Church Politics

[Serg]

Hello, people of the chat:

My concern is the following and i hope you can provide help:

Has anyone known of an official politic on what sort of books and learning material are we allowed to quote when we give a discourse in the Church? I ask, because i've tried to quote very helpful thougts from both apocripha and secular books and many in my ward tend to teach that we cant quote anything besides what we publish.

But most of our general authorities' discourses are full of apocripha' and secular books' quotes. Is there any statement of the Church concerning this? If so, How do they believe we can accept it if they do just the opposite? And dont tell me that they can because they have the Spirit cause thats a low rate argument, we ALL have the same Spirit, and we all can read apocripha with the SAME approval of the Lord(Doctrines and Covenants has a section all about it)

If you say that Leaders have another "permission" and we dont because, in quoting from apocripha we are " approving" other doctrine and we DO not have the authority to make it for the whole Church, well, so Monson and all others dont have that power either just Hinkley, and anyhow they quote endless writtings to support APROVED points of view.

What about taking the sacraments ONLY with our right hand? Only Joseph Fielding Smith in Doctrines of salvation mentioned it as approves of the lord but didnt say it was obliged. Is there any statement concerning this myth too?

What do we say?

Regards,

[shanstress70]

Hello, people of the chat:

My concern is the following and i hope you can provide help:

Has anyone known of an official politic on what sort of books and learning material are we allowed to quote when we give a discourse in the Church? I ask, because i've tried to quote very helpful thougts from both apocripha and secular books and many in my ward tend to teach that we cant quote anything besides what we publish.

But most of our general authorities' discourses are full of apocripha' and secular books' quotes. Is there any statement of the Church concerning this? If so, How do they believe we can accept it if they do just the opposite? And dont tell me that they can because they have the Spirit cause thats a low rate argument, we ALL have the same Spirit, and we all can read apocripha with the SAME approval of the Lord(Doctrines and Covenants has a section all about it)

If you say that Leaders have another "permission" and we dont because, in quoting from apocripha we are " approving" other doctrine and we DO not have the authority to make it for the whole Church, well, so Monson and all others dont have that power either just Hinkley, and anyhow they quote endless writtings to support APROVED points of view.

What about taking the sacraments ONLY with our right hand? Only Joseph Fielding Smith in Doctrines of salvation mentioned it as approves of the lord but didnt say it was obliged. Is there any statement concerning this myth too?

What do we say?

Regards,

Sorry, can't help you. But I am wondering what 'apocripha' means. I tried to look it up, but that spelling doesn't exist.

[Palerider]

let me ask this question and don't be offended by what I ask.......are you really hung up on this taking the sacrament with your right or left hand????...Is that was all of this is really about?????

[mom_of_jcchlsm]

I don't know if the right hand thing is official or not, but does it hurt to conform in this instance? If it's just cultural (like a handshake), you can look at it as "when in Rome . . ." - that way you don't accidentally offend anyone and besides, it's not like you're making a great sacrifice in order to conform. I do have a friend who is missing her right arm from the elbow down (horseback riding accident). She obviously takes the sacrament with her left hand. She also manages to participate in Temple sessions just fine. java script:emoticon('', 'smid_30')

So wouldn't stress about the right hand thing.

About using other sources - this is according to me, not anything official: The bulk of the lesson and supporting material should come from official sources (the approved lesson manual, scriptures, including Ensign, etc.). A few supporting extras are fine if they really contribute to the understanding of the material being presented.

[shanstress70]

I don't know if the right hand thing is official or not, but does it hurt to conform in this instance? If it's just cultural (like a handshake), you can look at it as "when in Rome . . ." - that way you don't accidentally offend anyone and besides, it's not like you're making a great sacrifice in order to conform.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Why conform if you don't know WHY you're conforming. If someone couldn't tell me a reason for it (ie, "Jesus said to do it"), I'm not going to change the way I normally do something. And if someone gets offended at me taking the sacrament with my left hand (IF it were applicable), so be it!

[Sugarbay]

I don't know if the right hand thing is official or not, but does it hurt to conform in this instance? If it's just cultural (like a handshake), you can look at it as "when in Rome . . ." - that way you don't accidentally offend anyone and besides, it's not like you're making a great sacrifice in order to conform. I do have a friend who is missing her right arm from the elbow down (horseback riding accident). She obviously takes the sacrament with her left hand. She also manages to participate in Temple sessions just fine. java script:emoticon('', 'smid_30')

So wouldn't stress about the right hand thing.

