Was I clear as mud as to how to find peace?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I want to add a few comments about the "black and white thinking" /fundamentalist label that apologists often accuse former Mormons of. Truth Dancer already said perfectly most of my thoughts on the subject.

A member who questions or has doubts is the furthest from the black and white thinking done in the church. Some are still active and are able to comparmentalize their beliefs, some have found the church to be a fraud, and some like myself have found some of the church's doctrines to be in conlfict with our conscience and are dissillusioned with leaders who claim to speak for God.

Black and white thinking is among the majority of the TBM church members and is a natural consequence of the church's claims. An example of this comes from my own DH. For him to believe in the truth/ claims of the church, he has to accept that plural marriage was a commandment of God. Even though it goes against everything holy and sacred he believes in marriage, the church can't be true if that doctrine isn't. It's all or nothing on that topic. He doesn't believe everything was done right in the practice of it, but if Joseph was wrong and made up 132 (or Brigham Young) then he has to throw out his belief in the church. You will find this attitude among the majority of TBM Mormons. They are unable to handle the possibility that the Prophets gave false doctrine or teachings of this magnitude. The Adam God doctrine, and many others will never be an issue for them unless they go digging around for it, but polygamy and racism are ones that they are forced to accept as Godly or they will have a testimony crisis. It is rare to find a member like "Katherine the Great" who can retain belief in the church but also believe that the church leaders were not inspired or led by God on the plural marriage doctrine.

Even among apologists you see some of the black and white thinking. They claim to believe in the fallibility of Prophets but can't ever admit what behavior or teachings were clearly wrong and in violation of moral law. "If the church is true then this must be of God" is how they view immoral behavior and spin it.

Calling evil good doesn't work for me, but I can still believe in Christ and the teachings of the LDS leaders that are in agreement with my consience/spirit I benefit from. I don't believe the LDS leaders are led by God any more than the Catholic Pope, but I can still see some good in their work and appreciate it. "Leaving the church" had nothing to do with black and white thinking. As a chapel Mormon I was a black and white thinker. If the church wasn't true, then nothing was in my mind. As an inactive internet Mormon I am no longer a black and white thinker. It was opening my mind to the gray areas that led me out of the church.

Amen, Sister Seven. I can tell you one moment when that happened to me. I was sitting in a Unity Church, reading the program, "there is only one presence and power in my life, God the good, the omnificent." (I hope I got that right.) Anyway, I thought yes, that sounds right. Then the Mormon in me said, no, what about Satan, Satan is also a power in my life. And then this little epiphany, the whispering of the Spirit, whatever you want to call it, said "there doesn't have to be a Satan!" That, for me at that time, was waaaaay out of the box, and it felt so absolutely true. Mormonism and traditional Christianity went down the tube for me in that moment and I've never regretted it for a second.

MG: OK, I can't let this go by without quoting a Book of Mormon scripture.

2 NEPHI 28:22. And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none--and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.

So whattaya think?

Oh yeah, the Book of Mormon is just a 19th century creation anyway...so...who cares? Right?

Regards,
MG

[church lady mode on] Isn't that convenient?

When it comes to scriptures, 19th century creations or otherwise, I have a simple rule. If it is fear-based it is not of God. It's never failed me.

[_mentalgymnast]

...your whole enterprise is wrongheaded.

MG: I've spent some time in my reply to you explaining why I disagree with you. I would be interested in some of your thoughts as to why it is inherently rightheaded to deal only with probabilities rather than considering possibilities and plausibility.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

You are still sounding pretty much in the Mormon-box to me.

MG: I never said I wasn't.

Regards,
MG

[_Inconceivable]

MG: here is how I see it. Anything of worth over the long haul is going to take work. Literal and/or figurative sweat and tears. That which is of greater worth will typically be preceded by more opportunities to muddle through a wider range of experiences/situations which will involve sweat and tears, again literally or figuratively...

...For me, peace is knowing that I don't have to have all the answers...that in fact I can have more questions than answers, and still remain an active member of the church...

...To find out that Mormonism was not simply what they larned in primary/seminary and reading the New Era or Ensign threw them for a loop from which they never were able to extricate themselves and recover. Thus, we find them and others like them supposedly "recovering" over at the RFM board or here.

..She/he then responded that I was being somewhat incoherent to the extent that what I was saying was "clear as mud".

