From Faith Crisis to Believer

[Anonymous]

I, for one, dig Mormon apologetics. It is not always polemic, but if it is, then that’s okay with me. I think It’s important and good to defend truth and show how falsities are false. Mormon apologetics is necessary because there are many who propagate views that oppose the Church and they twist the truth. I am thankful for FAIR, Jeff Lindsay, and guys like Bill Reel. Ultimately, the Holy Ghost teaches me truth and provides me a testimony, but others provide useful information and explanations.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

Don’t worry about what others think, it is not their right to judge

:clap:

That is right. That is what takes the inner strength and maturity to have.

I will add, at some point, when the judging gets too intense or constant, it may become time to stop hanging with that group (and take a break from church).

I have found many in my ward I enjoy hanging with, and I want to continue to go learn from them. But I wouldn’t set myself up for a beating every time I go…at some point, one option for people may be to stop going. Others will wonder why, but it is an option for some people.

But other times, that option doesn’t provide the most growth and learning either unless it is traded with something better, or something equally spiritual and uplifting. And I think there are other things in the world that are valid options. But staying home and wallowing in anger about the church is not a long-term health plan.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

Quote:

ah, so you are a heretic like the rest of us

I don’t think so. I think Elder Christofferson’s last conference talk puts him and other leaders in the same group as well. While they likely won’t throw anyone under a bus, they realize too many of us lay members are missing the mark

First, the wink indicated humor, or tongue in cheek. But now that you said, “I don’t think so”, I am more serious and committed to the term.

“Heresy” in its original meaning, meant choosing for oneself. in the context of catholic orthodoxy, “choosing for oneself” was anathema/accursed: you were to believe based exclusively on the creeds and dogma of the catholic church. thinking for oneself was expressedly not allowed regarding doctrinal matters. therefore the term “heresy” came to mean the state of being in opposition to catholic dogma. Being a heretic is neither an apostate, which refers a person who denounces the faith, nor a blasphemer, who denounces god.

One of the messages if the first vision was that the creeds were an abomination. I would say that with the exception of the athanasian creed, someone expressing the exact same sentiments as the apostles’ creed or the nicene creed (except for homoousion), would be considered as speaking current mormon doctrine. What, then, was the abomination of the creeds? Could it be that we are to find out for ourselves, through our own experience, to dustinguish good and evil?

By explicit definition, Joseph Smith was a heretic, and as founder of the church, he was a heresiarch. “Heresy” was the original founding principle if the church — men were free to choose, and the gospel was meant to be “all truth”. in the early Days, this openness led to schisms and a lot of crazy innovative thinking. Even into the mid 20th century, mormon doctrine was not supposed to be fixed, and there were a lot of opinions and speculation — I would suggest that early priesthood study manuals encouraged exploration, for an individual to discover for him or herself the deep mysteries, but never to proclaim them as “doctrine”.

In the 1950s, Joseph Fielding Smith’s “Man: His Origin and Destiny” was a seminal text to lock down creationism, and Mormon Doctrine was published…As well, Harold B. Lee, the educator, and his understudy Boyd K Packer strted enforcing Correlation, to lock down the doctrine and teaching of the church. by 1980, Ezra Taft Benson codified the infallibility doctrine in his 14 Fundamentals, using anecdotal asides taken out of context with no scriptural support.

So here we are: 192 years after the First Vision, with an established doctrinal orthodoxy enforced and defended by some members of the Q12, whereas others clearly see the idea that we should be thinking and choosing or ourselves. We have a church teaching young children to put aside choosing and thinking, and instead, to put on a testimony glove so they can recite at the Rameumptom their memorized, rote testimony, and singing “Follow the Prophet, He knows the way.” We have CES enforcing “pure doctrine” by avoiding truths that are not useful. Indoctrination is alive and well. What is the church breeding? a generation of souls ill equipped to deal with truth.

I stand with Joseph Smith and the First Vision in adamant opposition to doctrinal orthodoxy and enforced dogma. I have sworn at Thomas Jefferson’s grave, his Memorial, and as well, the altar of god, eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man — and Jefferson was referring to the enforced dogma of religious creeds when he penned those words.

