Deconstructing a Testimony


Anddenex
 Share

Recommended Posts

Are any of you familiar with this new movement of "deconstructing" a testimony or belief? My brother is starting to use this phrase, and before my brother a friend of mine has been posting about his testimony deconstruction. This friend likes to post other people's deconstruct of their testimony. Here are some items that appear to be common among this new phrase and movement (rather than just simply saying I don't believe anymore):

1) I believe in history and facts > you believe in emotion and faith.

> Not entirely accurate. Faith is based in some form of evidence which the scriptures call "substance." Quick look at the dictionary explains what substance is, and it is something I don't need to blindly accept. It is something tangible (substance) that moves me further into the unknown for the unknown to be known.

2) When you open your eyes and want to have an honest engagement facts, you will in time see more clearly.

> They often give "pat on the back" statements like these. The sentiment follows, "If you knew what I knew and studied like I studied you would come to the same rational conclusion. Anything but my conclusion is intellectual dishonesty."

> This movement wants you to trust in the arm of flesh, rather than trusting in the arm of glory/intelligence.

3) They have to discover a way to logically and rationally explain away what God has already witnessed to them.

> I have had answers to my prayers but so have Muslims, Christians, and many other religions. Thus negating God actually answered their prayer. It is now a "perceived" witness from the Holy Ghost, which every other religion has. Further negating a source of truth which God would use.

> If something is replicated, it makes the original false (that is the logical and rational source of this deconstruct). If God commands a person to build a temple, and then someone replicates that who is not a member of God's kingdom, this then negates the original and both are equally true or both are equally false.

> Revelation is "perceived" truth rather than accurate truth. If more than one person can receive revelation (of different faiths), it negates the actual source. Lehi receiving revelation that Jerusalem was wicked, while Laman and Lemuel believed them to be righteous. They both "felt" strongly. Lehi just got lucky this time.

4) Their interpretation of history is the only correct and accurate interpretation of history. #2 confirmation bias.

> One thing I have found interesting lately is the alternate interpretations of history and accuracy.  Facts aren't always interpreted correctly. In the Book of Mormon, in Alma, we know of a Nephite who wanted power. So much so he caused a civil war, and because he lost that war he stirred up the Lamanites. After he met his maker, his brother is met with these words (paraphrased), "Stop this war. Your brother was wrong and a murderer. He engaged this war for power. Please end this war. Go home." The brother's response intrigues me now more than ever (paraphrased), "No! My brother was righteous. You have wronged my brother. You have murdered my brother! I will avenge him." And the war continues (literally then, and figuratively now).

> They don't recognize their logic and rationale is based in faith. Faith in the interpretation of others interpretation of history and facts. They present their logic and rationale from websites we know aren't there to help people with their faith. Like a website that tells member to "think" but really they only want you to "think" the way they do. They are there (like Nehor, like Sherem, like Korihor) to destroy a faith so they can feel content with their decision.

Conclusion, I think this is why we have the story of Alma the Younger and the Sons of Mosiah. These were sons who thought they were doing good. These were sons who would have said in the same breath, but a different way, we have deconstructed our testimonies and no longer believe the false traditions of our fathers. Sadly, if not in this life (although I hope in this life, the time of probation), that they will come to see what they will loose if they continue this path, and what they will gain if they repent. I find it hard to hear the words of Alma who said something to this nature, "murdering the souls of the children of men." And this is where my friend finds himself now. This is what these garbage sites are doing.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

1) I believe in history and facts > you believe in emotion and faith.

2) When you open your eyes and want to have an honest engagement facts, you will in time see more clearly.

3) They have to discover a way to logically and rationally explain away what God has already witnessed to them.

4) Their interpretation of history is the only correct and accurate interpretation of history. #2 confirmation bias.

1) Thanks for your insightful mindreading! Now I know what I actually believe in, because you told me, whereas before I only thought I knew what I believed in! And it's comforting to know that your history is unbiased, complete, and utterly objective—that is, your history is not produced by human beings.

2) I'm honored by such undisguised condescension.

