Without keys - humble, open, non-defensive, non-controlling, supportive... 

With - ... ok, I'm not going to go there.

The doctrine of keys is a struggle for me, too. For different reasons than you (more historical and procedural), but I need to better understand keys.

Does anyone here know of any serious scholarly examination of priesthood keys (how the definition and practice/application has evolved)?

[Jeanne]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

We have a very close friend who was secretly abused by her now supposedly righteous ex-husband, unfortunately and unjustly not believed by her priesthood leaders, tormented for years, but is rock solid in her testimony of the Savior and chooses to be a strong active member in spite of it all. I stand in awe. She stays because of the witness of the Spirit she has in the Book of Mormon and the Restoration. 

I find this amazing..and I respect her very much.  I own my postimony...and I don't begrudge any one who can find happiness in life.  She must have a surety that I did not have..but this does not make me less than..it just makes us unique.  Though I have never been in her situation..I have had my own personal struggles where I have knelt in prayer and just great love and encouragement from those around me who have helped.  We all have strengths and weaknesses...how we deal with them may be different but yet the same in courage..in fortitude and faith.

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And when a member prays and the Holy Spirit responds by leading them to where they can find truth regarding some of the difficult topics (not discussed at church) or leads them to others who are also searching, then that's what they should do.  Many feel inspired to search for the truth after earnestly praying.  They then read actual sources and find more transparent church history accounts....they ask questions of their leaders who in the past haven't had answers or didn't even know about these issues themselves.  They desire to be with others who are also searching, so they don't feel alone and can discuss their feelings.  This is all very natural and very human and there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to do this.  It all sounds very controlling to hear how you feel they should handle what we term a "faith crisis".  There's also a great deal of fear it seems regarding this topic and if the church has nothing to hide or fear from its past, then why discourage members from searching and finding the true history?

If that is what the Spirit directs, go and do it. I have done it myself and am happy with the results. Many folks I know and love have done the same. Some stay, some leave. There is nothing I can do to control what someone else desires or does, nor would I desire to exercise any kind of control over anyone of accountable age.

[Eek!]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

The doctrine of keys is a struggle for me, too. For different reasons than you (more historical and procedural), but I need to better understand keys.

Does anyone here know of any serious scholarly examination of priesthood keys (how the definition and practice/application has evolved)?

Well this isn't remotely scholarly, but it might give you some ideas of where to look if you want to do your own investigation, which is what I did years ago.

The following is my limited understanding based mostly on foggy memories of books that I no longer have access to (most of my books were ruined in a flood many years ago, and the rest I gave away).  I'm going to dispense with posting "IIRC" and/or "IMO" in every sentence because it's too distracting, but every sentence that follows in this post is my recollection and/or opinion.

When the LDS church officially discontinued performing plural marriages, not everyone went along with the new program. Several church leaders (who held the necessary priesthood authority) continued to perform plural marriages, and this gave the fundamentalist off-shoot(s) a compelling narrative which traced their authority right straight back to Joseph Smith. The main LDS church had no effective counter-narrative at the time.

So the LDS church began emphasizing that all of the priesthood KEYS were vested in the Prophet and the Council of the Twelve, differentiating "priesthood KEYS" from "priesthood power and authority".  The keys were necessary to have PERMISSION to use one's power and authority, so without the keys being transmitted down though proper Church channels to the individual, he did not have permission to use his priesthood. 

Thus anything done outside of the approved priesthood channels of the LDS church, even by someone who could trace an unbroken line of authority, was invalid at best, and possibly apostate. As part of this emphasis on priesthood keys, the LDS church began dismantling the practice of women giving blessings (which is what I was investigating when I came upon this information).  The LDS church had taken the position that everything depends on the priesthood and priesthood keys, and having non-priesthood-holders running around healing people undermined that position.

I did some first-hand investigation into how essential priesthood authority was when giving a blessing to someone, as imo the effects of a blessing are kinda hard to fake. I came to the conclusion that priesthood authority was not necessary for giving a blessing.

My personal belief at this time is that the knowledge and application of correct principles may actually be what constitutes “keys”, rather than a specially-bestowed and exclusive permission, power, and authority. Imo the ceremonial bestowal of keys may be a validation of something that was already there, but which the person would not have believed about himself without the ceremony. By way of example, recall that when the Wizard of Oz gave the Scarecrow that diploma, it merely validated for the Scarecrow the intelligence he clearly already possessed.  The diploma gave him permission to be what he already was.

