Are you a NOW mormon?

[Finrock]

At least you admit that the Lord has conditions for answering requests. He requires one ASK in FAITH, and he answers according to that which is RIGHT for that individual to receive.

What gets revealed to you is controlled by you. That is the difference. The experience of the Brother of Jared demonstrates that if our faith is sufficient all things must be revealed to us. With sufficient faith God can't prevent us from knowing or seeing. So, it is not about God preventing us from something or God not giving to us something because God doesn't deem it necessary for us. God treats us as His equal and is ready to give all things and to reveal all things to whoever is ready to receive it. And the condition of being "ready" is controlled by the individual, not God.

Mankind doesn't operate the way God operates. Mankind's ways are not God's ways. Mankind looks at status, position, titles, and other external criteria.

-Finrock

[Sarah]

At least you admit that the Lord has conditions for answering requests. He requires one ASK in FAITH, and he answers according to that which is RIGHT for that individual to receive.

What gets revealed to you is controlled by you. That is the difference. The experience of the Brother of Jared demonstrates that if our faith is sufficient all things must be revealed to us. With sufficient faith God can't prevent us from knowing or seeing. So, it is not about God preventing us from something or God not giving to us something because God doesn't deem it necessary for us. God treats us as His equal and is ready to give all things and to reveal all things to whoever is ready to receive it. And the condition of being "ready" is controlled by the individual, not God.

Mankind doesn't operate the way God operates. Mankind's ways are not God's ways. Mankind looks at status, position, titles, and other external criteria.

-Finrock

There are always two parties in an exchange, and both have agency. So yes, in a way what we receive is totally dependent on us, but it is also dependent on the Lord. We do not control Him, we only act according to His laws and He is bound to give to us when we do as He says. But the Lord is the judge as to whether or not we have the faith necessary to receive. It's not the apostles' job to judge whether each individual should have everything at his fingertips. It is the Lord's Church and he controls what the GROUP has collectively.

If you want answers to your questions, then you can go to the Lord in faith and he will give you the answers. The prophets are there to speak and act for the Lord in behalf of a very large group, all not faithful or humble enough to be given all things. It is my belief that the Lord does not want his servants unfolding all the hard facts in order that His children can first demonstrate that they can master living the simpler truths, which are faith, baptism (committing to follow the Lord) so that the individual can receive the Holy Ghost, THEN more difficult covenants can be made and more blessings bestowed, but the goal is have the greatest amount of God's children entering the path and living by faith and the Holy Ghost. In general most people right now are too selfish to be able to comprehend and live all the higher laws.

[Finrock]

At least you admit that the Lord has conditions for answering requests. He requires one ASK in FAITH, and he answers according to that which is RIGHT for that individual to receive.

What gets revealed to you is controlled by you. That is the difference. The experience of the Brother of Jared demonstrates that if our faith is sufficient all things must be revealed to us. With sufficient faith God can't prevent us from knowing or seeing. So, it is not about God preventing us from something or God not giving to us something because God doesn't deem it necessary for us. God treats us as His equal and is ready to give all things and to reveal all things to whoever is ready to receive it. And the condition of being "ready" is controlled by the individual, not God.

Mankind doesn't operate the way God operates. Mankind's ways are not God's ways. Mankind looks at status, position, titles, and other external criteria.

-Finrock

There are always two parties in an exchange, and both have agency. So yes, in a way what we receive is totally dependent on us, but it is also dependent on the Lord. We do not control Him, we only act according to His laws and He is bound to give to us when we do as He says. But the Lord is the judge as to whether or not we have the faith necessary to receive. It's not the apostles' job to judge whether each individual should have everything at his fingertips. It is the Lord's Church and he controls what the GROUP has collectively.

If you want answers to your questions, then you can go to the Lord in faith and he will give you the answers. The prophets are there to speak and act for the Lord in behalf of a very large group, all not faithful or humble enough to be given all things. It is my belief that the Lord does not want his servants unfolding all the hard facts in order that His children can first demonstrate that they can master living the simpler truths, which are faith, baptism (committing to follow the Lord) so that the individual can receive the Holy Ghost, THEN more difficult covenants can be made and more blessings bestowed, but the goal is have the greatest amount of God's children entering the path and living by faith and the Holy Ghost. In general most people right now are too selfish to be able to comprehend and live all the higher laws.

But, you seem to be now conflating two trains of thought. Should the Church be completely honest, open, and transparent about its history and about its leaders? Are the leaders of the Church accountable to the members? Should people be given the opportunity to make decisions that affect their whole life with eyes wide open?

The topic at hand is not about covenants that are made between man and God or whether the Church requires individuals to live certain gospel laws or not.

You are conflating God with Church leaders and you are conflating gospel principles with secular history. But, in any case, God as a matter of policy does not keep things hidden from people because He is afraid that they will reject Him. God chooses to be open and honest about all things. He has nothing to hide. He is not afraid of the truth. God has chosen to be liberal with all and if we don't obtain something from God it isn't because He isn't willing to give, its because we aren't willing or ready to receive. God has chosen to operate in the way that He does because He is no respecter of persons. The experience of the Brother of Jared demonstrates to us that God is bound by the principles of goodness and will not act contrary to these principles. The same cannot be said about Church Leaders. Church Leaders are not the Lord God Almighty.

What seems to be the motivation for the Church in not being completely open and honest about the history of the Church? Do the principles of goodness allow for a cult of personality to be created? Or, does a cult of personality conflict with the principles of goodness in any way or is it aligned with the principles of Goodness?

-Finrock

[Sarah]

At least you admit that the Lord has conditions for answering requests. He requires one ASK in FAITH, and he answers according to that which is RIGHT for that individual to receive.

What gets revealed to you is controlled by you. That is the difference. The experience of the Brother of Jared demonstrates that if our faith is sufficient all things must be revealed to us. With sufficient faith God can't prevent us from knowing or seeing. So, it is not about God preventing us from something or God not giving to us something because God doesn't deem it necessary for us. God treats us as His equal and is ready to give all things and to reveal all things to whoever is ready to receive it. And the condition of being "ready" is controlled by the individual, not God.

Mankind doesn't operate the way God operates. Mankind's ways are not God's ways. Mankind looks at status, position, titles, and other external criteria.

-Finrock

There are always two parties in an exchange, and both have agency. So yes, in a way what we receive is totally dependent on us, but it is also dependent on the Lord. We do not control Him, we only act according to His laws and He is bound to give to us when we do as He says. But the Lord is the judge as to whether or not we have the faith necessary to receive. It's not the apostles' job to judge whether each individual should have everything at his fingertips. It is the Lord's Church and he controls what the GROUP has collectively.

If you want answers to your questions, then you can go to the Lord in faith and he will give you the answers. The prophets are there to speak and act for the Lord in behalf of a very large group, all not faithful or humble enough to be given all things. It is my belief that the Lord does not want his servants unfolding all the hard facts in order that His children can first demonstrate that they can master living the simpler truths, which are faith, baptism (committing to follow the Lord) so that the individual can receive the Holy Ghost, THEN more difficult covenants can be made and more blessings bestowed, but the goal is have the greatest amount of God's children entering the path and living by faith and the Holy Ghost. In general most people right now are too selfish to be able to comprehend and live all the higher laws.

But, you seem to be now conflating two trains of thought. Should the Church be completely honest, open, and transparent about its history and about its leaders? Are the leaders of the Church accountable to the members? Should people be given the opportunity to make decisions that affect their whole life with eyes wide open?

The topic at hand is not about covenants that are made between man and God or whether the Church requires individuals to live certain gospel laws or not.

You are conflating God with Church leaders and you are conflating gospel principles with secular history. But, in any case, God as a matter of policy does not keep things hidden from people because He is afraid that they will reject Him. God chooses to be open and honest about all things. He has nothing to hide. He is not afraid of the truth. God has chosen to be liberal with all and if we don't obtain something from God it isn't because He isn't willing to give, its because we aren't willing or ready to receive. God has chosen to operate in the way that He does because He is no respecter of persons. The experience of the Brother of Jared demonstrates to us that God is bound by the principles of goodness and will not act contrary to these principles. The same cannot be said about Church Leaders. Church Leaders are not the Lord God Almighty.

