Jump to content

Some questions and thoughts about why people leave the Church.


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If one cannot know what is absolutely true, why postulate that it exists?

What good is absolute truth?

Honestly I am trying to understand, I don't get it at all.

I believe in absolute truth as verified by testimony, "truths", and of course there will be disagreements.

What I see as Absolutely true, you may not

Again it is all based on being "absolute" for an individual. Is that what you mean?

Absolutely. Understandings and identification of small t truths (personal) truths are challenging enough - absolute truth (large T truths) are still individually identified and concocted, but they are meant to be much more broad and generalized by the one doing the identification. Yes, you are correct - folks don't even agree of what are absolute truths. We might agree on more of them that small t truths, but still there will be wide variance. I live on a river with lots of trees and owls. Most all my neighbors are absolutely convinced that the absolute truth is that there are owls in our trees that change to lechusas (other types of owls) who then change into brujas (witches) at night. If we are collectively enjoying a fire outside in the evening and they hear the call of a lechusa, they leave. They also are absolutely convinced in the reality of the appearance of the Virgin Mary to Juan Diego and that La Llorona patrols the banks of our river and can be heard crying.

I most likely have a much narrower concept of absolute truths than you do because I would not define them as those things verified by testimonies, even of folks who I respect. I don't see absolute truths as individualized truths, but I also recognize that we, as individuals, or as individuals in groups, or as subgroups within groups identify them. I certainly know LDS scholars who have different truths about any number of things in the church, from some of the folks in the pews of our and probably most other wards. I would same the same for Mennonite, Baptist, or Catholic scholars as well. What good is absolute truth? Probably not much for the aggregate, but it gives me some landmarks or markers by which I live my life.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Amulek said:

Not yet. But when summer comes, I am now planning on whipping up my first ever batch of strawberry horseradish jam. Should be interesting!

 

That sounds amazing. Please send me some!

 

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. It’s amazing that Mexican Mormons won’t grow their own horseradish!

That’s a really convoluted answer to some basic questions. Your simple answer “no” in #15 is sufficient. Now we know where we stand. From my point of view, that settles any differences we may have over LDS exceptionalism.

Do I believe Juan Diego saw the Virgin Mary? Probably not. Do you? During my mission in Central America, I don’t remember meeting any Guadalupe adherents, but we did have an appearance of the Virgin on a palm tree in Masaya, Nicaragua, while I was there. Growing up in New Mexico, I was very familiar with the story. It was in our state history textbook. I am curious how a testimony of the appearance is obtained according to the Catholic Church. 

Do you trust Moroni’s challenge as a way of verifying truth?

Someone else here can answer better than me, but I believe the Catholic church has very strict guidelines for the verification or confirmation of visions. I know I have read them, but can't recall the rules or the name (probably Latin) for the rules. In answering your questions of me, I wrote down all the sub-questions I thought I had to answer to give you a coherent answer. Those were the things that came to my mind as I sorted through my answer to you. For me, lots of things are complex. Or I overthink them and make them complex! I have no more idea of whether Mary appeared to Juan Diego than I have of Joseph's vision. Without having a reason not to, I accept both at their word. I do think (not believe, but think) that perhaps Joseph's recollections changed over time as a confirmation of the growth of beliefs in the church. I know that happens in general terms. I am sure that my recollections of my skills at center field have expanded over time. I don't mean to be disrespectful in saying that, it is just a silly example.

I think some times revelations are akin to recollections. They grow and amplify over time. There is a scholar who writes of dreams, trances, and visions from a scientific and historical perspective. I have her books somewhere, but can't thik of her name just now. I found her writings on the subject very interesting. Oh, and I don't understand Mormoni's challenge at all. I once heard a talk about how it was really written specifically for the Lamanites and expanded over time (like my revelation theory). I am not sure how my LDS friends answer a negative to that challenge. It seems a question to which only a positive answer is correct. I don't understand that at all. Take care.

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Someone else here can answer better than me, but I believe the Catholic church has very strict guidelines for the verification or confirmation of visions. I know I have read them, but can't recall the rules or the name (probably Latin) for the rules.

My companion and I went to Masaya. We saw the tree and leaves and met the lady who discovered the image. The Virgin of Masaya was not verified by the church, but that did not stop the pilgrimages.

