Catholic World Report Asks: "Does Mormonism ruin faith?"

[Calm]

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This dogma is not added to the Bible -- it's not tacked on the end -- but it holds the same weight has the doctrines in the Bible. It is infallible.

It essentially belongs in the Catholic version of the Doctrine and Covenants, which contains revelation received beyond ancient scripture.

Edited October 14, 2023 by Calm

[let’s roll]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well @SeekingUnderstanding has provided you other acceptable definitions and I am happy to do so if you require more. 

From Sam Harris and Waking Up:

 

 

 

God promises that He will commune with every one of His children (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or any other) that seeks that communion with the requisite intent.  The degree to which such communion alters the child’s current belief system depends on whether the genesis of the desire for communion involves a request for confirmation of the belief system.  A sincere desire for Divine communion in order to receive guidance, comfort and rest can result in the receipt of the same by a child with faith, whether or not the faith-filled child is in any organized entity of faith and need not result in a change to the child’s belief system.

[The Nehor]

Stones and glass houses and all that.

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, Rain said:

I'm sorry, I can't tell you exactly as some of it was 30 years ago and there were so many times I heard it that it is all wrapped together.

They were just very clear there was no more revelation because it was all in the bible. Things such as: We don't need revelation because it's all in the bible.  We won't receive revelation or inspiration about the Book of Mormon because the bible doesn't talk about it - if you pray about the Book of Mormon you will only get the devil talking to you because the bible is all the revelation there is. If you pray all your answers will come from the bible because revelation ceased to exist after it was completed.  And so on. 

They were very clear that you don't pray for answers because there was no way they came from God. You could pray and get help from God like healing your child, just not pray for answers.

I personally don't see much of a distinction and haven't since around my mid twenties when I began to realize that leaders are not so different from me, but I know others do. 

Thanks for your reply. Let me just muddy the waters a bit. I do know a few Evangelicals, one was a good friend of mine in college who teach this: A Christian need not pray to seek God's will or personal revelation about moral things because God's moral will is completely revealed in the Bible (scripture).

They need not pray about His sovereign will, because He isn't telling us that. His sovereign will deals with his omniscience. He would never disclose that to us because we might never get out of bed!

My friend also believes that there is no point in praying to seek a revelation of God's individual will for us, because God doesn't have an individual will for us. If we live in the center of His moral will for us (which is revealed in the Bible), we have agency to do as we desire. No need to pray about it! He wrote a best seller (within Evangelicalism) on it and became a professor at an Evangelical seminary. His view didn't really catch on. Evangelicals are too used to praying for God's individual will or revelation about who to marry, where to go to college, which job to take, where to go to church . . . things like that. There are also moral dilemmas in this modern world not anticipated in the Bible. So we need to seek God's will (revelation) about certain decisions or courses of action. I have always appreciated the time and effort he (my friend) put into his theory. I haven't completely bought into it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

self/free- will

Are you equating self with free will? Why?

[Saint Bonaventure]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate?  How would you characterize/define "revelation" from a Catholic perspective?

 

This article has much, much more on the topic, but this is a decent description of private revelation from a Catholic perspective: 

 

IV.      Private Revelation

1. The formal concept. A negative definition is possible. Private revelation is genuine revelation which is not addressed (directly) to the Church but to an individual. It imposes no obligation of belief on all. It is not given to the Church to be preserved and preached. Such private revelation is possible at all times. But it is usually only the object of theological reflection when it occurs within the Church. To deny the fundamental possibility of private revelation, one would have to be prepared to maintain that all revelation is impossible—which would be equivalent to a denial of Christianity—or that no revelation is conceivable except in a community and for a community. But this would not do justice to the importance of the salvation of the individual as such, and would be a failure to recognize that even “public” (ecclesiastical) revelation must be given to definite individuals (prophets, apostles). Further, the tradition and practice of the Church (in devotions, prophetic figures in the Church, acknowledged mystics) presuppose the existence of genuine private revelation. Then again, the “closing” of (public) revelation (“since the death of the apostles”) must not be taken to mean that since then, in contrast to former times, the attitude of God to individual and collective history is silent and aloof. The “closing” of revelation indicates the absolute supremacy and permanent normative character of the Christ-event, which remains to produce new fruits of the Spirit in the Church.

