Hi — my intro

[Anonymous]

I’ve known about this site for a long time. I came to associate with y’all, and also to get feedback for my site and blog. I posted that yesterday, but Old-Timer deleted it. Ray, I tried to reply to your PM to me but couldn’t figure it out. No problem, I understand spam issues and not allowing first time posters to post links and all that, no issues. I’m not a spammer, and I don’t want to draw anyone away from this site. I’ll post for a while and then hopefully I’ll be allowed to post my links in the future. I look forward to getting to know people here. I post on various sites but I think this site, more than any, will have people that align with my view of the church.

Here’s my personal story.

My Faith Journey

I was raised in a large, active LDS family. My father was a BYU professor and active priesthood leader. I graduated from high school in the 80’s in Utah County. I served a mission, married in the temple, and graduated from BYU. My testimony was strong and I had a strong desire to be involved in the building up of the kingdom of God. My wife and I were devoted to the church and as we started our family, we were conscientious such that everything we did–when to have kids, how many kids to have, what kind of career to pursue, where to live, how to live–we did by first praying and thinking what God would have us do or what would the brethren advise us to do.

I considered academics as a career, like my father, but I’m more pragmatic than intellectual and chose to pursue business as a career and am now a small business owner. But I am naturally inquisitive and analytical and love to study and research topics. As a missionary, I started to take interest in LDS apologetic issues, and upon return home got into studying material like Hugh Nibley and FARMS publications.

I was a very literal believer. The gospel made very logical sense to me. But I also felt the spirit frequently. I believed the emotional and spiritual side of the gospel was more important than the intellectual side. I believed I had both. I loved to bear testimony, speak in church, and participate in callings. I served in young men’s presidencies, as a ward mission leader, and as elder’s quorum president in my 20’s and early 30’s.

When you look at cracks in my literal testimony, it started early and grew slowly. As a missionary, I observed dumb little things that happen on missions and began to modify my view of God directly and actively managing his church through priesthood leaders. Two big issues I was faced with a lot that I didn’t see any good answer for were: 1) priesthood ban for black members and 2) polygamy. After wrestling with this for some time, I settled into a resolution that these were likely examples of where prophets might not have understood and implemented the true will of God and that God allowed it to happen without intervening strongly.

As I got into studying FARMS publications and LDS apologetic issues, I started coming across issues again and again and realizing my previous understanding was limited and naive. For example, I had heard of Joseph Smith’s treasure seeking and glass looking, but had assumed this was all “anti-Mormon lies”. Same for some of the more difficult aspects of polygamy. I realized the common apologetic answers for BOM anachronisms or masonic temple ceremony influence, were weak and that these were actually complex issues requiring more understanding.

The analogy is commonly used of a member putting difficult questions on a shelf when they’re not sure what to do with it. I added items to my shelf little by little. My shelf took its first major blow in my mid 30’s, circa 2005, with the Book of Abraham. I had been very troubled reading up on this issue in more depth and searched and searched for adequate answers on the LDS apologetics side of it. Nothing made sense. I don’t move quickly on any of these things, but eventually I felt this was no less than a smoking gun, proving Joseph was a fraud.

I wanted the church to be true. I loved the church’s doctrine. I loved the community. I loved raising my children LDS and teaching them the gospel. I was afraid what it would mean for my marriage. I loved my wife dearly, and I knew she wouldn’t look at it the same way I did. But I felt I had to know.

I decided to reopen my study of all historical issues with a new perspective. Instead of looking at them with the outcome already known and trying to backfit a story or reason for the contrary evidence, I decided to look at the issues as fairly and without bias as possible. I wanted to go direct to the source to God and find out the truth. I felt I was acting with courage and integrity, but I had doubts that I was acting purely. I worried I was deceiving myself, and actually acting selfishly or with pride, because everywhere I looked online for answers, I saw LDS questioners and doubters being met with this criticism from believers. But deep down I knew the right path for me.

One challenging aspect was what would I do with the knowledge I understood from a spiritual perspective. I couldn’t deny that I had felt powerful spiritual experiences. I began to reinterpret these spiritual experiences. Maybe when I was praying to ask God if the Book of Mormon was true and I felt he had burned it into my heart that it was true, maybe what he was burning into my heart was the message “I love you. I’m here. Thank you for seeking me.” It was very confusing and very difficult to sort out.

