Do You Know Any "actives" Who Question?

[Cal]

Do you know any members of your ward or branch who come to church, but who don't necessarily believe in all the "revelation" stuff, JS story, BM or other church "myths" as you see it. They just come, perhaps, because they have grown up in the church. It is their social group, or their family attends, or they just like being around other mormons. For what ever reason they attend church.

IOW, do you think it is hypocritical to attend church when you know that you don't believe in the same way 99% of the rest? If you feel perfectly nice just sitting there listening to all the nice positive assertions, a feel a good "spirit" when you go to church, even though you are not about to get up and bear your testimony or give a talk (knowing that if you are honest you will send the little blue-haired RS ladies into cardiac arrest). So you just enjoy the sociality, help out in the service functions and keep your mouth shut about how you interpret Mormonism.

You've been through the temple, married in the temple, pay tithing, follow the WoW (even better than the 300 lb Gospel doctrine teacher) and actually live the same life as the best of the other LDS; this person doesn't lie to the Bishop and tell him he had a testimony, so he doesn hold a temple recommend; this person just doesn't happen to believe in the same things as the others. Perhaps he/she tried to get a testimony, but at the end of all his prayer,study, reading and research came to the conclusion that the Church is a very nice place to be on Sundays, but is nor more than that, a very nice place to be on Sundays.

What do you think about this kind of thing? Has it happened to you? To anyone you know?

[Jenda]

Wow, Cal, you just described my situation to a "T". With one exception. I am a member of the Community of Christ/RLDS, and they, as a church, are pulling away from believing in the restored gospel and everything that goes with it. (I will put in a disclaimer that there are individuals who continue to believe that very deeply, but that is left up to them to believe.) I, personally, believe in all the peripheral stuff that makes a religion a restoration religion, the BoM, the JS,Jr. story, the angel visitations, the restoration of the priesthood, etc., but I go to a church that doesn't believe it, especially the branch I attend. But I attend anyway. I pay my tithes. I am active in worship planning, in social events, etc.

Why? I ask myself that often. It creates a lot of stress, not just in me but in the people around me who are hurt by my actions (for example, I can't take communion from a woman, yet women have been ordained into the priesthood since 1985, and I know that not taking from them hurts them.) Why do I still attend when I believe so differently? Probably because I still believe it is the church that God restored, and while it may be slip-sliding away, He will reach forth His hand to steady it and bring it back to it's restored greatness. I am tempted to leave it on occasion, but the thought of leaving something that I believe God restored is unfathomable. So I stay and am miserable, and create misery in others, but, oh well.

[Cal]

Jenda--how interesting! I didn't realize you were RLDS. There are certain things that I think JS was very insightful about. I like his stand on economic justice when he said "it is not right that one man should possess that which is above another, therefore the whole world lieth in sin" (parapharased perhaps). The present LDS church has gone along way from that.

I put the posting in the third person because I wanted to phrase it as "what should a person do", not what "I" should do. Maybe it is good that I am only a marginal believer in such a benevolent church. Perhaps if I were in a more strict and critical church, I would not feel welcome. I'm sure many of the people in the ward wonder about me since I don't take specific church jobs anymore (even though I am quick to say yes to the one-time service jobs ie helping the little old ladies mow their lawn kind of thing, or visiting the sick etc.) I don't much go to Priesthood meeting because it is so mind numbingly boring; I will occasionally attend just to make sure that no full-scale apostacy has taken place.

I've been in the church all of my +50 years and have noticed that there is a trend I would describe as "anti-intellectual". I used to hear talks that sounded like Mormons were supposed to think for themselves and pursue intellectual interests, and be true to their senses of truth. Now it seems like the theme is, "yeah, get educated, but if your education leads you to discover something that is not supportive of the mormon "myth", shut your eyes to it and ignore it, and whatever you do, don't share it with anyone in S.S. class. It's become as though there is no room for individuality or original thought. Just believe what you hear in Conference, and the L--d will take care of the rest.

