A Simple Question on God's One True Church

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Navidad said:

I find this very helpful. I have never heard an LDS leader include the restoration of the church, prophets, temples, and so on as essential parts of the gospel per se. They are essential parts of LDS doctrine, just as footwashing, pacifism, being a conscientious objector, baptism by immersion of adults are all part of Mennonite doctrine, but I would never think of any of those things as part of the gospel (the good news of the birth, life, suffering, death, ascension, and coming again of Christ). If indeed my LDS friends include all the things you mention as part of "the gospel" then indeed it is differentiated from "the gospel" as understood by other Christians. Once again it appears we are divided by a common language. Take care.

You'll often hear Latter-day Saints refer to the "fulness of the gospel," and what they mean is the larger set of "restored" doctrines, authority, and practices of the church. If Christ's atoning sacrifice is all that matters, there would have been no reason for a restoration. So, like I said, it's sort of a mid-way position: yes, we are Christians, but not that kind of Christians. Mind you, I'm saying this as a rather lapsed Mormon. But I think I would have said the same when I was a believer.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I think the Book of Mormon is pretty clear that you have to really want to believe before you can accept the LDS gospel. 

I don't think that is really what it is saying.  Here is the passage I think you are referring to in Alma 32:

Quote

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

28 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.

In verse 27, I don't think it is saying that a "desire" to believe is required before one can "accept the LDS gospel (the seed)".  I think the verse is pointing more towards the essential requirement of "giving place for a portion of my word" in order for the seed to even have a chance of growing into faith.  It is simply offering one of potentially many options to help overcome any potential initial urge to reject the seed and not give place for it to experiment with. "Even if you can no more than desire..." suggests to me that is not a requirement but a desperate last ditch effort on Alma's part to offer a plea or suggestion on how to create a space for the seed in the face of disbelief.  

I am guessing that my mission experience was similar to yours in terms of high-baptismal rates among a culturally Catholic population.  I served in the Philippines.  I, like you, baptized over 60 people on my mission.  I am guessing that your personal experience, like mine, contradicts the idea that one must "really want to believe" before they can "accept the LDS gospel".  Most of the people who converted that I worked with didn't "want" to believe.  In fact, the common refrain when we knocked on the door is "I was born a Catholic, and I will die a Catholic...not interested."   Like you, they would often let us in because their extremely hospitable culture and nature, and perhaps they were curious about these Americans speaking their language.   You know as well as I do that we didn't preface Moroni's promise with "you really have to want to believe before this will work".   We simply asked them that despite any doubts and reluctance, to simply give a place to experiment upon Moroni's words (which don't speak of the need to "want" to believe.).   I witnessed miraculous changes in heart and spiritual experiences that quite frankly I would not have believed were possible until I saw it with my own eyes.  I saw die-hard Catholics who insisted that we are wasting our time, whose stone like countenance towards us melted like butter after a single prayer.  We would return the next visit and be flabbergasted at the change.  We left feeling rejected, and returned feeling embraced - literally.   It didn't happen like that with everyone, sometimes it took much longer, with more steps, but I witnessed it several times just like that.  If I had to guess, I bet you witnessed similar things.   In no instance can I recall faith growing out of a desire to believe what we were teaching, but more out of a mere willingness to experiment upon their commitment to us to pray about it. 

   

Edited August 18, 2022 by pogi

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

In my view, "speaking unto the church collectively and not individually" is to emphasize that the well pleasingness relative to what the "true and living" imagery means does not automatically and indiscriminately apply to every individual member, but rather to the church, the assembly as an assembly.   Membership in the church, making the covenants that formally makes one part of the ekklesia, the assembly of people, does not automatically bestow all necessary virtue and truth, but only bestows opportunity and accountability, that is, access to true vine, true bread, true treasure, living bread, living waters, the IAM who is the truth and the life, the tree of life, the true living way through the veil, to become a living stone.  The Bible passages that use "true and living" imagery which all point to revelation, priesthood, ordinances and covenants, and the temple, match the themes of D&C 1 verse for verse and point for point. 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks so much. i appreciate your perspective. I think I agree with everything you said. I would simply substitute a different meaning for the ekklesia - that of the entire body of called out ones (individuals) wherever they are found in Christianity. You don't outright say it, but I guess I am assuming your definition of the ekklesia is limited to worthy members of the LDS church. "Worthy members" is a term I hear a lot in the chapel. Thanks again for taking the time to respond to my question. Best wishes.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't think that is really what it is saying.  Here is the passage I think you are referring to in Alma 32:

In verse 27, I don't think it is saying that a "desire" to believe is required before one can "accept the LDS gospel (the seed)".  I think the verse is pointing more towards the essential requirement of "giving place for a portion of my word" in order for the seed to even have a chance of growing into faith.  It is simply offering one of potentially many options to help overcome any potential initial urge to reject the seed and not give place for it to experiment with. 