What seems to be the motivation for the Church in not being completely open and honest about the history of the Church? Do the principles of goodness allow for a cult of personality to be created? Or, does a cult of personality conflict with the principles of goodness in any way or is it aligned with the principles of Goodness?

-Finrock

My last post explained what the motivation might be for church leaders and the Lord to not always be forthcoming, and your questions ( "Do the principles of goodness allow for a cult of personality to be created? Or, does a cult of personality conflict with the principles of goodness in any way or is it aligned with the principles of Goodness?") demonstrate my point completely.

When people cannot mesh some of the commandments or policies that come down from the Church (the Lord) as a principle of goodness, they start to question, and that is okay. There are many who do not understand how the Lord could deal out so many inequalities in gender and race, and general circumstances in life, and cannot mesh that with God's goodness. They either conclude that there is no God because of all the injustice in the world, or as Church members, they conclude that a Church led by God would not condone or request such injustices. This is where the trial of faith comes into play, and that gift of the Holy Ghost, and those qualities of meekness and humility. If you are willing to accept that there might be a good reason for some of these things, that it really is all about goodness, then you start to understand why the Lord does what he does and why his servants do what they do. If you come from a position of distrusting the Lord's servants, it is not likely you will have the faith necessary to understand and have revealed to you the WHY in all these contradictions or inequalities in the Lord's work.

[captainfearnot]

Are the leaders of a false church justified in presenting skewed or incomplete information to the members of that church, in order to maintain their belief in it, for their own good, if the leaders sincerely believe the church to be true? Or is that only justified if the church is actually true?

For instance, let's assume for the sake of argument that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a false church and the Latter-day Saints are the true church (as most people here probably already believe). The leaders of JWism sincerely believe it to be true, despite their awareness of a bunch of historical details that would seem to suggest otherwise. But they realize that if the average man on the street heard about those details, they would likely conclude that JWism is false (as most do anyway). So of course they don't disclose that stuff in their advertising. But more importantly, they realize that a sizable percentage of people raised in the JW church have delicate testimonies that might be harmed if they were to encounter those troubling details. So in an effort to preserve those testimonies they take measures to conceal or misrepresent that stuff.

If those measures are effective and people spend their whole lives believing in a false church, members who might have discovered the truth otherwise, aren't they harmed by the actions of the leaders? Or is the sincere belief of the leaders sufficient to excuse their actions? Does the leader of every false church have the right to skew or conceal or otherwise manipulate information so long as their motive in doing so is to keep their flocks believing as they do?

From the perspective of the JW leader, anyone who leaves JWism to join LDSism will be miserable for the rest of their lives and damned in the eternities, so anything they can do to prevent that outcome would seem justified. But from the perspective of LDS, of course JWs are being harmed by their leaders because they're being kept from the true church, its saving ordinances, and eternal joy.

Isn't it better for members to make their own decisions, based on as much information as possible, even if they make the wrong decision, than to try and manipulate people into the correct decision? If we claim the right to lie to our own members "for their own good," then doesn't every other church have the same right?

[simpleton]

Or maybe this is about to happen to us because we have done what Isaiah says here:

Isaiah 24

Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof. And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him. The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the LORD hath spoken this word. The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish. The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

[Sarah]

Are the leaders of a false church justified in presenting skewed or incomplete information to the members of that church, in order to maintain their belief in it, for their own good, if the leaders sincerely believe the church to be true? Or is that only justified if the church is actually true?

For instance, let's assume for the sake of argument that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a false church and the Latter-day Saints are the true church (as most people here probably already believe). The leaders of JWism sincerely believe it to be true, despite their awareness of a bunch of historical details that would seem to suggest otherwise. But they realize that if the average man on the street heard about those details, they would likely conclude that JWism is false (as most do anyway). So of course they don't disclose that stuff in their advertising. But more importantly, they realize that a sizable percentage of people raised in the JW church have delicate testimonies that might be harmed if they were to encounter those troubling details. So in an effort to preserve those testimonies they take measures to conceal or misrepresent that stuff.

If those measures are effective and people spend their whole lives believing in a false church, members who might have discovered the truth otherwise, aren't they harmed by the actions of the leaders? Or is the sincere belief of the leaders sufficient to excuse their actions? Does the leader of every false church have the right to skew or conceal or otherwise manipulate information so long as their motive in doing so is to keep their flocks believing as they do?

From the perspective of the JW leader, anyone who leaves JWism to join LDSism will be miserable for the rest of their lives and damned in the eternities, so anything they can do to prevent that outcome would seem justified. But from the perspective of LDS, of course JWs are being harmed by their leaders because they're being kept from the true church, its saving ordinances, and eternal joy.

Isn't it better for members to make their own decisions, based on as much information as possible, even if they make the wrong decision, than to try and manipulate people into the correct decision? If we claim the right to lie to our own members "for their own good," then doesn't every other church have the same right?

When judgement day comes, what will matter most is not so much the behavior (for instance, not revealing certain facts etc.) but the motivation behind our behaviors. A latter-day-saint who acts for the wrong reasons of selfishness or fear will be judged more harshly than a member or leader of JW who has been sincerely motivated by love and respect for the Lord and for others, even though the latter-day-saint might have had all the "right" behaviors. They were not right because the behaviors were done for the wrong reasons.

The path to becoming one with God through righteousness is within the Church, and it is simply a gift open to be received or not. Commandments, covenants, and ordinances are all gifts that bind us in agreement with the Lord. It is up to us to either receive or reject these gifts, and being a member does not necessarily mean that you truly appreciate the gift you've been given.

As for the issue of manipulation - usually we think of manipulation as someone doing something so that someone else will do what the manipulator wants, and usually this is motivated by selfishness. But the Lord has his own way of "manipulating" us, but it is with love. It's also called persuasion, patience, freedom to choose, and showing an increase of love when something hard must be said or done. Love causes people to change. So the Lord is trying to get us to act certain ways (in a way manipulating us) through love. We just have to recognize his love. Sometimes letting us figure it out on our own is the most loving thing he can do. We really don't appreciate truth if it is crammed down our throat. We must discover and desire it, then it becomes delicious and we can truly appreciate it.

So it really isn't about anyone having the "right" to do anything, the question is what is your motivation for doing whatever it is that you are doing? And of course, are you obeying the commandments of God, which might include the command to keep sacred things that most aren't ready to appreciate.

[Spaced_Out]

Are the leaders of a false church justified in presenting skewed or incomplete information to the members of that church, in order to maintain their belief in it, for their own good, if the leaders sincerely believe the church to be true? Or is that only justified if the church is actually true?

For instance, let's assume for the sake of argument that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a false church and the Latter-day Saints are the true church (as most people here probably already believe). The leaders of JWism sincerely believe it to be true, despite their awareness of a bunch of historical details that would seem to suggest otherwise. But they realize that if the average man on the street heard about those details, they would likely conclude that JWism is false (as most do anyway). So of course they don't disclose that stuff in their advertising. But more importantly, they realize that a sizable percentage of people raised in the JW church have delicate testimonies that might be harmed if they were to encounter those troubling details. So in an effort to preserve those testimonies they take measures to conceal or misrepresent that stuff.

If those measures are effective and people spend their whole lives believing in a false church, members who might have discovered the truth otherwise, aren't they harmed by the actions of the leaders? Or is the sincere belief of the leaders sufficient to excuse their actions? Does the leader of every false church have the right to skew or conceal or otherwise manipulate information so long as their motive in doing so is to keep their flocks believing as they do?

From the perspective of the JW leader, anyone who leaves JWism to join LDSism will be miserable for the rest of their lives and damned in the eternities, so anything they can do to prevent that outcome would seem justified. But from the perspective of LDS, of course JWs are being harmed by their leaders because they're being kept from the true church, its saving ordinances, and eternal joy.

