“Whether or not the Church is true” is unquestionably important for my salvation. If the Mormon church is what it claims to be, then I need to know it so that I can participate and follow its teachings so I can go to the Celestial Kingdom and be exalted. If the Church is not what it claims to be, then I need to know exactly what it is, so that I can decide to stay or leave.
Even the Church teaches the scriptural warning that “by their fruits ye shall know them.” If the Church teaches false garbage, then that’s a part of its fruits, no? If the Church claims to be a consistent rock of objective truth, but yet it’s doctrines change with the opinions of its leaders and the circumstances of time, then its claim is bunk, right?
If the Church teaches doctrines that are impossibly false, then that’s important for my salvation, because it means the Church is not true. Maybe the individual, specific doctrine is arguably not relevant, but if that’s the case then Brigham Young or whoever shouldn’t have taught it in the first place.
If the Church can only give unsatisfactory answers to the questions that I have, and instead tries to tell me what questions I should be asking instead, then that’s obfuscation and evasiveness, and to me that’s not the mark of bold truth. “Not important to my salvation” just doesn’t work for me anymore.
Sailing to Byzantium 
Kullervo,
I guess I should clarify, if you think these minutiae things are troubling, then yes, to you they will be important to your eternal salvation, because by not having clear answers to your questions will drown out the more important matters.
It wasn’t the church that gave you an unsatisfactory answer that led to this post, Kullervo, it was me. I’m quite sure that if you were to go to one of the Apostles and ask your same question about eternal marriage, you will get a far more satisfactory answer. You still might not think it was enough, but it will be a better answer than the one I gave you.
That said, you might never find a satisfactory answer again from this church. IF this is the case, I wonder why you harp on this church. Why can’t you let it be and move on?
Daniel,
I’m speaking for Kullervo here, but you haven’t said anything that he hasn’t heard and said before–he was an active member of the LDS church for 28 years. He knows all the ‘answers’. And after thinking through them, he now feels they don’t make sense.
Why does he harp on the church? If you could call thinking through important things ‘harping’, I would say he does it because Mormon culture really does permeate all facets of a person’s life. It is the culture he was raised in. It is what his entire family believes. It is what he believed for years. It is what he’s taught. It is where he has grown, served, everything.
The fact that his entire worldview is crumpling down on him… it is kind of hard to ‘let it be and move on’ from that overnight–or over the course of a few weeks, or even years.
Daniel,
Both Kullervo and I have lived lived full of sincere questions with bullshit answers. Yours were only archetypes of the schlock you get at church~ the average response from the apostles is not typically any better.
That may sound very harsh. To you, it was meant to be. You seem to not realize that we are both very well-read return missionaries with a lot of hours of research, discussion, and sincere prayer and searching under our belts.
The issue is this: We have all gotten the response, [unanswerable problem X] is not important for your salvation, so don’t worry about it. The idea that “there is an easy answer, it’s just around the corner or in the apostles’ pockets” is vain rhetoric. The bottom line is that there are a good number of questions with very bad answers. The worst one is no answer.
Now, this doesn’t mean anything explicit about the church’s truth, unless you agree with Kullervo on this post. His point was that if so many things that make the church seem true have to be put into the “take it on faith” bin, then is it fair to say that they do not relate to salvation in a religion that revolves around conversion and conviction? Only if you are drowning eye-deep in a belief perseverance/ stubbornness that you’ve tagged as “faith”.
Here’s a thought: Believing in the restoration in Mormonism is often compared to having faith in Jesus Christ and God. But are they the same? Christianity’s teachings have always revolved around faith in the unseen and unprovable; the afterlife from which no man returns, and the nature of the invisible God. Some people don’t like believing in something so elusive, but it’s comforting to know that it’s not claiming to be provable, it’s just there for you to take it or leave it. Mormonism, on the other hand, expects you to believe not only in its teachings about the unseen/ invisible world, but also to believe in things about history and anthropology and genetics that fly in the face of all the evidence. It actually treads on a completely different kind of turf, and most of what man’s best thinkers can pull together is a whole heap of nothing when it comes to, say, correlating the beliefs of early Christians with the supposedly “restored” teachings of the church, or associating Meso-American civilization with the impossibly elusive Nephites described in the Book of Mormon. Mormonism not only asks us to believe in what we cannot see, but it asks us to believe in something that flies in the face of what we can see.
“Why can’t you let it be and move on?”