Link to comment
Just now, Bernard Gui said:

My companion and I went to Masaya. We saw the tree and leaves and met the lady who discovered the image. The Virgin of Masaya was not verified by the church, but that did not stop the pilgrimages.

I edited my reply to you after I mistakenly and prematurely hit the send button. You may not have seen the edited version. Didn't want you to think I was ignoring your questions. Best!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Oh, and I don't understand Mormoni's challenge at all. I once heard a talk about how it was really written specifically for the Lamanites and expanded over time (like my revelation theory). I am not sure how my LDS friends answer a negative to that challenge. It seems a question to which only a positive answer is correct. I don't understand that at all.

Book of Mormon Title Page (written by Moroni) “Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God...Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations…

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Most all my neighbors are absolutely convinced that the absolute truth is that there are owls in our trees that change to lechusas (other types of owls) who then change into brujas (witches) at night. If we are collectively enjoying a fire outside in the evening and they hear the call of a lechusa, they leave. They also are absolutely convinced in the reality of the appearance of the Virgin Mary to Juan Diego and that La Llorona patrols the banks of our river and can be heard crying.

You might hear something from our Catholic friends here on that one.

I can tell you a story about a boy who saw God and got some gold plates.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Oh, and I don't understand Mormoni's challenge at all. I once heard a talk about how it was really written specifically for the Lamanites and expanded over time (like my revelation theory). I am not sure how my LDS friends answer a negative to that challenge. It seems a question to which only a positive answer is correct. I don't understand that at all. Take care.

It only changed my life, and his name was not "Mormoni".

Perhaps someday you should actually learn something about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 

But I am a simple fellow.

Putting visions in the same category as owl witches is not a great way to communicate with Catholics OR LDS folks, but if it makes you feel superior, go for it.

We actually believe in personal revelation.

How you picked your faith without it, I cannot fathom.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
47 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It only changed my life, and his name was not "Mormoni".

Perhaps someday you should actually learn something about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 

But I am a simple fellow.

Putting visions in the same category as owl witches is not a great way to communicate with Catholics OR LDS folks, but if it makes you feel superior, go for it.

We actually believe in personal revelation.

How you picked your faith without it, I cannot fathom.

I really do irritate you don't I? I am sorry for that, but if you need to mock me for my typos, then perhaps as you have said in the past it is better if I don't reply to you. It is a certainty (now you heard that word from me) that I will make more typos in the future! I don't mean to give you an easy target, but I undoubtedly will.

If you think my aim in life is to "feel superior" then you truly don't know me, even after these four or five years of us fussing at each other.

I never feel superior. I never even feel adequate. I am not a simple fellow. I make no claims to such. I was raised in an abusive, hypocritical, and generally horrible Fundamentalist home. I have been looking for somewhere to belong ever since and have only ever found that in the safety and security of my relationship with my wife.

You have mocked me in the past for leaving or saying I should leave the forum. I finally came to the point where I said to myself. . . . well, I am not going to mocked off of it, period, whether I feel safe or not.

Edited by Navidad
I said enough as it is.
Link to comment
On 3/22/2022 at 1:49 AM, Navidad said:

I will try and do this in a less wordy manner:

I'm sorry, I had to laugh out loud when the above was followed by this:

On 3/22/2022 at 1:49 AM, Navidad said:

1. I and virtually all non-LDS Christians make a distinction between types of revelation. This may be confusing to some. I also think that many non-LDS Christians are confusing when they talk about revelation.
2. The Canon or Scripture is one form of God's revelation/communication to humans. It is one form of what we call special revelation. It is not the only form of special revelation. It is a unique special revelation. It was given to us by the Holy Spirit in the form of the Bible. As the Spirit is often termed as the breath of God - the canon is God-breathed to us. It is a play on words - a personification-type form of speech. Theopneustos - is the Greek form of it. Having said that there are wide differences within the non-LDS Christian community about what that means and how far to literally take it. Some say when the Bible speaks on anything it is incapable of error. Some say when the Bible speaks on salvific things (its purpose) it is incapable of error. Most believe we (humans) are a faulty receptor so we err in how we interpret. Others (some) believe the Holy Spirit superintends the interpretation process so through his direct engagement we can be certain about our interpretation. Sola scriptura does not mean there is only one form of revelation - the Bible. It basically rejects the creeds as revelation. Most non-LDS Protestant (and non-Protestant/non-LDS Christians) reject the creeds as revelation. This is an important point that many LDS folks do not understand or realize. It also rejects other Scriptures as revelation. It does not reject the still small voice of the Spirit in the individual's life. Depending on the individual's beliefs, it may or may not reject individual visions, yearnings, insight, special wisdom, etc. It is not possible to with a blanket statement be accurate with what non-LDS Christians believe about the subject of revelation and interpretation. There certainly are differences. The safest thing to do is to avoid blanket statements. What bothers me at times about this forum is the commonality of making  blanket statements about non-LDS Christians as if we are a monolithic whole - we are not. The divisions into denominations do not in and of themselves create monolithic groups either. Neither is the LDS church, nor the Mormon movement/community monolithic. To understand that all one needs to do is go to an MHA or Sunstone conference and sit quietly and listen! On several occasions I gave the invocation at a presidential banquet of the MHA with General authorities in attendance and at the next table to mine. Some of the hundreds in attendance were quite upset so I was told (not the general authorities by the way) that a non-member had been asked to ask God to bless the evening's gathering. See, I already failed on the wordy part.
3. There are various distinctions made in the non-LDS Christian world between beliefs about special revelation and general revelation from God. Again, blanket statements don't work. One general principle I think I can be safe in making is a distinction, with differences between private (individual) revelation and broad sweeping revelations given to all by God. Perhaps this is where I should explain more about what I mean by God's sovereign will. I think you misunderstood me - probably my fault. For me, God's sovereign will is connected to his omniscience and foreknowledge - nothing more. God knows what will happen to me (specifically me) tomorrow. I don't. I don't believe I can seek and expect an answer about what will happen to me tomorrow. He does not disclose that sovereign fore-knowledge to us, because we as humans probably couldn't handle it well. If God revealed to me I would be struck by a car tomorrow, I would be likely to avoid all cars. However that very effort might be the cause of my being hit by a car! God's sovereign will is well, sovereign! It will come to pass, one way or the other. I have never heard an LDS person talk specifically about the sovereign will of God, so I am completely ignorant of the concept in LDS beliefs. 
4. We do generally agree that God has a moral will for all humanity. He has revealed that will to us in Scripture. No need to seek it or pray about it. We need to read it. Of course we differ in our understanding of the extent of scripture. In my mind that is not salvific in its nature. One may believe in 66 books, someone else may add the Apocrypha or the Pseudipigrapha, or the BOM. No salvific difference there.
5. In my understanding of revelation I do focus on both that which is intended for all and that which is intended for me. Both need hermeneutics - interpretation. Both need effort, wisdom, insight, study, and reliance on the Holy Spirit to interpret correctly. Of course, again no blanket statements need apply. There are Mennonites who believe that God doesn't care or have a specific will as to whether I marry Sarah or Beth as long as she is a Christian. Others believe He doesn't care or have a specific will about who I marry as long as she is a Mennonite. Still others believe that Sarah is God's "perfect" choice for me and that I can know that via prayer and supplication. In 1968 I sat next to my future and still wife in freshman English because she had the best looking legs! I guess that wasn't a very spiritual decision!

I grew up and still am influenced by the idea that I need to seek God's perfect will for my specific life, assuming that even exists. My sister, for example seems quite convinced that I am "out of God's perfect will" for attending an LDS ward! Sometimes I think so too! Ha! Other times I rejoice in what I have learned in so doing. That doesn't mean I am interested in joining up, but that I am interested in learning. I have a powerful, perhaps God-given (I couldn't say for sure) distaste for onlyism when it comes to faith. That is the Evangelical in me. I migrated to my Evangelical convictions from those that were more Fundamentalist. I am content and perhaps even in God's "perfect will" right where I am - a faithful Mennonite non-member of the Juarez LDS ward. I bet that makes some of your heads spin! I know it makes some of my non-LDS Christian friends and family members' heads spin too! Oh, and I just failed the "not as wordy" part. I always do!

'A' for effort!

Playful jab. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I really do irritate you don't I? I am sorry for that, but if you need to mock me for my typos, then perhaps as you have said in the past it is better if I don't reply to you. It is a certainty (now you heard that word from me) that I will make more typos in the future! I don't mean to give you an easy target, but I undoubtedly will.