I'm no longer LDS so take all of this with as many grains of salt as you need to.

But I think that if you dig, you will find a significant uptick in the emphasis on priesthood keys in the years following the Manifesto. 

Edited June 29, 2018 by Eek!

[CV75]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

The doctrine of keys is a struggle for me, too. For different reasons than you (more historical and procedural), but I need to better understand keys.

Does anyone here know of any serious scholarly examination of priesthood keys (how the definition and practice/application has evolved)?

Check this out http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/keys

13 minutes ago, Eek! said:

But I think that if you dig, you will find a significant uptick in the emphasis on priesthood keys in the years following the Manifesto. 

That would make sense, as with an uptick around the first succession(s).

[changed]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

The doctrine of keys is a struggle for me, too. For different reasons than you (more historical and procedural), but I need to better understand keys.

Does anyone here know of any serious scholarly examination of priesthood keys (how the definition and practice/application has evolved)?

Perhaps a scholarly examination is not what is needed to find someone with keys - perhaps it is as simple as paying attention to the quiet, humble, kind-hearted people around you.  Official scholarly title or no, those are the ones who actually have keys I think.  

[changed]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

...the light of Christ is readily available with or without keys.

I think G-d has pushed me away from the church for a reason, perhaps some solo time is needed.  

thanks.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Explain how you disagree. There is power in faith, and faith in true teachings is what makes them powerful. The Spirit in their transmittal and reception also makes the messages powerful. Without such power, in and of themselves the messages fall flat.

 

Referring to your own experience demonstrates my point. Each of us has a personal experience, but that doesn’t translate into others’ experiences; our individual, personal experiences don’t set the general rule. You can define the world around you that way if you want, but the reason we use models to get outside of that and open ourselves up to explanations of how we can function better within the larger world around us; one we may not have keyed into before.

 

 

 

I expect nothing of you, but I believe that when the Brethren send those particular messages out to Church members they are hoping that members assess and interpret them as appropriate for whatever stage of faith they are in, in a way that they can progress* in their journey to becoming like Christ. I think they hope that the members are amending their soil (parable of the sower) despite our varied challenges and distraction. The model they are using seems to be the plan of happiness.

 

* progress could certainly entail the rejection of a previously dysfunctional understanding of a true principle. I think they hope the members that need to do this are doing it. I don’t think it entails the wholesale rejection of that principle with a correct understanding of it, so I don’t think they’re hoping for that; I do think they hope the members are amending their soil.

 

I disagree that the Brethren are hoping that their messages will be re-interpreted to be adaptable to a higher stage of faith.  Too much work has gone into decades of correlating and de-emphasizing the complexities of our faith.  They have spent decades trying to build a stage 3 faith narrative.  

Elder Poelman once tried to teach of a stage 5 faith in general conference.  We all know what happened there with his talk being erased from history and a new once recorded in its place. 

President Uchtdorf was probably the closest we had to a modern Poelman in terms of promoting advanced stages of faith... and I believe that’s why he was removed from the FP. 

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Elder Poelman once tried to teach of a stage 5 faith in general conference.  We all know what happened there with his talk being erased from history and a new once recorded in its place. 

Thank you for mentioning that, I was unaware.  Google filled in the blanks for me. 

In either 1984 or early 1985 (based on where I was living at the time, as a college student) I heard a talk that really got my attention but when the text in the Ensign came out obviously my recollection of the talk had been incorrect.  That may have been Elder Poelman's talk. 

Edited June 29, 2018 by Eek!

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I disagree that the Brethren are hoping that their messages will be re-interpreted to be adaptable to a higher stage of faith.  Too much work has gone into decades of correlating and de-emphasizing the complexities of our faith.  They have spent decades trying to build a stage 3 faith narrative.  

Elder Poelman once tried to teach of a stage 5 faith in general conference.  We all know what happened there with his talk being erased from history and a new once recorded in its place. 

President Uchtdorf was probably the closest we had to a modern Poelman in terms of promoting advanced stages of faith... and I believe that’s why he was removed from the FP. 

