I find myself both excited and overwhelmed at the challenge I am setting myself with this blog. I feel it is important, and I hope I am up to the task. I appreciate that there are many deep issues involved when we start bringing up these sorts of subjects, and I am actually trying to sort out for myself which to address first. When there’s so much you want to explore, it’s easy to get caught up in the smaller details and lose sight of the big picture. Actually, I think that is a tendency that many of us have, especially when it comes to religious issues. Members of the church who struggle with their testimony often get caught up in trying to decipher the more mysterious points of doctrine and forget to pay attention to the basic foundations of their faith.
If you fall into this category, I think it would be helpful to go back to the beginning. Think of how you taught people on your mission, or how you were taught, if you are a convert. If you never went on a mission, think of where you started in seminary, or even primary. Think of where the Articles of Faith begin. Start with the most basic principles, one at a time, and ask yourself, “What do I really believe?”
Do you believe in God?
Do you believe that we are children of God, that he is our Heavenly Father,
who loves us, and wants what’s best for us?
Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, our Savior and Redeemer?
Do you believe in the Atonement of Christ?
Do you believe in the Resurrection of Christ?
Do you believe that the Book of Mormon is true? Do you believe that it is indeed an ancient record written by prophets who lived centuries ago, that the words within it are inspired by God?
Do you believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God? Do you believe that he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ? Do you believe that he translated the Book of Mormon through the power of God?
Do you believe in the power and authority of the priesthood? Do you believe in modern-day miracles and revelations?
Do you believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is guided by a living prophet? Do you believe that the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and other General Authorities of the Church are called of God? Do you believe that the Lord would never let his church be led astray?
For LDS members, these are the fundamental precepts of our faith, the foundation of our testimonies. When we say, “I know the Church is true,” these are the things of which we testify. If our testimony of these things is firm, then we are ready to face the storms of opposition, temptation, and adversity. If we are shaky on one or more of these points, then we find ourselves to be the foolish man who built his house upon the sand, whose floor is washed out from underneath him. Maybe we might withstand the first sign of rain, but the continued pounding of the storm will eventually wear us down, and we will find ourselves adrift in a river of doubt.
If you feel that you do not have faith in these basic precepts, what do you do? I think the best thing to do, as I mentioned before, would be to go back to the beginning. Read the Book of Mormon. Don’t read it in bits and pieces, like you do in a Sunday School class. Make a serious, focused, personal study of it. Read it from beginning to end, or start in the middle with Alma, it doesn’t matter. Just read it. Read Moroni’s promise again, and pray about it. If the Book of Mormon is what it’s supposed to be, then Joseph Smith is a true prophet, and almost everything else follows after that.
There is a reason that the missionaries rely on the Book of Mormon so heavily. There is a power and a spirit in the book that goes beyond the text. Try to read it as if you have never read it before. My dear grandmother was in her eighties when President Hinckley challenged members of the church to read the Book of Mormon in one year. Although she had been a strong 
member of the church all of her life, and was currently serving as a temple worker, she realized that she had never actually read the Book of Mormon straight through, cover to cover. She took President Hinckley’s challenge, and began a serious study of the book unlike any she had done before. Eighty years a member, and she was amazed to find herself discovering new things in her study that she had never found before. She testified to me that reading the Book of Mormon helped her feel the Spirit more strongly than she ever had before. Her testimony of its truth, of Joseph Smith, and of the Savior grew more from that experience than any other in her life.
I didn’t start out writing this post with the intent to write about reading the scriptures. I mean, I’m hardly an ideal example on this subject. I don’t read them as often as I should, by any means. But when I do, I am almost always amazed by the depth of wisdom and inspiration they contain. I know they are from God. When I am prepared to receive what they have to teach, I feel the power of the Spirit when I read them. I feel the Spirit now as I testify of their truth to you. If you do not have the testimony strong within your own heart, I urge you to get back to the basics: Read the Book of Mormon. Ponder its words. Pray about it. Then you can be better prepared to face whatever other concerns you might have.