Grow up, Daniel. For those of you that don’t know, that’s a typically unsophisitcated Mormon-indoctrinated assumption/innuendo that those who leave the church are forever unable to resolve the feelings in their hearts because they knew, somewhere, deep down, that it was true. “They can leave the church, but they can’t leave it alone”. Lest you take this for some special spiritual truth, let it be known that this in not unique to Mormonism. Self-doubt, second-guessing, and long-term reflection are common to all people who leave comprehensive and/or stifling world-views behind. Read up a little on the psychology of people who leave cults, or those who are caught up in personality cults but later doubt their earlier fervor (Mao, Hitler). They all have lingering feelings of uncertainty because their lives revolved around something that turned out to be untrue. This doesn’t make Mormonism a “cult” necessarily (a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square), but there is nothing special, nothing sacred, nothing uniquely telling about an ex-Mormon who is perpetually checking himself and trying to make sure that he’s comfortable about where he stands.
katyjane,
Forgive me then if in my ignorance I speak too harshly of your husband. I do know what it is like to have one’s world crumble around him. My sister and my mother both left the church—while I was on my mission no less!—and I was treated pretty roughly by members in Utah, to a point where I hated going to church. But I’m a stubborn eastern European. Once I’ve made a decision (after long and thoughtful pondering and praying) I stick with it come hell or high water. I should expect that from everybody though, because not everybody is a stubborn eastern European. 🙂
Racticas,
I’ve heard harsher words. My father is an anti-Mormon Southern Baptist. You should have heard some of his words back in May 2003….yeah….you’ve got nothing on him. 🙂
As far as the faith issue is concerned, there is a reason why most answers are the rote “pray, read scriptures, attend church,” and that is that the answer lies in those three things. Does every answer lie there? Yes. Will you get an answer to every question that you have? No. And nowhere in the scriptures does it state differently. James does talk (as you well know) that if you have a question, ask of God. Is he wrong? I guess, though, I shouldn’t really get into it with you, because most of the answers I have you already know, heck you used them on your investigators on your mission.
I am curious though (as I’ve not read this blog from the beginning), just what led you and Kullervo down this path. What was that first issue that you both couldn’t let go of….
sorry, there should be a correction in my comment to katyjane:
I meant to say I SHOULDN’T expect that from everybody though because not everybody is a stubborn eastern European. Sorry.
Daniel,
What do you say to someone who prayed, read scriptures, and attended church, but felt impressions that the Mormon church is not where they’re supposed to be and is actually destructive to them spiritually?
I think we’re all just coming from different points of view here. I realize that I’m probably over-simplifying, but some of you are coming from an experience where you’ve been affiliated with the LDS church for a greater or lesser period of time and don’t feel like you’ve had many spiritual experiences there (or perhaps any at all). Others of us have been affiliated with the same church and, for one reason or another, have lots of sincere spiritual experiences that we feel bring us closer to God. Just because I (for example) give an answer to a question that doesn’t satisfy you, it doesn’t mean that it’s a “bullshit” answer. It just means that the questions are all very complicated, but I’m trying to answer them the best way I can based on what I know about God. Sometimes “I don’t know” is the right answer. Similarly, I can’t explain how a nuclear reactor works. However, I’m not going to renounce the laws of physics altogether, because I have plenty of experiences where the laws of gravity and motion have all clearly manifested in my life. So I’m inclined to accept the rest on faith. However, if you hadn’t experienced the simpler laws of physics for some reason, I can understand why you would deny the whole thing as ridiculous, so I’m not going to get mad at someone for doubting the LDS faith just because they don’t have the spiritual associations with Mormonism that I do and which get me past the questions I can’t find answers to. I hope no one’s going to be offended by this, but I’ve been disappointed over the last few days as this blog has gotten side-tracked from its soul-searching purpose and become a lot more like a Mormon bashing/defense forum. I think that’s preventing us from helping Kullervo develop a satisfying relationship with God, which is what we’re all really trying to do.
Sorry if I’ve ended up being pretty hot on the church. I find Daniel’s responses to be really irritating. It’s not an issue of “the truth hurts”, I feel like he’s not even listening– just giving the “pat” answers with none of the personal honesty that makes a subject like this worth talking about.
For example, he says:
“I am curious though (as I’ve not read this blog from the beginning), just what led you and Kullervo down this path. What was that first issue that you both couldn’t let go of….”
— just reinforcing the frustrating stereotype (found in Mormonism, but not universal to all Mormons of course) that people only leave the church over adultery, never having had a testimony, or just not being able to let go of “that one big thing”. I’m sorry, Daniel. you’re going to have to graduate your theological discussion out of young men’s and stop assuming.
