[nibbler]

In the beginning I took the easy path – I’d treat church and doctrines like a branch of mathematics and when called upon to teach or talk I’d express myself within that limited branch of “mathematics.” In that sense everything you say comes from deductive reasoning where the initial assumption is that the church is true. Edit: This translates to act like a TBM. Trying to get too fancy for my own good there. :silent:

These days I try to take the approach mentioned by many people in this tread, testify and talk only to points you believe are true. That approach takes a lot more time and effort but I’ve found that the added effort helps me better discover what I truly believe.

[nibbler]

Thanks for the warning. I’ll certainly take it to heart after reading some first hand accounts from some of the members of this forum.

[nibbler]

Late to the party… as usual. Since joining the site I’ve started reading the backlog and just came across this.

I’ll echo others in pointing out the distinction between restoring the gospel and restoring the church. You could even take it a step further and compartmentalize the scope of the “restoration.” In other words maybe you could take that to mean a personal restoration of the gospel to just you rather than a global restoration of something that was totally lost to the world. After all, what good is a global restoration doing for you if it isn’t a part of your personal life?

The way I see it…

littlelostsheep wrote:

I can’t see how to answer ‘do I have a testimony of the restored gospel?’

If you even desire to hold a temple recommend that must mean you have enough faith in the restoration of the gospel to answer the question in the affirmative… and that would go for any of the faith based questions. If you didn’t have any faith at all then what is the true motivation behind wanting the temple recommend?

Chiming in because my temple recommend expired some months ago and I too have put some thought into how I might answer the questions. To me limiting all my communications to yea, yea and nay, nay during the interview would in some ways require me to be ready to make my spiritual journey alone whereas a more narrative answer would be my means of reaching out to leadership for guidance… so maybe my next temple recommend interview will be one of the first times I’ll truly reflect on the process.

[nibbler]

Thanks. I’ll add the one about beards and the one about white bread to my list.

Several people in the group are very insistent on white shirts so I’ll leave that off… since the focus is to get people to think, not to provide a list of incorrect beliefs we hold.

I’ll start searching the forums in earnest. I have a hard time coming up with stuff because “Mormon” culture doesn’t exist where I live.

[nibbler]

Hearing perspectives from others that have had similar experiences helps give me the strength to continue to discover and blaze my own trail.

Thanks for sharing your story.

[nibbler]

I know it’s none of my business, just curious. Did you ever write that missionary?

Heck, I feel like I need to write to him. Sometimes events like this can lead people down a path of self-deprecation that is very difficult to come back from. I’m sure the poor guy felt judged by the entire ward. My heart goes out to him.

[nibbler]

Goldilocks wrote:

So heres my Sunday update. Mostly everything was positive and easy. But a very nice Primary President straight up asked me what callings I was interested in. What is going on here?

When I read that I thought you were going to go in a different direction… I know I’ve never been asked what callings I was interested in, you just get what you get. Sometimes it’s a Brother Doe moved out, Brother Nibbler moved in; Brother Nibbler gets Brother Doe’s calling. Most of the time I think it’s Brother Nibbler has a friend in a calling that requires them to staff other callings… Brother Nibbler is going to be called by his friend very soon. Sometimes I think it can be a decision that is prayerfully considered. Never does someone get asked what they’d like to do :eh: at least my experience.

Goldilocks wrote:

They also went on and on about the family that lived in the house before us as if they expect us to take over as replacements. They even told me I looked just like the woman, not a dead ringer but close. (?!)

I don’t know that I’d read too much into that. Probably just an attempt at smalltalk or maybe they thought you’d be curious about who lived in your house before you.

It sounds like you are comfortable with being open and honest with people. That’s a good thing that I hope others around you can respect. I know I do.

[nibbler]

I’ll be very interested to hear your experiences.

I didn’t initially want to share this but just so you know, I’m currently a branch mission leader and I share all of your sentiments (except the strict members one, only my branch president and wife know my current feelings/thought processes). In fact just today I posted in another thread about how my doubts lead me to approach my branch president about being released, a taboo in the church and something I thought I’d never do. That was over 6 months ago and I’ve been serving as best as I could ever since that day, ie I still haven’t been released. I’ve been in the calling, feeling all of your reservations and motivations that you’ve listed, for a year now.

I know finding a replacement is still a work in progress and as recently as last week I’ve felt the need to approach the branch president again but he was out of town. After finding this forum and reading people’s insights (I literally found it this week) I’m not 100% sure I want to approach him about it anymore, I’m in a period where I’m trying to find my path. I think the wheels have already been set in motion though, maybe you’re my replacement.

