Obstacles to our faith


lattelady
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest mormonmusic

My biggest obstacle is that I'm not human. I have a high IQ for a gorilla, but it doesn't cut it.

I've taken all the missionary discussions, and have petitioned my Bishop for an interview; refused. I even cut my mane and have started wearing pants to Church. Nothing.

Edited by mormonmusic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What is the biggest obstacle to your faith?

Mine is my own lack of consistency in studying the Word and applying it. I know that is where truth lies, and still I neglect it.

Faith as in faith or is it faith as in religion we abide in?

Faith is not an issue but a personal weakness that plagues us that even I have, which prevents me from moving to the next level. It is the same weakness, which is why I still live another day in mortality and spared from death on many occasions this year alone.

One thing I have learned, the love of our FATHER and His beloved Son for each us. No matter what we do, if we keep getting up in moving forward towards our desires, our goals, our eternal prospect, HE will always be there for us. Even to carry us or lift us up to HIS level.

Showing gratitude and love towards those of lesser fortunate is an issue for me with members in the church. It reminds me of the time when the Nephites in last days have nothing in common, even to creating classes of people among them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what my biggest obstacle is to my faith cuz my list is long. Which reminds me I don't know exactly what you mean by faith. Do you mean faith as in following the tenants of my church OR do you mean actually exercizing faith in the trenches of life? Heck! maybe its the same thing.

I guess I have many weaknesses that try to get in the way of my faith. Sometimes its fear or blindness cause I can't see outcomes or maybe I want to control them. Other times its frustration with others and their lack of love. Sometimes its pride or laziness or emotional pain..... or some combination of them working together with the temptations of Satan.

My family and I just recommitted to reading the scriptures every morning before school. I am always amazed at how much power reading the scriptures adds to my life. It's crazy to watch. My kids are visably happier and they leave the house with a little extra light in their faces....in their countenances. It is crazy cool to witness.

I love the scriptures. Reading them is one of the best things about living my religion. There is not any other source that has impacted or helped my life along.

Here is a person I do admire and respect.

I have learned some valuable lesson from her with a past post [still small voice]. I am in deep gratitude dear sister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, even our own history of this nation is tainted.

Exactly... That's the problem. Perfection doesn't exist in this world. Perfection came about 2000 years ago and the world rejected it. Since then, it hasn't come back.

So whenever something good happens, like, for example, the beginnings of the USA as a nation, we tend to completely romanticize it and turn it into something it wasn't. Jefferson had many slaves, and even had affairs/children with his slaves. Ben Franklin was a philanderer. But how often are we taught this in school? In school we get a romanticized version of it all, and we see these people as people that they actually weren't. Yes, they did great things. Yes, they even advanced the purposes of God. But they were not perfect, and still made mistakes.

...and it's the same in sunday school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic

I agree with this, but liked the comment someone else made on this forum -- that you go to Church to have your faith strengthened.

If you want to explore less faith-promoting side of our History, you can take a course at BYU, or get a book by a credible historian on the topic, or do other forms of self-study.

Personally, it's not worth the risk for me personally to shake my own, ever-challenged faith. Also I do have a spiritual witness the gospel is true. So, I don't go looking for negatives that might detract from my faith.

But yes, there was a period when I was taking a course in critical thinking, and left Sunday School feeling really frustrated that everyone was just making comments to shore up the point of the lesson, rather than to discuss the facts critically. It was there that I realized people are there to be strengthened, and putting forward ideas that detract from faith aren't consistent with the purpose of Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only problem is that it causes serious problems with people that were raised with the popularly publicized version of church history and then find out it wasn't QUITE like they thought it was. It makes them start questioning everything, even if they things they found out have little importance. It causes disillusionment. THAT's the problem. I like going to church to have my faith strengthened, but I would have liked a little more accurate accounts to have helped prevent the disillusionment/shock that came from reading the historically accurate accounts years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly... That's the problem. Perfection doesn't exist in this world. Perfection came about 2000 years ago and the world rejected it. Since then, it hasn't come back.

So whenever something good happens, like, for example, the beginnings of the USA as a nation, we tend to completely romanticize it and turn it into something it wasn't. Jefferson had many slaves, and even had affairs/children with his slaves. Ben Franklin was a philanderer. But how often are we taught this in school? In school we get a romanticized version of it all, and we see these people as people that they actually weren't. Yes, they did great things. Yes, they even advanced the purposes of God. But they were not perfect, and still made mistakes.

...and it's the same in sunday school.

I think this may be one of the biggest challenges for religious people. I don't spose we know how to deal with imperfection (in ourselves and others or in our religious organizations) so we just don't look at it or we allow it to eclipse the good in an event or a person or a movement. I guess I am wondering if its really true that mistakes can undermind the goodness or trueness of a person or a church and what kind of wisdom it takes to discern when the roots of something have become corrupt or a happy fiction as the case may be.

