“Doubt Not, but Be Believing” Elder and Sister Renlund CES Training June 2018

[ALarson]

52 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO- what the church is experiencing right now with so many members experiencing faith crisis, is not a crisis of faith. It's a crisis of trust. It's a loss of trust in leaders, in history, in past doctrines/teachings. And the crisis of trust exists for very legitimate reasons, some of which may only appear to be chipped paint or small dents to some people, but when taken in total ends up requiring a complete shift in paradigm for many member's as they relate to the church. For the church to cure the problem, they must figure out how to restore trust.

You nailed it (the part I put in bold above is the truth regarding what is happening to so many members now).  For those who believe it's just members being lazy or having a lack of commitment that are causing so many to stop believing as they formerly did, they only need to look at how much was not previously revealed or spoken about (regarding true church history and the details).  I'm not talking about a random mention in the Ensign, etc.,  over many years (and I know the information was there for those who wanted to dig deeper), but I am referring to lessons on church history or lessons during the years that were on the past Prophets (look at the manual for the year we studied Joseph Smith's teachings or Brigham Young's and how the topic of polygamy was avoided).   IMO, this was done because the leaders knew that when members learned about how polygamy was truly lived (especially by Joseph Smith), it would shake their faith and trust.

Now that the leaders realize this isn't working, they are trying to be more open (ie. the essays, etc.).....but for many members it's too little, to late.  

I have seen no one leave because they were lazy or complacent or lacked faith before they started learning the truth regarding some of the more troubling issues (past doctrines and historical issues, BofA issues, BofM issues and so on).  Mainly I've seen members leave who were fully committed members and that's why they fall so hard.....they believed with all their hearts and they are completely destroyed when they learn the truth.  If it were just one issue,  I think most would survive it and continue attending, but it starts with one and then snowballs into so many that their entire trust is destroyed.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm sure they do frequently address that issue. I'm just suggesting it isn't helpful to tell educators that their students' heartfelt struggles are the equivalent of dings and paint chips. We will just have to agree to disagree. As I said, I have heard over and over from people who say their concerns weren't taken seriously by church members and leaders, who usually didn't want to even hear what was bothering them. Not surprisingly, they found listening ears and compassion from us apostates. FWIW, I went back and read the entire talk from Elder Renlund, and it was better than it has been portrayed. That said, I still think his advice about "perpetual doubters" and people getting upset about mere dings and chips is misplaced.

Yes, the entire article is better than it is portrayed.

I don’t think the messages reflect minimization of the concerns of those who are struggling, but on maximizing the need for conversion and a mighty change of heart to refocus on the most important and essential things.

The CES teachers are not to minimize; the student is to reduce for himself the significance of erstwhile distractions from the Redeemer and His Ship. The nail exercise shows this; once you have the faith to try another approach, perceived impossible problems, by having a new perspective resulting from experience with a new approach taken by choice, become minimized by the one who was struggling.

The stories about Stephen and Angelique weren’t to minimize their concerns about matters of history, past practices and teachings and fallible prophets, but to compare the habit of incessant doubt with firmly rooted faith, and where these habits lead.

What advice for those choosing to be a “perpetual doubter” do you find problematic? Why do you consider his advice for people who remain upset because of their doubt misplaced? I think it important to draw actual statements from the presentation and what you think he 4meant by them.

[Tacenda]

Just now, ALarson said:

You nailed it (the part I put in bold above is the truth regarding what is happening to so many members now).  For those who believe it's just members being lazy or having a lack of commitment that are causing so many to stop believing as they formerly did, they only need to look at how much was not previously revealed or spoken about (regarding true church history and the details).  I'm not talking about a random mention in the Ensign, etc.,  over many years (and I know the information was there for those who wanted to dig deeper), but I am referring to lessons on church history or lessons during the years that were on the past Prophets (look at the manual for the year we studied Joseph Smith's teachings or Brigham Young's and how the topic of polygamy was avoided).   IMO, this was done because the leaders knew that when members learned about how polygamy was truly lived (especially by Joseph Smith), it would shake their faith and trust.

Now that the leaders realize this isn't working, they are trying to be more open (ie. the essays, etc.).....but for many members it's too little, to late.  

