Interesting development with BYU

[CA Steve]

 

 

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Bad things happen at BYU, and that will continue to be the case.  We have to learn to roll with the punches.  I know people who have been done wrong there, but who took it remarkably well -- even discussing the wrongness openly and still retaining their faculty positions.  We discussed that several times here on this board.  I myself am still bitter about some of the betrayals and dishonesty.  However, when dealing with humans that is fully to be expected.  All the nonsense about "Happy Valley" is just that -- nonsense.  All is not sweetness and light, nor should we be silly enough to expect that.  Hopefully, the students at the Y learn some of life's valuable lessons while here.  I know I have.

I agree. I think BYU is the same as any other university in that good and bad things can happen there, why should we expect it to be otherwise?

Edited January 29, 2022 by CA Steve

[smac97]

On 1/28/2022 at 11:34 AM, Teancum said:

Derogatory?  Perhaps.  Also perhaps just a frank observation.

Well, you said it.  So no need to be coy.  Were you intending to be derogatory or not?

On 1/28/2022 at 11:34 AM, Teancum said:

Quote

I think BYU will be better off with clarifying and, to an extent, returning to its fundamendal mandates from the Church.  Elder Holland's remarks were, I think, one of the first public moves of this process.  

Yes they were. His remarks were fairly stark about where he thinks BYU should stand.

Stark:

Quote

1. sheer, utter, downright, or complete:stark madness.

2. harsh, grim, or desolate, as a view, place, etc.:a stark landscape.

3. extremely simple or severe:a stark interior.

4. bluntly or sternly plain; not softened or glamorized:the stark reality of the schedule's deadline.

I think Elder Holland's remarks were both clear and erudite, both firm and kind.

On 1/28/2022 at 11:34 AM, Teancum said:

Quote

I'm glad to see this.  I want BYU to be unique and distinctive.  I want it to reflect the tenets and beliefs of the Church, while also providing a top-notch secular education.

Well this might surprise you but I pretty much agree.  I think if the Church wants to own a university it has the right to run it how they wish and expect behavioral standards from those who attend.  I do think if someone wants to attend BYU they need to comply with the rules, etc.  If they can't or do not want to there are plenty of other schools to choose from.  It has always amazed me when a student decides to attend BYU then complains about the standards.  It is not like they did not know what to expect before they went there.

I am glad to hear this.  Truly.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 1/27/2022 at 7:55 PM, Teancum said:

Oh sorry. Do you want a big hug?  Is it tough for you when your church is criticized?

Your sneering contempt notwithstanding, yes, it can be tough.  Even though you no longer value or esteem the Restored Gospel, surely you can appreciate that others do, and that it may therefore be challenging to hear deprecating remarks about matters we believe to be good and sacred, particularly from those who formerly shared those beliefs.

Nevertheless, we have put our doctrines and beliefs out in the public square, so they are fair game for critique and criticism.  There are some folks who insist on packaging such things in language that is mean-spirited, disrespectful, contemptuous, and biting.  And then sometimes we Latter-day Saints fail to listen to our better angels in that we respond in kind, or worse, are unkind and disrespectful in the first instance.

In the end, though, I would hope for some measure of mutual respect and decorum as we express disagreement about important matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 1, 2022 by smac97

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Your sneering contempt notwithstanding, yes, it can be tough.  Even though you no longer value or esteem the Restored Gospel, surely you can appreciate that others do, and that it may therefore be challenging to hear deprecating remarks about matters we believe to be good and sacred, particularly from those who formerly shared those beliefs.

Nevertheless, we have put our doctrines and beliefs out in the public square, so they are fair game for critique and criticism.  There are some folks who insist on packaging such things in language and that mean-spirited, disrespectful, contemptuous, and biting.  And then sometimes we Latter-day Saints fail to listen to our better angels in that we respond in kind, or worse, are unkind and disrespectful in the first instance.