My problem with this kind of thinking is that it smacks of the same kind of rhetoric used by dictators to brainwash their soldiers into hating their enemies to the end of making war on their neigbors.

I've been in Wards where the leaders were much more open to ideas that would not be considered today as "mainstream". Now, you get excommunicated for communicating anything that sounds "out of harmony with the Brethren".

Nevertheless, most of my family and in-laws are good faith believers and are nice warm and kind people who I enjoy associating with. I know that if I unloaded all my "discoveries" on them it would destroy our relationships, which is something that means more to me than what I believe or don't believe about mormonism.

[Jenda]

Cal, I don't know how much you know about the RLDS church, but back in the 50's and 60's we were described as "moderate mormons". We accepted/believed the things that made a church a restoration church without all the baggage that has been associated with the LDS church. Now, though, the church is pulling away from those beliefs, or re-defining them, if you will.

We are encouraged to come to our own understanding of what those early experiences meant and/or mean for us today, or we can discard them if we want. The same thing with the BoM. The church has moved it down from being foundational to our denomination to being a book that supports the Bible. We can accept it as history/scripture, we can discard the history part of it and just accept it as scripture, we can accept it as just another good book, or we can discard it. The priesthood is no longer to be looked at as restored, it is to be taken as part of the whole community of priesthood that is present in the larger community of Christian churches.

I realize that we can't make people believe in things, but I think that as a church we should take some stands on some things. This is what frustrates me. There is no room for us true believers anymore. They say there is, and they tolerate us being there, but with each step towards complete liberalism that they take, more and more of the conservative true believers feel set adrift. Sometimes, I look longingly at the way the LDS church has steadfastly adhered to the beliefs they have embraced. Sometimes I wish I could embrace those things so I could become a member of a church that does proudly proclaim that they believe in something.

It is hard trying to fit in where you don't really fit in. You can just do it as a social outlet, but I think that that is a pale substitute for finding a place where your beliefs are accepted and embraced (and you for having them), and the fellowship that is enjoyed by those with similar beliefs. That is my opinion (because it is how I feel. )

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 26 2004, 08:37 PM

Do you know any members of your ward or branch who come to church, but who don't necessarily believe in all the "revelation" stuff, JS story, BM or other church "myths" as you see it. They just come, perhaps, because they have grown up in the church. It is their social group, or their family attends, or they just like being around other mormons. For what ever reason they attend church.

What do you think about this kind of thing? Has it happened to you? To anyone you know?

Well, there's you Cal.

Now, you get excommunicated for communicating anything that sounds "out of harmony with the Brethren".

Rubbish. I teach Priesthood all the time, often from way out in left field. I've yet to be communicated, let alone, excommunicated.

Prominent case in point: Grant Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origens. Last time I talked to him, his book had been out for at about a year. He was still active, non-excommunicated, and serving as High Priest Group Leader. His highly critical book, probably more so than Quinn's books or Wright's work or Hank's book... etc, obviously must have been well-known to his Bishop, Stake President and the Brethren and as of that time, his Bishop hadn't even discussed it with him. Let's forget the hyperbole and settle for just plain bole, shall we?

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 26 2004, 10:46 PM

Rubbish. I teach Priesthood all the time, often from way out in left field. I've yet to be communicated, let alone, excommunicated.

Have you ever preached one of your "The Bible sucks" sermons from the pulpit in Sacrament Meeting?

[Snow]

Originally posted by bat+Jan 26 2004, 10:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Jan 26 2004, 10:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Jan 26 2004, 10:46 PM

Rubbish. I teach Priesthood all the time, often from way out in left field. I've yet to be communicated, let alone, excommunicated.

Have you ever preached one of your "The Bible sucks" sermons from the pulpit in Sacrament Meeting?

Uh, well, yeah, that's more of a debater's position I take. In reality I am not nearly so antagonistic, though I certainly don't disguise my misgivings about an infallible, literal Bible, but that is not so outlandish an opinion in LDS circles.