Good points, Jeremy. However, I think there’s a big difference between saying “I don’t know” and “that’s not important for my salvation.”
The former implies a humble acceptance and a willingness to have faith that the dots fit together even if you can’t see te lines. I may question your conclusion but I can;t question your motives.
The latter theoretically implies the same, if you mean “I know that He loves His children but I do not know the meaning of all things” the way Nephi did. In other words, you are confident that you can work out your own salvation between you and God without needing an answer to that particlar question.
However, it seems to me that more often than not people use it to mean “that isn;t important for _your_ salvation, so you shouldn’t be asking that question.” And that pisses me off. I’ll decide what questions are important to me, thank you. You don’t get to- in fact, nobody does. Not even God. If God says “you don’t need to know that for your salvation,” I still get to decide whether I agree with God or not.
And even at best if someone means “you can be saved without worrying about that,” it’s still condescending and irrelevant, and it invalidates my question, which I clearly feel is important to me. And if the answer will make or break my Church membership, then maybe it is important to my salvation after all.
“I am curious though (as I’ve not read this blog from the beginning), just what led you and Kullervo down this path. What was that first issue that you both couldn’t let go of….”
1. Perhaps you should read the blog from the beginning then, or at least the about pages. Or at least the entry on why I left the mormon church.
2. Please stop trying to Resolve My Concerns, if that is what you are trying to do. I know the commitment pattern as well as you do.
I may be showing my ignorance, but what’s your main issue? Is it teachings of the LDS or teachings of Christ? Are they considered one and the same? Can they be seperated? Sorry . . . silly Protestant trying to learn.
‘Good points, Jeremy. However, I think there’s a big difference between saying “I don’t know” and “that’s not important for my salvation.”’
(Sorry, I don’t know how to do real block quotes).
You’re right of course. But I think that most Mormons say “It’s not important for my salvation” when they really mean “I don’t know” and they’re either too embarrased or too defensive to say it. It still sounds condescending, but I think it’s mostly unintentional. I’m not making excuses, I’m just telling you the reason I think it happens. In any case, when I wrote “I don’t know” I was simplifying down to what people mean (or should mean) rather than what they actually say.
Daniel,
I’ve got to say “because I’m stubborn” is the strangest reason I’ve ever heard someone use to justify their faith. It’s like you have a greater dedication to your stubbornness (a vice) than to your virtues and principles (which, in Christianity, should be moving you out of stubbornness).
If your faith actually did what it claims it will and transformed your heart, you’re saying that you would no longer have your faith. So strange.
When we see stories on the news of people who were too stubborn to leave their home because of impending disaster (fire, flood, hurricane) we don’t typically hold them us as wise and intelligent people. Do you really want to be lumped in with them? Is being known as a stubborn person really an attractive idea for you?
Beata,
Then this church is not for them. If you feel like you are living in hell while you are a member of this church, then get out. It isn’t worth your sanity to remain in a place you feel is hellish.
Kullervo,
Forgive me for being inconsiderate then, Kullervo. It isn’t my intent. My purpose in saying that some things just aren’t important to one’s eternal salvation comes from the way I understand the gospel and the possible answers to questions that may be rather esoteric and obscure. For example, in my case, I really don’t particularly care how the Lord was able to physically walk on water. I’m not really troubled by it. If we somehow learn exactly how he managed to do that, I’d be like, “cool.” Knowing how he walked on water does not help me in my personal progression to ward off sin and follow God’s commandments. For me, and again this is just my case, I was also curious just how the afterlife worked, but upon learning all that there was, and even though there are still numerous questions about it all, I found that it was just icing on the cake, the extra cookie; it’s good and all, but not the meat of the gospel.
I’ve found that the more I focused on the small and simple things of the gospel, the more peace and the more understanding I’ve had of the gospel and of why I am here on earth. Nothing else matters to me at this point in life. There were times in my life when I began focusing too much on peripheral things, and I found the philosophies of men began drowning out the precious things of the Gospel. Which source was I going to trust more? This was a tough call because I have never seen God, nor His Son. But I did get an answer to my prayer about Joseph Smith long ago. Which source had a better answer about the meaning of life? St. Thomas and St. Augustine? Hardly. Not even close. From them come the rest of modern western philosophy, all flawed and with strong misconceptions about who man is in this universe.
So for me, from my experience, the questions you have had about the eternities I’ve found are not important to my eternal salvation. Forgive me for applying my life to yours, Kullervo.
Kullervo,
I’m not trying to resolve your concerns. Forgive me for asking the question I did. I shouldn’t have.
