Losing faith vs losing belief

[JLHPROF]

Is it possible to lose your faith in God but retain your beliefs in the gospel?  I'm thinking of the idea that the gospel is still true, there is a God, but there's no point in living it.  A "God doesn't answer my prayers or ever intervene in my life" kind of situation.

What about the reverse?  I think I've seen many who lose their beliefs in the gospel but still have faith in a God with little to no doctrinal testimony.

Is one better or worse than the other?

Edited May 12, 2023 by JLHPROF

[The Nehor]

48 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Is it possible to lose your faith in God but retain your beliefs in the gospel?  I'm thinking of the idea that the gospel is still true, there is a God, but there's no point in living it.  A "God doesn't answer my prayers or ever intervene in my life" kind of situation.

Stop sneaking into my house and reading my journal!

[RAD DAD]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Is it possible to lose your faith in God but retain your beliefs in the gospel?

No. The gospel teaches that God sent members of the church here to earth so we can restore true Christianity. If you lose your faith in God, there is no LDS gospel to believe in, which means The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is just one very wealthy multi level marketing scheme.

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

little to no doctrinal testimony

Why is there a need for a doctrinal testimony?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, RAD DAD said:

Why is there a need for a doctrinal testimony?

Because belief in God with no understanding of God or his gospel would be of little effect. Might as well believe in the flying spaghetti monster.  What good is a higher power if there's zero information about it?

[RAD DAD]

56 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because belief in God with no understanding of God or his gospel would be of little effect.

So you need a man to tell you how to understand God?

56 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What good is a higher power if there's zero information about it?

I guess I assumed you're a member of the church, sorry about that. Members of the LDS faith believe we don't need written information about a subject to learn the truth of it. We can pray and receive all the information we need to know about religious matters. Religious knowledge and the workings of God don't come from the written word. If you believe the gospel is true and God has the ability to communicate with you through prayer, wouldn't that be more important than what some man you have never met wrote on paper?

Edited May 12, 2023 by RAD DAD

[Dario_M]

I don't really have that problem actually. I believe in God. For me it feels so clear to me that that is true. I also believe in Jesus Christ. And that everything that happend to him really have happend. And that it all had a purpose (how horific his end may have been) but he did that offer for us. And believe that in this life...we all have an offer to pay. And that can be everything. You name it. And that there is a reason behind it that we also have our offers.

Maybe that's the reason that i've been so sick these last 2 years. Maybe that is my offer. I still find it hard to accept though. But everyday i accept it more and more. Though..there are also other thinks going on in my live that i find harder to accept. But even those offers i accept more and more per day. 

Or i believe everything in the gospel? I don't know. But i do believe that there is a God 99% sure about that. And i also believe in Jesus Christ and in his mission he had on earth 2023 years ago and i'm 99,5% sure about that. 

Edited May 12, 2023 by Dario_M

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Is it possible to lose your faith in God but retain your beliefs in the gospel?  I'm thinking of the idea that the gospel is still true, there is a God, but there's no point in living it.  A "God doesn't answer my prayers or ever intervene in my life" kind of situation.

What about the reverse?  I think I've seen many who lose their beliefs in the gospel but still have faith in a God with little to no doctrinal testimony.

Is one better or worse than the other?

Yes, I think it’s very possible.

From my perspective it’s the idea that everything we are taught about God, and who he is, and what he does, and how he loves and blesses his children, is true for everyone else.

But for whatever reasons it’s not true for you.  So while you believe in God’s ability to save, you have no faith in God‘s ability to save you. To intervene in your life. To direct you for good. To forgive your sins. To answer your prayers. To love you.

[CV75]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Is it possible to lose your faith in God but retain your beliefs in the gospel?  I'm thinking of the idea that the gospel is still true, there is a God, but there's no point in living it.  A "God doesn't answer my prayers or ever intervene in my life" kind of situation.

What about the reverse?  I think I've seen many who lose their beliefs in the gospel but still have faith in a God with little to no doctrinal testimony.

Is one better or worse than the other?

I think belief is to faith as a doctrinal point is to a fulness of the Gospel.