I am guessing that my mission experience was similar to yours in terms of high-baptismal rates among a culturally Catholic population.  I served in the Philippines.  I, like you, baptized over 60 people on my mission.  I am guessing that your personal experience, like mine, contradicts the idea that one must "really want to believe" before they can "accept the LDS gospel".  Most of the people who converted that I worked with didn't "want" to believe.  In fact, the common refrain when we knocked on the door is "I was born a Catholic, and I will die a Catholic...not interested."   Like you, they would often let us in because their extremely hospitable culture and nature, and perhaps they were curious about these Americans speaking their language.   You know as well as I do that we didn't preface Moroni's promise with "you really have to want to believe before this will work".   We simply asked them that despite any doubts and reluctance, to simply give a place to experiment upon Moroni's words (which don't speak of the need to "want" to believe.).   I witnessed miraculous changes in heart and spiritual experiences that quite frankly I would not have believed until I saw it.  I saw die-hard Catholics who insisted that we are wasting our time, whose stone like countenance towards us melted like butter after a single prayer.  We would return the next visit and be flabbergasted at the change.    It didn't happen like that with everyone, sometimes it took much longer, with more steps, but I witnessed it several times just like that.  If I had to guess, I bet you witnessed similar things. 

   

I guess I read it differently. To me, it says you have to desire to believe enough to give place for his words. 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Of course, I'd have to believe the church is true to go back. Well, I shouldn't say "go back," as I'm there most Sundays. 

Interesting. You were a member, left, and still attend most Sundays. I never have been a member, never joined, and still attend most Sundays. We may both be on the edge of inside!

It is an interesting and challenging place to be! Best.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Navidad said:

Interesting. You were a member, left, and still attend most Sundays. I never have been a member, never joined, and still attend most Sundays. We may both be on the edge of inside!

It is an interesting and challenging place to be! Best.

I just go because my wife does not like to attend alone. It's not a big deal. It is definitely a different perspective to attend meetings from my position.

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess I read it differently. To me, it says you have to desire to believe enough to give place for his words. 

To me it is saying, one has to give place for the seed to grow "even if you can no more than desire...'

Am I wrong in guessing that you had similar missionary experiences?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, pogi said:

To me it is saying, one has to give place for the seed to grow "even if you can no more than desire...'

Am I wrong in guessing that you had similar missionary experiences?

No, you're not. I'm just talking about how I read Alma 32. 

[longview]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I think the Book of Mormon is pretty clear that you have to really want to believe before you can accept the LDS gospel. 

Years ago I read a story about a guy that was visited by missionaries.  He felt the spirit and was convinced of its truthfulness.  But he deliberately chose to refuse baptism because he did NOT want to give up the pleasures in his life.

Kind of like the rich man who was invited by Jesus to donate ALL his possessions and follow Him.  The rich man had a simple choice.  He probably was touched by the spirit but was very loathe to lose the comforts and the renown of elite circles.  Too bad he did not understand how brief temporal life is.  There is incredible glory and vast dominions to be gained by the faithful in Eternal Realms.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, longview said:

Years ago I read a story about a guy that was visited by missionaries.  He felt the spirit and was convinced of its truthfulness.  But he deliberately chose to refuse baptism because he did NOT want to give up the pleasures in his life.

Kind of like the rich man who was invited by Jesus to donate ALL his possessions and follow Him.  The rich man had a simple choice.  He probably was touched by the spirit but was very loathe to lose the comforts and the renown of elite circles.  Too bad he did not understand how brief temporal life is.  There is incredible glory and vast dominions to be gained by the faithful in Eternal Realms.

Then there's folks like me who really wanted to believe but couldn't. 

