A Simple Question on God's One True Church

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Not really. Guatemala had a Pentecostal president who created a bit of a mess! Mexico came closest to having an Evangelical president when Obregón was assassinated and Calles put Áaron Saénz forward to be nominated for what then was the PNR party. Had he been nominated he would certainly have won by a landslide. He came from a strong Presbyterian family in Nuevo Leon. Literally, the night before the convention, Calles decided he couldn't, given all the stress with Mexican Catholics, put forward a Protestant to be president. In that particular 1929 election/convention, religion played a part in the outcome. Evangelicals do not have the strength to influence Mexican politics to any degree. Church/state separation is huge here. At the height of the Cristero wars, both Mennonites and Mormons, as well as most Protestants (depending on the state) were able to avoid the weight of the restrictions on clergy and religious instruction. Back in the twenties and thirties,  LDS church here, to be safe used only Mexican-born members to be bishops and higher. Many here in the north were Anglos, but Mexican citizens.

Many Pentecostals do not consider themselves to be Protestants and historically not Evangelicals. Many today are associating more with the Evangelical community and less with the Fundamentalists. PAN is the party with which most of the Mormons, Mennonites, and conservative Catholics associate in northern Mexico. They are the conservatives. In the early 2000s, PAN won the presidency here twice. Most politics in Mexico are local. If Evangelicals rose to prominence politically, it would probably be in Puebla or Hidalgo.

That was my impression. AMLO certainly doesn't seem a harbinger of movement toward Evangelical conservatism, but then I have not been in Mexico in a number of years and so don't have a good idea of what is going on among the people. Obviously, the loosening grip of the PRI has been the major story arc of the last 25 years or so. 

[MiserereNobis]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

If I may, I would like to suggest that neither the growth or decline of religious affiliation is on a normal curve across Christianity in the West. The past few decades growth seems to be greatest among the Pentecostals, who are rapidly diversifying their faith to be more mainstream and intellectually stimulating. Curiously enough, Pentecostalism is also growing in the Borderlands and rural parts of Mexico, especially perhaps of interest to my LDS friends, among the Apostolic Pentecostals, a restorational group who don't believe in the trinity or creeds, but do believe in living apostles. The more Mainline (not necessarily mainstream) groups are declining the most rapidly. I believe that where I live, Apostolic Pentecostalism is a principle competitor (from a religious perspective) to the LDS church. It is much more mestizo-based and appeals more to the mestizo and indigenous population than do the "Anglo" faiths, coming to Mexico in a softer form of Anglo invasion (not my words). Both Mennonites and Mormons here are labelled as competitors (in a non-religious sense) for the mestizo for scarce resources. It has been that way since the 30s.

I remain dumbfounded (maybe just dumb) by the disparity in numbers between the latest Mexican census and the church's numbers for LDS affiliation here in Mexico. The church states 1,400,000 members and the census states 330,000 self-identified members. That is a huge gap. Since my religious population data wonk friend, James Dow passed away, I am not sure who to go to for an explanation. My LDS scholar friends simply apply the disparity to faults in the census data. That seems a bit too easy.

I hope you all don't mind my posting again. I experienced a bad fall in May and have not been able to be on the computer much, drive, or focus well over the past few months. I knocked out a number of teeth. Oral surgeries are a pain in the  . . . . . . mouth!  Best wishes to all.

So good to have you back! I was worried you had left us. I hope you get better soon!

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

"But I still haven't found, what I'm looking for..." - Paul Hewson

"Sure don't know what I'm going for, but I'm going to go for it for sure" -- John Perry Barlow

(we can't have someone quoting lyrics without the Grateful Dead being represented)

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

"Sure don't know what I'm going for, but I'm going to go for it for sure" -- John Perry Barlow

(we can't have someone quoting lyrics without the Grateful Dead being represented)

I don’t know that song, but I like the sentiment.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t know that song, but I like the sentiment.

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

Bless you Calm!

Go to 4:20 for the about 2 minute vocal jam of that quote. 