3) Amazing to me that people think that any being like God must necessarily work in magical ways that cannot possibly be explained in naturalistic, physical terms. When you survived that automobile accident, it wasn't because God saved you. It was because you just happened to exit the windshield of the rolling car at 80 mph and roll on the asphalt juuuuuuust right so that you ended up sitting on the pavement, completely unwounded, while your car was only a twisted pile of metal. Luck easily explains such things!

4) See #1.

I do not find such arguments (or, typically, the people who forward them) worth my time to respond to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Vort said:

1) Thanks for your insightful mindreading! Now I know what I actually believe in, because you told me, whereas before I only thought I knew what I believed in! And it's comforting to know that your history is unbiased, complete, and utterly objective—that is, your history is not produced by human beings.

2) I'm honored by such undisguised condescension.

3) Amazing to me that people think that any being like God must necessarily work in magical ways that cannot possibly be explained in naturalistic, physical terms. When you survived that automobile accident, it wasn't because God saved you. It was because you just happened to exit the windshield of the rolling car at 80 mph and roll on the asphalt juuuuuuust right so that you ended up sitting on the pavement, completely unwounded, while your car was only a twisted pile of metal. Luck easily explains such things!

4) See #1.

I do not find such arguments (or, typically, the people who forward them) worth my time to respond to.

And it's comforting to know that your history is unbiased, complete, and utterly objective—that is, your history is not produced by human beings.

This point is what I was trying to help my friend see. That the history he is accepting isn't objective, unbiased, and complete. Particularly the "complete" portion.

I'm honored by such undisguised condescension.

I pointed this out by calling a passive insult.

I do not find such arguments (or, typically, the people who forward them) worth my time to respond to.

I typically don't engage, and I only engaged this time because I was once his home teacher. I wanted to see where his thoughts were and how he would respond. I discovered I won't be engaging anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently I find the most used deconstruction to be something along the line of - "I was doing all the things I should.  I read my scriptures everyday, prayed every night and day, fasted more than once a month, attended the temple weekly and also attended all my church meetings."  "But then the answers G-d gave me while doing all these things, turned out to not be true."  And now they say that - They no longer attend church, do not pray, read scriptures nor attend the temple - but are getting answers that turn out to be true and that they are closer to the spirit.   Interestingly they no longer obey the laws of G-d - like the Sabbath, Chasity, Tithing, Word of Wisdom and so on.

Some other thoughts:  Facts are truths alter by opinion.  There are versions of history but the versions that claim to have no bias are often versions of greatest bias and the versions of history that readily admit a bias are often the versions of greatest accuracy.   Science is not always the correct answer but rather the best answer.  There is a difference between evidence and and preponderance of evidence.  Things that seem to be true but are in conflict are neither true nor logical - especially if the thing is an opinion.  Just because you realize someone else is in denial does not mean that you are not.  And last but not least - is someone else's opinion makes you angry it is most likely because your opinion in the matter is flawed. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Currently I find the most used deconstruction to be something along the line of - "I was doing all the things I should.  I read my scriptures everyday, prayed every night and day, fasted more than once a month, attended the temple weekly and also attended all my church meetings."  "But then the answers G-d gave me while doing all these things, turned out to not be true."  And now they say that - They no longer attend church, do not pray, read scriptures nor attend the temple - but are getting answers that turn out to be true and that they are closer to the spirit.   Interestingly they no longer obey the laws of G-d - like the Sabbath, Chasity, Tithing, Word of Wisdom and so on.

I have witnessed this, too. But I don't think that's exactly what @Anddenex meant by deconstruction. Or maybe it is, and I'm the one who misunderstood. I thought Anddenex was talking about "deconstruction" in the sense of examining each aspect of someone's testimony and subjecting it to a sort of irreligious (or überreligious) analysis.

"Why did I perk up? What made me feel warm in my chest? Why did I feel so happy? Maybe X and Y and Z were at play, and my psychology is subject to blah blah blah, and that's really what I was feeling. Therefore, it wasn't the 'Spirit' at all, just a coincidental meeting of events, really no different from the occasional rogue wave that drags someone from the seashore out to sea to meet his doom in the salty brine."