Isn't it better for members to make their own decisions, based on as much information as possible, even if they make the wrong decision, than to try and manipulate people into the correct decision? If we claim the right to lie to our own members "for their own good," then doesn't every other church have the same right?

What nonsense If you do not understand how to gain a testimony of true church but have to rely on heresy history to determine if a church is true or not then no wonder you are confused.
If JS was like many of the writes of the constitution depraved and immoral but the BoM is true the the PH is true - who the hell cares it is Gods problem.
@-) @-) @-) @-) @-) @-) @-) @-) @-) @-)

[Finrock]

What gets revealed to you is controlled by you. That is the difference. The experience of the Brother of Jared demonstrates that if our faith is sufficient all things must be revealed to us. With sufficient faith God can't prevent us from knowing or seeing. So, it is not about God preventing us from something or God not giving to us something because God doesn't deem it necessary for us. God treats us as His equal and is ready to give all things and to reveal all things to whoever is ready to receive it. And the condition of being "ready" is controlled by the individual, not God.

Mankind doesn't operate the way God operates. Mankind's ways are not God's ways. Mankind looks at status, position, titles, and other external criteria.

-Finrock

There are always two parties in an exchange, and both have agency. So yes, in a way what we receive is totally dependent on us, but it is also dependent on the Lord. We do not control Him, we only act according to His laws and He is bound to give to us when we do as He says. But the Lord is the judge as to whether or not we have the faith necessary to receive. It's not the apostles' job to judge whether each individual should have everything at his fingertips. It is the Lord's Church and he controls what the GROUP has collectively.

If you want answers to your questions, then you can go to the Lord in faith and he will give you the answers. The prophets are there to speak and act for the Lord in behalf of a very large group, all not faithful or humble enough to be given all things. It is my belief that the Lord does not want his servants unfolding all the hard facts in order that His children can first demonstrate that they can master living the simpler truths, which are faith, baptism (committing to follow the Lord) so that the individual can receive the Holy Ghost, THEN more difficult covenants can be made and more blessings bestowed, but the goal is have the greatest amount of God's children entering the path and living by faith and the Holy Ghost. In general most people right now are too selfish to be able to comprehend and live all the higher laws.

But, you seem to be now conflating two trains of thought. Should the Church be completely honest, open, and transparent about its history and about its leaders? Are the leaders of the Church accountable to the members? Should people be given the opportunity to make decisions that affect their whole life with eyes wide open?

The topic at hand is not about covenants that are made between man and God or whether the Church requires individuals to live certain gospel laws or not.

You are conflating God with Church leaders and you are conflating gospel principles with secular history. But, in any case, God as a matter of policy does not keep things hidden from people because He is afraid that they will reject Him. God chooses to be open and honest about all things. He has nothing to hide. He is not afraid of the truth. God has chosen to be liberal with all and if we don't obtain something from God it isn't because He isn't willing to give, its because we aren't willing or ready to receive. God has chosen to operate in the way that He does because He is no respecter of persons. The experience of the Brother of Jared demonstrates to us that God is bound by the principles of goodness and will not act contrary to these principles. The same cannot be said about Church Leaders. Church Leaders are not the Lord God Almighty.

What seems to be the motivation for the Church in not being completely open and honest about the history of the Church? Do the principles of goodness allow for a cult of personality to be created? Or, does a cult of personality conflict with the principles of goodness in any way or is it aligned with the principles of Goodness?

-Finrock

My last post explained what the motivation might be for church leaders and the Lord to not always be forthcoming, and your questions ( "Do the principles of goodness allow for a cult of personality to be created? Or, does a cult of personality conflict with the principles of goodness in any way or is it aligned with the principles of Goodness?") demonstrate my point completely.

When people cannot mesh some of the commandments or policies that come down from the Church (the Lord) as a principle of goodness, they start to question, and that is okay. There are many who do not understand how the Lord could deal out so many inequalities in gender and race, and general circumstances in life, and cannot mesh that with God's goodness. They either conclude that there is no God because of all the injustice in the world, or as Church members, they conclude that a Church led by God would not condone or request such injustices. This is where the trial of faith comes into play, and that gift of the Holy Ghost, and those qualities of meekness and humility. If you are willing to accept that there might be a good reason for some of these things, that it really is all about goodness, then you start to understand why the Lord does what he does and why his servants do what they do. If you come from a position of distrusting the Lord's servants, it is not likely you will have the faith necessary to understand and have revealed to you the WHY in all these contradictions or inequalities in the Lord's work.

But, lets explore what is at the root of the decision and does the motivation mesh with goodness. Goodness is a measurable value. Or, we can discern if something is good or not. Also, Goodness is not relative. Meaning, Goodness does not change over time and Goodness can be measured today the same that it can be measured centuries ago. Goodness is not tied to a position, a title, or an office. Meaning, just because an "Apostle" does something it does not necessarily mean that what has been done is Good. We can know what Good is and then use this knowledge to measure or to judge actions and behaviors.

Knowing what Good is and what Good is not, we can make some definitive statements or we can start with some axioms. One axiom is that true manipulation is evil. Another thing we can know for certain is that true coercion is evil. Does God manipulate? Does God approve of manipulation? Does God coerce? Does God approve of coercion? I believe that God does not manipulate and neither does He approve of manipulation. Further, I believe that God does not coerce and neither does He approve of coercion. If a person who claims to be a servant of God accomplishes a goal through the use of manipulative tactics or through coercion, then we can conclude that the servant of God was not acting in righteousness. The ends do not justify the means.

It is not a matter of faith to make excuses for actions or behavior that clearly violate the principles of Goodness. Of course I believe we should believe the best of people and give them the benefit of the doubt, but it isn't right to always assume that any action done by a leader in the Church, or more specifically, an action done by an apostle is always right or always justified. If the prophets and apostles are fallible as we believe that they are, then we must allow for the idea that they can act in error. Some actions are evil and they are not condoned or justified by Goodness or God.

Further, it seems to me that if the same things had been done by other people or another group which is not associated with the LDS, then I highly doubt that LDS would be so willing to believe the best or give people the benefit of the doubt. Just look at how LDS have treated individuals on this forum. Can we honestly say that faithful LDS are giving strangers the same benefit of the doubt or believing the best of strangers the same way they do for apostles or Church leaders? It certainly does not look that way to me. What I see is a whole lot of respecting of persons. Apostles are given a pass on actions many would condemn as evil had those same actions been done or committed by an individual who is not an Apostle.

It isn't just non-members, "disaffected", apostates, etc. who need to be humble and who need to acknowledge their faults, all must be ready and willing to do this. In fact, as disciples of Jesus Christ or as Latter-day Saints, if there ever was a group who ought to act in all humility it would be us. We should not subscribe to the natural tendencies of the flesh where we value our sociocentric values above that which is good. Of all the people on the planet we should be the most willing people to accept our faults and to make amends when we err. We shouldn't be trying to make excuses for things that clearly violate the principles of Goodness. And we CAN measure goodness. There are principles that are obviously good and there are principles that are obviously evil. Goodness is not arbitrary, relative, or based on position, title, or office.

The Church, through the mouth of apostles (this is one of the highest offices in the Church with much influence and clout over the general membership), told LDS scholars, historians, and professors that they would be unfaithful LDS if they exposed or wrote negative historical facts about the Church and Church leaders. These same individuals were told that talking about certain historical facts would potentially make them "destroyers of faith". This implies that the Church and Church leaders were afraid that people might lose their faith if they knew these facts. Think about that for a second from an objective position as possible. The Church was motivated by fear. There is NO fear in Goodness or in Love. Was this good? Is it good to act out of fear to conceal facts in order to shape or control people's perceptions? Is it good to threaten people as being "destroyers of faith" in order to bring about a particular purpose?

I believe these things are not good. We should acknowledge that they were not good, be humble about our mistakes, repent, and move forward. We should not excuse things that are evil just because they were done by apostles or Church leaders. Making excuses only compounds the evil and it leads to further blindness. We are not above reproach and neither are our leaders. People have a good reason to be concerned with these actions.