Dando,
Eh, the Internet doesn’t do a good job at showing the smile I had on my face as I wrote that. Yes, my stubbornness had a lot to do with keeping me in line, but if I don’t believe in my heart it is true, I wouldn’t hang around this church. This church is hard work. I could have a much easier time going to the local baptist church. I wouldn’t have to do home teaching. I wouldn’t have any callings. I wouldn’t have to be anything but a regular lay member. That is attractive at times. But I believe I am working at building up the Kingdom of God. That end result is worth the efforts. 🙂
See, I don’t get that. I’m sure it’s because the way we were raised was different or that our family situations, but for me, staying Mormon wouldhave been the easiest thing in the world. I’ve been Mormon all my life, and it comes naturally to me.
Yeah, I didn’t ever do a perfect job with my callings or home teaching, but I didn’t rake myself over the coals because of it. In any case, Mormonism was my way of life, and I would have gladly stayed in.
Except that I just wasn’t sure I believed anymore. And the LDS church is not a place for people who don’t believe anymore. Sure, you can still attend meetings, but you can’t participate fully, not without lying to yourself and other people, and I could not do that.
Kullervo,
The church is open to everybody, believer and non-believer alike. However, it does you no good to lie to yourself and to those around you. That becomes self-destructive in both the short-term and long-term.
I wish you luck in your quest for something good. I hope it leads you right back here, but your quest is your own to make. 🙂
Daniel–how is the church open to non-believers? You can’t get baptised if you don’t believe. And if you’re already baptised, you can’t get a temple recommend. You can’t really have a calling. You can’t talk in sacrament meeting. You can’t fully participate. Am I missing something?
What I mean is that they don’t exclude anyone, and in the afterlife, most good non-members go to the Terrestrial Kingdom. Do you have to be a member to go to the temple, to take the sacrament (though in this case, no one enforces it if non-members take the sacrament—no point in doing so), and to have a calling? Certainly. But that’s no different than any other church. I’m just saying that, for example, you and Kullervo would certainly be welcome in our ward and to all our activities. That’s what I’m saying. 🙂
Daniel,
Why is it that you like to twist people’s words? Kullervo said that the LDS church is “not a place for people who don’t believe anymore…[because] you can’t participate fully…”
You then argue that the church is open to non-believers.
Yeah, we all know that you can walk through the doors of the ward building, but that wasn’t the point. You can’t participate. Arguably, the church isn’t even physically open to all people, because you can’t go to the temple without a temple recommend.
So no, the church is NOT open to non-believers.
“Even the Church teaches the scriptural warning that “by their fruits ye shall know them.” If the Church teaches false garbage, then that’s a part of its fruits, no? If the Church claims to be a consistent rock of objective truth, but yet it’s doctrines change with the opinions of its leaders and the circumstances of time, then its claim is bunk, right?”
I would argue that the doctrines don’t change, although the guidance and counsel does. It also wouldn’t make sense if counsel from God didn’t change with circumstances. Different people, different culture… Why would God keep every little thing the same for so many people and so many time periods? The big picture can’t change, but smaller things could.
It’s important to differentiate doctrine and current teachings. What’s doctrine, anyway? Was Brigham Young racism doctrine? (I don’t even like to use the word “racism” to apply to things 150 years ago. There’s so much baggage with that word that makes it easily misunderstood to different people. Suffice it to say, BY didn’t seem to think all humans as equal.) I don’t know. Only God could tell you. Is anything from Journal of Discourses doctrine? Is anything from the General Conference pulpit doctrine? Where is the line between leaders giving good advice and counsel and speaking for God? It’s subjective to me and you, but if there’s truth, then there is a line. It’d be nice if God would just spell it out for me.
In actuality there are only a few things taught in the Church that you could assign the title “doctrine” if doctrine is timeless.