The deconstructive analysis modeled above is not necessarily false or harmful, except for the unjustified final sentence. I'm not sure that deconstructing one's spiritual experiences as suggested above is usually of much help, but I think sometimes it can be, especially for certain analytical personalities. It helps to contextualize everything. The key is humility. When you start thinking you're smarter than everyone else, then you're smarter than God and can proclaim his nonexistence with practically religious fervor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anddenex and @Vort  When I was 13 I had an experience that in some ways was similar to Joseph and the 1st vision that dealt with a unseen power and surrounding darkness that was dispelled by a light like none other.  Because I have not duplicated the experience there have been periods of my life that I have wondered if my memory of what happened has been skewed.  But there is another element - at least for me.  I have discovered that during times of sin (especially anger) and feeling of unworthiness is when I experience the greatest doubt.  In a similar but opposite fashion, I have discovered that in times of repentance and renewal (especially during acts of exceptional service) is when I experience clarity of remembering.

I have come to believe that a person cannot be convinced of spiritual things unless or until they repent.  I can argue with precise and exact logic and still be unconvincing.  But if I can convince someone to perform a service and then repent of things they regret - they seem to come to  understanding things even beyond my best logic.  And yet it is my nature to logically convince the world of the restoration.  So I wonder if it best to encourage sacrifice and service and leave the rest to the "Spirit" to restore forgotten things of our divine origin. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Vort said:

I have witnessed this, too. But I don't think that's exactly what @Anddenex meant by deconstruction. Or maybe it is, and I'm the one who misunderstood. I thought Anddenex was talking about "deconstruction" in the sense of examining each aspect of someone's testimony and subjecting it to a sort of irreligious (or überreligious) analysis.

Yes, this would be accurate of the deconstruction I was mentioning. Here is the example of the Holy Ghost. This same individual at one time bore his testimony specifying how the Holy Ghost was impressing him to share his testimony and the reason he has his testimony is due to the Holy Ghost.

The same individual then subjects his witness from the Holy Ghost by deconstructing with a worldly view that all religions have a "Holy Ghost" experience. Thus, a person can not truly know of something and all religions are true or equally false. Which then they say something to this nature, "It is arrogance to think one Church holds all truth." Forgetting the Church has never made any such statement. It actually has been recognized that the Spirit of Truth (the Holy Ghost) has been manifested in many religious leaders. By this measure, they are brought into carnal security, thinking they know of themselves, as they have now convinced themselves the witness they did receive was the product of a "frenzied mind."

14 hours ago, Traveler said:

I have come to believe that a person cannot be convinced of spiritual things unless or until they repent.  I can argue with precise and exact logic and still be unconvincing.  But if I can convince someone to perform a service and then repent of things they regret - they seem to come to  understanding things even beyond my best logic.  And yet it is my nature to logically convince the world of the restoration.  So I wonder if it best to encourage sacrifice and service and leave the rest to the "Spirit" to restore forgotten things of our divine origin.

I would agree with this sentiment. One of the first steps in growth and exercising faith is repentance. Repentance increases the Spirit in our lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Vort said:

I'm not sure that deconstructing one's spiritual experiences as suggested above is usually of much help, but I think sometimes it can be, especially for certain analytical personalities. It helps to contextualize everything. The key is humility.

I can still vaguely remember, as a child, hearing my dad share his testimony in a "deconstructed" manner. There were numerous things that he believed and in his testimony, he precisely stated each belief he held and why he held them and how he had come to acquire that belief. There were also a few times when he said that because I believe X, then it also follows that Y must be true. This manner of sharing a testimony, and this sort of foundation for faith was unique in that ward and that time and it had quite an impact on me. Looking back now, it seems to me to have been a very logical well thought out and carefully studied testimony, rather than a spiritual testimony, but it seems to have served him extremely well throughout his life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think deconstructing a testimony is the spiritual form of divide and conquer. As we learn in Alma 32 for the seed of the word to grow there must first be a place for it to be planted which is created by a having a "desire to believe." As the seed sprouts and grows a tree comes into being. But if at any point that desire to believe is lost (usually through neglect) that tree will eventually die. The problem though is he left with a dead tree, a monument that stands as a witness of something that was good and true. Well it's kind of awkward to go around saying the seed was no good when you have this big dead tree that proves otherwise. So what does he do but starts hacking away at it trying to break it down into pieces that are easier to explain away and no longer resemble the tree of his faith. 

Edited by laronius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't quite figure out how to respond, so I will throw out some thoughts and see what, if anything, happens.

