How hard is it to believe when you know "the stuff"

[_mentalgymnast]

Mentalgymnast, please use the "quote" feature; it'll make it easier for everyone to distinguish what you're writing vs. what you're quoting.

To do so, type. . .

[ quote ]

. . . in front of the quoted text, and:

[ /quote ] after the quoted text (without the spaces).

This will make it easier on everyone. Thanks!]

MG: got it!

[_Gazelam]

Actually, the more I study and discover "the stuff" the more I find my testimony confirmed. I just finished "Rough Stone Rolling" that includes lots of the "stuff" and thought it was great.

[_Mephitus]

gaz, every time i hear that argument from someone. I roll my eyes. I cannot for the life of me understand how contradictory information would confirm to anyone that their false beliefs are true.

"even though 2 + 2 = 4, i don't care what the facts say, ill still believe it equals 5"

It makes no sense to me at all why people follow backwards logic like that. And i guess that's one of the reasons why Mormonism infuriates me so much since I've left. How all the information available says one thing, and people follow another. But then again, christianity in general to me has to many hypocritical tenants that it does fit along those lines if illogic anyhow.

[_truth dancer]

Hi MG...

A couple of thoughts... :-)

First, in terms of a group of people standing out or being remarkable in some way. I just don't see it in the LDS church.

If you want obedience and sacrifice look at the Muslims... If you want dedication look at Buddhism... If you want history, look at Hinduism. If you want numbers look at the rest of the world.

I think many LDS folks think they are somehow greater than others for one reason or another (I"m not saying you believe this), but the world is a very large place and there are billions of other dedicated, prayerful, thoughtful, obedient, caring, God fearing, spiritual people.

My observation is that like any other organization, there are great people in the LDS church and there are not so great people. Exactlly like any other religion on our planet.

In terms of the Book of Mormon.... I understand your belief in the book and know it is the bottom line for many members.

But... most (everyone I personally know), folks who hold the Book of Mormon as true have not spent a lifetime studying, praying, fasting, embracing teachings of other religious texts and scriptures. This is problematic for me. I'm quite certain they would hold anything true they have devoted their lives to, learned from infancy, and have been conditioned to believe or horrible consequences would ensure.

It seems quite obvious that for the vast majority of human beings, we hold to the beliefs we are taught and in which our family believes. Of course there are exceptions but some research I read on this last week found only one out of twelve people can leave the religion of their parents.

So... most members who study and learn and devote their lives to holding the Book of Mormon as true are going to not be able to let go of this... similar to most who hold the Vedas as true, or the Qu'ran, or any other religious text.

In other words, we hold onto the beliefs that we have been taught. I think this is extrememly important in understanding our personal belief and any idea of what is truth.

Final point... (smile), expectations of God. Yes you are correct that if we hold God out to be a specific way we can get into trouble. I have pondered this a lot.

Here is the issue for me. My heart, my instincts, my very soul believes in certain things as true, loving, "good." These include things like treating others kindly, not harming others, valueing human life, etc. etc. etc. I MAY BE TOTALLY WRONG. I completely understand this. But at this point in my life I need to hold onto the truth in my heart. OK, so, FOR ME, for God to be a decent, good, kind, loving, caring, being, I must see evidence of kindness, goodness, love, care, etc, and NOT see those things that in my opinion, are cruel, destructive, mean, and what some would considere "evil."

So... God can be whatever... horrible, selfish, egocentric, jealous, cruel, perverted..... and we could just all go with it and call it fine cause God's ways are not man's ways. It just doesn't work for me.

We have scriptures that speak of divine creator who, if he were human would be considered the most cruel and sick person on the earth. Maybe the scriptures truly do reflect the God being. I'm open to being wrong. But in my opinion, the scriptures reflect the ideas of God based on the mindset of those who wrote them. The Old Testament, certainly reflects the nomadic Semites, the Book of Mormon is what one would expect to come from a man in the nineteenth century in the Burned Out District. The Quran reflects the ideas of its origin. And, I know my ideas of God would reflect my own understanding and experience as well.

