What am I not understanding?

[wildonrio]

Hi everyone,

I want to just start out by stating that I used to be LDS, but I have since willingly decided to leave over doctrinal reasons. I however mean no malice towards anyone who is a member and find my LDS friends to be very intelligent and enjoyable. I am also open minded to the Church still being true if someone is able to come up with good reasons to still believe (after hearing and analyzing my doubts, of course).

Recently I brought up with a friend on Facebook that Joseph Smith had different versions of his First Vision account which I felt had some contradictions. What ensues below is a conversation I had with an LDS member who I have never met; he is just a friend of a friend. I had the hardest time communicating my feelings to him. Everything seemed to go over his head, and I can't figure out why. Now I am wondering if there is anyone LDS who understands my side of the issue, or if there is something I am plainly not understanding.

[mod deleted link - see site rule #1]

Let me know what you think, and if there is someway I could help him see my viewpoints properly so we can have a more mutually understandable discussion.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Spartan117]

If you don't mind me asking, when you left the church did you join a new church? What (if anything) do you believe? I know that isn't what you asked, I'm just trying to get an understanding of where you're at right now.

[wildonrio]

No new church at this time.

[bytebear]

I thought Richard Bushman gave a very good analysis of the various versions of the First Vision in his book Rough Stone Rolling. What I got from it was that for Smith it was a very personal and private event, and although many within his closer circle of family and friends knew the story fairly well, he wanted to make sure it was recorded in a proper way. So, what you find are bits and pieces of the story in early church documents, and even a few later attempts at an "official" version, but Smith never really got it written in a way that he was satisfied with, or that conveyed the power and holiness of the event. It was really only years after his death that it became a "faith promoting" event used to help convince people of his prophetic calling. So, in short, I don't think you can just read each rendition analytically without understanding Joseph Smith the man. I would highly recommend reading Rough Stone Rolling for more insight into the subject.

[wildonrio]

I thought Richard Bushman gave a very good analysis of the various versions of the First Vision in his book Rough Stone Rolling. What I got from it was that for Smith it was a very personal and private event, and although many within his closer circle of family and friends knew the story fairly well, he wanted to make sure it was recorded in a proper way. So, what you find are bits and pieces of the story in early church documents, and even a few later attempts at an "official" version, but Smith never really got it written in a way that he was satisfied with, or that conveyed the power and holiness of the event. It was really only years after his death that it became a "faith promoting" event used to help convince people of his prophetic calling. So, in short, I don't think you can just read each rendition analytically without understanding Joseph Smith the man. I would highly recommend reading Rough Stone Rolling for more insight into the subject.

Thank you for the recommendation!

[Guest tbaird22]

fairmormon.org

this site might help you. i like it a lot. instead of questioning your faith try questioning your doubts.

to answer one your questions i saw in google docs : why must we believe in things that don't have evidence? (or however you phrased it)

simply put, if there were evidence there would be no need for belief or faith. we would know. You gain no witness till after the trial of your faith.

[wildonrio]

fairmormon.org

this site might help you. i like it a lot. instead of questioning your faith try questioning your doubts.

to answer one your questions i saw in google docs : why must we believe in things that don't have evidence? (or however you phrased it)

simply put, if there were evidence there would be no need for belief or faith. we would know. You gain no witness till after the trial of your faith.

Hi there,

I'm not sure if this is the type of forum where we debate the truthfulness of Mormonism. That was definitely not my intent for posting here. I assume a lot of people come here to ruffle feathers and it probably gets old. I actually have a big problem with faith that I would love to discuss if appropriate. Am I allowed to discuss my doubts here?

[bytebear]

Having skimmed through your conversation, it sounds like you have more of an issue with faith than with any specific doctrine. I think the disconnect is between you trying to describe your doubt with someone else trying to describe their lack of doubt. I have a hard time describing my testimony of the Gospel, but I know that when I even think about what I believe, I get a warm comforting feeling that I absolutely know is the Holy Ghost confirming my understanding. I wish I could share that feeling, but it's something you need to seek out and discover yourself.

[Guest tbaird22]

Also having skimmed through your document and seeing another question:

every religion seems to use the spirit how does that work? How can someone else can feel like their religion is true too? etc...

the B-E-A-U-T-F-U-L thing about all the religions on the planet is that they all have some truth.