In the end, though, I would hope for some measure of mutual respect and decorum as we express disagreement about important matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

This reminds me of the thought I've had about what some former practicing members might have been like before they left the faith. When these former members speak with contempt and mean-spiritedness about the religion they claim to once have embraced wholeheartedly, I wonder if as members they were also unnecessarily judgmental against those who had already left the church. I wonder also if they were unnecessarily exacting in what was expected of other members and particularly if said former member held ecclesiastical callings. You know, kind of 'different sides of the same coin' problem with how they relate to other people - judgmental and overly self-assured when they were members and judgmental and overly self-assured now that they are not. : (   

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, Vanguard said:

This reminds me of the thought I've had about what some former practicing members might have been like before they left the faith. When these former members speak with contempt and mean-spiritedness about the religion they claim to once have embraced wholeheartedly, I wonder if as members they were also unnecessarily judgmental against those who had already left the church. I wonder also if they were unnecessarily exacting in what was expected of other members and particularly if said former member held ecclesiastical callings. You know, kind of 'different sides of the same coin' problem with how they relate to other people - judgmental and overly self-assured when they were members and judgmental and overly self-assured now that they are not. : (   

I can only speak for myself and no I do not think I was like what you describe as believing member.  It may be difficult for many of you that still believe the feeling of those who once believed as much as you all do when they discover the Church is not what it claimed.  

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your sneering contempt notwithstanding, yes, it can be tough.  Even though you no longer value or esteem the Restored Gospel, surely you can appreciate that others do, and that it may therefore be challenging to hear deprecating remarks about matters we believe to be good and sacred, particularly from those who formerly shared those beliefs.

Ok sure I understand that.  And  it  can be tough to hear deprecating remarks about apostates.  My remark was in response to another remark I received as rather rude and uncalled for towards me.  Even your remarks above of sneering contempt seem over the top. Maybe I do come across as having sneering contempt.  If so yes I should work on it. But I get a lot of sneering contempt as well.  And as I have mentioned, there are strong feeling when one feels betrayed by a religion that one gave their heart, mind and soul to. So yea at times my comments are strident.

 

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nevertheless, we have put our doctrines and beliefs out in the public square, so they are fair game for critique and criticism.  There are some folks who insist on packaging such things in language that is mean-spirited, disrespectful, contemptuous, and biting.  And then sometimes we Latter-day Saints fail to listen to our better angels in that we respond in kind, or worse, are unkind and disrespectful in the first instance.

In the end, though, I would hope for some measure of mutual respect and decorum as we express disagreement about important matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

We all certainly should strive to do better in how we communicate and treat each other.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Vanguard said:

This reminds me of the thought I've had about what some former practicing members might have been like before they left the faith. When these former members speak with contempt and mean-spiritedness about the religion they claim to once have embraced wholeheartedly, I wonder if as members they were also unnecessarily judgmental against those who had already left the church. I wonder also if they were unnecessarily exacting in what was expected of other members and particularly if said former member held ecclesiastical callings. You know, kind of 'different sides of the same coin' problem with how they relate to other people - judgmental and overly self-assured when they were members and judgmental and overly self-assured now that they are not. : (   

I'm not inclined to go down that rabbit hole.  It assumes too much.  It requires too much mindreading.  I don't like it when our critics presume to tell us what we really believe, but I can only feasibly hold on to that position if I am not reciprocating it.  

I have never met Teancum, and am in no position to adjudicate his thought processes of yesteryear.  All I can do is assess and respond to what he is writing and saying now.

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I can only speak for myself and no I do not think I was like what you describe as believing member. 

I believe you.  

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It may be difficult for many of you that still believe the feeling of those who once believed as much as you all do when they discover the Church is not what it claimed.  

I have had some experiences over the past few years that I think (hope) have helped me gain some empathy and insight into this matter.

Whether or not the Church is "what it claim{s}" to be is, in the end, a heavily individualized and subjective thing.  We each of us have disparate backgrounds and experiences, levels of knowledge, exposure to various stimuli and influences, and so on.  We each have our own hand-made set of scales by which we weigh evidences and arguments.  Evidence I find quite probative and helpful you may find irrelevant or unserious.  

