Who has been where I am? Questioning. Where did you end up?

[_Yoda]

It sounds like some of you are willing to help me think through how I should proceed from here, but you probably need a little more information about my actual concerns/conclusions (preliminary or otherwise).

At the moment, it is very difficult for me to believe that I will ever see the "evidence" as weighing in the church's favor on a number of issues. My top five list probably goes something like this:

1) Book of Abraham (missing papyrus theory strikes me as mostly ridiculous (sorry) and catalyst theory makes me assume too much fallibility w/ Joseph Smith for me to conclude he was who I have been taught he was)

2) Polygyny/Polyandry -- No reasons for these practices whatsoever and seems a true "wart of warts" on the history of the church;

3) Book of Mormon anachronisms and other related issues;

4) One true church;

5) Blacks and Priesthood -- always been an issue for me and cannot resolve it.

This is not the thread to debate any of these issues, but I just wanted you to know what sticks out in my mind tongight, could be different tomorrow night, but just in adding issues, not taking away.

Because I am at a place where I think that if I read more, I will only question more, I do not think that "keep researching" is the best answer to the "how to proceed from here" question.

I need to identify (or re-identify) how the "Spirit" witnesses and obtain that witness. If I do not, it looks like the "evidentiary" witness of the "facts" will overcome my tesimony permanently.

So how do I go about identifying or re-identifying the "Spirit"? I suppose the Sunday School answers are relevant here. Pray, read the Standard Works, be more obedient, and listen. Part of me is afraid to do that because I am afraid the answer will be that the church is not true, if I receive an answer at all. As long as I have not drawn concclusions, part of me says, I may still have a testimony. If I go through this process and do not obtain an answer that it is true, I have a problem . . . or do I?

I do wish you well on your test of faith and spiritual journey.

For what it is worth, I have found the following to be of help to me when my faith has been challenged:

1. Put the faith-trial and decisionmaking process into context. In effect, figure out what all the purposes, intents, functions, role, and value the Church is or might be in my life and the life of my family.
2. Within that context, fairly weigh all factors about the Church in the balance. In other words, create a mental list of what I may find right and workable about the Church (faith promoting) as well as what I find troubling and wrong (faith troubling), and weigh them against each other.
3. Within that same context, direct my evaluations internally as well as externally--focusing as much if not more on my own internal rightness and wrongness, as well as the same regarding the Church.
4. Make the decisionmaking processes about choicing the best of multiple viable options, rather than about simply negating a single existing option. In other words, comparatively evaluate the Church in relation to other proven developmental systems (secular and religious) in effort to determine which individually or in combination will enable me and my family to become the very best people possible--in terms of happiness, love, understanding (both physically and spiritually), respect, ability, and being responsible and mature

In other words, I put the trial of my faith in the mix of my whole life's journey, and evaluate it in terms of the destination I have chosen for myself. Metaphorically speaking, if I have some doubts about a specific aspect of a complex navigational devise (such as the Church), I look at the importance and meaning of that specific aspect in relation to the entirely of the complex navigation devise and other navigational options (such as other religious and secular institutions), so as to avoid unwittingly jettisoning a viable navigational devise and finding myself without direction and tossed to and fro by the winds, waves, and currents of public opinion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wow, Wade! I'm impressed!

This is very sound advice.

:)

If more apologists were actually kind and answered questions in this manner, I think more people who are floundering would feel more at peace.

Great post!

[_wenglund]

The Book of Abraham is not what the church claims it is. There is no question about this. Yet the church wants people to hold onto the lie... and we feel guilty if we let others know of this truth.

How twisted is this?[/color]

I have found that, among other things, respectful interfaith discussions and mutual pursuits of the truth tend to break down considerably when:

1. Matters of faith that are open to question are characterized as "unquestionable" facts by one side of the dispute.
2. When opposing views are characterize in pejoritive terms like "twisted".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_asbestosman]

What I do is tack my name on my claims ....

Sure ya do, Plutarch.

Maybe he didn't then, but he does now. Are you saying he's a hypocrite for changing his views and his actions accordingly?