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 26 2004, 10:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 26 2004, 10:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -bat@Jan 26 2004, 10:50 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Jan 26 2004, 10:46 PM

Rubbish. I teach Priesthood all the time, often from way out in left field. I've yet to be communicated, let alone, excommunicated.

Have you ever preached one of your "The Bible sucks" sermons from the pulpit in Sacrament Meeting?

Uh, well, yeah, that's more of a debater's position I take. In reality I am not nearly so antagonistic, though I certainly don't disguise my misgivings about an infallible, literal Bible, but that is not so outlandish an opinion in LDS circles.

Bashing the canonized scriptures as an academic exercise. I like that. Big points for you. :)

[Snow]

Originally posted by bat@Jan 26 2004, 11:04 PM

Bashing the canonized scriptures as an academic exercise. I like that. Big points for you. :)

Not exactly; more like bashing an unrealistic view of canonized scripture, though I admit it sometimes comes across the way you describe it. Now, didn't I just criticize Cal for his use of hyperbole?

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 26 2004, 11:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 26 2004, 11:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bat@Jan 26 2004, 11:04 PM

Bashing the canonized scriptures as an academic exercise.  I like that.  Big points for you. :)

Not exactly; more like bashing an unrealistic view of canonized scripture, though I admit it sometimes comes across the way you describe it. Now, didn't I just criticize Cal for his use of hyperbole?

"translated correctly" now equals "bashing an unrealistic view of canonized scripture"?

A correctly translated scripture is one that consists of a realistic view, not one that has been "translated correctly"?

[Blessed]

We have some in our church who do not believe certain basic things. Nothing irritates me more. When they espouse their "crap" I share my testimony of the Risen Christ that much more.

[Paul Osborne]

I’ve seen many a person struggle with the gospel for a variety of reasons and it’s hard to tell what point or points they have a hard time with because I’m not a mind reader. But, there are many good brothers and sisters that attend Church even though they have testimony problems.

I don’t have any problems with the doctrines of the Church but I do recognize that all things therein have to be faith promoting and we don’t really have the opportunity to explore some of the things that might challenge our faith from the perspective of those who have fallen from the faith. Oh well, I can do that on the Internet-- and there is never a dull moment!

I think some of the stuff produced by FARMS is crap and I don’t trust Hugh Nibley. The mainstream apologetic effort to defend the BofA is hopelessly inadequate and I find Hugh Nibley to be less than honest. I think my website is an honest approach to get to the real answers. I do however trust President Gordon B. Hinkley and his associates to be men of God, honest in every way-- faith promoting men who seek our best welfare. :)

Paul O

[Guest estump]

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/excerpts/36-2b.shtml

Article by Robert Kirby...which seems appropriate for this thread.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by estump@Jan 27 2004, 11:21 AM

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/excerpts/36-2b.shtml

Article by Robert Kirby...which seems appropriate for this thread.

Oh Erin...you are awesome! Thanks for bringing Kirby by....LOL I love him...

[Cal]

It's good to find that you all seem to recognize that there is room for a variety of points of view in the LDS Church.

Snow--tell that to M. Quinn regarding his vocal position on womens rights and the ERA etc. Nevertheless, I will admit that I was overstating the problem--even though on a certain level it is true.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by estump@Jan 27 2004, 11:21 AM

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/excerpts/36-2b.shtml

Article by Robert Kirby...which seems appropriate for this thread.

Where did you get that link Erin?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by estump@Jan 27 2004, 11:21 AM

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/excerpts/36-2b.shtml

Article by Robert Kirby...which seems appropriate for this thread.

That's a great article. I got a kick out of the High Priest's off the wall comments in Priesthood meeting. I would point everyone to Jeffery Holland's recent conference talk about "doubting" LDS, but I'm too lazy to find it. It gives the opinion of the "higher ups" towards doubting members.