[JAHS]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

A "God doesn't answer my prayers or ever intervene in my life" kind of situation.

Hard to know when He doesn't intervene at least sometimes. You take a trip in a car free from any accidents. Did God intervene in an accident your were supposed to have?

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, RAD DAD said:

No. The gospel teaches that God sent members of the church here to earth so we can restore true Christianity. If you lose your faith in God, there is no LDS gospel to believe in, which means The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is just one very wealthy multi level marketing scheme.

Why is there a need for a doctrinal testimony?

I don’t believe that things are that black and white for everyone. Not for me, at any rate. 

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Is it possible to lose your faith in God but retain your beliefs in the gospel?  I'm thinking of the idea that the gospel is still true, there is a God, but there's no point in living it.  A "God doesn't answer my prayers or ever intervene in my life" kind of situation.

What about the reverse?  I think I've seen many who lose their beliefs in the gospel but still have faith in a God with little to no doctrinal testimony.

Is one better or worse than the other?

I'd say there's lots of ways to think about it and separate the pieces. For example a person might distance themselves from the church and culture while still holding fast to what they see as God and the core gospel.

And the church provides ample opportunity to pick a niche. There are folks living in their heads the 1940s church of their formative years, some the eighties, some the present. Some the Utah church, some the mission field version where they live. 

As an atheist, I still have a version of faith and I still have belief both of which include principles I learned as a Mormon.

I don't understand how a person could believe in something they have no intention of trying to live, though. To me, alot of happiness is in the personal integrity of living personal conviction.

[Rain]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Is it possible to lose your faith in God but retain your beliefs in the gospel? 

It depends on what you mean by the "gospel".  If you mean that Jesus saved us through the atonement as we usually define it in the church I don't think you can completely lose faith in God and still retain a belief in the gospel.

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm thinking of the idea that the gospel is still true, there is a God, but there's no point in living it.  A "God doesn't answer my prayers or ever intervene in my life" kind of situation.

This would be different to me than losing faith in God. It might be redefining what God does.  So I might have faith in God that makes the gospel/atonement hold true, but lose faith that he intervenes in other ways. 

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

What about the reverse?  I think I've seen many who lose their beliefs in the gospel but still have faith in a God with little to no doctrinal testimony.

Yes, I see that with many, but then again it also depends on what you mean by doctrine.  

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Is one better or worse than the other?

 

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t believe that things are that black and white for everyone. Not for me, at any rate. 

It’s not what I was taught growing up. 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It’s not what I was taught growing up. 

I mean, I’ve heard it- “if the Book of Mormon is true, it’s all true”.  That’s not true. 

[smac97]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Is it possible to lose your faith in God but retain your beliefs in the gospel? 

You'll need to define terms, since "faith" and "beliefs" seem pretty much synonymous.

I have a family member who has lost faith in God, and in the Church's claims for itself, but he still values most of its behavioral precepts (Law of Chastity, Word of Wisdom, emphasis on family, etc.).  However important these things are, they are not exclusive to the Church.  A person can utterly reject the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the foundational narrative elements of the Restoration, etc., and still find value in parts of the Gospel.

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm thinking of the idea that the gospel is still true, there is a God, but there's no point in living it.  A "God doesn't answer my prayers or ever intervene in my life" kind of situation.

I'm reminded of this oldy-but-goody:

Quote

The parable of the drowning man, also known as Two Boats and a Helicopter, is a short story, often told as a joke, most often about a devoutly Christian man, frequently a minister, who refuses several rescue attempts in the face of approaching floodwaters, each time telling the would-be rescuers that God will save him. After turning down the last, he drowns in the flood. After his death, the man meets God and asks why he did not intervene. God responds that he sent all the would-be rescuers to the man's aid on the expectation he would accept the help.

Frequently retold within the American Protestant community (although Catholics tell the story as well, and Buddhist and Jewish versions have been recorded), the story is considered to reinforce the aphorism that "God helps those who help themselves" and rebuke those who believe that God works through divine miracles, preferring instead for people to do his work on Earth. 