[_cacheman]

MMS,

I just want to comment on Wade's suggestions:

1. Put the faith-trial and decisionmaking process into context. In effect, figure out what all the purposes, intents, functions, role, and value the Church is or might be in my life and the life of my family.
2. Within that context, fairly weigh all factors about the Church in the balance. In other words, create a mental list of what I may find right and workable about the Church (faith promoting) as well as what I find troubling and wrong (faith troubling), and weigh them against each other.
3. Within that same context, direct my evaluations internally as well as externally--focusing as much if not more on my own internal rightness and wrongness, as well as the same regarding the Church.
4. Make the decisionmaking processes about choicing the best of multiple viable options, rather than about simply negating a single existing option. In other words, comparatively evaluate the Church in relation to other proven developmental systems (secular and religious) in effort to determine which individually or in combination will enable me and my family to become the very best people possible--in terms of happiness, love, understanding (both physically and spiritually), respect, ability, and being responsible and mature

I think that this might be a great way to approach your situation. I think that many are able to come to see the LDS church in a different, refined perspective and maintain a healthy 'spiritual' life within it. On the other hand, I strongly recommend that if you decide that Mormonism is not the right path for you and your family, that you would focus on finding what does work for you, and then concentrate on cultivating your new 'spiritual' path. And remember that your 'spiritual' path doesn't necessarily need to be tied to a specific religion or denomination. You are dealing with some major life choices right now, and I wish you the best of luck!

*I put the word 'spiritual' in quotations because I personally define this term very broadly, and wanted to distinguish that.

just my 0.02

cacheman

[_moksha]

Mms, these are my answers. I am an active Church member.

1) Book of Abraham (missing papyrus theory strikes me as mostly ridiculous (sorry) and catalyst theory makes me assume too much fallibility w/ Joseph Smith for me to conclude he was who I have been taught he was)

Most likely this was just made up like any allegory. However, like other allegories, there are symbolic truths that can be gleaned from it. Those are what is truly important.

2) Polygyny/Polyandry -- No reasons for these practices whatsoever and seems a true "wart of warts" on the history of the church;

They were warts. Fortunately the practice has been abandoned for over a Century.

3) Book of Mormon anachronisms and other related issues;

See answer to #1.

4) One true church;

We have truth but so do others. We are all on our own individual spiritual pathway. For me, the Christian worship and fellowship of the Church of Jesus Christ, assists me on my spiritual pathway. That is what is critical for me.

5) Blacks and Priesthood -- always been an issue for me and cannot resolve it.

No need to resolve it, it has already been abolished. But how to reconcile the practice? In good conscience you can't. It was wrong and is indefensible. We just have to forgive the fallibility of those in the past who fostered this discriminatory practice.

Hope this helps.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

What I do is tack my name on my claims ....

Sure ya do, Plutarch.

Maybe he didn't then, but he does now. Are you saying he's a hypocrite for changing his views and his actions accordingly?

Yup.

[_Yoda]

Mms, these are my answers. I am an active Church member.

1) Book of Abraham (missing papyrus theory strikes me as mostly ridiculous (sorry) and catalyst theory makes me assume too much fallibility w/ Joseph Smith for me to conclude he was who I have been taught he was)

Most likely this was just made up like any allegory. However, like other allegories, there are symbolic truths that can be gleaned from it. Those are what is truly important.

2) Polygyny/Polyandry -- No reasons for these practices whatsoever and seems a true "wart of warts" on the history of the church;

They were warts. Fortunately the practice has been abandoned for over a Century.

3) Book of Mormon anachronisms and other related issues;

See answer to #1.

4) One true church;

We have truth but so do others. We are all on our own individual spiritual pathway. For me, the Christian worship and fellowship of the Church of Jesus Christ, assists me on my spiritual pathway. That is what is critical for me.

5) Blacks and Priesthood -- always been an issue for me and cannot resolve it.

