The Folk Prophet

Hmm. Maybe this is where there is a disconnect -- in referring to belief and faith based on a testimony of the character of Joseph Smith or the like. These things are not a testimony. Alright...sure...from an actual meaning of the word, they could be called a testimony. But from the meaning that is common to the LDS term "having a testimony", they are not. Having a testimony does not mean liking the church because of it's policies, practices, etc., or believing Joseph was a prophet because he was a swell guy. The meaning of having a testimony means having a sure witness from the Holy Ghost of the truths of the gospel, including the fact that Joseph was a prophet, etc. Therefore, if one's so-called testimony (which is no testimony at all) is based in mistaken things, then it is an entirely valid understanding to see a falling away or struggles of faith as stemming from a weak testimony -- because they do not have a strong testimony in the things that are actually meant when we refer to people having testimonies.

I'm not sure how "it's true" can mean something different than what it means. Many things are not black-and-white, of course. But the church being true or not pretty much means what it means to my thinking. It is or it is not. If the Spirit has witnessed to me that it is true (which it has), then prove anything to me about it -- Joseph was a con man, the Book of Mormon is proven false by archaeology, the Book of Abraham has no correlation to the Egyptian scrolls, etc., etc. -- and it makes no difference to me. The church is still true. The Book of Mormon is still true. The Book of Abraham is still scripture. Maybe it would have been a cleaner example to put it in terms of the Book of Mormon. If I have a witness that the Book of Mormon is true and then I find out that it was supposedly all based on another manuscript, and concrete archaeology proves it false, it will not cause me to doubt it's truthfulness, for God has witnessed this to me, and there is no witness that can be more sure. So I have to ask, what you mean by, "...probably should cause one to re-evaluate what the Lord meant when he confirmed it was true..." ??

Lucky4341, You're not interested in the church for the wrong reasons. But, ultimately, the foundation of your activity in the church MUST be built on the solid ground of testimony and a witness from the Spirit of the truth and divinity of the church and it's message. This will be true of your husband as well. He may someday investigate the truth claims of the church more seriously from a spiritual point of view because of the example and joy he sees in you for having done the same. So your best bet is to approach the church and your involvement therein from a spiritual point of view and a relationship-with-Christ point of view. That means prayer, pondering, scripture study, and an exercising of faith and humility to turn your heart to God.

More directly, one might also put it: If I have a witness that the church is true, that should remain true even at a later date if I find out that the church supposedly lied/deceived/misled me, and that discovery does not cause me to doubt the church in spite of what I have learned.

Challenges and questions are not the same thing as having one's faith shaken to my thinking. We will all have our faith tried. That is part of the test of life. We receive not the witness until after the trial of our faith. Ether 12:6 "And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith." But we may all remain absolutely steadfast and immovable (as compared to "shaken") through these trials. Here's Neil L. Andersen on the matter: "These fiery trials are designed to make you stronger, but they have the potential to diminish or even destroy your trust in the Son of God and to weaken your resolve to keep your promises to Him. These trials are often camouflaged, making them difficult to identify. They take root in our weaknesses, our vulnerabilities, our sensitivities, or in those things that matter most to us. A real but manageable test for one can be a fiery trial for another. "How do you remain “steadfast and immovable” during a trial of faith? You immerse yourself in the very things that helped build your core of faith: you exercise faith in Christ, you pray, you ponder the scriptures, you repent, you keep the commandments, and you serve others." ... "By definition, trials will be trying. There may be anguish, confusion, sleepless nights, and pillows wet with tears. But our trials need not be spiritually fatal. They need not take us from our covenants or from the household of God. ... "Like the intense fire that transforms iron into steel, as we remain faithful during the fiery trial of our faith, we are spiritually refined and strengthened."

We do this by taking up our crosses and following him. We put our burdens on the Lord by taking His burdens upon us, for His yoke is easy.

Obviously, this idea is not true.

Um...no. Just...no.

Sometimes I feel like instead of asking the Lord to bless the food I'm about to eat that it will nourish and strengthen me, that I should apologize for the food I am about to eat, because I really know better and I'm eating it anyway.

Like other similar statements, this seems too all encompassing and black-and-white, imo. Should we really believe that because some experience shaken faith that all must? This was the point of the original post in this thread too. I can understand that many do have experiences with faith faltering, and that we are all at risk if we do not remain vigilant. What I'm not so sure about is the idea that it is unavoidable.