Edited August 17, 2022 by MiserereNobis

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

So good to have you back! I was worried you had left us. I hope you get better soon!

Thanks so much.

[Anakin7]

11 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks so much.

Great To Have you back. True Grace To You.

[smac97]

On 8/12/2022 at 4:06 PM, DT_ said:

We all have cognitive biases. How do you know your spiritual experiences are not the result of some cognitive bias?

In the end, I don't "know."  "For we walk by faith, not by sight."  (2 Cor. 5:7.)  "That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."  (D&C 50:24.)  "For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have."  (2 Nephi 28:30.)

That said, I think I have some pretty good indications against "cognitive bias."  My experience relative to perceiving the prophetic mantle of Pres. Hinckley was, to me, singular because I wasn't looking for it in the moment.  I was just there to spend time with my parents after being away for nearly four years.  I was there to watch my dad sing with the Tab Choir.  I was, in the moment, rather cold, uncomfortable, and even a wee bit grumpy (I had just returned to Utah from living in a tropical climate, so the cold was really bothering me).  And yet . . . the impression came.  And it was preceded by many instances where I had earnestly sought out spiritual confirmation and received little or no spiritual impressions.  So I have a hard time attributing this to "confirmation bias" or some such because I wasn't looking for "confirmation" of my beliefs. 

Also, the experience with Pres. Hinckley happened in 1995.  Ever since then I have been reading and studying and listening and arguing about the Restored Gospel.  In particular, this board has been instrumental in helping me regularly review and re-assess what I believe and why I believe it.  I have listened to the Brethren, "apologists," critics and armchair quarterbacks, etc.  I have examined and critiqued and parsed out arguments both for and against my faith.  I have found the Restored Gospel to be startlingly resilient, consistent and coherent.  To be sure, there are also many gaps in our knowledge of things, flaws that need to be sorted out, finite understandings that need to be refined and expanded.  But overall, I have come to believe that the Restored Gospel is what it claims to be.

On 8/12/2022 at 4:06 PM, DT_ said:

Do you scrutinize your own spiritual experiences? 

Yep.  

On 8/12/2022 at 4:06 PM, DT_ said:

Or do you rigorously analyze your experiences? 

Also yep.

On 8/12/2022 at 4:06 PM, DT_ said:

Lastly, please allow me to ask one more thing. What is O'Connor doing wrong?

I don't know.  A one-minute video doth not sufficient evidence or information provide.

I think faith, or at least a seed of it  is a necessary prerequisite to approaching the Restored Gospel.  "Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me."  (Alma 32:28.)

As a missionary in Taiwan, I had an investigator who was a professor at the local university (he taught some sort of philosphy, IIRC).  He was the soul of civility, patience and kindness.  He also had an excellent command of English, which enabled non-native-Chinese-speaking missionaries to delve into some real nuance (by switching into English when the conversation became too difficult to continue in Mandarin).

I recall meeting with him about ten times.  He was a genteel, soft-spoken man.  He invited us in, made us honey tea, and we would talk for an hour or so.  He had met with missionaries before I arrived, and had gone through the first several missionary lessons enough times that he was familiar with their general parameters.  He was also sufficiently educated in his own right so as to have a good grasp of the Judeo-Christian concept of God.

He was a good man, and very patient with us missionaries.  However, for his own reasons he could not bring himself to exercise faith, or even the beginnings of it (a la Alma 32).  He had no particular qualms with the generalized framework of the Church's teachings.  But he recognized that acceptance of those teachings would need to be predicated on faith, and he would not do it.  

I remember asking him if he had ever prayed before.  He said no, but that he had observed missionaries do it several times.  I asked him if he would be willing to pray, and he said he would.  His prayer went something like this: "God, good morning.  I don't believe you exist.  I am saying this prayer only because these missionaries asked me to.  If you want to send me some sort of sign, okay.  But I don't believe.  Thanks."

There was no tone of mockery or contempt in his words.  He was quite sincere.