..Any thoughts?

Regards,
MG

I was taught all of my life that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is simple and that even a child has the capacity to understand it. I found that as I stuck with what He actually taught, if I got confused, my kids seemed to help me clarify it.

But from what you are saying things are not what they seem. You pretty much gotta be "trained for the ministry" (or depend on someone that is - Nibley, Madsen et al) to start getting it.

Now, keep in mind that there are a great many things that I am unsure of, but when you speak of all these boxes and things, this verse comes to mind:

14 But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 4:14)

There just seems to be a lot of crap that muddles up a seemingly simple message that requires the faith of a child.

A friend of mine not of your faith put it this way: Jesus + nothing else = true Christianity. He believes that works.

In my opinion, it's muddle that is found as you journey from a light.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG: here is how I see it. Anything of worth over the long haul is going to take work. Literal and/or figurative sweat and tears. That which is of greater worth will typically be preceded by more opportunities to muddle through a wider range of experiences/situations which will involve sweat and tears, again literally or figuratively...

...For me, peace is knowing that I don't have to have all the answers...that in fact I can have more questions than answers, and still remain an active member of the church...

...To find out that Mormonism was not simply what they larned in primary/seminary and reading the New Era or Ensign threw them for a loop from which they never were able to extricate themselves and recover. Thus, we find them and others like them supposedly "recovering" over at the RFM board or here.

..She/he then responded that I was being somewhat incoherent to the extent that what I was saying was "clear as mud".

..Any thoughts?

Regards,
MG

I still think no.

I was taught all of my life that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is simple and that even a child has the capacity to understand it. I found that as I stuck with what He actually taught, if I got confused, my kids seemed to help me clarify it.

But from what you are saying things are not what they seem. You pretty much gotta be "trained for the ministry" (or depend on someone that is - Nibley, Madsen et al) to start getting it.

Now, keep in mind that there are a great many things that I am unsure of, but when you speak of all these boxes and things, this verse comes to mind:

14 But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 4:14)

There just seems to be a lot of crap that muddles up a seemingly simple message that requires the faith of a child.

A friend of mine not of your faith put it this way: Jesus + nothing else = true Christianity. He believes that works.

In my opinion, it's muddle that is found as you journey from a light.

Hi Inconceivable. Thanks for replying/playing. This thread has been kind of fun. I've had some spare time today (I teach school and just got out for the summer and haven't settled into my honey do projects and summer routine yet...hiking last Friday...four wheeling Saturday...I gotta get down to something other than play) in between cleaning up around the house for my wife to get home today from a nephew's HS graduation up in Idaho.

The core gospel is simple. That's what the kids learn in primary. The gospel we're encouraged to live in practice as adults is the same one we were taught in primary. Faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the HG, and enduring to the end with faith in Jesus Christ and service to family and mankind are pretty much it.

After all is said and done, it is the faith of a child that will get us through. The gospel is what it seems. You don't have to be trained in the ministry to live the gospel of Jesus Christ. We make it a heck of a lot more complicated than needed.

Thanks for indirectly starting the conversation!
Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Black and white thinking is among the majority of the TBM church members and is a natural consequence of the church's claims. An example of this comes from my own DH. For him to believe in the truth/ claims of the church, he has to accept that plural marriage was a commandment of God. Even though it goes against everything holy and sacred he believes in marriage, the church can't be true if that doctrine isn't. It's all or nothing on that topic. He doesn't believe everything was done right in the practice of it, but if Joseph was wrong and made up 132 (or Brigham Young) then he has to throw out his belief in the church.

MG: if William Clayton is to be believed, Joseph Smith believed or at least portrayed he believed that the practice of polygamy came by revelation. This was in 1843. You would think that by this time Joseph would have a pretty good handle on what revelation was all about and where it was coming from if most of his earlier revelations were from the Lord. Earlier in his ministry he came to the realization that revelation could be a bit tricky. He said, "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." By 1843 I find it difficult to think that Joseph Smith was not able to discern where revelations were coming from assuming they weren't coming from his own mind.

From Clayton's Journal:
"Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end. Joseph and Hyrum then sat down and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on celestial marriage, and I wrote it, sentence by sentence, as he dictated. After the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through, slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. He then remarked that there was much more that he could write, on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present."