As I look back on my life, I have found that God generally answers my prayers and intervenes in my life during or after my obedience to His commandments.  We are, after all, supposed to be "anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of {our} own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness" (D&C 58:27).  See also Ether12:6 ("I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith"), D&C 130:21 ("And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated") and D&C 84:20-21 ("Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.  And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh.").

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

What about the reverse?  I think I've seen many who lose their beliefs in the gospel but still have faith in a God with little to no doctrinal testimony.

Yes, this can happen.

Anecdotally, though, it seems like many of my personal family members, friends, acquaintances, etc. who leave the Church either also abandon any belief in God, or else reduce Him to a mere abstraction in the background of their lives.

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Is one better or worse than the other?

I think obedience/adherence to correct principles (that is, moral communications and conduct), or some approximation thereof, is pretty much always going to be better than disobedience/non-adherence.  I'm not sure which of your options better approximates this position.

Consider D&C 59:

Quote

18 Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart;
19 Yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul.
20 And it pleaseth God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion.
21 And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.

It seems like obedience is better than non-obedience, but "devotional" obedience, obedience based on a confession of God's "hand in all things," is important.  See Moroni 7:

Quote

5 For I remember the word of God which saith by their works ye shall know them; for if their works be good, then they are good also.
6 For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing.
7 For behold, it is not counted unto him for righteousness.
8 For behold, if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God.
9 And likewise also is it counted evil unto a man, if he shall pray and not with real intent of heart; yea, and it profiteth him nothing, for God receiveth none such.

I think the Lord gives us time to sort these things out, but in the end it is important that we keep the commandments, and also that we do so with the correct motivation ("with real intent").

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 hours ago, RAD DAD said:

Why is there a need for a doctrinal testimony?

Our faith must be rooted in truth.  In revealed doctrines, as opposed to the philosophies of men.

As Joseph Smith put it:

Quote

Let us here observe, that three things are necessary in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

First, the idea that He actually exists.

Secondly, a correct idea of His character, perfections, and attributes.

Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing is according to His will.

(Joseph Smith, Lectures on Faith, 3:2-5)

"Exercis{ing} faith in God unto life and salvation" requires, to some extent, "a correct idea of {God's} character, perfections, and attributes."

"Correct" here, I think means truths revealed and found in the doctrines of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I mean, I’ve heard it- “if the Book of Mormon is true, it’s all true”.  That’s not true. 

I’ve heard that. But I’ve not heard the idea that church members are here to save the gospel (or however it was that he worded it). 

[RAD DAD]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Our faith must be rooted in truth.

Every generation of LDS has a version of truth that is different than the generation before and history has shown that to be the case. Polygamy was an eternal law, now we avoid it like it's the plague. My grandfather's truth about one piece garments was that they could never change under any circumstance. Growing up I was taught that there was no way a gay person could hold a calling in the church. Now they can as long as they're not "physically gay" just "mentally gay." 🤔 

The men that God used to establish the church once again preached that Christians were part of an apostate Christianity formed after the gospel was taken from earth, do we still believe that?

Is truth subjective when discussing religion, any religion, including ours?

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Our faith must be rooted in truth.  In revealed doctrines, as opposed to the philosophies of men.

 

45 minutes ago, RAD DAD said:

Is truth subjective when discussing religion, any religion, including ours?

Calling @mfbukowski!

[pogi]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Is it possible to lose your faith in God but retain your beliefs in the gospel?

I am currently reading Faith after Doubt by Brian D. McLaren (a Christian pastor/author associated with postmodern Christianity).  He embraces doubt as a tool/gateway to faith.  It is coincidental that this topic is brought up as I just finished the chapter where he talks about this very thing.  

He talks about how religion, for many, is more about belonging to a community which requires profession of certain beliefs than it is about any deep abiding faith in the divine.  It becomes more about being accepted and a part of a group which sometimes even requires laying aside one's own feelings and perspective and adopting the group-think mentality/beliefs to achieve belonging.  Some live by belief and trust in the gospel-oriented group more than they live by open faith in the divine which may require them to doubt teachings/beliefs of the group.    

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

What about the reverse?  I think I've seen many who lose their beliefs in the gospel but still have faith in a God with little to no doctrinal testimony.

