What to do when you question a book of scripture?

[marts1]

The most difficult thing for almost all people to accept is personal responsibility. I have noticed this time and time again and is most understandable. I like to think I'm innocent but it is not reality. All of the times I have got into serious trouble in the past, I can see it has been my own fault. The more I realise this, the more it inspires me to improve, not that I'm living bad enough that I can't hold onto a temple recommend which seems pretty easy for me, just that I need to grow if I want to stay out of trouble. Remember how those first few months felt as a new convert? So many stop coming out not long after thier conversion. I was one of those so many people but luckily I came back. Luck is probably not the right word.

[Moksha]

If the OP really wants to keep his faith, I would advise him to NOT dig. Sometimes, it seems, keeping ones head in the sand is the happiest way of living. :-(

That is one school of thought. The other is that LDS history can be found all over the internet, and that exposure to this history or doctrine without advance preparation can be very jarring. I think the current recommendation from LDS apologists is to learn what information you can and when troubled about it, look to the FAIR website LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage for a positive explanation of the troublesome area.

[Elphaba]

The most difficult thing for almost all people to accept is personal responsibility. I have noticed this time and time again and is most understandable. I like to think I'm innocent but it is not reality. All of the times I have got into serious trouble in the past, I can see it has been my own fault. The more I realise this, the more it inspires me to improve, not that I'm living bad enough that I can't hold onto a temple recommend which seems pretty easy for me, just that I need to grow if I want to stay out of trouble. Remember how those first few months felt as a new convert? So many stop coming out not long after thier conversion. I was one of those so many people but luckily I came back. Luck is probably not the right word.

What in the world does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread?

Elphaba

[JohnOF123]

The most difficult thing for almost all people to accept is personal responsibility. I have noticed this time and time again and is most understandable. I like to think I'm innocent but it is not reality. All of the times I have got into serious trouble in the past, I can see it has been my own fault. The more I realise this, the more it inspires me to improve, not that I'm living bad enough that I can't hold onto a temple recommend which seems pretty easy for me, just that I need to grow if I want to stay out of trouble. Remember how those first few months felt as a new convert? So many stop coming out not long after thier conversion. I was one of those so many people but luckily I came back. Luck is probably not the right word.

Thanks for sharing you personal lessons and inspiration.

As always, you express you feelings with sincerity and honesty.

Your a real lionheart marts.

[ehkape]

I really wish this were true.

Unfortunately, in my case, it isn't. I

I've spent years of my life "digging" about church history to resolve my concerns. And the more I dug, the more I realized, that the church's history is really just a veritable big mess.

But yet, even to this day, I am still trying to find SOME reason to believe in the LDS faith. This whole issue has basically ruined my life.

If the OP really wants to keep his faith, I would avise him to NOT dig. Sometimes, it seems, keeping ones head in the sand is the happiest way of living. :-(

sd22 - thats so true! I spent the last 4 years or so with our church history stuff. I was called as Elders quorum pres. when one of my elders asked me for advice on the Adam-God-Theory by B.Young. I never heard about it before, even though I served a full time mission. Well, trying to answer just 1 concern, plenty of new ones came up for myself.

I wrote a list of questions a few years ago. There are at least 50 q's I have. Some smaller ones, but also some major problems with the church and the doctrine. After a few months of study I asked to be released as e.q. president. My wife doesn't want to know about all the odds I found because she saw how quick they changed my feelings towards the church.

I am still attending and yes - I am still trying to find a way to put our claim to be the only true church together with our messed up history and some very odd doctrines.

But my advice to the op would be as well:

If you want to keep your faith in the LDS church don't start digging.

If you want to know the truth about the LDS church, dig into it, but be prepared to find things you don't want to find

[ehkape]

I am a memeber for 15 plus years. I have served a mission. But recently I was asked a question about Kolob that has completely changed my understanding of the Pearl of Great Price. For the first time I have doubts about the book of Abraham. Has anyone else gone throught this?

Yes, I have.

Not only the Kolob part of the BoA.

Also the facsimiles bother me a lot. Joseph gave his "translation" but if you look at them they are not what he said they were.