If you think my aim in life is to "feel superior" then you truly don't know me, even after these four or five years of us fussing at each other.

I never feel superior. I never even feel adequate. I am not a simple fellow. I make no claims to such. I was raised in an abusive, hypocritical, and generally horrible Fundamentalist home. I have been looking for somewhere to belong ever since and have only ever found that in the safety and security of my relationship with my wife.

You have mocked me in the past for leaving or saying I should leave the forum. I finally came to the point where I said to myself. . . . well, I am not going to mocked off of it, period, whether I feel safe or not.

One of the reasons Nietzsche did not like the Christianity of his day was that he saw us as worshipping victimhood instead of strength, and today we would call this passive agression. He saw this as weakness.

I am sorry you lived in an abusive home, all my best to you. It does tend to make us see ourselves as victims, even if we are attacking others sometimes

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

One of the reasons Nietzsche did not like the Christianity of his day was that he saw us as worshipping victimhood instead of strength, and today we would call this passive agression. He saw this as weakness.

I am sorry you lived in an abusive home, all my best to you. It does tend to make us see ourselves as victims, even if we are attacking others sometimes

 

Agreed 80%. I own sometimes feeling as a victim. Both your faith and mine have a long history of identification as victims - the persecuted ones. I don't see myself as passive aggressive - I am a flighter - not a fighter. I retreat. I don't threaten to retreat - I actually retreat. I am weak sometimes, you are right about that. I own that - it is a product of pain. I sincerely appreciate your best wishes. Any time you believe I am attacking you personally, please let me know. You don't seem to attack my faith. You are more likely to attack me personally.

Passive aggressive behavior after your last post to me would be for me to point out the typos in your above reply. So I won't do that. 🙃 Can't we just get along? Someone on here one time said that we both have things to contribute to this forum. Doesn't that also give us responsibility to handle our differences? I think so.

Link to comment
On 3/22/2022 at 1:49 AM, Navidad said:

Good late evening: Let me see if I can clarify some things from my perspective. I also made one significant edit to the post to which you are replying/commenting. I did some kind of a confused positive/negative statement that I corrected. I am sure that was confusing. I will try and do this in a less wordy manner:

1. I and virtually all non-LDS Christians make a distinction between types of revelation. This may be confusing to some. I also think that many non-LDS Christians are confusing when they talk about revelation.
2. The Canon or Scripture is one form of God's revelation/communication to humans. It is one form of what we call special revelation. It is not the only form of special revelation. It is a unique special revelation. It was given to us by the Holy Spirit in the form of the Bible. As the Spirit is often termed as the breath of God - the canon is God-breathed to us. It is a play on words - a personification-type form of speech. Theopneustos - is the Greek form of it. Having said that there are wide differences within the non-LDS Christian community about what that means and how far to literally take it. Some say when the Bible speaks on anything it is incapable of error. Some say when the Bible speaks on salvific things (its purpose) it is incapable of error. Most believe we (humans) are a faulty receptor so we err in how we interpret. Others (some) believe the Holy Spirit superintends the interpretation process so through his direct engagement we can be certain about our interpretation. Sola scriptura does not mean there is only one form of revelation - the Bible. It basically rejects the creeds as revelation. Most non-LDS Protestant (and non-Protestant/non-LDS Christians) reject the creeds as revelation. This is an important point that many LDS folks do not understand or realize. It also rejects other Scriptures as revelation. It does not reject the still small voice of the Spirit in the individual's life. Depending on the individual's beliefs, it may or may not reject individual visions, yearnings, insight, special wisdom, etc. It is not possible to with a blanket statement be accurate with what non-LDS Christians believe about the subject of revelation and interpretation. There certainly are differences. The safest thing to do is to avoid blanket statements. What bothers me at times about this forum is the commonality of making  blanket statements about non-LDS Christians as if we are a monolithic whole - we are not. The divisions into denominations do not in and of themselves create monolithic groups either. Neither is the LDS church, nor the Mormon movement/community monolithic. To understand that all one needs to do is go to an MHA or Sunstone conference and sit quietly and listen! On several occasions I gave the invocation at a presidential banquet of the MHA with General authorities in attendance and at the next table to mine. Some of the hundreds in attendance were quite upset so I was told (not the general authorities by the way) that a non-member had been asked to ask God to bless the evening's gathering. See, I already failed on the wordy part.
3. There are various distinctions made in the non-LDS Christian world between beliefs about special revelation and general revelation from God. Again, blanket statements don't work. One general principle I think I can be safe in making is a distinction, with differences between private (individual) revelation and broad sweeping revelations given to all by God. Perhaps this is where I should explain more about what I mean by God's sovereign will. I think you misunderstood me - probably my fault. For me, God's sovereign will is connected to his omniscience and foreknowledge - nothing more. God knows what will happen to me (specifically me) tomorrow. I don't. I don't believe I can seek and expect an answer about what will happen to me tomorrow. He does not disclose that sovereign fore-knowledge to us, because we as humans probably couldn't handle it well. If God revealed to me I would be struck by a car tomorrow, I would be likely to avoid all cars. However that very effort might be the cause of my being hit by a car! God's sovereign will is well, sovereign! It will come to pass, one way or the other. I have never heard an LDS person talk specifically about the sovereign will of God, so I am completely ignorant of the concept in LDS beliefs. 
4. We do generally agree that God has a moral will for all humanity. He has revealed that will to us in Scripture. No need to seek it or pray about it. We need to read it. Of course we differ in our understanding of the extent of scripture. In my mind that is not salvific in its nature. One may believe in 66 books, someone else may add the Apocrypha or the Pseudipigrapha, or the BOM. No salvific difference there.
5. In my understanding of revelation I do focus on both that which is intended for all and that which is intended for me. Both need hermeneutics - interpretation. Both need effort, wisdom, insight, study, and reliance on the Holy Spirit to interpret correctly. Of course, again no blanket statements need apply. There are Mennonites who believe that God doesn't care or have a specific will as to whether I marry Sarah or Beth as long as she is a Christian. Others believe He doesn't care or have a specific will about who I marry as long as she is a Mennonite. Still others believe that Sarah is God's "perfect" choice for me and that I can know that via prayer and supplication. In 1968 I sat next to my future and still wife in freshman English because she had the best looking legs! I guess that wasn't a very spiritual decision!

