quote:Originally posted by estavares: Have you ever allowed them to share the gospel basics? The discussion is designed to build a foundation and give you tools to learn for yourself. I mean no disrespect, (hey, I wasn't there) but the impression I've gotten is you don't want them to teach you. You want them to fix you, but on your terms. You might find that the gospel basics will answer your questions.
There was never a need to share the gospel basics. I've read the Book of Mormon (for the most part) and most of the D&C. They've brought up certain passages of the "basics" in answer to my questions at times. To be honest, I've never needed to hear the basics, and they've told me they are glad I'm not someone who just takes the lessons they give. They feel like they learn from talking to me, because we are talking about things beyond the basics. As for the teach vs fix thing, I think that's debatable. I've already said in this thread (I think) that for me joining the church would have been a quick fix to more permanent problems I have. Meeting with the missionaries though has never been about that quick fix; it has always been about seeking the truth.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
You crack me up. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Well...except for this one.
Pfresh:
I do agree that your issues seem to need solutions beyond religion. I'm all for deep discussions myself, but I wonder if you went about this in a way that was less conductive to a more positive experience.
But hey, that's just me. One guy's opinion. Hopefully you'll find what you're looking for. I figure you'll land on your feet, regardless.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There was never a need to share the gospel basics. I've read the Book of Mormon (for the most part) and most of the D&C.
As someone who read 'most of the Book of Mormon' and 'Most of the D&C' with originally the intent to find problems with it, I can say, from personal experience, that it can be very, very easy to get into a 'can't see the forest through the trees' mindset.
By the time I took the Missionary discussions, I had gone back and read the entire Bible, BoM (not just 'for the most part'), and PoGP, and the D&C (again, the whole thing). The missionaries hadn't even done all that. But their 'Basics' lessons were still powerful, simple, and profound. It was a way to bring the most important elements to the forefront, where for me, oftentimes the trappings would get in the way.
quote:They've brought up certain passages of the "basics" in answer to my questions at times. To be honest, I've never needed to hear the basics,
As a ward missionary, I attend the Gospel Essentials Sunday School class - the class designed for Investigators and New Converts. Prior to this, I taught the 13-14 year old Sunday School class. Each of those teaches nothing more than what you would call 'the basics'. Since joining 2 years ago, I have never regularly been able to attend the 'regular' Sunday School class. but I keep finding new power and application in these 'basic' classes and lessons. It's easy to get to wrapped up in deep doctrine, and speculative matters, that one misses the true simplicity of the Core of the Restored Gospel.
I love history and deep doctrine as much as the next guy. Actually, probably a lot more than many. My research and study into the intricacies of religious and secular history (and human nature) never end - and each level of study has amazingly increased my faith and understanding in the Scriptures.
quote:Meeting with the missionaries though has never been about that quick fix; it has always been about seeking the truth.
Which in itself is a fantastic mindset. Just keep in mind the principal that just because those two missionaries don't have an answer that works well for you, it doesn't mean that a proper answer doesn't exist. Sometimes, admittedly, it doesn't. But in many cases, most cases, there is an answer.
I've read every substantial piece of anti-Mormon rhetoric you can find, online and off. That's not too hard, because much of them repeat each other. The point is, I have come to view elements that come up that I don't understand as being that - elements I don't understand. I don't shrug them over, I research, ponder, and pray over them before I am satisfied with a proper response - whether intellectual, or spiritual. Both combined are the ideal.
This is how things worked, and continue to work for me. And I guess that is all that I can say.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by estavares: You crack me up. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Well...except for this one.
Indeed? How extremely surprising. It appears that you feel your example is highly different from mine in some completely obvious way. Perhaps you would care to tell me what the difference is?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Your views on such matters are no secret, so I'm not about to debate them with you. It's that whole "pearls before swine" thing (no offense).
Mock it if you will, but as for me I believe God is real, that prayer works, that it is an independent source of knowledge, and that it can be verified. I believe that anyone who is sincere and willing to do what it takes will get that answer eventually. I firmly believe that we are all capable of it.
posted
Taalcon, I followed your link and I was curious about verse 17:
quote:And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.
Do Mormons believe that suicide results in outer darkness or the lowest level of glory (Terrestial?) as this seems to suggest? This really isn't a set up or anything, I just didn't know that and wanted to make sure I was reading it correctly.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amanecer, that is actually a very complicated questions. However I will give you what I think to be the best answer.
LDS doctrine states clearly that only one sin gives an individual entrance to outer darkness. That level of hell is reserved for those that sin against the Holy Ghost. In other words, gain a perfect or near perfect understanding/knowledge of God and Christ and then walk away and fight against the lamb. Since it is only this sin that gains you entrance into outer darkness, a mere suicide would not take you there.
Now for the complicated part of the question, where then do they end up? The best answer is that God will decide. Because we will be judged based on how we have lived our life and how hard we strove to live a Christlike life, I would submit that we cannot judge as to which level of glory that a person who commits suicide could attain. I have a very strong belief in the power of forgiveness and I know that Christ has the capacity to give every person the full opportunity to accept or reject his atonement. I am sure that you know of course that Mormons believe in work for the dead. I believe that this work gives all of God's children, no matter when they lived the opportunity to attain the full glory of god. Because God is infinately just and Christ is infinately merciful, I feel comforted in the fact that there is no blanket answer to your question, except the part about outer darkness. God will judge them and give them the glory that they deserve.
Incidentally, the scripture you quoted mainly talks to those who have accepted Christ's gospel and choose not to follow his teachings. In other words, they give up and turn away.
Posts: 263 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is also said, and I believe it, that in the end everyone will decide for themselves where they want to be, where they feel comfortable. Those in outer darkness will be there because that is what they wanted. It's extremely sad, so much so that I can't even talk about it, but I know what it feels like to wish that for oneself.
God is doing everything he possibly can do to persuade everyone to accept a brighter future than that. But he won't force us, for that would be worse.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: Do Mormons believe that suicide results in outer darkness or the lowest level of glory (Terrestial?) as this seems to suggest? This really isn't a set up or anything, I just didn't know that and wanted to make sure I was reading it correctly.