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 8/16/2022 at 11:46 AM, Navidad said:

At the beginning of the sacrament service two or three weeks ago a member of our bishopric read a message from the area (northern Mexico) church leaders. In part, the message encouraged the members to include in their fasting prayers a petition to the Lord for the first Mexican (means mestizo) apostle. I found that a very interesting request from a polity perspective. Culturally, I understood the request, but from a church polity (how apostles are chosen), it made my head spin a bit. I am having breakfast later this week with a mestizo LDS former bishop friend of mine. I want to chat with him about what is behind the request. To me, it had shades of the mid 1930s Third Convention all over again. 

I'm not knowledgeable of the ins and outs of the Latter-day Saints' hierarchy, but I know how administrators work. If I knew who I was going to choose to be the next high-level church leader, one thing to do would be to give instructions to the regional folks of exactly this sort. Then, when it happens, prayers are answered (so to speak).

I'm not saying that this is the case in this circumstance, but this would be SOP for many organizations.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[longview]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Then there's folks like me who really wanted to believe but couldn't. 

Could not feel the spirit?  What kind of testimonies did you write in your mission journal?  Maybe you are now in a state of complete lethargy?

Edited August 18, 2022 by longview

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'm not knowledgeable of the ins and outs of the Latter-day Saints' hierarchy, but I know how administrators work. If I knew who I was going to choose to be the next high-level church leader, one thing to do would be to give instructions to the regional folks of exactly this sort. Then, when it happens, prayers are answered (so to speak).

I'm not saying that this is the case in this circumstance, but this would be SOP for many organizations.

There aren't any openings at present, though there are a few apostles who are in their 80s. Seems odd to me that they would ask for such prayers. I've never heard of anything like that before. 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, longview said:

Could not feel the spirit?  What kind of testimonies did you write in your mission journal?  Maybe you are now in a state of complete lethargy?

It's probably not a good idea for me to delve into my personal spiritual state. I should not have posted that about wanting to believe. 

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'm not knowledgeable of the ins and outs of the Latter-day Saints' hierarchy, but I know how administrators work. If I knew who I was going to choose to be the next high-level church leader, one thing to do would be to give instructions to the regional folks of exactly this sort. Then, when it happens, prayers are answered (so to speak).

I'm not saying that this is the case in this circumstance, but this would be SOP for many organizations.

The people asking for these prayers (Area Presidency) have no direct impact on who would be chosen as the next apostle and it is doubtful they have much indirect impact either. The Prophet is ultimately responsible for selecting new apostles and discussions about it would involve the other 14 apostles. Area presidents report through the Presidents of the Seventy before getting to the apostles. It is basically two steps removed.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

The people asking for these prayers (Area Presidency) have no direct impact on who would be chosen as the next apostle and it is doubtful they have much indirect impact either. The Prophet is ultimately responsible for selecting new apostles and discussions about it would involve the other 14 apostles. Area presidents report through the Presidents of the Seventy before getting to the apostles. It is basically two steps removed.

Yep. This latest thing sounds rather like the Third Convention. Seems really odd to me.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'm not knowledgeable of the ins and outs of the Latter-day Saints' hierarchy, but I know how administrators work. If I knew who I was going to choose to be the next high-level church leader, one thing to do would be to give instructions to the regional folks of exactly this sort. Then, when it happens, prayers are answered (so to speak).

I'm not saying that this is the case in this circumstance, but this would be SOP for many organizations.

Apostles aren't called until one has died, and then only after prayer and with the entire quorum being unanymous on it.   

So while the church could theoretically be playing this long game, it would probably be difficult to pull off.  They don't know when another apostle will be needed (and as far as the membership is aware, none are currently sick), or who would possibly be a good fit and in a position where the call would work, when the time comes.

But maybe leadership has some ideas of people who could be called and might be having different areas pray in preparation for knowing God's will on the matter, when the time inevitably comes. 

Or, this might be one of those areas that the general authorities over Mexico have leeway to follow their own promptings on different issues, and felt prompted to have the membership begin praying for such a thing, without any input from leadership in SLC.

Who really knows. 

[Saint Bonaventure]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The people asking for these prayers (Area Presidency) have no direct impact on who would be chosen as the next apostle and it is doubtful they have much indirect impact either. The Prophet is ultimately responsible for selecting new apostles and discussions about it would involve the other 14 apostles. Area presidents report through the Presidents of the Seventy before getting to the apostles. It is basically two steps removed.

Org Comm. 101 would run this way: The folks at the top who know what decision will eventually happen tell the regional leaders to pray, categorically, for what the folks at the top know will happen. So if you lead the holy order and know that you'll build an Abby in Guatemala, you tell the regional leaders in Guatemala to pray that an Abby will be built in Guatemala. This works for decisions about people, too.