Having said that, however, I don't believe that these things lead to the conclusion that the Church is false or that apostles and prophets do not exist or that the Book of Mormon is not true, or anything like that. Some have already mentioned it, but this is one reason why it is critical and important to separate the gospel of Jesus Christ from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is one reason why we must, as members, recognize that our leaders are fallible and that they will err, just as we err. We must have faith that God does not completely abandon His people and His Church on account of them blundering every now and then. We can't excuse unrighteousness, but neither can we judge harshly or not forgive. We must view our leaders through the spectacles of charity just as we wish and desire that others view us through those same spectacles. We must recognize that just as we have made mistakes and committed sins yet God has forgiven us and not abandoned us that we also must proceed to treat others in like manner. The fact that I've been such a horrible sinner at one point in my life and God has still worked with me, has forgiven me, has condescended to speak and to interact with me, tells me that God will do the same for others. It would be self-righteous, arrogant, and hypocritically of me to not recognize that and to not live by this principle. This is why it doesn't shake my faith or cause to abandon the faith when I have learned about the mistakes, errors, and sins of Church leaders and the Church in general. I don't place my leaders on a pedestal and so it doesn't surprise me or bother me when they screw up. Welcome to the club, I say. Lets acknowledge our offenses, repent, and move forward all the more stronger for it.

-Finrock

[NOWmormon]

I am thinking that this is not the correct venue for me and other members like me.

...At least a conversation has been started.
Maybe it will help users here bear each others burdens a little more.
Maybe it will eventually help you to welcome others who, like me, go to the temple with you, sit in general conference with you, home teach you, and ordain you.
I will look elsewhere.
I remember the words "Where can I turn for peace, where is my solace".
Obviously it is in Jesus Christ, our Savior and Redeemer.
and who does He reach out to?
Not the ninety and nine, which are safe, but the one.
And maybe "the one" is not lost, but searching for support, because the ninety and nine say "he has lost his testimony" and "Who cares?", like some of you told me.
The Sacrament prayer says we must keep the commandments which He has given us, so that we may have His spirit to be with us.
And what is the new commandment?--love one another.
Have you loved me?

Until we meet again, perhaps in other forums.
Adieu


Alma 60:36
...I seek not for power...I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God...And thus I close mine epistle.

[djinwa]

The basis of faith is shame and dishonesty. Look how someone is treated should they question the church. They are told they lack faith, or are of the devil, stupid, etc. We are trained from an early age to believe because we are supposed to believe and not rock the boat. Basic tribalism and cultism. The institution is more important than the individual.

So we are told to believe no matter the evidence. Imagine that happening in the courtroom. We want the accused to be guilty, and need to conceal any evidence to the contrary. Most agree that is wrong, but it works at church, which ironically preaches honesty and truth.

Our leaders get special revelation, but when it is wrong, they were just acting as men. So which things are from God and which from man? My dog is right half the time - is that revelation?

[Sarah]

There are always two parties in an exchange, and both have agency. So yes, in a way what we receive is totally dependent on us, but it is also dependent on the Lord. We do not control Him, we only act according to His laws and He is bound to give to us when we do as He says. But the Lord is the judge as to whether or not we have the faith necessary to receive. It's not the apostles' job to judge whether each individual should have everything at his fingertips. It is the Lord's Church and he controls what the GROUP has collectively.

If you want answers to your questions, then you can go to the Lord in faith and he will give you the answers. The prophets are there to speak and act for the Lord in behalf of a very large group, all not faithful or humble enough to be given all things. It is my belief that the Lord does not want his servants unfolding all the hard facts in order that His children can first demonstrate that they can master living the simpler truths, which are faith, baptism (committing to follow the Lord) so that the individual can receive the Holy Ghost, THEN more difficult covenants can be made and more blessings bestowed, but the goal is have the greatest amount of God's children entering the path and living by faith and the Holy Ghost. In general most people right now are too selfish to be able to comprehend and live all the higher laws.

But, you seem to be now conflating two trains of thought. Should the Church be completely honest, open, and transparent about its history and about its leaders? Are the leaders of the Church accountable to the members? Should people be given the opportunity to make decisions that affect their whole life with eyes wide open?

The topic at hand is not about covenants that are made between man and God or whether the Church requires individuals to live certain gospel laws or not.

You are conflating God with Church leaders and you are conflating gospel principles with secular history. But, in any case, God as a matter of policy does not keep things hidden from people because He is afraid that they will reject Him. God chooses to be open and honest about all things. He has nothing to hide. He is not afraid of the truth. God has chosen to be liberal with all and if we don't obtain something from God it isn't because He isn't willing to give, its because we aren't willing or ready to receive. God has chosen to operate in the way that He does because He is no respecter of persons. The experience of the Brother of Jared demonstrates to us that God is bound by the principles of goodness and will not act contrary to these principles. The same cannot be said about Church Leaders. Church Leaders are not the Lord God Almighty.

What seems to be the motivation for the Church in not being completely open and honest about the history of the Church? Do the principles of goodness allow for a cult of personality to be created? Or, does a cult of personality conflict with the principles of goodness in any way or is it aligned with the principles of Goodness?

-Finrock

My last post explained what the motivation might be for church leaders and the Lord to not always be forthcoming, and your questions ( "Do the principles of goodness allow for a cult of personality to be created? Or, does a cult of personality conflict with the principles of goodness in any way or is it aligned with the principles of Goodness?") demonstrate my point completely.

When people cannot mesh some of the commandments or policies that come down from the Church (the Lord) as a principle of goodness, they start to question, and that is okay. There are many who do not understand how the Lord could deal out so many inequalities in gender and race, and general circumstances in life, and cannot mesh that with God's goodness. They either conclude that there is no God because of all the injustice in the world, or as Church members, they conclude that a Church led by God would not condone or request such injustices. This is where the trial of faith comes into play, and that gift of the Holy Ghost, and those qualities of meekness and humility. If you are willing to accept that there might be a good reason for some of these things, that it really is all about goodness, then you start to understand why the Lord does what he does and why his servants do what they do. If you come from a position of distrusting the Lord's servants, it is not likely you will have the faith necessary to understand and have revealed to you the WHY in all these contradictions or inequalities in the Lord's work.

But, lets explore what is at the root of the decision and does the motivation mesh with goodness. Goodness is a measurable value. Or, we can discern if something is good or not. Also, Goodness is not relative. Meaning, Goodness does not change over time and Goodness can be measured today the same that it can be measured centuries ago. Goodness is not tied to a position, a title, or an office. Meaning, just because an "Apostle" does something it does not necessarily mean that what has been done is Good. We can know what Good is and then use this knowledge to measure or to judge actions and behaviors.

Knowing what Good is and what Good is not, we can make some definitive statements or we can start with some axioms. One axiom is that true manipulation is evil. Another thing we can know for certain is that true coercion is evil. Does God manipulate? Does God approve of manipulation? Does God coerce? Does God approve of coercion? I believe that God does not manipulate and neither does He approve of manipulation. Further, I believe that God does not coerce and neither does He approve of coercion. If a person who claims to be a servant of God accomplishes a goal through the use of manipulative tactics or through coercion, then we can conclude that the servant of God was not acting in righteousness. The ends do not justify the means.

It is not a matter of faith to make excuses for actions or behavior that clearly violate the principles of Goodness. Of course I believe we should believe the best of people and give them the benefit of the doubt, but it isn't right to always assume that any action done by a leader in the Church, or more specifically, an action done by an apostle is always right or always justified. If the prophets and apostles are fallible as we believe that they are, then we must allow for the idea that they can act in error. Some actions are evil and they are not condoned or justified by Goodness or God.

Further, it seems to me that if the same things had been done by other people or another group which is not associated with the LDS, then I highly doubt that LDS would be so willing to believe the best or give people the benefit of the doubt. Just look at how LDS have treated individuals on this forum. Can we honestly say that faithful LDS are giving strangers the same benefit of the doubt or believing the best of strangers the same way they do for apostles or Church leaders? It certainly does not look that way to me. What I see is a whole lot of respecting of persons. Apostles are given a pass on actions many would condemn as evil had those same actions been done or committed by an individual who is not an Apostle.