I made a long and careful study of this. It was difficult to know which sources were trustworthy. Both non-LDS and LDS sources sometimes were manipulative, pushing their own agenda. It was difficult to find unbiased sources. I looked for common elements from both sides and tried to ignore the commentary from each, as I triangulated (and still do today) into what I believe is the best, most accurate historical-factual view. As I looked at each historical issue, each one seemed to come down against the church. As I moved through issue to issue, the case seemed to further be cemented against the church.

About a year or two into this process, I started to feel very angry. I felt angry at God that he lead me into this belief in the first place. I felt angry at myself for being “duped”. I felt angry at Joseph Smith. I understood only two positions. It’s true or it’s false. I felt like my discovery would eventually lead me out of the church, which was terribly sad to me. I was raised to be a God person. I was raised to love the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I was raised to dedicate my life to the building up of the Kingdom of God. That was my identity. And I embraced it.

I spent a couple years in this stage. Then I “came out” to my wife. I was worried it would hurt her testimony, but I realized it was hurting our relationship not to be intimate on this issue. We spent several years in a dialogue over this. She was very hurt and scared at first, but then she came to terms with it. She doesn’t share the same characteristics I have of needing to know all the answers. She’s OK tabling the questions and trusting the Spirit.

The nagging things for me I couldn’t reconcile was:

1. I didn’t literally believe so many aspects of the church. I rejected BOM historicity. I rejected the explanations for the Book of Abraham. I had a very hard time reconciling some of Joseph’s other actions. I had a hard time reconciling my beliefs on evolution and Adam and Eve with LDS theology. I was starting to wonder about the literal divinity of the New Testament Jesus Christ.

2. I believed in God. Though I wondered about literal divinity of Jesus, I loved Jesus so much. I loved the BOM and found in it profound beauty, depth, and truth. I had seen the BOM change people’s lives. I didn’t believe the simple anti-Mormon explanations for Joseph. The answers, if they existed, about the origins of the BOM and the LDS restoration, at a minimum had to be very, very complex and not yet understood by me. I doubted the accounts of literal visitations and direct involvement of God to Joseph and this church, yet I believed in the good and necessity of religion. And I found no other church or religion that was as satisfying and enriching as LDS.

As we sought to find an answer for me and for our family, I came into contact with an alternate view that was outside the box of the only two binary options I thought were possible. This is a non-literal view of religion. This concept was so foreign to me, it took me a few years to come to terms with it completely. At first, it seemed dishonest. Partly due to my own inability to understand the position. And partly due to the fact that it seems some LDS voices promoting the non-literal view are also mixing in some of the LDS apologist tactics of obfuscating and confusing issues, which I always felt was so dishonest.

The book Marcus Borg Heart of Christianity was a real break through. Hearing this perspective from a non-LDS author helped me release the distrust I had in LDS apologists enough to help me understand how to apply the concepts to the LDS faith. After attending and serving in church and restudying scripture and historical issues with this new perspective for some time, I’m now all in again.

Today, I have a different testimony but the same testimony. My faith is based on a highly nuanced understanding of religion and symbology. But it’s a living and vibrant faith that motivates and empowers me to seek God and live according to his will for me. I know my Father in Heaven lives. I know Jesus is the Christ. I know the Book of Mormon is true. I know Joseph Smith is a prophet of God and restored the church in modern times. I know Thomas S. Monson is a prophet today and leads and guides this church.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for understanding why your first post was not approved. I appreciate it.

Welcome! So many people here share aspects of your story. I hope we all can benefit from your participation.

[Anonymous]

Welcome and thanks for the introduction. As Ray said, I can relate to many aspects of what you said, including the anger and why, the mistrust of apologists/apologetics, and the rebuilt faith and testimony. I can’t say as you do that I know any of those things to be true, but I do have some strong beliefs. It would seem you have something to offer here and I hope you take the opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Hi, churchistrue :wave: I’m glad you’re here.

churchistrue wrote:

One challenging aspect was what would I do with the knowledge I understood from a spiritual perspective. I couldn’t deny that I had felt powerful spiritual experiences. I began to reinterpret these spiritual experiences. Maybe when I was praying to ask God if the Book of Mormon was true and I felt he had burned it into my heart that it was true, maybe what he was burning into my heart was the message “I love you. I’m here. Thank you for seeking me.” It was very confusing and very difficult to sort out.