Church leaders are always saying we should focus on the basics, and some people seem to be content to do just that. Many never really question or dig deeper to fully understand things from various angles. There are some who rely on the “warm fuzzies” of the gospel, who are perfectly content to hear the same Sunday School answers over and over again without getting tired of hearing the same shallow responses and, dare I say, trite platitudes. Those who are passionate about learning more and understanding different sides of an issue are often scorned as “intellectuals” — a dirty word in some religious circles.
I recognize the value of focusing on the basics, like the Book of Mormon, but isn’t it possible that focusing on the basics could be an excuse or cop out for doing a real spiritual inquiry. I’m not talking about knowing the exact location of Kolob or understanding how Jesus turned water into wine. I’m talking about serious issues such as how science and religious faith can be reconciled, how the atonement works in each person’s life and the reason that God allows good people to suffer and “wicked” people to seemingly prosper.
You may say that answers to all of those issues are found in the basics, and you may be right. I just am somewhat uncomfortable when people try to silence interesting debate over meaningful issues by waving their hands and saying, “It’s not necessary for my salvation to know that.” It may not be. But just because someone is uncomfortable with their own lack of insight into a subject, shouldn’t cause them to dismiss others’ legitimate concerns as going “beyond the mark” or trying to “steady the ark.”
I agree that we can probably find all the answers in the basics as we use the Holy Ghost to guide us in our sincere desire to understand. I just don’t think many are looking that hard, content with the simplistic answers and unwilling to challenge some of their long-held beliefs.
You give a beautiful testimony Robin. I believe you do feel the spirit when you testify of the value of scriptures. Your testimony is based off of personal experience and I will gladly accept your invitation to study the Book of Mormon more intensely. I too have had my understanding broadened and my heart opened as I have read the scriptures and I know that there is much good in them.
For me there are several complications when trying to accept the Book of Mormon as a historical work. I reserve the right to use my own judgment as to what principles I will accept and what parts I will not. I believe a true principle is one that can be tried and tested and seen to be helpful. There is no faith involved in that process, only experience. I think the Book of Mormon has some good wisdom to offer us.
There are two aspects to consider when making sense of the Book of Mormon, the first is “Does it work?” Forget the argument of whether or not these people are real historical characters. Does the teaching of Alma, Nephi, etc. bring you lasting peace? Rather than just promising a reward in the distant future, does it help with your daily interactions? This evaluation is all about substance and I think it is the main place where people gain their testimonies of the Book of Mormon. I also think it is the hardest mindset to return to after encountering serious doubts about the books historical authenticity. When you feel that the book might be a fraud it feels like finding out that a long time friend might have been using you behind your back; That their kind words may have been false. It’s hard to return to your previous mindset where you see it as perfect wisdom coming straight from god. Your preconceptions and opinions make it harder to see the value that is there, value that you may have recognized at some point in the past. There are also several other books and resources that are giving advice and perspective on finding peace and happiness in our lives. Putting aside the claims of divine revelation ranks the teachings of the BOM equal to the authority of any other book that is teaching how to improve your life.
The second thing to consider when evaluating the Book of Mormon are the large claims about its embodiment of the “fullness of the gospel,” and its historicity. The orthodox side of the church is pressing these claims harder and harder. The purpose seems to be to root out all those who want to accept the Book of Mormon on some other terms. These people are pushing the claim that this account is either entirely true (historical) or it is a giant fraud. Can we blame people for feeling reluctant to return to their previous method of scripture study when the General Authorities themselves are saying that it is one of the biggest deceptions of our day if it is not what it claims to be?
As I have struggled with the church I have tried to continue with my Book of Mormon reading. I know that the first thing any member will ask me if I express doubts will be about my diligence in scripture reading. After allowing myself to explore my concerns about the BOM I have to admit that my reading experience is entirely different now. The harder I read the BOM, the more it seems to become a 19th Century work to me. It tells so much of the theology of Joseph Smith’s day. The Book of Mormon addresses all the issues that were being urgently discussed during the Second Great Awakening. I see much of the Bible in the Book of Mormon conceptually as well as the literal wording. I decided to read up on some of the other sects of Joseph Smith’s day. I read about other Restorationist faiths such as Quakerism and noticed a strongly developed concept about the “light of christ” which is almost identical to what I read in the Book of Mormon. I just don’t know if I can look at the whole BOM story and believe that it is not a product of Joseph Smith’s day. I don’t need to accept the book as historical in order to pull value from it but by claiming its infallibility we discourage real conversations about the issues raised in it. These claims protect it from receiving an open evaluation.