My main issue was that I felt the branch deserved someone better than myself, at least in the sense of someone that had a stronger testimony in the church than I was currently experiencing. I didn’t want to hold the progress of the branch back, I also felt that in some ways I was being intellectually dishonest with myself and others.

I also put out a feeler in the stages of faith thread about what people in stage 4 did to be at peace with doing missionary work for the church.

[nibbler]

I suppose I should have been more careful with my words. I meant to say that whether the Book of Abraham contains any edifying teachings is a separate issue from the questions that the problems with its origins raise. As Roy points out, you can find inspiration anywhere. I already accept that the book can contain inspiring messages so I’ve resolved that aspect. In that regard it takes a back seat to the unresolved aspects, namely what does the issues with its origins imply?

Claims to exclusive authority permeate quite a bit of the church’s overall message… I suppose the consensus then is to concern yourself more with the message than anything… after all, that’s what is going to change your life one way or the other.

Orson wrote:

1) why not? It is my life, it works for me. I am Mormon by birth and I cannot un-Mormon myself any more than I can un-American myself. If I get thoroughly upset about the way my country is run I have the option to move out – but that move would be more disruptive to me than any difficulty that living with a government I may not agree with could present. If a different path works for you I have no argument, your life is yours.

That makes total sense. My background is that I’m a convert (about 20 years ago). I came to the church because I believed in its claims to exclusive authority.

I’ll give the podcasts a listen when I have the time.

Heber13 wrote:

Do you think, nibbler, the BOA should be held to a different standard then the bible because of how the church teaches about the restoration and authority claims?

I think I have held it to a higher standard, so now I have to ask myself… why?

Heber13 wrote:

Because origin issues certainly exist for other canonized scripture. Wouldn’t you agree?

Certainly.

Heber13 wrote:

So perhaps the issue is not the BOA itself…but the fact we are closer to the origin to hear how Joseph Smith processed it, made claims about it, and how the church claims authority about it.

I see and very much appreciate the point. Something to mull over.

Where does all of this leave you? I don’t mean to be flippant but it seems like to retain any faith in the restoration (of a church, not of teachings; perhaps that’s where I’ve run aground, in thinking that he restored a church rather than him simply restoring the gospel teachings) you’re left with a narrative where Joseph could spin quite the yarn but it just so happens that the yarn was inspired by deity after all and that more good than harm came out of it. Or perhaps he truly was a prophet but was limited to using made up stories because that’s the only way the people of his day would be open to receiving the teachings. Perhaps that’s all God has ever done throughout history? Delivered his message in a context that could be understood and received by us. If that’s means a church, then it’s a church; if that’s means authority, then it’s authority; if that means a burning bush, then a burning bush. Whatever it takes to get you interested in the message.

Again, something to mull over and something that takes time to process. You guys are a tremendous help in giving me a new perspective to think about things.

[nibbler]

Haha. Bump for making my day. :clap:

[nibbler]

Every new member needs a responsibility versus a calling, I’ve honestly never made the distinction before. I know I’ve been guilty of hearing “responsibility” and translating that to “calling” in my mind. I went back to the source and Hinckley uses the words responsibility, assignment, and activity. No mention of callings anywhere. It’s also clear that the intent is to give the new member an opportunity to grow and to help them feel like a part of the community, not to simply be a warm body in a vacant role or to fill some pressing need. It really is about helping the individual progress.

I’m commenting in this tread because this year, for the first time, I found myself both asking to be released from my current calling and declining a different calling. To me that was something I thought that I would never do, yet there I was doing it. Icing on the cake… recently a visiting GA came and “never, ever refuse a calling” was a part of his message. Shame on me.

Doubts drove me to that point and I was very open and honest about how I felt like my doubts were preventing the unit from receiving all the blessings that it could receive should the calling be staffed by someone that perhaps had a bit stronger testimony. I also communicated that I felt like I was being intellectually dishonest with myself by continuing in my calling. That was some time ago, and I’m still in my current calling. Now I could have pressed and been released long ago but I decided to hang around because doubts aside… the unit is small, the needs are great, and above all I still love the people I serve. It’s a strange path that I’m walking, one I don’t really understand.

Putting on my TBM hat: If we all did callings that fit our current strengths would we truly grow? Even if callings are assigned by an impromptu dart throwing at the ward roster competition if you go in with the attitude that you are going to do your best you will come away a better, more experienced person in the end.

Hat off: I’ve had callings that I didn’t enjoy. Perhaps the only lesson I learned in those years was that of patience.