Toward the end of our visits we asked if we could bring over a member of the local ward to have a discussion with him.  The member's name was Hsieh Fang, who later became the president of the Taipei Temple.  More info about him here:

Quote

Hsieh Fan (謝凡) and his wife, Lu Shou-yi (陸守義), were called as the next temple president and matron of the Taipei Taiwan Temple in 1997. Hsieh Fan was born in China on 23 August 1922 and served as a Catholic priest for eighteen years because he “saw the example of many good Catholic missionaries . . . and thought maybe China needed more of them to teach the people about Jesus Christ.” He was ordained a Catholic priest in Macao and was then assigned to Rome, Italy. While in Italy, he studied Italian and Latin. Then while in France, he studied French, Greek, Hebrew, English, Spanish, and German “so that he could better understand the original texts and the various translations of the Bible.”

In 1967, he returned to Taiwan to teach at the Fu Jen Catholic University in Taipei at the request of Cardinal Yu Ping, but noted, “I spent eighteen years teaching and fulfilling my responsibilities as a priest. . . . I was very busy, but I wasn’t happy.” He had difficulty reconciling the fact that Catholic priests could not marry while the Bible taught, “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18). In 1973, he resigned his teaching post and asked to be released from his priestly vows after deciding that “being alone forever wasn’t right.” He married a year later at the age of fifty but still longed for the opportunity to hold the priesthood and teach about Jesus Christ. He noted his feelings as follows: “Giving up the priesthood was difficult for me. . . . I had been a priest for so long. Now I had given up everything that I had lived for up to that point in time. I missed sharing my knowledge and understanding of the gospel, something I had been able to do as a priest. I thought about becoming a minister in another church that allowed priests to marry. But because of my belief in the Catholic Church, I couldn’t make that change.”

Three years later, he met two young missionaries from the Church. Hsieh recorded the following experience that helped him progress spiritually: “I thought that if their church were true, it would have a prophet and continuing revelation. I asked them why their church didn’t have crosses or crucifixes, and they said, ‘Because Christ is risen; Christ lives. If one of your friends or parents dies,’ they said, ‘do you take out a photograph of them dead and show it to everyone?’ I was spiritually touched by the wisdom of their response.”

One of the missionaries, Elder Cenatiempo, told Hsieh Fan that “it was possible for him to receive the priesthood and perform certain duties within that priesthood.” Hsieh noted, “For the first time since I was released from the priesthood in my own church, I thought I might be able to hold the priesthood again.” After studying the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and learning about the priesthood, Hsieh Fan and his wife were baptized together in December 1977. 

Anyway, Bro. Hsieh accompanied us on our next visit.  My companion and I mostly listened as these two good men had a solid discussion between them.  

After we left, Bro. Hsieh suggested that the man was not yet ready to learn about the Gospel.  That he was a good man, but not yet ready to proceed.  I think this assessment was right.  i think this fellow harbored some presuppositions that held him back.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 17, 2022 by smac97

[Kevin Christensen]

On 8/12/2022 at 12:50 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

I Propose an Experiment:

Abstract:

Find the Real True Church, if one really exists, on the earth.

Method:  Take a Random Representative Sample of the Earths Population and Ask each of them to Find God's One True Church.  Based on the current world population of 7.97 billion, we would need a responding sample size of 2,401 random individuals willing to participate in searching for God's One True Church.  This would give us a margin of error of + or - 2% with a 95% confidence in the results.

So here is my question:  Assuming this experiment was executed, how many of these random respondents would conclude that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was God's one true Church?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say less than .00001% would conclude that the LDS Church is God's one true church and based on our sample size that = 0

So two more questions:

If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints IS God's one true church on the face of the earth...why is it so freaking difficult to discover and once discovered why is it so freaking difficult to believe in once found?  Surely the God of the universe could have found a more productive way to share His Truths with his beloved children.  Heck I can come up with a better distribution process and I'm definitely no God.