I don’t see how a talk that was viewed as particularly vulnerable to “fundamentalist” interpretation and abuse in an era of burgeoning new-age anti-Mormonism can be seen as helpful in advancing people's development past stage 3. Or that its editing is indicative of making it more appealing to fundamentalist views. The overall message remains the same for anyone hearing it at his own developmental level.

While correlation may be evidence to you of stage 3-centric messaging, it isn’t for those who take it at other stages (hence my appreciation of the limited usefulness of Foster’s model). No one has control over that but the individual. While it may be appealing to some to have a complex narrative developed for them, as you can see, people can make things rather complex on their own! Christ’s message was simple. As general authorities, they develop general materials and the people govern their own development  (to paraphrase Joseph Smith).

43 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Thank you for mentioning that, I was unaware.  Google filled in the blanks for me. 

In either 1984 or early 1985 (based on where I was living at the time, as a college student) I heard a talk that really got my attention but when the text in the Ensign came out obviously my recollection of the talk had been incorrect.  That may have been Elder Poelman's talk. 

I think a number of talks get edited, which has nothing to do with controlling stages of faith through correlation.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Quite a few missing. I hope you that still read will speak up. I'd like to know if it's posters like me that turn you off.

Richard Abanes hung around while he was researching his books.  Once done, he moved on to other things.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Eek! said:

Well this isn't remotely scholarly, but it might give you some ideas of where to look if you want to do your own investigation, which is what I did years ago.

The following is my limited understanding based mostly on foggy memories of books that I no longer have access to (most of my books were ruined in a flood many years ago, and the rest I gave away).  I'm going to dispense with posting "IIRC" and/or "IMO" in every sentence because it's too distracting, but every sentence that follows in this post is my recollection and/or opinion.

When the LDS church officially discontinued performing plural marriages, not everyone went along with the new program. Several church leaders (who held the necessary priesthood authority) continued to perform plural marriages, and this gave the fundamentalist off-shoot(s) a compelling narrative which traced their authority right straight back to Joseph Smith. The main LDS church had no effective counter-narrative at the time.

So the LDS church began emphasizing that all of the priesthood KEYS were vested in the Prophet and the Council of the Twelve, differentiating "priesthood KEYS" from "priesthood power and authority".  The keys were necessary to have PERMISSION to use one's power and authority, so without the keys being transmitted down though proper Church channels to the individual, he did not have permission to use his priesthood. 

Thus anything done outside of the approved priesthood channels of the LDS church, even by someone who could trace an unbroken line of authority, was invalid at best, and possibly apostate. As part of this emphasis on priesthood keys, the LDS church began dismantling the practice of women giving blessings (which is what I was investigating when I came upon this information).  The LDS church had taken the position that everything depends on the priesthood and priesthood keys, and having non-priesthood-holders running around healing people undermined that position.

I did some first-hand investigation into how essential priesthood authority was when giving a blessing to someone, as imo the effects of a blessing are kinda hard to fake. I came to the conclusion that priesthood authority was not necessary for giving a blessing.

My personal belief at this time is that the knowledge and application of correct principles may actually be what constitutes “keys”, rather than a specially-bestowed and exclusive permission, power, and authority. Imo the ceremonial bestowal of keys may be a validation of something that was already there, but which the person would not have believed about himself without the ceremony. By way of example, recall that when the Wizard of Oz gave the Scarecrow that diploma, it merely validated for the Scarecrow the intelligence he clearly already possessed.  The diploma gave him permission to be what he already was.

I'm no longer LDS so take all of this with as many grains of salt as you need to.

But I think that if you dig, you will find a significant uptick in the emphasis on priesthood keys in the years following the Manifesto. 

Odd, especially as Joseph Smith was the one who best defined keys.

Edited June 30, 2018 by The Nehor

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don’t see how a talk that was viewed as particularly vulnerable to “fundamentalist” interpretation and abuse in an era of burgeoning new-age anti-Mormonism can be seen as helpful in advancing people's development past stage 3. Or that its editing is indicative of making it more appealing to fundamentalist views. The overall message remains the same for anyone hearing it at his own developmental level.