Which is why I don't think we can ever remotely comprehend, understand, or even glimpse the grandure and magnificence of what this universe is all really about. I think we all do our best but we are very, VERY to the story. We can only experience what we have evolved to experience which isn't much in my opinion.

Anyway... I go back to my belief that, if the church works for someone and it brings them peace and confort and they feel it is true then it is a good thing. OTOH, if the church doesn't make sense, feel right, bring anything but sorrow and pain, then it is most likely not a good fit.

:-)

~dancer~

[_guy sajer]

On another thread guy sajer put together a short list of issues that could potentially cause concern and even skepticism/unbelief. I responded to the post. I have always been one to try and see both sides of a coin. I have also always been one to try and poke holes in things. Including paradigms that I don't see as airtight. Including my own beliefs.

I would appreciate it if some of you that have given things alot of thought would help me out by poking some holes in my reasonings and response to guy. You may do so with such eloquence and expertise that I will simply have to bow out...

Thanks in advance for your time.

I'm new here, and besides Shades and TD I'm not familiar with most of you other folks. Shades and TD are probably quite familiar with the fact that I'm not one to get all heated up and/or argumentative. When necessary I've made and continue to make paradigm shifts. That's why I enjoy reading the thoughts and opinions of others in regards to things Mormon and how they relate to "the real world", whatever that is. <g>

Here is his original post and my response.

hi guy sajer. you said:

A related, but broader, question is whether there is anything that would give pause to the internet Mormon (apologist) or true believer rank and file.

Let’s see, so far we have (in no particular order):

1. Murder and mayhem in holy books committed by God, his spokesmen, and his followers.
2. Serial adultery, treasure digging/fraud, habitual lying, megalomania by the “Second only to Jesus.”
3. Book of Mormon chalk full of anachronisms and blatant historical inaccuracies
4. Compelling evidence that whole sections of Book of Mormon were lifted straight from the King James version of the Bible, inaccuracies and all
5. DNA evidence proving not a single drop of Semitic blood in Book of Mormon descendents, contrary to over 100 years of prophetic pronouncement.
6. Source material for P of GP proving it is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be
7. Institutional racism
8. Institutional sexism
9. Repudiation by current prophets of long-held core beliefs and teachings of past prophets
10. Proven lack of any capacity for discernment by God’s elect (a la Hoffman incident)
11. Complete lack of anything of true doctrinal gravitas coming from God’s elect, unless one includes dress and grooming standards as high doctrine
12. Complete, utter, and absolute irrelevance of Mormonism to 99.999% of humanity, despite over 150 years of existence and missionary work.
13. Inability of Joseph Smith to get his story straight regarding THE most significant event in world history since the resurrection.
14. Eternal system of marriage that transforms women into property.
15. Etc.

Does any of this make a difference?

What would it take?

Seriously, is there anything at all that would cause the internet Mormons and rank and file faithful to question, I mean seriously question?

What would it be?

Mentalgymnast: good choice on number 15. The list could go on. I am an active member of the church with a calling...paying tithing, etc., but probably not a true TBM, although I used to be back before about 1993 or so. I'm thinking that I can still count as one of those that you see as being someone who "believes" even though much of the evidence would seem to point towards disbelief as being the obvious default position.

Let me ask you a question. First, let's operate and the assumption for a moment that there is a supreme being who is creator of humankind and that he/she has a loving/kind disposition towards the creations which are his/hers.

OK with that?

OK, I can assume that, although I see no systematic evidence suggesting this to be the case. Really, what can you or anyone point to as evidence of this? I'm betting that for every one instance one can point to, one can point to several more counterexamples demonstrating the opposite.

But, you asked us to assume, so I'll give it a shot.