I don't know if it fits the "newness" of the idea, but I might say that my first faith deconstruction was 30 or so years ago. As a teenager, I had a decent testimony of creationism (waffled a bit on the old vs. new, but definitely creationist). Then I chose a bio-ag major at BYU and, to be brief, "deconstructed" my testimony of creationism (assuming this is what we mean by deconstruction). After all is said and done, I now find myself with many of the attitudes mentioned in the OP towards creationism. I tend to see my own view as better rooted in facts, history, and science where the creationists are more faith and emotion based. I tend to think that, if I could just get them to understand science and scripture the way I do, they, too, could be more enlightened like me, and so on. I try to be mindful that the creationists I worship with are not ready for the more complete truth that I believe, so I try to keep my opinions to myself at Church to avoid stirring pots that don't want stirring.

If this is what we mean by deconstruction, then I tend to see it as merely part of the process of replacing erroneous beliefs with truth. Along the way, it seems possible to replace truth with error, but somewhere along the way, I cannot become completely paralyzed in my search for truth by the possibilities that I might be wrong.

Is it only a faith deconstruction if the result is animosity towards the Church as a whole?

As a concluding thought, I heard some interesting stuff said about the poor translation in the KJV for Jude verse 22. Looking at Biblehub, I see that a high percentage of translations render this verse as something like "have mercy/patience/grace for those who doubt." I sometimes feel like one of the things that is missing is this patience towards those whose faith is deconstructing. While acknowledging the need for boundary maintenance sometimes, how can we better interact with others to help them deconstruct/reconstruct their faith in a way that avoids the animosity that I see in the OP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the whole thing boils down to a question of how much value we place on differing types, or sources of, knowledge. Empirical knowledge is based on data derived through our five senses and spiritual knowledge derives spiritual feelings, usually experienced, or described as, emotions. There may be other types or sources of knowledge, but these are the two with which I have a degree of familiarity. One of the consequences of the enlightenment was an elevation of empircal knowledge and a devaluing of spiritual knowledge. I think a well balanced person recognises and accepts the importance of both forms of knowledge without trying to play one off against the other. Both types of knowledge are referred to in Doctrine and Covenants 88:118

And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study (empirical) and also by faith (spiritual).

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 88:118)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

 I sometimes feel like one of the things that is missing is this patience towards those whose faith is deconstructing. While acknowledging the need for boundary maintenance sometimes, how can we better interact with others to help them deconstruct/reconstruct their faith in a way that avoids the animosity that I see in the OP?

We cant! The church in its current format, although well intentioned, is micromanaging peoples thoughts and beliefs. This works for some but not many, as evidenced by higher amount of inactives on our rosters then actives.

My little sister and her family in vegas are the last of my siblings to go inactive, shes not anti or disbelieving but just tired of the mind games and needs time away to "deconstruct" her testimony. 

The answer to this problem is already in play,  the change that Pres Nelson envisioned with come follow me home learning and worship. Its a start but it still has a long way to go before our lost sheep return home. For example my sister avoids any contact with her home ward leaders but will allow me to discuss gospel items with her, unfortunately I, nor another male relative of ours are not in her ward boundary therefore have no right to excercise any priesthood ordinances with her.

IMHO we just need to wait a few more years before the term "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves" takes on a whole new meaning. 

Edited by priesthoodpower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

We cant! The church in its current format, although well intentioned, is micromanaging peoples thoughts and beliefs. This works for some but not many, as evidenced by higher amount of inactives on our rosters then actives.

The first sentence is clearly false. The Church in no way micro manages thoughts and beliefs of its members. The higher amount of inactivity is due to personal choice and faithfulness. This is plainly taught in the parable of the sower and also in Lehi's vision.

If the Church micro managed people's thoughts we wouldn't have the Journal of Discourses.

2 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

IMHO we just need to wait a few more years before the term "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves" takes on a whole new meaning. 

The meaning of Joseph Smith's statement is already clear and plain. How would it take on any new meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I can't quite figure out how to respond, so I will throw out some thoughts and see what, if anything, happens.

You clearly have misinterpreted the OP, particularly the ending sentence regarding any animosity (strong hostility) in the OP. I would say your interpretation is more based in your personal feelings toward the author of the OP rather than what the OP actually said, specified, and delivered.