The papyri are back in the churchs posession and even our own scholars admit that they are part of the egyptian book of breathings - a set of papyri given to the deceased to accompany him to the "spirit world".

Take facs.3 for example. Joseph said it shows from left to right: King Pharaoh, Abraham, Prince of Pharaoh, Shulem, Olimlah (slave of the prince)

If you have a closer look at the picture, you'll find two females in it.

(Just try it before reading on :) )

Even our own scholars at BYU admit that the people shown in facs.3 represent in the egyptian book of breathings from left to right: (german spelling, sorry)

Isis, Osiris, Maat, the deceased person being presented to Osiris , Anubis

To me, the BoA most likely is a fake. Its hard to admit. But all evidence points to that direction.

By the way. How often do the GA's quote from it? Or the Pearl of Great Price in general?

Anybody noticed that there are hardly any quotes? Maybe they feel the same way???

Almost forgot it... the females are Isis #2 and Maat #4

Edited February 20, 2010 by ehkape

[marts1]

I don't know much about this and plan no investigation. lol j/k...

[marts1]

Thanks for sharing you personal lessons and inspiration.

As always, you express you feelings with sincerity and honesty.

Your a real lionheart marts.

Thank you much John.

[ehkape]

deleted reply?

hey admins,

was my last reply deleted during the last 2 hours???

What for?

[JohnOF123]

I've spent years of my life "digging" about church history to resolve my concerns. And the more I dug, the more I realized, that the church's history is really just a veritable big mess.

But yet, even to this day, I am still trying to find SOME reason to believe in the LDS faith. This whole issue has basically ruined my life. I haven't dated hardly at all as the LDS girls seem way too naive, while the non-LDS girls are just too wordly.

If the OP really wants to keep his faith, I would avise him to NOT dig. Sometimes, it seems, keeping ones head in the sand is the happiest way of living. :-(

thats so true! I spent the last 4 years or so with our church history stuff. I was called as Elders quorum pres. when one of my elders asked me for advice on the Adam-God-Theory by B.Young.

But my advice to the op would be as well:

If you want to keep your faith in the LDS church don't start digging.

If you want to know the truth about the LDS church, dig into it, but be prepared to find things you don't want to find

This baffles me. From a mainsteam Christianity point of view, I love to study and discuss theology and I have a strong desire to dig everywhere. I love Bible prophecy, end times, the connection between Islam, Judaism and Christianity, creation science and so on.

To me, sticking the head in the sand is a foreign or bad idea. It could also be said that you recommend sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala", hehe. Not trying to laugh at you, I'm just picturing that.

I think one needs to face and attempt to resolve those issues. We all have to figure out what is right and what is true. God gave us each decades to do this and I have to say I commend you for seeking hard after truth. Though I am sorry it led you to dismay.

[ehkape]

This baffles me. From a mainsteam Christianity point of view, I love to study and discuss theology and I have a strong desire to dig everywhere. I love Bible prophecy, end times, the connection between Islam, Judaism and Christianity, creation science and so on.

To me, sticking the head in the sand is a foreign or bad idea. It could also be said that you recommend sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala", hehe. Not trying to laugh at you, I'm just picturing that.

I think one needs to face and attempt to resolve those issues. We all have to figure out what is right and what is true. God gave us each decades to do this and I have to say I commend you for seeking hard after truth. Though I am sorry it led you to dismay.

Yeah, it baffled me too...

Maybe I wasn't precise enough in my post. I lost confidence in my church as an organisation after looking into the history in detail. It didn't change my testimony of Christ as my Savior or of God in general. I'd rather say it strengthend my faith in deity. But I lost confidence in men and what they do and say (or pretend to do or say or prentend not to have said or done)

So by saying "stick your head in the sand" I wanted to be a bit sarcastic...

You either want to know the truth - or you don't. If you don't, don't search.

I like your picture with the fingers in the ears... you pretty much nailed it.

Hope this post won't be deleted by some eager defender of the "faithpromoting"posts

[mnn727]

If learning actual Church history is enough to make you question the truthfulness of Church Doctrines then In my opinion you believed in the Church for the wrong reasons.

