Was I clear as mud as to how to find peace?

[_mentalgymnast]

Ahhh MG, Primary Chorister, and Cacheman.... COOL! :-)

MG, yeah I think you were clear.

The thing is though...

It is the LDS church that claims to have all the answers. It is not the non-believers.

While I may have missed a post somewhere on some board, I don't think I have ever heard a non-believer claim to know all the answers, have the one and only true church, claim to be in direct contact with Jesus Christ himself, state the true nature of God, or claim to have the one true power and authority of God.

So, I don't know how you can suggest that it is the non-believers who are holding the black and white idea. Where does the black and white idea come from? From the LDS teachings, doctrine, prophets...

Where is the teaching that the church is only "a" way of many to know God? Or that you don't really have to believe in the restoration? Or that the leaders really do not know if God is a man? Or that you do not have to be baptized/sealed/etc in the LDS church to live with God in the CKHL? Or that Joseph Smith may or may not have got it right? Ya know what I mean?

To let go of belief in the church is to let go of the black and white thinking, for the most part. (Not to suggest there aren't some believers who do not embrace the black and white teachings).

You seem to suggest that the real truth, or the fullness of the truth, or truth for the more special, brilliant, spiritual folk has nothing to do with the actual church doctrine/teachings/beliefs taught by prophets but is something altogether different.

I just so don't get this! But you know this! LOL!

Nice to see you...

~dancer~

TD, howdy there. I haven't been round these parts lately and it's good to "see" some familiar faces. I alway enjoy your comments because I have to go back and rethink my thinking to see if I'm offtrack or not.

First, I don't know that the LDS church claims to have all the answers. The LDS church does claim to have the truth, however. I don't see the two as being identical. Second, I know that non-believers don't have all the answers, but then again...no one does. We're on firm ground there. If the church had all the answers right the first time then there wouldn't be a Brigham Young teaching Adam/God.

When I'm referring to non-believers being black and white thinkers I am referring to the fact that they have made a choice. Disbelief. Once that choice is made, flexibility in thinking becomes restricted and narrow. Even dogmatic. Lines of thinking follow a certain predictable path. Is that not black and white?

On to your questions.

Where is the teaching that the church is only "a" way of many to know God?

C'mon TD. Reality demonstrates that there are many ways to know God. He seems to be OK with that. As a member of the church I don't know that one is obligated to think otherwise.

Or that you don't really have to believe in the restoration?

You don't have to 100%. that's where probabilities, possibilities, and faith come into the picture. As one matures, it may be that belief/knowledge will come. Or not. It is possible to exist and practice orthopraxy within the church without full unadulterated belief. Just don't commit adultery. <g>

Or that you do not have to be baptized/sealed/etc in the LDS church to live with God in the CKHL?

I think that one is free to believe that there may be more to this than meets the eye, and I also think you could talk to many TBM's and find agreement. Earlier when I said the we can't see beyond the end of our nose, I meant that. And prophets may, at times anyway, not see much farther.

Or that Joseph Smith may or may not have got it right?

Of course he didn't always get it right. He said so himself.

Now TD, I'm thinking as an active member of the church here. Am I thinking black and white? Are there shades of gray? Can you see them? Are those that leave the church able to see the shades of gray? I believe that this ability to do so is lost, at least to some extent, once one chooses to disbelieve.

TD, a common thread in almost everything I hear from you finally comes down to this. "The onus of proof is squarely on the prophets and leaders of the church". Well, yes and no. But not ALL yes. Why should it be? Actual "church doctrine/teachings/beliefs taught by prophets" has not always remained the same from one period of time to the next. What are we do make of this? What one makes of it can lead one either way. Belief or disbelief. Where does the whole concept of line upon line and precept upon precept come into play here?

What I'm trying to say and get across, is that the direction one chooses to go is directly connected with one's own thought processes and being able to think outside of the box that one was previously confined to...thoughtwise... because of circumstances that may have been beyond one's control. Including church control. One has to consciously force one's thoughts but not necessarily self, outside of that box.

I contend that there are many that disbelieve who have not done so.

This is not condescension, this is reality.

If one is outside of the church, I believe that it is likely they are still in the box of black and white thinking. Not that this same individual may not think outside of the box and see shades of gray in other areas of experience/life, however.

It's good to talk to you!

Regards,
MG

[_Bond...James Bond]

The PP's, Scratch's, Bond's, Shades of this board have issues because they have not been able to move beyond a primary/seminary outlook towards the world and the church. They will say they have, but I honestly don't believe this to be the case. They are black/white thinkers...if you can call it thinking. They grew up literally thinking that all the thinking that ever had to be thunk had been done by someone other than themselves. They are very simplistic and naïve in their outlook towards what and who God is and how he may or may not operate in the universe. If he doesn't conform to their image, then he doesn't exist. They are ready and happy to jump on the secular bandwagon without the least provocation. They will say otherwise and call those such as myself a fool for even alluding to the possibility that this may be the case, but nonetheless, it is not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that they are the ones that have been duped and deluded into thinking "inside the box" of skepticism and doubt, to the exclusion of other possibilities.

Okay I'm going to assume MG doesn't keep up with all the backgrounds of board members here, since I'm not an ex Mormon and never went to primary/seminary, and thus cannot move beyond an outlook I've never held. Thus if he'd like to remove my name and install a more fitting candidate....I'd be more than willing to accept a retraction for the association of my good name with these scoudrels....;o)

(Note: for anyone who isn't up to date with my brand of sarcasm, I don't think Scratch, Shades, or PP are scoundrels...and would gladly associate with them if I knew they were real and not cyberbots created to irritate the Mormon apologists ;)

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi MG... I wanted to respond to a couple more of your thoughts...

PP's, Scratch's, Bond's, Shades of this board have issues because they have not been able to move beyond a primary/seminary outlook towards the world and the church.

Why do you think this? The very fact that they no longer hold to the "primary/seinary outlook" seems to indicate they have moved beyond it.

Moved beyond it to disbelief. As I have mentioned previously, this may result in its own form of dogmatism.

Wow... I know quite a few folks who no longer believe in the church and black and white thinkers they are not!

But they are in regards to the truth claims of the LDS church, no?

Inside the box, in my opinion, means one is embracing LDS thought. Thinking outside the box is thinking outside the teachings/doctrine/beliefs of LDS thought so I do not quite understand how non-believers are not thinking outside the box.

They are in that sense, yes. I guess it's a matter of which box we're referring to however. Once one has left the box that embraces LDS thought it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to think outside of THAT box, because one is no longer in it. To think outside of the box, does it not necessitate residing in the box, or at least keeping one foot in there? <G> Once one has left the box that embraces LDS thought completely with no turning back, how can one be thinking outside of the box?

The box is no longer there.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Here is an example of thinking outside of the box:

You are driving down the road in your car on a wild, stormy night, when
you pass by a bus stop and you see three people waiting for the bus:

1. An old lady who looks as if she is about to die.

2. An old friend who once saved your life.

3. The perfect partner you have been dreaming about.

Which one would you choose to offer a ride to, knowing that there could
only be one passenger in your car?

Take a second and think before you continue reading.

This is a moral/ethical dilemma that was once actually used as part of a
job application.

You could pick up the old lady, because she is going to die, and thus
you should save her first. Or you could take the old friend because he
once saved your life, and this would be the perfect chance to pay him
back. However, you may never be able to find your perfect mate again.

The candidate who was hired (out of 200 applicants) had no trouble
coming up with his answer. He simply answered: "I would give the car
keys to my old friend and let him take the lady to the hospital. I would
stay behind and wait for the bus with the partner of my dreams."

Sometimes, we gain more if we are able to give up our stubborn thought
limitations. Never forget to "Think Outside of the Box."

MG: now that's thinking outside of the box.

Regards,
MG

[_DonBradley]

A few thoughts, MG.

First, in response to your question: yes, I've found peace--particularly in relationship to Mormonism. I've found that there is far more peace in acknowledging the difference between square and round than there is in trying to shove the peg of Truth into the hole called "Faith." Since I no longer have to reconcile the irreconcilable, nor even, as you do, posit that somehow they must fit, I've been much more emotionally steady and at peace.

Second, the following argument fails on both logical grounds and factual grounds:

The PP's, Scratch's, Bond's, Shades of this board have issues because they have not been able to move beyond a primary/seminary outlook towards the world and the church.

By using what you see as the extreme cases, you position your own view as moderate in relation to them. But the fact is that most of those who come to disbelieve Mormonism slip away quietly and with little fanfare. One needn't invest a great deal of time criticizing LDS beliefs, or use extreme rhetoric, in order to arrive at the conclusion that is overwhelmingly backed by the evidence--that Mormonism is not what it purports to be.

You're also wrong in your view of at least one of those you use as an example above. I've known "Dr. Shades" a good part of my life, and I can tell you that he has an outlook far beyond the "primary/seminary" view. Indeed, his "Jehovah's Witnesses Test" is one of the most objective and incisive methods ever devised for assessing the rationality of an LDS argument or belief.

Third, your whole enterprise is wrongheaded. The issue isn't whether Mormonism is possibly true if we make all kinds of allowances for it, but, rather, whether it is probably true given the bare, brute facts and without special pleading. It is not. The evidence against biblical faith, let alone the LDS revelation built atop it, is decisive. And despite the far-fetched apologetics and occasional random "hits" a work like the Book of Abraham could scarcely be in a more tenuous, weak, and counter-rational position. In working with the papyri, Joseph Smith 1) misidentified the authors of the scrolls as Abraham and Joseph, 2) mistranslated the text, 3) misinterpreted the vignettes, 4) mistakenly "restored" the text of the lacunae--sometimes using characters from the wrong script, borrowing characters from other papyri, and turning the characters upside-down, and at other times inventing "Egyptian" characters which are not really Egyptian, such that the text reads as proper Egyptian until Joseph Smith filled a lacuna, at which point it becomes sheer gobbledygook; 5) mistakenly restored the missing portions of the vignettes by borrowing from other vignettes and inventing images such that the vignettes are standard Egyptian scenes except where he "restored" them.

If misidentifying the author, mistranslating the text, misinterpreting the vignettes, and mistakenly restoring both text and vignettes doesn't disconfirm the Book of Abraham, what would?

The reason many LDS apologists aren't persuaded by new evidence against their beliefs is that these beliefs have already survived the most perfect disconfirmation conceivable and are therefore impervious to disconfirmation. Future instances of disconfirmation can be laid gently on the shelf next to the many that decorate it already, till the shelf becomes a museum.

Don

[_Jersey Girl]

Don,

I've never seen these words before: lacunae- lacuna

What do they mean?

Jersey Girl

[_DonBradley]

Hi Jersey,

A lacuna is a gap or hole, e.g., in a manuscript. Lacunae is the plural.

Don

[_Inconceivable]

..First, in response to your question: yes, I've found peace--particularly in relationship to Mormonism. I've found that there is far more peace in acknowledging the difference between square and round than there is in trying to shove the peg of Truth into the hole called "Faith." Since I no longer have to reconcile the irreconcilable, nor even, as you do, posit that somehow they must fit, I've been much more emotionally steady and at peace...

Don,

So, are you saying you are an active member of the LDS church who finds peace by maintaining a respectable distance between truth (the peg) and faith (the hole)?

If so, how do you reconcile this reference:

21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 32:21)

Did I misunderstand your post?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I contend that there is a core difference(s) between those that jump ship and those that don't see a reason to after having received enlightenment as to those things that are potentially destructive to faith. I have alluded to some of these differences in my original post.

This is nice. You've come up with a new (new to me, anyway) way to imply that there is something wrong with those who leave. They haven't received enlightenment! Guess that's better than "they just want to go out and smoke and drink."

But this enlightenment you have received, can you explain it a little more? I'm a black and white thinker, you see, and I'm having trouble understanding how it jives with this statement from your first post:

For me, peace is knowing that I don't have to have all the answers...that in fact I can have more questions than answers, and still remain an active member of the church.

Actually, I've said myself more than once that enlightenment is knowing that we do not know, but I've never found a TBM yet who agrees with that. So what form does your enlightenment take? Sure knowledge, or knowing that you do not know?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Hi MG... I wanted to respond to a couple more of your thoughts...

PP's, Scratch's, Bond's, Shades of this board have issues because they have not been able to move beyond a primary/seminary outlook towards the world and the church.

Why do you think this? The very fact that they no longer hold to the "primary/seinary outlook" seems to indicate they have moved beyond it.

Moved beyond it to disbelief. As I have mentioned previously, this may result in its own form of dogmatism.

Wow... I know quite a few folks who no longer believe in the church and black and white thinkers they are not!

But they are in regards to the truth claims of the LDS church, no?

Inside the box, in my opinion, means one is embracing LDS thought. Thinking outside the box is thinking outside the teachings/doctrine/beliefs of LDS thought so I do not quite understand how non-believers are not thinking outside the box.

They are in that sense, yes. I guess it's a matter of which box we're referring to however. Once one has left the box that embraces LDS thought it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to think outside of THAT box, because one is no longer in it. To think outside of the box, does it not necessitate residing in the box, or at least keeping one foot in there? <G> Once one has left the box that embraces LDS thought completely with no turning back, how can one be thinking outside of the box?

The box is no longer there.

Regards,
MG

The box is still there. Think of Mormonism as the smallest box inside a larger box inside a yet larger box, and so on. A seeker progresses from the smaller boxes to the larger boxes. The non-seeker stays in the comfy little box in the very inside and is content to believe the entire truth is in that box even though he has more questions than answers about that truth.