I have seen no one leave because they were lazy or complacent or lacked faith before they started learning the truth regarding some of the more troubling issues (past doctrines and historical issues, BofA issues, BofM issues and so on).  Mainly I've seen members leave who were fully committed members and that's why they fall so hard.....they believed with all their hearts and they are completely destroyed when they learn the truth.  If it were just one issue,  I think most would survive it and continue attending, but it starts with one and then snowballs into so many that their entire trust is destroyed.

So true...

Recently, I've thought, what if I just remove my name and become more authentic if I'm not sure I believe. And then I think of all of my siblings that are inactive and have been that way for over 30-40 years. I only have one sister that is all in, and the other four that are not. The inactive siblings don't care if they are "on paper only" members, and will probably leave it that way. But me, who was just like my sister who's all in, am think of taking my name off? How ironic! My sibs that were inactive, didn't like the Mormon lifestyle, but they don't care one way or the other if they are listed as members of the church. I think it's those that do care that take their names off. Those that were hurt badly by knowing what they didn't know and the sacrifice they gave monetarily, and the time they gave weekly years and years. These aren't the lazies or the complacent that are doubting. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Tacenda said:

So true...

Recently, I've thought, what if I just remove my name and become more authentic if I'm not sure I believe. And then I think of all of my siblings that are inactive and have been that way for over 30-40 years. I only have one sister that is all in, and the other four that are not. The inactive siblings don't care if they are "on paper only" members, and will probably leave it that way. But me, who was just like my sister who's all in, am think of taking my name off? How ironic! My sibs that were inactive, didn't like the Mormon lifestyle, but they don't care one way or the other if they are listed as members of the church. I think it's those that do care that take their names off. Those that were hurt badly by knowing what they didn't know and the sacrifice they gave monetarily, and the time they gave weekly years and years. These aren't the lazies or the complacent that are doubting. 

I had a dream 2 nights ago in which I was standing in the foyer of our old ward in Virginia. I was talking to my wife, though what we were talking about is unclear. The bishop came out of the chapel and told me I was an apostate and that he was going to hold a disciplinary council and make sure I was excommunicated. To my surprise, I was upset and horrified and said I didn't want to be excommunicated, that I didn't believe I'd done anything worthy of excommunication, but he was adamant. He then said he would allow me to resign voluntarily, but I told him I didn't want to do that, either. (I should mention that our bishop in Virginia was a very good man and a good friend of mine.)

I wonder why on some level the thought of not being a member of the church was so upsetting. Really strange.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

There is also evidence of polyandry 2nd anointings - a form of dual-pair or 4-way sealing/anointing:  From the John Nuttall diary from [September 14, 1887; Wednesday]

“Permission was given for sister Hannah Grover to be anointed to Bro Daniel H. Wells. This is her 2nd anointing the 2nd time.”
note50: Mrs. Grover was sealed to Wells, a member of the First Presidency, in 1871
without divorcing her husband, Thomas Grover, who was himself a devout Latter-day
Saint.

 

Thats cool, thanks for sharing.  Another cool thing about the 2nd anointing I heard the other day, I think it was on the Year of Polygamy podcast, the most recent interview with Connel O'Donovan with August Adams Cobb, and I think there was an experience related on there where she gave a Priesthood Blessing and invoked the authority of the priesthood.  This would have been after receiving the 2nd anointing, which would be interesting to know if there is more evidence to suggest that women who participated in the 2nd anointing were taught that they held priesthood authority after that ritual was completed.  

https://www.yearofpolygamy.com/year-of-polygamy/episode-158-augusta-adams-cobb-and-other-boston-mormon-women/

I hope I'm remembering right, I listen to so many podcasts and read so many books that sometimes I can't remember where I learned something.  

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, the entire article is better than it is portrayed.

I don’t think the messages reflect minimization of the concerns of those who are struggling, but on maximizing the need for conversion and a mighty change of heart to refocus on the most important and essential things.

The CES teachers are not to minimize; the student is to reduce for himself the significance of erstwhile distractions from the Redeemer and His Ship. The nail exercise shows this; once you have the faith to try another approach, perceived impossible problems, by having a new perspective resulting from experience with a new approach taken by choice, become minimized by the one who was struggling.

The stories about Stephen and Angelique weren’t to minimize their concerns about matters of history, past practices and teachings and fallible prophets, but to compare the habit of incessant doubt with firmly rooted faith, and where these habits lead.