I hope it is ok if I join your discussion. I want you to know a little bit about me first though…… So I was raised in a lutheran church, and after I left home I started attending different churches, all kinds from baptist to nondenominational. When I attended different churches I always left feeling great but the feeling would leave me a few hours later. So a couple years go by and i am still struggling to find where I belonged. So guess what happens, Two missionaries from the LDS church come to the door. ( I was raised anti, my parents had taught me that mormons were evil and they were all going to hell) So anyways, normally I would hide and pretend I wasn’t home, but for some crazy reason I answered that door!!! When I opened the door they introduced themselves to me, I didn’t understand what I was seeing at the time but I saw something in their faces, something I was missing. So the Elders started coming over and teaching me. Soon my husband started joining in the discussions. It was really hard for me to get over what was instilled in my brain as a child (that they were an evil cult and were all going to hell) But after a while, I decided I needed to do what they had encouraged me to do. Pray about it, to ask for myself. I got down on my knees(I was by myself) and I poured my heart out. I recieved my answer. It was not the answer I was hoping for, or expecting. And it wasn’t a loud booming voice telling me these things were true. It was going from being broken, sad, and confused to completely whole. My heart was healed and I KNEW these things were true. So that is my story, Kullervo, I’m not trying to sway you one way or another. I just want you to know my story. I think it is SO Awesome that you were a missionary!!!!!!!!! Missionaries are my favorite people in the WHOLE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!! oh and what I saw in their faces when they were standing at my door was the light of Christ, and now I have that light with me always!!! KULLERVO…. good luck to you in your Journey!!! I hope you find your happiness!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Halcyon, you’re absolutely right, and that’s another problem for me.
What is doctrine and what isn’t? Some people say only the scriptures are Doctrine. Some people say that General Conference is Doctrine. Some people say that anything spoken by a prophet or apostle when acting in that role is scripture, and thus doctrine (and I believe that the D&C backs that one up).
What is it, then? Brigham Young said that everything he taught was scripture. Really? Was he lying, or just wrong? He taught some stuff that we definitely don’t believe now, like the Adam-God theory (and contrary to what people sometimes say, he taught this doctrine explicitly and openly). So, was he wrong then or are the prophets wrong now? And if he was wrong then, and not just wrong about an opinion he had, but wrong about whether that opinion was doctrine or not, how do we know that any prophet since his time has not been equally wrong, about who knows what?
Yeah, the Spirit can tell us, but when Brigham Young was teaching blood atonement, the Law of Adoption, Adam-God, and that Jesus was crucufied for practicing polygamy, people were believeing it and listening to the Spirit back then, weren;t they?
Stephanie, thanks for dropping in. Your thoughts are appreciated.
It is a fact that ignorance is bliss. When you’re doing something and not worried about if it’s true or not (whether out of ignorance, stubbornness, or deliberately avoiding the issue), it’s admittedly a lot funner.
If something seems simple and good when you don’t sweat the details, does that mean that you must be lying to yourself? Of course not. But on the flip side, a deliberately simple approach to any lifestyle or truth is going to yield results like this:
“I’ve found that the more I focused on the small and simple things of the gospel, the more peace and the more understanding I’ve had of the gospel and of why I am here on earth. Nothing else matters to me at this…”
Am I wrong? It’s much, much easier and psychologically comforting to decide not to worry about the details and just let yourself get caught up in being busy with your religion and choosing to be simple. How Jesus walked on water is not a “tough theological questions” for me. He’s God. That’s easy. But when God says “God cannot lie” and then we hear “the prophets speak the word of God”, and then we hear from the prophets that Adam IS God, but then the later ones say he isn’t… that’s an actual conundrum because it’s circular and contradictory. Of course, you’re at liberty to say to yourself that “The Adam-God thing isn’t true, and that’s what matters– why get caught up on the details?”– but that decision (which I would, with bias, describe as choosing to ignore the church’s paradoxical teachings and history) is not the same thing as letting God keep the thermodynamic details of his miracles to himself. How he walks on water may defy what we learn in textbooks, but not what we learn in the Bible.
Racticas,
A couple of things. First of all, what is wrong with the approach to keep it simple? Why do we need to confuse things we discover are true? I understand the need to learn and question, and trust me I’ve questioned everything on this planet, including, quite thoroughly, my faith in Jesus Christ.
The one thing, the small and simple thing, that I just can’t dismiss is that I know that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ. I know it because of the usual testimony answer: the Spirit has whispered it in my heart. In fact, right now I feel that testimony, as strong as ever. I’ve come to discern when the Spirit is present, and when it is just my emotions. I know the difference. And this small and simple thing—Joseph Smith’s prayer was answered by a visitation from God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ—fundamentally alters the rest of everything about this world.
There is a reason why we focus on these small and simple things: They are the building foundation of something great and marvelous.
Tell me, do you tell an architect that his focus on the small and seemingly insignificant foundation stone is trite? Or is he smart to ensure that that stone is strong and in good sturdy ground? The rest of the building crumbles around him if his foundation is weak. It doesn’t matter if the second floor is in good shape if the foundation will break. Down goes the second floor along with the rest.
You deride the small and simple, but alas, as the scriptures tell us, the small and simple confound the wise of this world, and they deride it as of naught because it is so seemingly below their thinking.