Specifically inside the LDS faith, I see the people who CAN handle the imperfections in the history or in the people and I see those who are trapped inside of idealism who can't manage the balance yet....who either lose all faith or clear vision. I really do think that Jesus would support efforts towards perfection with emphasis on patience and acceptance and mercy of the imperfection along the way. Sometimes I think there are strong underlying themes inside the gospel that are trying to lead us to this more mature and wise place. Perhaps if we could expand our abilities to view things and people there would be less apostasy, less judgementalism, less self reproach, and more true devotion and repentance. I like the BofM when it uses the term "effectual struggling". So easy for us humans to lose balance and tip to one side or the other. Perhaps, though, that is part of the effectual struggle as we learn to rise above ourselves. :)

Edited by Misshalfway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jefferson had many slaves, and even had affairs/children with his slaves.

This is nothing but slanderous gossip. No such thing has ever been shown, historically or genetically.

Ben Franklin was a philanderer. But how often are we taught this in school? In school we get a romanticized version of it all, and we see these people as people that they actually weren't.

As people they weren't? You mean that Franklin didn't invent the Franklin stove or bifocals, or write Poor Richard's Almanac?

History also does not record George Washington's bad breath or John Adams' chronic diarrhea. Those things are not germane to the important role those men played in history. It is not "romanticized" or "whitewashed". It's relevant.

...and it's the same in sunday school.

So here we reach the telling part of your rant. What awful things do you believe are being hidden from the Saints in the whitewashed, romanticized, untrue teachings in Sunday School?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell you, it took Joseph Smith more than four times and many years later in writing the First Vision. Yet, my testimony is asking the same GOD the same question as Joseph did, but adding, if Joseph Smith was called by HIM, will never be shaken even if the First Vision was not exact. Exactness is not always a given in this life.

We have our moments living in this physical body when we try to recollect our past and put them in writing. I have that difficulties myself in remember some of those precious moments thirty years ago. This is where GOD demands us to keep a journal.

Even when we look at Moses writings and then Abraham’s writings, compare the same of what is considered the genesis [beginning] of this world, may not shake my testimony even if GOD would share with us a slightly different account today.

I know the Savior on a few account, would reprimand the Prophets with correction of scriptures or missing writings. I have my moments when being reprimanded. :)

What can shake our faith if our faith is that Jesus is the very Christ and Joseph was called by Him to be His restoration prophet? Nothing….not even misguided historical accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is nothing but slanderous gossip. No such thing has ever been shown, historically or genetically.

"It has been pointed out that although the DNA tests effectively ruled out the Carr brothers from paternity of Eston, and any Jefferson from fathering Thomas Woodson, it did not conclusively prove that Jefferson or any other member of his family was the father of all the Hemings children. Jefferson had a brother, Randolph, who had five sons. One possibility put forward in Nature later was that one of Jefferson's paternal line relatives such as his father or grandfather had fathered a child or children with slaves and that slave, or a descendant of that slave, became the father of Hemings's children. Dr. Foster agreed that none of these possibilities could be genetically ruled out, but a preponderance of historical evidence currently cites Jefferson as the father."

-Summarization of several references, provided by wikipedia.

As people they weren't? You mean that Franklin didn't invent the Franklin stove or bifocals, or write Poor Richard's Almanac?

History also does not record George Washington's bad breath or John Adams' chronic diarrhea. Those things are not germane to the important role those men played in history. It is not "romanticized" or "whitewashed". It's relevant.

You're doing the exact same thing. Bad breath and diarrhea are both things that don't matter and never have mattered. Here, you're simply trying to demean the point. Affairs do not compare with bad breath, and they never will.

So here we reach the telling part of your rant. What awful things do you believe are being hidden from the Saints in the whitewashed, romanticized, untrue teachings in Sunday School?

Awful things? When did I ever say they were awful things? They're simply surprising, and sometimes shocking.

What a wonderful blast of negative vibes I'm getting from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It has been pointed out that although the DNA tests effectively ruled out the Carr brothers from paternity of Eston, and any Jefferson from fathering Thomas Woodson, it did not conclusively prove that Jefferson or any other member of his family was the father of all the Hemings children. Jefferson had a brother, Randolph, who had five sons. One possibility put forward in Nature later was that one of Jefferson's paternal line relatives such as his father or grandfather had fathered a child or children with slaves and that slave, or a descendant of that slave, became the father of Hemings's children. Dr. Foster agreed that none of these possibilities could be genetically ruled out, but a preponderance of historical evidence currently cites Jefferson as the father."

-Summarization of several references, provided by wikipedia.

And what, pray tell, is the "preponderance of historical evidence"? Or are you comfortable citing Wikipedia as your primary source? Does the fact that Jefferson's brother was known to have sexual congress with slave women while Jefferson himself was never shown to have had any such relations, except as imputed to him by his political enemies, have any bearing in your estimation?

You're doing the exact same thing.