It isn't just non-members, "disaffected", apostates, etc. who need to be humble and who need to acknowledge their faults, all must be ready and willing to do this. In fact, as disciples of Jesus Christ or as Latter-day Saints, if there ever was a group who ought to act in all humility it would be us. We should not subscribe to the natural tendencies of the flesh where we value our sociocentric values above that which is good. Of all the people on the planet we should be the most willing people to accept our faults and to make amends when we err. We shouldn't be trying to make excuses for things that clearly violate the principles of Goodness. And we CAN measure goodness. There are principles that are obviously good and there are principles that are obviously evil. Goodness is not arbitrary, relative, or based on position, title, or office.

The Church, through the mouth of apostles (this is one of the highest offices in the Church with much influence and clout over the general membership), told LDS scholars, historians, and professors that they would be unfaithful LDS if they exposed or wrote negative historical facts about the Church and Church leaders. These same individuals were told that talking about certain historical facts would potentially make them "destroyers of faith". This implies that the Church and Church leaders were afraid that people might lose their faith if they knew these facts. Think about that for a second from an objective position as possible. The Church was motivated by fear. There is NO fear in Goodness or in Love. Was this good? Is it good to act out of fear to conceal facts in order to shape or control people's perceptions? Is it good to threaten people as being "destroyers of faith" in order to bring about a particular purpose?

I believe these things are not good. We should acknowledge that they were not good, be humble about our mistakes, repent, and move forward. We should not excuse things that are evil just because they were done by apostles or Church leaders. Making excuses only compounds the evil and it leads to further blindness. We are not above reproach and neither are our leaders. People have a good reason to be concerned with these actions.

Having said that, however, I don't believe that these things lead to the conclusion that the Church is false or that apostles and prophets do not exist or that the Book of Mormon is not true, or anything like that. Some have already mentioned it, but this is one reason why it is critical and important to separate the gospel of Jesus Christ from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is one reason why we must, as members, recognize that our leaders are fallible and that they will err, just as we err. We must have faith that God does not completely abandon His people and His Church on account of them blundering every now and then. We can't excuse unrighteousness, but neither can we judge harshly or not forgive. We must view our leaders through the spectacles of charity just as we wish and desire that others view us through those same spectacles. We must recognize that just as we have made mistakes and committed sins yet God has forgiven us and not abandoned us that we also must proceed to treat others in like manner. The fact that I've been such a horrible sinner at one point in my life and God has still worked with me, has forgiven me, has condescended to speak and to interact with me, tells me that God will do the same for others. It would be self-righteous, arrogant, and hypocritically of me to not recognize that and to not live by this principle. This is why it doesn't shake my faith or cause to abandon the faith when I have learned about the mistakes, errors, and sins of Church leaders and the Church in general. I don't place my leaders on a pedestal and so it doesn't surprise me or bother me when they screw up. Welcome to the club, I say. Lets acknowledge our offenses, repent, and move forward all the more stronger for it.

-Finrock

Everyone needs to be humble, including apostles, and everyone make mistakes, including prophets. But I think you are assuming that the reason the plural marriage stuff was rarely mentioned was because of a motivation of fear. How do you know it was fear (or selfishness) that motivated them to not explain all the details of it's history in the Church? Maybe it was really out of love and respect for what the Lord wanted and for what they understood would be best for the members as a whole for this time.

I see your point that if similar things were done in another group we would probably be skeptical, and so we rely on other signs to point us to the truth. We're not left without anything to go on.

It seems though that in your post you're trying to make the point, which we have debated in the past, that there things that are always bad or always good, that goodness is defined by behaviors, and some behaviors, like manipulation, are bad. So it's important to define the meaning of the words and how those words relate to understanding good vs. evil.

[Spaced_Out]

Everyone needs to be humble, including apostles, and everyone make mistakes, including prophets. But I think you are assuming that the reason the plural marriage stuff was rarely mentioned was because of a motivation of fear. How do you know it was fear (or selfishness) that motivated them to not explain all the details of it's history in the Church? Maybe it was really out of love and respect for what the Lord wanted and for what they understood would be best for the members as a whole for this time.

I see your point that if similar things were done in another group we would probably be skeptical, and so we rely on other signs to point us to the truth. We're not left without anything to go on.

It seems though that in your post you're trying to make the point, which we have debated in the past, that there things that are always bad or always good, that goodness is defined by behaviors, and some behaviors, like manipulation, are bad. So it's important to define the meaning of the words and how those words relate to understanding good vs. evil.

I don't for one minute believe that JS is in any way guilty of those gross sins that he is being accused of.. These guys asked not be judged but they openly judge the prophet of the restoration.... It is the pot calling the kettle black.

Doctrine and Covenants 135:3

3 Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and has been the means of publishing it on two continents; has sent the fulness of the everlasting gospel, which it contained, to the four quarters of the earth; has brought forth the revelations and commandments which compose this book of Doctrine and Covenants, and many other wise documents and instructions for the benefit of the children of men; gathered many thousands of the Latter-day Saints, founded a great city, and left a fame and name that cannot be slain. He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people; and like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient times, has sealed his mission and his works with his own blood; and so has his brother Hyrum. In life they were not divided, and in death they were not separated!

[Spaced_Out]

Knowing what Good is and what Good is not, we can make some definitive statements or we can start with some axioms. One axiom is that true manipulation is evil. Another thing we can know for certain is that true coercion is evil. Does God manipulate? Does God approve of manipulation? Does God coerce? Does God approve of coercion? I believe that God does not manipulate and neither does He approve of manipulation. Further, I believe that God does not coerce and neither does He approve of coercion. If a person who claims to be a servant of God accomplishes a goal through the use of manipulative tactics or through coercion, then we can conclude that the servant of God was not acting in righteousness. The ends do not justify the means.
-Finrock

Yes God does coerce... and teach according to the understanding of men. He also does not throw Perls before the swine. The purpose of the LDS church is three fold. Preach the gospel, redemption of the dead and prefect the saints. Anything that does not accomplish those tasks is not in God's program.. Understanding the context of church history is not required.

Doctrine and Covenants 19:7
7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

[BTH&T]

I am thinking that this is not the correct venue for me and other members like me.

...At least a conversation has been started.
Maybe it will help users here bear each others burdens a little more.
Maybe it will eventually help you to welcome others who, like me, go to the temple with you, sit in general conference with you, home teach you, and ordain you.
I will look elsewhere.
I remember the words "Where can I turn for peace, where is my solace".
Obviously it is in Jesus Christ, our Savior and Redeemer.
and who does He reach out to?
Not the ninety and nine, which are safe, but the one.
And maybe "the one" is not lost, but searching for support, because the ninety and nine say "he has lost his testimony" and "Who cares?", like some of you told me.
The Sacrament prayer says we must keep the commandments which He has given us, so that we may have His spirit to be with us.
And what is the new commandment?--love one another.
Have you loved me?

Until we meet again, perhaps in other forums.
Adieu


Alma 60:36
...I seek not for power...I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God...And thus I close mine epistle.

I feel more like this is a rouse than at the start!
What conversation?
Banter back and forth of things that, for the most part are irrelevant is spinning wheels.
A true seeker of God will seek him through study of His words and Prayer, not some internet forum.
If you are looking for support in feeling wounded, you are right. I myself feel for your confusion and pain, but can not understand why looking for wrongs of others gets you the peace you seem to seek.

The Gospel is simple and straightforward, but exact.
The underlying theme is faith, faith in Jesus Christ. Not some bits of mans history accurate or not.
I have read the posts on both of these threads and I do not see personal attacks nor belittling of your beliefs.
A discussion of irrelevant history, maybe with some disagreements but where was there any "who cares"?
If that were the case why post, if we did not care why bother responding?

[inho]

I am thinking that this is not the correct venue for me and other members like me.