So here's some thoughts I've had related to several of the above posts: 1. Faith is not the same as peace. Having peace, no confusion, no emotional, mental, or physical struggles is great. But All of us will face all of these things. I think, based on some things I've read and heard, that there may be some confusion here. Some seem to think that if they hurt, struggle, feel confusion, etc., that their faith must be weak. This is not always the case. 2. Some do, however, attach their faith to their emotional, mental, physical, or other trials, and thereby have their faith get shaken when they face such trials. 3. Testimony is a different thing than faith and conversion. Testimony is a witness of truth, but it does not mean that one is converted or faithful to that end. We can see examples of this in the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon. All of them had testimonies which they never denied. All three of them faltered to some degree in their faithfulness to the gospel, and showed short-comings in their conversion. 4. Testimony may not be a choice. If we have no witness, we have no witness. Faith, on the other hand, is a choice, and may be exercised despite testimony. 5. Doubting something is, indeed, second guessing one's testimony in that thing. It is a weakening of that witness. It is a weakening of testimony. 6. Understanding that someone is having a faith crisis is not labeling them as apostate. Weakness is specific to any given idea, however, so if they are "weak" in a specific area, then understanding that they are weak a good thing. Pretending they're strong when they're not helps no one. Apostasy, on the other hand, occurs only if false thinking is accepted as valid.

Respectfully, I disagree. The two concepts are totally incongruous. If you have the strongest of faith then you cannot feel you've been misled. They simply do not align, imo.

I appreciate the thoughts. By way of expounding on things and furthering the conversation I had the following thought: So I'm not sure using Joseph Smith in liberty jail or Jesus on the cross and their experiences of feeling abandoned translates to shaken faith. Joseph, being human, of course did not have perfect faith, though we don't really know what his faith level was based on his mourning, but certainly the savior never experienced shaken faith.

If two people both learn the so-called "fairly tale" history, and then they both discover the so-called "true" history, and the one experiences shaken faith, and the other does not, then what would you ascribe the difference too if it is not testimony?

Umm...because of what I just explained.

Are you suggesting that her faith and testimony was exceedingly strong but she decided that the church wasn't true anyhow?

So I've been thinking about it and I had this thought: It seems like there are certain people who are incapable (and, to be fair and to stick with my "not a victim" ideology, I'll change that to "less capable") of separating thought from emotion. Specifically, they struggle with thinking differently than they feel. (This may be incredibly biased to say...but it may be more common in the women. ) I wonder if that plays into it at all. Ultimately, feeling strongly about something has no bearing on truth. Example: Plural marriage is or is not a true principle. How any given person felt about it in the day, or feels about it now, that has no bearing on it's rightness or wrongness. But if they brought plural marriage back, how many would experience shaken faith syndrome from it because of how they feel? -- Even if they were not required to actually live it (which hardly anyone was "required" to even back in the day). Many shaken faith issues seem to stem, ultimately, from emotion rather than intellect. Sure, many claim intellect. It's not (imo). It's how the feel about what they learn and think that really matters. Anyhow...it's a thought worth considering. I wonder if being able/learning to separate our thoughts from our feelings somewhat is not an important part of the test here. Take the Abraham example. No one would feel good about having to do that. But do we obey in spite of our feelings? That may be key.

What? Is your Googler broken? https://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=who+wrote+man+in+the+mirror edit: Please note that my Googler is Bing. Heheh.

Very much enjoying. Very moving. Please go on when you can. Thank you for sharing what is obviously deeply personal.

I don't think anyone's making pumpkin pie for our thanksgiving dinners (that's right...I said dinners...plural...my family always celebrates it on Friday...so...yeah...) this year. I told my wife this morning that I'm going to make myself a pumpkin pie for myself to have later in the day. It's the only time I really get my very favorite desert!

Wrong!

MJ didn't write Man in the Mirror.

And I'm not saying you said we should back down. You shouldn't assume everything I say is contrary. :)

Why did this post make me hungry? :)

The iron rod (from Lehi's dream in the Book of Mormon) represents the word of God. So in LDS-speak, when we say hold or cling to the rod, that's what we mean.