Anonymous–there is much that is true about what you say, but the point is, if you do not believe that the Book of Mormon is what Joseph Smith said it is–an inspired translation of an ancient document–then you do not believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. If Joseph Smith was not a true prophet, then all the rest of the LDS church is a fraud. The Book of Mormon is no more valuable than any other philosophical discourse. The church cannot be true if the Book of Mormon is not true. That is just the way it is.
On the other hand, as I mentioned to John, that doesn’t mean that all life’s answers are contained in those pages. The book has value as a text, but it’s power goes beyond the words it contains. There is a difference between studying the book in the way you might study an uplifting book written by, say, the Dalai Lama, who I believe to be a very good and wise man, and studying the book with the belief that is inspired by God himself. Your experience will vary greatly. It is the same thing as believing that Jesus was a great teacher, but not truly the Son of God. I’m glad that you search for truth and wisdom in the Book of Mormon, but if you do not determine for yourself its authenticity, then you limit its full spiritual power. What other terms are you trying to accept it on? The wise words of a man who lied about receiving golden plates from an angel of God? Either he did or he did not. If he did not, then either he lied, or he suffered from recurring hallucinations.
This is what the scriptures mean about being lukewarm–you gotta pick one side or the other on this one. There is no happy middle ground. Hard as it may be to accept that truth, I can see no other way around it. Either this church was founded by a man called of God, or it was not.
I encourage you to focus your study of the Book of Mormon on learning for sure whether or not it is true, not just looking for “tried and true” wisdom. As you do this, I also encourage to remember the scripture that speaks of receiving spiritual knowledge both “in your mind and in your heart.” Let’s start with the mind. Obviously, you are acquainted with some of the information out there that disputes that historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Have you read much about the research out there that might support its historical claims? It’s out there, and I can find it for you. I’m just wondering how balanced your research has been. There are some fascinating discoveries in archaeology and anthropology that have every bit as much strength in defending the church’s claims as there are others disputing it.
But please always keep in mind that no matter how strong one side or the other might be in this intellectual debate, that you cannot ignore the role of faith in gaining a testimony of the Book of Mormon. I do not mean “faith” as in blind acceptance of something that we will never know the answer to and so we just have to hold on to our beliefs in the hope that we aren’t wrong. I mean faith that is based upon spiritual experience and spiritual witness of its truth. This goes beyond “warm fuzzies”. If you have never had a witness of this kind, I challenge you to seek it out. If you once had it, but have forgotten it, or have talked yourself out of its truth, then seek it out again. Test it again. Do not be afraid to ask because you are afraid of what the answer might be. Good luck.
My over-all response to your reply is that I absolutely do not have to pick one side or the other. Especially when I have insufficient evidence for both sides. What you are saying is that it would be better for me to commit to an extreme stance on these issues even if it is to reject Joseph’s claims; That it is somehow stronger to pick an extreme and settle there despite having numerous unsettling concerns.
You have expressed several strong dualities such as “Joseph Smith was either a chosen prophet or all the church is a fraud (The domino effect.. Book of Mormon=>Authority of Joseph=>God’s institution=> If you know the first to be true than you know the last.).”
If Joseph Smith was a knowing liar it does not, for instance, make the work of the late prophet Gordon B. Hinkley a fraud. Nor does positive experience with Hinkley make Joseph authentic. It does not make the principles and values taught in the church fraudulent. Gordon B. Hinkley could believe he is a prophet and be doing the best he can to fulfill that role as he understands it. The possibility exists that he did not see God and Christ in the same way Joseph did but he also never made that direct claim. It is inferred but not a requirement of prophetic authenticity. Would not seeing Christ make him a fraud? I don’t think so. Is it possible that good people have steered a church that was built on an untruthful foundation in a good direction? That church doctrine has been molded by well-intentioned people who have applied an evolving sense of morality to church positions?