An example from history to consider. Beginning days of the Revolutionary War. New York. Camp fevers and other ailments caused by unsanitary conditions and vile/impure water. It was estimated that there may have been 10,000 that were down and out of operation. George Washington was aware of the spread of disease/sickness and knew that cleanliness of vaults/latrines was one of the keys in inhibiting the spread of disease and so he ordered the they were covered with fresh earth daily, and new vaults dug weekly. His knowledge and thus his ability to do something for the good in a nasty/filthy situation extended only so far. Why were ways and means not found and executed to promote and inhibit all of the causes of the disease? Why were the troops drinking vile/impure water? Why did so many die as a result of these unfortunate conditions? These were good men who had dedicated themselves to a good cause which was to change the course of history. Couldn't God have somehow stepped in and made things right rather than let things take their course?

Because germ theory was pretty well unknown at the time. People did not understand the link between hygiene and sickness. God could have intervened, but why should he intervene here, when throughout history, millions upon millions had died of illness caused by unhygienic conditions? What was different about G. Washington and his troops that might have merited God's intervention, when he clearly cared little to intervene in so many other cases (can you say "black death?").

Dang it, why didn't God just step in and tell George how to make everything right...or for that matter, perfect?

Why should he? What was the precedent for him doing so? G. Washington never claimed to have a pipeline to God or to be his representative on earth. He was not special, why should he be an exception to the millions God had already allowed to die from illness?

Many questions could be asked as to "where was God" here, or "where was God" there? Not just in this historical venue, but in similar situations throughout history. There were good men/women that God could have revealed all the right answers/procedures to who then in turn could have saved a lot of grief and error along the way. Why didn't a loving/compassionate God do so?

Assumption aside, the most plausible answers strike me as

1. Because there is no God.
2. Because if there is a God, he is not the loving/compassionate being we believe him to be.
3. God may be loving and compassionate, but he follows a “hands-off” policy with regards to affairs on earth.

I think that, however, if we maintain the assumption that God exists and he’s loving and compassionate, then you have a problem answering this one. I think the relevant question becomes something like, “what are the necessary conditions for God to act, to demonstrate his love and compassion,” since from the human perspective, he appears awfully whimsical in how he choose to demonstrate his love and compassion.

Examples, ad nauseum, could be given which seem to (remember, we're assuming for a moment that there is a God who loves and cares for his/her creations) point towards the fact that God typically steps aside and lets his creations act for themselves and learn for themselves...in almost ALL situations, times, and circumstances.

See #’s 1-3 above.

Now, let's go to church. Why would one think that God would NOT operate pretty much the same way within the confines of a small subsection of humanity called his church?

Because the people who claim he as appointed to lead his church also claim that he is a actively guiding it and its leaders. We are not holding Mormon leaders to the same standards we hold G. Washington, as they have made a very different set of claims than G. Washington and are thus rightly held to different standards.

Why do we assume that every jot and tittle has been spelled out? Why would we think that life would not be just as tough and ambiguous in nature within the church as without when it comes to many things? Why does/or would it ONLY make sense to think that prophets and apostles are NOT just like us...most of the time (In other words's, why are we prone to think that they're in someway/somehow a special subspecies of humankind that are not prone to the fallen natures that the rest of us seem to be... and they are able to function/operate in this manner almost ALL of the time.)

Well, because they claim they are not like us—they claim special access to God, and they hold us accountable for behaving and believing as if they possess that special access. If they do not want to be held to those standards, they should not make the claim, and they should not hold us accountable for accepting that claim.

Why would we think that mistakes and apparent errors could not be made within the confines of the church that could lead to misery and pain for others? Why would we assume that all the evidence is in when it comes to this or that?

Something about “God will not let us lead his church astray” coupled with incessant claims of special access, divine knowledge, power of discernment, etc. If one accepts such claims, one has right to expect that such people, and the organization they lead, would distinguish itself from other man-created and man-led organizations. The fact, however, that the Lord’s church and his leaders appear no different on average than other human leaders and institutions suggests that man, not God, is leading the church.

