The Folk Prophet

A liberal complaining about solving cultural problems with political solutions....
 
Hmmm...

A liberal complaining about solving cultural problems with political solutions....
 
Hmmm...

A liberal complaining about solving cultural problems with political solutions....
 
Hmmm...

This is an interesting thing, and something that conflicts a bit in my own understanding of teaching, helping others, sharing the gospel, etc.  Where, I suppose, do we draw the line of sharing our faith building experiences to help build others faith, and keeping our mouths shut? That's a tough one methinks.
 
Goes along with the paradox of let-your-light-so-shine and do-not-your-alms-before-men I suppose.

Whether or not our prayers meet with the same answer is unimportant, as long as we are all receiving bona fide revelation from God. Truth is large and we are small. If you and I ask God the same question, both in faith, and we each receive an answer according to our level of understanding, we may be assured that each answer is correct. But since we are not identical people and are likely at different levels of understanding, your revelation and mine might be somewhat (or very) different in content. Thus, my revelation is mine, private, not generally shared, and the same with yours.  Then you probably do not understand what I'm talking about. Or maybe I don't understand what you're talking about; you refer to 'the Great Debate' as if it's a thing, a known quantity, an understood and ongoing concern, but I am not familiar with the term in the present context. My concern is not philosophy. All philosophy is foolishness, however much I personally may engage in it. What I ultimately care about is divine truth, and divine truth is not discovered through philosophical meanderings. It is discovered through revelation, and only through revelation.  
If you read the OP carefully, I think you will see that its motive was actually quite the opposite of that suggested by your warning. The "select few" who are privy to divinely approved answers are those who seek the Lord in sincerity, humility, and mighty faith. God is no respecter of persons, so this is a self-selecting "select few".
 
 
Two siblings were discussing the birth of their younger sister.
 
Billy: Sally came from the cabbage patch.
Bobby: No she didn't! The stork brought her!
Billy: That's ridiculous. A stork's wings aren't large enough to generate the necessary lift to carry an infant human. She's clearly from the cabbage patch.
Bobby: Don't be naive. Does Sally look like she's full of chlorophyll? Soft tissues are not generated by plants, which have rigid cell walls.
Billy: Hey, I know! Let's go ask Mommy!
Bobby: Shame on you for attempting to shut down our useful and informative debate.
 
My suggestion is not that inquiry cease. Rather, I suggest that we go to the fount of knowledge and drink deeply of the pure water, rather than drink downstream after the cattle have waded through it.

Why does this sound familiar to the many gospel issues as well?

It's worth pointing out that the phrasing in the scriptures is "vain repetitions". I don't doubt some blessings on the food qualify, but I would think the solution would be to stop the vanity not pray less given the scriptures also talk of praying always.

I'm not saying strong testimonies cannot be lost. Of course someone who was once strong in the gospel can fall away. Even the elect may be deceived.
 
What I'm talking about is why this happens. And my plain contention is that it does NOT happen against our will and choice. We are not victims of apostasy. We are not victims of failed faith.
 
Yes, we can be victims of hurt, despair, confusion, and other mortal weaknesses. But not of the choice that God has given us by way of Agency to accept or reject His gospel.

Joseph Smith's self-reflection on this topic (his mistakes) is as follows:
 
Although I do wrong, I do not the wrongs that I am charged with doing; the wrong that I do is through the frailty of human nature, like other men. No man lives without fault.
 
Joseph is accused of a great many things, most of which I expect are either simply false or taken wildly out of context. I personally see very little of what Joseph did as "blunders". In his position, I would never have done half so well, nor IMO would have any other man (or woman) who criticizes him.
 
In my view, the membership's problem vis-à-vis Joseph Smith is less an application of the false doctrine of infallibility and more a lack of application of the true doctrine of faith in the words of a prophet.

This is an interesting thing, and something that conflicts a bit in my own understanding of teaching, helping others, sharing the gospel, etc.  Where, I suppose, do we draw the line of sharing our faith building experiences to help build others faith, and keeping our mouths shut? That's a tough one methinks.
 
Goes along with the paradox of let-your-light-so-shine and do-not-your-alms-before-men I suppose.

In sci-fi and comic books, continuing story lines sometimes introduce new material that seems to contradict something established earlier in the series. "Retroactive continuity", or "retcon", is making up creative (or sometimes not creative) explanations to make the "old" story fit reasonably well with the "new" facts.
 
This is a perfectly acceptable pastime with fictional stories -- a rather fun game, in fact. But I see what look to me like similar attempts often made to explain how Elements X and Y of the gospel work together. For example, the many early explanations of why blacks could not be ordained to the Priesthood or participate in temple work (besides baptism for the dead) were, in effect, a retcon attempt to explain how the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and the higher law that went with it could fit together with the doctrine prohibiting African blacks (but not those black-skinned people of other origins) from receiving these authorities and blessings. In reality, we don't know what those reasons are; any of the "old" explanations that have been openly disclaimed as LDS doctrine might indeed be true. The same principle applies to the "explanations" offered by many putative Latter-day Saints today to explain away the Priesthood ban as "racism" or some other leadership vice. It's all retconning, and in the end, it's probably all nonsense.
 
I would think it obvious to any believing Saint that such things should be avoided. Sadly, they are not. The previous situation is but one example (going in both "directions", as it were) of exactly this phenomenon taking place among those who should have known better, or at least should have been much wiser. But the same thing happens every Sunday in gospel doctrine classes around the world, where people come up with the most marvelous and inventive explanations for this or that scriptural teaching. I do not exempt myself from being guilty in participating in such nonsense. Along with many of you, I have done this very thing on this very forum. It seems one of our less tractable human weaknesses.
 