Is one better or worse than the other?

In the book he talks about Allan Watts, a philosopher of Eastern religions who makes this distinction between belief and faith.  He states that belief is a state of mind which is almost opposite of faith.  He states that belief is the insistence that the truth is what one would "lief" or wish it to be.  A believer will open his mind to the truth under the condition that it fits in to his preconceived notions.  Faith on the other hand, is an unreserved opening of the mind and heart to the truth no matter what it may turn out to be.   Belief clings, but faith lets go.   Faith is the essential virtue of science and any religion that is not self-deception.  Allan Watts states that faith is like looking at the sky through a clear or open window with an openness to accepting whatever is experienced - blue or gray skies, clear or cloudy, rain or sunshine, etc.  But beliefs are like blue paint that we apply to the glass to make it the color that we wish it to be.  He states that doubt is like scraping the paint from the glass and he laments that many religious people resist doubt and confuse faith with clinging to certain ideas. 

With that understanding, I would suggest that it is better to hold to faith over beliefs. 

Edited May 12, 2023 by pogi

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am currently reading Faith after Doubt by Brian D. McLaren (a Christian pastor/author associated with postmodern Christianity).  He embraces doubt as a tool/gateway to faith.  It is coincidental that this topic is brought up as I just finished the chapter where he talks about this very thing.  

He talks about how religion, for many, is more about belonging to a community which requires profession of certain beliefs than it is about any deep abiding faith in the divine.  It becomes more about being accepted and a part of a group which sometimes even requires laying aside one's own feelings and perspective and adopting the group-think mentality/beliefs to achieve belonging.  They live by belief and trust in the gospel-oriented group more than they live by open faith in the divine which may require them to doubt teachings/beliefs of the group.    

In the book he talks about Allan Watts, a philosopher of Eastern religions who makes this distinction between belief and faith.  He states that belief is a state of mind which is almost opposite of faith.  He states that belief is the insistence that the truth is what one would "lief" or wish it to be.  A believer will open his mind to the truth under the condition that it fits in to his preconceived notions.  Faith on the other hand, is an unreserved opening of the mind and heart to the truth no matter what it may turn out to be.   Belief clings, but faith lets go.   Faith is the essential virtue of science and any religion that is not self-deception.  Allan Watts states that faith is like looking at the sky through a clear or open window with an openness to accepting whatever is experienced - blue or gray skies, clear or cloudy, rain or sunshine, etc.  But beliefs are like blue paint that we apply to the glass to make it the color that we wish it to be.  He states that doubt is like scraping the paint from the glass and he laments that many religious people resist doubt and confuse faith with clinging to certain ideas. 

With that understanding, I would suggest that it is better to hold to faith over beliefs. 

It’s an interesting way to define faith. I don’t know that it makes sense from my perspective but it’s definitely food for thought. 

[smac97]

56 minutes ago, RAD DAD said:

Quote

Our faith must be rooted in truth.

Every generation of LDS has a version of truth that is different than the generation before and history has shown that to be the case.

First, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "version of truth."

Second, the foundational "truth" claims of the Church have been, in my view, remarkably consistent since 1830.

Third, to the extent the Latter-day Saints in 2023 have a different (that is to say, improved or refined) understanding of revealed truths as compared to past generations, I am fine with that.  We have far more information and resources to work with than our predecessors did.

Fourth, to the extent the Latter-day Saints in 2023 have a different (that is to say, improved or refined) understanding of revealed truths as compared to past generations, and to the extent you seek to present this as a defect or a bug, I will respectfully dissent and instead characterize it as a natural and anticipated "feature" (as opposed to a "bug") of the Restored Gospel.  "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.)  It is incumbent upon us to learn and to grow and build upon the information we have been given.  And I think we are doing that.  And I think that is a really cool thing.

56 minutes ago, RAD DAD said:

Polygamy was an eternal law, now we avoid it like it's the plague.

I respectfully disagree with this characterization.  Polygamy has always been contingent on specific instruction from God, with monogamy as the default condition.  See Jacob 2:30 ("For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.).