I think the more correct reading would be the one Taalcon gave: "enduring" means continuing to follow God's commandments until "the end," judgement day (if there is such an end. IIRC, at least one LDS apostle has asserted that there is no final judgement, just a beginning of kingdoms).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: The point is, I have come to view elements that come up that I don't understand as being that - elements I don't understand. I don't shrug them over, I research, ponder, and pray over them before I am satisfied with a proper response - whether intellectual, or spiritual. Both combined are the ideal.
I've been thinking a lot about this since yesterday, when the discussion of the requirements for confirmation were being discussed, and I ended up in a similar line of thought. There are things I don't yet understand in the gospel, things I can't yet reconcile logically. But that doesn't indicate that I can't believe those concerns will eventually be resolved.
I thought about a pro-evolution argument I heard about irreducible complexity, that all it was doing was pointing out yet-to-be resolved details. The annoying thing about the arguments (and this is paraphrasing someone else, I don't follow the debate closely myself) is that each time one of the "irreducible complexities" is shown to be reducible, the complainers can simply move on to a different example that they consider hasn't been fully explained/demonstrated. Such arguments don't sway pro-evolutionists because they feel the evidence supporting the theory outweighs the temporary lack of knowledge of all the details. The same could be said of my faith, I suppose.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:King of Men: You crack me up. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Well...except for this one. ... Your views on such matters are no secret, so I'm not about to debate them with you. It's that whole "pearls before swine" thing (no offense). ... Mock it if you will, but as for me I believe God is real, that prayer works, that it is an independent source of knowledge, and that it can be verified.
estavares, why can't you dignify that with a response? I think KoM makes a very valid point. KoM's views may be no secrete, but neither are yours, mine, or most of us on hatrack.
He wasn't asking you to debate "such matters" as gospel doctrine. He is not asking about temple marriage ceremonies. He seems to be asking about epistemology.
I am glad you can verify that knowledge that the LDS church is true. I remember my testimony; it seemed so sweet. I read the BoM twice in the MTC. I highlighted in yellow every name for God/Christ. I was amazed at how the book testified of Christ. I wrote a burning testimony in the book. I read it 17 more times in the mission field. I LOVED that book.
And yet when I realized the church was false, it was a more pure testimony of Gods love then anything I experienced in the church. It was a weight off of my shoulders. The church teaches we should continue to nourish our testimonies--so when I looked around and started to see things that did not square with how I was raised or what I was taught, I was troubled and put the church to the test.
It feels so good to be away from the church. My feelings are more powerful then any 'point by point' discussion/response I get about the priesthood, polygamy, DNA, evolution of church doctrine, changes in the BoM, or how the church spends money.
I recognize my feelings come from personal experiences--as do yours. There is an inherint arrogances to a belief system that says "YOU" did something wrong if you don't emotionally understand what "I" understand.
As a Mormon I never saw the arrogance, and it is possible I never would have seen it. For me it was about "love" and "concern" for my fellow man/woman.
However, I understood Amanecer's feelings of finding "this notion arrogant to the point of offensiveness" the first time a ward member said she "weeps for me."
Oops, I got on a tangent. The point is my feelings say it is false. I applied the test and lived the doctrine. So there must be something wrong with me--right? Why is KoM's contention about his rock, on an epistemological level for validating truth, any different then yours? Or mine?
If people pray and get different (or no) answers, and you say that they did not meet personal conditions like a contrite heart, then how is that different the KoM's scenario?
Here is a recap of what he said:
quote: If you pray tot his rock, you will have a spiritual revelation which will make you feel much better. Won't you try praying? But you must have an open heart and a contrite mind.
...
It didn't work? Well, clearly then you must not have been doing it right. Perhaps your mind wasn't open enough. Because I do earnestly believe that this enlightenment can come to anyone - if certain conditions are met.
quote: Do Mormons believe that suicide results in outer darkness or the lowest level of glory (Terrestial?) as this seems to suggest? This really isn't a set up or anything, I just didn't know that and wanted to make sure I was reading it correctly.
I would like to take a shot at this. Other hatrackers have done a good job of answering this question. I want to throw in my 2 cents that the scripture is about "enduring to the end." I think this should also be mentioned: There is an LDS belief that God will not test you beyond what you can bare.
At the beginning of the church, there was little understanding about psychology--this was certainly not the churches fault. There was a belief that if you followed the gospel, then there would be no mental illness. Since the pioneer trek to the west was so hazardous, most of the sick people didn't survive. There was little report of mental illness in the Salt Lake Valley (most had died) and this belief was reinforced. There was a culture of blaming illness on sin.
With strides in psychology and physiology, the church has come to recognize mental illness as something some people are burdened with by no fault of their own. The church has set up quite a comprehensive social and mental service support program.
If someone has committed suicide, there is a growing tendency to see them as victims of a mental illness. You can't be judged if you have no free agency--that is why children before age 8 can't sin. Someone who commits suicide obviously has some severe emotional and chemical things going on that might exempt them from their actions.
If someone takes mind altering illicit drugs and does something awful, then they are responsible for their behavior because they chose to tamper with their body/temple. If someone has a natural imbalance in their brain, there is a growing tendency to recognize that they may be judged by a different standard then the rest of "God's Children."
It is a good move I recognize in the church. I can see the shift through reading my wife's Ensign (church magazine) over time.
EDIT to add "and this belief was reinforced."
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can't be judged if you have no free agency--that is why children before age 8 can't sin.
In the sense that the level of one's agency is correlated to one's knowledge of right and wrong, this is a correct statement.
However, I would rather say that children are not held accountable for their mistakes until they know right from wrong. The quoted statement seems to hold that children have no free agency, which isn't incorrect (if free agency <--> knowledge), but still makes me squirm.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the sense that the level of one's agency is correlated to one's knowledge of right and wrong, this is a correct statement.
However, I would rather say that children are not held accountable for their mistakes until they know right from wrong. The quoted statement seems to hold that children have no free agency, which isn't incorrect (if free agency <--> knowledge), but still makes me squirm.