This is a difficult process, to be sure.  And because we hardly know each other, I think the only way to move forward is to grant each other a robust presumption of good faith and sincerity.  That doesn't mean we have to agree with each other, only that we can be civil and respectful while we parse out disagreements about important topics.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ok sure I understand that.  And  it  can be tough to hear deprecating remarks about apostates. 

I can appreciate that.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

My remark was in response to another remark I received as rather rude and uncalled for towards me.  Even your remarks above of sneering contempt seem over the top.

Then I apologize.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Maybe I do come across as having sneering contempt.  If so yes I should work on it. But I get a lot of sneering contempt as well.  And as I have mentioned, there are strong feeling when one feels betrayed by a religion that one gave their heart, mind and soul to. So yea at times my comments are strident.

We all certainly should strive to do better in how we communicate and treat each other.

Sage words.  Thank you for sharing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm not inclined to go down that rabbit hole.  It assumes too much.  It requires too much mindreading.  I don't like it when our critics presume to tell us what we really believe, but I can only feasibly hold on to that position if I am not reciprocating it. 

I understand you but there is a difference. I did not use the verbiage claiming what these former members really are like unlike how some former believers are so self-assured as to tell you what you really believe. It may not be a rabbit hole to go down though again, there is a difference. For those who speak in such a self-assured manner (on either side of the fence), I would challenge them - for the sake of maintaining these respectful exchanges - to not come off that way. I do not presume to call others out on their folly for leaving the faith and don't like it when others take the opposite tact with me. 

[Vanguard]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I can only speak for myself and no I do not think I was like what you describe as believing member.  It may be difficult for many of you that still believe the feeling of those who once believed as much as you all do when they discover the Church is not what it claimed.  

I can only imagine the difficulty it would be to leave and indeed, it would be just that for me - difficult. My two brothers left the faith many years ago though we have always been able to honor our respective decisions to either stay or leave. On a discussion board such as this it can be difficult though the effort must be made. I respect your crisis of conscience that eventually had you leaving. I don't become righteously indignant about it nor do I pigeon hole your departure into something convenient, but rather - albeit to a limited extent - I am crestfallen when I hear of good men and women leaving. Our community needs you but only if you believe you need it. In fact, several months ago I went back and looked at many of your earlier posts when you appeared to be a believer. Despite this very fundamental shift you have experienced I naturally believe you are filled with good will and such. That we might all convey this sense - including myself - is a worthwhile endeavor. : ) 

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I can only imaginet the difficulty it would be to leave and indeed, it would be just that for me - difficult. My two brothers left the faith many years ago though we have always been able to honor our respective decisions to either stay or leave. On a discussion board such as this it can be difficult though the effort must be made. I respect your crisis of conscience that eventually had you leaving. I don't become righteously indignant about it nor do I pigeon hole your departure into something convenient, but rather - albeit to a limited extent - I am crestfallen when I hear of good men and women leaving. Our community needs you but only if you believe you need it. In fact, several months ago I went back and looked at many of your earlier posts when you appeared to be a believer. Despite this very fundamental shift you have experienced I naturally believe you are filled with good will and such. That we might all convey this sense - including myself - is a worthwhile endeavor. : ) 

Thank you.  To be honest there is a great void in my life. I am open to being led to where God, if God exists, will lead me.  I do seek. I do still pray. I am sorry when I become to strident here.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Teancum

[california boy]

On 2/2/2022 at 7:59 AM, Teancum said:

Thank you.  To be honest there is a great void in my life. I am open to being led to where God, if God exists, will lead me.  I do seek. I do still pray. I am sorry when I become to strident here.

There is something terribly wrong with how the Church teaches us about Christ that makes someone feel like when they leave the Church, they are also. leaving Christ.  I believe a lot of that perception comes from all the testimony meetings we have sat through that tell over and over again "I know this church is true and Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.  When that proves to be an issue, we tend to lump Christ into that doubt as well.  The Church does not equate to Christ.  They are not one in the same.  When I left the Church, I started to rely more on Christ.  He will lead you on your path.  It is time to start trusting Christ more and men less.