And I don't know what you mean by "we avoid it like it's the plague."  We don't practice it, because we have been instructed not to.  But we do not deny it, nor has it been excised from our history or scriptural/doctrinal canon.

56 minutes ago, RAD DAD said:

My grandfather's truth about one piece garments was that they could never change under any circumstance.

That was not "truth," I think.  That was error.

56 minutes ago, RAD DAD said:

Growing up I was taught that there was no way a gay person could hold a calling in the church.

I am skeptical you were taught any such thing.  And in any event, people with same-sex attraction are held to the same behavioral standards as anyone else, and are as entitled to the blessings of the Gospel as anyone else, including "hold{ing} a calling in the church."

56 minutes ago, RAD DAD said:

Now they can as long as they're not "physically gay" just "mentally gay." 🤔 

I think this is a substantial mischaracterization.  Same-sex behavior has never been allowed in the Church, either "then" or "now."

56 minutes ago, RAD DAD said:

The men that God used to establish the church once again preached that Christians were part of an apostate Christianity formed after the gospel was taken from earth, do we still believe that?

Broadly, yes.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Question: How does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints relate to other branches of Christianity?

The doctrine of the apostasy does not imply that everyone outside the Church of Jesus Christ is going to hell

The doctrine of the apostasy does not imply that everyone outside the Church of Jesus Christ is going to hell. It does not preclude the many beliefs and values we hold in common with other Christians. However, it does imply that the doctrines of other religions are in a number of ways corrupt, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only authorized Church of Jesus Christ upon the Earth. When we interact with our neighbors of other Christian faiths, our leaders encourage us not to be judgmental, but to build on common ground.

Clearly the LDS believe pure Christianity was lost from the earth, and that other branches of Christianity are corrupted. But in some cases, Evangelical critics of the Church appear to assume that this belief precludes any similarities or interaction with other Christian faiths. For instance, they write,

When Joseph Smith began his new religious movement in 1830, there was no great effort to meld or compromise the teachings of the Mormon Church with those of nineteenth century Christianity. Instead, early leaders prided themselves on their uniqueness and they boldly and publicly proclaimed their differences. They made little or no effort to associate with what they considered "apostate Christendom."

More recently however, some members of the LDS Church have felt it was time to declare to the world that the differences are only superficial or, at best, a problem of semantics. Some Mormon apologists have even declared that the divide between Christianity and Mormonism is not all that wide. Having studied this movement for a great portion of our lives, we find such concessions incredible, for if this is really true, it brings into question the Mormon concept of a so-called "complete apostasy."^[1]:11

Modern LDS leaders have made no attempt to "meld or compromise" our teachings with those of contemporary Christian churches

First, while it is true that early LDS leaders made no attempt to "meld or compromise" their teachings with those of contemporary Christian churches, critics of the Church never demonstrate that recent LDS leaders have done any such thing. Often the problem has been that LDS have used different terminology than other Christians, causing some misunderstanding. For instance, as a young LDS missionary, I assumed that all Evangelical Christians were "antinomians," who believed that one could commit any number of mass murders, etc., after committing to Christ, and still be saved. On the other hand, my Evangelical friends usually believed that the LDS teach we are "saved by works," rather than by grace. We would argue and argue, with them emphasizing grace NOT works, and me arguing strenuously that good works are necessary. In reality, I found out later, there are a few antinomians out there, but many Evangelicals believe a true commitment to Christ entails a change in behavior. Someone who is "really saved" would never commit murder. Likewise, while I know of some LDS who incorrectly believe we are "saved by works," the Church actually teaches that we are saved by grace through faith, but that good works cannot be separated from true faith.

Naturally, there are still differences between Evangelical and LDS soteriology. For example, we believe that good works are meritorious and have no doctrine of "eternal security," but the point is that the differences (in many cases) are not nearly as great as I once thought. I never would have come to this realization, however, had I not attempted to first establish common ground with my Evangelical acquaintances, and then move on to the differences. More and more, LDS leaders and lay members have been adopting this more peaceful approach as we come into contact more with our neighbors of other faiths. On the other hand, critics approach Mormonism by only pointing out differences, and in fact many of those differences are greatly exaggerated. Thus, they fail to accurately describe the true differences between the Church of Jesus Christ and other branches of Christianity.