Interesting. I never thought of it that way. I always assumed free agency was tied to the knowledge of knowing good and evil, and kids minds are not mature enough to have that knowledge.
I guess I just assumed kids don't have free agency in Mormon Doctrine because I associate free agency with accountability, but I can see your point. I was only tying to show that there are different standards God uses to judge people. Thank you for the other perspective.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks to all responded to that question and especially Taalcon for that link. I think I understand that view better now. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
KoM's question is a dishonest one at its core, because it falsely summarizes my concept of spiritual confirmation as A) self-generated, since a "rock" is in no way divine, and such effort is therefore fruitless from the outset, B) fueled by the motive to "feel better" as if the seeker is unable to cope or think things through for themselves, and C) failure is justified by a glib response of "you're not doing it right" which makes success ultimately impossible.
I try not to argue with snarkmongers, especially when they change something into a false statement. The Anti-Mormon link about missionary tactics you offered earlier in this thread is another example of a subtle but insidious practice to redefine definitions from the get-go. Taking someone's words and altering them just enough to redefine it completely?
That's dishonest to me, and its tough to debate a lie.
That being said, I think there is nothing arrogant in believing that there is a method to recieve spiritual confirmation. It's like saying I'm arrogant because there is a best way to create water. I wish I could use helium and iron, but it's not going to work as well as hydrogen and oxygen.
Am I biased in favor of my own faith? Of course I am, because I know only what I've experienced and what I've seen in the last thirty-something years––the people I've known who have accepted, rejected, returned, or left the faith. Time after time the gospel I've been taught has proven true. But that's just me.
Prayer is a personal experience, and it varies from person to person, but the doctrine is clear: "Knock, and it shall be opened." It requires work and effort and a willingness to do things a certain way to get the best results. If someone takes a radio and drops it in water and unplugs the cord (hopefully not in that order) they're not going to get a signal. And if someone chooses to approach prayer believing God (or a particular faith) is a lie and that their behavior and mental focus has no bearing on the answer––they're not going to get the confirmation they seek.
As for yourself, do you assume your initial experience was a false testimony, then? If so, how can you be trusted that your current impression is correct? Were you duped?
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A) self-generated, since a "rock" is in no way divine, and such effort is therefore fruitless from the outset
But this is exactly what I think of your god! How do you know that a rock is not divine? Many people have believed just that.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, since God created the earth and everything in it, the rock is divine, because he created it. However, I agree that praying to it probably won't help you too much. Posts: 263 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Iem: As for yourself, do you assume your initial experience was a false testimony, then? If so, how can you be trusted that your current impression is correct? Were you duped?
Actually Lem, I have been wondering that myself. If, in the early years of your life, believed so strongly as you did, what would make you suddenly stop believing and think that it's all false. If you answer is too long to put here, then don't worry about it, but I am curious as to why you would do a 180 like after believing so strongly. What changed your mind?
Posts: 263 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel very much the same way that lem does. I was raised in the LDS church, went on a mission and was married in the temple, and while I still respect many aspects of the church and its members, I don't believe it to be literally true.
I'm sure lem can answer the question about what made him lose his faith personally, but I'll tell you one of many experiences that led me to question my faith.
I remember growing up in a strong Mormon family, going to church, and living a fairly clean religious life. I read the scriptures and prayed, never kissed a girl until I was 19 years old, never drank or smoked or took the Lord's name in vain and always paid my tithing. I was occasionally a bit of a smart-ass, but I had read and prayed about the Book of Mormon from an early age and got a witness powerful enough to keep me in line. And, seeing how some of my friends' lives turned out who didn't have that in their lives, I'm still glad that I had that testimony to guide me.
When I was in my early teens, I had a Sunday School teacher and scoutmaster I'll call R~. R~ was the coolest guy ever. He was hardworking and owned his own business, had a nice family, and took all his callings seriously. All the kids in the ward loved him, and their parents did, too. He always bore strong testimony of the church, and had one of the most wonderfully loving households I've ever seen. He was more than just a great teacher, he was a close friend to every kid in the ward. We'd all hang out with his family just like we would with kids our own age, and we never felt unwanted or out of place.
After I'd known R~ for a few years, he moved from the suburb we were living in to a house in a deserted area past the outskirts of the city. By then, most of the kids that knew him from the ward had drivers' licenses, and we'd all still go over there just as often as we would when he lived near us. He started getting more interested in outdoorsmanship and survival, and the way he talked about life and religion changed very subtly as time passed.
Soon, rather than discussing common gospel principles with him, we'd find ourselves talking about things such as the Illuminati, the corruption of the Federal Reserve, and the way the American government had been moving away from the principles that the country had been founded on.
It sounded a little different from what we had been taught in Sunday School, but he always found ways to back these things up from the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and teachings of early church leaders. Most of the people that went to see R~ assumed that this was canonized church doctrine, but we hadn't heard much of it up to now because we were still rather young and not ready to hear it. It was very empowering to be treated like an adult, a peer of one of the most respected members of the ward.
As R~ started opening our eyes to these new and exciting elements of the LDS church that we had been unaware of, he introduced us to a member of the church from Idaho that was running for President of the United States. The man's name was Bo Gritz. None of us had ever heard of him before, but he seemed to espouse the principles that I'd grown up with, and was a very charismatic and powerful man. R~ told us that God truly wanted Bo Gritz to be president, and that if he wasn't voted into office, the country was in serious trouble.
As we learned more about Bo Gritz and his platform, R~ asked us if we honestly believed that he should lead our country. We all believed him. R~ told us that, just like every principle in the gospel, if we were to know it for ourselves, we had to pray about it.
That night I went home, after thinking about all the things that R~ had been telling us since he'd moved to his new house, and got down on my knees and prayed about whether Bo Gritz should lead our nation. I prayed with great faith, humility, and a deep desire to know the truth. It took some time, but as I prayed I got a warm feeling. I got the same reassurance that God wanted Bo Gritz to be the president that I'd received all those times I'd prayed about the truth of the Book of Mormon and the LDS church.