The world is a MESSY place. Would not some of this messiness also be part of the human experience within the church? If there is a God, he just does not seem to be the type to step in and do this, do that, cause this, cause that. At least from what we can see currently. What happened in the past...who REALLY knows? What ever has happened, happened. We can only judge/perceive the time that we live in accurately...somewhat.

Fine, then please ask GBH and other leaders to stop making such grandiose claims regarding their access to the divine, and while you’re at it, perhaps you might ask them to tone down the message that our eternal salvation depends on believing they have this access and on doing precisely what they tell us.

Once again, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Mark Hoffman, Joseph Smith, issues with Book of Mormon and PofGP, change in the church, human issues dealing with cultural context, and on and on. Just about everything that can be considered a cause for disbelief within the Mormon paradigm can be routed back to HUMAN operations/actions, human error in relationships (pride, vanity, moral transgressions, etc.), human produced or manufactured possible mis-information or incomplete information, human lack of understanding (thus producing incorrect/incomplete doctrine and/or policies), incomplete research and/or faulty reasoning performed by humans that may have an agenda, etc., etc.

Suggesting, of course, that it is humans leading the Mormon Church, not God, not Jesus, but humans, who are no different than us. In which case, ought we not retain our freedom to disagree and dissent, after all, we make mistakes, why can’t they?

Problem is, they don’t want us to have freedom to disagree or dissent, so they make extraordinary claims about their special access to God, and then they tell us that we’re wrong to hold them accountable for this claim.

Institutional racism, by the way, is a result of individual racism. If there is or has been institutional sexism, again, individuals are the cause. Humans that may be in error.

But if God is really communicating with them, directing them, sharing his infinite wisdom with them, showing them the righteous, moral path, surely it is not too much to expect that he take a few minutes to tell them that racism is wrong; it was, and remains, after all, one of the great moral issues of the ages. Why would God be silent on an issue of such moral gravitas, particularly when he finds time to weight in so frequently on dress and grooming standards?

The question, at least for me, is: how often would one expect God to step in...make course corrections, beat with a whip, change incorrect perceptions, change faulty reasoning, etc. If history is any indicator, I'd have to say that God doesn't step in very often. But at times...he may step in for some kind of course correction. Why in one case and not another, or at one time and not another...who knows?

It is not me claiming that God does this, it is Mormon leaders who claim this. I am merely holding them accountable for their rhetoric.

Anyway, I have found that as I've lowered my expectations I've found that I'm not disappointed as much anymore...or surprised when weird things happen, from my own perspective.

If Mormon leaders are no better than anyone else, why the hell devote one’s life to following them? Take their advice when it’s good, ignore it when it’s not.

Only, the problem is, they also tell you that if you do this, the great compassionate bearded fellow in the sky won’t love you quite as much any more.

Can the church be true even when elements/parts of your one through fourteen (and more that can be added) my have some validity/truth to them?

I think yes.

I think no.

by the way, as you know, the DNA issues and PofGP issues and a number of others that can be listed are not "done deals" one way or the other. There is wiggle room to go either way on most issues...reasonably.

Well, from the believer point of view, perhaps. From a scientific and evidentiary point of view, . . . c’mon.

[_mentalgymnast]

God could have intervened, but why should he intervene here, when throughout history, millions upon millions had died of illness caused by unhygienic conditions? What was different about G. Washington and his troops that might have merited God's intervention, when he clearly cared little to intervene in so many other cases (can you say "black death?").

MG: that was the point I was trying to make. Apparently I wasn't very clear.

MG:Dang it, why didn't God just step in and tell George how to make everything right...or for that matter, perfect?

guy: Why should he? What was the precedent for him doing so? G. Washington never claimed to have a pipeline to God or to be his representative on earth. He was not special, why should he be an exception to the millions God had already allowed to die from illness?

MG: again, that was the point I was trying to make.