What advice for those choosing to be a “perpetual doubter” do you find problematic? Why do you consider his advice for people who remain upset because of their doubt misplaced? I think it important to draw actual statements from the presentation and what you think he 4meant by them.

But the question is, IMO, conversion to WHAT?  That the church leaders have some kind of special connection to God that the rest of the members don't have?  That Christ is in charge and runs the church through special men?  Just how do you do that with members who have lost all trust of those claims?

If it is just a change of heart and conversion to Christ and the atonement, then yeah I get that.  But what role does the church need to play in that kind of conversion.  And I don't think anyone can make the assumption that these members have lost faith in who Christ is.  It is the facade that I talked about in my last post that people are struggling with.  How do you put that back in place?  That is the question that I keep hearing from those that have left the church.

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You nailed it (the part I put in bold above is the truth regarding what is happening to so many members now).  For those who believe it's just members being lazy or having a lack of commitment that are causing so many to stop believing as they formerly did, they only need to look at how much was not previously revealed or spoken about (regarding true church history and the details).  I'm not talking about a random mention in the Ensign, etc.,  over many years (and I know the information was there for those who wanted to dig deeper), but I am referring to lessons on church history or lessons during the years that were on the past Prophets (look at the manual for the year we studied Joseph Smith's teachings or Brigham Young's and how the topic of polygamy was avoided).   IMO, this was done because the leaders knew that when members learned about how polygamy was truly lived (especially by Joseph Smith), it would shake their faith and trust.

Now that the leaders realize this isn't working, they are trying to be more open (ie. the essays, etc.).....but for many members it's too little, to late. 

I have seen no one leave because they were lazy or complacent or lacked faith before they started learning the truth regarding some of the more troubling issues (past doctrines and historical issues, BofA issues, BofM issues and so on).  Mainly I've seen members leave who were fully committed members and that's why they fall so hard.....they believed with all their hearts and they are completely destroyed when they learn the truth.  If it were just one issue,  I think most would survive it and continue attending, but it starts with one and then snowballs into so many that their entire trust is destroyed.

I think this reflects the relationship between psychological (all aspects) resilience and spiritual resilience. The two are closely linked, which is why an authentic spiritual conversion is the only thing that will help us overcome a dependency upon, and hence the inevitable lack of trust in (fill in the blank). I think faith transcends trust no mater how knowledgeable or blindsided someone might be.

[blueglass]

27 minutes ago, california boy said:

You know the litany of troublesome issues.  I don't have to list them.  Perhaps those are just dents and peeled paint.  The real issue is the divine claim that Christ guides the church.  Take that away and, you are right.  It is just a boat with some minor flaws with sincere men at the helm. For some, that is better than getting out of the boat. For others, it is time to start swimming to shore.

 

For Lehi, to abandon his friends, his religious leaders, to leave the holy city and temple, to build a new ship and sail to obtain a better land of promise.  1Nephi5:5 "But behold, I have obtained a land of promise."  He speaks in the past tense, meaning that he had already seen it in a vision and had trust in the promises of the Lord.  

[jkwilliams]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, the entire article is better than it is portrayed.

I don’t think the messages reflect minimization of the concerns of those who are struggling, but on maximizing the need for conversion and a mighty change of heart to refocus on the most important and essential things.

The CES teachers are not to minimize; the student is to reduce for himself the significance of erstwhile distractions from the Redeemer and His Ship. The nail exercise shows this; once you have the faith to try another approach, perceived impossible problems, by having a new perspective resulting from experience with a new approach taken by choice, become minimized by the one who was struggling.

The stories about Stephen and Angelique weren’t to minimize their concerns about matters of history, past practices and teachings and fallible prophets, but to compare the habit of incessant doubt with firmly rooted faith, and where these habits lead.

What advice for those choosing to be a “perpetual doubter” do you find problematic? Why do you consider his advice for people who remain upset because of their doubt misplaced? I think it important to draw actual statements from the presentation and what you think he 4meant by them.

I agree with you on most of this. I guess my problem is with the boat analogy, which I do think minimizes the concerns. As for Stephen and Angelique, some people accept simple answers, and some don't. 

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

But the question is, IMO, conversion to WHAT?  That the church leaders have some kind of special connection to God that the rest of the members don't have?  That Christ is in charge and runs the church through special men?  Just how do you do that with members who have lost all trust of those claims?