To accept in principle the possibility of private revelation is not to deny, but rather to affirm, that it always is a “child of its times”. It may appear today in a very different way, less spectacular and visionary, which may indeed be a criterion of its genuineness. For any given private revelation is always—as experience shows, in Scripture and in the Church—a synthesis in which the character of the recipient, as determined historically (theologically, culturally, etc.) and psychologically (or para-psychologically), is fused with the mystical or normal grace given to him in the depths of his existence. Hence one cannot exclude the possibility of illusions, misinterpretations and distortions even where there is genuine private revelation according to the ordinary criteria by which mystical phenomena are judged. In particular, the “visionary” element in private revelations has in fact very clearly a “contemporary style”. The “genuineness” of a private revelation is a very variable quantity.

2. The Church and private revelations. That a revelation is “private” need not mean that it can have absolutely no relevance to the Church. Many examples from Church history (e.g., Joan of Arc, Catharine of Sienna, Margaret Mary Alacoque, Lourdes, etc.) show that it can be of public importance. But where private revelation makes itself felt in the Church as a prophetic impulse, it must stay within the framework of the general revelation given to the Church, though this does not mean that the private revelation may not contain an imperative with a “new” direction. For private revelation, the magisterium of the Church is at least the negative norm (and often perhaps nothing more). Such revelations may be treated critically with regard to their human elements, even though they are fundamentally acceptable. Their relevance may be restricted to given places, times and groups in the Church. Indeed, one must reckon seriously with the fact that private revelations of ecclesiastical import—as prophetic directives and imperatives to the Church in a given situation—may be proclaimed in the Church—and be more important than others—without seeing themselves as private revelations, because less linked with visionary or parapsychological side-effects than other or earlier ones. (The theological and ecclesiastical nature of a private revelation can perhaps be rendered more purely in the figure of John XXIII or the Populorum Progressio of Paul VI than in the visions of a nun who proclaims a new devotion.) Theological reflection on the “contemporary style” of future private revelation is still lacking. A theology of private revelation would have to study it within the framework of the charismatic element in the Church.

Norbert Schiffers, Karl Rahner, and Heinrich Fries, “Revelation,” ed. Adolf Darlap, Sacramentum Mundi: An Encyclopedia of Theology (New York; London: Burns & Oates; Herder and Herder, 1968–1970), 358–359.

Edited October 14, 2023 by Saint Bonaventure

[Chum]

On 10/9/2023 at 6:57 PM, The Nehor said:

From Elder Ballard’s talk:

Quote

 There may be some doctrine, some policy, some bit of history that puts you at odds with your faith, and you may feel that the only way to resolve that inner turmoil right now is to “walk no more” with the Saints. If you live as long as I have, you will come to know that things have a way of resolving themselves. An inspired insight or revelation may shed new light on an issue. Remember, the Restoration is not an event, but it continues to unfold.

Do they though? How long do you have to live before that starts happening?

I preach a version of Eld Ballard's assertion (mostly here for whatever reason). Boiled down it's this: File the discrepancy away until it can be reworked with a different perspective.

Restated, it's usually dumb to allow an unexpected understanding to force a change in commitment now now now. We can instead file it away and consider it over time. Usually.

The point is to disarm bad-faith actors who attack ideologies by leveraging discrepancies and flaws - and may have hit on something that needs time to be properly understood.  Broader context can and does change a picture. And one is less likely to be duped when one thinks things thru.

Edited October 14, 2023 by Chum

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you equating self with free will? Why?

No.  He doesn’t believe that either exists except as an illusion.   

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, let’s roll said:

God promises that He will commune with every one of His children (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or any other) that seeks that communion with the requisite intent.  The degree to which such communion alters the child’s current belief system depends on whether the genesis of the desire for communion involves a request for confirmation of the belief system.  A sincere desire for Divine communion in order to receive guidance, comfort and rest can result in the receipt of the same by a child with faith, whether or not the faith-filled child is in any organized entity of faith and need not result in a change to the child’s belief system.

But this is simply a faith based statement and there is no reason why anyone should accept it.  You think you know this based on spiritual experiences that are available to all regardless of what they believe in or what they don't believe in. THere is no reason to attribute to a god being and its promises.

