Some questions and thoughts about why people leave the Church.

[Bernard Gui]

43 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You're welcome.

It might be important to understand that there are downsides for some, and also for some the beliefs called "the Gospel of Jesus Christ" are no longer accessible, for reasons of conscience and conviction.

That said, there can still be tremendous common ground even in these cases. 

A downside to believing in eternity, for example?

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Meadowchik]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

A downside to believing in eternity, for example?

 

Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking.

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure under which post to answer this and I don't know how to combine several quotes from different posts into one. So I have randomly, not through any form of revelation (smile) decided to reply to Pogi's post but the same answer applies to @bluebell @SwedishLDS and others who may have responded to my post and I missed.

First we are talking about two different things (at least). What you all mentioned coming from someone here in the past were comments about interpreting scripture via some type of feeling, burning in the bosom, or gut-instinct of the same. Having said that,  I do and I was taught and I have taught that the Holy Spirit is a direct aide in the practice of hermeneutics or scriptural interpretation. I have a ginormous library on hermeneutics and homiletics and don't know of anyone, except for the most strident Calvinists who would deny the leadership of the Holy Spirit in their life, especially in interpreting scripture and making personal decisions. I can safely say I have never met such a hardcore Calvinist as that. I have preached in lots of Presbyterian churches, especially of the PCA variety. Most Evangelicals would object to the "burning in the bosom" concept, but that is simply semantics. If they deny the LDS are Christians, then they would deny the role of the Holy Spirit in that person's life, and then would relegate any burning to the person's own feelings. That they would deny.

The idea of feelings being helpful is not big in lots of Fundamentalist circles. That is why they oppose psychology and counseling of most sorts that are not directly from the Bible. I have had my own share of debates on that particular issue since I was a psychology professor at a rather conservative Baptist college. I was an outcast from the Bible department there, but relished the opportunity to debate psychology versus Nouthetic Counseling, especially since psychology is the social science most interested in the soul (psyche). The famous Delitzsch of Biblical commentary fame also wrote the first book on Biblical Psychology, but I digress.
 

So, as a Christian I rely on guidance and direction from the Holy Spirit as my counselor, as does every other Christian I know, including most Calvinists. Most of my Calvinist experiences have been with very conservative (read Fundamentalist) Presbyterians. I never heard of Calvinist Lutherans, especially any who believe in predetermined damnation. That is an oxymoron for non hardcore Calvinists. I am convinced that LDS Christians have the availability of the Holy Spirit. I am also convinced they are wrong when they say they are the only ones who have it. So see, I upset lots of people! Many Evangelicals like me object to being stuffed in boxes.

When we get away from Biblical interpretation and talk about personal revelation, general revelation, and personal decision-making, I know of no Christians who aren't for those. As I said yesterday on one of my 5,348 posts (slight exaggeration) I grew up being encouraged to pray about and seek God's will for my life - marriage, vocation. college, job moves, purchasing decisions, etc. Any answer to any of those prayers was specific and to me only - directly from the Holy Spirit as a special revelation that is not in competition with the Bible because the Bible doesn't tell me Susy or Sally. I actually married Jeanne! Fifty-two years later I have lots of confirmation about the wisdom of that decision.

I had a very good friend who wrote a terrific  book entitled "Decision-Making and the Will of God." He became famous on that book because in it he offered an alternative view, but only about the moral and sovereign will of God. No need to seek that knowledge - on the former the Bible is sufficient and on the latter God isn't telling. He never reveals his sovereign will, either via Scripture or any other form of revelation, nope - not to anyone - maybe a prophet, but none of us mortals. So again, I say this - I know of no Christian who believes that a Christian via the Holy Spirit should not seek and can receive a. special revelation about non-Biblical things; general revelation about all the God reveals of himself via His creation, and the gifts that come with the fullness of the Holy Spirit. On that last one, various Christians disagree on which gifts are available to us in this dispensation. For some it is a big deal. For many it is not. For example - tongues and the interpretation of tongues is a biggy for some! I am in the "who knows? camp. I heard some things when I was on my mission in Africa that cause me to reject a strident position on either side of the definition of what the gift of tongues even was and if it is available today. Remember - I intensely dislike certainty.

I hope this quick epistle helps. I have to get back to proofing my citations for another project! Thanks to all.
 

I have a mild migraine and so I may be misunderstanding some of what you're saying. If I am, feel free to correct me when you have time. If I'm following you, you're noting the difference is in when latter-day saints, move into the larger topic of added revelation for the whole (eg. BoM, D&C, etc) or in the larger christian community in the spirit's role in interpreting scripture, correct? The revelation you're describing is focused more on the individual counsel God can give to us about the direction our lives should take and falls under the category of the moral will of God or personal decision making. 