If it is just a change of heart and conversion to Christ and the atonement, then yeah I get that.  But what role does the church need to play in that kind of conversion.  And I don't think anyone can make the assumption that these members have lost faith in who Christ is.  It is the facade that I talked about in my last post that people are struggling with.  How do you put that back in place?  That is the question that I keep hearing from those that have left the church.

Conversion to Christ keeps everything else one perceives as connected with the Church in perspective. The role of the Church is to inspire that conversion by sending out the Good News and providing the ordinances and covenants of salvation and exaltation. Then the Church becomes a vehicle for what converted people do to help others.

[california boy]

Just now, CV75 said:

Conversion to Christ keeps everything else one perceives as connected with the Church in perspective. The role of the Church is to inspire that conversion by sending out the Good News and providing the ordinances and covenants of salvation and exaltation. Then the Church becomes a vehicle for what converted people do to help others.

But you are assuming that those who leave the church have lost their belief in Christ.  How do you make that assumption?  Is all I am seeing is a loss in belief that church. leaders speak for Christ.  You are asking for a conversion that may already be there.  

I fully believe in Christ and the atonement.  That is not going to get me back to considering the church has some kind of divine mission.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

But the question is, IMO, conversion to WHAT?  That the church leaders have some kind of special connection to God that the rest of the members don't have?  That Christ is in charge and runs the church through special men?  Just how do you do that with members who have lost all trust of those claims?

If it is just a change of heart and conversion to Christ and the atonement, then yeah I get that.  But what role does the church need to play in that kind of conversion.  And I don't think anyone can make the assumption that these members have lost faith in who Christ is.  It is the facade that I talked about in my last post that people are struggling with.  How do you put that back in place?  That is the question that I keep hearing from those that have left the church.

Sadly, for many, when the façade of the church falls so does testimony in Jesus. The church and Jesus are so often conflated so they think if they can't have faith in the church, then they can't believe anything the church says and therefore Jesus also takes a hit.

What I would like to see is the church focus wholly on the individual's relationship with Jesus. They can/should recognize that the institutional church and even church leaders have become a stumbling block for many in their relationship with Jesus. The only reason it is a stumbling block is because of church claims being the One and Only True Church. If that rhetoric went away, and the church viewed itself as part of the body of Christ, instead of the entire body, then they would focus more on helping members stay focused on their testimonies of Christ instead of on the church. They could step to the side and say "we have a good way. Join us. But if you can't join us, or remain with us because of the mistakes we've made that have resulted in a loss of trust, trust Jesus. Remain with the body of Christ, even if it's not with us."

I wish they would value that option instead of demonizing it. For so many, they feel that going to another church means they're apostate so why keep trying. But being apostate from a church and being apostate from Jesus are different things. Even so, many will be unable to maintain faith in Jesus because of the pull of institutional church's and I think that's just reality. But demonizing other's decisions won't ever accomplish anything good.

[CV75]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I agree with you on most of this. I guess my problem is with the boat analogy, which I do think minimizes the concerns. As for Stephen and Angelique, some people accept simple answers, and some don't. 

This is why I asked (and for actual statements made by Elder Renlund to support your answers):

What advice for those choosing to be a “perpetual doubter” do you find problematic?

Why do you consider his advice for people who remain upset because of their doubt misplaced?

I wouldn't minimize Angelique's acceptance of a simple answer any more than minimizing her or Stephens' concerns (which the Renlunds aren't doing); such an assumption would minimize the gravity of her concern and the power of her faith.

[Exiled]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I had a dream 2 nights ago in which I was standing in the foyer of our old ward in Virginia. I was talking to my wife, though what we were talking about is unclear. The bishop came out of the chapel and told me I was an apostate and that he was going to hold a disciplinary council and make sure I was excommunicated. To my surprise, I was upset and horrified and said I didn't want to be excommunicated, that I didn't believe I'd done anything worthy of excommunication, but he was adamant. He then said he would allow me to resign voluntarily, but I told him I didn't want to do that, either. (I should mention that our bishop in Virginia was a very good man and a good friend of mine.)

I wonder why on some level the thought of not being a member of the church was so upsetting. Really strange.