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I don't know if it fits the "newness" of the idea, but I might say that my first faith deconstruction was 30 or so years ago. As a teenager, I had a decent testimony of creationism (waffled a bit on the old vs. new, but definitely creationist). Then I chose a bio-ag major at BYU and, to be brief, "deconstructed" my testimony of creationism (assuming this is what we mean by deconstruction). After all is said and done, I now find myself with many of the attitudes mentioned in the OP towards creationism. I tend to see my own view as better rooted in facts, history, and science where the creationists are more faith and emotion based. I tend to think that, if I could just get them to understand science and scripture the way I do, they, too, could be more enlightened like me, and so on. I try to be mindful that the creationists I worship with are not ready for the more complete truth that I believe, so I try to keep my opinions to myself at Church to avoid stirring pots that don't want stirring.

We are speaking on two sides of a coin. The presented definition of your idea of deconstruction isn't the same as what the OP is addressing. What you are referring to is simplified in a well coined statement, "You must unlearn what you have learned."

You feel you had to unlearn creationism, which is a little bit contradictory, as one of the pillars of truth in the gospel is the creation (or defined as creationism). How a person interprets how God created the universe or our earth is their personal feelings (e.g. If they believe six days, six years, six thousand years, or even six billion years). Just as you feel you have learned something, but you may find out later (even with all that you call empirical) you may need to unlearn what you have learned.

Anyone who dives deep into the gospel will have to "unlearn what they have learned or understood" to further toward perfection. This "deconstruction" as you have defined it isn't what the OP is addressing.

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

If this is what we mean by deconstruction, then I tend to see it as merely part of the process of replacing erroneous beliefs with truth. Along the way, it seems possible to replace truth with error, but somewhere along the way, I cannot become completely paralyzed in my search for truth by the possibilities that I might be wrong.

There wouldn't be any argument here, as we are supposed to as members replace erroneous beliefs with truth, for Christ is the way, THE TRUTH, and life. But as mentioned above, this isn't what the OP was referring to. We aren't talking about someone replacing an erroneous belief with truth, we are talking about someone who replaces truth with error and then publicly shames other members who do not see things as they see them. @laronius provided a great analogy of what the OP is addressing regarding the deconstruction of testimony.

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Is it only a faith deconstruction if the result is animosity towards the Church as a whole?

You are referring to something totally different here than what the OP describes. A faith deconstruction rather than a deconstruction of ones testimony.  The OP is mentioning a deconstruction of testimony that does lead a person toward enmity with the Church.

Let me give you a personal quote from my brother, who I don't have any animosity towards, who just said today (when seeing more than ten people waiting on a missionary returning home), "Look at all those people who think God will protect them if they put on the armor of God." If you can't see the difference between what you describe and what the OP is describing then I can't be any clearer than this.

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

As a concluding thought, I heard some interesting stuff said about the poor translation in the KJV for Jude verse 22. Looking at Biblehub, I see that a high percentage of translations render this verse as something like "have mercy/patience/grace for those who doubt." I sometimes feel like one of the things that is missing is this patience towards those whose faith is deconstructing. While acknowledging the need for boundary maintenance sometimes, how can we better interact with others to help them deconstruct/reconstruct their faith in a way that avoids the animosity that I see in the OP?

We all could be more patient. This verse can be applied to many aspects in our lives:

1) I sometimes feel that patience toward God's anointed prophets and their weakness (although still doing the Lords work) is missing.

2) I sometimes feel that patience towards God's local leaders is missing

3) I sometimes feel that patience toward our brothers and sisters is missing when they are doing their best to do God's will and they are called "Peter Priesthood" or "Molly Mormon" in mocking tones

4) I sometimes feel that there might need to be more patience when reading another person's OP so that we understand what is being said and the emotion behind it and what is not behind it ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Anddenex said:

The first sentence is clearly false. The Church in no way micro manages thoughts and beliefs of its members. The higher amount of inactivity is due to personal choice and faithfulness. This is plainly taught in the parable of the sower and also in Lehi's vision.

If the Church micro managed people's thoughts we wouldn't have the Journal of Discourses.