After I'd had that experience, I joined the Bo Gritz campaign, even though I wasn't old enough to vote myself. As I continued visiting R~, he kept telling me more things about his understanding of the gospel that I hadn't known before. He told me, with very convincing logic and meticulously documented evidence, why he believed that there should never be temples built outside of America, because non-Americans must come to America or they can't enter God's kingdom. He told me that interracial marriage is a sin, because people of different races have different Gods. He told me that the current leadership of the LDS church had long since apostasized, and that Thomas S Monson in particular was an insidious tool of Satan.
Not long after I graduated high school, R~ sold his business and moved to one of the most isolated places in the entire state of Utah. It's 2 hours from the nearest town of any size, and everyone there lives in trailers because there's no way to transport cement for homes' foundations on the roads to the town. He didn't have an address, and to mail him a letter you just put his name and the town on the envelope. I went to visit him once, about two years after he moved there. The village was one of the most pristine and beautiful places I've ever seen. He'd bought a large ranch and learned how to live under the government's radar, since he believed it a sin to pay taxes or have a drivers license. He took another wife, and performed temple ceremonies in his back yard. It was one of the most frightening things I'd ever seen. As much as I still appreciate everything he did for me growing up, I haven't seen him in over a decade.
The thing is, R~ isn't a bad guy. He's not a child molester or a devil worshiper. He's one of the kindest, most caring people I've ever met. And I'm convinced to this day that he honestly believes in his way of life, and that he was trying to share it with me out of a genuine desire to help me. And that's more frightening to me than any malicious act he could have committed.
Ever since I was in high school, that experience has festered in my mind. I enjoyed serving my mission. I did it with my whole heart, and I'd never take back anything I said to anyone I met while I was in the field. But every time I told anyone that I knew the church was true, something in the back of my mind reminded me of the time I prayed about Bo Gritz, and how, to this day, I can't distinguish the answer I got about him from the one I got concerning the Book of Mormon. And eventually I realized that, for all the good that the church has done me, I don't have the overwhelming evidence I wish I had that it is literally true.
I don't know what lem's story is, and I don't know what would happen if a Mormon prayed to a rock. But I have been in the position of a believer and a non-believer, the line between the two isn't as clear as I once believed. The only thing I know for sure is that anyone who doesn't have respect and empathy for a person on the opposite side of the fence is doing himself or herself a disservice.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
I had the experience that I was positive I was meant to go to Iraq. I felt it so clearly. And then for two years I tried to find work there and it didn't happen. I don't understand these things, but they don't make me lose my faith.
I guess it's because I can tell the tree by its fruit. What eventually made you doubt your friend and Bo Gritz? (That name sounds like a joke name.) Was it that the fruits of what they taught began to go sour for you?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since the restored gospel has been such a good thing in my life, and since the companionship of a living God is such an amazing, regenerative force for good inside me, not only do I know they are real, but I want to continue to grow and learn more all the time.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
How do you define something being "literally true"?
I don't understand why the clearly misguided influence you received, totally contrary to church doctrine, would even be a matter of prayer. Since you believed the LDS faith enough to preach it, wouldn't their behavior be a clear sign? Good ole' Bo Gritz (I remember him well) was excommunicated by the church; why presume anything he (or any of his followers) said trumped the scriptures or the teachings of the prophet?
I'd love more insight here.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Was it that the fruits of what they taught began to go sour for you?
I love that you brought that up. The Biblical tests of truth, to me, have always made a lot more sense than the Book of Mormon Promise. "By their fruits shall ye know them" and "Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good" have long been some of my favorite passages in scripture. Not only do they make a lot of sense philosophically, but the LDS church really brings about a lot of good and stands up very well to those tests itself. Of course, like any organization, it's not perfect (as I'm trying to keep this positive, I won't elaborate on that). But they spend an incredible amount of money worldwide helping people, and there are also plenty of kids who never ruin their lives with drugs, or shorten them with tobacco or STDs, as well as become educated and involved in their community, largely because of the Church's influence. Some very good fruits, to be sure
However, when the Church is trying to convince people that it's true, they usually let that criterion go in favor of the one in Moroni. When I asked people whether they wanted to be baptized, I was never trained to ask them to examine the fruits of the church in making that decision. In the discussions we used, we always just asked them to pray about it and do what they felt was right, which doesn't hold up to scrutiny nearly as well.
In answer to your question, though, it actually wasn't the fruits of R~'s teachings that turned me off. To the last time I saw him, he still seemed as contented, and his family seemed as loving and functional, as any I'd ever seen. But when you try to present something as true tied in with so many obvious lies, it's hard to buy into it fully. In order to believe in his version of Mormonism, for example, I'd have had to believe that the anti-counterfeitting measures undertaken by the treasury were part of a vast government plot to monitor the movements and assetts of its enemies, and that Thomas S Monson had spent his life of service as a plot to steal the souls of gullible children. At a certain point, it just became too much to swallow, and then the whole thing fell apart.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: I don't understand why the clearly misguided influence you received, totally contrary to church doctrine, would even be a matter of prayer. Since you believed the LDS faith enough to preach it, wouldn't their behavior be a clear sign? Good ole' Bo Gritz (I remember him well) was excommunicated by the church; why presume anything he (or any of his followers) said trumped the scriptures or the teachings of the prophet?
I'm happy to discuss this with you, estavares. But from what I've gathered from that post and others that you've made on this thread, I expect to have a much more heated and less respectful debate on this than with someone like Tatiana. Which is fine, but I should warn you that I'm studying for a big test and I won't have time to really get into it with you for at least a couple of days.
That being said, I do have time to at least briefly address what you said here. I have two responses to the question that you posed.
First, at the time that I prayed about Bo Gritz he hadn't been excommunicated, the man that I'd learned about him from was a highly respected member of the mainstream Mormon community, and I had no reason to believe that what they told me was in any way contrary to church doctrine. They weren't trying to "trump" the scriptures. They regularly used the scriptures to explain and buttress their doctrine.