My guess is that you still want to engage in mormonism but on your terms like I do.  When I told my Bishop some years ago that I no longer believed, he immediately fired me from my sunday school position and invited me to resign.  I wasn't taken aback from being fired but was from being asked to resign.  For me, it was like a forced break-up or getting divorce papers shoved at me.  I don't really care to officially divorce myself from the church but still engage on this level.  I view resignation as wanting to shove my unbelief in my immediate family's face and I just don't need to do so.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, CV75 said:

This is why I asked (and for actual statements made by Elder Renlund to support your answers):

What advice for those choosing to be a “perpetual doubter” do you find problematic?

Why do you consider his advice for people who remain upset because of their doubt misplaced?

I wouldn't minimize Angelique's acceptance of a simple answer any more than minimizing her or Stephens' concerns (which the Renlunds aren't doing); such an assumption would minimize the gravity of her concern and the power of her faith.

I'm not minimizing her concerns or Stephen's. And as I said, I am not saying the advice to "perpetual doubters" is misplaced. I'm simply saying that the comparison to chips and dings makes it sound as if the issues people are troubled by are trivial. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

My guess is that you still want to engage in mormonism but on your terms like I do.  When I told my Bishop some years ago that I no longer believed, he immediately fired me from my sunday school position and invited me to resign.  I wasn't taken aback from being fired but was from being asked to resign.  For me, it was like a forced break-up or getting divorce papers shoved at me.  I don't really care to officially divorce myself from the church but still engage on this level.  I view resignation as wanting to shove my unbelief in my immediate family's face and I just don't need to do so.

That's interesting. When I told my bishop I didn't believe, he immediately asked me to stay on in my calling in the high priests group leadership, which I did for another 18 months or so. Some people over the years have told me they have found out my IRL information (not hard, really) and that they are going to contact my bishop. That's fine with me. I'm happy where I am and don't see any need to do anything drastic.

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

But you are assuming that those who leave the church have lost their belief in Christ.  How do you make that assumption?  Is all I am seeing is a loss in belief that church. leaders speak for Christ.  You are asking for a conversion that may already be there.  

I fully believe in Christ and the atonement.  That is not going to get me back to considering the church has some kind of divine mission.

I am not making that assumption at all. If one is converted to Christ, his problems as he sees them are put in perspective, and (using your example) rather than trust in men, they exercise faith in Christ. The men don't bother them, and as far as the Church goes, the essential things they have to offer (the covenants and ordinances) can be kept.

The only thing that could get you back to considering the Church has a divine mission begins with your belief in Christ and His Atonement. Who knows where that might take you if you keep your eye on Him?

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not minimizing her concerns or Stephen's. And as I said, I am not saying the advice to "perpetual doubters" is misplaced. I'm simply saying that the comparison to chips and dings makes it sound as if the issues people are troubled by are trivial. 

Given the source of the talk, it's possible that the authors do see the issues as trivial.  I wouldn't be surprised if they are coming at the topic from the perspective of the disciple that responded to Christ, when He asked if he would leave also, "to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life."

[Exiled]

39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You nailed it (the part I put in bold above is the truth regarding what is happening to so many members now).  For those who believe it's just members being lazy or having a lack of commitment that are causing so many to stop believing as they formerly did, they only need to look at how much was not previously revealed or spoken about (regarding true church history and the details).  I'm not talking about a random mention in the Ensign, etc.,  over many years (and I know the information was there for those who wanted to dig deeper), but I am referring to lessons on church history or lessons during the years that were on the past Prophets (look at the manual for the year we studied Joseph Smith's teachings or Brigham Young's and how the topic of polygamy was avoided).   IMO, this was done because the leaders knew that when members learned about how polygamy was truly lived (especially by Joseph Smith), it would shake their faith and trust.

Now that the leaders realize this isn't working, they are trying to be more open (ie. the essays, etc.).....but for many members it's too little, to late.  

I have seen no one leave because they were lazy or complacent or lacked faith before they started learning the truth regarding some of the more troubling issues (past doctrines and historical issues, BofA issues, BofM issues and so on).  Mainly I've seen members leave who were fully committed members and that's why they fall so hard.....they believed with all their hearts and they are completely destroyed when they learn the truth.  If it were just one issue,  I think most would survive it and continue attending, but it starts with one and then snowballs into so many that their entire trust is destroyed.