I grew up and still am influenced by the idea that I need to seek God's perfect will for my specific life, assuming that even exists. My sister, for example seems quite convinced that I am "out of God's perfect will" for attending an LDS ward! Sometimes I think so too! Ha! Other times I rejoice in what I have learned in so doing. That doesn't mean I am interested in joining up, but that I am interested in learning. I have a powerful, perhaps God-given (I couldn't say for sure) distaste for onlyism when it comes to faith. That is the Evangelical in me. I migrated to my Evangelical convictions from those that were more Fundamentalist. I am content and perhaps even in God's "perfect will" right where I am - a faithful Mennonite non-member of the Juarez LDS ward. I bet that makes some of your heads spin! I know it makes some of my non-LDS Christian friends and family members' heads spin too! Oh, and I just failed the "not as wordy" part. I always do!

This took a little longer than I expected. It’s planting season. My extra time usually gets sucked into a pile of compost and keeping my plant babies happy.

 

What are the other forms of special revelation? 

 

The creeds and any form of revelation or just special revelation? Is this more a rejection of the creeds solely as a revelation instead of as a summary of belief or the creeds wholesale? Or all of the above depending (I’m assuming the last)? it does surprise me to hear the rejection of creeds, but based on the context of what you’re saying, it makes sense. The part I find mind boggling is to reject one while maintaining  the interpretations of scripture (like the trinity) even though in all regards that’s not solely from the Bible but a human explication of such that became generally accepted (though then what definition is accepted again may vary based on how well versed a person is on this). I’m fine with avoiding blanket statements. I was aware there are variation in practice particularly in the major branches. I do think part of the difficulty of remembering to keep that stance is that those most likely to confront LDS beliefs from my experience often fall into a specific orientation and present and illusion of United beliefs that the LDS inherently can’t fit. A lot. This unfortunately is the face of Christianity I’ve had the most personal interaction with. It’s less personal and intellectual reads that re-broaden it. 

2 asides: 1) I always find the most rigid LDS weird and I find it weirder to get in a hissy over whole prays, like we’re the only one’s who’ve ever chatted with God. Though I do hypothetically get the comfort of a simplified world with easy rules. 2) Blanket statements aren’t my thing. I prefer terms like “generally” “mostly” “often,” etc….particularly when talking about groups of people. So that’s not a hard sell to me. It’s human to do so, of course. Probably for similar reasons many of us gravitate to straightforward rules.