Daniel,
I think you’re right that we need to appreciate the small and simple things. But I don’t know if we should do that to the exclusion of things that don’t make sense. What about when one prophet says one thing is eternal doctrine, and then another one says that it isn’t, and never was? Which one is right? Was the first one lying? Was the second one? How can they both be right if the matter at hand is an issue of fact–Adam either IS God the Father, or he isn’t. It wouldn’t make sense that he was God the Father in the 1800s but not in the 2000s… right? So, if one prophet says that this is an eternal doctrine and true, and revealed by God, and then the current prophets say that that isn’t church doctrine and isn’t true… where do you go?
Daniel,
Focusing on the small and simple things are great, as long as you have a testimony of the LDS church. You do, but I (and others) don’t.
The problem is, if the church is true and God exists, he’s not going to tell us inconsistent things. If you’re on the top floor of a building, and it’s swaying back and forth, you can probably infer that the building is weak and at risk. If you stay on the bottom, and never go up, you may not know that it’s about to fall. Sure, staying near the bottom might make you feel safer, but you’re just avoiding the obvious.
katyjane,
I haven’t said it is an either or situation. It’s not focusing on the small and simple things at the expense of the larger or more obscure things. Heck, from my comments here, it should be clear that I’ve pondered on the afterlife for quite some time. What I am saying is that, for me, I am not letting the fact that I can’t find all the answers color the original testimony of Joseph Smith’s first vision. Because I trust that that testimony I have comes from the Holy Ghost, and I trust the Holy Ghost. If I don’t get all the answers to all my questions in this life, I’m not going to lose sleep over it. This life is extremely complicated, complex and if you don’t have any focus, disorienting.
Basically, for me, I’ve left some questions unanswered until the afterlife, trusting that I will get answers then. If answers don’t come then, well, that’s going to be a different story. But for this life, this is what I trust.
Beata,
Can you see the reason why we always go back to those small and simple things? If you have no testimony of those small and simple things, the larger and more obscure things look foolish and crazy.
Think of it this way, can you do any Calculus if you don’t know any Algebra? There is a reason why we start with Algebra and then move to Calculus.
Are you kidding? Do you know how often God has told inconsistent things to his people in the Bible? I mean the most glaring example is the Law of Moses. Here God tells his people the law. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Suddenly, 2000 years later, here comes the Son of God saying, nope, not an eye for an eye. Turn your cheek instead. How’s that for an inconsistent message! Can you explain the inconsistency? Are you troubled by why God tells one generation of his people to take an eye for every eye taken, and another generation to turn their cheek? Talk about inconsistent!
Daniel,
That’s great if the small and simple things work for you. The big difference between you and me (and arguably Kullervo, because this is still his blog) is that I don’t have a testimony of the LDS church. In fact, I have an anti-testimony of the LDS church (as in I know God doesn’t want me there). So why should I do the LDS “small and simple things” when that’s the case. You have to trust and believe in the person telling you those things before you’ll do it. Are you going to listen to a calculus lesson by an 8 year-old on the side of the street? Sure, he probably doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but he could as well. You have to evaluate the evidences before you’re going to give any creedance to what he’s saying.
You can’t start Calculus with a false understanding of Algebra.
And as with your second comment about inconsistency, are you trying to equate the inconsistent message that Brigham Young and subsequent prophets gave to the “inconsistent” message that God gave before and after Christ? It’s Christ! CHRIST!
This is one biggest pet peeve I have with Mormons – you don’t respect Christ. He is qualitatively different than the prophets. Why? Because he’s our SAVIOR! Different! He satisfied the law – God didn’t change it. Are you saying the inconsistent message that the LDS church present about the Adam-God theory is because…. say … Brigham Young died and fulfilled a law?!?!
Are YOU kidding me.
“This is one biggest pet peeve I have with Mormons – you don’t respect Christ.”
I respect Christ. He’s the biggest part of my what I believe. You’re overgeneralizing a little bit.
Not too derail . . . but Daniel when you say the “original testimony of Joseph Smith’s first vision” do you really mean Joseph’s original testimony or the one that most LDS identify with that’s now in the Pearl of Great Price? I don’t usually hear LDS go back to his original testimony, so just curious as to what you meant by that.
Thanks!
I think we’ve gone too far from the original intent of Kullervo’s post (and blog). I can sit here and defend the religion until my dying breath, but that won’t change anything right now. I’m all for Kullervo finding what is best for him, and if this church is not it, then so be it. If he feels like he is in hell in this church, then he shouldn’t be in this church. If any of you feel that way, then find something that brings you happiness.