As usual, your thought experiment tells us more about your starting assumptions than they reveal about the significance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

First, I notice that in D&C 1, a formal revelation on "mine authority and the authority of my servants" the phrase "Real True Church" does not exist.  Nor does the phrase "God's One True Church."  What is described is the 'only true and living church upon the face of the earth with which I, the Lord am well pleased, speaking to the church collectively and not individually." Consider a sentence about the “only blue and idling car upon the face of the whole parking lot, with which I, the attendant, am well pleased.” That is not just a florid and emphatic way to say “only blue car” but provides a very different thought. The “well-pleased” designation in D&C 1 applies to the church and is relative to what “true and living” means as descriptive qualities for church. I've written on that elsewhere.  On reading D&C 1 carefully, I notice that the church is expressly imperfect, incomplete, and non-exclusive with respect to virtue, truth, and revelation. 

Then you have the problem of how exactly are these random respondents to decide which "God's one true church?"   The way that you set up the thought experiment, their conceptions of whether there might be a "God's One True Church" and how to identify it, according to which defining characteristics, might as just as well be random as well.  And that randomly selected set of random judges using random standards of measure and investigation, of course, will tend to lead to more randomness, the measure of which, will lead to equally randomized conclusions. 

Is the only relevant purpose of being born to find "God's One True Church?"  

Interestingly, Joseph Smith himself offered a very different vision:

Quote

The great designs of God in relation to the salvation of the human family, are very little understood by the professedly wise and intelligent generation in which we live. Various and conflicting are the opinions of men concerning the plan of salvation, the requisitions of the Almighty, the necessary preparations for heaven, the state and condition of departed spirits, and the happiness or misery that is consequent upon the practice of righteousness and iniquity according to their several notions of virtue and vice.

But while one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of man, causes “His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men, but, “according to the deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil,” or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, or India. He will judge them, “not according to what they have not, but according to what they have,” those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will by judged by that law. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed, the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information, and His inscrutable designs in relation to the human family; and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right. (History of the Church 4:595)

And that brings to my mind, the importance of Isaiah's revelation on the difference between own perspective, and his: 

Quote

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (Isaiah 55)

Cynicism, if fully embraced, tends to be self-re-enforcing.  Thomas Kuhn explains that 

Quote

”In short, consciously or not, the decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus and to use it in a particular way carries an assumption that only certain sorts of circumstances will arise.” (Kuhn, Structure, 59)

Jesus recognized that, and had this caution: "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."  Hamlet. 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited August 18, 2022 by Kevin Christensen

[DT_]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

That said, I think I have some pretty good indications against "cognitive bias."  My experience relative to perceiving the prophetic mantle of Pres. Hinckley was, to me, singular because I wasn't looking for it in the moment.  I was just there to spend time with my parents after being away for nearly four years. 

I understand there was no confirmation bias.  Are you highly confident there's no psychological or neurological explanation?

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

 So I have a hard time attributing this to "confirmation bias" or some such because I wasn't looking for "confirmation" of my beliefs.

And I don't reject the possibility that you had a real spiritual experience. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

  I have listened to the Brethren, "apologists," critics and armchair quarterbacks, etc.  I have examined and critiqued and parsed out arguments both for and against my faith.  I have found the Restored Gospel to be startlingly resilient, consistent and coherent.  To be sure, there are also many gaps in our knowledge of things, flaws that need to be sorted out, finite understandings that need to be refined and expanded.  But overall, I have come to believe that the Restored Gospel is what it claims to be.
 

Good. Is there any reasonable doubt in your mind? 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

  After we left, Bro. Hsieh suggested that the man was not yet ready to learn about the Gospel.  That he was a good man, but not yet ready to proceed.  I think this assessment was right.  i think this fellow harbored some presuppositions that held him back.

Interesting. Let me ask you something. Would you be willing to invest all of your life savings in a very risky stock? Do you think religion might be too risky for some people?

 

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by DT_

[pogi]

27 minutes ago, DT_ said:

Would you be willing to spend all of your life savings on a very risky stock? Do you think religion might be too risky for some people? 

Risky in what way?  One isn't expected to commit to anything without first tasting of the fruits for themselves (at least in our religion).  

Do you think there might be some risk in avoiding religion all together?  To me, that is even more risky stock - especially after all I have experienced. 