...At least a conversation has been started.

I feel more like this is a rouse than at the start!
What conversation?

NOWmormon,
It seems that you were just looking for sympathy, not conversation. In my opinion there were some really good responses to your post, but you didn't ever answer to them. If you still wish to have meaningful conversation, you are always welcome here. I wish you all the best.

[BTH&T]

What gets revealed to you is controlled by you. That is the difference. The experience of the Brother of Jared demonstrates that if our faith is sufficient all things must be revealed to us. With sufficient faith God can't prevent us from knowing or seeing. So, it is not about God preventing us from something or God not giving to us something because God doesn't deem it necessary for us. God treats us as His equal and is ready to give all things and to reveal all things to whoever is ready to receive it. And the condition of being "ready" is controlled by the individual, not God.

Mankind doesn't operate the way God operates. Mankind's ways are not God's ways. Mankind looks at status, position, titles, and other external criteria.

-Finrock

I do not believe this is correct.
We have the responsibility to seek and ask, but we do not nor should we demand how and when we receive revelation. It is totally as God sees fit and in His time. We seek in humility and faith. There is no demanding as you suggest.
We are no where close to being God's equal in any way shape or form.
It seems you have it at 180 off, God's ways are not mans ways. It does make a difference in my mind how we view things.

I was not looking for many of the things that have been given to me by God, He is more loving and understanding than we come close to understanding.
I am so grateful for the knowledge and understanding and peace knowing this. He Is a loving Father looking for what is best for each of us.

[shadow]

You are conflating God with Church leaders and you are conflating gospel principles with secular history. But, in any case, God as a matter of policy does not keep things hidden from people because He is afraid that they will reject Him. God chooses to be open and honest about all things. He has nothing to hide. He is not afraid of the truth. God has chosen to be liberal with all and if we don't obtain something from God it isn't because He isn't willing to give, its because we aren't willing or ready to receive. God has chosen to operate in the way that He does because He is no respecter of persons. The experience of the Brother of Jared demonstrates to us that God is bound by the principles of goodness and will not act contrary to these principles. The same cannot be said about Church Leaders. Church Leaders are not the Lord God Almighty.


-Finrock

I wonder why God never told "Scott" the details of church history? God is liberal and doesn't hide anything, as you mentioned, yet "Scott" was left in the dark. It's not church leaders fault, as you've clearly stated, church leaders are not the Lord God Almighty. What a conundrum you've created. Poor "Scott" obviously wasn't ready to receive the Truth, which God is the author of. I might agree with you somewhat- it's "Scott's" fault for being left in the dark. It's not like YUUUUGE trails of crumbs were left for him all these decades.

[AI2.0]

my responses in blue;

Everyone:

Some of your thoughts have been very uplifting and supportive.
Some of your thoughts have been dismissive and hurtful.
Some of you understand that there are many others like me out there.
Some of you cannot understand what I have these feelings. That either the church is true, or it isn't.

My issue does not come from lack of testimony, nor that a prophet does not make mistakes.
My issue comes from church leadership not fully disclosing the truth in regards to Joseph Smith himself practicing plural marriage, in OFFICIAL CHURCH DOCTRINE.What do you think D&C 132 is? It's canonized scripture, so it's clearly not been removed or covered up. It's no longer practiced and hasn't been for over 100 years, so no, it should not be part of any other 'official doctrine'. The proclamation on the Family is official church doctrine. Sure, this may have appeared in side-bar publications, but try to find it in sources published by the church itself, and it is hard to find.Now you are changing your story. So I take it you did know about polygamy, it's just now bothering you.
And I am not speaking of now, but publications over the past few decades or so (notwithstanding a few verses in D&C 132.Yes, the publications of the last few decades have minimized the practice of polygamy, there is no question, but it is not covered up or removed. You say you were a member for 50 years, then you know that D&C 132 talks all about polygamy. Did it never interest you, why it was in there? Are you saying that you never knew polygamy was a part of the church? I'm surprised your non-member friends didn't enlighten you at some point...most non-members seem to know more about our past than some members...

Even the official Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith only includes two sentences regarding plural marriage:
“The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime.”They do not talk alot about it. It's no longer practiced, but nothing been removed. It seems to me you are simply looking for excuses for your own decision to feel 'betrayed'.

Out of 567 pages of Joseph Smiths teachings, only two sentences regarding plural marriage are written.
And the two sentences aren’t even included in the main text.
The verbiage is buried in the middle of one larger paragraph, in-between six sections of recommendations for teachers and one section about the book’s sources.

There is NO QUESTION they minimize the practice of polygamy today and have been for a while now. I saw a huge spread on one of my ancestors in the Ensign about 20 years ago and it really bothered me because there was no mention of his family--five wives and 50 children. They did show a picture of him with all his wives and children but it was small and there was little explanation. It was obvious that someone putting the story together did not want to talk about his polygamous family relationships. I agree with you completely that it's minimized, it's not emphasized and sometimes it's not even mentioned, when it could be. The people who made these decisions thought they were doing the right thing. Personally I think it was the wrong way to handle it, but it's not my stewardship and if I start judging and condemning others for their poor decisions, I'll be judged by that same standard one day.

What you need to do Scott, is stop with the victim mentality and excuses. Take responsibility for your own choices. If you want to leave the church,
then at least be honest about it and make the decision for yourself, don't try to blame it on other people and think that it's not your choice and if you'd been taught better, you'd be fine. That's not true and I think you know it.

[AI2.0]

The basis of faith is shame and dishonesty. Look how someone is treated should they question the church. They are told they lack faith, or are of the devil, stupid, etc. We are trained from an early age to believe because we are supposed to believe and not rock the boat. Basic tribalism and cultism. The institution is more important than the individual.

So we are told to believe no matter the evidence. Imagine that happening in the courtroom. We want the accused to be guilty, and need to conceal any evidence to the contrary. Most agree that is wrong, but it works at church, which ironically preaches honesty and truth.

Our leaders get special revelation, but when it is wrong, they were just acting as men. So which things are from God and which from man? My dog is right half the time - is that revelation?

What a cynical, horrible view of Faith, I'm not sure I've ever heard something so twisted and wrong.

Scott was NOT treated poorly for questioning the church, he was called on the carpet for trying to play the victim card--something I believe you are already very familiar with.

Faith is a belief in things not seen but hoped for. It is NOT the basis for shame and dishonesty, but that's what Satan whispers to those who want to be victims and abdicate their responsibility for making their own choices--using the gift a agency, which they throw back at God because they don't want it anymore--they don't want to 'act' for themselves, they want the excuse that they were 'acted upon' and so there was nothing they could do. That's not going to hold water at the judgment bar of God.

Scott needs to be honest--if not with us, at least with himself.

[brlenox]

The basis of faith is shame and dishonesty. Look how someone is treated should they question the church.

My dog is right half the time - is that revelation?

...half the time huh? that's plenty enough to start a church of your own. I've got a few ideas:

God doG - church of the sacred canine

We can't make you believe BUT we can teach you how to obey.

Where begging will get you everything

Join us this Sunday for a walk in the park.

Petting allowed

Here some ideas for the first year's sermons.

Show dog's - Pride goeth before the fall

Fetchin' Faith - It's a dog gone Shame

Feeling collared? - The truth will set you free

Owner not listening? - How to leave a proper reminder

Hell is for butt sniffers - and that's the dog gone truth

Feeling Frisky this summer? Perhaps its the heat.

Howling at the moon -getting REAL answers to prayer

From the Book of MARK - how to leave a pleasant Scent

Noses & Pharaoh - The big dog makes a stink

Barking up the wrong tree - Escaping Marmotism

Crumbs from the masters table - Biting the hand that feeds you.

Denver Sniffer - Treeing the truth

In the dog house - Living with a temperamental B@$%*

Are your pups running with the pack? How to whistle them back home.

Clifford the Big Red Dog - the Devil Dog's Beelzebub

Good intentions - the pathway to Hell is made of alley cats.