[Cal]

curvy--I've got the impression that some of the GA's these days are preoccupied with anything that appears as dissention, doubting, questioning or controversy. I can't really blame them though. Being intelligent types, they have to be aware of the strong effect that "easy access" anti- stuff is having on a lot of people regarding the roots of the Church.

[Guest antishock82003]

You mean the Internet? I wonder if one were to do a study on the increased usage of the Internet in the general population, and compare that to the increased numbers of Church resignations if you'd see a correlation.

I know for a fact that it was the Internet that led to my resignation. If it hadn't been for RFM I probably would've remained in the Church suppressing my doubts. Hmmm...weird.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Guest antishock82003]

At some point or another throughout my life, I had a “good feeling” when reading the Book of Mormon and interpreted that feeling to mean the book was correct. It was difficult explain away those spiritual experiences when logic seemed to testify against the perceived truth. It is, however, easy to understand the socialization that leads to a so-called “answer to prayer” that the Book of Mormon is true. In my case, I was raised from birth to believe that if I would sincerely ask God if the Book of Mormon was true, He would tell me it was through a “burning in the bosom”, or good feeling in my heart. The "if" clause in this promise places the responsibility of gaining a testimony of the Book of Mormon on the person praying, not on God. If I did not receive an answer that the Book of Mormon was true, it was assumed I was not sincere in my desire to know the truth. Typically, a child from an LDS family becomes an official member of the church at age eight. Often, this is when the child is encouraged to sincerely begin to pray about whether the Book of Mormon is true. At this young of an age, I was so trusting of my parents and leaders that I obviously received the “correct” answer to my simple childhood prayer requesting a testimony of the Book of Mormon. I was praised for testifying of my new-found answer that the Book of Mormon was in fact true, and commended for the sincerity I must have shown when I asked God if it was true. The validation I received from others only increased those “warm feelings” that I thought to be proof that this book was scripture. Even as a man, I struggled to find new interpretations to the spiritual experiences I felt I had had with the Book of Mormon.

I thought about the idea of a "spiritual witness", and how I've had spiritual experiences with the Book of Mormon in the past. The ultimate response to any valid criticism of the book is that you can only confirm its truth through a "spiritual manifestation." I feel, however, that my "spiritual manifestations" earlier in my life regarding the book were due largely to my surrounding culture, and the enormous amount of support for the book in my life. If I think about the book, and how great my life is, how much I love my family and ward members, how much I love God, why wouldn't I get warm fuzzies?

The problem was, whenever I thought through everything in the BoM, it was OBVIOUS that it's bunk, a farce.

The Mind Vs. Feelings, right?

Anyways, I think it’s basically impossible if the Mormon is convincedof the Truthfulness of the Gospel to show him the light. If you’re too pushy, you get the “I know it’s true, my faith won’t be shaken,” that we’ve all said or thought at one time or another. Often, “anti-Mormon” arguments can strengthen a Mormon’s faith. I suppose the best way to do it is to just do it, and not worry about their response. Some people will come around, many won’t. It’s all about seed-planting...you never know when it’ll sprout. I think it takes a period in a person’s life of dissatisfaction with the church, combined with an open mind, for someone to finally come around. At least, that was my situation. Before and after my mission, I experienced enough doubts that when I had the opportunity to go on the internet to Defend the Faith (here at LDSTalk...and no, I wasn't any good at it...no suprise there) I went visited RFM to understand why some Mormons who had been at LDSTalk defending the faith left the Church. After a mission of defending the faith and “knowing” the church was true, I was deeply dissatisfied with the church for some reason (you don't really spend time entertaining your doubts...you just put them on the backburner and try to ignore them...thus leaving you generally dissatisfied). That was when I found RFM, read the stories, realized I wasn’t alone, etc etc.