SilentDawning wrote:

Callings, on the other hand, can be a recipe for non-commitment and sometimes, mediocrity. People get tired of the repetition and can ‘t sustain the effort. It becomes like work if there is a bad fit between the calling and the individual’s passions and skills. And often, they stop functioning because they are not allowed to withdraw from the calling on their own terms (at least, some have that perception, and there is a cultural norm that you don’t ask to be released, as The Unwritten Order of Things suggests).

Yes, this is a problem. I’ve seen many people go inactive shortly after receiving their first calling in the church. I do not think they went inactive out of laziness; I’ve been in their shoes, I think they experience a crushing guilt because they feel like they are not meeting the expectations of their callings. It may be due to a lack of training, a struggle to fit a calling into a busy life, or it may even be 100% perceived, but the end result is the same. That guilt can kill your spirit. I think taking a hard line with “serve where placed” can contribute to that.

In the past I took a very hard line with the cultural expectation that you don’t ask to be released. I spent a long, long time in one calling but felt the lord would inspire the bishop to release me eventually. The truth is that bishops are busy, there are lots of people in a ward, and they simply forget about you. From the experiences I’ve read in this tread related to some of the non-inspiration methods of extending a calling perhaps I can make a suggestion as to a non-inspirational method to handle the release from a calling. Assign a maximum time frame for each calling, record the date that a person was appointed to that calling, don’t let people go over that limit (unless they want to).

Human nature is such that most won’t give service unless asked so in that regard “serve where placed” helps. Doing something is more beneficial than doing nothing.

[nibbler]

So maybe a more “by their fruits ye shall know them” approach. If the fruits that result from living the teachings are edifying then why does it matter where it came from? I can definitely identify with that.

You hit on what I was getting at Orson, whether the Book of Abraham contains any edifying teachings takes a back seat to the true question that the issues with its origins raise… as you mention the claim to exclusive authority. If the claim to exclusive authority comes under serious fire I guess the question then becomes why stay around? In that context, if the pursuit is a life spent learning edifying principles, I don’t see how that equates to the desire to stay with any one particular church. You could just hop from thing to thing until you become a zen master.

Just as a tangent, take the Voree plates for example. Is it intellectually honest to continue to remain a Strangite should definitive proof come forward that the Voree plates were forgeries? Does one hold to the religion because James Strang and the translation of the Voree plates had some really edifying things to say? I’m just trying to divorce the subject from the argument, no offense to Strangites. Many people here do not believe the Book of Abraham to be inspired, yet they fight (as do I) to stay in the church.

Thanks for the comments SamBee, if people believe that the Book of Mormon is inspired then it makes perfect sense as to why they would keep up the good fight.

Again, I’ve made a mountain out of this molehill. Nevertheless, I’d still like to strike a balance with all of this. I should take my own advice and live and let live, discover what works for me.

[nibbler]

I just got through reading the entire thread (it took some time) and I have to say… thanks.

Thanks to everyone that commented in this thread. In many, many ways this thread has helped me to understand what I’ve been going through for several years now. The 2nd and 3rd pages really, really opened my eyes. Really too much to process and comment on at the moment, however I will say:

Brian Johnston wrote:

You have to get to a point where you can allow religious symbols and metaphors to speak to you again, just letting them tell you their story and take you where they go without trying to force them into your paradigm of “truth.” Its hard, but it is worth it.

Thank you for that comment. With where I’m at in my life I feel like this is what my new goal should be. I’ve always looked for and found truth from all sources, not just the church. I think having a life before joining the church has helped in that regard… but lately I’ve struggled with feelings that could best be described as “does truth even exist?” The end result is that I’ve often felt like a stranger in a strange land. At times I want to be a self-imposed hermit, at other times I need that social interaction. I’ve been extremely depressed for years now, I’d like to move on.

I’m a bit confused about the definition of stage 3 and how it relates to the LDS church. In church I’ve always heard that we believe that there is truth in everything and that if something is true that it is inscribed into our religion by default. In reading some of the definitions of stage 3 it seems like this stage fosters in some ways an “us vs. them” mindset, which doesn’t seem to jive with the truth in everything doctrine. Isn’t the admonition “If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things?” Couple that with Alma and planting the seed (experimenting) to see if it is good and I don’t know how we come away with the notion that you can’t incorporate good from sources external to the church. In fact it seems to encourage the experimentation of “truths” from external sources and retaining all truths found to be good.

cwald wrote:

Maybe even better example is to leave the church in stage 4, and go back to a stage 3 that NO church is true so absolutely GOD CAN NOT EXIST.. That is stage 3 thinking.