LDS leaders have always proclaimed our unique status among Christian churches

Second, whereas LDS leaders have always proclaimed our unique status among Christian churches,^[2] they have always pointed out that other faiths still have a good deal of God-given truth, and have pointed out important common ground. For instance, Joseph Smith said,

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Do you believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst; and they will do it before the millennium can be ushered in and Christ takes possession of His kingdom.^[3]

Brigham Young said,

It was the occupation of Jesus Christ and his Apostles to propagate the Gospel of salvation and the principles of eternal life to the world, and it is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel, to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders of this Church (Jesus, their elder brother, being at their head,) to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we preach, to mechanism of every kind, to the sciences, and to philosophy, wherever it may be found in every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, and bring it to Zion.^[4]

The Book of Mormon prophet Alma wrote a poem where he expressed his desire to preach the Gospel to everyone in the world, but then he corrected himself:

For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to the which is just and true. Alma 29:8

Even when the people of a certain time or culture did not have access to the pure Gospel message, God makes allowances for them

That is, even when the people of a certain time or culture did not have access to the pure Gospel message, God makes allowances for them, and gives them as much of His wisdom as they are able to receive. Notice the following statement by Brigham Young on the state of the souls of people like John Wesley, who lived according to the knowledge they had.

I never passed John Wesley's church in London without stopping to look at it. Was he a good man? Yes; I suppose him to have been, by all accounts, as good as ever walked on this earth, according to his knowledge. Has he obtained a rest? Yes, and greater than ever entered his mind to expect; and so have thousands of others of the various religious denominations.^[5]

Contrary to certain critical statements about recent LDS ecumenism,^[1]:11 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never attempted to join any ecumenical organizations, and has continued to teach our doctrine about the Apostasy and Restoration. However, in recent years there has been more emphasis placed on working together with other churches on humanitarian projects. This is only natural, since we no longer face anywhere near the same level of persecution from other Christians that we once did. Is this a bad thing? Should we shun others who would do good in the world because we disagree on doctrine?

There has been renewed emphasis, when LDS interact with others, on the fact that we are Christians

Likewise, there has been renewed emphasis, when LDS interact with others, on the fact that we are Christians. Since we have always claimed to be a Restoration of primitive Christianity, obviously we have always claimed to be Christians, so the insinuation by some that this is some sort of recent attempt to suck up to other denominations is ridiculous. The problem is that anti-Mormon writers have been popularizing the notion that we are not Christians, and we refuse to let such people define our belief system for us. From our perspective, this charge is patently false, when the Atonement of Jesus Christ is at the center of our religion, and we worship Jesus Christ as the Son of God. We realize that we disagree with other Christians on a number of very important points, but then Protestant Christians, Catholic Christians, Orthodox Christians, Anglican Christians, etc., all disagree with each other on various important points, as well. So call us "heretical Christians," or "apostate Christians," or whatever. Our point is that "Christianity" is the general category in which we fit. Evangelical critics of the Church, on the other hand, seem to exclude everyone outside their particular brand of Evangelicalism from Christianity. Witness, for instance, their statements about what "Christianity teaches" regarding the necessity of baptism, which would exclude Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, as well as the LDS.^[1]:200

 

Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb: Creedal Christians can learn from LDS views about Jesus Christ and creation

Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb wrote:^[6]

[In LDS doctrine] Matter as we know it has a beginning, an origin, in Christ, but matter as it can be, in its perfected form, is eternally an attribute of the divine. In this way, the eternity of matter can be conceived without falling into the trap of pantheism, and this possibility, I am convinced, is precisely what Joseph Smith saw, even if he did not put it into these words or this theological context.

Th Mormon Church stakes its whole theology on the coherence of the idea that God formed the world from a material substance that is not totally unlike his own divine nature. That makes Mormonism either a religious oddity in Western history or an utterly crucial metaphysical correction to our understanding of the role and value of matter in God’s creation of the world. At the very least, Mormonism presents a prod to theological thought at the precise time when materiality is more central to public awareness than ever before. Our relationship to the material world, whether it goes by the name of environmentalism, ecology, sustainability, or evolution has never been so urgently pressed before us as today. To respond to this urgency, we need not only an ethic but also a metaphysics of matter.