About using other sources - this is according to me, not anything official: The bulk of the lesson and supporting material should come from official sources (the approved lesson manual, scriptures, including Ensign, etc.). A few supporting extras are fine if they really contribute to the understanding of the material being presented.

Being the Gospl Doctrine Teacher for my branch I have to say "Ditto".

[mom_of_jcchlsm]

I wouldn't go out of my way to use my left hand just to stir things up, though. Personally, I use my right hand whenever it's convenient. If I'm holding a baby or have my arm pinned by my husband in a tightly packed pew, I use my left. I have never heard doctrinal support for the right hand thing.

While we're on sacrament issues: why have small children take the sacrament if it's supposed to be a renewal of baptismal covanants they haven't made yet and are in fact too young to understand? I have my own answer, but would like to hear your takes on this. And yes, I do have my children take the sacrament starting around age one.

[Jason]

I disagree that you should only use "official" items in talks. I used to quote Buddha in my Sacrament talks back in the day. Nobody ever said anything to me.

And shanstress...it's "Apocrypha" which are the books of the bible that the Protestants took out because they support Catholic doctrines. They are also called "Deutrocanon".

[Serg]

Please;

I dont consider myself as a person who's "hung up"on silly things. Rather, im asking concerning quotes during a discourse. And, sorry about "apocripha" it should be : apocrypha.

Sorry if the sincerity of my concern was overtaken by a gramatical mistake, anyways im a latin and speaking english as well as you is not a life fulfilling issue for me in NO instance. However, it is necessary for me to comunicate with you all.

Also as silly it sounds the thing of the right hand, well, is not as silly when you have people contending about it, and looking at you bad in the Church because its the ": wrong" way to do it, although it is stupid, i believe in MY ward(sorry if in Utah such things do not occur) are happening...

Please can you point in some direction concerning what we are supposed to accept as material for a discourse!? If not, how can you discern when a person should be quoting something allowed and when not? Oh!...

Thanks anyways brethren...

I hope i spelled ok.

Regards

[shanstress70]

And, sorry about "apocripha" it should be : apocrypha.

Sorry if the sincerity of my concern was overtaken by a gramatical mistake,

Not a problem. I wasn't poking fun at this... I seriously was looking for the definition, as I've never heard the word before... even with the correct spelling!

Thanks for the definition, Jason.

[LionHeart]

It is my understanding that it is not wise to allow just anyone to take references from un-canonized material because of the wide variety of interpretations out there. The canonized material is taught in sunday school along with the LDS interpretations thereof. The un-canonized material is not; therefore leaving the interpretation up to the many wild imaginations. Think of it this way: you wouldn't let someone fly a plane if they knew absolutely nothing about planes. This is the same situation. If everyone was allowed to quote doctrine from wherever they wished, the doctrines would be completely different wherever you went.

And about the right handed sacrament thing, I believe it's all about oneness. I was always taught that that was one of the purposes of singing the hymns; to get everyone in harmony before recieving the Lord's message. I was also taught that we should observe how the person praying is folding their hands and fold our hands the same way. It is not a requirement, but if we do not do it that way, then we are putting ourselves out of harmony with everyone else. I would assume that taking the sacrament with the right hand would be the same situation. It's not a matter of requirement, just a matter of whether we choose to be in harmony with the rest of the body. However, nobody should criticize anyone for doing it otherwise.

[Ray]

On the issue of what to talk about in Sacrament meetings, I’m going to go in a slightly different direction here and say that you will always give your best talks when everything you say is prompted by the power of the Holy Ghost. Which means that it doesn’t really matter from which books you get your information, as long as the Holy Ghost prompts you to say what you are saying about the information you are presenting.

Or in other words, instead of “preparing” a talk, by figuring out “who” to quote and “what you are going to say “when”, I think it’s better to give a talk as prompted through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Or in other words, I think it’s better to speak about what “you” think, about what you “feel”, as you are prompted through the power of the Holy Ghost, rather than simply trying to quote what some other people have said as they were prompted through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Heh, but if you really must have some notes, to direct you in what you are saying, I would then say that it’s better to quote people who spoke by the power of the Holy Ghost, instead of just quoting some information from some books.