I embrace the term “heretic”, for god has given me a mind to think critically, and the freedom of will to choose for myself. He has given me a charge, in the temple, to learn from my own experience to distinguish good versus evil. He has forbidden me from partaking of the tree if knowledge of good and evil — the easy way of no thinking or choosing — satan’s plan — indeed the abomination of creedal, dogmatic doctrine.

I consider the term “Heretic” to be a term of great respect.

[Anonymous]

I got your humor, but saw a teaching moment for others. I was only implying that there are no two people in the church who all believe the same thing. We are all heretics in reality. Many of the people here have felt alone in the church sensing they are different or outside the perception of what a Mormon has to be. Just letting people know we are all different, so no need to be an outsider. Someone has to be pioneer

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

I got your humor, but saw a teaching moment for others. I was only implying that there are no two people in the church who all believe the same thing. We are all heretics in reality. Many of the people here have felt alone in the church sensing they are different or outside the perception of what a Mormon has to be. Just letting people know we are all different, so no need to be an outsider. Someone has to be pioneer

With respect, we are neither teachers nor students here, but rather, we share our experience, strength, and hope as peers and fellow travelers along the way.

The newest and most troubled of people has something to teach, and those, like yourself, who have solid faith are here, hopefully, to learn as well. We neither preach, evangelize, exhort, nor do we talk in opposition.

So, my reaction to a teaching moment in lieu of saying what you really believe, kind of left me feeling a bit isolated and judged by your response.

We need you here: the authentic, real reel. You have experience that can help, not by teaching moments — for those are an artifice when designed as such. Authentic teaching moments just happen.

fwiw…cheers!

[Anonymous]

Quote:

The newest and most troubled of people has something to teach, and those, like yourself, who have solid faith are here, hopefully, to learn as well. We neither preach, evangelize, exhort, nor do we talk in opposition.

sure, I agree. One of my worries is that while I am continually offering my experience as support, some will see me as giving all answers and not receiving any. I have spent the past two weeks exploring SSA and all that goes with it. I have beenreading many of the threads here on various issues and trying to better wrap my head around how all of us being different can also be one.

Please don’t take me as only giving, I am here to learn from you as well. I had a spiritual insight just today that I mentioned in an earlier post.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

Authentic teaching moments just happen.

this is not necessarily critical to this thread, I just feel it important to mention how insightful this point is. When people go through a faith crisis, it may be hard to go slow and stay calm and allow the teaching moments to happen, but I think they do happen this way.

Ok, back to the regularly scheduled program…

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

DBMormon wrote:

Quote:

ah, so you are a heretic like the rest of us

I don’t think so. I think Elder Christofferson’s last conference talk puts him and other leaders in the same group as well. While they likely won’t throw anyone under a bus, they realize too many of us lay members are missing the mark

First, the wink indicated humor, or tongue in cheek. But now that you said, “I don’t think so”, I am more serious and committed to the term.

“Heresy” in its original meaning, meant choosing for oneself. in the context of catholic orthodoxy, “choosing for oneself” was anathema/accursed: you were to believe based exclusively on the creeds and dogma of the catholic church. thinking for oneself was expressedly not allowed regarding doctrinal matters. therefore the term “heresy” came to mean the state of being in opposition to catholic dogma. Being a heretic is neither an apostate, which refers a person who denounces the faith, nor a blasphemer, who denounces god.

One of the messages if the first vision was that the creeds were an abomination. I would say that with the exception of the athanasian creed, someone expressing the exact same sentiments as the apostles’ creed or the nicene creed (except for homoousion), would be considered as speaking current mormon doctrine. What, then, was the abomination of the creeds? Could it be that we are to find out for ourselves, through our own experience, to dustinguish good and evil?

By explicit definition, Joseph Smith was a heretic, and as founder of the church, he was a heresiarch. “Heresy” was the original founding principle if the church — men were free to choose, and the gospel was meant to be “all truth”. in the early Days, this openness led to schisms and a lot of crazy innovative thinking. Even into the mid 20th century, mormon doctrine was not supposed to be fixed, and there were a lot of opinions and speculation — I would suggest that early priesthood study manuals encouraged exploration, for an individual to discover for him or herself the deep mysteries, but never to proclaim them as “doctrine”.