I’d never put it into these words, but this is how I see those interactions between me and God now.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

Hi, churchistrue :wave: I’m glad you’re here.

churchistrue wrote:

One challenging aspect was what would I do with the knowledge I understood from a spiritual perspective. I couldn’t deny that I had felt powerful spiritual experiences. I began to reinterpret these spiritual experiences. Maybe when I was praying to ask God if the Book of Mormon was true and I felt he had burned it into my heart that it was true, maybe what he was burning into my heart was the message “I love you. I’m here. Thank you for seeking me.” It was very confusing and very difficult to sort out.

I’d never put it into these words, but this is how I see those interactions between me and God now.

Yes, one of the things I find kind of sad is when Exmo’s say these experiences are false or self-induced. I think it’s a much better, at least a lot of the time, to search for a different interpretation of what that spiritual experience might have meant, then to dump it completely.

[Anonymous]

Welcome…and thanks for taking time to share your story.

A good quote from Marcus Borg:

Quote:

When tradition is thought to state the way things really are, it becomes the director and judge of our lives; we are, in effect, imprisoned by it. On the other hand, tradition can be understood as a pointer to that which is beyond tradition: the sacred. Then it functions not as a prison but as a lens.

I think for a while in life, we are safe and comfortable in our prison, especially when we are telling ourselves that the world out there is wrong and scary. Very stage 3 in Fowler’s model.

But we eventually feel it confining us. Even those that stay firmly in the church and believe literally are growing when they see the sacred part beyond the prison, the pointer to truth out there. Some (apologetics) may even know the problems and inconsistencies but can literally believe because they know that is not what is important, because they still focus on the truth. They keep trying to explain it from their lens believe things without letting go of literal beliefs.

The gospel is truth, the church is the prison (no pun on 3 hour block intended). But…when we start to see that Borg, or Joseph Campbell, or other religions, or websites…are just filled with other people also doing the same thing…trying to point the truth from view…then it becomes less a prison that confines us and causes us pain, but more a lens that is used to see it a certain way and it becomes as your username states…churchistrue.

That is what I have appreciated about the journey. Nothing has changed in the outside world, the church is what it was before I saw it differently. The change is how I truly see it and truly appreciate it’s worth to provide me with something. I can return to it and better understand it. It is more honest than before when I saw it literally and had a shelf.

Thanks for joining our discussions…I look forward to learning from your posts.

[Anonymous]

…one more comment from your intro…

churchistrue wrote:

Two big issues I was faced with a lot that I didn’t see any good answer for were: 1) priesthood ban for black members and 2) polygamy.

Of these 2 issues, I would say:

1) Black and the Priesthood they got it right: They changed it, and have admitted it was racist and wrong, and that prophets in the past make mistakes based on the cultural influences they are in. Sure…they try to spin in it in the most positive light, but basically did acknowledge it was racist and not doctrinal.

2) Polygamy: They got it wrong. Yes, they banned the practice…but never admitted it was sexist and past prophets were wrong about it. They leave it open to interpretation because it is still in D&C132 and in how the temple sealings are handled (a man can be sealed to more than one living woman, a woman can’t). And it still haunts us today.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

2) Polygamy: They got it wrong.

I hold out a little hope and would re-word this, “2) Polygamy: They have not squared away on this one.”

[Anonymous]

Up until June of 1978, they got the Priesthood ban wrong. Then it got squared away.

So far, they have got it wrong on polygamy.

I don’t think it needs rewording. I sure hope they fix that too.

[Anonymous]

churchistrue wrote:

Ann wrote:

Hi, churchistrue :wave: I’m glad you’re here.

churchistrue wrote:

One challenging aspect was what would I do with the knowledge I understood from a spiritual perspective. I couldn’t deny that I had felt powerful spiritual experiences. I began to reinterpret these spiritual experiences. Maybe when I was praying to ask God if the Book of Mormon was true and I felt he had burned it into my heart that it was true, maybe what he was burning into my heart was the message “I love you. I’m here. Thank you for seeking me.” It was very confusing and very difficult to sort out.

I’d never put it into these words, but this is how I see those interactions between me and God now.

Yes, one of the things I find kind of sad is when Exmo’s say these experiences are false or self-induced. I think it’s a much better, at least a lot of the time, to search for a different interpretation of what that spiritual experience might have meant, then to dump it completely.

That’s because I think the tendency is to dump it. While I now understand it’s not necessarily doctrine that it’s all or nothing, most people believe it is all or nothing. Either JS was a prophet or he wasn’t. Or, if JS was a prophet then the BoM must be true or vice versa. Hence there isn’t really room for a different interpretation of what the Spirit might have “said” – either the God answered your question or He didn’t and if you think you got an answer that differs from the mainstream you must be wrong, or have misinterpreted, or it’s Satan, or a variety of other possibilities. To keep my sanity when that happened (It was such a strong impression, how could it be wrong?) to me I dumped it all. If that impression was not correct, then how could the others be correct? The common if/then or all-or-nothing teachings pose a big problem for those in crisis.