[wildonrio]

Having skimmed through your conversation, it sounds like you have more of an issue with faith than with any specific doctrine. I think the disconnect is between you trying to describe your doubt with someone else trying to describe their lack of doubt. I have a hard time describing my testimony of the Gospel, but I know that when I even think about what I believe, I get a warm comforting feeling that I absolutely know is the Holy Ghost confirming my understanding. I wish I could share that feeling, but it's something you need to seek out and discover yourself.

I was a Mormon was 28 years, so I have in fact sought out and discovered. I know what feeling you're talking about. I've prayed about the BOM, Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ, etc. and I felt very strong burning in the bosom.

If you don't mind my asking, how do you "absolutely know [it] is the Holy Ghost confirming"?

[wildonrio]

Also having skimmed through your document and seeing another question:

every religion seems to use the spirit how does that work? How can someone else can feel like their religion is true too? etc...

the B-E-A-U-T-F-U-L thing about all the religions on the planet is that they all have some truth.

Once again, I wasn't looking to have a theological conversation per se, but if you don't mind, then I don't.

Can you explain to me how you are sure that the LDS Church has the whole truth while others only have the partial truth?

[Guest tbaird22]

I cannot. See if i could explain to you how i know the church is true it would have to be a list of reasons or some other empirical evidence. I could point out all the things in the Bible that only this church does, artifacts from around the world that could be considered evidence, early christian practices that only this church does, etc but you could find other ways the to explain all of that which is why i see no point in doing such. I could also point out where other churches are wrong, but that would also do me no good. However, what i can tell you is that know matter how empirical the mind may seem to be, there is room for faith no matter how many doubts one can fester, if you have a desire all those doubts can be cast out. I know its weird to place all hope in a feeling or several feelings but it works. This is coming from a evolution and big bang believing latter day saint who sees no contradiction between science and faith, but a need for both.

[Guest tbaird22]

For the record, I think you can post whatever you want as long as it does not come across like you are attacking the church.

[wildonrio]

Oh okay. When you say "I know its weird to place all hope in a feeling or several feelings but it works", what do you mean by "it works"? Are you saying that you can achieve full (or near full) confidence in the truthfulness of the LDS Church by trusting in your feelings? Please explain more.

[bytebear]

I was a Mormon was 28 years, so I have in fact sought out and discovered. I know what feeling you're talking about. I've prayed about the BOM, Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ, etc. and I felt very strong burning in the bosom.

If you don't mind my asking, how do you "absolutely know [it] is the Holy Ghost confirming"?

Because it's a different feeling than I get when I watch Rudy. It's much deeper than that. It is undeniable. I kind of liken it to the movie Contact where Jodie Foster simply can't deny what she knows despite massive pressure to do so. I just can't deny what I know. But that doesn't mean I don't get hung up on the details. I have had plenty of specifics that I have had to work through with prayer and reason. I have had very specific answers on controversial doctrines that have allowed me to reconcile with God as to why he would allow or condone certain actions.

You know the scriptures, so I am not going to go over them, but I do recall a D&C verse where it says that a gift of the spirit is a testimony of Jesus Christ, and another gift is to rely on the testimony of others. apparently, you have been given neither of these gifts, so gaining a testimony is going to be tougher. But study, pray, practice, and live the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and you can "prove all things" one at a time.

[bytebear]

Oh okay. When you say "I know its weird to place all hope in a feeling or several feelings but it works", what do you mean by "it works"? Are you saying that you can achieve full (or near full) confidence in the truthfulness of the LDS Church by trusting in your feelings? Please explain more.

I will repeat. Study, ponder pray, practice, observer the results. Prove all things (a bit at a time) and hold fast that which is true. Start out with something easy like daily prayer. Try it for a while and see what happens. But do it fully dedicated. Start out small, and build upon the seed of faith. But start with a seed. Surely you must have a testimony of at least one aspect of the gospel, even if it's something general like loving your neighbor.

[Guest tbaird22]

I think bytebear has described it very well. I don't like the word feeling for describing my testimony or the spirit because like he said it is undeniable which is different from every other "feeling" I have ever felt, but it is the only word i can use to describe it since it isnt empirical.