Second, even if I had been given a reason to doubt that what they said was fully in line with church teachings, I was still well within my rights, and the limits of the Promise, to pray about it. Moroni didn't say, "The church is true and the way you can know if anything else is true is if it lines up with church teachings." (In fact it's lucky he didn't say that... it sounds more like something you'd hear from David Koresh than God.) What he did say was, "...and by the power of the Holy Ghost you may know the truth of all things." In other words, you can come from Atheism, pray about the Book of Mormon, and know that it's true. You can come from mainstream Mormonism, pray about whether Brigham Young or Joseph Smith III succeeded Joseph Smith Jr, and know what the answer is. You can pray about whether Gordon B Hinckley is still in direct succession from Joseph Smith, or whether he's apostasized and Bo Gritz or Steven Veazey should be the new head of the church, and as long as you do all these things humbly and sincerely, with pure intent, you should get the correct answer every time.
That's actually one of the things I liked about the church growing up. I thought it showed a remarkable amount of trust to say that we could know for ourselves whether anything that the Prophet said was true. We didn't have to take anyone's word for it, but if we asked sincerely, God would show us for ourselves the truth of all things.
When I prayed about Bo Gritz, I did it as sincerely as anything I'd ever prayed about. There was no cynicism in it, and I wasn't trying to test God. If the Promise is true, and Bo Gritz wasn't God's choice for President, there isn't a single reason I shouldn't have been given a bad feeling, or at the very least a stupor of thought. But I wasn't. I was given a warm and comforting feeling that everything I'd learned, studied and pondered was true, and it was just as real to me as my testimony of the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith. And if you don't think that I had the right to ask under those circumstances, I guess we have a different interpretation of Moroni's Promise.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who say's Bo Gritz wasn't God's preferred candidate at the time? Just because he didn't win doesn't mean that God favored one of the other candidates more...
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) Bo Gritz is a freaking wingnut. You'll meet saner people holding urine-stained cardboard signs in the New York subway.
2) If he was God's candidate, the Mormon church as it stands today certainly isn't true. As estevares pointed out, he's been excommunicated, and the church is as proud to be associated with him as with the polygamists that have 14-year-old wives.
posted
Maybe when he wasn't running for President he wasn't so bad? Or maybe the other candidates were just worse?
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also feel similar to Iem and Speed. I was raised in the Mormon Church and left it at age 13. At that age, my reasons for leaving were far from mature and I now realize had a lot more to do with parental issues than it did with the church itself.
I went through a time about a year and a half ago when I was seriously considering going back to the Church. One of the things that stopped me is the same thing that bothered Speed, the unreliable nature of Moroni’s Promise. When I left the Church, I prayed about it a great, great deal and I felt the warm, comforting feelings as strongly as I ever had in my life. My bosom burned and there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that that was what God wanted. I was absolutely sincere in this request.
Other incidents in my life also make me doubt the validity of the test. I remember once my dad was instituting a new cleaning system or something of the sort in the house. I thought some aspect of it was unfair. He said that he didn’t want the decision to bring about contention so we should all pray about it. I prayed for a long time until I believed that God had communicated to me that it was indeed unfair. I told my dad and he told me that I had misunderstood because he had received revelation that it was correct, so I needed to pray until I got the “correct” answer. I wasn’t allowed to go to bed until I communicated with God “correctly”. It took around two hours but as I was starting to feel exhausted, I received the answer in dramatic clarity. I knew that my dad was right. Looking back at this event, it seems hard to attribute either answer to God. Yet, the burning of the bosom was there. The absolute clarity was there.
These events and more make me believe that the feeling of a burning bosom and absolute clarity do not necessarily come from God. This makes the test feel unreliable. Further, now that I’ve left the Church I still have that same burning of the bosom regularly. When I am deeply moved emotionally I feel the same thing that I used to attribute to the Holy Ghost guiding me. At times those feelings have been caused by things that are out of alignment with the teachings of the Church. Sometimes it is from things they do teach. For example, listening to Skousen's talk that BaoQingTian linked to in this thread moved me a couple of times. This conflicting data leads me to believe that these responses are emotional in nature and really don’t constitute proof of anything. I believe they reveal more about me than they do about God. Even if some of them came from God, there is no way of differentiating them from the ones that don’t.
All of this said, I have not been disingenuous in any of my questions in this and other Mormon related threads. I do not think that at thirteen one is taught a great deal of doctrinal issues. I think that I’ve learned a great deal about the Church in the past two years that I didn’t know seven years ago and there is probably still a lot more that I don’t know.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Speed, it's unfortunate you'd think our discussion would be heated and less respectful. I enjoy hearing other points of view––it's when others twist my words or get snarky that I'm less inclined to be, shall I say, subtle.
I'm passionate about my opinions. (Who isn't?) Obviously I'm not interested in anyone simply ranting or insulting beliefs I enjoy, but I also value seeing things from other perspectives. Heck, I even enjoy King of Men's perspective (until he gets mean), as it helps me see things through others' eyes.
I want to give some quality time to respond to this discussion, so I'll come back to it later. Thanks for the response.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Estaveras, it is times like this I could sit and talk. Talking goes faster and has a certain flow, but I will attempt to address your post here. Lets start here:
quote: The Anti-Mormon link about missionary tactics you offered earlier in this thread is another example of a subtle but insidious practice to redefine definitions from the get-go. Taking someone's words and altering them just enough to redefine it completely?
That's dishonest to me, and its tough to debate a lie.
I needed to go back and re-read what I wrote. Here it is for reference:
quote: However, the above link is not malicious. I feel it takes a neutral view of missionary work. As a RM (return missionary), I can confidently say that what they present about he missionary goals and book is true. I don't find it snarky.
Neutral was a poor word choice. It sounds like I am saying it is unbiased. Of course it is biased; it assumes the church is false. When I read sites like that, or Steve Benson, or the Origins of Mormonism (Grant Palmer), I am struck by how well they quote Mormon scripture, prophets, practices, and doctrine. My wife has her major in Japanese History from Japan. She is Japanese and very Mormon.
One of the things that fascinates her about Japanese History is how much is edited by the government. She never learned or believed the atrocities that Japanese soldiers committed in Korea and China—until her Masters. I have compared studying Mormon History to her study of Japanese. If she only read approved government history (which has been altered), her education would be incomplete. From reading multiple sources she was able to get a more grounded understanding of History.