[Anonymous]

churchistrue, welcome to the group. Keep posting. This site has helped me a lot personally. I hope it helps you too.

Heber13, you said:

Quote:

1) Black and the Priesthood they got it right: They changed it, and have admitted it was racist and wrong, and that prophets in the past make mistakes based on the cultural influences they are in. Sure…they try to spin in it in the most positive light, but basically did acknowledge it was racist and not doctrinal.

I don’t remember where or when the church admitted this policy was racist or wrong. All I heard was: it’s time to change.

I’m not arguing. I really would like to know. Do you have a source that I can look at? Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

I don’t remember where or when the church admitted this policy was racist or wrong. All I heard was: it’s time to change.

Thanks for asking MM. I’m just referring to the Essay with things like:

Quote:

Despite this modern reality, for much of its history—from the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.

The Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in the United States. At the time, many people of African descent lived in slavery, and racial distinctions and prejudice were not just common but customary among white Americans. Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion.

Quote:

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

I’m sure you’ve seen it. Just providing it, because I think the essay shows where my interpretation came from, even if many tried showing equality on race or questioned it…they were questioning the restrictions that came into place and not changed, even when DOM raised it, it wasn’t changed.

Anyway…not to dominate this thread…just the point from the OP that this and polygamy are valid issues to wrestle with.

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

churchistrue, welcome to the group. Keep posting. This site has helped me a lot personally. I hope it helps you too.

Heber13, you said:

Quote:

1) Black and the Priesthood they got it right: They changed it, and have admitted it was racist and wrong, and that prophets in the past make mistakes based on the cultural influences they are in. Sure…they try to spin in it in the most positive light, but basically did acknowledge it was racist and not doctrinal.

I don’t remember where or when the church admitted this policy was racist or wrong. All I heard was: it’s time to change.

I’m not arguing. I really would like to know. Do you have a source that I can look at? Thank you.

The way I read it they say the REASON for the ban was based on racists beliefs that were common at the time. But I don’t get a “and it was wrong”. We did have Uchtdorf saying shortly after in conference that “leaders have made mistakes in the past … and even hurt people”. That is the closest I have seen coming to say that. I personally think that some thing closer to an apology is in order and would actually help many move on from the issue. I assume that some in leadership are worried to ever even say that leaders make mistakes and offering apologies will just cause a clamor for more apologies.

[Anonymous]

Fair enough. They never did say the church was wrong. They acknowledged there was a ban, there was racism in America (they wouldn’t be talking about racism if it didn’t apply to the ban), it originated with BY (a prophet), it was adopted by other prophets (acknowledging it continued int he church), and many people had theories to try to explain it …. which is the main point… it clearly states

Quote:

None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

It denounces racism, even if we don’t understand why a prophet said what he said, and why other prophets instituted something racist and didn’t change it until 1978.

So…it does help me see that the racist Priesthood Ban is still as problematic as polygamy still is.

Because basically if the prophet institutes it again, we don’t know why the Lord asks us to, but it could be expected that future racist things can happen in the church if the Lord commands it through prophets (who are fallible and influenced through the environment they live in). :sick:

Polygamy could be instituted again if the Lord commands it. 👿

Heaven may consist of racist and sexist practices, we don’t know why God allows some things. :problem:

I guess that makes the teachings of the church look worse than I thought.

I FEEL like the church is moving towards good things, which is why I like it and stay. I keep HOPING they are coming around on things like LGBT issues, which we lag behind society on.

Our history just keeps me agnostic about things and perhaps that is a good reminder for me to stay focused on loving people and thinking for myself, not getting bogged down trying to explain things or tell others what they should think, which I don’t have the capacity to do.

[Anonymous]

The latest statements condemn racism of all kinds, past and present, and they frame the ban as having been implemented in a racist time by people raised in a deeply racist culture.

I see a very clear repudiation of the ban as being racist, and, for me, it is crystal clear (since I focus on careful reading and parsing of actual words), but I also understand how some people can read it and not see such condemnation and repudiation – since they bring their own existing beliefs into their reading – or, in many cases, they don’t read carefully due to assuming they already know what will be said.

They are human, just like I am. I just am confident I am right about this one.

[Author]

Posts