To be more specific its the culture of the people in the church that makes it feel like micromanaging or shall we say the pressure to act a certain way, be a certain way, be perfect, all or nothing. 15 yrs ago I literally had an elders quorum president say to us "This is a church of progression, you cant sit and be stagnant". This type of thinking is a big part of what pushes lazy or prideful members away whereas these same people would have remained in the church content with the pace that they feel comfortable with.

The tone now from our apostles are "your best is good enough". No doctrine changed but the way we think has, how hard was that?

Please remember that church is not Christ. Christ is not a christian, he is THE Christ.

We are...

christians that go to church

mormons that go to church

catholics that go to mass

buddhists that go to the temple...etc

Home centered gospel is taking us in a better direction..."people following Christ", and this is something that EVERYONE can do, not just active mormons.

 

Edited by priesthoodpower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

To be more specific its the culture of the people in the church that makes it feel like micromanaging or shall we say the pressure to act a certain way, be a certain way, be perfect, all or nothing. 15 yrs ago I literally had an elders quorum president say to us "This is a church of progression, you cant sit and be stagnant". This type of thinking is a big part of what pushes lazy or prideful members away whereas these same people would have remained in the church content with the pace that they feel comfortable with.

The tone now from our apostles are "your best is good enough". No doctrine changed but the way we think has, how hard was that?

Please remember that church is not Christ. Christ is not a christian, he is THE Christ.

We are...

christians that go to church

mormons that go to church

catholics that go to mass

buddhists that go to the temple...etc

Home centered gospel is taking us in a better direction..."people following Christ", and this is something that EVERYONE can do, not just active mormons.

 

I don't know that I've ever felt micromanaged before. Maybe there have been certain individuals guilty of that but I haven't witnessed anything wide spread. Actually just the opposite. More and more what we are seeing is a moving away from lists of do's and dont's to being led by the Spirit. This is in response to an increasingly polarized world which is actually bringing about a condition that Christ sought for: being hot or cold and not simply lukewarm. It is also prophesied that there will eventually be a division among the people which is necessary because when the Savior comes everyone on the planet must fall into one of two categories: wicked enough to be destroyed or righteous enough to live in the Millennium, not perfect but righteous enough. So while we don't want to drive people away by stressing the need to be progressing to do anything less would be a failure on our part to have warned our neighbor for what's ahead. I have a feeling though that when push comes to shove many lukewarm saints will finally jump back in with both feet, that's my hope anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

Home centered gospel is taking us in a better direction..."people following Christ", and this is something that EVERYONE can do, not just active mormons.

Following Christ means following in his footsteps. Keeping his commandments. Doing as he did. Joining his kingdom, putting your shoulder to the wheel and pushing along. So yes, eventually, people who follow Christ must indeed be "active Mormons". I know that disturbs the Universalist fantasies of many, apparently including yourself. But that's the doctrine.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

To be more specific its the culture of the people in the church that makes it feel like micromanaging or shall we say the pressure to act a certain way, be a certain way, be perfect, all or nothing. 15 yrs ago I literally had an elders quorum president say to us "This is a church of progression, you cant sit and be stagnant". This type of thinking is a big part of what pushes lazy or prideful members away whereas these same people would have remained in the church content with the pace that they feel comfortable with.

The tone now from our apostles are "your best is good enough". No doctrine changed but the way we think has, how hard was that?

Please remember that church is not Christ. Christ is not a christian, he is THE Christ.

We are...

christians that go to church

mormons that go to church

catholics that go to mass

buddhists that go to the temple...etc

Home centered gospel is taking us in a better direction..."people following Christ", and this is something that EVERYONE can do, not just active mormons.

 

Some items of importance pertaining to your thoughts:

1) Matthew 5: 48, "Be ye therefore perfect...." isn't a cultural standard but a standard which "THE Christ" established. Who then also said to the Nephites, "Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I...," which has been followed up with, "Therefore, what manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am."

2) Home centered, Church supported has always been the case. This is nothing new. We as parents were never to rely "solely" on the Church to teach our children. Church has always been the "support" for our teaching never the center. Look to the Doctrine and Covenants and read and review who comes under condemnation if they do not teach their children. Note, it isn't the Church.