MG: Many questions could be asked as to "where was God" here, or "where was God" there? Not just in this historical venue, but in similar situations throughout history. There were good men/women that God could have revealed all the right answers/procedures to who then in turn could have saved a lot of grief and error along the way. Why didn't a loving/compassionate God do so?

guy: Assumption aside, the most plausible answers strike me as

1. Because there is no God.
2. Because if there is a God, he is not the loving/compassionate being we believe him to be.
3. God may be loving and compassionate, but he follows a “hands-off” policy with regards to affairs on earth.

MG: it doesn't have to be all or nothing on #3.

from the human perspective, he appears awfully whimsical in how he choose to demonstrate his love and compassion.

MG: from some human perspectives...

MG: Now, let's go to church. Why would one think that God would NOT operate pretty much the same way within the confines of a small subsection of humanity called his church?

guy: Because the people who claim he as appointed to lead his church also claim that he is a actively guiding it and its leaders. We are not holding Mormon leaders to the same standards we hold G. Washington, as they have made a very different set of claims than G. Washington and are thus rightly held to different standards.

MG: the requirement your're making to hold each one (GW and GBH) to certain standards (and even having something to do with "claims" that they have or haven't made) to then delineate whether God would or wouldn't then treat them differently is a construct of yours. The question, at least for me, is how would/does God operate with human beings under varying conditions/circumstances. You can't hold humans accountable for how God works within the conditions/circumstances at large.

If they do not want to be held to those standards, they should not make the claim, and they should not hold us accountable for accepting that claim.

MG: what we're apparently disagreeing on is the way that God interacts with mankind in general vs. the LDS prophets. I'm saying there is more in common between the two than you might think. That doesn't negate the possibility that God interacts with prophets in his own time and way.

MG: Why would we think that mistakes and apparent errors could not be made within the confines of the church that could lead to misery and pain for others? Why would we assume that all the evidence is in when it comes to this or that?

guy: Something about “God will not let us lead his church astray” coupled with incessant claims of special access, divine knowledge, power of discernment, etc. If one accepts such claims, one has right to expect that such people, and the organization they lead, would distinguish itself from other man-created and man-led organizations. The fact, however, that the Lord’s church and his leaders appear no different on average than other human leaders and institutions suggests that man, not God, is leading the church.

MG: you're expecting God to lead mankind...including his prophets...every step of the way? That just doesn't seem to be the pattern throughout human history. To be honest, I would think that is is more likely for God to answer the prayers of a little child or the prayers of one who is suffering than to be directly involved in the day to day operations of every decision that is made in Salt Lake. But that seems to be par for the course across the board...in and out of the church.

...ask GBH and other leaders to stop making such grandiose claims regarding their access to the divine, and while you’re at it, perhaps you might ask them to tone down the message that our eternal salvation depends on believing they have this access and on doing precisely what they tell us.

MG: that is an overstatement of reality. You're giving up your agency. My experience has been that those individuals such as yourself whom have become permanently disaffected have become somewhat regimented in their thinking and a bit overboard in their judgements of others.

But if God is really communicating with them, directing them, sharing his infinite wisdom with them, showing them the righteous, moral path, surely it is not too much to expect that he take a few minutes to tell them that racism is wrong; it was, and remains, after all, one of the great moral issues of the ages. Why would God be silent on an issue of such moral gravitas, particularly when he finds time to weight in so frequently on dress and grooming standards?

MG: because they are individuals with agency also. Again, you're giving up too much of your own agency to others. Life is to be lived with freedom to do what's right. We make our choices...as do they. That does not take away from the fact that God's purposes can be accomplished through them.

You've probably heard the term "morgbots". What you seem to be saying is that the leaders themselves ought to be morgbots. God didn't work that way with George Washington and other great leaders. George Washington made his own decisions leaning upon a higher power. LDS general authorities do the same thing.