Deciding that Joseph was a liar does not make sense of the church as a whole and it does not mean that the Church is not helpful in directing you to truth. This is all aside from the fact that it is entrenched in my family’s and spouse’s family tradition and it is my connection to my community.
Obviously I’m having serious doubts and I’m concerned because to me the church is not currently winning the argument. Does that mean that I should just commit and reject the church as though the emotional and social consequences were not gigantic? How would it effect someone in your family? Would you approve of that course of action from a loved one? Would you be pleased that they were not being luke warm?
You are throwing down extreme positions and applying the same pressure that most of the church is by trying to force me to accept a position I know nothing about. There are a million possibilities to consider that lie between your claim that Joseph Smith either did what he claimed or he was suffering from daily illusions. You are simplifying something that is not simple. The reason it is not simple is because we have so little knowledge about any of it. If you accept it, you are choosing to have a blind eye to the faults. If you deny it, you may be denying A legitimate path to happiness.
What you seem to be saying is that it is a big deal to find out whether or not this miraculous thing happened 200 years ago which is confirming another miraculous thing that happened 2000 years ago. A neutral position is not acceptable to you and I sense that you see my approach to be unnecessarily complicated. My basic point is not complicated at all. All I am saying is that it is not wise to commit to a position that you are lacking sufficient evidence for.
I believe you have had spiritual experiences that prove to you that all this stuff is true. I can never know what you have experienced but I speculate that I have had similar experiences. We are taught they are a proof or answer but they are still unfounded because we are trusting that they mean what we have been taught they mean. We really don’t know but we have faith that we know. This is the only kind of knowing that can be present one day and then disappear the next. It makes sense why we are told to continue to nourish that faith and why doubts are seen as being evil in nature. If you are convinced (not just intellectually but spiritually) away from those initial claims how do you know that you are not beginning to see clearly rather than being lead astray?
If it is not you and the church that is applying this pressure but God himself then why will he judge me on whether or not I believe something happened in the distant past? Where I believe I’m going after I die doesn’t make me any happier right now. It doesn’t make me a better, kinder person. It does divide me from everyone that has a different view.
If my soul was in danger because of my disbelief who would know? I share the values of the church. Do my LDS friends and family really need to be concerned when I am trying my hardest to be a good person? I don’t drink, smoke. I am family-focused. What really is the concern about asking for substantial proof before accepting extraordinary claims?
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
-Carl Sagan
I would love to hear recommendations that you have about archaeological discoveries and other arguments that strengthen the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Usually to get the Church’s side of things I have read from the FARMS and FAIR websites. I have also read Richard Bushman’s biography of Joseph Smith “Rough Stone Rolling .”
Sunstone magazine has posted a “Mapping of Book of Mormon historicity debates” on their website.
https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44
I think it does a decent job tracking the various arguments of different academics regarding the Historicity of the BOM.
I would appreciate any other recommendations that you have as well.
John–my point in reminding people to get back to the basics of the Book of Mormon was not meant to imply that all answers to all of life’s questions are found in the Book of Mormon. Although it is said that it contains a fullness of the gospel, I don’t think anyone claims that it contains all of God’s endless knowledge. For one thing, we all know about that mysterious sealed portion of the plates that we have not yet had access to, right? Our Articles of Faith actually say that we believe that God has yet to reveal many important things pertaining to the Kingdom of Heaven. Obviously, God never meant it to be a tell-all document, so to speak! However, I believe that even if the answers to the questions we have do not lie in the exact text of the scriptures, prayerful study of them can open the door to additional personal inspiration, where the Lord can speak to us more directly and personally.
My point is that a belief and faith in the Book of Mormon is a foundational part of a testimony of the church. If you are a member who is struggling with that belief, you need to address that issue before you start concerning yourself with any of the deeper doctrines. It’s like math: you have to understand algebra before you can do calculus. This is not because the deeper doctrines are not important or that we shouldn’t search and study and try to learn more about them, but because if we haven’t built a strong foundation underneath us as we reach for the stars, our shaky footing could cause us to fall.