So when people like "lutherangirl" are talking against revelation, they're more likely doing so less from an assertion that you can't be directed by God in your personal life and more that you can't be directed by God to include something extra-biblical. Maybe?

I'm still a little confused how this alligns with lutheran girl's commentary on this, which still sounds like it's trying to differentiate between the individual experiences of what she views as non-christian or extra-biblical religious movements and the individual experiences of christians that appear to need to have those answers more rooted in the bible than anything else. Somewhat similar to how you mentioned with the really conservative christians questioning secular models of therapy (didn't know about nouthetic counseling...been a fun google) since most of it is not rooted in biblical practice.....or now that I'm thinking it, why Alabama was skeptical on yoga. If I'm getting that, it puts the bible as the litmus test for general correctness and anything that err's too far from biblical authority is in itself in question as legitimate revelation or spiritual practice. Since personal life as a sola-biblia christian places one on a more "correct" foundation, one could have correct personal revelation from God via biblical definitions of spiritual answers from God. I'm not sure if I'm following you right....

 

Currently from my LDS ears, there's still things in this explanation that still seem to put unnecessary limits on the capacity of receiving revelation. I had a similar response to a post you made a little earlier on this thread about covenants. That there was more than individual covenant making to God to me. On both, past baptism/confirmation*, most covenants that include an ordinance are not fully about the individual anymore, but integrating the individual into the social order of God and then perpetuating/continuing to build said social order. There's an inherent communal nature to temple covenants that can't be done individually or super privately. Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of LDS folk experience/perceive these in individualistic terms at times...but I think that's namely because we often come from cultures that are more individualistic. With revelation, I also see a little limit to that communal form of revelation in your description. As well as a limit of what type of revelation can be received both individually and in the church as a whole (I don't see the same aversion to revealing "sovereign will" in LDS beliefs,  for example).

 

But again, I could be missing some things. 

With luv,

BD

*Edit to add that even baptism can be viewed in LDS doctrine as entrance into this social order and interacting with others in the way that Christ would (mourning with those that mourn....practicing compassion). None are solely about the individual, but about the individual in relation to community and Christ. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

3 hours ago, SwedishLDS said:

anyway during Joseph Smiths time it was viewed as such things didn’t exist anymore by many.

 But there was also a massive segment of the population that viewed a personal relationship with Christ including personal revelation due to the Great Awakening (three surges starting in mid 1700’s iirc and going for about a century off and on).

Also those who had visions…

https://www.nonsda.org/egw/egw32.shtml

Not saying Joseph’s dismissal by a/his pastor of having a vision is false, just saying there was that element present in his surrounding environment. This spiritual interest helped imo create a supportive family, highly important for a young Joseph’s efforts.

[SwedishLDS]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

 But there was also a massive segment of the population that viewed a personal relationship with Christ including personal revelation due to the Great Awakening (three surges starting in mid 1700’s iirc and going for about a century off and on).

Also those who had visions…

https://www.nonsda.org/egw/egw32.shtml

Not saying Joseph’s dismissal by a/his pastor of having a vision is false, just saying there was that element present in his surrounding environment. This spiritual interest helped imo create a supportive family, highly important for a young Joseph’s efforts.

Indeed it is more nuanced as you say

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I have a mild migraine and so I may be misunderstanding some of what you're saying. If I am, feel free to correct me when you have time. If I'm following you, you're noting the difference is in when latter-day saints, move into the larger topic of added revelation for the whole (eg. BoM, D&C, etc) or in the larger christian community in the spirit's role in interpreting scripture, correct? The revelation you're describing is focused more on the individual counsel God can give to us about the direction our lives should take and falls under the category of the moral will of God or personal decision making. 

So when people like "lutherangirl" are talking against revelation, they're more likely doing so less from an assertion that you can't be directed by God in your personal life and more that you can't be directed by God to include something extra-biblical. Maybe?

I'm still a little confused how this alligns with lutheran girl's commentary on this, which still sounds like it's trying to differentiate between the individual experiences of what she views as non-christian or extra-biblical religious movements and the individual experiences of christians that appear to need to have those answers more rooted in the bible than anything else. Somewhat similar to how you mentioned with the really conservative christians questioning secular models of therapy (didn't know about nouthetic counseling...been a fun google) since most of it is not rooted in biblical practice.....or now that I'm thinking it, why Alabama was skeptical on yoga. If I'm getting that, it puts the bible as the litmus test for general correctness and anything that err's too far from biblical authority is in itself in question as legitimate revelation or spiritual practice. Since personal life as a sola-biblia christian places one on a more "correct" foundation, one could have correct personal revelation from God via biblical definitions of spiritual answers from God. I'm not sure if I'm following you right....