I honestly don't know how the brethren can deal with these issues other than to whitewash them.  The true history brings the church down from the mountain to an ordinary human level when it was being portrayed as being high up there next to God.  So, a legitimate reaction to messy church history is one of unbelief.  But unbelief can spread like wildfire if not checked as, imo, belief in the invisible is always shaky and subject to change.  So, the unbeliever cannot be legitimized and the issues must continue to be whitewashed.

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, bluebell said:

Given the source of the talk, it's possible that the authors do see the issues as trivial.  I wouldn't be surprised if they are coming at the topic from the perspective of the disciple that responded to Christ, when He asked if he would leave also, "to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life."

Elder Ballard in one of his Good Ship Zion talks said this same thing. "Where will you go? What will you do?" I don't think leaders see the real value in other churches. It's assumed that if they leave the One True Church they have nothing else. It's a false dichotomy and one that frankly helps to push people away from a continuing relationship with Jesus when they decide they can't be All In with the church. This is the problem I was speaking about earlier. I would hope that they could shift rhetoric from the implied "if you leave us you will have nothing" to a "if you leave us, don't leave Jesus. Find another home/ship where you can nourish that relationship".

 

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not minimizing her concerns or Stephen's. And as I said, I am not saying the advice to "perpetual doubters" is misplaced. I'm simply saying that the comparison to chips and dings makes it sound as if the issues people are troubled by are trivial. 

OK. You said, "I still think his advice about "perpetual doubters" and people getting upset about mere dings and chips is misplaced." If you meant his advice abut "perpetual doubters" is not misplaced, great, thank you for the clarification.

The comparison of troubling issues to chips and dings (or weak and simple fishermen and food) is only in relation to what the Lord's Atonement means in comparison, not to minimizing either peoples' concerns or resolution of them.

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I honestly don't know how the brethren can deal with these issues other than to whitewash them.  The true history brings the church down from the mountain to an ordinary human level when it was being portrayed as being high up there next to God.  So, a legitimate reaction to messy church history is one of unbelief.  But unbelief can spread like wildfire if not checked as, imo, belief in the invisible is always shaky and subject to change.  So, the unbeliever cannot be legitimized and the issues must continue to be whitewashed.

Being totally honest is the only ethical way for them to deal with it. Sure, they'll take hits in membership but they can also regain some trust. Maybe they wouldn't be trusted as God's only mouthpiece and only true church, but as a good part of Christ's body, working with all other parts for the greater good. The longer they obfuscate the more people will lose trust. They need to bite the bullet and do it, become more welcoming of diversity, and humbly take their place as part of the body of Christ.

It comes down to how they prioritize their role. Does the church want to bring people to the church, or do they want to bring people to Christ. Honesty and authenticity are the only ways to do that, but it would require a massive amount of humility.

Edited July 11, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I am not making that assumption at all. If one is converted to Christ, his problems as he sees them are put in perspective, and (using your example) rather than trust in men, they exercise faith in Christ. The men don't bother them, and as far as the Church goes, the essential things they have to offer (the covenants and ordinances) can be kept.

The only thing that could get you back to considering the Church has a divine mission begins with your belief in Christ and His Atonement. Who knows where that might take you if you keep your eye on Him?

Maybe that would work for some people. I have no idea,  But for me, when the facade is ripped away, the promise of some kind of "saving ordinances" just seem like the same promise that the leaders of the church have some special divine connection with Christ.  Any divine role the church may play kind of disappears with the rest of the claims of a direct connection between Christ and the church.

 

[Jeanne]

On this thread I have learned so much about all of you.  We are all different with different experiences and yet I learn that there are ways and means to attain a spirituality in and out of set religion.  I admire so many of you..your trials..faith..and endurance in study and seeking truth.  Amazing!!

[CA Steve]

It is interesting that in almost any other aspect of life, asking questions, challenging conventional thinking, seeking to learn more on any given subject, is seen as a good thing and encouraged. Maybe, instead of labeling members who are like that as perpetual doubters, we could start calling them something more positive or even not labeling them anything at all. I have had conversations with others about church history in which I was asked why I was even interested in such things. My response is usually to ask why the other  person isn't? So for some, I suppose, the chipping paint on the side of the boat is not very interesting, while others may want to know just how deep those rust marks really go.