While correlation may be evidence to you of stage 3-centric messaging, it isn’t for those who take it at other stages (hence my appreciation of the limited usefulness of Foster’s model). No one has control over that but the individual. While it may be appealing to some to have a complex narrative developed for them, as you can see, people can make things rather complex on their own! Christ’s message was simple. As general authorities, they develop general materials and the people govern their own development  (to paraphrase Joseph Smith).

I think a number of talks get edited, which has nothing to do with controlling stages of faith through correlation.

Yes, other talks have been edited.  But only Elder Poelman’s address, which had a decidedly Fowler stage 4/5 message, was rewritten so dramatically that he needed to go back into the Tabernacle to give the new talk complete with a “cough track” to make it seem as if it wasn’t redone. 

Also, it isn’t correlation that makes me believe that the Brethren want to keep members in Fowler stage 3 faith, it is how they are correlating the teachings. 

I’ll add that, in addition to the teachings I have previously identified, the temple recommend interview itself promotes a Fowler stage 3 faith. Consider, for example, the reaction of many on this board to attempts by struggling members to reinterpret those TR questions to work with a stage 4/5 faith.  Any attempt at adapting those questions to fit something beyond stage 3 is most often met with rejection in discussions amongst many members. 

[changed]

On 6/27/2018 at 3:53 PM, SouthernMo said:

I struggle a little bit with the idea that there are church members whose faith is too weak, and would be harmed by learning of others’ questions or concerns.

I think of the quote from J. Reuben Clark:

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”

Why are we so concerned with an individual’s faith/trust in an organization, when we claim to be teachers of truth?  Let truth fall where it may, organization & tradition aside!

The counter-argument I often hear against my position is the “milk before meat” principle stated in 1 Corinthians.  With good intentions, we avoid difficult questions, believing it’s harmful to engage them without a stronger foundation.  The problem I see is that sometimes, we avoid  consuming or sharing meat altogether (to continue the analogy) out of fear someone is not ready, and we miss out on the joyous struggle and journey towards godlike understanding.

from: http://www.thebattleofarmageddon.com/stages_of_faith.pdf

" “We are attracted to a person who
is one stage ahead of us. ..."

so... is it the job of those in stage 4, to pull those in stage 3 to stage 4 as well? ... 

 

"We are perplexed by people who are two stages ahead of us. And people who get three stages ahead sometimes get killed (Jesus Christ). .."

Is G-d at stage 7? 

G-d is 3 stages ahead of those going through the dark night of the soul...

could explain why I went through a period of hating and not trusting or having faith in G-d... why I am still struggling with that one.  

 

Edited June 30, 2018 by changed

[RevTestament]

19 hours ago, changed said:

I think G-d has pushed me away from the church for a reason, perhaps some solo time is needed.  

thanks.

My wife left the church for about 5 years. She was in a lot of pain, and being around the Church brought back pain and anxieties. I don't think God pushed her away, but it was a time in which she could mature and heal emotionally. I am the one who is responsible for essentially dragging her back to Church. I wanted to return, and realized that the Church had the truth even if those in it are imperfect, and some even act monstrously. The latter wasn't really the issue for me personally. My own issues had more to do with coming to a fuller understanding of the gospel, but I think it was in the plan too. I think God plans for some to be prodigal sons. The experience helps them appreciate the truth all the more. It seems counter-intuitive, but sometimes the ways of God are just not the ways of man or subject to the common understanding. However, I will say that most who leave do not come back in my experience.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, other talks have been edited.  But only Elder Poelman’s address, which had a decidedly Fowler stage 4/5 message, was rewritten so dramatically that he needed to go back into the Tabernacle to give the new talk complete with a “cough track” to make it seem as if it wasn’t redone. 

Also, it isn’t correlation that makes me believe that the Brethren want to keep members in Fowler stage 3 faith, it is how they are correlating the teachings. 

I’ll add that, in addition to the teachings I have previously identified, the temple recommend interview itself promotes a Fowler stage 3 faith. Consider, for example, the reaction of many on this board to attempts by struggling members to reinterpret those TR questions to work with a stage 4/5 faith.  Any attempt at adapting those questions to fit something beyond stage 3 is most often met with rejection in discussions amongst many members. 

“Decidedly “for you, indeed, which is indicative of the binary position you have taken on this issue. Which ends any further discussions on what the Brethren are promoting, which I take as evidence of an effort to keep the discussion at a binary level.