And btw, I never heard anything about the “right-hand issue” until I read something here, and to me it sounds like superstition. And since my wife and I sit on the right side of the chapel, with me toward inside toward the aisle, I take the tray with my left hand, passing it to my right hand between me and my wife, and then take the emblems with my left hand so that we can take them together.

Or in other words, I’m not going to start trying to contort myself so that I can take everything with my right hand, for no reason other than superstition.

[Jason]

Hey Ray, I actually agree with you.

[Maureen]

What about taking the sacraments ONLY with our right hand? Only Joseph Fielding Smith in Doctrines of salvation mentioned it as approves of the lord but didnt say it was obliged. Is there any statement concerning this myth too?

Hi Serg,

From lds.org there is an article you can read concerning this question of yours:

Q. Is it necessary to take the sacrament with one’s right hand? Does it really make any difference which hand is used?

Russell M. Nelson, “Questions and Answers,” Tambuli, July 1983, 22

...Scriptural accounts give some background and insight into the symbolic significance of the right hand—a symbolism that appears in the language and other cultural features of the Jewish and Christian world. In Latin, for example, dexter (right) and sinister (left) not only indicated right and left but became the roots for adjectives carrying favorable and unfavorable connotations. The use of the right hand as a symbolic gesture was in time extended to the administration of government oaths, and to the courtroom, as witnesses were called to testify under oath...

...The word sacrament comes from two Latin stems: sacr meaning “sacred,” and ment meaning “mind.” It implies sacred thoughts of the mind. Even more compelling is the Latin word sacrament, which literally means “oath or solemn obligation.” Partaking of the sacrament might therefore be thought of as a renewal by oath of the covenant previously made in the waters of baptism. It is a sacred mental moment, including (1) a silent oath manifested by the use of one’s hand, symbolic of the individual’s covenant, and (2) the use of bread and water, symbolic of the great atoning sacrifice of the Savior of the world...

...Partaking of the sacrament is a sacred mental process, and as such it becomes a very personal one for me. I think of the covenants being made between me and Deity as the prayers are pronounced. I think of God offering his Only Begotten Son. I think of the atoning sacrifice of my Savior, Jesus Christ. The sacrament was instituted by him. For all mankind, even me, he offered his flesh and blood and designated the bread and the water as symbolic emblems. Because I have a right hand, I offer it in partaking of the sacrament as an oath, that I will always remember his atoning sacrifice, take his name upon me and remember him, and keep the commandments of God.

M.

[Palerider]

Good job Maureen......

[prisonchaplain]

On the issue of what to talk about in Sacrament meetings, I’m going to go in a slightly different direction here and say that you will always give your best talks when everything you say is prompted by the power of the Holy Ghost. Which means that it doesn’t really matter from which books you get your information, as long as the Holy Ghost prompts you to say what you are saying about the information you are presenting.

Or in other words, instead of “preparing” a talk, by figuring out “who” to quote and “what you are going to say “when”, I think it’s better to give a talk as prompted through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Or in other words, I think it’s better to speak about what “you” think, about what you “feel”, as you are prompted through the power of the Holy Ghost, rather than simply trying to quote what some other people have said as they were prompted through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Heh, but if you really must have some notes, to direct you in what you are saying, I would then say that it’s better to quote people who spoke by the power of the Holy Ghost, instead of just quoting some information from some books.

And btw, I never heard anything about the “right-hand issue” until I read something here, and to me it sounds like superstition. And since my wife and I sit on the right side of the chapel, with me toward inside toward the aisle, I take the tray with my left hand, passing it to my right hand between me and my wife, and then take the emblems with my left hand so that we can take them together.

Or in other words, I’m not going to start trying to contort myself so that I can take everything with my right hand, for no reason other than superstition.

You all realize, by now, that Ray isn't really Mormon. He's a closet Pentecostal. Or, maybe he's a sleeper-agent that I'm waiting to activate.