You're holding the GA's to a higher standard than they themselves hold themselves to. The claims that they make are not directly related to the standards that they do or don't keep. Again, they are free agents just like ourselves.

Brigham Young could be a racist and still be a prophet. He could have some whacky ideas and still act as a conduit to accomplish God's overall purposes. George Washington did not make and develop every decision and war doctrine perfectly...but he still played a large part in helping the colonies achieve independence from Britain. The final outcome was good. The details were a bit messy.

That is the human condition. In and out of the church.

You expect perfection and perfect judgement from others. Do you also expect it in yourself to the same extent? Why not?

After all, you're only human.

Regards,
MG

[_Dr. Shades]

George Washington made his own decisions leaning upon a higher power. LDS general authorities do the same thing.

Don't all leaders of all other apostate churches "make their own decisions leaning upon a higher power?" If so, it appears there's no way to distinguish a true church from a false one.

Brigham Young could be a racist and still be a prophet. He could have some whacky ideas and still act as a conduit to accomplish God's overall purposes. George Washington did not make and develop every decision and war doctrine perfectly...but he still played a large part in helping the colonies achieve independence from Britain. The final outcome was good. The details were a bit messy.

In that case, there's no way to tell a true prophet from a false one.

You expect perfection and perfect judgement from others. Do you also expect it in yourself to the same extent? Why not?

Rather than expecting "perfect judgment," I think people simply expect a "noticeable difference" between true churches/prophets and false ones. So far, according to your logic, the two are utterly indistinguishable.

[_truth dancer]

Hi MG...

I know this wasn't in response to me but let me reply anyway... :-)

I have such a difficult time expressing my thoughts on this topic... I don't seem to be able to get out what the issue is for me.

I'll keep trying. :-)

You're holding the GA's to a higher standard than they themselves hold themselves to.

I don't think so... the CHURCH claims the prophets are in direct communication with Jesus Christ. That Jesus Christ is at the helm. That the prophet is receiving divine direction, revelation, and inspiration.

Are you suggesting this is not the case?

The claims that they make are not directly related to the standards that they do or don't keep. Again, they are free agents just like ourselves.

I'm not sure what you mean by this...

Brigham Young could be a racist and still be a prophet. He could have some whacky ideas and still act as a conduit to accomplish God's overall purposes.

I suppose the God of the Universe could do anything "He" wanted.

The problem is... how can anyone tell when one is a prophet and truly speaking to God and when one isn't? If horrible, perverted, sick, cruel people can be the leaders (I'm not suggesting any leader is this), how or why should anyone trust them? And one must ask why God would choose a pretty horrible person to be the one in charge of "his" organization... no? The problem intensifies when the teaching is such that one must be worthy to hold the priesthood, go to the temple, etc. etc. etc. There is the assumption that one must be fairly decent to be in tune with God... but of course as you point out God could use whomever "he" wishes regardless of how sick the person is.

George Washington did not make and develop every decision and war doctrine perfectly...but he still played a large part in helping the colonies achieve independence from Britain. The final outcome was good. The details were a bit messy.

As far as I know, Washington didn't claim to be the mouthpiece for God on earth, have the true power of God, be directed by God himself, nor did he claim to be receiving revelation from God.

I don't think you can compare GW with the prophets because they do not claim the same things.

You expect perfection and perfect judgement from others. Do you also expect it in yourself to the same extent? Why not?

I certainly do not expect perfection in anyone. But... for those who claim to be divine messengers of God, with God's power, and in communion with God, having God directly speak to them, and having the true authority for God's will on earth... it seems they have set themselves up for a few expectations.

So... let me ask you a few questions...

How would the average person know when God is intervening and when he is not?
How would someone know when a teaching, doctrine, policy, practice, ritual, ceremony, revelation is from God and when it is not?
Why do you think God doesn't intervene during times of horrific suffering of children but does make his will known regarding how many earrings a woman must wear?
Why would God even bother with a one and only true church if it is virtually indistinguishable from every other church in the world in terms of its functioning.
How can the average person figure out what is the one and only true church if their is not evidence of divine revelation/understanding?