More about the debate between spiritual “warm fuzzies” and religious intellectuals later…
Finally, I want to warn you not to use other people’s reaction to your probing questions as a measure of their spiritual depth. Everyone in this church is at a different place in their spiritual development, understanding, and level of faith. Those in teaching positions are not always those who have the strongest testimony or the most education. We are a church of lay people, not one led and taught by ministers who have gone to theological school for several years. There are pros and cons to this arrangement. We are all of aware of some of the cons. The pros are that those who are serving in these positions are learning and growing themselves from having done so. While it is difficult sometimes not to be annoyed by an ill-prepared or unskilled teacher, we should not allow our pride to let us judge them as less than ourselves.
I know, I know, sometimes I wish there was an Advanced Level Gospel Doctrine class too, but there’s not. That doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to search for some deeper answers. The church focuses only on the basics in its curriculum because if you don’t have those basics solidly down, then your searching could send you way off course. So, check your list–where are you weak? Where are you strong? Work on your basic testimony, and then if all is in order, work on your own spiritual progession and growth without worrying where other people are in theirs.
Robin, I haven’t commented yet, but I’ve been keeping up on all our posts and comments and think you are doing a wonderful thing. I takes a lot of time and effort to come up with such thoughtful comments and I appreciate you taking the time to do it. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for this interesting discussion on faith. May I share a few ideas in response to the poster who rejects the necessity of having to choose an extreme position.
Is it possible that the scripture which excoriates “lukewarm” people may be better applied to their desires rather than their convictions? Isn’t it natural for all of us to have doubts and uncertainty on various points, both religious and non-religious. That is the nature of faith, not to have a perfect knowledge of things. The scriptures may indicate that we should be either “hot or cold,” but I don’t believe that means you MUST choose between being a “true believing Mormon” who accepts all doctrines and general authority statements with orthodox zeal or a totally bitter ex-Mormon who feels the church has lied to him all his life and tries to tear it down with intensity of a wronged lover.
No, I believe the scripture more appropriately applies to our desires and passions, not necessarily to our conviction on every single point of doctrine. Perhaps the counsel to not be lukewarm also more appropriately applies to our commitment to living a worthy life. We should avoid being lukewarm in our commitment to living the principles of the gospel as best we can because we believe them to be the path to lasting happiness, not just some set of arbitrary rules.
In LDS culture, there is a strong emphasis on the word TRUE. We talk about the “only TRUE church.” We testify that the Book of Mormon is TRUE. To many, the word TRUE connotes an absolutist concept that excludes other belief systems and classifies them as being false if they do not conform to our way of thinking. Perhaps another way to look at the church and its teaching is not in terms of being “TRUE” in the narrow LDS definition, but as being GOOD. Does the LDS church add meaning to my life? Does it provide me a sense of purpose? Does it teach me to be a better person? Does it provide me a sense of community and an opportunity to serve others? Does it help me be a better parent and friend? Does it help me in my personal relationships? Do its teachings help me avoid pain and suffering that come from addiction and infidelity? Does it help me feel closer to God? I can honestly answer yes to all of those questions. However, since it is an organization which is managed by human beings, it is imperfect. There is bad with the good.
According to Alma in the Book of Mormon, our DESIRE to believe is the foundation of faith. Once we lose the desire to believe, we’ve lost something precious indeed. The sacramental prayers do not require us to witness that we WILL take upon him the name of Christ, always remember him and keep his commandments, it says that we’ll witness that we are WILLING to do those things. That means that although we won’t be perfect in our adherence to our baptismal covenants which we renew each time we partake of the sacrament, we witness our DESIRE to do so. We tell the Lord where our hearts are and then we manifest those desires by our actions and efforts during the week.
