Jwrenf02

my basic point is that gospel discussion at church sometimes isn't organic. sure there are parts of the manual that ask questions, but what are the answers- preformed standard Mormon answers, which I'm not a fan of because we say them without conviction and with little thought. I think revealed truth is gentle persuasion not compulsion. I think it's foolish to believe that God is not still revealing truth, and that all discussion is now somehow over. I don't believe in doctrinal development. I believe In the development of people. People develop better when their intelligence is respected. To say doctrine develops is to say truth is changing. The doctrine has always been the same. For example, how foolish is it for us to say that the restored gospel stands or falls on the first vision. The gospel was always the same. The first vision changed nothing in this respect. The first vision stands as a confirmation and witness of revealed truth. We see prophets as the source of truth rather than revealers of truths that already exists. When we see truth as separate from people and organizations, after all all truth exists independently in the sphere in which God created it, then I think we can be more sincere in our convictions.

I feel like the rewards are different. What's the true path of honor? Is it not humility? This is the paradox of the gospel. The rewards of lucifer are external. The rewards of Jesus are internal or intrinsic. This is the lie of Satan, we couldn't return progressed human beings under his plan of external compulsion.

I'm beginning to see the fallacy of what i see as living in the past. I was looking at an article about the New Zealand templeview community where the church just built a new David O McKay center. Inside was a mural of the first vision. My first thought was "is there no Maori people who had spiritual experiences?" Why, notwithstanding the veracity of Joseph Smiths vision, do we misunderstand its importance? Joseph Smith was somewhat reluctant himself to share it since he viewed it as personal, but we ignore the message Joseph wanted us to have- that a person can ask of God and receive wisdom. What's our takeaway - that Joseph smith is a prophet and hense his successors in the apostleship are prophets today. But, this view detracts from the intended message. Hugh Nibley said it best, "it's enough to say God speaks through prophets and nevermind what he says." On my mission someone asked me "wow God appeared to a little boy. What did he say?" I honestly hadn't anticipated the question, because I like many mormons are looking at history through a very myopic lense. Joseph Smith vision just means 15 awesome guys lead our church and nothing more. Do others feel like our basing our belief system on a superficial understanding of past experiences is detrimental to building a strong faith today?

A few days ago. I posted a question on ask Gramps. I'm very grateful for the site because at church you're really not allowed to ask questions. I feel shared belief should be a dialogue between people, but at church beliefs are somewhat forced on you without discussion. This is because of our teach from the manual system. It doesn't anticipate deviation, and our knee jerk reaction is to view deviation as apostasy or disruptive. I feel we are too scripted. Early mormons surprisingly allowed for unscripted flow. It was quenching the Holy Ghost to speak from a script. How can we create an open forum at church to build our faith?