This is the Church of Jesus Christ, this is not the Church of Joseph Smith or the Church of Brigham Young or even the Church of Thomas Monson. None of those men were, or ever claimed to be perfect, only Christ is perfect, only Christ never misspoke, only Christ never expressed a personal opinion that happened to be in error, only Christ never did or said something stupid or did something He shouldn't have done.

If someone loses their testimony of the Church because of something Brigham Young said or Joseph Smith did then you are in the Church for the wrong reasons in the first place cause those men were/are human just like I am and Christ's atonement covers their sins just like it does mine and I thank Him every day for that atoning sacrifice and even for the examples of the Prophets messing up, cause if He will still work with them after their messups I can be assured he won't give up on me either.

Adam/God never went through a correlation, never was signed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve and presented for the Churches sustaining vote, never made it into the D&C. The fact is we just don't know what Brigham Young actually meant - was it literal? was it symbolic? was he trying to teach us something that he understood and we don't? did human languange get in the way of teaching an eternal priinciple that doesn't really translate into human language? was he just human and made a mistake? We do know that the theory that God was the same Adam who was in the Garden of Eden was denounced by the First Presidency a couple decades later so to be upset about this little bit of Church history is really kind of silly in my opinion

If you look for mistakes in human history, you will find them. As for me -- I see the mistakes but I also see men and women that rise above their mistakes and I see how God can lift them up even after they mess up big time and that comforts me, cause I mess up big time occasionally too - so there is hope for me too.

Do you have a testimony of Jesus Christ? cause I do, and He has witnessed to me that what I was and am being taught is true. He never gave me a witness that Brigham Young or Joseph Smith was perfect because they were not. His invitation to each of us is to "Come follow me" its the same invitation he gave to Peter, James and John, its the same invitation he gave to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and Thomas Monson and yes even to mnn727 and that is why I am a member of this Church.

This is my testimony, that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah who atoned for our sins, the Son of the living God, and that this Church, no matter how imperfect its members and even it's leaders can be at times is His Church and if we truly accept Christs invitation to Follow Him he will work with all of us imperfect humans and help to perfect us so we can return to live with Him.

2 Ne. 25: 26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.

Edited February 21, 2010 by mnn727
to clairfy some thoughts and correct spelling

[pam]

If learning actual Church history is enough to make you question the truthfulness of Church Doctrines then In my opinion you believed in the Church for the wrong reasons.

Thank you.

[Jenamarie]

If learning actual Church history is enough to make you question the truthfulness of Church Doctrines then In my opinion you believed in the Church for the wrong reasons.

This is the Church of Jesus Christ, this is not the Church of Joseph Smith or the Church of Brigham Young or even the Church of Thomas Monson. None of those men were, or ever claimed to be perfect, only Christ is perfect, only Christ never misspoke, only Christ never expressed a personal opinion that happened to be in error, only Christ never did or said something stupid or did something He shouldn't have done.

If someone loses their testimony of the Church because of something Brigham Young said or Joseph Smith did then you are in the Church for the wrong reasons in the first place cause those men were/are human just like I am and Christ's atonement covers their sins just like it does mine and I thank Him every day for that atoning sacrifice and even for the examples of the Prophets messing up, cause if He will still work with them after their messups I can be assured he won't give up on me either.

Adam/God never went through a correlation, never was signed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve and presented for the Churches sustaining vote, never made it into the D&C. The fact is we just don't know what Brigham Young actually meant - was it literal? was it symbolic? was he trying to teach us something that he understood and we don't? did human languange get in the way of teaching an eternal priinciple that doesn't really translate into human language? was he just human and made a mistake? We do know that the theory that God was the same Adam who was in the Garden of Eden was denounced by the First Presidency a couple decades later so to be upset about this little bit of Church history is really kind of silly in my opinion

If you look for mistakes in human history, you will find them. As for me -- I see the mistakes but I also see men and women that rise above their mistakes and I see how God can lift them up even after they mess up big time and that comforts me, cause I mess up big time occasionally too - so there is hope for me too.