Seriously, though, this issue of anointing vs. preparation is big in the Pentecostal movement. In African-American churches, and in India, I'm told the ministers do not prepare sermon outlines, but rather get up and read a passage, and begin speaking as the Holy Spirit leads. This can be powerful, to the moment, and insightful--IF that speaker is thoroughly immersed in the word of God. On the other hand, why can't the Holy Ghost anoint sermon/lesson preparation? Why can't my detailed points/subpoints have the same anointing as impromptu gospel presentation? The real difference is that with preparation, the lesson can be delivered in 15-30 minutes, while the impromptu type usually goes for an hour or more.

[Serg]

Well Ray, Lionheart and Maureen:

1) A lot of general authorities do it, they quote apocrypha, and also secular books , yes, in both Lihona and General Discourses. So, they are definetely not our exampleif doing such a thing was not good)

2) They have nothing more than what you and I can have through the Holy Ghost.

3) Pertaining wrong doctrines as I quote them in a discourse, Im not saying you are gonna repeate the whole content, but those things that sustain yours.

4) wHEN GIVING A DISCOURSE IN A SACRAMENT MEETING , although having the Spirit is the most important thing, I believe in well prepared discourses, material, quotes, knowledge of the Word of God to VALIDATE all the fuzzy and good feelings I may comunicate through the Spirit.

5) Well, I thank you a lot Maureen about that, really. But I also read sort of the same position in Fielding smith' doctrines of salvation, and the conclusion was the same, a lame rethoric pointing how it WAS used the right hand BEFORE , how you are even so free to choose, but then strikes telling you that it should be so sacred...(as to resemble that in the past!) So what option do we have here? If we do it with trhe right hand we are imitating the prophets of old, but if we do it with the left one (although we are free to choose because its sort of a superstition at all) yet is not AS it was done before...(???)

6)Sorry, after all, i admire Ray, and also many of you. But after reading concerning Joseph Smith, reading even more about our doctrines, ...

my "testimony" of the truth is not so reliable. And, how can I serve the Lord in This Church if I dont trust it anymore?(it got NOTHING to do with what we are discussing here, but with a far more deep issue).

What can you tell me? Please. I cant rely on what I "feel" in my heart, because the Lord said "desceiving is the heart above all things", so just as we have a testimony because of our fuzzy feeling, so do other brothers of christianity, so we must have something to measure it with, to know which one is true, and guess what? The Bible does that. And, guess what? It does not support our view of things. It can SUGGEST our point of view but it does not in any way support it....

Oh Lord...

Im thinking of joining our brothers of Christianity, ....just as i was almost to do before I converted to mormonism....I have faith in Christ, but suddenly, not in Joseph Smith...

Im sorry. You have no concept at all as to how Im afected because of this, I was a defendor of our faith. I was a fan of B.H. Roberts, and many others, and prepared myself, and knew many "profound" doctrines, but they did not fill my heart, cause they diparted it from Jesus even more...

[pushka]

Serq...I'm only coming into this thread as one who was raised in the RCC and visited the LDS church for 5 years, and participated in it in the way in which I was allowed to do so, (not being baptised, I was limited in my duties).

I feel sorry that you are struggling with your faith at the moment. I am not going to tell you which way I feel you should go with your feelings/beliefs, in the end you will decide after all your studying and prayer, I'm sure.

I just hope that you will find strength and support from your friends and family, within and out of the LDS church during this time, and that you will feel happy once you have decided where to take your religious life in the future, and that you will still have the support of your family and friends at that time too. I also hope that you will continue to visit LDStalk.com even if you decide no longer to be a member of the LDS church.

[mom_of_jcchlsm]

Thanks, Maureen. So, from Elder Nelson's talk here's what I get: A lot of western culture has positive connotations with the right hand (historical / cultural / linguistic). If that applies to you, you can add to the symbolism of partaking of the sacrament by doing so with your right hand. If you don't feel any (historical / cultural) preference for the right hand, then it makes no difference which hand you use.