 

Currently from my LDS ears, there's still things in this explanation that still seem to put unnecessary limits on the capacity of receiving revelation. I had a similar response to a post you made a little earlier on this thread about covenants. That there was more than individual covenant making to God to me. On both, past baptism/confirmation*, most covenants that include an ordinance are not fully about the individual anymore, but integrating the individual into the social order of God and then perpetuating/continuing to build said social order. There's an inherent communal nature to temple covenants that can't be done individually or super privately. Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of LDS folk experience/perceive these in individualistic terms at times...but I think that's namely because we often come from cultures that are more individualistic. With revelation, I also see a little limit to that communal form of revelation in your description. As well as a limit of what type of revelation can be received both individually and in the church as a whole (I don't see the same aversion to revealing "sovereign will" in LDS beliefs,  for example).

 

But again, I could be missing some things. 

With luv,

BD

*Edit to add that even baptism can be viewed in LDS doctrine as entrance into this social order and interacting with others in the way that Christ would (mourning with those that mourn....practicing compassion). None are solely about the individual, but about the individual in relation to community and Christ. 

 

 

 

 

 

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!

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

 But there was also a massive segment of the population that viewed a personal relationship with Christ including personal revelation due to the Great Awakening (three surges starting in mid 1700’s iirc and going for about a century off and on).

Also those who had visions…

https://www.nonsda.org/egw/egw32.shtml

Not saying Joseph’s dismissal by a/his pastor of having a vision is false, just saying there was that element present in his surrounding environment. This spiritual interest helped imo create a supportive family, highly important for a young Joseph’s efforts.

Do we know if Joseph's pastor viewed Joseph's vision as false because he didn't believe in visions as spiritual phenomena or because he didn't believe in Joseph's specific vision? I know non-LDS Christians in both camps.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Navidad

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Do we know if Joseph's pastor viewed Joseph's vision as false because he didn't believe in visions as spiritual phenomena or because he didn't believe in Joseph's specific vision? I know non-LDS Christians in both camps.

His memory, which may not have been fully accurate given how memory works…

Quote

Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as avisions or brevelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.

22 I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great apersecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an bobscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me.

23 It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure aboy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily blabor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter cpersecution and dreviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself.

24 However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a avision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was bmad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the cpersecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise.

25 So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two aPersonages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was bhated and cpersecutedfor saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me dfalsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not edeny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?

[Amulek]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

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. [...]

Actually, it's much more stark than merely not expecting an answer.

Say there is a young woman who, on the eve of her wedding, prays to ask God whether or not she should go through with the marriage to her fiance.

God knows that marrying the man will result in a lifetime of physical and emotional abuse - both to her and her children.

If God infallibly knows she will marry him, however, then there is nothing that even God himself can say in answer to her prayer which will change the outcome.

That seems like a fairly unsatisfying state of affairs. Should you have the time, I would be curious to hear your thoughts about God's Sovereignty and the efficacy of prayer.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 3/2/2022 at 1:49 PM, kimpearson said:

In reading the discussions about why people leave the Church, there seems to be two broad viewpoints.  One is that the numbers haven't changed that much and most of these people left because they either had no faith or weren't really converted in the first place.  The other viewpoint is that members are leaving because of a loss of faith over historical issue, social issues, disagreement with leaders actions and feeling like they don't fit.  That the number of people leaving the Church is increasing.

I wonder if the two viewpoints talk past each other because they are really talking about two different groups.  Historically for many years now more than 50% of members are not active and have little connection to the Church.  An even higher percentage of new converts fall quickly into inactivity.  These groups of members represent a huge number that statistically makes up the vast majority of those leaving the Church.  It probably can be argued these folks never had much of a testimony or because of inaction lost whatever testimony they had.  I believe this is the group that Brad Wilcox and other church leaders refer to when they say the numbers haven't changed much.

There may be a variety of viewpoints among those who bother to consider Mormon demography, but the facts are far more variegated.  It is always helpful to take the actual statistics and array them on charts covering the past hundred years.  Naturally, the West has seen a tremendous fall off in religious belief and membership over that century (for all churches).  Most scholars attribute that to secularization.  There has also been a lot of religious switching.  Anyone claiming that there has been little change in the numbers is delusional.  This is more evident in Western Europe than in the United States.  Europeans consider Americans weirdly religious.  They gave all that up long ago.