Do you have a testimony of Jesus Christ? cause I do, and He has witnessed to me that what I was and am being taught is true. He never gave me a witness that Brigham Young or Joseph Smith was perfect because they were not. His invitation to each of us is to "Come follow me" its the same invitation he gave to Peter, James and John, its the same invitation he gave to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and Thomas Monson and yes even to mnn727 and that is why I am a member of this Church.

This is my testimony, that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah who atoned for our sins, the Son of the living God, and that this Church, no matter how imperfect its members and even it's leaders can be at times is His Church and if we truly accept Christs invitation to Follow Him he will work with all of us imperfect humans and help to perfect us so we can return to live with Him.

2 Ne. 25: 26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.

Quoting this to bring it over to the next page so that hopefully more people can read it.

[JohnOF123]

If someone loses their testimony of the Church because of something Brigham Young said or Joseph Smith did then you are in the Church for the wrong reasons in the first place cause those men were/are human just like I am

I see your viewpoint here. But it just begs the question: How do you know what to believe and what not to believe, since I think you're implying somethings said are not true? Or did I misunderstand what you meant with that?

[rameumptom]

Church Historian Davis Bitton gave a talk at the LDS FAIR conference in 2004, I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church.

It easily explains why we shouldn't worry so much about the mistakes and flaws of prophets and apostles. Elder Packer, in The Holy Temple, wrote that our prophets are not perfect and make mistakes, but it is amazing what great things God accomplishes through ordinary men.

And that is the key. We shouldn't be looking for perfection in these men, nor in our history. We should be looking for good fruits. When we look beyond the mark, we see things in a twisted manner.

For me, it is okay that we have as standard works, books that are imperfect (we believe in the Bible insofar as it is translated correctly), and prophets that are "only" 90+% correct in their teachings. It means I am responsible to ponder and pray and do my part in regards to their statements. If I just accept everything, then I'm using blind faith. If I spiritually seek concordance, then I'm using wisdom and the Spirit, which God has promised to give me, and I've been commanded to receive.

If a prophet makes a mistake, does that make the Church false? Of course not. It just means that one issue is non-binding.

I do not believe it when past leaders said that blacks had the curse of Cain. I do not believe the Adam-God theory. I am not certain whether to believe in a global Flood or not.

But these issues do not diminish my testimony. I do not have a testimony of the history of the Church. I have a testimony that Jesus is the Christ, and that he has called and ordained living men as prophets. They have God's authority to baptize, ordain, and to perform the ordinances of salvation. They also have the authority to speak as prophets, which most of the time they do. Even Brigham Young's thousands of sermons, when considered as a group, are very orthodox and on key. I just ignore the few outliers, as they are a part of history that does not matter when it comes to salvation.

It amazes me that so many people focus on a handful of his speeches, and forget the hundreds that make up so much wonderful truth. THAT is looking beyond the mark.

[Vanhin]

Like my brother Finrock, my faith was never challenged by the history of the Church, past statements of Church leaders, or any of the things the anti-mormons like to dig up. God himself revealed the truth of this work to me a long time ago. Take any allegations about Joseph Smith concerning polygamy, for example. Knowing that God chooses righteous men to be prophets, and that He himself has revealed to me that Joseph Smith was his prophet, I always start with the assumption that Joseph Smith was a righteous man. Because of that, I believe that there are explanations for the peculiar events in the history of the Church, and once we know all the facts, we will be satisfied that Joseph was a righteous servant of God, flaws and all.

I love to learn about the history of the Church. It strengthens my faith in God.

Regards,

Vanhin

[JohnOF123]

Like my brother Finrock, my faith was never challenged by the history of the Church, past statements of Church leaders, or any of the things the anti-mormons like to dig up.

Just curious, I've always wondered this:

When the LDS say the term "anti-mormons", are they referring to people who 1) don't like mormonism and the doctrine,

or 2) don't like mormon people and the members?

I assume many people could have different answers here, but what would you say the majority means when they say this. Thx-

It would be easier if this term were in the dictionary, but it's not. I guess it would be clearer if they said anti-mormons and anti-mormonism.

Edited February 21, 2010 by JohnOF123

[ozzy]

Just curious, I've always wondered this:

When the LDS say the term "anti-mormons", are they referring to people who 1) don't like mormonism and the doctrine,

or 2) don't like mormon people and the members?