It's a Dog eat Dog world - how to break the cycle of abuse

Distraction - How to stay on the straight and ...squirrel?

Treasure's in Heaven - 10 Places they'll never look for that bone.

The quickest way to Make your barking and sniffing sure - Big Red shows the way


Well that it's for now

[Alaris]

I am a member of the true church.
I have a testimony.
I am a High Priest.
I served a full foreign mission.
I was married in the temple.
I have been dedicated to the church, the Lord and it's member throughout my life.
I reach out to you and judgement is what you give me.

Listen to the words of my very first post:
I feel betrayed, deceived and hurt.

NOWmormon,

Thank you for posting here and reaching out - seeking help. Some have commented that perhaps this isn't the right venue, and they're not entirely wrong or entirely right either. This thread has helped me tremendously. I have been spam thanking people across the six pages of this thread - some may be wondering why they have 5-6 thanks from alaris haha. Well here's why.

This thread hasn't helped me with my testimony, as I am not the one struggling. However, someone extremely dear to me has been struggling with this very thing - my mother. I remember family home evenings and reading scriptures with her - she is the most intelligent person I know and her testimony was vast and beautiful. I remember her showing me on maps where she thought Sodom and Gomorrah was as it looked like a giant thumb smudged and flattened that area of the map. I remember her telling me and my brother that we could be the two witnesses in Revelation and how excited I felt at the prospect of being dead for 3.5 days in the streets (lol.)

I thought I would share a few personal experiences to accentuate how much I hurt that my mother's testimony of the church is nearly gone over this same issue. As her testimony disappears, mine has grown tremendously. How I long to see eye to eye with her again and share the pearls that have been given me ... some of which I have shared here with no other object in mind than to delight in the truth with my brothers and sisters.

Alas there are trolls here just like there are in every forum ever. They are a disproportionate representation of a cross-section of humanity. Let's say there are 0.05 percent trolls among all English speaking Internet-enabled humanity. This 0.05 percent will spend an inordinate amount of time trolling .. looking for a negative interaction. As such, they seem to be more in number than they are as those who aren't addicted to contention don't post nearly as often in comparison. There are no forums I have ever found that are a "safe place" from that. This small paragraph that has no other object than to help you consider and deal with the responses that were insensitive (to put it lightly) - yet we shall see if any here guilty of such can just let this go without challenging it.

NOWmormon, I believe I have some unique insights and experience that may help you. Let's go through some key things you said that nobody seems to have picked up on.

I am a member of the true church.
I have a testimony.
I was married in the temple.
I have been dedicated to the church, the Lord and it's member throughout my life.

You are still a member. Good. You were married in the temple. I think this is important - perhaps critical as to why you are struggling. I have been through divorce - to be raised in the church, keep my virtue, serve a mission, and then experience a divorce - my faith and my testimony took a huge hit. My ex had me mostly convinced that all mormon women treated men the way she treated me. Well she lied. It took me some time to heal from this experience, and my wife who now has proven to me over these last wonderful 3.5 years just how amazing marriage can be to a faithful, good LDS woman. About 2 years ago, my wife and I spoke of the principle of ask, seek, knock - the principle of learning line upon line - the same principle that guarantees loss of such when you say "I have enough." We put this to the test and have learned amazing truths and have grown tremendously in a relatively short amount of time.

Back to the core of this matter. My mother was abused as a child and has struggled in her marriage to my father. I am convinced she is channeling her frustrations at having been abused by a man at a young age through the allegation that Joseph Smith was marrying 14 year olds and doing so secretly. In fact there is little doubt in me that she has channeled her rage at her inability to overcome this trauma to the church. Moreover, she has had many bad experiences with Bishops and other fallible men in the church. She complains about how the church is basically just a big business and talks about how rich the church is. She doesn't want to pay her tithing any more. She's mad she lost her big house at the housing bubble burst. She is channeling a lot of negative energy.

So here's what I am doing about it. I take my family to her house (same neighborhood) for FHE. I ask her and my father to share missionary experiences. The spirit testifies and we all benefit from their stories. My mother was saved by an angel. She saw the Savior when she was extremely ill on her mission. She was the first of two female district leaders ever when the church tried that on for size. Her testimony is there. It's just buried under a tremendous weight. I am doing what I can to alleviate that weight by strengthening her testimony and sharing mine. I have complete faith she'll come back around, and I would very much like her to do so in this life. All her children and grandchildren would benefit greatly therefrom.

I am guessing I am not far from a situation that is mirrored by your own NOWmormon. What weights are you carrying that makes this betrayal hurt deeper? (you don't have to answer publicly ;) Your testimony is still there.

Here is my feelings on Joseph Smith and polygamy. I may print off a copy of this paragraph for my mother as she quickly changes the subject when I attempt to tell her what I am about to share. Either Joseph Smith is guilty to some degree of taking an eternal principle too far or not ... but the devil's hand and his lies are written all over this. I served my mission in Texas. The anti-Mormon literature and effort there is truly ridiculous. Churches will spend an entire Bible study on attacking the Mormon church. The tremendous effort the adversary puts forth to fight our church is so extremely apparent. Why else can nobody write an unbiased history of Joseph Smith? Richard Bushman came close, but even he admits his bias. Think about it. A 14 year old boy sees God, speaks to angels, translates an ancient record from gold plates, and instituted polygamy. Sounds preposterous and ridiculous! Why fight something that is so obviously made up? Unless it isn't. Google the baptist or Presbyterian church ... then google basic Mormon beliefs. The amount of anti-Mormon garbage on the Internet is truly awe-inspiring. You look at this stuff and people spend an inordinate amount of time trying to prove the LDS church is false because why? The basic foundation of our church is obviously all made up poppycock right? Wrong. The church is so beyond true it's just the tip of the iceberg of God's beautiful mysteries and truths that are just waiting for people to unveil by following that simple formula - ask, seek, knock. The church is a simple vehicle meant to usher people into the temple where higher learning can take place - sadly it's largely an individual journey. There are so many things I wish I could discuss in an open forum like this! There are so many things I wish I could discuss with my mother.

My mother and one of my best friends warned me when I started to investigate Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger and polygamy, but Kittycat51's post is amazing - if you have not read it yet, I think it's on page 5 and is truly worthy a read. Like she said, this stuff is murky at best. Having a testimony of Joseph Smith, having seen the ridiculous and persistent anti-mormon efforts of the devil firsthand, and finally having a testimony of the fact that these efforts began when Joseph Smith was still a boy .... How can any mormon look at these allegations and not immediately be skeptical of source and the influence behind them?

So what the church is a little PC these days? So what the apostles are fallible. So what if Joseph Smith was fallible? Aren't the frequent mistakes of the apostles and prophets documented throughout the scriptures? Does King David's sin somehow invalidate the fact he was called by God and that the latter-day prophecies still center around his throne and the passing thereof? If not, then why is whether or not Joseph Smith messed up a deal breaker? And if it's not a deal breaker then let's approach this after the same pattern by which we receive testimonies and answers to our questions. So finally, I will add my testimony to those already shared in this thread - NOWmormon, go and ask. Seek. I guarantee you that your testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel will only strengthen as you do so in humility. Stop clinging to your burdens and let the Savior take them from you. Two relevant scriptures.

From the Book of Mormon Title Page:
And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Matthew 11:28 ¶ Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

[Finrock]

my responses in blue;

Everyone:

Some of your thoughts have been very uplifting and supportive.
Some of your thoughts have been dismissive and hurtful.
Some of you understand that there are many others like me out there.
Some of you cannot understand what I have these feelings. That either the church is true, or it isn't.