The exact same thing as what?

Bad breath and diarrhea are both things that don't matter and never have mattered. Here, you're simply trying to demean the point. Affairs do not compare with bad breath, and they never will...Awful things? When did I ever say they were awful things? They're simply surprising, and sometimes shocking.

You are apparently intimating that some important figures in Church history (one can only imagine you are talking about Joseph Smith himself) was guilty of having sexual affairs. Are you claiming that you are not suggesting such things, or are you saying that sexual affairs are not awful, merely surprising?

What a wonderful blast of negative vibes I'm getting from you.

Yes, I tend to be rather impatient with enemies of the Church and with those who equivocate about their intentions. It's a failing of mine, which I openly admit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't even matter whether jefferson was the father of the child or not, I was simply using it as an example.

The exact same thing as what?

Making something look like something it's not.

You are apparently intimating that some important figures in Church history (one can only imagine you are talking about Joseph Smith himself) was guilty of having sexual affairs. Are you claiming that you are not suggesting such things, or are you saying that sexual affairs are not awful, merely surprising?

No, if you can remember, we were talking about jefferson, and the significance of bad breath versus an affair. You, in the attempt to demean everything I said, started comparing it to bad breath and diarrhea.

Yes, I tend to be rather impatient with enemies of the Church and with those who equivocate about their intentions. It's a failing of mine, which I openly admit.

I am a faithful member of the church and merely mentioned that accepting some of the church's history is kind of my road block. But thanks for judging me.

I suppose I won't post any examples of these things in church history for fear of being accused anti-mormon again, but my point was that nothing is perfect, and I have trouble fixing my very idealistic view of the church.

I'm sorry for somehow offending you, Vort. I'll try not to do it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't even matter whether jefferson was the father of the child or not, I was simply using it as an example.

Using a false or unproven assertion as an example is not a good way to use examples. I could make up all sorts of false and slanderous things about you and then say, "Hey, it was just an example." But I doubt you'd appreciate it.

Making something look like something it's not.

On the contrary, focusing on Washington's purported halitosis or Franklin's youthful sexual experimentation distorts their pictures, ignoring the very real and very substantial contributions they made and making them look like something they are not.

No, if you can remember, we were talking about jefferson, and the significance of bad breath versus an affair. You, in the attempt to demean everything I said, started comparing it to bad breath and diarrhea.

I was not "demeaning everything [you] said"; I was demonstrating that you were getting your knickers in a knot over the wrong things. You brought up "affairs"; I simply wondered what you were talking about.

I am a faithful member of the church and merely mentioned that accepting some of the church's history is kind of my road block. But thanks for judging me.

Maybe I was a bit too overt. Anti-Mormonism and tearing down the Church and its leaders are severe pet peeves of mine. I apologize if you were not trying to do this and I reacted as if you were.

To quote Elder Callister from this most recent General Conference:

Suppose for a moment someone told you these three facts about a New Testament personality and nothing more: first, the Savior said of this man, “O thou of little faith”; second, this man, in a moment of anger, cut off an ear of the high priest’s servant; and third, this man denied knowing who the Savior was on three occasions, even though he had walked with Him daily. If that is all you knew or focused upon, you might have thought this man a scoundrel or a no-good, but in the process you would have failed to come to know one of the greatest men who ever walked the earth: Peter the Apostle.

Similarly, attempts have been made by some to focus upon or magnify some minor weaknesses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, but in that process they too have missed the mark, the man, and his mission. Joseph Smith was the Lord’s anointed to restore Christ’s Church to the earth.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My husband and I were up late talking last night about my Grandpa. He passed away last month and was--without a doubt--the most godly man I've ever known. I look at his faith (his unwavering trust in God) and was able to watch him over the 34 years of my life; I want to be like him. Having watched him, I know what stumbling blocks I've had because I know what Grandpa AVOIDED and PURSUED. He avoided worldly things. I've stumbled in my own faith because I've, more times than I'd care to admit, not guarded my heart. I've been tempted by the things that the world has to offer: flattery, material things, televisions shows and movies, etc. that don't uplift and put things in my mind that God deems impure. My Grandpa avoided those things--with a passion. "To the pure, all things are pure"--is something I think of when I think of him. He guarded his heart and raised his children admonishing them to do the same. He pursued the Bible; "Thy Word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against Thee" was a verse he lived out. My faith has, at times, suffered intensely for a lack of true HUNGERING for God's Word. Grandpa knew that his life's path would be made clear if he clung to God's Word. He believed God. I look at the legacy he left and think, "It almost seems unattainable!!" But I know it isn't, because it is the power of GOD that was at work in him. That same power lives in me, because of my faith--but I have to take God at His Word and believe Him, believe that His way is the best and pursue it!

I've enjoyed reading everyone's posts--thanks to those who dare to be vulnerable about the fact that they stumble sometimes. I appreciate you.

Edited by lattelady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share