[spacious maze]

I think your gut feeling can really be altered when you receive a deeper view of things. I always felt great about the church while growing up. When, in high school, I started having some trouble with a couple of the tougher issues, I put on my blinders and let myself be troubled, but I still felt good about the church. It was only when I took the effort to research and further my understanding of these issue in order to reconcile them, that I was able to break through and be a bit more honest with myself. Who knows where that will land me next year or next decade, the only thing I do know is that my gut feeling is a heck more guilt-free for having an honest look at why I felt troubled in the first place. God does not cast doubt on the apathetic. And I don’t think we are questioning God, just man’s interpretation of His will. History matters.

[spacious maze]

I gather from a lot of your recent replies that many here don’t view the church from a literal perspective. I guess I’ll post a sub-question then: If the church is not a literal working entity, and we place our value on its ideas and the goodness we receive from its practices- is the church, instead, more of a philosophy?

[spacious maze]

I’m reticent towards introducing him to Rough Stone Rolling, even though it is gentle around the “tough issues”, it still paints a much different picture of Mormonism from what TBMs would learn at church. After reading it, I found myself leaning further away from the church. It actually gave some relief to all the guilt I had for being uncomfortable with so much in the church. Then again, he is a grown man, sheesh.

[spacious maze]

Wow, thanks so much everyone. I’m really touched by your personal stories and thoughts on your faith. This really helps. I am a patient man, and the choice is a ways away. It’s good to share these thoughts will all of you.

[spacious maze]

Old-Timer wrote:

I don’t think he really understood it all that well

I wonder about this. I don’t necessarily disagree, but from reading the King Follett discourse, he seemed quite certain in his theological views. He must have felt he understood somethings enough to overturn thousands of years of monotheistic theology. It has been said that JS could go into details about what heaven would be like. When he preached, he would refer to stories in the BoM. He would speak on the nature of God. How does he know? Did God tell him that He was once man? That Adam was Michael? Is this revelation documented with the others?

The argument can and has been made that all the new ideas from LDS theology and cannon can be found from earlier and contemporary resources (one true church, apostasy, temples, restoration, eternal matter, multiple heavens, multiple earths, God was man ect…). Without debating whether or not these sources were used to craft LDS theology, I wonder where he claims these ideas come from. The King Follett discourse is a sermon- not a revelation, not a piece of cannon. Who told him this stuff? How could he be an authority on such radical theology? Because this stuff isn’t in the BoM or the PoGP.

I know, off topic, but I always wondered about the origins of these extra LDS goodies.

[spacious maze]

Hawkgirl or HiJolly will call me out if I’m wrong on this, but the view I got of eternal families after reading Rough Stone Rolling is that their importance lay in the hierarchy of heaven. With regards to exaltation, becoming a god, attaining godly powers. Those that followed the steps (temple) are better prepared and enter through the veil at a greater level. The inner-working web of knowledge through sealed families also applies to early plural marriage; you’re already creating your own kingdom with plural wives and a ton of kids. Those that are not sealed to their spouses and families are to act as servants (angels).

I really like the notion, it works for me. Thought it’s hard to think that families not sealed would be broken up. I wonder what we’d look like in heaven. Would we look like a mix of our parents if we weren’t sealed to them? Would we share physical features with our earthly siblings? Is there still a relationship somehow? All I know is that my three brothers are knuckleheads and if they weren’t my brothers I’d probably smack them. I guess us being sealed together has saved them from numerous beat-downs. Ha

[spacious maze]

Welcome to stage 4, Mr. Wiggin. Keep your arms and legs inside the vehicle at all times, things get weird.

[spacious maze]

Bruce, thanks again for jumping in on this stuff. Let’s get back on track. Anyone remember the sheik that was murdered at a gas station by some redneck idiot after 9/11 because the redneck thought the Indian with the headwrap was muslim? If only the redneck looked up headcoverings on wikipedia and learned that they are garments of utility to middle-easterners, but are religious garments only to the sheiks, which they use to cover their uncut hair. Ignorance is bad.

I think I’m with wordsleuth here. Some people go their whole lives without knowing the information behind their beliefs. I think we must earn certainty. How can we have such a strong testimony if we don’t explore the story of our own religion? I do not have a testimony of the words of my parents, or of the songs I sing and stories I hear. I have a testimony built of my knowledge of God, and it is ever-developing.

I’m a passionate person, so keeping a lid on interesting (faith-affirming or not) info about the church is difficult to me. I know I’m eventually gonna have to speak to my friend about some stuff I feel he would benefit to know. I could use some suggestions of a starting point; a book, maybe, or a few factoids that can add some perspective without making him feel too weird. I just feel he’s playing a guitar on one string. I’ll try to stop using lame metaphors in the future.

One point: The MormonStories interview with the Mormon Mason helps to clear up a lot of the confusion about masonic origins in temple rituals. It completely shifts the idea I had and made the temple stuff seem much less mysterious and much more normal. This was great for me, because I really struggled with the literalness of temple work. The interview added information I was unaware of, placed things in their proper context, and reshaped my view on a church issue. Yes my view changed, but now I know more about the issue and feel much better about it.

[spacious maze]

Bruce, I’m the one that needs to apologize here. I blasted out like an idiot. It was a late night.

I understand the fundamentalist view that we find the purest water from the spring itself. I agree with that notion. But I do not see anything fundamental about racism, and therefore still do not understand your thoughts on this.

I just think racism within the church is a very serious issue that good folks are struggling with as a reason for staying or leaving, hence the importance of the topic on this website.

Maybe you can help me out here with a deeper explanation of a fundamentalist’s take on ideas of race.