Again, I'm not saying that's what's happening in this instance.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Once again it appears we are divided by a common language.

This exactly. When I first started hanging out with LDS folk (in person and here virtually), I was constantly confused by the language. I've since found out that LDS use the same terminology as mainstream Christianity, but the definitions are often different, and sometime a little and sometimes a lot.

[Navidad]

39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yep. This latest thing sounds rather like the Third Convention. Seems really odd to me.

I thought it a bit odd as well. On a completely different subject, I am sensing a greater distance lately (the last several years) between both the Mormons (LDS and Lebaron) and Mennonites and the local mestizo leadership. IMHO, it has nothing to do with religion, but is a reflection of the same tensions that have existed for a hundred years or so. There are agrarian and water tensions. The government went all out recently to honor the 100th anniversary of the Mennonites in Mexico, including minting a new 20 peso coin (legal tender) in their honor. The local LDS leadership appeared recently in a peace parade with the local Catholic bishop and his leadership. I think they are doing the best they can to fit in. It is a complex situation here with three highly visible and powerful religious Anglo communities (LDS, Lebaron, and Mennonites of varying kinds).

 

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I thought it a bit odd as well. On a completely different subject, I am sensing a greater distance lately (the last several years) between both the Mormons (LDS and Lebaron) and Mennonites and the local mestizo leadership. IMHO, it has nothing to do with religion, but is a reflection of the same tensions that have existed for a hundred years or so. There are agrarian and water tensions. The government went all out recently to honor the 100th anniversary of the Mennonites in Mexico, including minting a new 20 peso coin (legal tender) in their honor. The local LDS leadership appeared recently in a peace parade with the local Catholic bishop and his leadership. I think they are doing the best they can to fit in. It is a complex situation here with three highly visible and powerful religious Anglo communities (LDS, Lebaron, and Mennonites of varying kinds).

 

I just finished the book, "The Sound of Gravel", by Ruth Wariner. She grew up in LeBaron and her story is so horrific. And yet if she hadn't lived with such a horrible abusive step father, it might have been idyllic. She is the daughter of Joel LeBaron, a prophet and she is the granddaughter of Alma LeBaron. Her father was killed by Ervil LeBaron who was convicted for his death. Just curious if you knew of this family back around this time, or now even.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAcWNh9_wMI

Also, https://www.ruthwariner.com/the-sound-of-gravel/history/.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think you know why.  The odds of you accepting the LDS gospel had you not been born into it are slim. 

I acknowledge that.  But that doesn't answer my question.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Your paradigm, your spiritual experiences, your testimony, they are all based on the fact that you were born LDS. 

Well, that was certainly a factor, but not a dispositive one.  Plenty of converts have substantial "spiritual experiences" and testimonies, which cannot be "based on the fact that {the} were born LDS."  Moreover, there are many people who "were born LDS" who have not had (or retained) their testimonies, despite "the fact that {the} were born LDS."

By way of analogy: "A study from the US Education Department National Center for Education Statistics has shown children whose parents attended college are much more likely to attend university (and graduate) themselves."

"Much more likely," yes.  But not necessarily.  My parents were both the first in their families (as in ever) to go to college.  Between me and my seven siblings (I am omitting the little guy who died as an infant), four of us attended college, and four of us did not.  My parents' example increased the likelihood of going to college, but in the end it still came down to each of us making individual choices.  For me, my parents' example was certainly there, but it was far from being dispositive as to my decision to attend college (or, later, law school). 

A much more influential factor was my experience as an enlisted soldier in the Amry.  I started out as a Private E-1.  I remember seeing the pay scale for different ranks back then, which looked like this:

My pay rate started out the bottom left corner ($697.20 per month, or $1,516.62 if adjusted for inflation).  In today's money, that would be $379.16 per week, or $9.48 per hour (assuming an 8-hour work day, which anyone who has served as enlisted in the military will know is a laughable assumption).

I noticed that, per the above pay scale, a brand-new Second Lieutenant earned more than double my salary ($1,444.20, or $3,141.57 if adjusted for inflation).  I also notice that at the five-year mark, in which I would probably be at least an Sargeant E5, my salary would be $1,122.90 ($2,442.65, adjusted), still substantially less than a 2nd LT's starting pay.  Meanwhile, at five years in service an officer - likely by that point a Captain O3 - would be earning $2,522.70 ($5,487.63, adjusted), well over double that earned by a Seargent E5 at that point in a military career.