I guess my point is that eventually seeds can sprout, even in people who figuratively stick their fingers in their ears and shout, “IKNOWTHECHURCHISTRUEIKNOWTHECHURCHISTRUEIKNOWTHECHURCHISTRUE!!!” Some of the people on RFM are evidence of that. There are bishops, a mission president, counselors, RM's, Stake Presidents, and many people who were as LDS as it gets (and to be fair...NeverMo's, Not-So-Mo's, and Jack Mo's). So, you never know.

[Ray]

Antishock,

My question to you is: How do you know that you know the truth NOW?

If the Book of Mormon is NOT true, how do you know that?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 27 2004, 03:08 PM

curvy--I've got the impression that some of the GA's these days are preoccupied with anything that appears as dissention, doubting, questioning or controversy. I can't really blame them though. Being intelligent types, they have to be aware of the strong effect that "easy access" anti- stuff is having on a lot of people regarding the roots of the Church.

Elder Holland's talk really surprised me. I had always thought of him as one of the milder, kind-spirited GA's. His talk was very strong and threatening. By threatening, I don't mean he threatened church action against doubters and skeptics, but eternal consequences to these things. To further my surprise, a few speakers later, Boyd K Packer gave a delightful, almost lighthearted talk. This was either two or three conferences ago. I guess he's a little tired of always being the heavy.

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by Ray@Jan 27 2004, 04:54 PM

Antishock,

My question to you is: How do you know that you know the truth NOW?

If the Book of Mormon is NOT true, how do you know that?

I guess my answer to you Ray, is that I know the BoM is just as Not True as Santa Claus. Untestability is a logical fallacy...which is the only the way that I understand the BoM to be thought of as True.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by curvette+Jan 27 2004, 04:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Jan 27 2004, 04:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 27 2004, 03:08 PM

curvy--I've got the impression that some of the GA's these days are preoccupied with anything that appears as dissention, doubting, questioning or controversy. I can't really blame them though. Being intelligent types, they have to be aware of the strong effect that "easy access" anti- stuff is having on a lot of people regarding the roots of the Church.

Elder Holland's talk really surprised me. I had always thought of him as one of the milder, kind-spirited GA's. His talk was very strong and threatening. By threatening, I don't mean he threatened church action against doubters and skeptics, but eternal consequences to these things. To further my surprise, a few speakers later, Boyd K Packer gave a delightful, almost lighthearted talk. This was either two or three conferences ago. I guess he's a little tired of always being the heavy.

Curvette -- Although I was also surprised at the tone of Elder Holland's talk, I thought, upon reflection, that his logic was pretty sound. That is, if a parent is ambivalent about the Church, his children won't, by definition, be able to rely on the parent's example of ironclad faith to prop up their own faith, and some of those children may be the worse for it.

(On the other hand, I also know examples of children of hard-core Mormon parents who were alienated from the Church by their parents' religious inflexibility, and to the best of my knowledge no one has ever given a Conference talk warning of the dangers of being too Iron Roddish.)

What troubled me the most about Elder Holland's talk was what seemed to be a glib dismissal of the reasons why some people find themselves in a position of ambivalence towards the Church. By the words he used, he seemed to suggest that the only reasons a person could be anything but firm in the faith were that the person was "cynical" or liked to think of himself as "clever."

Joseph Smith once remarked that his story was so remarkable that he probably wouldn't have believed it himself, if it hadn't happened to him. Although some people have concluded otherwise, it seems to me that there are enough potential problems with Mormon scripture and history that a person's decision to believe in the Church must be based on a spiritual confirmation of the truth of the work, or on a conscious decision to apply a different standard for evaluating the Church's assertions than he uses in evaluating other propositions. Why do some Church leaders, then, try to make it seem as if acceptance of the Church's teachings should be a person's "default" setting -- that if he doesn't accept them, there's something wrong with him, like cynicism or an affectation of cleverness?

I still find Elder Holland one of the most interesting of the Apostles to listen to, along with Henry Eyring, Dallin Oaks, and Neal Maxwell -- although the last's alliterative speaking style has been so interminably imitated that it's slowly starting to smother its successfulness.