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes, but when you take it in context, I was not saying that he can't be spiritual without "acknowledgement of a father God" as you suggested below.  That was in relation to not believing in any "spiritual" dimension.  The Child of God part was about self-awareness.  If we are child of God, then self-awareness requires that knowledge.   Granted there can be different levels of self-awareness, but that would be our primary identity.  I am not suggesting that he has to agree with me, but I said "then we simply are not going to agree..."  

It is fine to disagree.  But still you want to own words and definitions. @SeekingUnderstandingalready provided other accepted definitions that do not meet the criteria you argue.  But you seem unable to accept those.  I can provide more.  Did you bother to read the argument from Harris and how the word spirit and spirituality evolved over time to be co-opted by religious folk such as yourself?  And also he provided other words to use in the process of the them of his book.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

Apples and oranges.  I believe in the existence of a Christ - therefore I am a Christian.  He doesn't believe in the existence of a spirit...or even a self, or free-will that can choose to create meaning or purpose - therefore he is not a spiritualist.  A better comparison would be more like someone who doesn't believe in Christ, or any concept of Christ to call themselves a Christian. 

No not really. It was a good example.  You may say I believe in Christ and thus I am Christian.  But others, who like you with defining the word spiritual and owning that, define Christian in such a way to exclude you because you worship, according to them, a false Jesus.  And you keep ignoring the fact that the word spiritual does not mean only what you keep saying it does.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you equating self with free will? Why?

Harris does argue that humans do not have free will but I have not drilled into his position on this to any extent.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 10/13/2023 at 11:58 AM, pogi said:

Also, he can't use the word "self-aware" either because he doesn't even believe in the existence of the "self"

You are conflating terms. The illusion of self, is a Buddhist idea realized through meditation. Self aware uses the term in a wholly different fashion. Your contradiction is imaginary here. Language isn’t a series of mathematical logical statements but a means to communicate and if you read Harris there is no confusion here. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

No not really. It was a good example.  You may say I believe in Christ and thus I am Christian.  But others, who like you with defining the word spiritual and owning that, define Christian in such a way to exclude you because you worship, according to them, a false Jesus.  And you keep ignoring the fact that the word spiritual does not mean only what you keep saying it does.

BUT the 100% purely Pragmatic view would lie in a set of questions around what characteristics would the "Perfect Human" have, regardless of whether or not such a being ever existed.  

What would the world be like if everyone tried to emulate such a being, regardless of the existence question?  What GOOD (as defined as USEFUL- this of course would have to be defined first) would the BELIEF ALONE DO IF such a belief, ie, to always act as an Ideal Human Being was universally accepted as "true".

Secondarily could such a Being communicate with ordinary people?

Third, can what is commonly called "the conscience" be hypothesized as some sort of "communication" with this Being? Can religious experience like the conscience be classified philosophically as "qualia"?  Is it then reasonable from an anti-realist viewpoint to equate conscience qualia, with other qualia regarded as "real", as perhaps the redness of red often is in ordinary speech?

Fourth, is anthropomorphism a useful way to view this "Perfect Being", seeing it perhaps as a "father figure"?

Is such a paradigm useful for general belief in relating the characteristics of such a Being in ordinary language?

This is just an outline of the constructions I have been workin on to generate paradigms for myself.

[Teancum]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

BUT the 100% purely Pragmatic view would lie in a set of questions around what characteristics would the "Perfect Human" have, regardless of whether or not such a being ever existed.  

What would the world be like if everyone tried to emulate such a being, regardless of the existence question?  What GOOD (as defined as USEFUL- this of course would have to be defined first) would the BELIEF ALONE DO IF such a belief, ie, to always act as an Ideal Human Being was universally accepted as "true".

Secondarily could such a Being communicate with ordinary people?

Third, can what is commonly called "the conscience" be hypothesized as some sort of "communication" with this Being? Can religious experience like the conscience be classified philosophically as "qualia"?  Is it then reasonable from an anti-realist viewpoint to equate conscience qualia, with other qualia regarded as "real", as perhaps the redness of red often is in ordinary speech?

Fourth, is anthropomorphism a useful way to view this "Perfect Being", seeing it perhaps as a "father figure"?