My issue does not come from lack of testimony, nor that a prophet does not make mistakes.
My issue comes from church leadership not fully disclosing the truth in regards to Joseph Smith himself practicing plural marriage, in OFFICIAL CHURCH DOCTRINE.What do you think D&C 132 is? It's canonized scripture, so it's clearly not been removed or covered up. It's no longer practiced and hasn't been for over 100 years, so no, it should not be part of any other 'official doctrine'. The proclamation on the Family is official church doctrine. Sure, this may have appeared in side-bar publications, but try to find it in sources published by the church itself, and it is hard to find.Now you are changing your story. So I take it you did know about polygamy, it's just now bothering you.
And I am not speaking of now, but publications over the past few decades or so (notwithstanding a few verses in D&C 132.Yes, the publications of the last few decades have minimized the practice of polygamy, there is no question, but it is not covered up or removed. You say you were a member for 50 years, then you know that D&C 132 talks all about polygamy. Did it never interest you, why it was in there? Are you saying that you never knew polygamy was a part of the church? I'm surprised your non-member friends didn't enlighten you at some point...most non-members seem to know more about our past than some members...

Even the official Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith only includes two sentences regarding plural marriage:
“The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime.”They do not talk alot about it. It's no longer practiced, but nothing been removed. It seems to me you are simply looking for excuses for your own decision to feel 'betrayed'.

Out of 567 pages of Joseph Smiths teachings, only two sentences regarding plural marriage are written.
And the two sentences aren’t even included in the main text.
The verbiage is buried in the middle of one larger paragraph, in-between six sections of recommendations for teachers and one section about the book’s sources.

There is NO QUESTION they minimize the practice of polygamy today and have been for a while now. I saw a huge spread on one of my ancestors in the Ensign about 20 years ago and it really bothered me because there was no mention of his family--five wives and 50 children. They did show a picture of him with all his wives and children but it was small and there was little explanation. It was obvious that someone putting the story together did not want to talk about his polygamous family relationships. I agree with you completely that it's minimized, it's not emphasized and sometimes it's not even mentioned, when it could be. The people who made these decisions thought they were doing the right thing. Personally I think it was the wrong way to handle it, but it's not my stewardship and if I start judging and condemning others for their poor decisions, I'll be judged by that same standard one day.

What you need to do Scott, is stop with the victim mentality and excuses. Take responsibility for your own choices. If you want to leave the church,
then at least be honest about it and make the decision for yourself, don't try to blame it on other people and think that it's not your choice and if you'd been taught better, you'd be fine. That's not true and I think you know it.

Hope this helps:

Cognitive distortions are errors or biases in thinking that can lead to faulty assumptions, and can worsen mood. Cognitive Therapy teaches that much of what fuels depression and anxiety are patterns of distorted thinking. Thus to reduce depression and anxiety, it can be very helpful to learn to recognize and respond to common cognitive distortions.

One common cognitive distortion is mind reading, which is assuming you know what other people think. In small doses, mind reading is a very helpful skill. We know that certain behaviors, words, and reactions can give us clues about what someone is thinking. For instance, when we tell someone something and his/her jaw drops, we automatically assume the other person is surprised. This is a kind of mind reading that is helpful in interpersonal encounters, and not an example of a cognitive distortion. However, when used too much, or without much evidence to go on, mind reading can be problematic. Take the example of someone eating alone in a cafeteria thinking everyone thinks she is a loser for eating alone. Or if you get to work a few minutes late, and you think everyone else is thinking about your tardiness. Engage in enough distorted mind reading, and you can feel pretty miserable after a while.

Below are a few questions and different perspectives designed to help you think through mind reading, and take on a more helpful way of thinking about difficult situations.

First, identify what exactly it is you predict the other person is thinking. Sometimes just writing down or saying the prediction out loud can help you see the holes in logic, and get you a little distance from the unhelpful thought.

What are the costs and benefits of believing this thought? Although we usually don’t think about thoughts in terms of their costs and benefits, they all have costs and benefits. With mind reading, you may think that you are protecting yourself from some bad outcome, or some kind of a surprise. These would be benefits. Costs are things like increased anxiety, more self-consciousness, and ruminating. Now compare the potential benefits to the actual costs, and ask yourself, “Would you want to buy these thoughts given their price?”

What is the evidence for and against your thoughts? When we engage in a lot of mindreading, we usually only consider evidence that confirms our predictions. Rarely do we ever pit our assumptions against evidence that steers us away from our predictions. By collecting the evidence for and against our mind reading, you can determine which side has more evidence, and more importantly, consider the quality of the evidence you have. This is a more objective approach to testing your thoughts, and can help you detect common cognitive distortions.

Imagine the thought were true. Would it mean more about you, or more about the other person? For instance, if the thought is that someone doesn’t like you because of the clothes you’re wearing, what does that mean about the other person? And do you expect everyone to like you? Is that a realistic expectation?

Can you test out the thought? What would need to happen for you to be absolutely convinced? Try it out as an experiment.

Try acting counter to the thought. If you are feeling like avoiding eye contact, instead, approach the other person and introduce yourself. Their reaction may indicate your assumption was totally inaccurate. Our behavior often has a way of making self-fulfilling prophesies. Trying something new, and might get you a result you didn’t expect.

By learning to recognize and challenge the common cognitive distortion of mind reading, you can begin to reduce self-consciousness, shyness, and negative feelings such as anxiety and depression (Source: http://cogbtherapy.com/cbt-blog/common- ... nd-reading).

-Finrock

[Finrock]

Knowing what Good is and what Good is not, we can make some definitive statements or we can start with some axioms. One axiom is that true manipulation is evil. Another thing we can know for certain is that true coercion is evil. Does God manipulate? Does God approve of manipulation? Does God coerce? Does God approve of coercion? I believe that God does not manipulate and neither does He approve of manipulation. Further, I believe that God does not coerce and neither does He approve of coercion. If a person who claims to be a servant of God accomplishes a goal through the use of manipulative tactics or through coercion, then we can conclude that the servant of God was not acting in righteousness. The ends do not justify the means.
-Finrock

Yes God does coerce... and teach according to the understanding of men. He also does not throw Perls before the swine. The purpose of the LDS church is three fold. Preach the gospel, redemption of the dead and prefect the saints. Anything that does not accomplish those tasks is not in God's program.. Understanding the context of church history is not required.

Doctrine and Covenants 19:7
7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

I think you are misinterpreting the scripture. But, lets take this out of the realm of theory and interpretation. Can you tell me of a time when God has coerced you? How did God coerce you and how did you know that it was God who was acting?

I have only witnessed and experienced coercion from bullies, totalitarians, dictators, tyrants, terrorist, and abusers in general.

-Finrock

[Spaced_Out]

Knowing what Good is and what Good is not, we can make some definitive statements or we can start with some axioms. One axiom is that true manipulation is evil. Another thing we can know for certain is that true coercion is evil. Does God manipulate? Does God approve of manipulation? Does God coerce? Does God approve of coercion? I believe that God does not manipulate and neither does He approve of manipulation. Further, I believe that God does not coerce and neither does He approve of coercion. If a person who claims to be a servant of God accomplishes a goal through the use of manipulative tactics or through coercion, then we can conclude that the servant of God was not acting in righteousness. The ends do not justify the means.
-Finrock

Yes God does coerce... and teach according to the understanding of men. He also does not throw Perls before the swine. The purpose of the LDS church is three fold. Preach the gospel, redemption of the dead and prefect the saints. Anything that does not accomplish those tasks is not in God's program.. Understanding the context of church history is not required.

Doctrine and Covenants 19:7
7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

I think you are misinterpreting the scripture. But, lets take this out of the realm of theory and interpretation. Can you tell me of a time when God has coerced you? How did God coerce you and how did you know that it was God who was acting?

I have only witnessed and experienced coercion from bullies, totalitarians, dictators, tyrants, terrorist, and abusers in general.

-Finrock

Every time you sin the spirit is withdrawn,, one is forced to repent. Both in the BoM and bible, when the people became wicked, a famine is decreed till the people repent.

Zechariah 14:16 ¶ And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

If we sin we are given special attention and things go wrong in our lives till we repent it is cohesion - but done out of love not meanness or vindictiveness. . Every parent that I know coerces their children.

Doctrine and Covenants 95:1
1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you whom I love, and whom I love I also chasten that their sins may be forgiven, for with the chastisement I prepare a way for their deliverance in all things out of temptation, and I have loved you—