Halcyon said-
“I respect Christ. He’s the biggest part of my what I believe. You’re overgeneralizing a little bit.”
And I agree and disagree. On the one hand, it’s not fair to say that all individuak Mormons disrespect or have no relationship with Jesus Chrsist. In fact, when we do that, we’re buying into the myth that all Mormons believe the same way.
On the other hand, i think that despite the push in recent years to be more Christ-centered, the Mormon framework is really problematic from a Christian standpoint, and historically Mormons have often forgotten Christ’s significance (Kimball’s book The Miracle of Forgiveness almost never mentions Jesus Christ! A nominally Christian book called The Miracle of Forgiveness, and Jesus, specifically in the context of his atoning sacrifice, gets a nod on like one page! It’s insane!). Also many individual Mormons probably don’t really put Christ in the center, and very few have what Evangelicals would call a relationship with Jesus Christ (in fact, having a relationship with Jesus Christ is listed by McConkie as one of the seven deadly heresies).
All of that aside, I also know that at least a measure of how Beata came off in that comment was just her venting. That’s not to take away from what she’s saying or to invalidate it, but it probably shouldn;t be taken as directed against you personally, halcyon.
Sorry, I have to put my two cents in here. I don’t get the remark made by Beata, why would you say Mormons don’t respect Christ? I think that is MY biggest pet peeve with other Christians. They like to disect the church and tell us how WE feel about different issues. I didn’t know Christ before I joined the church like I do now. I’m around Mormons all the time and I have observed them very carefully. The Mormons I know LOVE and adore Christ like no other people. And so do I. He is the foundation of our church. I feel very sad that someone would say that we don’t respect him!!!!
It seems like I need to clear up some things.
Daniel used God’s “inconsistency” between the old and new testament as a way to explain why LDS doctrine is inconsistent.
The two are qualitatively different: the first being caused by the atonement and the fulfillment of the Law of Moses by Christ; the second being caused by… well, you tell me.
No matter what the source of LDS doctrine inconsistency is, It is certainly not caused by an event of the same magnitude and significance as the atonement of Christ.
So to take one to explain the other is an insult to the magnificence of Christ’s atonement.
I have no intention of ever insulting anyone’s religion, and I especially did not mean to say you did not BELIEVE Christ. However, in my experience, many Mormons do not respect Christ the way other devoted Christians do. In fact, more emphasis is put on the Book of Mormon and the prophets than Christ (In one testimony meeting, I counted precisely 1 mention of Christ out of approximately 7 testimonies – a very sad figure indeed). As Kullervo pointed out, there are many well-respected Mormons, such as McConkie and Kimball, who don’t put much of an emphasis on Christ themselves.
“In one testimony meeting, I counted precisely 1 mention of Christ out of approximately 7 testimonies – a very sad figure indeed.”
I agree. They get onto us all the time for not having our testimonies Christ- centered. Talks in general conference bring this up, too. I wouldn’t base your testimony meeting on what the general Mormon population believes. I’d look more to General Conference. Every. Single. Talk. mentions Jesus Christ and how he’s our Savior. The talks that aren’t centered around Him should just be ways we can get to Him. We talk about the Book of Mormon only because it brings us closer to Christ. If it didn’t, we wouldn’t talk about it. We talk about Joseph Smith because he helped restore Christ’s Church. (I know you think he was a farce, but I’m talking about what Mormons believe, not what others think Mormons believe.)
“Kimball’s book The Miracle of Forgiveness almost never mentions Jesus Christ! A nominally Christian book called The Miracle of Forgiveness, and Jesus, specifically in the context of his atoning sacrifice, gets a nod on like one page! It’s insane!”
The Miracle of Forgiveness is not Church canon. In the beginning of the book Kimball says “I accept full responsibility for the contents of this book. Specifically, the Church and its leaders are totally absolved from the responsibility for any error which it may be found to contain.” It’s all just Kimball, so maybe the problem is with him rather than with Church doctrine.
The prophets and leaders of the Church are fallible. Yeah, I know, you know. But just think of them as your bishop or your dad or this guy you know as someone who’s got a good heart trying to do the best he can do. I think there’s more of a problem in the church of setting our leaders up as demi-gods, but that’s cultural, not doctrinal. It’s a mistake. One that can be fixed. They deserve respect. Christ deserves reverence.
I’m not so certain that the difference between what is cultural and what is doctrinal is so clear. I’ve expressed previously that I think a big problem in Morminism is that there’s actually very little consensus about ocfficial doctrine despite how much we talk about it.