I immediately started to wonder why anyone would stay an NCO (a sargeant, with most being E5-E7) given the pay disparity.  One of the reasons (there are many) came pretty quickly: Officers can only be commissioned by, inter alia, having a four-year degree from an accredited college/university.

Also, while in the Army I attended a language school in Monterey, California (the "Defense Language Institute") to study Russian.  As it happens, an "Annette C. Lee" wrote her Master's Thesis about attrition rates at DLI in the Russian Basic Course (the one I took starting in 1991).  Her data on attrition, based on graduation rates in 1988-89, comports with my general recollection of how many students started and completed the course with me:

That works out to an attrition rate of about 28.6%.  By most accounts, then, it's a pretty intense and difficult course, both academically and /socially/emotionally (and militarily).  I worked my tail off and ended up doing quite well.  This experience, along with recognizing the value of a college degree (getting commissioned as an officer, and otherwise qualifying for jobs which also require a college degree) had a very big impact on me.

After nearly two years in the Army, I served as a missionary in Taiwan.  I had many "What are you going to do when you get home"-style conversations with other missionaries.  Some did not know, while others had vague plans and still others very specific ones.  Most missionaries who had some sort of plan were planning on college.  This too had an impact on me.  

By the end of my four-year sojourn in the Army and in the mission field, going to college was a solidified objective (these days, I am increasingly soured on college due to absurd tuition amounts, heavy-handed sociopolitical indoctrination - largely at the expense of the substantive purposes college is supposed to fufill, increasingly oppressive atmosphere and groupthink, ever-better-sounding alternatives - like skilled trades and certification programs - which do not require years of time and mountains of student loan debt to pursue, etc.).  My parents had encouraged me, and their example of having gone to college themselves was helpful.  But their overall impact on my decision to go to college was . . . secondary.  I came to the decision myself, having been far more heavily influenced by the foregoing experiences in the Army and on my mission, and also having given the matter much consideration in my own mind, having prayed about it, etc.

Getting back to your point about me and my position relative to the Church: I disagree with it.  My devotion to and activity in the Church has certainly been influenced by my having been born into it, but I would not say that my devotion and activity are, as you put it, "all based on the fact that {I was} born LDS."  We have too many converts to the Church who stay while lacking that "basis," and too many people who leave the Church who do have it, so I don't see it as dispositive, certainly not for me anyway. 

My personal journey in the Church has been overwhelmingly based on my adult experiences.  I grew up mostly in two wards in Utah County, not having a particularly pleasant time in either (both had lots of young men, and cliques were a big thing - and I wasn't in them).  These experiences weren't bad, but neither did they engender much in the way of me valuing the Church due to social/communial ties.  I also had a generally blasé experience in seminary.  Some good experiences here and there, but mostly it was not particularly illuminating or instructive relative to my faith.  And it too was pretty clique-ish, as the seminary council was comprised of all "popular" kids, several seminary teachers seemed prone to favoritism, etc.

I formed the very basics of a testimony in my teen years by reading and praying about the Book of Mormon.  But I really found it when I was in the Army.  I came to cherish it.  Services on Sunday, particularly the Sacrament, became a privilege to look forward to, rather than a chore to be endured.  I had nobody around to coax or force me to go.  I attended because I chose to, and I chose because I felt the Spirit, because I appreciated the fellowship and camaraderie, and because I reposed significance in keeping my covenants.  I was far from perfect, but I did not need to be as a precondition to attending.  "They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick."  (Luke 5:31.)

My testimony came to be more solidified and strengthened by my service as a missionary.  I had many wonderful experiences (and also many trying and difficult ones).  Teaching missionary discussions was, for me, quite difficult.  It was difficult to find people who were willing to sit down and hear the lessons, as most Taiwanese work very long hours.  Missed appointments were very common (some inadvertent, but many being deliberate-but-well-intentioned failures by the investigators to keep them).  And, of course, the language was itself very difficult.  Also, most Taiwanese come from a Buddhist/Daoist background, and so have a very limited understanding of the Judeo-Christian worldview (I remember occasionally envying missionaries who were able to teach in their native language, or else taught lapsed Catholics in Spanish or Portuguese or Tagolog (which efforts, I assumed, were easier than what I was trying to do)).