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

There is something terribly wrong with how the Church teaches us about Christ that makes someone feel like when they leave the Church, they are also. leaving Christ.  I believe a lot of that perception comes from all the testimony meetings we have sat through that tell over and over again "I know this church is true and Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.  When that proves to be an issue, we tend to lump Christ into that doubt as well.  The Church does not equate to Christ.  They are not one in the same.  When I left the Church, I started to rely more on Christ.  He will lead you on your path.  It is time to start trusting Christ more and men less.

It actually makes reasonable sense, and it's not something the church is doing to people, it's a consequence of the doctrine that it is the spirit that converts.

The church teaches that it is the spirit that teaches us truth.  And most active members believe, at some point in their life, that the spirit has testified to them that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is His church, with His authority. 

Those who believed that they had those experiences, and then doubt their authenticity for whatever reason later, seem to be the most susceptible to losing their belief in Christ.  These are often the people who leave because they felt "lied to", and one of the ways that they felt lied to was by the process they had believed would teach them truth (ie. relying on the Holy Ghost).

Once you start doubting the spiritual experiences that you've had that confirmed the truth of the Church to you, it makes all spiritual experiences suspect, including the ones that you believe have testified to you that Jesus is the Christ.

There are different ways that some people manage to get around that and are able to keep their belief in Christ, but not that many, over all.  The ones that usually manage to do it seem to be  the ones who 1) never really felt like the spirit did witness to them of the truth of the church, who were active because that was the momentum of their lives or those who were never really active at all after their parents stopped making them go and 2) left for other reasons and not because they stopped trusting in their ability to judge spiritual/religious truth by relying on the Holy Ghost.

You left for reason #2 and so it makes sense that it did not impact your relationship with Christ.

Edited February 3, 2022 by bluebell

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, california boy said:

There is something terribly wrong with how the Church teaches us about Christ that makes someone feel like when they leave the Church, they are also. leaving Christ.

A few thoughts:

First, I think the covenants need to have meaning, which would in turn mean that the breaking of the covenants would also have meaning. 

Second, I think the covenant community needs to have meaning.  The concept is heavily emphasized throughout the scriptures.  "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."  (Ephesians 5:25.)  Paul spoke of "the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."  (Ephesians 4:12-13.)  It is not enough to claim unity with Jesus, since we must also be unified with and to each other.  "I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine."  (D&C 38:27.)  1 Corinthians 12 characterizes the Church as a body of disparate members, all of whom must work with and rely on each other, and none of which can say "I have no need of you."  Paul further declared that "there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another."  

Third, there are also many variations on "endurance" in the scriptures.  Patience.  Longsuffering.  Commitment.  Consider 2 Timothy 4:

Quote

1. I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2. Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
6. For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
7. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:

Fourth, I think the story of the Rich Young Man merits some attention.  He loved God and served his fellow man, but he loved his possessions more.  That is something we all struggle with.  We may well and truly love God, but dysfunction arises when we love something else more than that.  From such dysfunction we get estrangement, rebellion, disobedience, sin, and so on.

Fifth, the role of prophets and apostles, of the priesthood, of saving ordinances, and so on, all of these things are housed in the Lord's Church.  The Lord apparently wants us to do certain things, some of which can only be done by working with others (such as receiving baptism, paying tithes, exercising authority, etc.).  The Church is a necessary component of these thins.

52 minutes ago, california boy said:

I believe a lot of that perception comes from all the testimony meetings we have sat through that tell over and over again "I know this church is true and Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.  When that proves to be an issue, we tend to lump Christ into that doubt as well.  The Church does not equate to Christ.

Agree.  Christ is the bridegroom, and the Church is the bride.

52 minutes ago, california boy said:

They are not one in the same.  When I left the Church, I started to rely more on Christ.  He will lead you on your path.  It is time to start trusting Christ more and men less.