What you see as cultural, plenty of other Mormons believe to be official doctrine, and they think you’ve got it as wrong as you think they do. there’s this persistent myth that there exists somewhere a set of “officially true doctrines,” but there isn’t. It doesn’t exist. There’s no Mormon catechism or anything.
Official doctrine is canonized. A search for “canon” on lds.org always refers to scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price) and when a prophet is speaking from the Lord.
I’m just not convinced.
Agreed. The line between “official” and nonofficial doctrine seems intentionally blurred, when it comes to things like General conference talks and Journal of Discourses.
Halcyon:
“Official doctrine is canonized. A search for “canon” on lds.org always refers to scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price) and when a prophet is speaking from the Lord.”
How do you know when a prophet is speaking from the Lord?
[…] “Not Important For My Salvation” […]
I truly wish there was something I could say to help. You are a part of my family, and it breaks my own heart to see the wounds these doubts are ripping in your hearts. The gospel is true. The Church is just an organization on the earth run by men. But the gospel is the real essence of it all. And Christ is at the center of the gospel. You’ve heard all this before. So have I. I know I still need to hear it. Jesus Christ is the Savior. He suffered for all of us; he gave his life, that we might live. He is the way, the truth, the life, the light, the living water, the very Son of God.
Since I’ve been reading your blog, dear cousin, I’ve been very worried. I can’t help but weep for the pain you must feel. There were even some entries that made me feel so sick to my stomach. I was afraid that somehow all your doubts would lead me to doubt, too. But I have found that the opposite is happening. I feel stronger.
I have been suffering a horrible shadow of depression similar to what you described for the past few years. One long, dark night in particular stands out in my mind. These horrible pains were overcoming me. I felt that my spirit was in a losing battle and I couldn’t last much longer. I literally cried out for my Savior. And I was given a small miracle. The raging battle of darkness and self-doubt within me was calmed. I felt a sweet peace. For a short time that night, I was freed from the chains of depression. And that experience was a very real thing to me. I just wanted to share that with you.
Anyways, I feel somewhat grateful now to my cousins for helping in a way to strengthen my testimony. I feel like, more than ever, I need to do those small and simple things. For myself. Because when I do them, my burden of depression is lifted. I feel peace. I feel closer to my Heavenly Father and to my Savior. I find that when I am focused on developing a relationship with Christ, I am not acutely bothered by questions or doubts. Yes, there are some things I would like to know, but they don’t constantly worry me. I feel content that if it’s important to my Savior for me to know, he’ll let me know in his own due time. I know the most important thing for me to do is follow him.
I don’t mean to belittle your feelings in any way. Please don’t take my comments that way. I’m just contributing my simple Assistant Pig-feeder point of view. Actually, I think that title is growing on me. ; )
No worries- I appreciate your insight. Your experience with depression being dispelled sounds like an intense one. I might feel differently if something like that had happened to me.
The “you will know them by their fruits” refrence has always bothered me. The church uses it to justify the Church, but the Bible uses it to justify PROPHETS.
Look at Matthew 7:15-21. See here http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%207&version=31
Verse 15-16 actually says: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them…”
The church likes to point out that the church is true because Mormons are so nice, they run big businesses, they scrapbook, they server missions, pray, go to church many times a week, FHE on Mondays. But, this is not the test that the Bible is imploring of us.
The Bible says that you will know a PROPHET is true by their fruits.
So, try to run down the LDS prophets and list their fruit…
1. JS – Alduturer, magic stone peeper, story teller, egotistical.
2. BY – Aldulterer, conspirator to mass murder
3. GBH – Doesn’t know anything (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=iTt&pwst=1&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=gordon+hinckley+%22i+don%27t+know%22&spell=1)
The “you will know them by their fruits” refrence has always bothered me. The church uses it to justify the Church, but the Bible uses it to justify PROPHETS.
Look at Matthew 7:15-21. See here http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%207&version=31
Verse 15-16 actually says: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them…”
The church likes to point out that the church is true because Mormons are so nice, they run big businesses, they scrapbook, they server missions, pray, go to church many times a week, FHE on Mondays. But, this is not the test that the Bible is imploring of us.
The Bible says that you will know a PROPHET is true by their fruits.
So, try to run down the LDS prophets and list their fruit…
1. JS – Alduturer, magic stone peeper, story teller, egotistical.
2. BY – Aldulterer, conspirator to mass murder
3. GBH – Doesn’t know anything http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=iTt&pwst=1&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=gordon+hinckley+%22i+don%27t+know%22&spell=1