I meant to express in “neutral” the willingness to not only use “anti-Mormon” literature, but to also rely on Mormon text. Usually they rely heavily on Mormon text. There is a tactic for some adamant apologetics to not address the message but to attack the character of not-friendly-to-Mormonism discussions. When you talk about being insidious and dishonest, while not addressing the content of the link, you place yourself in that camp. I am not sure if you were referring to me or the link, but I found it offensive because you do not justify your accusations.
Here is an opportunity to prove I am wrong. What definitions were redefined? What has dishonest about that link? The first page summarizes and provides a quote from Elder Packer’s talk. How was his taking the Palmer metaphor one more level being dishonest or insidious? This next quote is certainly more neutral then what you will read in the ensign. “…the investigator is unencumbered with this dilemma between exploring the whole truth and being loyal to the church. He is investigating the church because he wants to find out what the juror does: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. To find that out, he has got to explore both sides.”
I have found more honesty in works like Palmers then in the Ensign. When Palmer provides a bibliography to all the Ensign covers that show Joseph Smith translating the BoM as a classicist would and commenting on how the majority of the translation was done by placing his head in a hat, how is that being more dishonest then the church? Obviously that is just a short example, but the “milk” before “meat” mentality has been used to hide detail.
It may be “tough to debate a lie,” but it is not difficult to expose one.
quote: KoM's question is a dishonest one at its core, because it falsely summarizes my concept of spiritual confirmation as A) self-generated, since a "rock" is in no way divine, and such effort is therefore fruitless from the outset, B) fueled by the motive to "feel better" as if the seeker is unable to cope or think things through for themselves, and C) failure is justified by a glib response of "you're not doing it right" which makes success ultimately impossible.
No it is not. He is not summarizing anything. He is talking about the method you use to arrive at your beliefs. We are debating how we receive truth. A) You assert that there is divinity. Everyone is not on the same page that divinity is a “given.” If there is a Divine, we are not in the same camp that accepts it is found in Mormonism. For you to insist he accept there is a Divine and therefore your method of learning truth is correct, then you are in a circular argument. You insist we accept your divinity so that we can use that said divinity to prove it is divine. Huh?
b) You are the one proposing that emotional revelation is more accurate then logic. I did not detect “motive” in his post, and if it was intended, it is irrelevant to the process. C) Don’t you understand the hypocrisy? You insist that others are not praying right if the truth of the church hasn’t been revealed to them, and then you accuse KoM for being glib for saying the same thing. He was showing you how glib your position is, and it worked. You see it is glib but mistakenly think it doesn’t apply to you.
quote: That being said, I think there is nothing arrogant in believing that there is a method to recieve spiritual confirmation. It's like saying I'm arrogant because there is a best way to create water. I wish I could use helium and iron, but it's not going to work as well as hydrogen and oxygen.
It is nothing like saying there is a “best way to create water.” If you insist on bringing science into this, don’t cry foul when I compare it to science. No matter what anyone believes, helium and water will all work better then helium and iron. In science we get consistent results regardless of beliefs. If the result is not duplicated, then either the hypothesis is wrong or the method was flawed.
In science we can measure method. In spirituality we can’t measure method, so it is EXTREMELY arrogant for you to assume someone else was not as sincere, pure, or honest as you. You are telling someone else they “are not doing it right,” and as KoM has shown, that is a glib response.
Speed has done better a job of expressing the error of emotional proof with his respectful and humble personal experience then I can in my argumentative state.
quote: As for yourself, do you assume your initial experience was a false testimony, then? If so, how can you be trusted that your current impression is correct? Were you duped?
I will address this in another post later. This post is too long. My short answer is “no I was not duped.” I do not believe anyone was deceitful who shared their testimony with me. People usually need to believe in something. I was raised Mormon. I am grateful I understand this new world religion. I appreciate my youth leaders, bishops, and my mission experience. I certainly wasn't duping anyone when I bore my testimony.
EDITED for clarity and changed "was" to "wasn't" at the end of the post--kinda changes the meaning .
posted
I guess I never expected or hoped that any human leadership of any church would be infallible. And I suppose the method of receiving revelation isn't infallible either for either the members or for the leadership. I really do believe that the General Authorities are just people. They may be touched with many gifts of discernment and wisdom, and certainly I expect many blessings would flow from devoting one's life to God's service, but if even Brigham Young could say some of the things about black people that he did, and on down the list, if each of the prophets' words were examined closely, then I think anyone would have to admit that they simply aren't infallible. But is there a real power of the priesthood to act in God's name? I feel it absolutely is true. I have not the least doubt of that.
But I agree that it isn't perfect. I'm not sure why not, but perhaps it's important that we continue to ponder and search and strive to figure things out ourselves, too, rather than just turn our moral agency over to either the church leadership or else the revelation we get from the spirit. And maybe it's important that the church not be seen by others to be too overwhelmingly advantageous to join, so that people end up joining for worldly reasons, or something. <laughs> Reading back over that it sounds to me like my theories are pretty silly, so I don't put any faith in them, but I put much faith in the church, and in the guidance I've received from it, and the change-of-state that I experienced when I underwent baptism and confirmation.
I'm not very active in my ward now, and have been more and less active in spurts since about a year after I joined. I find it much easier to be LDS by reading the Ensign and the scriptures, and studying other church materials like the Teachings of the Presidents books, and through my personal prayer life, than in person at a ward. I pay tithes faithfully, contribute to the PEF, fast, give to humanitarian aid, and consider myself a faithful Mormon, but I have to take actual weekly service and callings in small doses or I start to feel alienated from the church. I've been assigned visiting teaching, but I'm only managing to do it about half the time. But I totally believe in the power of the priesthood, and of the saving ordinances. I don't really even have to believe, because I just know, because I feel it directly.
I wonder, Speed, how that feeling ever left you, and if you want it back, or if you think that it was a mistake on your part, or what.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I put much faith in the church, and in the guidance I've received from it, and the change-of-state that I experienced when I underwent baptism and confirmation.