All members already could have already been having their own gospel centered study at home long before the change. We had a sister in our ward who couldn't attend Church but would study the scriptures, study the manuals, and have her own home gospel centered study.

3) "This is a church of progression, you cant sit and be stagnant" > This is a principle of truth. It is the "choice" (moral agency) of members to decided what either brings them closer to Christ or to remove them away. If a principle of truth causes someone to move away from the Lord's gospel and his Church it has nothing to do with the culture of the Church.

4) The tone from our apostles and prophets have always been "Do your best." Back in 1979, long before what you call a change, a book was printed titled, "Be your Best Self." The whole point of the book is our best is good enough to the Lord. The book covers sermons from Elder Monson. The problem in our culture is that a lot of people excuse their laziness as their best.

Our perfection has always been taught by the prophets and apostles is through Christ -- no one else. The counsel and tone hasn't changed, "Do your best" and your "best is good enough." If you can quote any prophet or apostle who has ever said your best isn't good enough I would love to read it.

Caveat, we aren't talking about the concept in scripture of "unprofitable servants." Even when we do our best, we still need Christ and are indebted unto him.

5) Following Christ means doing what he asked us to do. That means being worthy (by personal moral agency) to fulfill and partake of all aspects in the gospel. Christ is the who said, "take up your cross and follow me."

The Church is simply moving us forward to do what has already been taught.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Vort said:

So yes, eventually, people who follow Christ must indeed be "active Mormons". I know that disturbs the Universalist fantasies of many, apparently including yourself. But that's the doctrine.

Itll take a generation or two for this old fashion religious elitist way of thinking to disappear. Always got the answers but dont care about solutions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, priesthoodpower said:

Itll take a generation or two for this old fashion religious elitist way of thinking to disappear. Always got the answers but dont care about solutions. 

Yep. Just wait for us to die out. Of course, you'll eventually die out, too. I guess the world will be a better place for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

I agree with everything you say annendex, unfortunatley things are not as simple as it seems. What good is having all the answers if we cant recognize and solve the problems. I personally dont agree with the position .." they choose to leave, they are disobedient". 

Unfortunatley things are not as simple as it seems.

This is one aspect I think this is more due to the natural man desires rather than the gospel. A visiting general authority during stake training provided the following statement (paraphrazed), "The Lord provided answer to our prayers simple enough that a newly baptized 8 year-old is able to accomplish it." I have pondered his statement for a long time now.

In mine own family, I only have one child who has struggled with finding answers to his prayers (while young, under 10 years old). As my children have aged I noticed my oldest who would easily receive answers to his prayers while a young boy (who has received experiences I have not yet received) struggled in his late teen years to find answers (I see this same change with my oldest daughter). What changed? The Lord or my son? I would say it was my son.

The Lord also said, "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light." I would say part of the difficulty created in life is our unwillingness to fully "yoke" with Christ. I would daresay that the more fully we "yoke" ourself with Christ, walk his path (rather than be the bull who yokes and then constantly tries to turn his head his own way), and follow his lead it would be as simple as it seems.

The Lord simplified the gospel and becoming more like him to three principles: faith, hope, and charity leads all humankind to do good things. If we ponder anyone who has decided to remove themselves from the Church, the Lord's gospel, we can easily see that this has resulted from a loss in faith and hope, or a loss of charity (e.g. On Facebook I read from a sister, "I hate Oaks, I am done with this Church).

Is it not simple then brother because the Lord, or because we make something harder than it actually is?

What good is having all the answers if we cant recognize and solve the problems.

I think this is the just of it. We don't have ALL the answers. We don't have ALL the solutions. But what we have is sufficient for everyone of God's sons and daughter to "hold fast" to the rod of iron.

Or as Nephi said, "I do not know the meaning of all things." Or, applied to today, "I don't have all the answers, nor do I have all the solutions." But I do know the Lord, "loveth his children" and "I know in whom I have trusted."

Sadly some members do not like the simple answer, "Keep the faith, continue to have faith." It is a simple answer and a simple solution that will keep the sons and daughters of God faithful until the Lord, in his due time and timing, sheds forth more light. But we can't expect the Lord to provide us with more light and knowledge if we are having a hard time collectively to keep what has already been revealed. (e.g. The simple concept of ministering and yet how many of us are actually serving with a more genuine love and care for our brothers and sisters?)