We cannot know how to treat matter unless we know what it is, and the nature of matter has to include but ultimately go beyond the specificities of science. We need to know what matter is for, where it comes from, and to what extent it is identical to what we are. These are the central questions of our time, and creedal Christians can answer them only in a self-critical and mutually beneficial dialogue with Latter-day Saints—and that dialogue has to begin with an assessment of the life and thought of Joseph Smith. ^[7]:94–95

 

56 minutes ago, RAD DAD said:

Is truth subjective when discussing religion, any religion, including ours?

I don't think truth is ever subjective, but our grasp of it is.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

Calling @mfbukowski!

Semantic confusion.

Men physically write inspired philosophy. Were Matthew Mark Luke and John, Isaiah, Moses, et al. and Joseph NOT inspired " men"?

Why is scripture NOT philosophy?

Where do you draw the line?

Is religion objectively true? Can we measure the weight of God's body to determine if He is "real"? And then repeat the experiment?

Please also define "truth".

Nobody has done it in 2500 years.

"Truth= things as they are". But wait! Do we see thru  a glass darkly? How do we know about God when all we have is a broken mirror?  It's a circular argument!

"TO ME, IT IS A MASS OF CONFUSION"- The Preacher, pre 1990.

Busy til Sunday 

[Kenngo1969]

Yes, the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is true, still.  Yes, still, it bears good fruit in my life, though not nearly as abundantly as I hope (hoped? ) it would.  (Is it me?  )  And the Heavens do seem absolute, utter, pure Brass.  What to do ... take the advice of Job's wife to him, and "[c]urse God and die!" (Job 2:9)?  There are so many questions I would love to have the answers to that I don't ... and it's very likely that I won't.  

Is God like a candy machine that keeps on "eating my quarters," yet, it doesn't seem that I get anything in return, and every time that I put one in and don't [seem to] get the expected "treat" that I desire ("&%$@!!! A6!!!") I kick the machine ... or at least, I feel like doing so?  Yes, it seems as though God is a candy machine that keeps on eating my quarters, but, no, He isn't. 

No, life isn't fair.  (Suck it up, Buttercup! )  Yep, I'm in the middle of the baffling, bewildering, frustrating Second Act of a Three Act Play [the "Act" known as Mortality, the First Act Being Premortality and the Third Act being Postmortality].  Yes, I wonder how all of the unfairnesses and complexities presented in this bewildering Second Act are going to be resolved in the Third Act.  Yes, the idea of "skipping" the rest of the Second Act and "hastening" the opening of the Third Act does have more than just a little appeal to me.  (Why the *#&!!%! am I here, still, especially if no answers are forthcoming?  )

And then, I think of Moroni.

Moroni had four "jobs" [missions]: (1) To do everything he could to save his own skin long enough to complete his earthly mission; (2) to stand as a silent witness to the tragic downfall of his people; (3) to protect the records entrusted to his care; and (4) to complete his abridgment.  The third and fourth of those jobs individually, let alone all of them collectively, would have been hard enough in the most favorable of conditions, even if he hadn't been, for all intents and purposes, the last of his race, and even if the first thought of anyone else who might have seen him wouldn't have been, "There he is!  Kill him!"

Was Moroni baffled by his Second Act?  Bewildered?  More than just "a little bummed" ... downright sad, even?  I dare say.  But we don't have to guess, to surmise, or to "dare say."  He tells us so himself, in Mormon 8:
 

Quote

 

1 Behold I, Moroni, do finish the record of my father, Mormon. Behold, I have but few things to write, which things I have been commanded by my father.

2 And now it came to pass that after the great and tremendous battle at Cumorah, behold, the Nephites who had escaped into the country southward were hunted by the Lamanites, until they were all destroyed.

3 And my father also was killed by them, and I even remain alone to write the sad tale of the destruction of my people. But behold, they are gone, and I fulfil the commandment of my father. And whether they will slay me, I know not.