So...in this case your husband is correct. There doesn't seem to be any wiggle room on this one. No gray area. Joseph Smith apparently had already received the revelation and simply had Clayton record it. Emma later accepted the revelation a period of time after she was deeded some properties in Nauvoo.

I'm sure that didn't hurt. <g>

No gray area here as far as I can see. Joseph Smith's calling as a prophet pretty much rises or falls on whether or not he was telling the truth and received a revelation from God when he had Clayton record the text in the office on the upper story of the`brick store'. Much good came from the principle. Many of the righteous/valiant pioneer stock and later leaders in the kingdom were a direct result of the practice of polygamy. There was also much heartache and dissatisfaction on the part of a number of the women and in some cases their husbands. Brigham Young offered a one time divorce decree to those of his wives that had had it and didn't want any part of the plural marriage covenant any more. There's a lot of messiness involved with the whole deal. BUT, that doesn't negate the possibility that when all is said and done polygamy was the will of God and that the good outweighed the pain and hurt. Where revelation may have left off and human imperfections/emotions/selfishness/libido took over, assuming that polygamy was practiced as a result of God giving a revelation, who knows? We can only surmise/guess.

It's a tough thing to talk about and yes, you're right, many members would just as well leave it alone and put it behind them. This has always been a troublesome area for me also over the years. I'm assuming that for you it was a deal breaker as far as your faith/testimony was concerned.

Regards,
MG

[_Inconceivable]

You would think that by this time Joseph would have a pretty good handle on what revelation was all about and where it was coming from if most of his earlier revelations were from the Lord. Earlier in his ministry he came to the realization that revelation could be a bit tricky. He said, "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." By 1843 I find it difficult to think that Joseph Smith was not able to discern where revelations were coming from assuming they weren't coming from his own mind.

Regards,

MG

7 Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message.
8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.
9 These are three grand keys whereby you may know whether any administration is from God.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 129:7 - 9)

I don't know. What if the angel tricked Joseph Smith by accident? I mean, maybe when Joseph Smith stuck out his hand to shake the angel's, the angel drew the sword by his right hand making it somewhat awkward to shake? What are the odds of a left handed Swordsangelman of Light? But it stands to reason that an angel of darkness would be left handed. Did Joseph Smith shake the sword instead? The revelation doesn't say anything about how to deal with an angel with a drawn sword. Maybe it was really a fake sword... maybe it was a real sword but a fake hand... Did anyone ask??! What if he forgot to shake his hand??! OMG!!!

Man, I hope I remember not to forget how to fool Satan's stupid angel, you know, just in case. What a relief it is at least to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the angel of darkness only gives fakeys. :(

by the way, MG, thanks for the compliment

[_marg]

Hi Marg. Thanks for your input.

By what means did you arrive at your religious beliefs? What reasoning and evidence do you use to warrant holding them?

MG: thinking and reasonings concerning the probabilities existing within a grouping of possibilities.

I'm going to assume given what you've said in this thread that you have been indoctrinated into Mormonism from a young age. What do you think are the probabilites that you are able to objectively look at your beliefs and determine whether or not the claims of J.Smith and the Mormon church are true? What do you think are the probabilities that you can objectively with intellectual honestey look at any evidence regarding the church which doesn't support it? An intellectually honest individual lets the evidence lead them to best fit conclusons. An intellectually dishonest individual dismisses or downplays evidence they don't like, which doesn't support their beliefs. I didn't see you mention evidence as being a critical factor in determining your religious beliefs. It rarely is for a religious individual. Few people critically evaluate all religions and then choose one, and few end up with religious belief much different to that they were exposed to in their early years. It is mathematically obvious then that most people don't use evidence and reasoning in reaching their religious beliefs.


previously: Where is your evidence for "Reality demonstrates.. ways to know God"? Where is your evidence of God and that God seems to be okay with that?


MG:

the way things are in the world. If there is a God, then one could safely assume that this God has a concern/love for all of his creations and would value the way in which humans make efforts to connect with him. Look around, there are a myriad number of ways that human beings attempt to to just that.

Seems to work for many of them. They seem to be happy in their praises/worship of God as they have come to know their own respective versions/concept of deity.