PC, Ray and others -

My husband and I prepare talks very differently. (PC, in our church, often husband and wife are asked to speak the same Sunday on related topics) He mulls things over in his mind for about a week, looks a few things up, and usually has a 3 x 5 card with 6 or 8 words, plus his scriptures, when he steps up to the pulpit. He speaks brilliantly and comes up with clever analogies and sound insights - his talks come off as polished performances of well-researched doctrine. Because of his near-photographic memory and his appetite for Church History, he can quote his sources out of his head as they occur to him on the spot. People think he spends a lot of time on his talks - in fact he spends very little time preparing for any specific speaking assignment, but he has spent a lifetime acumulating Gospel knowledge and pondering the things he has learned so you might say he has spent countless hours preparing for every assignment. By contrast, I start by looking up whatever I can on the topic and reading voraciously, then mull things over several days, write up my general outline, think, read, pray, think, read, pray, write, think, pray, write, think, pray, read, think, pray, (repeat as necessary over several days), then type up the whole thing, word for word, and practice speaking from it (in front of the mirror), making revisions here and there, adding bits, practicing sometimes 10 or more times. Then I get up to speak with my 3 or 4 pages of 10-pitch text and end up departing from my prepared speach in all sorts of directions. In fact, many times, I can't remember what I said once I step down - those are the times when dozens of people aproach me in the hallway after the meeting to say how wonderful my talk was and how much it touched their hearts. And I know the Holy Ghost has spoken to them through me and I am humbled by the process. But I know it couldn't have happened if I hadn't prepared as carefully as I did.

[Jason]

Well Ray, Lionheart and Maureen:

1) A lot of general authorities do it, they quote apocrypha, and also secular books , yes, in both Lihona and General Discourses. So, they are definetely not our exampleif doing such a thing was not good)

2) They have nothing more than what you and I can have through the Holy Ghost.

3) Pertaining wrong doctrines as I quote them in a discourse, Im not saying you are gonna repeate the whole content, but those things that sustain yours.

4) wHEN GIVING A DISCOURSE IN A SACRAMENT MEETING , although having the Spirit is the most important thing, I believe in well prepared discourses, material, quotes, knowledge of the Word of God to VALIDATE all the fuzzy and good feelings I may comunicate through the Spirit.

5) Well, I thank you a lot Maureen about that, really. But I also read sort of the same position in Fielding smith' doctrines of salvation, and the conclusion was the same, a lame rethoric pointing how it WAS used the right hand BEFORE , how you are even so free to choose, but then strikes telling you that it should be so sacred...(as to resemble that in the past!) So what option do we have here? If we do it with trhe right hand we are imitating the prophets of old, but if we do it with the left one (although we are free to choose because its sort of a superstition at all) yet is not AS it was done before...(???)

6)Sorry, after all, i admire Ray, and also many of you. But after reading concerning Joseph Smith, reading even more about our doctrines, ...

my "testimony" of the truth is not so reliable. And, how can I serve the Lord in This Church if I dont trust it anymore?(it got NOTHING to do with what we are discussing here, but with a far more deep issue).

What can you tell me? Please. I cant rely on what I "feel" in my heart, because the Lord said "desceiving is the heart above all things", so just as we have a testimony because of our fuzzy feeling, so do other brothers of christianity, so we must have something to measure it with, to know which one is true, and guess what? The Bible does that. And, guess what? It does not support our view of things. It can SUGGEST our point of view but it does not in any way support it....

Oh Lord...

Im thinking of joining our brothers of Christianity, ....just as i was almost to do before I converted to mormonism....I have faith in Christ, but suddenly, not in Joseph Smith...

Im sorry. You have no concept at all as to how Im afected because of this, I was a defendor of our faith. I was a fan of B.H. Roberts, and many others, and prepared myself, and knew many "profound" doctrines, but they did not fill my heart, cause they diparted it from Jesus even more...

Serg,

This might sound like strange advice coming from a "church-hopper" like me, but I wouldn't give up on Mormonism just yet. There are a lot of things you can still learn from it, use in your life, and then decide if it's still the right one for you.

With the experience I've had, I recommend you take your time in deciding what to do. Especially where you're a convert to Mormonism, you of all people should know that there's "no rush" to move on.

Course, no matter what you decide, Im here for you buddy.

[Serg]

Jason:

I know what you mean, and i assure you, I have learned a lot. Not only of doctrinal aspects(which few only comprehend in the Church-and i though i was progressing greately)....but also thanks to the Lord, I have also learned from ethics, furthermore how can one progress in knowledge in these mysteries of the Church(including Temple) and yet learn nothing whatsoever of ethics?