4 Therefore I will write and hide up the records in the earth; and whither I go it mattereth not.

5 Behold, my father hath made this record, and he hath written the intent thereof. And behold, I would write it also if I had room upon the plates, but I have not; and ore I have none, for I am alone. My father hath been slain in battle, and all my kinsfolk, and I have not friends nor whither to go; and how long the Lord will suffer that I may live I know not.

 

I think there is a lot more emotion Moroni's seemingly matter-of-fact recounting of his situation than, perhaps, he lets on.  His, "whether they will slay me, I know not," and his, "whither I go it mattereth not," and his, "how long the Lord will suffer that I may live I know not" always have struck me as more than a little plaintive. 

Then, in Mormon, Chapter 1, after having abridged the Jaredite record in the Book of Ether, Moroni writes this:

Quote

1 Now I, Moroni, after having made an end of abridging the account of the people of Jared, I had supposed not to have written more, but I have not as yet perished; and I make not myself known to the Lamanites lest they should destroy me.

Plaintive, still?  Yep.  At least I think so.  Then, he writes:

Quote

2 For behold, their wars are exceedingly fierce among themselves; and because of their hatred they put to death every Nephite that will not deny the Christ.

Bummer, Dude!    (Every now and again, I have to hark back to the days when I learned fluent Southern Californese in order to Preach the Good News of the Gospel to the People in That Land. )  All he has to do is to deny Christ, and they'll let him live.  But, then, he says this:

Quote

3 And I, Moroni, will not deny the Christ ; wherefore, I wander whithersoever I can for the safety of mine own life. [Emphasis mine.]

And you think you've got Problems, Ken?   

 

Yet, for all of the "Brass Heavens" moments I've had/am having/will have in my life, previously, I have written here about occasions in which the Lord has spoken Absolute, Utter, Complete Peace to My Very Soul.  And, in essence, it is as though the Lord has said "Yes, Ken.  If you choose, you can privilege all of your 'Brass Heavens' moments over the 'Did-I-Not-Speak-Peace-to-Your-Mind?' moments we've had together [see Doctrine and Covenants 6:22-23].  But that is your choice."

I think of what, again, strikes me as a "lament-in-a-question" [again, perhaps just a little plaintive] to His Apostles, after many of His disciples "went back, and walked no more with Him" (John 6:66) after hearing His "hard sayings": "Will ye also go away?"  John 6:67.  And then I think of Peter's answer: "Lord, to whom shall we go?  Thou hast the words of eternal life."  John 6:68.

I think of the fifth and seventh verses, respectively, of perhaps my favorite hymn in all of Latter-day Saint hymnody.  Economic realities of extensive lettering on headstones aside, I would like the fifth verse to be my epitaph:

Quote

 

When through fiery trials

Thy pathway shall lie,

My Grace, all sufficient,

Shall be thy supply!

The flame will not hurt thee.

I only design

Thy dross to consume

And thy Gold to refine!

 

I can only hope there's something left there to refine, and that I'm not all dross!     

And then, consistent with what Peter told the Savior in the verses from the Holy Bible that I just cited above, there's this, in verse seven of the hymn: 
 

Quote

 

The soul that on Jesus

Hath leaned for repose,

I will not, I cannot

Desert to His foes.

That soul, though All Hell

Should endeavor to shake,

I'll never, no never; I'll never, no never

I'll never, no never, no never forsake!

 

My $0.02, actual value, as always, much less.  Your mileage may vary.

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Semantic confusion.

Men physically write inspired philosophy. Were Matthew Mark Luke and John, Isaiah, Moses, et al. and Joseph NOT inspired " men"?

Why is scripture NOT philosophy?

Where do you draw the line?

Is religion objectively true? Can we measure the weight of God's body to determine if He is "real"? And then repeat the experiment?

Please also define "truth".

Nobody has done it in 2500 years.

"Truth= things as they are". But wait! Do we see thru  a glass darkly? How do we know about God when all we have is a broken mirror?  It's a circular argument!

"TO ME, IT IS A MASS OF CONFUSION"- The Preacher, pre 1990.

Busy til Sunday 

Correction, your quote in caps was spoken by another character, concerning the Preacher's teachings