[DT_]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you think there might be some risk in avoiding religion all together? 

I think it all depends on what religion we're talking about. If the Church is true the worst thing that can happen to you is the telestial glory.

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

To me, that is even more risky stock - especially after all I have experienced. 

I understand. Is there any reasonable doubt in your mind?

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

Risky in what way? 

Ten percent of your income and a lot of dedication isn't easy for some people.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

As usual, your thought experiment tells us more about your starting assumptions than they reveal about the significance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

First, I notice that in D&C 1, a formal revelation on "mine authority and the authority of my servants" the phrase "Real True Church" does not exist.  Nor does the phrase "God's One True Church."  What is described is the 'only true and living church upon the face of the earth with which I, the Lord am well pleased, speaking to the church collectively and not individually." Consider a sentence about the “only blue and idling car upon the face of the whole parking lot, with which I, the attendant, am well pleased.” That is not just a florid and emphatic way to say “only blue car” but provides a very different thought. The “well-pleased” designation in D&C 1 applies to the church and is relative to what “true and living” means as descriptive qualities for church. I've written on that elsewhere.  On reading D&C 1 carefully, I notice that the church is expressly imperfect, incomplete, and non-exclusive with respect to virtue, truth, and revelation. 

Then you have the problem of how exactly are these random respondents to decide which "God's one true church?"   The way that you set up the thought experiment, their conceptions of whether there might be a "God's One True Church" and how to identify it, according to which defining characteristics, might as just as well be random as well.  And that randomly selected set of random judges using random standards of measure and investigation, of course, will tend to lead to more randomness, the measure of which, will lead to equally randomized conclusions. 

Is only relevant purpose of being born to find "God's One True Church?"  

Interestingly, Joseph Smith himself offered a very different vision:

And that brings to my mind, the importance of Isaiah's revelation on the difference between own perspective, and his: 

Cynicism, if fully embraced, tends to be self-re-enforcing.  Thomas Kuhn explains that 

Jesus recognized that, and had this caution: "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."  Hamlet. 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Hi Kevin: Quick question . . . what is your interpretation of the phrase in the verse you quoted, "the church collectively"? I have pondered on that for some years. It is an odd phrase if it refers to just one church, is it not? Thanks for your thoughts.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Navidad said:

It is an odd phrase if it refers to just one church, is it not?

Why do you not see it as referring to all the members together?  (Sincere question as I am assuming you have a reason for not going that direction.). The church can clearly be defined as a collection of people. 

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi Kevin: Quick question . . . what is your interpretation of the phrase in the verse you quoted, "the church collectively"? I have pondered on that for some years. It is an odd phrase if it refers to just one church, is it not? Thanks for your thoughts.

I’ve always interpreted it to mean “in general”, implying that there are obviously some specific members who the Lord is not pleased with. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, DT_ said:

I think it all depends on what religion we're talking about. If the Church is true the worst thing that can happen to you is the telestial glory.

Studies show that religious people have much higher levels of happiness and well-being in life than non-religious people.  They are more likely to have better health (especially if you are a Latter-day Saint or JW).  They are more likely to engage in other charities and community service.  They are more likely to be civically engaged with voting.   So you are not really considering all the risks of ditching religion.   

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religious-people-happier-healthier-our-new-global-study-explores-this-question/

1 hour ago, DT_ said:

I understand. Is there any reasonable doubt in your mind?

I don't know if I would call it "doubt" as much as uncertainty.  I choose hope in uncertainty over doubt.   I recognize that there might be more to the elephant than I can perceive.  

1 hour ago, DT_ said:

Ten percent of your income and a lot of dedication isn't easy for some people.

It is a big commitment, but if the studies are accurate, it seems to pay off in dividends of happiness and well-being (which I personally value more than money).  Religious people are overall happier than no-religious people; and among religious people Latter-day Saints are overall more happy than other religious people.  We are the cream of the crop, it seems.  

https://religionnews.com/2015/07/02/5-reasons-why-mormons-are-happier-says-researcher/

Consider it an investment in happiness/wellbeing/purpose. 