Interesting, this might be exactly what I’m going through; however, I don’t like the places that route is taking me, I still want to believe. My new mantra often uttered out of desperation is “help thou my unbelief.” As much as I disagree with labels maybe it would help me with my own personal progression to first know and understand better where I am currently. After all, a journey needs a starting point.

Tolerance: I’ve got a live and let live attitude. Don’t obey the Word of Wisdom? Don’t let that stop you from coming to church. Don’t go to our church but your belief system is working for you? That’s fine, if you ever need us we’re here, if you never need us that’s okay too. I get the sense that tolerance is outside the scope of this discussion though. Everyone should be tolerant regardless.

Why I still go to church: Mostly for my family, to not be a stumbling block to them learning the good principles that the church espouses. On a personal level… I still live the commandments, I guess my activity level hinges on the church providing one of the best outlets to learn to love more and more people and to give service where I can.

I see that anger often accompanies stage 4. Maybe that’s an indication that my stint into stage 4 was brief, as I’ve never felt hostility toward the church (for a perceived notion of being duped, etc.). I’m truly grateful for all the decisions I’ve made like joining the church, serving a mission, getting married in the temple, paying tithing, countless hours in church, etc., etc. That stuff has made me who I am. I wouldn’t trade those decisions for anything. Anything.

I’ll leave my incoherent thoughts with this:

How would a stage 4 person deal with mission work within the church? Is this possible?

[nibbler]

I’d like to hear a bit more from the people that reject the BoA as scripture but still hold Joseph Smith to be a prophet/the church to be true.

Here’s my current viewpoint:

The Book of Mormon is referred to as the keystone to our religion. If the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith was a prophet, and the church is the restored church of Jesus Christ.

I feel as though it is within reason to say that if the Book of Abraham, given the prophet’s declaration of its divine origins, is found to be a hoax then that would cast doubts on Joseph Smith’s declarations as to the divine origins of the Book of Mormon as well. Add the true methods employed to translate the Book of Mormon to the narrative (and to a lesser degree the Kinderhook plates and the Greek Psalter) and it starts to establish precedent with respect to Joseph’s claims about the Book of Mormon.

On the flip side of that coin, and I’m guessing that this is what some of you have decided, perhaps Joseph Smith did translate the Book of Mormon and from that point on he was under extreme social pressure to translate every little thing that came across his desk. Under that assumption one could only speculate that he used all of these “translation under the gun” moments to introduce truths or revelations found during his studies.

I guess I view it as a bigger deal than most. Still, what do you do in church when you are asked to give a lesson or are asked questions in a lesson about material or doctrines found in the Pearl of Great Price?

[nibbler]

Muhlestein wrote:

As you do so, remember that revelation gives you access to a source of knowledge that is neither faulty nor given to bad assumptions.

Therein lies the rub. Revelation very well may be an infallible source of knowledge but a bad assumption can still be made about what is and what is not a bona fide revelation.

I comment on this because the BoA represents the straw that broke the camels back for me. I didn’t stumble into the problems with the book online, it actually started with a visit to a museum where they had an Egyptian exhibit. Some things looked all too familiar so I did some investigating.

Let me start off with an exert from the Doctrine and Covenants:

D&C 8:2-3 wrote:

2: Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.

3: Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation;…

In the past I’ve interpreted that thusly… that a healthy testimony must have a spiritual side (heart) and an intellectual side (mind). Also I’ve viewed the heart and the mind working together to provide the two (or three) witnesses necessary to establish the word on a personal level. Over the course of my membership in the church the intellectual side has outstripped my spiritual side and vice versa, nevertheless I feel that both are eventually necessary to establish a personal testimony.

The BoA presented a unique challenge, a singular doubt where the spiritual witness had far, far outstripped the intellectual. In order to progress I’m going to need the intellectual side to catch up… until then the spiritual side will not thrive and will eventually deteriorate. I feel like I’m not being honest with myself by simply proceeding on faith and tossing my hands up in the air when it comes to what we do actually know about the BoA.

All that said I understand that “my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways.” One has to be open to the notion that there simply are things that cannot be understood in this life. Personally, I believe that the pursuit of that knowledge, a true intellectual understanding of the inner workings of God’s mind and his thought processes, would only serve to bring us that much closer to him. It seems like he would want that for us.

Unfortunately what I think I know about the BoA makes it fail the smell test. I’ve studied the BoA and its history and I’ve heard the bleeding edge arguments that the apologists have to offer these days …what can I say…

I may visit one of the many BoA threads on the site and include some information that was new to me. Maybe it will be helpful to some. One thing I will say with respect to the BoA (not the papyri, the book itself), I didn’t consider a study of the book complete by simply discovering what it is not… I had to spend some time studying what it actually is.

[Author]

Posts