In the 1950s, Joseph Fielding Smith’s “Man: His Origin and Destiny” was a seminal text to lock down creationism, and Mormon Doctrine was published…As well, Harold B. Lee, the educator, and his understudy Boyd K Packer strted enforcing Correlation, to lock down the doctrine and teaching of the church. by 1980, Ezra Taft Benson codified the infallibility doctrine in his 14 Fundamentals, using anecdotal asides taken out of context with no scriptural support.

So here we are: 192 years after the First Vision, with an established doctrinal orthodoxy enforced and defended by some members of the Q12, whereas others clearly see the idea that we should be thinking and choosing or ourselves. We have a church teaching young children to put aside choosing and thinking, and instead, to put on a testimony glove so they can recite at the Rameumptom their memorized, rote testimony, and singing “Follow the Prophet, He knows the way.” We have CES enforcing “pure doctrine” by avoiding truths that are not useful. Indoctrination is alive and well. What is the church breeding? a generation of souls ill equipped to deal with truth.

I stand with Joseph Smith and the First Vision in adamant opposition to doctrinal orthodoxy and enforced dogma. I have sworn at Thomas Jefferson’s grave, his Memorial, and as well, the altar of god, eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man — and Jefferson was referring to the enforced dogma of religious creeds when he penned those words.

I embrace the term “heretic”, for god has given me a mind to think critically, and the freedom of will to choose for myself. He has given me a charge, in the temple, to learn from my own experience to distinguish good versus evil. He has forbidden me from partaking of the tree if knowledge of good and evil — the easy way of no thinking or choosing — satan’s plan — indeed the abomination of creedal, dogmatic doctrine.

I consider the term “Heretic” to be a term of great respect.

History aside, the history issues never bothered me much in the sense I don’t consider belief or not belief in them to be important in the journey or path toward god. They don’t change the path of “love thy god and neighbor”. Which is the path to me. However disavowing truth because we fear it or contradictes or traditions is the problem the Pharisees had. I don’t wish to go down that road. It’s not mentality healthy to learn a truth with empirical evidence and to disavow it. It doesn’t help in our chosen professions or teaching what we learned from them. It doesn’t help us understand each other or the world and universe around us. By embracing BY teaching on this I resolve the conflict that I see today with that. As you said wayfarer, I can StayLDS in a mentally healthy manor if I choose to accept all truth no matter where it comes from. I don’t have to mentally unhealthy disavow my own experiences and findings to fit the traditions or some teachings. That wrecked havoc in my head for a long time and my head kept spawning back my forcing the truth out as some “satanic delusion” and forcing the traditions and some teachings back in as the truth instead. It was a very unpleasant experience that never ended until I learned to just except what I personally learned and experience with significant data and observation.

So I embrace this “doctrine” taught by BY as a truth from the lords mouth.

Quote:

It was observed here just now that we differ from the Christian world in our religious faith and belief; and so we do very materially. I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood. Says the scientific man, “I do not see your religion to be true; I do not understand the law, light, rules, religion, or whatever you call it, which you say God has revealed; it is confusion to me, and if I submit to and embrace your views and theories I must reject the facts which science demonstrates to me.” This is the position, and the line of demarcation has been plainly drawn, by those who profess Christianity, between the sciences and revealed religion. You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence

116

for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has; and they say, “If the Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in six days, six thousand years ago, our studies are all vain; but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your religions as false and vain; we must be what you call infidels, with the demonstrated truths of science in our possession; or, rejecting those truths, become enthusiasts in, what you call, Christianity.”

In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts—they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways, we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it. How long it has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant. This we know by what we have learned naturally since we have had a being on the earth. We can now take a hymn book and read its contents; but if we had never learned our letters and knew nothing about type or paper or their uses, and should take up a book and look at it, it would be a great mystery; and still more so would it be to see a person read line after line, and give expression therefrom to the sentiments of himself or others. But this is no mystery to us now, because we have learned our letters, and then learned to place those letters into syllables, the syllables into words, and the words into sentences.