There are so many things that we only know about, and can do, by working together.  Prophets and apostles seem to have an important role to play in all this.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

There is something terribly wrong with how the Church teaches us about Christ that makes someone feel like when they leave the Church, they are also. leaving Christ.  I believe a lot of that perception comes from all the testimony meetings we have sat through that tell over and over again "I know this church is true and Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.  When that proves to be an issue, we tend to lump Christ into that doubt as well.  The Church does not equate to Christ.  They are not one in the same.  When I left the Church, I started to rely more on Christ.  He will lead you on your path.  It is time to start trusting Christ more and men less.

I understand.  But felt after drilling into the claims of Mormonism I should do the same for the founding  claims of Christianity and those, at least for me, and at this point, did not fair well also.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Second, I think the covenant community needs to have meaning. 

Oh yeah, this is a cornerstone of the teachings of Christ.  Anyone even accused of breaking the Law of Chastity shall be cast out.  The rest of your comments have nothing to do with what I actually object to.

Edited February 3, 2022 by california boy

[california boy]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

It actually makes reasonable sense, and it's not something the church is doing to people, it's a consequence of the doctrine that it is the spirit that converts.

The church teaches that it is the spirit that teaches us truth.  And most active members believe, at some point in their life, that the spirit has testified to them that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is His church, with His authority. 

Those who believed that they had those experiences, and then doubt their authenticity for whatever reason later, seem to be the most susceptible to losing their belief in Christ.  These are often the people who leave because they felt "lied to", and one of the ways that they felt lied to was by the process they had believed would teach them truth (ie. relying on the Holy Ghost).

Once you start doubting the spiritual experiences that you've had that confirmed the truth of the Church to you, it makes all spiritual experiences suspect, including the ones that you believe have testified to you that Jesus is the Christ.

There are different ways that some people manage to get around that and are able to keep their belief in Christ, but not that many, over all.  The ones that usually manage to do it seem to be  the ones who 1) never really felt like the spirit did witness to them of the truth of the church, who were active because that was the momentum of their lives or those who were never really active at all after their parents stopped making them go and 2) left for other reasons and not because they stopped trusting in their ability to judge spiritual/religious truth by relying on the Holy Ghost.

You left for reason #2 and so it makes sense that it did not impact your relationship with Christ.

Isn't this reinforced by talks like Elder Ballard "Where will you go" talk?  Some how if you aren't a member of the Church, you have no place to find a relationship with Christ?  Shouldn't the Church be teaching that there is a difference between believing in the Church and believing in Christ?  Like you pointed out, not many are able to separate their testimony of Christ.

I left the Church because Church leaders gave me undeniable proof that they did not speak for Christ.  Once I was able to accept that, I started to rely solely on Christ and not men.  For me, it has made all the difference.

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

Oh yeah, this is a cornerstone of the teachings of Christ.

I am genuinely confused.  I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.  I think you are.

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

Anyone even accused of breaking the Law of Chastity shall be cast out.  

Oh, get real.  

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

The rest of your comments have nothing to do with what I actually object to.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[James 1 5]

50 minutes ago, california boy said:

Isn't this reinforced by talks like Elder Ballard "Where will you go" talk?  Some how if you aren't a member of the Church, you have no place to find a relationship with Christ?  Shouldn't the Church be teaching that there is a difference between believing in the Church and believing in Christ?  Like you pointed out, not many are able to separate their testimony of Christ.

Rarely if ever do we hear from Christ directly, with no intermediary between us.  Usually when Christ speaks to us he is speaking through the Holy Ghost or another divine angel or one of his Church representatives.  We think of his Church as his wife or our Mother, rather than him personally.  So generally we consider Christ to have told us whatever we believe Christ has told us through an intermediary which we then repeat and restate as if we are speaking for Christ by telling others what he told us.

50 minutes ago, california boy said:

I left the Church because Church leaders gave me undeniable proof that they did not speak for Christ.  Once I was able to accept that, I started to rely solely on Christ and not men.  For me, it has made all the difference.