 

Part of the reason you’ve probably never heard a distinction is that we don’t generally make a distinction. There’s no need for us (or at least for me). I don’t have a set limitation as to what type of revelation God will or will not disclose to me in time. Doctrinally, we don’t place even prophets as having access to revelation different from the lay member, in terms of types (though not always culturally and not in terms of stewardship). The story of the vision of the tree of life at the beginning of the BoM highlights this. You have a prophet have a vision on the tree and tells his family…and then seeking confirmation and more understanding about his father’s dream, the son has another vision that includes foreknowledge of things to come. His brothers don’t receive this and believe they can’t likely due to their difficulty with obeying even the most basic commands. This doesn’t Mean I think god will reveal his sovereign will all willy nilly and give us a blow-by-blow of every experience we’ll have in our life of course. It defeats the purpose of being here. But I also don’t see revealing parts of his sovereign will as any different than when and why he reveals his moral will. When I was thinking about this in my own small experiences, it’s been based on a couple things: is it relevant to my context, will I receive it, and when I do am I ready to live up to the responsibility of having it? It’s not much different to other answers I’ve received imho. I do think there’s some limitations on this…even if something specific is given, the exact steps likely won’t be. And on the extreme end, where there’s records of prophets getting a boatload of foreknowledge, it was still usually tied to knowledge that directly effected this world and us in it. And I don’t think anyone here on earth can completely handle or take in all of the sovereign will of God. Nor should they as previously mentioned. But it doesn’t mean some of it isn’t available. 

, I also don’t expect or feel a need to know what will happen to me tomorrow. There have been times when I did though, and sometimes god gave me enough foreknowledge to be able to meet the challenges the proverbial tomorrow would bring. There’s 2 small ones right now that are still playing out. One occurred in early COVID when we still all believed that we’d bunker in our homes for 4-8 weeks and this would be done. In that time, while praying with my family, I received the distinct spiritual impression that We would not go to church for a long time. And I haven’t…not fully…for the last 2 years. The other was with an influx of frequent migraines. I received a blessing in which i was told this would stop being a thing in a relatively short period of time (but not all at once in classic miracle fashion ;) ). This was about two months ago. Both times the foreknowledge of what would happen to me was given so that I would have the capacity and courage to move through the uncertainty in decisions I’d later face. So to me, yeah, sometimes god will let you know what will happen to you tomorrow…if it helps fulfill God’s purposes and ours on earth. 

 

It’s odd to me to think that there would not be a need to pray about our moral will. To me that is a super important Part to interpretation. It also doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to state we need to read about moral will but then state there’s no salvific difference. On some points I likely agree with this I assume…though In part because of the unique/detailed understandings of LDS views on the afterlife and salvation anyways. But also on things like you could have someone who proactively reads all of these namely to pick them apart and critique them and that’s probably not going to do much in growing their relationship with Jesus. Or another who promoted  them but ignores even basic teachings in their moral behaviors. But I’m curious what is the difference to having these special revelations, if any, for you? 

 

On the last point I think we’re fairly similar. Though for me it was my husband’s man bun and the fact that he looked a lot better In person than his profile pictures that were my first points of interest.  It turned more spiritual a little while later. :P 

 

with luv, 

BD 

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
On 3/2/2022 at 2:36 PM, ksfisher said:

I think we should be show be concerned about anyone leaving the church, regardless of the reason or their past activity.  The church is not a collection of individuals, but a community of believers working towards a common goal.  Anyone the strays from the path lessens the whole.

Obviously you'd have to ask that question of church leadership to get the real answer.  Otherwise you're just getting the opinions of a bunch of people on the internet who, while they have opinions, aren't church leadership.

Recently, two families have left the church in my ward and withdrew their memberships. We were friend with one of them and just dismissing them as "loosing their testimony for lack of faith" or "they were not converted" ignores the deeper issues. These were solid, life long members of the church and esteemed brothers and sisters. We owe them time, attention and consideration. To do otherwise betrays our shallow friendship, apathy and total disregard for them.