Is such a paradigm useful for general belief in relating the characteristics of such a Being in ordinary language?

This is just an outline of the constructions I have been workin on to generate paradigms for myself.

That is all wonderful but my comment was in response to @pogi and his insistence on owning a word while at the same time disregarding the fact that others want to define him in a way he rejects.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

That is all wonderful but my comment was in response to @pogi and his insistence on owning a word while at the same time disregarding the fact that others want to define him in a way he rejects.

Well I did not want particularly to get into that question, but I did want to further describe James' Radical Empiricism to you, and how it fits into my paradigm.  So consider it as simply a new post to you. 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2023 by mfbukowski

[ChildofGod65]

On 10/9/2023 at 1:21 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that there are a lot of reasons, but, I'll put up my top 5 -

1: The emphasis on the notion of the "one true church." This is an oversimplification in some ways - but the use of the Joseph Smith first vision account with this comment:

The criticism of the creeds, and so on - all of these things create a context where Mormons don't have much that they can build from once they reject Mormonism. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Mormonism often presents its teachings in terms of difference (I'll come back to this in a minute). So we have our understanding of certain scriptural texts that often get compared to other understandings. Rejecting Mormonism doesn't mean that you simply reject everything connected with Mormonism. It is still hard for post-Mormons to accept theology and scriptural interpretation that they don't believe - and there isn't usually any sort of need for the post-Mormon to accept a different theology or a different interpretation. In other words - to connect these two issues together - a post-Mormon isn't likely to go from believing that all religions are wrong except Mormonism, to all religions are wrong except for X. They are instead more likely to believe that all religions are simply wrong (with no exceptions). My own anecdotal experience among those who leave is that for those who wish to build some sort of spirituality into their lives, they are more likely to move towards something that is radically different - like Buddhism rather than to pick up a different flavor of Judeo-Christian belief.

2: Mormonism has a number of core doctrinal beliefs that are to some extent, relatively unique. Within the broader groups of Christian sects, there is generally much more overlap (less that is unique) which makes moving from one religious group to another easy. With Mormonism, this doesn't happen so much. I want to note in passing that neither of these first two points apply much for those that have never been deeply invested in Mormonism. Recent converts who leave shortly after conversion don't seem to have these kinds of barriers. This is also part of the reason why Mormonism has spawned so many splinter groups - a way of keeping those unique doctrines while rejecting the Church structure and authority. This comes with certain kinds of departures - but they aren't common.

3: Mormonism is a liberal religion. It is also, in some ways, very much a post-modern religion. The ways that Mormons read scripture, their approach to interpretive authority, their acceptance of authoritative continuing revelation (and what this means for past revelation), and a whole host of other issues create a religious philosophy that is quite alien within other religious traditions. One way in particular that this shows up is in the way that it defines itself through difference (rather than similarity) - and a good example of this might be the issue of paid clergy, or the way we use the cross. When it does try to draw similarities, it is to the so-called "primitive Church." To the extent that we have these liberal views in the Church, it is much more difficult for former Mormons to move back towards a more modernist (or even a pre-modernist) type of religion.

4: Mormonism has a distinct absence of liturgy. There are liturgical elements, but they are minimal (sacrament, baptism and confirmation, temple ordinances). I don't mean minimal in terms of significance, but minimal in terms of the amount of time spent participating in these liturgical elements. Mormonism replaces liturgical experiences with other forms of engagement. Moving to Mormonism from other religions can be a difficult challenge. But it is just as difficult for a Mormon who is moving away from Mormonism - I know of few Mormons who routinely visit other religious services - and many Mormons find the liturgical experience of a Catholic funeral somewhat jarring.

5: I think that most Mormons who leave don't leave quickly, but gradually. They don't start attending another Church, they just stop attending the Mormon Church. Their departure is marked as much by a loss of religiosity as by any sort of disagreement over an important point of doctrine. In families where the partners don't engage with Mormonism in the same way, we tend to have far more inactive spouses than we have spouses who are participating in another non-LDS Church or religion.

Anyway, that's my brief take on it.

Would you be able to tell me what causes some to officially revoke their membership to the church and deny their baptism.  What causes someone to deny the ordinance of Baptism in their case.  What could be the reason? 