On 3/2/2022 at 1:49 PM, kimpearson said:

The second group I am much more interested in and invested in listening to is members that were fully active then rather suddenly either went inactive or formerly withdrew from membership.  My wife, sister in law, mother in law, numerous nieces and nephews, aunts and uncles and friends fall into this category.  Our ward executive secretary was quietly release and his family suddenly disappeared.  Next thing I know, his wife is heading up the local thrive group for members who have decided to leave the Church.  Both he and his wife served missions, met at BYU, married in the temple and served faithfully in the Church for over 15 years.  This group also includes the many children of friends and family who grew up in fully active homes that followed all the Church guidance for making families strong including family home evening, scripture study, seminary and temple attendance.  When these children left home, they immediately ceased all activity in the Church.  This group includes young adults who come home from missions and within a year or two have gone inactive.  Statistically speaking, this group is much smaller than the first group.  The problem I see with this group that is leaving is that traditionally this group provided most of the leadership in the Church.  People leaving the Church from this group will really impact the future of the Church much more than the much large group of long time inactive or never fully active members.

What do you think?  Am I on the right track?  Should active members of the Church worry for the future of the Church because of either group or will there be no major impact to the Church's future?  Do you think Church leaders see any significant problems in this area that they are willing to address in detail and with much focus or do you think Church leadership believes if they remain faithful and all their efforts are focused on keeping currently faithful members active that God will protect the Church from any problems of those members who do leave?

God expects us to make our own choices, and He is not going to magically step in with some double-whammy to save us.  Those who want to leave will be able to leave without much difficulty, and, yes, the LDS Church will survive.  The only real protection for the Church is the faith and testimony of its members.  If they don't have it, they will find it very difficult to survive on borrowed light.

[Navidad]

18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. Grandma DePriest grew horseradish. I like it on prime rib and In seafood sauces. 

This still boils down to the one question: Did God the Father, Jesus, Moroni, John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elijah, Elias, and others restore the gospel and priesthood keys through Joseph Smith?

How do you respond to that question? How could you determine if it is true? What would you do if you knew it really happened?

Good morning - I need to respond to your excellent questions. Have you ever tried horseradish on strawberries? Yummy! We make our own. It is in constant demand from our LDS friends! It is a good thing we don't know many Mennonites here, or we would never have enough for ourselves!

First of all, I question the premise that it "boils down to one question. I would ask and answer a series of broader questions:

1. Do human beings have visions? Yes
2. Are there physiological, psychological, spiritual, and social causes of visions? Yes
3. Are the factors in #2 often mixed in the causation of the vision? Yes
4. Are visions that are ascribed to spiritual or religious causations rare? No. The list of founders with visions is huge. See #2
5. Is Joseph Smith the only religious leader who claimed to have a vision? No. See #4
6. Did his recollection of his vision as an adolescent change over time? Apparently
7. Does #6 bother me? Not really. I was a middle school baseball coach. I understand how adolescents change from day to day!
8. Do I believe that because a founder of a faith had a vision that makes the founded religion special, unusual, or grants it a greater rationale for being unique? No. Too many would then be unique, thus destroying the meaning of the word "unique."
9. Did the founders of my own faith have visions? Yes
10. Did Joseph Smith and others actually have the visions they claimed? Yes to most. I have no idea which.
11. In the case of founders of religions, were their visions from God - like Martin Luther's in the choir loft and many others? I am somewhere between doubtful and skeptical.
12. Can God grant a human a special revelation in the form of special revelation (a vision for example)? Yes
13. Does God ever grant a human a special revelation in the form of a special revelation? Very rarely. See # 11.
14. We have a lady in our ward who consistently testifies in front of the gathered assembly that she sees the spirits of dead folks in the temple. Do I believe her? No.
15. Given that Joseph Smith claimed a series of visions, do I believe that God, in those visions restored the gospel and priesthood keys? No. Not because of the fact that Joseph claimed a vision, but because I do not believe in a total apostasy (perhaps a partial one), a need for a restoration, or in priesthood keys other than the rights to eternal life of the royal priesthood of I Peter 2. This is a Melchizedek priesthood that is the right of every believer in the holy nation of God. Do LDS Christians hold this royal priesthood? Yes. Do non-LDS Christians hold this royal priesthood? Yes? Women? Yes. 
16. Will there be denominational or other religious group identities in the spirit world or in heaven (whether one or three kingdoms)? No.
17. Will we have glorified bodies, like the resurrected Christ in heaven or will we be spirits? I have no idea.
18. Will Christ judge each human who has ever lived with perfect justice and mercy - balancing his love and his righteousness? Yes - I am certain of that - UH OH!
19. Does any ordinance make someone a royal priest? No