No need to resolve it, it has already been abolished. But how to reconcile the practice? In good conscience you can't. It was wrong and is indefensible. We just have to forgive the fallibility of those in the past who fostered this discriminatory practice.

Hope this helps.

You are one wise penguin. ;)

As a fellow Church member, I echo your responses which you so eloquently posted.

[_mms]

I do wish you well on your test of faith and spiritual journey.

For what it is worth, I have found the following to be of help to me when my faith has been challenged:

1. Put the faith-trial and decisionmaking process into context. In effect, figure out what all the purposes, intents, functions, role, and value the Church is or might be in my life and the life of my family.
2. Within that context, fairly weigh all factors about the Church in the balance. In other words, create a mental list of what I may find right and workable about the Church (faith promoting) as well as what I find troubling and wrong (faith troubling), and weigh them against each other.
3. Within that same context, direct my evaluations internally as well as externally--focusing as much if not more on my own internal rightness and wrongness, as well as the same regarding the Church.
4. Make the decisionmaking processes about choicing the best of multiple viable options, rather than about simply negating a single existing option. In other words, comparatively evaluate the Church in relation to other proven developmental systems (secular and religious) in effort to determine which individually or in combination will enable me and my family to become the very best people possible--in terms of happiness, love, understanding (both physically and spiritually), respect, ability, and being responsible and mature

In other words, I put the trial of my faith in the mix of my whole life's journey, and evaluate it in terms of the destination I have chosen for myself. Metaphorically speaking, if I have some doubts about a specific aspect of a complex navigational devise (such as the Church), I look at the importance and meaning of that specific aspect in relation to the entirely of the complex navigation devise and other navigational options (such as other religious and secular institutions), so as to avoid unwittingly jettisoning a viable navigational devise and finding myself without direction and tossed to and fro by the winds, waves, and currents of public opinion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is fantastic. Again, Wade, for some reason the way you have presented things since I have been around (not too long) speaks to my mind quite clearly (I think this may be because you do not spend time taking a position, but trying to figure out what the concerns are so that they may be addressed in the most reasonable and methodical way) and what you have written, here, is extremely valuable in my opinion. I have printed it and will use it. I expect that you have provided it to others? If not, keep it handy. A very understandable, thorough, unbiased approach.

[_asbestosman]

Maybe he didn't then, but he does now. Are you saying he's a hypocrite for changing his views and his actions accordingly?

Yup.

So are people who were once fully active, believing members but change their minds and leave the church hypocrites too?

[_rcrocket]

I am not an apologist.

You certainly try to be, however.

I lack sufficient expertise to defend the church on any topic.

Painfully obvious.

I am a jury trial lawyer.

Wow. We're so impressed.

Internet posting is filled with the dishonest and the cowardly, along with the honest and courageous. For every Tal Bachman, Dan Vogel, Brent Metcalf, and Kevin Graham who are unafraid of using their own names when posting, we have you, Jason Osbourne, MMS, Mr. Scratch and Rollo Tomasi.

One-note Bob strikes again.

What I do is tack my name on my claims ....

Sure ya do, Plutarch.

I am pleased to report that in the past I have always given my real name on the boards irrespective of whether I posted with a pseudonym or not; I often pasted my name on the personal details or even on the sig file. Same way over on MAD; I post and always posted as rcrocket. I point out that when I was using a pseudonym on this Board and you started a major campaign to smear the reputation of Dr. Peterson by pointing to a one-year anniversary of a thread started on MAD, you pointed out that you knew that I had been the originator that thread on MAD. You couldn't have known that without knowing my real name.

So, you're just wrong. And, I think you know the wrongness of your position. But, really, I don't mind being insulted and smeared, unlike others you have driven away.

And, it really isn't a one-note issue. I post on lots of different topics; this just happens to be an observation. I don't think you should be maligning persons such as Dr. Peterson or others without having the courage to give your name out.

There really is no need to be impressed with the fact that I'm a jury trial lawyer. I only used that reference to point out my experience that people tend to be desireous of honesty, and that I have good thoughts about the bona fides of most people who operate under their own name.

rcrocket