1.  The only thought i have is some cannot deal with sinning while a member and just being inactive, they really feel a mistake was made and they did not fully understand what they were getting into because the teaching is emphasized a great deal to convert doubters much like one is indoctrinated to a way of life that resembles a cult.  Could it be that the church does work their magic with those that are broken and often with mental infirmities that cause them to be more malleable to a divinity that loves them, but can these people that humble themselves actually be able to understand the consequences of what they signed up for always measuring short and plagued with indecision.  I always took solace to try to understand when they would say remember we are in this world not of this world and we were made long before we inhabited our earthly bodies,  but what they fail to tell us is this world will pull on you in many ways and lend itself to appearing like a playground where most of the delights veer us off the gospel path.  Again they do say that Jesus gave us this gift of a test and experience to see if we could learn and thrive as members of Family and Heads of families, charitable people who could embrace those that would do them harm.  Its all too much i think.  So i have decided for myself i want to be able to rationally exercise my good judgment in deciding what the right thing to do is, and someone said its natural to be a decent person, common people everywhere demonstrate this and many don't need a church to tell them that.  Agnostic i believe is what they call it and for my sake i hope that the true gift is a personal relationship with Christ as it should colour everything that occurs and happens in ones life.       

[Calm]

3 hours ago, ChildofGod65 said:

what they fail to tell us is this world will pull on you in many ways and lend itself to appearing like a playground where most of the delights veer us off the gospel path.

What do you mean by this? (Not a challenge, a question for understanding)

The great and spacious building is a symbol of the world that pulls on you in many ways and we talk a lot of the temptations the world presents and these are just two of the many ways we get taught about the pressures and influences of the world, so I am wondering if you left something out in your description. 

Edited October 16, 2023 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, ChildofGod65 said:

Would you be able to tell me what causes some to officially revoke their membership to the church and deny their baptism.  What causes someone to deny the ordinance of Baptism in their case.  What could be the reason? 

1.  The only thought i have is some cannot deal with sinning while a member and just being inactive, they really feel a mistake was made and they did not fully understand what they were getting into because the teaching is emphasized a great deal to convert doubters much like one is indoctrinated to a way of life that resembles a cult.  Could it be that the church does work their magic with those that are broken and often with mental infirmities that cause them to be more malleable to a divinity that loves them, but can these people that humble themselves actually be able to understand the consequences of what they signed up for always measuring short and plagued with indecision.  I always took solace to try to understand when they would say remember we are in this world not of this world and we were made long before we inhabited our earthly bodies,  but what they fail to tell us is this world will pull on you in many ways and lend itself to appearing like a playground where most of the delights veer us off the gospel path.  Again they do say that Jesus gave us this gift of a test and experience to see if we could learn and thrive as members of Family and Heads of families, charitable people who could embrace those that would do them harm.  Its all too much i think.  So i have decided for myself i want to be able to rationally exercise my good judgment in deciding what the right thing to do is, and someone said its natural to be a decent person, common people everywhere demonstrate this and many don't need a church to tell them that.  Agnostic i believe is what they call it and for my sake i hope that the true gift is a personal relationship with Christ as it should colour everything that occurs and happens in ones life.

I have a couple of thoughts in response to your question -

The first is this: The vast majority of people who leave the Church don't do so with any fanfare. They don't revoke their membership. They don't deny their baptism. The Church simply stops being important to them. Any congregation of the Church has a lot of members listed on the official membership list that haven't been to Church in years, and who may or may not consider themselves to be members (and the LDS Church doesn't generally pursue these people or attempt to correct their lifestyles, and so on).

Having said that, there are, I think we could group those who formally give up their Church membership into four broad groups (these aren't meant to cover everyone - but I think that they work for the most part).

1: We have members of the Church who tend to feel that there is very little space for their voices and concerns to be heard. Some people who do pursue formally leaving the Church do so as a protest. There are complicated reasons behind this - including the fact that the Church has made dissension difficult. Members generally don't have access to the decision makers, and local leaders don't have any real way of answering policy concerns for local members. In a setting where members feel like they have no voice, some simply choose to speak with their feet. I am not including in this group those who write protest letters to the First Presidency under the disguise of a resignation.