I guess that about does it. I hope I have in some way answered your questions and more. Oh, what would I do if I believed it really happened? I would probably change my theological provisional certitude and have to adapt to a new belief. Now let me ask you a question. Do you believe that Juan Diego's vision of Mary in 1531 was from God and intended to validate the teachings of the Catholic Church? Why or why not? Is that not also one question that it all might boil down to, especially for a Latino Catholic? I constantly hear here (Mexico) from my Mestizo friends and neighbors that they could not convert to Mormonism if they had to give up their faith in the Virgin of Guadalupe. She is a powerful spiritual force/presence here. What would you do if you knew it really happened? Millions if not billions of people have claimed it to be the truth. Haven't they? Do all their testimonies in support of that event make a difference? Thanks and best wishes.
 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Good morning - I need to respond to your excellent questions. Have you ever tried horseradish on strawberries? Yummy! We make our own. It is in constant demand from our LDS friends! It is a good thing we don't know many Mennonites here, or we would never have enough for ourselves!

First of all, I question the premise that it "boils down to one question. I would ask and answer a series of broader questions:

1. Do human beings have visions? Yes
2. Are there physiological, psychological, spiritual, and social causes of visions? Yes
3. Are the factors in #2 often mixed in the causation of the vision? Yes
4. Are visions that are ascribed to spiritual or religious causations rare? No. The list of founders with visions is huge. See #2
5. Is Joseph Smith the only religious leader who claimed to have a vision? No. See #4
6. Did his recollection of his vision as an adolescent change over time? Apparently
7. Does #6 bother me? Not really. I was a middle school baseball coach. I understand how adolescents change from day to day!
8. Do I believe that because a founder of a faith had a vision that makes the founded religion special, unusual, or grants it a greater rationale for being unique? No. Too many would then be unique, thus destroying the meaning of the word "unique."
9. Did the founders of my own faith have visions? Yes
10. Did Joseph Smith and others actually have the visions they claimed? Yes to most. I have no idea which.
11. In the case of founders of religions, were their visions from God - like Martin Luther's in the choir loft and many others? I am somewhere between doubtful and skeptical.
12. Can God grant a human a special revelation in the form of special revelation (a vision for example)? Yes
13. Does God ever grant a human a special revelation in the form of a special revelation? Very rarely. See # 11.
14. We have a lady in our ward who consistently testifies in front of the gathered assembly that she sees the spirits of dead folks in the temple. Do I believe her? No.
15. Given that Joseph Smith claimed a series of visions, do I believe that God, in those visions restored the gospel and priesthood keys? No. Not because of the fact that Joseph claimed a vision, but because I do not believe in a total apostasy (perhaps a partial one), a need for a restoration, or in priesthood keys other than the rights to eternal life of the royal priesthood of I Peter 2. This is a Melchizedek priesthood that is the right of every believer in the holy nation of God. Do LDS Christians hold this royal priesthood? Yes. Do non-LDS Christians hold this royal priesthood? Yes? Women? Yes. 
16. Will there be denominational or other religious group identities in the spirit world or in heaven (whether one or three kingdoms)? No.
17. Will we have glorified bodies, like the resurrected Christ in heaven or will we be spirits? I have no idea.
18. Will Christ judge each human who has ever lived with perfect justice and mercy - balancing his love and his righteousness? Yes - I am certain of that - UH OH!
19. Does any ordinance make someone a royal priest? No

I guess that about does it. I hope I have in some way answered your questions and more. Oh, what would I do if I believed it really happened? I would probably change my theological provisional certitude and have to adapt to a new belief. Now let me ask you a question. Do you believe that Juan Diego's vision of Mary in 1531 was from God and intended to validate the teachings of the Catholic Church? Why or why not? Is that not also one question that it all might boil down to, especially for a Latino Catholic? I constantly hear here (Mexico) from my Mestizo friends and neighbors that they could not convert to Mormonism if they had to give up their faith in the Virgin of Guadalupe. She is a powerful spiritual force/presence here. What would you do if you knew it really happened? Millions if not billions of people have claimed it to be the truth. Haven't they? Do all their testimonies in support of that event make a difference? Thanks and best wishes.
 

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?

Edited March 22, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Good morning - I need to respond to your excellent questions. Have you ever tried horseradish on strawberries? Yummy! We make our own. It is in constant demand from our LDS friends! It is a good thing we don't know many Mennonites here, or we would never have enough for ourselves!