But we believe a REVEALED religion! That means that, unlike those early "Christian" philosophers of the first few centuries AD, we have something far more reliable to depend on than reheated Platonic philosophy and inventive but hollow explanations about things we just can't understand so let's make something up.
 
How would it be if, when we had a question or deep concern, we took it humbly to our Lord in fasting and mighty prayer instead of whining about it and making sure everyone else knew all about our oh-so-perceptive concern? How would it be if, instead of finding some way to say what a pervert Joseph Smith was or what a racist Brigham Young was or what hidebound ignoramuses the prophets have all been, we kept our mouths shut and went to God with our questions, assuring him that we could be trusted with important information and certainly wouldn't blab it all over the place if given such revelation?
 
I don't know, but I have a guess. My guess is that we would have a whole lot more personal understanding of the gospel than we actually have. My further speculation is that there are many among us, perhaps not as a percentage but still surprisingly numerous, who already do exactly this, and who as a result have great knowledge given them that is withheld from the rest of us because we don't ask in faith.

A very fascinating discussion indeed. For me my faith is constantly shaken due to issues that I've shelved time and again. My testimony of the Book of Mormon is based on an answer to my prayer of faith where I felt a great peace come over me that I believe to be a witness of the spirit.
 
If I am stubborn in my contention that this feeling was from God than I have my answer and there can be no higher appeal to be made. This is great except that I have have felt the same feeling on numerous other occasions that seemingly led me astray (not into sin, but the answers that came didn't turn out the way I interpreted the feeling to indicate).
 
This leads to a conundrum that is at least two-fold. On the one hand I can't trust the feeling that I perceive to be the spirit guiding me to be constant and true, on the other hand I can trust the feeling... but not my interpretation of its meaning. Either way the result is the same. If I can be wrong about interpreting it now or in the past, how do I trust that my witness of the Book of Mormon or anything else is true. How do I trust spiritual witnesses in the future?
 
So if I take the spiritual witness off the table for what I can rely on to build my testimony and faith, I feel left with reconciling my faith doctrinally by digging into the scriptures. This works to a point as I feel confident that the scriptures make a very compelling case for "mormonism" as it were, but obviously proof is elusive - hence the faith thing.
 
I've fought with this for over a decade, but I have never felt as sure about the gospel truth as I did when I received my testimony of the Book of Mormon which seems forever tainted by the possibility that I set myself up to have a feeling that I convinced myself was an answer when neither are true. The other struggle is that I have never enjoyed attending church services, so part of me would love to prove the church wrong so I could stop going, while on the other hand I would be devastated if the organization I have dedicated so much of my life to - paying tithing, going on a mission, home teaching monthly, etc. is a fraud.
 
Are unresolved cyclical doubts the same as shaken faith syndrome? 

LiterateParakeet, on 24 Nov 2014 - 03:18 AM, said:
 
I'm interested LitPara. You're applying personal experience to ALL the world. That strikes me as a stretch. As much as I accept that any of us can fall away if we do not remain diligent in our obedience, study, faith, prayers, and the like, the context of your post seems to imply that it can hit anyone in spite of these things. I would be interested in hearing more about your experience (if your comfortable sharing) and how you have come to this conclusion, assuiming I'm not reading too much into it.
 
As a broader discussion, I'd like to discuss the causes of shaken faith syndrome and what we can do to avoid or overcome it.

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.

There is great wisdom in trusting in The Lord *first and foremost* and withholding judgement and resisting the temptation to feel we're duty-bound to reach the same conclusion that somebody else reached. We may greatly respect them, love them, trust them, find their reasoning highly compelling, logical, believable, etc. But despite all of that, we need to receive our own witness. And we need to hold to the witnesses that we've already received.
As TFP points out, what about archeological evidence or lack of "sufficient" evidence, what about "proof" ..? How often do we hear somebody saying they've proven a point and so the only intelligent, logical, reasonable thing for us to do is to accept their argument.. and their conclusion.. As though a cunning and/or a well-crafted argument is enough to establish truth.
Truth is independent of arguments and logic. Truth is not established by our limited understanding of it. If we truly believe that our Father is the embodiment and source of all truth then it is essential that we learn to completely trust Him and believe that he has the ability to help us reach the *right* conclusions .. despite our weakness, limited understanding, and impatience.
It's ok to admit, as Nephi, that you don't "know the meaning of all things." All things will be revealed in time. Hold fast to the good and take Pres. Uchtdorf's advice to first "doubt your doubts."

Bini, I find your post interesting, as approximately 20 years ago I had my name removed after having been born a raised in a family that has been LDS since the church was very young.
I have been in heavy prayer, study, and consideration for some time now, concerning returning.
I left with some sorrow, much guilt (betrayal of family), but was sure I was doing the right thing.
I now realize, with sorrow, that my baptisim, blessings, etc, are no more.
The realization of this (though of course I always knew it... I had just never addressed it in anyway) is something I found slightly difficult to deal with.
Just make sure you are very certain in what you are doing. It may bring painful regret in the future.

I explained that with the Vs (or thought I did)
 
We have a disconnect between what God said and Means... and what we think/presume/add to what he says and means.
Its the second bit that causes the shaking.  In the case of the Church being true... People presume/add to it the idea that because it true then the flawed mortals running it will run it perfectly to their expectations.  When that fails they get shaken.

Obviously, this idea is not true.

Obviously, this idea is not true.

True...  But being challenged or having doubts is a far cry from what most people think of when we use the term shaken faith.  Most people (or maybe its just me?!?) when they hear or talk about shaken faith think the "Oh no! Everything I know/believe is wrong/false" 
 
For example if I gain a witness from God that the Book of Mormon is true.  That should remain true even if at a later date I find out that the Church lied/deceived/mislead me causing me to doubt the Church.  

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

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

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.

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?

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