I appreciate your concern, deeply. You know...? When I think of it, I see ONLY three options:

1) Continue mormonism(even with the rare feeling it provokes me)

2) Leave it and become a Christian

3) Stop believing in God(which is impossible for me, but if I were not to believe in any branch of christianity then I cant believe in any other form of God-this one gathers all the aspects the human heart requires to believe)

So in case, that christianity in general holds thetruth, then my concern must not take too much time at all, for christianity in general(the Bible) holds that men are not left with any other opportunity to serve Jesus TRULY but this life....so..Although I converted to JESUS when i converted to mormonism, i also had to convert to JS, being him the FOUNDATION of our faith...In order to be saved, I ought to leave that...am I right?

Regards

Thanks Pushka:

I am a very objective person, also of great faith. But faith alone, does not work. God provides witnesses, and one of those is the bible, and it doesnt point me towards mormonism. The book of Mormon, beig the cournerstone of our faith, does not teach the complete messege of our faith. Basic and "true"things pertaining salvation. This is:

1)eternal marriage

2) The Gods

3) God being a Man with a wife(or many)

4) plural marriage as a Celestial prefference

5) Salvation based on works

6) the ordenances in the temple(it does not even mentions it)

7) that Joseph Smith is going to be the GATE KEEPER of Heaven, instead it teaches that ONLY CHRIST is BOTH the GATE and the GATEKEEPER, and also says "and nonelse does He" appoint for that Job.

8)That God are TREE different Gods, instead, its pretty diferent(in many passages) to the one version we have now...

What should I do?

I read, a lot, both, books concerning the failure of our Church divinity and the apologists of the church who defend it.

1) In respect to JS' prophecies which did not occur, well, i can accept that, many other biblical prophets also incurred in such,

2)His life, well, I can take it as long as "past"is reffered, but certanely(and this I asked to a Seventy that lived in our ward) cant understand why not only JS but Leaders of the Church even presidents continued being MASONS until1930, i mean....how do we explain it/ Is anything missing from the Restored Gospel that these men NEEDED to have in masonry? But...even this i could(not will) take...

3) But now, changes in the Book of Mormon? If JS publicly announced that there was NO book on earth as PERFECT as the BoM, why does it have SO many changes from the first version? Not gramatical changes, but DOCTRINE, THOUGHTS, VERSES, please??!!!

Even if I, abandon this faith(that has come to fill my heart), I would never lose my objectivity, nor my love for Jesus, nor my care for all of you my brethren(if not in faith then spiritual), and hence, will never stop visiting the chat, or going out with my church friends...

The problem for me is, that I am still meditating on this. Tomorrow starts my Stake''s conference, and I hope the Lord speaks to me concerning this. I need to talk to someone who is objective and KNOWS(has read) to help me with advice, but in my ward, the only few that qualify to this, are my Elder's Quorum President, and two or other three, but Im afraid, because I KNOW this people and love hem, and have defended our faith with them at my side, and know how they think and believe concerning "doubts"or Church History(for God's sake, I was one of them!) and I know they will not understand....

Lord..

[shanstress70]

Jason:

I know what you mean, and i assure you, I have learned a lot. Not only of doctrinal aspects(which few only comprehend in the Church-and i though i was progressing greately)....but also thanks to the Lord, I have also learned from ethics, furthermore how can one progress in knowledge in these mysteries of the Church(including Temple) and yet learn nothing whatsoever of ethics?

I appreciate your concern, deeply. You know...? When I think of it, I see ONLY three options:

1) Continue mormonism(even with the rare feeling it provokes me)

2) Leave it and become a Christian

3) Stop believing in God(which is impossible for me, but if I were not to believe in any branch of christianity then I cant believe in any other form of God-this one gathers all the aspects the human heart requires to believe)

So in case, that christianity in general holds thetruth, then my concern must not take too much time at all, for christianity in general(the Bible) holds that men are not left with any other opportunity to serve Jesus TRULY but this life....so..Although I converted to JESUS when i converted to mormonism, i also had to convert to JS, being him the FOUNDATION of our faith...In order to be saved, I ought to leave that...am I right?