First of all, I question the premise that it "boils down to one question. I would ask and answer a series of broader questions:

1. Do human beings have visions? Yes
2. Are there physiological, psychological, spiritual, and social causes of visions? Yes
3. Are the factors in #2 often mixed in the causation of the vision? Yes
4. Are visions that are ascribed to spiritual or religious causations rare? No. The list of founders with visions is huge. See #2
5. Is Joseph Smith the only religious leader who claimed to have a vision? No. See #4
6. Did his recollection of his vision as an adolescent change over time? Apparently
7. Does #6 bother me? Not really. I was a middle school baseball coach. I understand how adolescents change from day to day!
8. Do I believe that because a founder of a faith had a vision that makes the founded religion special, unusual, or grants it a greater rationale for being unique? No. Too many would then be unique, thus destroying the meaning of the word "unique."
9. Did the founders of my own faith have visions? Yes
10. Did Joseph Smith and others actually have the visions they claimed? Yes to most. I have no idea which.
11. In the case of founders of religions, were their visions from God - like Martin Luther's in the choir loft and many others? I am somewhere between doubtful and skeptical.
12. Can God grant a human a special revelation in the form of special revelation (a vision for example)? Yes
13. Does God ever grant a human a special revelation in the form of a special revelation? Very rarely. See # 11.
14. We have a lady in our ward who consistently testifies in front of the gathered assembly that she sees the spirits of dead folks in the temple. Do I believe her? No.
15. Given that Joseph Smith claimed a series of visions, do I believe that God, in those visions restored the gospel and priesthood keys? No. Not because of the fact that Joseph claimed a vision, but because I do not believe in a total apostasy (perhaps a partial one), a need for a restoration, or in priesthood keys other than the rights to eternal life of the royal priesthood of I Peter 2. This is a Melchizedek priesthood that is the right of every believer in the holy nation of God. Do LDS Christians hold this royal priesthood? Yes. Do non-LDS Christians hold this royal priesthood? Yes? Women? Yes. 
16. Will there be denominational or other religious group identities in the spirit world or in heaven (whether one or three kingdoms)? No.
17. Will we have glorified bodies, like the resurrected Christ in heaven or will we be spirits? I have no idea.
18. Will Christ judge each human who has ever lived with perfect justice and mercy - balancing his love and his righteousness? Yes - I am certain of that - UH OH!
19. Does any ordinance make someone a royal priest? No

I guess that about does it. I hope I have in some way answered your questions and more. Oh, what would I do if I believed it really happened? I would probably change my theological provisional certitude and have to adapt to a new belief. Now let me ask you a question. Do you believe that Juan Diego's vision of Mary in 1531 was from God and intended to validate the teachings of the Catholic Church? Why or why not? Is that not also one question that it all might boil down to, especially for a Latino Catholic? I constantly hear here (Mexico) from my Mestizo friends and neighbors that they could not convert to Mormonism if they had to give up their faith in the Virgin of Guadalupe. She is a powerful spiritual force/presence here. What would you do if you knew it really happened? Millions if not billions of people have claimed it to be the truth. Haven't they? Do all their testimonies in support of that event make a difference? Thanks and best wishes.
 

You have done a good job at showing that claimed visions are not uncommon, and that just because someone claims something doesn't make it so. 

You make a claim that "special revelations" are "rare".  I wonder how you determined that to be true - via a "special revelation" to you, or are you just guessing?

One question you missed - "how could you determine if it is true?"   

So far, it sounds like you have determined that Joseph Smith's claims of the restoration are not true based on your personal belief that a total apostasy never happened...  Is personal bias the best way to judge these things?  How can we know?  How does God expect us to decipher truth from lies, or at least mistaken impressions/visions? 

 

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Have you ever tried horseradish on strawberries?

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

 

[Navidad]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

You have done a good job at showing that claimed visions are not uncommon, and that just because someone claims something doesn't make it so. 

You make a claim that "special revelations" are "rare".  I wonder how you determined that to be true - via a "special revelation" to you, or are you just guessing?

One question you missed - "how could you determine if it is true?"   

So far, it sounds like you have determined that Joseph Smith's claims of the restoration are not true based on your personal belief that a total apostasy never happened...  Is personal bias the best way to judge these things?  How can we know?  How does God expect us to decipher truth from lies, or at least mistaken impressions/visions? 

 

 

Hi my friend: I have come to the conclusion that they are rare because even if every claim or case of special revelation were true, there would be very few of them over the entire history of Christianity and Judaism. If we added in claims from other faiths like Islam, they would still be few and far in between. I think the data supports their rarity. Perhaps we are defining "special revelations" differently. I would define them as when God supervenes the natural laws He has created for a specific place and time and purpose. I don't consider the prompting of the Holy Spirit to necessarily be a special revelation. Perhaps we define "special" differently? The burning bush of Moses was a special revelation. It only happened once. Paul's theophany on the road to Damascus was a special revelation. It only happened once.