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2020 at 6:41 AM, Anddenex said:

 

What good is having all the answers if we cant recognize and solve the problems.

I think this is the just of it. We don't have ALL the answers. We don't have ALL the solutions. But what we have is sufficient for everyone of God's sons and daughter to "hold fast" to the rod of iron.

Or as Nephi said, "I do not know the meaning of all things." Or, applied to today, "I don't have all the answers, nor do I have all the solutions." But I do know the Lord, "loveth his children" and "I know in whom I have trusted."

Sadly some members do not like the simple answer, "Keep the faith, continue to have faith." It is a simple answer and a simple solution that will keep the sons and daughters of God faithful until the Lord, in his due time and timing, sheds forth more light. But we can't expect the Lord to provide us with more light and knowledge if we are having a hard time collectively to keep what has already been revealed. (e.g. The simple concept of ministering and yet how many of us are actually serving with a more genuine love and care for our brothers and sisters?)

I agree but we are talking about different things.

The answer: The gospel is as complete as we will ever need it to be as it is the answer to eternal joy and happiness. Everyone needs it and everyone wants it.

The problem: How do we get everyone to accept and follow it? The pessimist: "the gospel is too hard for most people, they are disobedient and are not interested". The optimist: "the gospel is so awesome..we just need to figure out how to make it acceptable in a way that is comfortable to each individual."

We need to break down cultural, social and behavioural barriers. A simple example is that JS restored the gospel in english, does the world need to speak english in order to accept it? No, the church translated it into different languages to cater to the cultural needs of the world.

Social barriers: Why do we currently have single wards, multi language ethnic wards? Because you cant fit everyone in one general ward. Singles feel uncomfortable and outcast in a family ward therefore we created a singles ward. Now there are thousands of other barriers that cause people to not want to attend a general ward, and sadly, as it currently stands in LDS culture, when you dont attend "church" you are left out of Gods plan (this is nonsense to me and anyone else who believes in a loving God). We cant create thousands of different ward types to cater to the thousands of different kinds of people and that is why we are seeing the dissolving of our sunday services.

The answer to our problems is the internet, social media, virtualization and automation. This is how we make a gospel that is comfortable to all with out changing doctrine. 

This corona virus is pushing this world in a direction we never couldve imagined, I believe its part of Gods plan.

Edited by priesthoodpower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, priesthoodpower said:

The gospel is as complete as we will ever need it to be as it is the answer to eternal joy and happiness. Everyone needs it and everyone wants it.

The bolded part above simply is not true.

15 minutes ago, priesthoodpower said:

The problem: How do we get everyone to accept and follow it?

The answer: We don't.

15 minutes ago, priesthoodpower said:

The pessimist: "the gospel is too hard for most people, they are disobedient and are not interested". The optimist: "the gospel is so awesome..we just need to figure out how to make it acceptable in a way that is comfortable to each individual."

The realist: "Despite PP's assertion, not everyone wants the gospel. They view its covenants as restrictive and take joy in their own carnality. Until they are willing to abandon their worldly, fleshly, natural-man desires, they cannot and will not embrace the gospel."

18 minutes ago, priesthoodpower said:

when you dont attend "church" you are left out of Gods plan (this is nonsense to me and anyone else who believes in a loving God)

Amazing. Because, you see, I believe in a loving God, and I also believe that if you don't embrace and live as a part of the kingdom of God, then you cannot possibly receive the blessings God offers you—because those blessings are found within the kingdom of God.

20 minutes ago, priesthoodpower said:

We cant create thousands of different ward types to cater to the thousands of different kinds of people and that is why we are seeing the dissolving of our sunday services.

Not so. No such dissolution is taking place. That is a figment of your imagination.

21 minutes ago, priesthoodpower said:

The answer to our problems is the internet, social media, virtualization and automation.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The answer to our problems is for people to humble themselves, repent, and come unto Christ. Putting a fresh coat of paint on the walls may make the walls slightly more appealing, but it doesn't change the basic nature of the building. People come unto Christ or they do not. The problem doesn't lie in the fact that we're not luring them well enough. The problem lies in the fact that they do not want to abandon their fornications and make themselves clean so that God can bless them.

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