In other words, if there is nothing really different, no way to tell if a prophet is a prophet, no real difference in followers, nothing great to set one group apart from another... why bother? What is God thinking? What is the purpose? Why even have a one and only true church?

You seem to think there is some need for a one and only true church and yet it is no different than any other... if prophets are just doing their best like everyone else, fine. If God is not really involved, fine. But the church and its leaders should stop making claims that they are something different!

I know I am still not getting my point across here. :-(

~dancer~

[_mentalgymnast]

hi TD and Shades. TD said:

I know I am still not getting my point across here.

Both of you have made your point clear. If the LDS church is in many ways is no different that any other organization in its day to day operations and one cannot always tell whether or not LDS authorities are connecting with God any more or less than any other religious/spiritual leaders...outwardly, then how is one to know whether the truth claims promoted by the LDS church are true?

I will keep it simple and straightforward.

The LDS church claims that an apostasy took place in Christianity and that truth was restored.

Evidence-BofM

If the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be then the LDS church is different that the other churches and spiritual systems in the world.

If the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be then the LDS authorities have a unique and special authority and stewardship in the world.

As I mentioned earlier, the Book of Mormon is literally the keystone of the truth claims of the LDS church. Just as Joseph Smith said it would be. What an amazing statement for him to make so long ago. The central/integral key to alleviate the doubts of those that have migrated towards permanent doubt and skepticism is the Book of Mormon. ETB may well have got this one right a number of years ago when he made such an issue over the Book of Mormon. Did he know what was coming down the pike? GBH may well have got it right recently when he encouraged members of the church to read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover.

I find it very interesting that the leaders of the church would place so much emphasis on the Book of Mormon.

Why?

Because it is purported to be the book that can bring people closer to Christ than any other book. Thus, engaged with the church and its teachings. Yes, even in regards to earrings, piercings, and tattoos.

If the Book of Mormon is the word of God, then an apostasy took place over the long years since Christ was here on the earth.

Period.

Controversy over.

Go back, each one of you. Read the Book of Mormon. That is what I have been attempting to do for the last number of months. All of my other reading keeps intruding, but I'm trying to stay connected with the Book of Mormon.

New Approaches (Metcalfe and Co.), Vogel, internet boards, Quinn's writings, Tanner's stuff, Signature book publications, historical Jesus issues, scientific controversies, internal doubts and questions, are all influences that over a period of time caused me to put the Book of Mormon on the shelf. It gathered some dust. I've dusted it off and started rereading it with an open mind and heart. Yes, there are things that are perplexing in the Book of Mormon and can be difficult to deal with once one has the background to look at things with a more nuanced view. But then there's Nahom, there's wordprint analysis, there's Hebraisms, and yes...alot of the apologetic stuff written by FARMS having to do with other interesting things going on inside the Book of Mormon. These things can't simply be pushed aside.

Well, they can...but I would be dishonest with myself in doing so.

TD:
How would the average person know when God is intervening and when he is not?
How would someone know when a teaching, doctrine, policy, practice, ritual, ceremony, revelation is from God and when it is not?
Why do you think God doesn't intervene during times of horrific suffering of children but does make his will known regarding how many earrings a woman must wear?
Why would God even bother with a one and only true church if it is virtually indistinguishable from every other church in the world in terms of its functioning.
How can the average person figure out what is the one and only true church if their is not evidence of divine revelation/understanding?

MG: good questions. They could each be the springboard for a new and lengthy thread of conversation. For me, the answers to these questions and others that can be raised, can be better approached from the direction of faith rather than disbelief. The Book of Mormon providing the impetus for that motivation to connect faith with reason. I have had over the last decade many of the same questions that you do now. I could add many more to the list. I enjoy Sunstone. I enjoy Dialogue. I enjoy looking at the issues and asking questions.