Your statement that "reality demonstates..ways to know God" has no evidence to support it. How long has your God theoretically been known? There is DNA evidence of modern man being on earth at least 100,000 years. Yet your God if we assume it's the one in the O.T. of the Bible has only been known theoretically 6,000 years. Evidence or reality is that people didn't know your God in the span of time that it is known modern man existed. There is also no good reason to assume a supreme entity would care if humans make efforts to connect. Just because humans worship, or it makes some people happy doesn't mean a God exists or that one would care sbout being worshipped if one did exist.

[_marg]

What I notice in your thinking MG is that you assume possibilities that you wish for, which agree with your religious beliefs. You don't look at possiblities which don't agree with your religious beliefs. You then assume probable conclusions from those few selected possibilities. You think because you use terms "possibility" and "probabilty" that you are reasoning well and are not dogmatic in your beliefs. Your reasoning does not follow from evidence, which is what good critical thinking should do. Your reasoning follows from church made claims, which you accept pretty much blindly. Without good qualities evidence your so called probabilities are not probable at all. A probability is backed up with good quality reasoning and evidence which can be objectively evaluated.

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi Marg. Thanks for your input.

By what means did you arrive at your religious beliefs? What reasoning and evidence do you use to warrant holding them?

MG: thinking and reasonings concerning the probabilities existing within a grouping of possibilities.

I'm going to assume given what you've said in this thread that you have been indoctrinated into Mormonism from a young age. What do you think are the probabilites that you are able to objectively look at your beliefs and determine whether or not the claims of J.Smith and the Mormon church are true? What do you think are the probabilities that you can objectively with intellectual honestey look at any evidence regarding the church which doesn't support it? An intellectually honest individual lets the evidence lead them to best fit conclusons. An intellectually dishonest individual dismisses or downplays evidence they don't like, which doesn't support their beliefs. I didn't see you mention evidence as being a critical factor in determining your religious beliefs. It rarely is for a religious individual. Few people critically evaluate all religions and then choose one, and few end up with religious belief much different to that they were exposed to in their early years. It is mathematically obvious then that most people don't use evidence and reasoning in reaching their religious beliefs.


previously: Where is your evidence for "Reality demonstrates.. ways to know God"? Where is your evidence of God and that God seems to be okay with that?


MG:

the way things are in the world. If there is a God, then one could safely assume that this God has a concern/love for all of his creations and would value the way in which humans make efforts to connect with him. Look around, there are a myriad number of ways that human beings attempt to to just that.

Seems to work for many of them. They seem to be happy in their praises/worship of God as they have come to know their own respective versions/concept of deity.

Your statement that "reality demonstates..ways to know God" has no evidence to support it. How long has your God theoretically been known? There is DNA evidence of modern man being on earth at least 100,000 years. Yet your God if we assume it's the one in the O.T. of the Bible has only been known theoretically 6,000 years. Evidence or reality is that people didn't know your God in the span of time that it is known modern man existed. There is also no good reason to assume a supreme entity would care if humans make efforts to connect. Just because humans worship, or it makes some people happy doesn't mean a God exists or that one would care sbout being worshipped if one did exist.

MG: let me point you in a few directions.

http://www.crosscurrents.org/polkinghorne.htm

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

http://www.2think.org/hii/god.shtml

This is just a small sampling of the kind of stuff I like to listen to and read. I'm not going to give you the long list and go round up books from the library list that I've read over the years or the books that are stored down in the basement because it's not worth my time. You'd probably pooh pooh it anyway because it's a list coming from a hopeful believer that egads!!! is an active member of the LDS church.

If I'm reading you right, you seem to be saying that a person who is born into the LDS church is not able to objectively sit down and think about evidence and make a decision "as if" they had been born into a different religious or non-religious background. That's sinking the ship before it ever gets out of the harbor and has a chance to sail!

I don't know you. I don't know your background. I don't know your educational background and experience in reading and research. But I can tell you, that for a layperson, I would guess that I am as well read, if not more so than many on this board. As I've said earlier, that's not being condescending, that's just the reality. I suppose that in order to prove that we'd have to have a dueling contest of sorts in regards to who's got the longest eclectic reading list. That would be a hoot, huh?!

You make a go of disproving the existence of God as though it could be done in a few sentences or less on your lunch hour. Whatever.

by the way, if you haven't listened to some of these pod/web casts, they are well worth your time.

Regards,
MG