Nevertheless, there were many times when I was teaching lessons in my so-so Mandarin when I felt the Spirit, and when I think the investigator felt it, too.  First-time prayers were often (but not always) beautiful experiences.  Attending the temple once a month was a highlight.  Service opportunities were at or near the apex of my overall experience.  In my first area, we volunteered in a Catholic orphanage.  The kids were "orphans" in only a polite sense, as most (and perhaps all) of them were severely handicapped and had been abandoned by their families.  We helped out by feeding the kids, most of whom needed to be spoon-fed.  We all gathered in the play room (which doubled as the dining room).  The food was nutritious, but simple (some sort of seaweed-and-grain gruel) and not particularly pleasant odor-wise.  There was also the generalized scent of urine (plenty of accidents on the floor).  The priest running the program was, IIRC, from eastern Europe, and the nuns were all from Africa.

I became friends with a little girl, maybe two years old, who was born without ears (just nubs and shallow indents on either side of her head). As I was new to the island, my Mandarin was very poor, so I just called her "Sarah."  I fed her a bowl of seaweed-and-grain gruel for lunch, then I would carry her around and show her things outside the window.  She clung to me like a spider monkey, often pressing the side of her head against my chest (I think because she could sense, though not hear, my heartbeat).  Leaving was often difficult, as she did not want to be put down.  I think this may have been because the nuns were so few and so busy, and the orphans so many and so needy, that she did not get much attention outside of our visits.  After a while the nuns asked me to stop picking Sarah up during our visits because this caused her to want to be picked up at other times, and they did not have time for it.  I understood their concern, but I continued anyway.

In other areas we helped in a hospice, at a hospital, taught English classes, cleaned up parks and play areas, etc.  No ulterior motive or thought of reward.  No self-centered irritation.  No compulsion, either.  Just plain and simple service to our fellow man.  I also had a number of quiet, but significant, spiritual experiences with companions and other missionaries.

In sum, my mission had a big impact on my current devotion to the Church.  Plenty of converts serve missions, despite not being "born LDS."  And we all know plenty of people who were "born" LDS and served missions, only to later leave the Church.  These are contributing factors that may increase the likelihood of persevering in the Church, but in the end it still comes down to each of us making individual choices.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Your story about Presidnet Hinckley is less impressive because of this.

I'm okay with that.  I was not intending to "impress."  I was just sharing my perspective.  And anyway, it was one of those "you had to be there" kind of things.   

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

You were indoctrinated to believe that someone in his position is God's prophet.

I can't go along with this characterization. 

First off, you weren't there.  You didn't feel it.

Second, to "indoctrinate" is "teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically."  I was, in 1995, years past Sunday School lessons about the basics of the Restored Gospel.  I had, by that point, spent years thinking "critically" about my faith.  

Third, I had previously attended General Conference in my childhood, and had watched it dozens and dozens of times on TV.  I was far closer in time to Sunday School "indoctrination" then, yet I never felt any particular spiritual impressions about Pres. Kimball (or, later, Pres. Benson) being a prophet.  I assumed they were prophets, yes, but it was not an assumption predicated on a particularized spiritual witness.  I met with Elder Neal A. Maxwell and Elder Tai Kwok Yuen on my mission.  I felt honored in meeting them, but I did not have any particular spiritual experiences with them, either.  

Fourth, I knew Pres. Hinckley was going to be giving the dedicatory prayer at Tuacahn (my dad having told me beforehand).  So I anticipated I would be seeing him (from my vantage point in the audience), and I thought that would be nice.  But . . . that's about it.  I attached no particular significance beforehand to the prospect of seeing him (from a fair distance, no less).  I had no yearning in my heart, no desire to obtain confirmation.  It was just a trip to southern Utah with my parents and grandmother.  I was there to watch my dad perform with the Tabernacle Choir.  Pres. Hinckley's presence was, for me, incidental and ancillary.  Consequently, the "out of the blue" nature of the experience persuaded me then (as it does now) that it was not wishful thinking, or self-delusion, or desperation, or the result of "indoctrination," or anything like that.  And nobody else was involved (not directly, anyway), so I likewise felt that it could not be the result of deception or coercion or some other situation involving someone trying to manipulate or overpower my will and senses, my intellect and soul.  And it was not merely a random, feel-good type of experience.  What I learned from it was specific.  I was in the presence of a prophet of God.  I remember going to bed that night.  The last thing I thought before going to sleep was that experience, along with this conclusion: "Well, I need to throw my lot in with the Church."