And back to the overall question of responsibility, I feel the problem is that my friend has yet to question any of these issues at all. So, sure, he may be right about everything, but his beliefs are based on the milk of the church, not a fundamentalist view. Ex: he doesn’t know the seer stone/top hat translation story. He only knows what the paintings show and the story from his old missionary lesson-plan. That’s what I mean when I say the soft, gentle darkness. Isn’t it helpful to at least know about what really happened?

Orson, Ray, thanks for the link and the clarity.

[spacious maze]

A lot of great responses, thanks everyone. I really want to respect that each individual is on their own spiritual journey(me too), but maybe that means I could play the role of a fork in the road for him. I have been very subtle in any attempts to discuss things with him, so far. Gimme more thoughts.

A quick response to a couple of you:

hawkgrrrl wrote:

The temple rites of the ancient Israelites are actually well documented and are not like the current temple ceremonies

He isn’t aware of this, even though it’s well documented, it must not be discussed in church-sponsored media. Somewhere down the line he was told this was a Solomon temple ritual, so that’s what he believes. Do you have any non-anti-mormon sources that could help?

Bruce in Montana wrote:

” He thinks polygamy will come back since it was a revelation and commandment, “

May I ask why you think that it won’t?

“He believes in the law of consecration,”

Is there something wrong with that that I’m missing?

” he is a biblical racist. “

Ditto.

Ok dude, I see where you’re going. White people get all the blessings and the women. Surprise surprise. But here’s the deal: the Law of Consecration was dropped. Polygamy was dropped. Blacks being denied the priesthood was dropped(please look at the letter to BY that ignited this). In the LDS view, these were God’s commandments, and they were dropped by the politics of the church. Why would God command these things if He knew they would be treated so? Do we have veto power over God? I admit I get a bit heated over this stuff. Black people do not have dark skin because of a curse. (red skins are not angry, yellow skins are not sickly, brown skins are not rural ect…) OT said Cain was marked. Well, “marked” is a mighty small word to place moral and salvational judgment over an entire continent of people over the entire lifespan of the world. The point is, my friend is a bit racist, and it spawns from his LDS upbringing, and I would like to see that change because there are better ways to measure people than by an ambiguously-interpreted 5,000 year-old book.

[spacious maze]

It is just plain wrong and every soul on earth knows it.

Does anyone here actually believe D&C 132 to be a true revelation? As I recall, JS recited the revelation, given to him years before, from memory.

Well, after reading the JS biography, Rough Stone Rolling, I had a better view of the early members’ views on polygamy. And what a surprise, they were appalled. The D&C revelation uses threats of death upon those that don’t obey the commandment of plural marriage, and JS used similar threats on the women who tried to refuse his proposals(“the gates will be closed to you” ect..). What’s important is the fact that human’s do not like it when their loved-one is involved with another. JS placing God’s stamp on it doesn’t change anything other than allowing a pitiful submission by a few weak and scared members.

So my problem with polygamy is the same problem that all 34-50 of JS’s wives had, and the same problem JS’s wives’ husbands had, and JS’s wives’ fathers had. Why would God command something that the Holy Spirit screams against?

[spacious maze]

I’m in the same boat. Smith’s inability to accept criticism really shaped his final years with his strange behaviors of declaring dominance. I think most of his actions (polygamy, mayor, general, president, king ect..) all spout from the apostasies of his witnesses and close friends. They saw something we didn’t, and left. JS must have been really struggling to keep a hold of things after that. The more I learn, the worse I feel about all this.

[spacious maze]

wordsleuth23 wrote:

many of you are trying to still believe by loosening the terms of truth, reality, etc. Why?

Great point. I left the church a few years back from being uncomfortable with lots of church stuff, and all my research since has only lengthened the distance. Yet I still find myself wanting to defend the church somehow. Most of us are probably here for that reason. I think it’s culture, not truth, that keeps people hanging on. Jeez, you even said you still go to church, for “family reasons”, what does that say? We are trying to find a way to be attached to our roots without severing a limb. Maybe the LDS church will go the way of Judaism; a cultural thing rather than a literal working church.

So, yes, science and historicity have dampened the light of the church, and to many of us, we gotta alter our personal view of the church from what its leaders claim it to be; we justify it to ourselves. But I personally couldn’t sit in church and take sacrament with that knowledge in my head, I wonder, how can you?

[spacious maze]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

she is not neutral like he is

I have to disagree here. While RSR is certainly academic with it’s exhaustive resources, I specifically recall Bushman attempting to tackle the issue of the various accounts of the First Vision by simply stating that JS withheld entire portions of the story in his initial attempts to document the revelation. I think we are owed a better explanation than that, especially given the mutinous circumstances in Nauvoo preceding the 1838 version. I also think he treads a bit too lightly around the tougher issues; there are just two sentences given to fact that the BoA papyri has been dated by scholars as a polytheistic funeral text. This is expected coming from someone who’s intent is to affirm faith, so I don’t blame him, I just wouldn’t say he’s neutral.

[spacious maze]

Looks like you’ve been honest and tried your best. If the legalities of the organized church are keeping you from receiving the rest of the goodness of the church, I’d say just change wards and don’t bring it up with your next bishop. When interviewed for my first temple recommend, I admitted to some drinking. The interviewer was only interested if I had reconciled with God, which I had, and that was good enough for him. You obviously had a different experience, I would be steaming too.

But I would think leaving the church would be an action of someone who no longer believes in it, I see frustration with politics, not doubt. Or is there more to it? I hope you can reconcile that somehow.

[Author]

Posts