Fifty or a hundred years ago, if any one had told the people of the East Indies that water could be congealed, and form ice so thick and hard that you could walk on and drive teams over it, they would probably have said, “We do not believe a word of it.” Why? Because they did not know anything about it. A proper reply for all mankind to make under similar circumstances would be, “We do not know anything about what you say, and do not know whether we should have faith in it or not. Perhaps we should, but we have no

117

evidence at present on which to found such a belief.” You go down south here among some of our native Indian tribes, where some of the very best of blankets are made, and you will find them twisting their yarn with their fingers and little sticks, and their loom attached to the limbs of trees for weaving purposes. Show them a loom such as white people use, and it would be a perfect mystery to them. Sixty or seventy years ago a loom worked by water power would have been a mystery to an American, but there is no mystery in that to-day, because the process is understood. So it is with the East Indians and ice, for the chemist now, by a chemical process, will congeal the water and make ice of it before their eyes, and it is in this way, by testimony, evidence, and demonstration that ignorance and prejudice are removed, faith implanted and knowledge acquired. It is so with regard to all the facts in existence that we do not understand.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/14/16” class=”bbcode_url”>http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/14/16

By accepting this and can belief in Mormon church with all my heart. I can be a solid believer as long as the doctrine and teachings don’t contradict what I or science has been able to “prove”. I can believe anything taught so much as that and the belief and following it doesn’t cause physical or mental unhealthy ness to myself or others(they have…at times,sometimes).

My question is must a person in today’s church be forced to put blind faith in certain teachings and traditions if science(especially personal) has learned something different? Can we still hold TR by believing science so long as they have proved it and putting faith in the rest that has not been proven? By this definition, my personal faith would be vary high but may not seem so by others who view faith as disavowing anything science has proven if it isn’t the same as what is taught or was taught in church.

[Anonymous]

Nephite wrote:

I, for one, dig Mormon apologetics. It is not always polemic, but if it is, then that’s okay with me. … Ultimately, the Holy Ghost teaches me truth and provides me a testimony, but others provide useful information and explanations.

I would say the same thing, but coming at it from a different perspective. You know what? I think I will start a new topic about this instead of derailing the introduction thread.

I’ll start that here: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3543

[Anonymous]

Quote:

My question is must a person in today’s church be forced to put blind faith in certain teachings and traditions if science (especially personal) has learned something different?

Absolutely not – especially since even the apostles haven’t agreed on lots of things over the years.

Quote:

Can we still hold TR by believing science so long as they have proved it and putting faith in the rest that has not been proven?

Absolutely. I’m an example of that.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

My question is must a person in today’s church be forced to put blind faith in certain teachings and traditions if science (especially personal) has learned something different?

Absolutely not – especially since even the apostles haven’t agreed on lots of things over the years.

Quote:

Can we still hold TR by believing science so long as they have proved it and putting faith in the rest that has not been proven?

Absolutely. I’m an example of that.

I would ask us to name something Science proves that Mormonism takes a firm opposite stand on in which there is no way to accept science and to also still have faith in the church? I can think of none. As Ray pointed out Church Leaders even disagree on the tough issues and church doctrine doesn’t encompass them.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

My question is must a person in today’s church be forced to put blind faith in certain teachings and traditions if science (especially personal) has learned something different?

Absolutely not – especially since even the apostles haven’t agreed on lots of things over the years.

Quote:

Can we still hold TR by believing science so long as they have proved it and putting faith in the rest that has not been proven?

Absolutely. I’m an example of that.

I would ask us to name something Science proves that Mormonism takes a firm opposite stand on in which there is no way to accept science and to also still have faith in the church? I can think of none. As Ray pointed out Church Leaders even disagree on the tough issues and church doctrine doesn’t encompass them.

That the BOM is a historical record of the American continent and the native Americans are decendents of Isreal. Just for starters.

Now…if its okay to believe it is still inspired even if it is not historical…never mind.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

I would ask us to name something Science proves that Mormonism takes a firm opposite stand on in which there is no way to accept science and to also still have faith in the church? I can think of none. As Ray pointed out Church Leaders even disagree on the tough issues and church doctrine doesn’t encompass them.