Fifth, I think my behavior since that experience with Pres. Hinckley is perhaps a better indicator of its impact.  I have had to extrapolate principles and concepts that are congruent with what I learned that night.  I am not sure I have been entirely correct in all such extrapolations, but in all material respects, I have found the Restored Gospel to be what it claims to be.  Further, look at my posting history on this board.  I have spent many, many years interacting with critics, dissidents, skeptics, etc.  I have listened to what they have to say.  I have discussed and debated all sorts of things with them.  Any semblance of an "indoctrination"-based "Rose-Colored Glasses" perspective on the Church is long gone. 

I wrote this back in 2018:

Quote

Interesting:
 

Quote

Elder Bruce C. Hafen, an emeritus General Authority Seventy for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Sister Marie K. Hafen, once a member of the church’s Young Women general board, have just penned a refreshingly frank book— "Faith is Not Blind" (Deseret Book) — providing powerful paradigms for navigating faith in increasingly complex times.

In 2008, Elder Hafen delivered a devotional address at Brigham Young University (where he once served as dean of the law school and later as provost). His remarks centered on the lifelong journey of Christian discipleship.
...
Their new book extends this kind of faith-affirming discussion beyond the halls of BYU (or the ambiance of the local Olive Garden) and into the hearts of discerning Latter-day Saints of all ages.
...
But, with regard to style (the book is a breezy 130 pages) and substance, the Hafens clearly have a specific audience in mind — young adults.
...
The Hafens’ work, however, focuses on equipping readers with the forms of faith that don’t merely survive but flourish in the space beyond skepticism, adolescent or otherwise. With decades worth of experience engaging the life of the mind and the life of the spirit, the Hafens pepper their pages with accessible parables from their own faith pilgrimage — an odyssey that began when the Hafens first met in a BYU class titled “Your Religious Problems.”

The book is dedicated to the late professor of the class, B. West Belnap.

“Our teacher … often let us struggle,” the Hafens recall. “He wanted us to reach our own conclusions. Yet he knew just when and how to guide us with an occasional nudge. He was teaching us how to be good students of the gospel even as he helped us strengthen our faith in it.”

...
Here's the interesting bit:

Quote

That experience afforded an early glimpse into “what it means to encounter issues that require deeper digging in both thought and faith.” While the volume tackles modern issues, like “digging deeper” in an internet era (one chapter is titled “Some Internet soft spots”), the most important religious questions addressed are hardly novel.

A central cause of faith crisis in any age arises when we apprehend a gap between the real and the ideal. Simply minding this gap without ever bridging it arrests many a faith journey. The Hafens quote American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I would not give a fig for the simplicity (on) this side of complexity. But I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

They propose a tripartite model of spiritual progression. It begins with childlike simplicity — “innocent and untested.” Then stage two commences as believers juxtapose the ideal and the real. This is where “we struggle with conflicts and uncertainty.” But those who successfully navigate this stage arrive at, in Holmes’ words, a simplicity that transcends complexity — “a settled and informed perspective that has been tempered and tested by time and experience.”

So we have:

Stage 1 ("Innocent and Untested") --> Stage 2 ("Juxtaposing the Ideal and the Real") --> Stage 3 ("Informed Perspective of Complexity-Transcending Simplicity Tempered by Time and Experience").

This seems about right.  Stage 2 is, I think, where a lot of members of the Church are struggling and giving up.

So yeah, definitely going to get the book.

Using the foregoing model, I think you are suggesting that in 1995 I was in "Stage 1."  I don't think that's so (and since I was there and you were not, I will privilege my first-hand knowledge over your online speculation  ).  

Instead, I was somewhere between Stages 2 and 3.  The Army and my mission had given me plenty of opportunity to move beyond Sunday School "indoctrination," beyond an "innocent and untested" perspective about the Restored Gospel.  I had, by this point, been "juxtaposting the ideal and real" for several years.

If anything, my experience in Tuacan is best characterized as one of my first discernible experiences in Stage 3, in having an "informed perspective" on "simplicity that transcends complexity," in adopting a "settled and informed perspective ... tempered and tested by time and experience."

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Someone not LDS in the same setting certainly would NOT have had the same experience.

You are likely correct.  But I'm not sure how that is relevant.  I did have that experience.  