Regards

Thanks Pushka:

I am a very objective person, also of great faith. But faith alone, does not work. God provides witnesses, and one of those is the bible, and it doesnt point me towards mormonism. The book of Mormon, beig the cournerstone of our faith, does not teach the complete messege of our faith. Basic and "true"things pertaining salvation. This is:

1)eternal marriage

2) The Gods

3) God being a Man with a wife(or many)

4) plural marriage as a Celestial prefference

5) Salvation based on works

6) the ordenances in the temple(it does not even mentions it)

7) that Joseph Smith is going to be the GATE KEEPER of Heaven, instead it teaches that ONLY CHRIST is BOTH the GATE and the GATEKEEPER, and also says "and nonelse does He" appoint for that Job.

8)That God are TREE different Gods, instead, its pretty diferent(in many passages) to the one version we have now...

What should I do?

I read, a lot, both, books concerning the failure of our Church divinity and the apologists of the church who defend it.

1) In respect to JS' prophecies which did not occur, well, i can accept that, many other biblical prophets also incurred in such,

2)His life, well, I can take it as long as "past"is reffered, but certanely(and this I asked to a Seventy that lived in our ward) cant understand why not only JS but Leaders of the Church even presidents continued being MASONS until1930, i mean....how do we explain it/ Is anything missing from the Restored Gospel that these men NEEDED to have in masonry? But...even this i could(not will) take...

3) But now, changes in the Book of Mormon? If JS publicly announced that there was NO book on earth as PERFECT as the BoM, why does it have SO many changes from the first version? Not gramatical changes, but DOCTRINE, THOUGHTS, VERSES, please??!!!

Even if I, abandon this faith(that has come to fill my heart), I would never lose my objectivity, nor my love for Jesus, nor my care for all of you my brethren(if not in faith then spiritual), and hence, will never stop visiting the chat, or going out with my church friends...

The problem for me is, that I am still meditating on this. Tomorrow starts my Stake''s conference, and I hope the Lord speaks to me concerning this. I need to talk to someone who is objective and KNOWS(has read) to help me with advice, but in my ward, the only few that qualify to this, are my Elder's Quorum President, and two or other three, but Im afraid, because I KNOW this people and love hem, and have defended our faith with them at my side, and know how they think and believe concerning "doubts"or Church History(for God's sake, I was one of them!) and I know they will not understand....

Lord..

Hi Serg,

I've been in your situation. I was an adult convert and was eventually not OK with the stuff that I read about Mormonism. There is no way I could ever explain some of it away. And although I was eventually sure of my decision, it was so difficult to turn my life upside-down and leave. I thought about just remaining a member, but could not go through the motions at church and all... it didn't seem honest. And with time, I really didn't have a good feeling at church anymore anyway.

I'm with Jason in taking your time. It will all work out one way or another. Good luck to you, whatever you decide!

[Serg]

Thanks....and..it IS a dramatical change, I just love all the friends I have there at Church, but Conviction of Truth comes BEFORE anything else, right?

[Jason]

Hi Serg,

Don't think that you've got to choose between Mormonism, Christianity, or Atheism. There are plenty of spiritual paths available that are outside of those areas.

Did you take my religious test?

[pushka]

Hi Serg...btw, I apologise for reading your G as a Q for so long!

Thanks for your reply to my post. I didn't ever get baptised into the LDS church, due to circumstances at the time I was attending. However, years later I did consider returning to the church, and so began to read more about it online, and had some missionary discussions again. I tried very much to believe in it, in spite of the information I had to hand, but just could not make myself do so comfortably. In the end I realised that I was just reaching out to the close 'family' type of situation that the church had offered to me in my youth, and would have been relying on it to just help me overcome a drink problem I had developed rather than really believing in it. I did not return to it.

I am sorry that the only people you can talk to locally are biased for the church, it is very difficult in your situation, I'm sure...I was surrounded by family and friends who didn't want me to be in the LDS church so it was much easier for me when I stopped going, and much easier for me to decide not to return to it too.

Please feel free to PM me about your thoughts and feelings at this time. I know that there are also message boards for people who are unsure about their faith, but obviously cannot recommend you seek them via this site as they would be considered Anti-Mormon and I do not wish to offend Heather or the other LDS here.

I do hope that you find your true happiness eventually, as Jason said if not with Christianity then with some other spiritual road. Good Luck.