Edited August 17, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

We are the cream of the crop

That phrasing implies we are elite, more deserving than others, but I think from the context what you might mean is more along the line of “we have the best ‘world’ out there”, which implies our situation is better than others at providing what leads to happiness and health. Not that happy with that phrase either, but all I can come up with.  I think it very important to avoid implying that we think we are better than others and this is proven by the fact we rate higher in happiness, etc. as opposed to a belief our programs and teachings are inspired by God to bring joy ultimately, but also happiness in this life as much as possible. 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

That phrasing implies we are elite, more deserving than others, but I think from the context what you might mean is more along the line of “we have the best ‘world’ out there”, which implies our situation is better than others at providing what leads to happiness and health. Not that happy with that phrase either, but all I can come up with.  I think it very important to avoid implying we are better than others as proven by the fact we rate higher in happiness, etc. 

Yes, I can see how it might have that connotation for some.  The intended meaning (which you seem to get) is that in terms of happiness, our church excels in producing it.   I was thinking in terms of the investment as being cream of the crop.  So if we are comparing it to other investments (as he was doing), seems to be a pretty stable and safe investment to me, with higher dividend.  Much safer than ditching religion all together - if happiness/wellbeing is the measure of success of the investment.

Edited August 17, 2022 by pogi

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, I can see how it might have that connotation for some.  The intended meaning (which you seem to get) is that in terms of happiness, our church excels in producing it.   I was thinking in terms of the investment as being cream of the crop.  So if we are comparing it to other investments (as he was doing), seems to be a pretty stable and safe investment to me, with higher dividend.  Much safer than ditching religion all together - if happiness/wellbeing is the measure of success of the investment.

In the past I thought I could make myself go to back to active participation in the church, but I’m terrified it would mean returning to the self-loathing I experienced. The thought of that makes my stomach hurt. 

[Chum]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

In the past I thought I could make myself go to back to active participation in the church, but I’m terrified it would mean returning to the self-loathing I experienced. The thought of that makes my stomach hurt. 

I know that feeling too well. It was a mistake not bailing from my last ward sooner. Like years sooner.

To be clear, Wards != Church but in certain circumstances, doing the right thing can bring the opposite of blessings.

[Teancum]

On 8/12/2022 at 3:40 PM, mfbukowski said:

Yep!

The whole notion is absurd, tying to find the "TRUE CHURCH" through an opinion poll.

Thanks to all the teachers that are here to help others

I can't do it anymore 

 

I do not think he is proposing that the opinion poll is the way to find the "true church."  I think he is simply pointing out that if the Church is the way it sure seems tough to find it.  And one thing is certain. Your methodology isn't working well for many concluding that the LDS Church is it, or the best way or whatever you think it is.  Stats certainly show that.

[Teancum]

On 8/12/2022 at 3:47 PM, teddyaware said:

In light of the fact that the Book of Mormon stipulates that the only way one can know of its divine authenticity is to first diligently read, study and ponder its pages, and then follow up that intensive reading by imploring God with great faith, humility and sincerity to reveal to you by the power of the Holy Ghost whether or not it’s true, it appears the criteria you’ve established for your test are so far off base as to amount to nothing less than an absurd exercise in futility.

Yea this method isn't yielding very positive results either.

[Teancum]

On 8/12/2022 at 5:39 PM, smac97 said:

I don't think being a Latter-day Saint is particularly difficult.  It's more a matter of faith, of individual commitment, self-determination, choice, etc.

I believe you were born into a Latter-day Saint family correct?  Speculate for me the odds of you accepting the LDS Gospel has you not been born into it.  Most people are in a particular religion because they were born into it.

[Teancum]

On 8/12/2022 at 5:50 PM, carbon dioxide said:

Second, when has God's true church every been that big in world history.  Whether in Noah time or Moses time or any other time in the scriptures, the people of God have always been a very small minority. 

Catholics believe they have the truth and there are a lot of Catholics. So no the people of God have not always been small. This is a LDS construct.