I can go to the Rec Center in Provo and try the same workout my son has been doing for the last four years.  I think it safe to guess that I "certainly would NOT" have the same experience he has with it.  He has been working at it far longer than I have.  He is situated very differently than I am.  He has prepared himself over time more than I have.

So it is, I think, with spiritual experiences.  We are each too individual in our lived experiences, so we can't expect to have interchangeably identical experiences/perspectives about a particular topic.  

“For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.”  (2 Nephi 31:3.)

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

The amount of converts is relatively low compared to the entire world.

Yes.  Again, I'm not sure how that is relevant.  Spiritual truths are not ascertained by popular vote.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

And the retention rate of converts is dismal. Dismal.  Totally dismal.

Alas, we have a lot of work to do.

The Church is fraught with inefficiencies, and its members mess up all the time.  Somehow, though, it appears to be part of the plan for the Lord to work through us, so we work with what we've got.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

IT may be a matter of choice.  Most things are.  My guess it though, that had you not been born into it you would not have chose to become part it of it.

The real question, I think, is why I have stayed with it.  Contrary to your suggestion, I stay not because I was "born into it" (plenty of people are, and leave, and plenty of people are not, and stay).

I stay because of my experiences, and because of my choices derived from those experiences.  

I have thrown my lot in with the Church, and have since found ample grounds to continue in faith and observance.  It points me to God in ways large and small, on a regular basis.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 18, 2022 by smac97

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I just finished the book, "The Sound of Gravel", by Ruth Wariner. She grew up in LeBaron and her story is so horrific. And yet if she hadn't lived with such a horrible abusive step father, it might have been idyllic. She is the daughter of Joel LeBaron, a prophet and she is the granddaughter of Alma LeBaron. Her father was killed by Ervil LeBaron who was convicted for his death. Just curious if you knew of this family back around this time, or now even.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAcWNh9_wMI

Also, https://www.ruthwariner.com/the-sound-of-gravel/history/.

Hi: I have met a number of the direct descendants of Alma Sr. and Maude who lived for many years in Colonia Juarez and then in Lebaron. Theirs is an extremely complicated history and heritage. Last week I spoke to a LDS family reunion in CJ and in a couple of weeks will speak to another reunion being held there. There are many folks who visit here who have family members in both LDS and fundamentalist (Mormon) groups. Sorting it all out makes one's head spin. Several of the wives and daughters have written books about their experiences. Most of the second generation of the Lebarons graduated from the Academy in CJ prior to settling in Lebaron. Some never settled there, but lived out their lives in the US. It is a very sensitive subject for many folks here. Joel is highly thought of by many current residents of Lebaron. Ervil is rarely mentioned. Verlan wrote the family history in Spanish.

Roulon Allred was born about five miles from my house. His grandmother Phoebe was the more or less official nurse for most of the colonies at the turn of the twentieth century. His grandfather Byron Harvey Allred Sr. was the president of the Guadalupe branch of the LDS church under the ward in Dublan. He also was the first of the saints to die in the exodus in 1912. He got off the train in El Paso, had a heart attack and is buried in El Paso. Rulon, the president and prophet of the United Apostolic Brethren, a group to which many of the Lebarons belonged after being excommunicated from the LDS church and before founding their own church in 1955, was killed in 1977 in SLC by two of the wives of Ervil. Very complex. Just as an aside, there are many errors of fact in a lot of what is online about the Lebarons. Take what you read with the proverbial grain of salt. Take care.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Org Comm. 101 would run this way: The folks at the top who know what decision will eventually happen tell the regional leaders to pray, categorically, for what the folks at the top know will happen. So if you lead the holy order and know that you'll build an Abby in Guatemala, you tell the regional leaders in Guatemala to pray that an Abby will be built in Guatemala. This works for decisions about people, too.

Again, I'm not saying that's what's happening in this instance.

I have a hard time believing that is what is happening.

[DT_]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

The research suggests in general, yes, they are happier.  That could be for many things, including the community.  It could be feeling positive about working towards a higher, meaningful purpose, especially with others.  It could be more likely to have a healthier lifestyle due to a faith’s standard in many cases.  It could be more likely to be married (iirc, religious have higher rates of marriage and marriage is correlated to greater happiness).  It could be from blessings from God.

I understand. Would it be fair to say that religion is like the Keto diet? It works for many, but it's not for everyone.