From my point of view and in figurative term I would say you left the wife of Christ, his Church, because you believed representatives of Christ's wife were not saying what Christ said or would have said himself.  The Church was and still is his wife, but not Christ.  Now I'm assuming you no longer believe the Church is his wife and the members of it are not his children.  You may still believe members of the Church are still children of our Eternal Father in heaven, but not the children of Christ, because only members of the true church of Christ are his children.  You are still hearing only from intermediaries of Christ, at best.  When we hear from Christ, when we truly Hear Him, we are usually hearing from an intermediary, as I said.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Isn't this reinforced by talks like Elder Ballard "Where will you go" talk?  Some how if you aren't a member of the Church, you have no place to find a relationship with Christ?  Shouldn't the Church be teaching that there is a difference between believing in the Church and believing in Christ?  Like you pointed out, not many are able to separate their testimony of Christ.

I left the Church because Church leaders gave me undeniable proof that they did not speak for Christ.  Once I was able to accept that, I started to rely solely on Christ and not men.  For me, it has made all the difference.

For those who leave because they have begun to doubt some of their spiritual experiences, that usually seems to translate into eventually doubting all of their spiritual experiences, including the ones focused on Christ.

 

 

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I understand.  But felt after drilling into the claims of Mormonism I should do the same for the founding  claims of Christianity and those, at least for me, and at this point, did not fair well also.

I feel the same.  Anytime I hear arguments against Mormonism, I usually re-think those into arguments against Christianity.  There aren't very many arguments that solely affect Mormonism.  So for me, if I ever become convinced that Mormonism isn't true, then I would also be convinced that Christianity isn't true.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, webbles said:

I feel the same.  Anytime I hear arguments against Mormonism, I usually re-think those into arguments against Christianity.  There aren't very many arguments that solely affect Mormonism.  So for me, if I ever become convinced that Mormonism isn't true, then I would also be convinced that Christianity isn't true.

Literally took mere minutes between my conclusion that I no longer believed in the truth claims of the Church to conclude no one else had any better claims. It was a bit of a shocking experience, as a matter of fact.

[Peacefully]

40 minutes ago, webbles said:

I feel the same.  Anytime I hear arguments against Mormonism, I usually re-think those into arguments against Christianity.  There aren't very many arguments that solely affect Mormonism.  So for me, if I ever become convinced that Mormonism isn't true, then I would also be convinced that Christianity isn't true.

This is where I always end up. 

[let’s roll]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

There is something terribly wrong with how the Church teaches us about Christ that makes someone feel like when they leave the Church, they are also. leaving Christ.  I believe a lot of that perception comes from all the testimony meetings we have sat through that tell over and over again "I know this church is true and Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.  When that proves to be an issue, we tend to lump Christ into that doubt as well.  The Church does not equate to Christ.  They are not one in the same.  When I left the Church, I started to rely more on Christ.  He will lead you on your path.  It is time to start trusting Christ more and men less.

I believe Church-centric spirituality is an issue.  My experience with many members is that they most often couch their spiritual experiences as experiences with the Church rather than with Deity.  I’d estimate I’ve heard at least two testimonies of the truthfulness of the Church for every one I’ve heard of the reality, divinity, and nature of God and His Son.  

Since the primary purpose of the Church is to point us to God and the purpose of our spiritual quest is to know God and Jesus Christ, it’s unfortunate that so many allow their activities in the Church to be their predominate effort at spirituality. 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I feel the same.  Anytime I hear arguments against Mormonism, I usually re-think those into arguments against Christianity.  There aren't very many arguments that solely affect Mormonism.  So for me, if I ever become convinced that Mormonism isn't true, then I would also be convinced that Christianity isn't true.

It would be hard.  I think I would end up Jewish, but a Christian Jew.

Unless I ever got to a point where I could convince myself that the experiences that I've had with Christ were false or made up.  Then all bets would be off.  I do not think that I could ever be atheist or agnostic though.  I've had too many experiences with God--experiences that were not couched in "feeling the spirit" but in physical experiences--to be able to explain those away as bias or personal desire, etc.  

But my understanding of who God is could certainly change.  I suppose there could even be room to adopt a pagan belief system, if I lost touch with Christianity.