The interesting thing is, is that there has been some headway over this period of time in being able to make some connections, come to some understandings, make some paradigm shifts, tweak some assumptions, calm some angers, forgive myself and others with a bit more understanding/empathy, etc. The questions to some extent or another are still there, but I've been more willing to look for possible answers as I've chosen to stay in the church rather that stay on the NOM track, or jump ship completely. I'm more comfortable living with a degree of ambiguity and even doubt...knowing that there is at least the possibility...even plausibility...that there is an important place/purpose in the world for the LDS church.

Thanks for your thoughts,
MG

[_truth dancer]

Hi MG...

Both of you have made your point clear. If the LDS church is in many ways is no different that any other organization in its day to day operations and one cannot always tell whether or not LDS authorities are connecting with God any more or less than any other religious/spiritual leaders...outwardly, then how is one to know whether the truth claims promoted by the LDS church are true?

Yes, this is half of it. :-)

The other half is, why would God have his one and only true organization/religion be no different from every other organization/religion/group in the world?

Lets go with the idea that the Book of Mormon is true. OK. So what? What of the claims? So it is true. What does this have to do with God's organization if God's organization is no different than any other, if the people are no different than any other, if God's communications are as veiled and unknown as any other, if no one can tell if God is at the helm of not.

In other words, even if the Book of Mormon is true.... so what? (I'm not saying this in a cynical way, I'm asking).

Lets say the Book of Mormon is true so the Church is true. Well what exactly is true about it? What teachings? What ideas? Which scripture?

Does that mean that God was behind the ban? Or that the priesthood ban that still exists is of God? Or that people's skin color really changes if they believe the Book of Mormon? Or that God placed Adam and Eve on the earth from another planet? Or that there really was a tower of Babel? Or that the Noachian flood was a real event? Or that God really does like men to have a harem? Or that gay people are followers of Satan? Or that there is really a power that only a few special men can have? Or that women should veil their faces? Or that if one doesn't believe in Joseph Smith they won't be with their family in heaven? Or that God is really a Caucasian man with a beard? Or that God had sex with Mary? Or that God commanded Abraham to kill his son? Or that God doesn't want non-believing familes to witness a wedding? Or that one must pay to go to the temple? Or that it was God's will for Joshua to slaughter babies and rape young girls?

In other words... even if the Book of Mormon is true how in the world does that change anything regarding God's intervention and God's charachterists?

Does that make sense?

Why does God have a religion that is no different than any other. Yes it makes some unique claims but so do most all other religions of the world. They all have unique claims. They all have reasons to believe theirs is the real truth.

Look at the millions upon millions of monks the world over... look at the priests, nuns, and devoted Saints the world over... look at the followers of Islam... They are as devoted and dedicated as any LDS member. (probably more so in many cases). Have you studied the Vedas? The Quran? Other religious texts? There are many more reasons to believe in their truth than the Book of Mormon in my opinion.

I'm in a place, where, when I read the Book of Mormon today, I see a completely different book than the one I read for several decades. Now that I have read quite a bit of research on Mesoamerica I can see how very strange it is. It doesn't reflect in the least the reality of this area a few thousand years ago. It speaks of a man living in the early 19th century.

But... as I have stated before... if the Book of Mormon helps someone live a more holy life, feel better about their existence, provide hope, give meaning etc. etc. then it is great to hold onto it. I really mean this.

For me, it did just the opposite. The teachings of the church are so contrary to the way I experience the world that it was making me dizzy. The thought of the LDS afterlife being reality filled me with so much pain and depression that I can't even tell you.

Even if the church is the one and only true one on the earth, it gave me so much sorrow and confusion that I just couldn't keep trying to hold onto a belief that did not work for me, and harmed my life in many ways.

I'm seriously OK with the idea of not being with God, or living in the CKHL, being a Goddess or Queen, sharing a husband, and procreating children for eternity. I'm fine with not being one of the elect. I really am.

~dancer~