There are many many things the church teaches that Science disproves. That said, I think you can still have “faith in the church” despite not believing many things that Mormonism takes a firm opposition to, so maybe we have no disagreement?

One easy example is the global flood of Noah (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/flood-at-noahs-time?lang=eng). From lds.org:

Quote:

During Noah’s time the earth was completely covered with water. This was the baptism of the earth and symbolized a cleansing (1 Pet. 3:20–21).

I don’t think you could find any official publication of the church that does not teach a global flood. FAIR concedes:

Quote:

Without a doubt, the flood is always treated as a global event as it is taught by Church leaders. This is not likely to ever change, since it is based directly upon a straightforward reading of the scriptures. The challenge comes to those who examine scientific data showing the diversity of plant and animal life, and the millennia required to achieve such diversity. The story of a global deluge then appears to be at complete odds with scientific data, which may encourage some not only to doubt the scriptures, but to even question the existence of God. Therefore, can one believe that the Flood of Noah may have been of limited scope, yet still accept what is taught in Church? This article examines the scriptures from the point of view of the prophets who wrote the story of the Flood in order to answer this question.

At the same time, I am sure that well over 99% of the geologists and geneticists (including those that teach at BYU) reject a global flood. FAIR summarizes the scientific data well:

Quote:

Modern scientific knowledge regarding the diversity of species, language and evidence of continuous human habitation does not support the Biblical story that a global flood wiped out most life as recently as 4,400 years ago.

While one can remain a member in good standing and believe in evolution, an old earth, a non global flood, it would be wrong to say that the church supports or is even neutral on these things.

[Anonymous]

you guys are just scratching the surface. there are so many scientific flaws in church orthodoxy it isn’t worth speaking about. As the church has tried to appear Christian, literal beliefs in many proven-to-be-false teachings are strongly held.

Word of Wisdom has numerous allegations in conflict with science, and the modern interpretation is even worse.

Any biblical claim of world history is generally unhistorical prior to the captivity, yet most biblical pre-captivity events are treated as literal history by mormons and christians alike.

where do we stop?

[Anonymous]

First I want to make clear, I(personally) have no interest to prove or disprove the historical of either the bible or BOM.

Everyone is invloved in a different field or interest(hobbie) and combination of them. I have read Palaeontology books and interacted and studied, particularly fossils since I was age 5 (weird I know). It’s a lot easier to dismiss a educational book then to come in contact with evidence in person. Things like sharing my friends relative who did work in Chauvet caves far predating historical record particularly any known written language. My personal interactions with fossils in California and Utah with dinosaurs and mammals. This relates to no fosssils of elephants in north America but wolly mammoths known to be extinct for 10,000 years. It became more vivid when the uncovered nearly well preserved wolly mammoths In Siberia that match that date as well and the related cloning of the DNA to uncover more observation science from it.

As wayfarer said, being a hobbie of mine examining national parks and forest(personally) and finding evidence of a continuous progression of life and earth without a 4000 year old setback, set backs occur much much longer ago then

That and yes there is evidence of large flooding once in the hundredes of thousands or milllions of years ago. Gold, of any real quantities are only in California and Peru(visiting the mines and outer “vein” areas myself from the gold rush.

All this really isn’t to debate from my side, it’s just to say as I learn and personally intact with the world and my

Hobbies and those of my friends, it hasn’t been historically healthy to me to disavow what I personally learned or shared with from professional friends accounts of thier work. But it all works for me if I just accept things on a case by case basis as I interact with and learn things on a personal level. I feel no need to persuade others to

The things I learn on any level(relating to gospel or just science hobbies), I do like to share what I learn with others though, if they are interested in my relationships. I don’t try to prove or disprove things, I don’t like starting with a theory of things. I just like to interact and accept what I find and put my faith in everything else. Personally I was mocked ,ridiculed and disavowed by members when sometimes I would share(not at church) things I learned ony

Trips. I’ve learned to keep my mouth completely shut with members to avoid further hardships unless thier invloved in similar fields of study or interest.

[Author]

Posts