2: There are people who find themselves in a position where they cannot accept the Church's position on certain issues, and will be forced out of the Church, or only allowed to keep their membership with significant restrictions. This is a relatively small group of people who are dealing with significant gender dysphoria, or who wish to participate in a family as someone with same-gender attraction, and so on. If you are going to become a transgender person as an adult, the LDS Church is not very friendly about it. The one situation that I know of (and granted I have a very minimal knowledge set here) where a local leader recommended that someone formally leave the Church was in one of these situations.

3: There are those who stop believing that the Church is true. Their desire to remove their names is simply about ending the association, and no longer being on the lists, receiving the calls, and so on.

4: There are those who no longer believe, and for whatever reasons hold feelings of animosity towards the LDS Church. These individuals may use their formal request to leave as a way of attacking the Church.

There are always going to be exceptions to this sort of thing. But, I think that the idea that people want to remove their names because they feel uncomfortable sinning in their inactivity isn't actually reflective of reality. I am not suggesting that there aren't people who believe that their sinning is inconsistent with what they (formerly) believe - just that this sort of thing isn't a reason that I have ever seen for someone to go through a formal exit process from the LDS Church. I would also suggest that sinning isn't itself all that much of a barrier to people being members. People have a resilient way of justifying their own bad behaviors ...

[pogi]

On 10/14/2023 at 12:04 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You are conflating terms.

I'm not sure what you mean.  What terms are being conflated?

On 10/14/2023 at 12:04 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The illusion of self, is a Buddhist idea realized through meditation. Self aware uses the term in a wholly different fashion. Your contradiction is imaginary here. Language isn’t a series of mathematical logical statements but a means to communicate and if you read Harris there is no confusion here. 

Harris apparently didn't use the term self-aware - Teancum said those were his words.  

While Buddhists don't believe in a self per se, most scholars suggest they do accept some sort of free-will (though it is not a philosophy that was directly addressed until recently), or an actor that can be aware of choices and make moral decisions.    

Sam Harris Doesn't believe any of that.  He is a hard determinist.  No compatibilism.  No Free will.  No agency.  No actor.  

Given that he has acknowledged the discordance of language in using the word "spirituality" for what he is describing, and the fact that he uses quote marks because he is uncomfortable using the word, and notes that he couldn't think of a better alternative, makes it less problematic that he is using the word.  He seems to acknowledge that he is hijacking the term and that it doesn’t fit really well.  I agree with that.  But I still have no clue what he means by it or the significance of it in hard determinism.  It's not like anyone has a choice to be spiritual, or to choose to pursue a path of spirituality in his world view.  It becomes meaningless.  Everything becomes meaningless - except as an illusion of meaning only.  It is all just random colliding particles set in motion creating illusions of meaning and "spirituality".     

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by pogi

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Given that he has acknowledged the discordance of language in using the word "spirituality" for what he is describing, and the fact that he uses quote marks because he is uncomfortable using the word, and notes that he couldn't think of a better alternative, makes it less problematic that he is using the word.   But I still have no clue what he means by it or the significance of it in hard determinism.  It's not like anyone has a choice to be spiritual, or to choose to pursue a path of spirituality in his world view.  It becomes meaningless.  Everything becomes meaningless - except as an illusion of meaning only.  It is all just random colliding particles set in motion creating illusions of meaning and "spirituality".     

 

I think you may be putting words into Harris's mouth. I am only getting started in the book I referenced so this is new territory to me and I am not familiar much with some of the terms above that I bolded. I have listened to plenty of Harris's podcasts and read two of his other books.  Perhaps you might be interested in reading Waking up?

[why me]

The LDS church is all encompassing in its belief system. Heavenly Mother, Heavenly Father, The Book of Mornon, eleven witnesses, first vision, temple, holy ghost testimony of, word of wisdom, the three kingdoms, outer darkness, spirit children, the death of Joseph Smith, Joseph giving his life for the church he founded. Hyrum too, Emma never denying her husband when she had plenty of opportunity to do so with his death.

And then a person leaves the church. What church should that person go to to find fulfillment? It is obvious that if one finds the church a disappointment, that person should not deny the life of Christ and the sacrifice of the apostles. But many it seems do. Strange. But I would think that other churches come up short.