Half a dozen families have left since the publication of the Gospel Topic Essays by the church. Truth be told, there are a significant number of "historical issues" that have no plausible explanation and others where the church has either misrepresented the facts or the facts are not supported by evidence. I mean, for example, the fact that now we know that the Book of Abraham, as depicted in the POGP, is not a translation from the facsimile and bares absolutely no reference to what is reported in the text, was a blow to many. The fact that for 180 years the church depicted the translation process as Joseph running his finger over the plates and now the narrative changed to him looking into a stone in his hat and dictating from there cast a huge shadow over the truth claims of the church. We can not just write these families off. They made a decision after years of struggle and turmoil and decided that they could no longer believe given what they perceived as lies and misrepresentations. Just like the dear brother said to me with tears in his eyes: "...brother, what else is not true..."

These are not fringe members, these are families with deep, multigenerational roots in the church that felt they could not remain given that they no longer believe the truth claims of the church.

 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 Interestingly, my personal experiences with the Book of Mormon have no relation to or interaction with any artwork whatsoever. They would be the same in the complete absence of any attempts at visual depiction, and they have occurred despite the dreadful Wagner-esque images present in the pages of the first Book of Mormon I ever saw.

I share John the Baptist's assessment that conversion has nothing to do with how deep one's family roots in the Church may go:

And in fact, if the Pharisees and Sadducees are any indication, the deeper the roots, the greater the risk of mistaking cultural observance for discipleship, self-identity for revelation.

I agree with your position. I just tried to point out that these were not transient, recent converts.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Islander said:

I agree with your position. I just tried to point out that these were not transient, recent converts.

One of the problems with this deception about the translation process is that it is just one of many (polygamy, protandry, adam-god teachings, BoA translation).  It is a pattern of institutional deception that is hard for many to ignore. 

Link to comment

Listened to a conversation recently about polygamy with some apologists with the church. They mentioned that it's better to take history more seriously or more factual if someone states something closer to when it happened rather than if someone says something happened many years after it happened.  Well, it was brought up in the discussion that played the recording of the apologists, why then did we not use the first told first vision by Joseph Smith than the latter one years later. Such as the vision where Joseph mentions just "the Lord", not two beings. Why is that? Why not take Joseph's first mentioned vision vs. the one that is now in standard scriptures?  

Link to comment

If a person is taught about the miraculous events of the restoration and then takes the challenge to ask if those things are true, then receives a witness that it is true, only to find out later that it's not, then that definitely calls into question the integrity of the institution which had been teaching a false narrative. The "converted" individual was basing a question on bad information. That rarely ends well.

Receiving an answer to prayer (revelation) that is later verified as false causes a person to question their own ability to recognize and decipher the feelings/promptings/inspiration they believed they had received.  After all, if I could be wrong about this, what else am I wrong about? If the church's narrative about A was false and they've upgraded it to B, then what else have I been taught that isn't correct that I've based a testimony on. And frankly, I don't really believe someone who claims that the church's narrative about the restoration didn't have any impact on their testimony. It sure should have. It was a major part of the 2nd missionary discussion for a reason. Whether the restoration narrative was taught by a missionary, or by pictures, or music, it doesn't really matter if that narrative wasn't correct. 

It's been said that the church isn't facing members in faith crisis. The church is facing it's own truth crisis which is then challenging the faith of previously devout individuals and families.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Yes. 
Why is a particular artist's rendition of the Book of Mormon translation process different to different artists' renditions of Jesus?

I'm not sunstoned, but think the subject is the same with the Savior's portraits, unlike the translation portrayal of hat vs. golden plates. 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Receiving an answer to prayer (revelation) that is later verified as false causes a person to question their own ability to recognize and decipher the feelings/promptings/inspiration they believed they had received.  After all, if I could be wrong about this, what else am I wrong about? If the church's narrative about A was false and they've upgraded it to B, then what else have I been taught that isn't correct that I've based a testimony on. And frankly, I don't really believe someone who claims that the church's narrative about the restoration didn't have any impact on their testimony. It sure should have. It was a major part of the 2nd missionary discussion for a reason. Whether the restoration narrative was taught by a missionary, or by pictures, or music, it doesn't really matter if that narrative wasn't correct. 

This was the major factor in my own faith crisis and faith transition (the transition took a long time because of the implications of the crisis). I never left the church formally but I did not attend church for several years. And as part of my reconstructed faith I do not rely on prayers and feelings for anything. In many ways my faith is stronger as a result. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...