I am happy to better grapple with your second question if you will define the word "true" for me. Small t true or capital T true? One is true for the specific recipient or recipients. The other is absolute Truth - for all times, places, and people. I believe Joseph Smith's claims of a vision were true - small t. I don't believe they represent absolute Truth with a Capital T because they go against everything I know about the nature of God and Christ and of the Church as the Body of Christ on earth. I think the distinction between personal truth and Absolute Truth is very very important because both are very important and very different.

If your question is was it true as opposed to false in the sense that was it made up? I would agree it was true. If you ask me is it truth for the faithful members of the LDS church, I would say yes, of course. If you ask me is it True as in Absolutely Truth for all time, people, and history (past and yet to be lived) I would say no.

Is my wife the best wife in the world? Yes, that is the truth ---- for me. If you are married with a wife you dearly love, my saying my wife is the best in the world would not be the truth for you, would it? There is no knowable Absolute Truth in the sense of best wives. Neither is there an Absolute Truth in the sense of best faith, denomination, or group.

That is why I am so anti-Onlyism. Onlyism implies Rankism. Rankism makes someone or group the other and less than. The very statement that my LDS friends want me to come "with all I have so they can add to it" makes me less than them. Doesn't it? Onlyism implies Absolute Truth. Jesus Christ loves me unconditionally. That is an Absolute Truth. He is probably the ONLY person about whom that can be said. It is an Absolute in my book. There are very few Absolute Truths in the world . . . it is something like Special Revelation in its rarity. Thanks and best wishes.

[Navidad]

54 minutes ago, pogi said:

So far, it sounds like you have determined that Joseph Smith's claims of the restoration are not true based on your personal belief that a total apostasy never happened...  Is personal bias the best way to judge these things?  How can we know?  How does God expect us to decipher truth from lies, or at least mistaken impressions/visions? 

 

I failed to answer this part. Sorry. No, my personal beliefs have nothing to do with my decision about the restoration and apostasy. I am an avid church history nut. My knowledge of the history of the church (used collectively as the body and bride of Christ) demonstrates via data that the church never went into apostasy with a need to be restored. I don't even like the term "Reformation," let alone restoration. I don't believe the facts of the history of the Church from its founding by Christ and first visible expression in Antioch until today reveals it to be apostate. I believe the facts show otherwise.

There is a scarlet or crimson thread throughout history based on a fealty to the atonement of Christ. We know that from the writings and lives of Godly people who lived in every era and age of the church. I think it is more likely that a belief in an apostasy and need for a restoration is exactly that - a belief based on the beliefs and perhaps confirmation bias of a specific group. I love the study of church history. It is a faith promoting endeavor. Pietists have existed in every age. Their writings of their dedication to the Savior are amazing and very inspirational. I don't believe this is my personal bias. Church history is a study, a discipline. One does not have to "faith" it. Out of 1000 professors of church history across the Christian world, how many would conclude, based on the data, that the bride of Christ was or is apostate in its entirety or even in its majority? Do you believe the non-LDS Christian church today is apostate? Am I apostate? Is the Mennonite or any other group apostate today? I am unaware of any impact the LDS church has ever had on a cleansing or purification of the Mennonite Church. Are Mennonites apostates? Were they in 1800? 1700? 1600?
Deciphering truth from lies is challenging but not impossible. Deciphering truth from Truth - now that is the question!  Best!

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

small t truth yes. Large T Truth no. In other words, personal truth, yes. Absolute Truth, no.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend: I have come to the conclusion that they are rare because even if every claim or case of special revelation were true, there would be very few of them over the entire history of Christianity and Judaism. If we added in claims from other faiths like Islam, they would still be few and far in between. I think the data supports their rarity. Perhaps we are defining "special revelations" differently. I would define them as when God supervenes the natural laws He has created for a specific place and time and purpose. I don't consider the prompting of the Holy Spirit to necessarily be a special revelation. Perhaps we define "special" differently? The burning bush of Moses was a special revelation. It only happened once. Paul's theophany on the road to Damascus was a special revelation. It only happened once.

I am happy to better grapple with your second question if you will define the word "true" for me. Small t true or capital T true? One is true for the specific recipient or recipients. The other is absolute Truth - for all times, places, and people. I believe Joseph Smith's claims of a vision were true - small t. I don't believe they represent absolute Truth with a Capital T because they go against everything I know about the nature of God and Christ and of the Church as the Body of Christ on earth. I think the distinction between personal truth and Absolute Truth is very very important because both are very important and very different.

If your question is was it true as opposed to false in the sense that was it made up? I would agree it was true. If you ask me is it truth for the faithful members of the LDS church, I would say yes, of course. If you ask me is it True as in Absolutely Truth for all time, people, and history (past and yet to be lived) I would say no.