I assume many people could have different answers here, but what would you say the majority means when they say this. Thx-

It would be easier if this term were in the dictionary, but it's not. I guess it would be clearer if they said anti-mormons and anti-mormonism.

I think the majority of us use the term 'anti-mormon' to refer to someone who deliberately attacks the church as a unit, with the intention of breaking it apart. This includes attacks on doctrine and history. I don't think we use the term to refer to someone who just doesn't like us. It has to go further than that.

My point of view though.

[JohnOF123]

I think the majority of us use the term 'anti-mormon' to refer to someone who deliberately attacks the church as a unit, with the intention of breaking it apart. This includes attacks on doctrine and history. I don't think we use the term to refer to someone who just doesn't like us. It has to go further than that.

My point of view though.

Thanks for that input. Would you say that those "who attempt to break up the church" do that because they do not like the individuals? That's kinda where I was going, only because the term "anti-mormons" or "anti-christians" sounds like they are anti the person.

[Vanhin]

Just curious, I've always wondered this:

When the LDS say the term "anti-mormons", are they referring to people who 1) don't like mormonism and the doctrine,

or 2) don't like mormon people and the members?

I assume many people could have different answers here, but what would you say the majority means when they say this. Thx-

It would be easier if this term were in the dictionary, but it's not. I guess it would be clearer if they said anti-mormons and anti-mormonism.

Anyone who is against Mormonism for whatever reason, whether they are attempting to save our souls from a false religion, or they despise us as a people and want to do us harm, they are anti-Mormon.

From the day Joseph claimed to have seen a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ, there have been forces at work to oppose this work. Tracts have been authored and distributed, preachers have preached against us, lies have been told about us and our leaders, and we have been driven from our homes and lands. If that was all, then it would be well, but it wasn't. Our people have suffered great persecution and even death, including Joseph Smith and his brother.

Growing up in Mississippi, I was ever having to defend myself and my beliefs because my friends were even being taught that we were of the devil, and our founder was a false prophet. Which is fine and dandy. I didn't have a problem with it. I liked having conversations about religion, and I liked to defend my beliefs. Nevertheless, it is all anti-Mormon - I recognize it for what it is.

Regards,

Vanhin

[CrimsonKairos]

A person's testimony should be founded on the voice of God conveyed to us through the Holy Ghost.

If God tells you the LDS Church is the Church He endorses and guides through a living prophet and only it has valid priesthood authority and the Book of Mormon is His word...what in the world has a dusty sermon from the Journal of Discourses got to do with it?

It never ceases to amaze me. I know people who say that God told them Joseph Smith was a prophet. Then they read some anti-mormon literature or actual Church history that has awkward moments or signs of human imperfection (gasp!). And then it's like, "Well maybe God didn't mean what He said, I mean, He wouldn't tell me someone was a prophet if that person did A, B, or C!"

So they expect that God will only tell them someone is a prophet if that person perfectly fits their preconceptions, prejudices, biases and preferences of what a man of God would and should be.

Let me put it this way: If you require secular scientific evidence that the Book of Mormon could be true before you pray to know if it's true, you're worshipping the wrong god and denying that God is a God of miracles Whose works confound the wise.

[JohnOF123]

Anyone who is against Mormonism for whatever reason, whether they are attempting to save our souls from a false religion, or they despise us as a people and want to do us harm, they are anti-Mormon.

I guess what I'm really trying to ask is this.

Do you think that someone could give you "anti-mormon" literature and still love you?

[CrimsonKairos]

I guess what I'm really trying to ask is this.

Do you think that someone could give you "anti-mormon" literature and still love you?

Sure, but plenty of parents let their teenage children drink alcohol and they love them too.

Loving someone doesn't preclude the possibility that you will make unwise choices concerning them or cause them harm.

Edited February 22, 2010 by CrimsonKairos

[Vanhin]

I guess what I'm really trying to ask is this.

Do you think that someone could give you "anti-mormon" literature and still love you?

Yes, anti-Mormons can be anti-(my religion) and still love me.

Regards,

Vanhin