That is an awsome sentiment. It is among reasons like yours that I support my wife going to the church and taking our son. I hope you know I enjoy reading your posts.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Nope, I wasn't attacking you personally. Hey, we just met.
Realize I have strong opinions, but I preface my reply by saying these are meant in the spirit of good-natured discussion, and are not intention to insult, deride, or demean. But I do have the right to call attention to arguments taken out of context or misrepresented.
Here we go...
First, that site you linked earlier in this thread comes initially across as a helpful, objective site for those meeting with the missionaries––when, in fact, it is designed to twist motives, scripture, quotes and methods and advertises false conclusions to push a very specific agenda.
You wrote:
quote: There is a tactic for some adamant apologetics to not address the message but to attack the character of not-friendly-to-Mormonism discussions. When you talk about being insidious and dishonest, while not addressing the content of the link, you place yourself in that camp.
When the character of the discussion is not objective, but designed to use dishonesty to sway an argument, I feel it's important to call a spade a spade. For example, the site says the following:
quote: ...(an) obligation to defend the church supercedes educator's responsibility to present an accurate and balanced representation of the truth...
This clearly implies the missionaries are lying when they teach, or purposely "avoiding" certain topics. A website making this and many more statements certainly isn't neutral, and it is malicious in its presumption that missionaries try to lie, trick, dupe or otherwise fool people into conversion. I certainly hope that wasn't the kind of missionary you thought you should be, because that wasn't what you were taught at the MTC.
'Nuff said. Back to the question at hand. You wrote:
quote:In spirituality we can’t measure method, so it is EXTREMELY arrogant for you to assume someone else was not as sincere, pure, or honest as you. You are telling someone else they “are not doing it right,” and as KoM has shown, that is a glib response.
I never said anything about someone not being as sincere, pure or honest as myself. I never even thought such a thing...because how rude and silly would that be? What I did say was that there are conditions by which prayer is far more effective.
But let's not take things out of context. Relying only on prayer and not combining it with our own good judgment is inconsistent with doctrine. To rely only on getting a "warm feeling" isn't accurate; reading chapter seven of Moroni proves that well enough. The whole purpose is to gain independant confirmation––not because the missionaries say it's right, not because doubters say it's wrong, but for each of us to use our brains and our spirits to learn for ourselves if this faith works for them.
Consistently we're taught to do what we feel is right; sometimes we get confirmation immediately, sometimes much later. If prayer was the only means, we'd ultimately have no moral agency as we'd simply be summoning the Lord at every single crossroads in our life.
If I come across as arrogant, plying my own brand of prayer to the exclusion of others, I've been misunderstood. I can share only what I've experienced and seen myself; when the process works over and over again, I advocate it.
quote: A desire to be led by the Lord is a strength, but it needs to be accompanied by an understanding that our Heavenly Father leaves many decisions for our personal choices. Personal decision making is one of the sources of the growth we are meant to experience in mortality. ...
We should study things out in our minds, using the reasoning powers our Creator has placed within us. Then we should pray for guidance and act upon it if we receive it. If we do not receive guidance, we should act upon our best judgment.
EDIT...'cause my dang links don't seem to work right...The link I provided worked initially, but now doesn't seem to. I can reference the specific talk, if desired.
posted
Sometimes it might be harder for people who have grown up in the church, and always felt the blessings of that good guidance in their lives and in their family lives, to see the contrast fully. My family for the three generations I knew well, has always been full of people who meant well and wanted to do right. That's quite a blessing to begin with, but even given that, the fact that we didn't have the gospel in our lives is something that made a profound difference.
Without getting too personal here, I will just say that there was alcoholism, and abusiveness, and attitudes that led to a wrong approach to life, and a whole lot of unnecessary sorrow. How I wish all my great-grandparents had been exposed to the restored gospel and accepted it. There is a wholeness that it brings, if we follow it diligently, through which (as I can look back in time and see across the generations) all the little rents and shredding of the fabric of my family could have been mended and made so much stronger. From the absence of alcoholism, to the absence of the idea that people we don't like should be treated poorly, tormented and made outcast, to the money spent on cigarrettes, coffee, and booze that could have been spent on education and investment for the future. To be born in a multi-generation LDS family is to inherit something quite precious, which comes through the good guidance of the church. It comes through our personal efforts as well, of course. But unless our efforts are directed well, they don't seem to be able to do the same good.
Of course, LDS families aren't perfect either, but they have such advantages! Every time I read one of the lessons on how to treat one another with love at home, I tear up. The hymn "Love at Home" is one I can barely sing. When I see the homes of my sisters in Relief Society, and watch older children helping younger children with love and gentleness, my heart just jumps. When I read lessons about spouses treating each other with love and respect, and when I realize the truth that the gospel tells us that each individual is a precious child of God, of inestimable worth, and know that it's true because I've seen it borne out, then I know again what a huge blessing it is to have this church, and the restored gospel, in my life.
Though I find it hard to become real friends with the people in my wards (my real church friends have almost all been either online friends or missionaries), yet I still will continue trying. I know the hang up is inside me. I knew all along this would be hard, because I'm so not a joiner. But I can't see ever giving up. I just *am* a Mormon. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, I have seen the difference, because my extended family has seen so many negative consequences from living contrary to the gospel which they originally accepted to be true. Heck, I've seen it in myself.
I really understand Pfresh's issues because mood disorders run in my family (I'm one of the few who isn't bipolar) so traditional means of "feeling good" in the gospel can be elusive. I believe in the manifestations of the Spirit because I have felt independent direction when I was often inclined toward a much different end result. But I also strongly believe that we must abide by certain spiritual concepts to be in tune––again, using myself as a living experiment.
That balance is a tough one, so I can only rely on my own experiences and those around me as proof of the validity of my belief system. We each bring a different experience to the table, however, so I appreciate others' perspective.