I strongly believe that while it would be ideal for us all to get a firm, unshaken conviction of every doctrine of the gospel — one that allows us to either set aside (or better) gain clearer understanding of the more troubling aspects of our faith — it is not an “either/or” proposition. Better to stay in the church and work through our doubts than to leave the church and be blown about by every wind of doctrine. I believe there is a place in the church for those who are lukewarm in their convictions, just as there is a place for those who are lukewarm in their worthiness, in their commitment and even in their desire. The church is a place where everyone should have an opportunity for spiritual growth, regardless of what their individual struggles may be. If it was mandated that everyone who had weaker convictions on certain doctrinal issues were required to either “get on board or get out,” what purpose would that serve? Who would be left? There is room in the church for people at all levels.
I stay in the church despite my doubts, because I WANT to believe. That desire fills my soul. And even if my faith is not perfect, it is within the church that I have the best shot at perfecting it through the grace and power of the Savior.
Thank you for that comment John. It is very comforting to hear the acceptance that you have for people at different phases of spiritual growth. I wish you lived in my ward so we could be buddies. I think there is much wisdom in your words and it means a lot to me to hear someone recognize these points.
I think that a majority of members don’t know where doubters fit into the church. I think they want to do the right thing and their defensiveness is only coming from a desire to protect the church from a misinterpreted threat. I feel that linking doubt and Satan do not help this situation at all. I also don’t feel that most members feel hostile to doubters that want to remain in the church, I just think that most of them haven’t really thought about how they should respond. It seems our focus as members is always on finding new converts and not equally focused on strengthening those who have already accepted the commitment of church membership.
I think in times of existential crisis it is important to hold on to what you know works for you. If the whole institution of the church is being examined and is not squaring with you, it does not mean that all the things that you have had good experiences with are untrue or that they need to be rejected. I don’t think, for instance, that a member should have to feel that accepting the correctness of polygamy in our church history is necessary for church involvement now. We should be comfortable with the fact that many people are going to accept things on their own terms. Maybe one day they will find the wisdom behind their concerns. In the meantime we shouldn’t require them to look favorably on the practice in order to participate with the church community.
These people are now in a situation that is hard for them to define. They might think, “Does this mean that I am luke-warm? Does it mean I should leave the church?” They might be very confused about how to interpret the significance of their concerns. John, I like how helpful your comment is about interpreting the scripture to mean your desires should be strong and not necessarily your convictions. I think it is helpful for people standing in this middle ground.
I think a good piece of advice might be to hold on to what has helped and improved you and leave behind what hasn’t. It’s that simple. Doubters don’t have to warn or disrupt the lives of people who seem to be comfortable with those things that they have rejected. Just move on to what does work. The risk with this approach is that some people may not see the church as providing enough good to counter the negative. We don’t know how the scale is weighted for each individual. If we are having a positive experience it can be hard to understand what the big deal is with other people.
For myself, I am naturally a very curious person. I feel an overwhelming compulsion to explore all aspects of my life experience. I feel this is part of who I am. I would rather know the truth about something even if it puts me in a tougher situation (That makes me think of the Matrix). Not everyone has this same desire. But it should be understood that someone who’s character requires this level of investigation is not going to respond well to being forced to think in a box. After being chided too many times they might have to decide for themselves whether or not there is a serious obstacle in the way of their growth and happiness.
All we can do is encourage open honest, even-handed evaluation. If the church edifies and brings peace, you should stay. We can’t make that decision for other people. But if we love them, we should respect that they are trying to make the decision that will bring them the most peace. If we want to increase the chances that these types of people will stay we need to emphasize our willingness to work with and love these people.
I want to stay if I can be honest with who I am but I also want the trust of my friends and family to know that if I should ever decide to let my path take me in another direction, I am still the same person they accept now. I have no desire to embrace sinful habits and immoral behavior. I am trying to make the best choices for me and my family. I have had so many positive experiences with the church I am willing to stick around and try to work them out.
Thank you for both of your comments. You both sound very intelligent and thoughtful and I appreciate what you have to say. I am sure that you represent many other members out there. I hope that I didn’t come across as meaning that I thought that if you have doubts about the church, you should leave it. I mean, I started this blog for the very purpose of bringing some of these things out into the open. I agree that there is much good that you can get out of church, and much good that you can do.