But I think you would agree that they are seeking to promote Christ-like love among all (i.e. psychological stage 6 for you), which by the nature of their audience requires individual passage through other stages as they refine, integrate and settle their beliefs until they become perfect in Christ. That is not a binary approach in my opinion.

Thus the products and applications of correlation, including editing talks for consistent messaging suited for the needs of the day, do not establish that the general messaging is designed to engineer a permanent stage 3 level for millions of members.

I think the temple recommend questions, like the correlated publications and conference talks, etc., freely allow people to interpret and answer them any way they wish at any stage they might be; we all take responsibility for that. The yes/no binary answering format does not force one into a binary way of thinking through the questions, nor answering with a "yes/no" for that matter (just makes for a longer interview)... I’m not sure what you mean by “adapting those questions” – do you mean an internal adaptation by the interviewee when asked the question, or an external adaptation by the Church to redesign the standard questions? I would expect there to be both positive and negative reaction to either proposition, depending on what is discussed, and how. Maybe you can bump that thread.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, changed said:

from: http://www.thebattleofarmageddon.com/stages_of_faith.pdf

" “We are attracted to a person who
is one stage ahead of us. ..."

so... is it the job of those in stage 4, to pull those in stage 3 to stage 4 as well? ... 

 

"We are perplexed by people who are two stages ahead of us. And people who get three stages ahead sometimes get killed (Jesus Christ). .."

Is G-d at stage 7? 

G-d is 3 stages ahead of those going through the dark night of the soul...

could explain why I went through a period of hating and not trusting or having faith in G-d... why I am still struggling with that one.  

 

Thank you for pointing out the problems of a pedantic and overreaching application of a psychological model! Not that they are bad questions, but they are reflective of a personal struggle that reference to the model alone cannot resolve.

[changed]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Thank you for pointing out the problems of a pedantic and overreaching application of a psychological model! Not that they are bad questions, but they are reflective of a personal struggle that reference to the model alone cannot resolve.

Is 3→4 a problem?... 4 hating + 3level above them G-d fits in well with 4 also feeling isolated and estranged from G-d.

Where in the model does the person who is on their journey stumble the most?  Which steps include the person sinning, and trying to find forgiveness for their own sins? 

The end of it all fits in well with Jesus' disciples being killed like Jesus was... instead of being blessed and living a life of luxury for their service.   

Edited June 30, 2018 by changed

[CV75]

2 hours ago, changed said:

Is 3→4 a problem?... 4 hating + 3level above them G-d fits in well with 4 also feeling isolated and estranged from G-d.

Where in the model does the person who is on their journey stumble the most?  Which steps include the person sinning, and trying to find forgiveness for their own sins? 

The end of it all fits in well with Jesus' disciples being killed like Jesus was... instead of being blessed and living a life of luxury for their service.   

No, progress is not a problem. Undue reliance upon the model is the problem wherein answers are limited, reliance evidenced by the questions themselves (which I think you copied from the site).

Faith at all stages is tested, anyone at any stage can feel isolated and estranged, and everyone stumbles and sins along the way, and hopefully seeks forgiveness, reconciliation, etc. which are available at any stage.

As far as whether being killed is a problem, I don't see it as one.

 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

My wife left the church for about 5 years. She was in a lot of pain, and being around the Church brought back pain and anxieties. I don't think God pushed her away, but it was a time in which she could mature and heal emotionally. I am the one who is responsible for essentially dragging her back to Church. I wanted to return, and realized that the Church had the truth even if those in it are imperfect, and some even act monstrously. The latter wasn't really the issue for me personally. My own issues had more to do with coming to a fuller understanding of the gospel, but I think it was in the plan too. I think God plans for some to be prodigal sons. The experience helps them appreciate the truth all the more. It seems counter-intuitive, but sometimes the ways of God are just not the ways of man or subject to the common understanding. However, I will say that most who leave do not come back in my experience.

Thank you for sharing that. 

We all learn from sin and repentance. As my Colorado cowboy uncle used to say, “We all climb Fool ‘s Hill. Some take longer to get over the Hill, and when we reach the top we realize it was just a foothill for Fool’s Mountain.”

Edited June 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui