The Reason I believed the LDS church was True..

[_Quantumwave]

Can't really answer your question since it presumes non-belief in God is a religion, which it really is not.

My question presumes that non-belief in God is a religion? How? I didn't ask about the non-belief in God at all. I actually think the non-belief in God is just a non-belief. I do not believe in God and don't equate my non-belief as religion at all! I'm rather surpised you viewed my question as a presumption of any sort.

That would equate to stating that non-belief in Greek mythology is a religion. My temple-working sister tells me that my interest in science is a religion. I tell her she has a binary outlook on life ingrained from the many years of being exposed to the philosophy of religious certitude...and the beat goes on.

Can I ask again, perhaps rephrasing? :)

You made statements about people that subscribe to religion. Do these statements carry over to those that believe in God with out subscribing to religion?

I make no presumptions about non-belief. I'm talking about people that believe in God or gods and are not a part of organized religion. Is that clearer?

Sorry, Barrelomonkeys...I concluded your question implied something you didn't intend.

The answer to your question,

Do these statements carry over to those that believe in God with out subscribing to religion?

is generally, no. However I would need to qualify that with a modification regarding the definition of God that "those" people have. If "those" people believe in a jealous, vengeful and hateful God similar to the one described in the Old Testament, then yes, the statements apply to them, even though they subscribe to no organized religion.

[_Inconceivable]

Can I ask again, perhaps rephrasing? :)

You made statements about people that subscribe to religion. Do these statements carry over to those that believe in God with out subscribing to religion?

That is a great question Book of Mormon's.

The bishop told me that he hopes someday I would somehow find my way back to "the Gospel". In his narrow perception, "the Gospel" and "the church" are synonymous to him (and only the Mormon religeon at that). My statement troubled him when I told him I had not discarded "the Gospel" - that was about the only thread of belief I was holding onto.

"the Gospel" (the Good News) is not "the church".

A church is NOT Good News. "the Kingdom" is not the Good News.

What is the Good News (at least in Christianity)?

It is the belief that through Jesus we are offered the (only) way to peace and happiness.

To my perception, the Good News transcends definitions of church or kingdom.

[_Yoda]

So if you have had parallels to what I have related where are you now? What constitutes your reconciliation?
Fasting has been ineffective thus far. I’ve been getting a busy signal or “not in service” from prayer.

What are your thoughts?

I can absolutely relate to what you are saying. I'm going through a lot of this same "puzzle-building", if you will.

;)

I have had many spiritual experiences which I consider to be 100% real. No one can convince me otherwise. I have also spoken with close friends of other religions who have had moving spiritual experiences, and I don't discount their experiences, either.

There are many aspects about certain tenets of Mormonism which bother me---polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, the refusal to take some responsibility for MMM, etc.

I do, honestly believe in Jesus Christ and His teachings.

I haven't really completely "resolved" things yet, but I look at it this way.

I think that as long as I live my life as closely to how Christ would want me to (being kind to others, etc.), that He really doesn't care what Church I attend to worship Him. If it's easier for me at this point (which it is) to attend the LDS Church, even though I don't necessarily agree with everything, then as long as I am worshiping Christ, that's all that matters.

[_harmony]

I have had many spiritual experiences which I consider to be 100% real. No one can convince me otherwise. I have also spoken with close friends of other religions who have had moving spiritual experiences, and I don't discount their experiences, either.

It is this phenomena that convinces me that God doesn't care what church we belong to, which is a source of great comfort to me, as I maintain my membership in the LDS church.

[_Inconceivable]

I have had many spiritual experiences which I consider to be 100% real. No one can convince me otherwise. I have also spoken with close friends of other religions who have had moving spiritual experiences, and I don't discount their experiences, either.

It is this phenomena that convinces me that God doesn't care what church we belong to, which is a source of great comfort to me, as I maintain my membership in the LDS church.

I just don't understand at all how a nobody like you (I fall into this category as well) can draw such a reasonable conclusion while the "inspired" hierarchy of power rejects and crucifys this concept outright.

Well, I guess I do.

[_truth dancer]

I just don't understand at all how a nobody like you (I fall into this category as well) can draw such a reasonable conclusion while the "inspired" hierarchy of power rejects and crucifys this concept outright.

1. Satan's influence
2. Disobedience
3. Hard heart
4. Pride
5. Lack of faith
6. Not investing enough time and energy into believing
7. Listening to critics
8. Letting hurt feelings influence belief
9. Not one of the chosen
10. Laziness


~dancer~

[_harmony]

I have had many spiritual experiences which I consider to be 100% real. No one can convince me otherwise. I have also spoken with close friends of other religions who have had moving spiritual experiences, and I don't discount their experiences, either.

It is this phenomena that convinces me that God doesn't care what church we belong to, which is a source of great comfort to me, as I maintain my membership in the LDS church.

I just don't understand at all how a nobody like you (I fall into this category as well) can draw such a reasonable conclusion while the "inspired" hierarchy of power rejects and crucifys this concept outright.

Well, I guess I do.

I agree; I am a nobody. A local phenomena, to be sure. Not at all powerful nor striving to be. And I think that's exactly why I draw that conclusion, given the same historical evidences, the same spiritual experiences, the same relationship with God as those in the heirarchy of power. I have no power. I crave no power. I refuse to do whatever it takes to gain that power. And consequently, were I to draw that reasonable conclusion and publish it publically while maintaining my active membership in the church, the resulting firestorm brought down on my head by those who do crave power, who do control power, and who do gain by that power would seriously interrupt my peaceful world. I prefer to remain nobody, and live peacefully with my fellow Saints (both those who really are Saints and those who are far from it), than to bring myself to the attention of those who would (and have, and still do) seek to have me excommunicated for my heresy in thinking that God doesn't care which church we're members of, as long as we live the principles of the Gospel that His Son lived and died for.

[_Roger Morrison]

Some very interesting thoughts here. Specially Quantumwave's very, very well stated:

I find it curious that religion continues to persist in civilization, in spite of its notorious history of divisiveness and violence. It seems inconceivable that otherwise intelligent, clear-thinking people subscribe to what amounts to folklore. Religious belief within a sectarian cell is sustained and passed to succeeding generations through a sense of family/group loyalty reinforced by tradition and the fear of threatened consequences of non-belief. The intensity of loyalty and fear varies from sect to sect and sub-cell to sub-cell within sects. Fear-based dogma is inculcated in the credulously trusting youth, which includes the divisive, hateful, elitist belief of exclusive truth, not infrequently evolving into the resolve that unbelievers should either comply through conversion or suffer death. Similarly, many sects including Mormonism advocate that the unbelievers who reject their dogma will suffer assorted eternal, spiritual consequences which vary widely between sectarian cells, depending on scriptural interpretation by ranking authorities.

RM: It has been said, "...the whole need no physician..." Obviously there are still those who do. Albeit, i think individual doses vary and prescriptions may not always be currative... And currently SOME of the physicians might not be as quackish as their predecessors...

Over the years, this information becomes more than just information to these believers; it becomes ingrained in their total makeup, inoculating them against using simple logic and reason to evaluate their religious dogma. To challenge any aspect of their information is regarded by them as an assault on their personal integrity, which results in responses ranging from rehearsed replies to angry responses, including death decrees. Contrast this behavior with the response received from challenging someone’s understanding of physics, math or chemistry. Since both subjects of science and religion involve the processing of information no more divergent than history and calculus, then critical discussions of religion should take place without emotion and anger.

RM: Totally, 'absolutely' a valid observation!! This in itself should give cause to question the defence of those threatened by questions. Without questions of the 'old' there is no opportunity of 'new'! Can it be imagined where, & what 'we' would be had ALL questioners been put to the cross???

The difference of the described responses shows conclusively that inculcating our youth with this hateful Bible-based information is an egregious mistake. Many enlightened religionists who do have doubts, assuage these doubts and continue their religious activity by adopting the logic of Pascal’s Wager.

I like to think the number of "...enlightened religionists..." is increasing??? OTOH, i regret there are not more "courageous-enlightened-religionists". Then again, there have always been more followers than leaders... Society has been designed that way. Maybe it is "conceivable" that better EDUCATION, not INDOCRINATION, will eradicate mind-manipulations by sticks-&-carrots conditioning with utmost respect of authority.

In some of the churches/sects i've attended in the past 5 years there is far less "blood" mentioned. Particularly hymns have been cleaned-up. Although not in LDSism.

Incon & Harmony, i'm wondering about your self-references to being "no body"??? Like, come on guys, "Yer a somebody!" At least to me! Maybe i'm not getting your intended meaning??? Help me here... Warm regards, Roger

[_ajax18]

I find it curious that religion continues to persist in civilization, in spite of its notorious history of divisiveness and violence. It seems inconceivable that otherwise intelligent, clear-thinking people subscribe to what amounts to folklore.

Perhaps it's the desperate situation of mankind. Our intense need of a religion to provide us with purpose, justice, and meaning motivates us to put with, reinvent, explain, and make excuses for religion. Rational thought does not always get you what you want nor does it necessarily deal with questions like happiness.

[_Gazelam]

The bishop told me that he hopes someday I would somehow find my way back to "the Gospel". In his narrow perception, "the Gospel" and "the church" are synonymous to him (and only the Mormon religeon at that). My statement troubled him when I told him I had not discarded "the Gospel" - that was about the only thread of belief I was holding onto.

"the Gospel" (the Good News) is not "the church".

A church is NOT Good News. "the Kingdom" is not the Good News.

What is the Good News (at least in Christianity)?

It is the belief that through Jesus we are offered the (only) way to peace and happiness.

To my perception, the Good News transcends definitions of church or kingdom.

What your talking about here is the word of God. The good news being that Christ worked out the Atonement. A resurrection is promised to all, but to what degree individuals will be exalted, and what type of body they will be resurrected into is a diferent matter.

You recall the parable of the three servants and the talents. Each was given a different level of responsibility, with the only requirement beign that they improve upon it. The reward was the same, the Master only asked that they serve faithfully.

The same is asked of us, that we make a commitment and be faithful in the responsibilities given us.

Now ask yourself, how would you, as God, set up your kingdom to ensure that these responsibilities and covenants are doled out appropriatly? A Priesthood? A church?

How would you administer your gospel?