Is my wife the best wife in the world? Yes, that is the truth ---- for me. If you are married with a wife you dearly love, my saying my wife is the best in the world would not be the truth for you, would it? There is no knowable Absolute Truth in the sense of best wives. Neither is there an Absolute Truth in the sense of best faith, denomination, or group.

That is why I am so anti-Onlyism. Onlyism implies Rankism. Rankism makes someone or group the other and less than. The very statement that my LDS friends want me to come "with all I have so they can add to it" makes me less than them. Doesn't it? Onlyism implies Absolute Truth. Jesus Christ loves me unconditionally. That is an Absolute Truth. He is probably the ONLY person about whom that can be said. It is an Absolute in my book. There are very few Absolute Truths in the world . . . it is something like Special Revelation in its rarity. Thanks and best wishes.

 

I agree that the distinction between relative truth and absolute truth is critical.   As far as human knowledge goes, I don't think anything exists but relative truth.  This is not to say that absolute truth does not exist, but that our understanding/perspective of it is limited to relative and subjective experience.  Think of the parable of the blind men and the elephant here.  

You seem to be coming from the position that you don't doubt that Joseph had these experiences, but that they were just mental/psychological states and that he is incorrect in his interpretation that there were divine beings who restored the priesthood to earth.  Once again you base your dismissal of his interpretation of the events on your own personal disbelief of a total apostasy, and your own understanding of the "nature of God" (by this I am assuming your concept of the trinity), and your own concept of the "church".   Besides personal bias, what else might be used to decipher God's handiwork?  Another personal bias keeping you from believing is your philosophy of truth and "onlyism".  

Whether or not you believe that God restored his church via Joseph Smith, is our personal bias based on scriptural interpretations and history the best way to judge these things?

Some ideas are better and more spiritually useful than others.  They are not all equal in spiritual utility.  Rankism is unavoidable.   Fundamentalism is "less than" Evangelism in that regard.  The very concept of "evangelism" implies rankism - else there is no motivation to evangelize.  Christ is the epitome of "Onlyism". 

Edited March 22, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I failed to answer this part. Sorry. No, my personal beliefs have nothing to do with my decision about the restoration and apostasy. I am an avid church history nut. My knowledge of the history of the church (used collectively as the body and bride of Christ) demonstrates via data that the church never went into apostasy with a need to be restored. I don't even like the term "Reformation," let alone restoration. I don't believe the facts of the history of the Church from its founding by Christ and first visible expression in Antioch until today reveals it to be apostate. I believe the facts show otherwise.

Tell this to a Hindu or Muslim that the "historical facts" confirm these things and I doubt that they will agree.  Are the "historical facts" also the basis of your belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world?  Is that the way to Jesus Christ - a study of history?  The smarter we are with objective facts and the better historian we are, the more likely we are to be saved?  Spiritual truths cannot be confirmed to us via an interpretation of historical facts.   That is not how this works.   Speaking of "absolute truth", are you suggesting that your interpretation of history is not subjective and relative?  If not, then how can you claim that your "personal beliefs have nothing to do with it?"  

When Christ asked Peter, "who do you say that I am?" Was he looking for Peter's interpretation of historical Biblical facts, etc.? 

Edited March 22, 2022 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

small t truth yes. Large T Truth no. In other words, personal truth, yes. Absolute Truth, no.

And how does one know what is Absolutely True?

It seems to me that the  very concept implies "exclusivity".

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And how does one know what is Absolutely True?

It seems to me that the  very concept implies "exclusivity".

One does not know what is Absolutely True. One can only use the best judgment that one can muster - with no certainty or exclusivity. The examples I think of are all about the characteristics of Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. None of it is about me, my church, or faith.

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, Navidad said:

One does not know what is Absolutely True. One can only use the best judgment that one can muster - with no certainty or exclusivity. The examples I think of are all about the characteristics of Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. None of it is about me, my church, or faith.

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?

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

small t truth yes. Large T Truth no. In other words, personal truth, yes. Absolute Truth, no.

Then you misconstrue his challenge. Is the divinity of Jesus an Absolute Truth?

Edited March 23, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would define them as when God supervenes the natural laws He has created for a specific place and time and purpose. I don't consider the prompting of the Holy Spirit to necessarily be a special revelation. Perhaps we define "special" differently? The burning bush of Moses was a special revelation. It only happened once. Paul's theophany on the road to Damascus was a special revelation. It only happened once.

The visitations of resurrected beings with Joseph Smith and his colleagues certainly rank right up there with the special revelations of Moses and Paul. How do you know those were true?

Edited March 23, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Navidad]

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.