EDIT: Grammar/spelling, 'cause there's no spell check...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is sort of not related to the current conversation but is related back to the main topic. The missionaries were supposed to come by at 5:30 on Wednesday. They didn't show up though. They did call after 6:30 (when I was already heading off to class and had my phone on silent). They haven't called since then though. I'm not sure if I scared them away or if they took my not answering as me not wanting to talk anymore. *shrugs*
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
pfresh, I'm not sure what happened but it might be that their previous appointment kept them late. That seems to happen to missionaries a whole lot.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The two I've been talking to recently have always been on time (or even a little early). This time was the only time they've failed to show up in the agreed upon time frame. *shrugs*
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The missionaries’ ultimate goal is to "find, teach, and baptize." If you are unwilling to make the commitments that would lead to baptism, it is very likely you have shifted away from one of their top priorities. They really don’t have time to keep answering questions. The field is white and they are out there to harvest.
The church has seminaries, institute, Sunday school, BYU, publications, and outlets like the media to teach deep doctrine. A missionary’s responsibility is to bring souls to Christ through the waters of baptism.
There purpose is to educate only as far as needed to get you to make commitments they feel will aid you in achieving a testimony. If you are after pure education you may consider a different source--maybe sign up for an institute class.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is I asked them about that. I said I didn't mind meeting with them, in fact I wondered if I was wasting their time. They said I wasn't and that they were always glad to talk to me because at the very least I provoked some new thoughts in them. So I doubt very much that the reason they didn't show up on Wednesday is because I've moved down on the priority list. I think something probably came up and they had to miss. That would be my guess (which is reasonable knowing some of the stuff they had going last week).
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't heard back from them. They haven't called or come by or anything. I just assumed after a few days had went by that they had given up on me. *shrugs*
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I decided to bump up this thread rather than create a new one. I sent an e-mail to one of the Mormon guys I talked to (unfortunately not one of the missionaries, since I don't know how to get a hold of them). It's about a book I've been reading and a possible reason for why I've had difficulty with the Book of Mormon. I've pasted most of the e-mail below. Feel free to respond. I look forward to responses.
So anyways, I was recommended a book by a girl in one of my classes two weeks back. It's a book called Blue Like Jazz, and it's listed as a "nonreligious discussion of Christian spirituality." It's a little less clean than a lot of books about spirituality, but I think it still has a good message. In one part of the book, the author talks about a friend of his (I think her name is Laura, but I'm not positive and I don't have the book on hand at the moment). He says that she had real trouble accepting God. That she wanted to go about logically reasoning why there should be a God and what not. She struggled with this difficulty for a long time, at one point even crying and saying that she wanted to believe but she just couldn't make herself. It wasn't until some time later (after staying up late reading the Bible and praying) that she was finally able to get past this need for logical arguments and was able to believe on faith alone.
At first, I didn't think a whole lot of this story, other than "Well it's good that she finally found God." Then it hit me: her experience with God and the Bible in general is much like my experience with the LDS church and the Book of Mormon. Since I grew up in a Baptist family (and went to church more or less every Sunday until I was 12), I never really had a need to question God or the Bible. I mean I am a logical/rational-oriented person, but I never saw the need to make a rational question of those things. It was just something I believed, something that felt true in my heart. This basis of faith is what kept me from ever logically questioning the Bible (not that I didn't raise questions about certain things; it's just the accuracy and truthfulness of the Bible was never in doubt in my mind). With the Book of Mormon though, it was something different. Going in, I didn't know much about it, aside from exaggerated things people said about it. A good portion of my family (with the exception of me and maybe my sister) felt that Mormons were sort of silly in some of their beliefs (not to say they were bad, but just that they were different and it was a difference we didn't really understand the reason for). So coming into the Book of Mormon (reading it and thinking about it), I already had a lot of doubt built up about its truthfulness. As I read it, I tried to analyze it rationally, picking apart all the little details. If you remember my discussions with the missionaries, a lot of stuff was either nit-picking details or stuff that just didn't make sense to me. I think many people in the LDS faith are born into it, and (much like my own experience with the normal Bible) they grow up having faith with no real need to overly analyze their religious doctrines. For me, I don't have this faith, this feeling that the Book of Mormon was true and that even while questioning it I knew that it was true for sure. Instead, I started on a base of uncertainty. Much like the Laura in the story, I had problems with logically reasoning it out; somethings made logical sense but other things took a sort of leap of faith to fully trust. Also much like Laura in the story, I struggled. There were times when I really wanted to believe, but I just couldn't make myself do it. Faith isn't something you can force, it's something that has to come to you I guess. For me, my faith in the Book of Mormon hasn't come around yet. All I have is my own sort of intellectual curiosity about it.
I still pray every night, asking God to give me guidance and show me the way I need to go to live the right kind of life. I also ask for forgiveness for the mistakes that I've made and the times that I have fallen off the path. I believe at some point that God will show me the right way, and I won't feel so uncertain about some of these things. I guess until then though it is a waiting game.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
pfresh - I'm pretty new to Hatrack, been lurking for a long time, but finally got myself a voice. I'm glad you revived this thread and I've had a chance to read over it.
As a lifelong Mormon, I have to truly appreciate the things that you just said. My faith in the Book of Mormon is so strong that at times it seems difficult for me to understand how others cannot immediately see the truthfulness of it when they read it. But I think that what you said is right. I've never had a NEED to question it. That's not to say that I haven't, but I have never had to have the book "prove" itself to me, so to speak, starting from ground zero. I've also had the benefit of having insights of those around me who have read and believed the book.
I'm touched by your search for truth. Truly. I find nothing more commendable than someone who cares enough to question and is humble enough to look for answers wherever they may be found.
I haven't read this entire thread, so I don't know if I'm repeating anything anyone else has told you, but I would also add that accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God is an integral belief in the Mormon culture. I, for one, will tell you that I believe in his experience in the Sacred Grove as truth, as much as I believe my own reflection. But the basis of my belief comes from a personal experience that can only be proof enough for myself. Bottom line though, if he was a prophet, the Book of Mormon must be true. The two are inherently linked.
Whatever you find to be the truth, I thank you for sharing your search with us. It helps my own faith when I see how others view religion and God. I feel confident that God answers every prayer. That's not say that they are answered right away, or even in the manner that might be what we would choose, but I know He's hearing you. I sincerely hope that you find what you are looking for.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