[wildonrio]

I really feel like I have had identical feelings to what you both have felt. It was a strong feeling of happiness and a burning in the bosom. I felt very peaceful and confident. At the time I felt that I had had undeniable witness from the Holy Ghost that it all was true. My problem now is that I see the world religions and how they are all just as confident as you are in their religion, no doubt through the strong spiritual feelings that they feel. It seems like everyone is using these powerful feelings to verify the truthfulness of their religion. I don't deny how powerful these feelings are. But since they are leading everyone in different directions, isn't that a good reason to think that it might just be a powerful biological reaction within our own bodies? If it was from God, why does it divide people into separate religions?

[bytebear]

All religions do have the same truth to a degree. All Christian churches rely on a testimony of Jesus Christ, and I have no doubt the Holy Ghost is testifying to them and their testimony is genuine. But, I also know there is a movement or belief in Christianity that you cannot rely on "feelings" and must "prove" based on Biblical proofs. I reject this notion flat out. Most religious folks that I have spoken to, both inside and outside Christianity either use logic or tradition to lay claim to their beliefs. Only in the LDS Church have I heard the concept of "pray and prove it for yourself" so I don't know that your notion is really all that universal. At least, not in the conversations I have had. I actually found the notion of not asking God for truth to be a bit disconcerting.

May I ask. Have you prayed about other prophets, popes or belief systems and received a contradictory testimony?

[wildonrio]

As far as saying the feeling is undeniable, is that as far as you can take me? Can you explain to me why it is undeniably an external supernatural source communicating with you and definitely not a powerful chemical reaction within your body? If you could distinguish how you know the difference, I think it would be highly beneficial to my understanding your viewpoint.

[Guest tbaird22]

Hmmm... If the natural man (the body) is an enemy to God why would it produce a chemical reaction that would have me believe and follow God?

[amhello]

"Why would god create a system that would provide strong reasons for people to believe in something incorrect?"

I don't believe God created that system. I believe it is the adversary. What better way to lead people astray?

[Guest tbaird22]

I understand that the idea that the body is an enemy to God is a scriptural idea, but it has also been discussed by philosophers such as Bentham that humans naturally pursue pleasure and avoid pain.

[amhello]

wildonrio- Do you believe in intuition? Have you ever had a "feeling" something bad was going to happen and it has? Have you ever been able to stop something bad from happening because of this intuition? Yet, explaining this "intuition" to another is next to impossible without just saying, "I just had a feeling." It seems you are asking us to do the same with feelings of the Spirit.

[wildonrio]

I believe intuition is based on your five senses picking up on things ever so slightly, enough to give you a feeling about something that might happen. More often than not, your senses were picking up correctly and you later call it your intuition. Just my belief, I've never studied that thoroughly.

The one problem with religious intuition is that is separates people into totally different groups. My "intuition" or spiritual prompting leads me to think Joseph Smith found golden plates. A billion other people's spiritual prompting leads them to believe that Mohammed rode up to heaven on a flying horse. Mormons think the Mohammed story is ridiculous, while Muslims think the same of Joseph Smith's plates. Yet we both confirm our own beliefs based on these feelings that we just "know" prove our Church true.

Now I know the LDS Church is fairly unique in that it actually tells its members to ask God and look for feelings, while other churches just generally look for feelings without specifically praying to have them. However you go about seeking these feelings, they seem quite identical among the churches.

If God were sending these feelings, it would only make sense for him to use them to UNIFY churches, not separate them. Mormons say that God sends the Spirit to a Muslim when a Muslim prays about the Koran because the Koran has SOME truth in it, so God is really just confirming the partial truths that it has. Why would God do such a thing? He's making a confusing mess of people not being able to trust the Spirit.

Going by that full truth / partial truth logic, since Muslims feel their Spirit just as strongly as Mormons, then who's to say that it's the Mormons who have the partial truth and the Muslims have the full? Maybe the Book of Mormon is false, but since it mentions being honest, that's a partial truth, so God confirms it? But really it's the KORAN that has the full truth. Do you see what I'm saying? The logic seems completely faulty to me.