I know that the scripture about being lukewarm can be very polarizing and is one of the things that makes people who have doubts feel worse. I agree with John that I think it refers more to those who don’t put the effort into their spiritual growth. However, and I know that no matter how I put this, it might offend you or make you call me simplistic–I think that if you choose to remain active in the LDS church, you ought to be working towards an acceptance of its core doctrines. Without them, the church becomes just another charitable, moral-promoting organization without any spiritual power or authority.
The true question, as John mentioned then, is what do you desire to believe, because we all know that you will find evidence for whatever you want to prove. I could quote you a bunch of studies and articles, and you could quote me a bunch of studies and articles back, and both of us would turn away with our opinions unchanged. If you no longer have a desire to believe in the church, then nothing I can do or say will convince you otherwise. If I say that I have a spiritual knowledge of something, and you don’t accept spiritual feelings as evidence of truth, or even believe that there is an absolute truth, then there’s nowhere else I can go with that. Whether I approach you on an intellectual or spiritual level, you are not interested in changing your opinion.
I’m not here to tell anyone what you should or should not do. My purpose in starting this blog was because I wanted to help people who were working towards strengthening their testimony of the gospel, not of the church. I believe there is a big difference. (And that is a subject for another post!) If this is your desire, then give what I say a chance. If not, then you will look down on anything I say as coming from someone who is stuck “thinking within the box” (Let us remember that to the rest of the world, Mormons are pretty darn far out of that box).
I agree with John that we as members focus too much on whether or not our church, as a whole, is “true”. I think that there are many separate things about the church that you can have a testimony of, but not have a testimony of others. For instance, I might believe strongly in the truth of the Book of Mormon, but struggle with accepting the law of tithing. Another might firmly believe that Tithing is a tried and true principle, but not be able to figure out why they make such a big deal out of attending the temple. Others might accept most of the doctrines, but have a hard time with the structure or policies of the church. These are the things we have to work on a step at a time. For me, I have sufficiently proved enough of these individual parts true, that I’m willing to give the Lord the benefit of the doubt until I can prove the other things true.
Robin, your comment stops me in my tracks. I’m not sure how to respond. I want so bad to be intellectually convinced I guess. I want it all to make sense to my mind. I feel that it should make sense. Why would god want us to accept something that doesn’t? This is what plagues me. There is a very real possibility that it is all false. Even you have to admit that. If that is the case than the issue of Faith that is such a profound principle of universal power becomes a manipulative concept to keep people from asking important questions. How do I ever get past that? I feel that it will never leave me alone.
If I side step all the controversial issues and focus only on the basics I am afraid I will always be haunted in the back of my mind. What is my protection against that possibility? I brought up other obvious religions that are frauds just to point out that they are out there. If faith is truly the important principle that we have been taught we still have to admit that it is also one of the most abused principles by those who want to mislead trusting followers. Therefore god must surely not be asking us to rely merely on faith right?
I promise I am not trying to win this discussion as though it is a debate. I feel that the motivation behind my ranting is to seek validation and to eliminate misconceptions rather than end the discussion. I just really wanted to open up about what doubts are flying through my mind.
In the scientific community ideas are subjected to rigorous peer review. I think most people would agree that we arrive at the best solutions when critics do not hold back. Sometimes it seems as though religion demands that we go easy on it; That some questions are not fair to ask. It’s frustrating for people who are making challenges on an intellectual level to understand other ways of approaching the problem.
You spoke of understanding some principles and struggling with others. I think it’s clear that for myself the principle that I am struggling the most with is faith. The problem is that it is a big issue. It is an issue that is the foundation for much if not all of the others. I think for this reason I have not been pulling any punches. I want to see what it is really made of. Maybe it’s time to back off and listen.
I do believe strongly in my heart that there is something to this church and I have to be willing to consider that my approach is not correct. I will try harder to soften my heart.
This is great stuff. I hope there are more posts to come in the near future. I recently read “Lectures on Faith” for the first time. It was very interesting.