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

[_truth dancer]

So here I sit considering how to proceed.

It may be beneficial to decide what it is for which you are looking.

Do you want to retain (or regain), your testimony, or do you want to discover truth?

(I'm not suggesting for this post that they are not one and the same even though I do not think they are).

If your testimony is more important than truth, it may be better to not delve further into any non-faith promoting information or material.

If however you are wanting truth, this may take you on a different path.

My observation is that as people discover more and more about the church, they move into a place of "chaos" for a time as they try to figure out what to do and where to go. While the paths may differ, what seems consistent is that the former beliefs disappear or are transformed as new information comes to light.

In other words, there are those who alter or expand their new understandings to fit into the LDS framework, and there are those for whom this impossible. Either way, they are no longer the same traditional beliefs that were once held as a TBM.

It is not an easy journey...

~dancer~

[_sunstoned]

Note Sunstoned's personal attack, referencing claiming knowing me from my mission as one who "struggled with being judgmental back then," and referring to one of my mission presidents. [Twould be easy, of course, to google the mission reunion boards and see my connection to Welling. And it wasn't Welling who authorized the work.]

rcrocket

Bob,

I don't believe I made a personal attack on you. If it came across that way, then I apologize. However, you seem to have little patients for people who do not see the world exactly as you do. You are giving MMM the same treatment he received at MAD, and nobody deserves that.

Lord knows I have my faults too. However lying is not one of them. The mission stuff is true. We were in the land of Joseph together dude! You and Elder K. Woodman were my zone leaders while I was stationed at Hammond Indiana in the summer of ’75. We even teamed up a couple of times.

[_harmony]

Note Sunstoned's personal attack, referencing claiming knowing me from my mission as one who "struggled with being judgmental back then," and referring to one of my mission presidents. [Twould be easy, of course, to google the mission reunion boards and see my connection to Welling. And it wasn't Welling who authorized the work.]

rcrocket

Bob,

I don't believe I made a personal attack on you. If it came across that way, then I apologize. However, you seem to have little patients for people who do not see the world exactly as you do. You are giving MMM the same treatment he received at MAD, and nobody deserves that.

Lord knows I have my faults too. However lying is not one of them. The mission stuff is true. We were in the land of Joseph together dude! You and Elder K. Woodman were my zone leaders while I was stationed at Hammond Indiana in the summer of ’75. We even teamed up a couple of times.

A voice echoes from the past.

Geez, that sends shivers down my back.

[_James Muir]

I certainly do concede that the use of one's real name on these boards exposes one to personal attack. Note Sunstoned's personal attack, referencing claiming knowing me from my mission as one who "struggled with being judgmental back then," and referring to one of my mission presidents. [Twould be easy, of course, to google the mission reunion boards and see my connection to Welling. And it wasn't Welling who authorized the work.] But, the essential thrust of my post is that the very most successful attack against the Church -- one that will influence the very elect as opposed to the moronic World of Warcraft twits who see only DVDs on the bookshelfs in their homes -- are the urbane attacks with just the right modicum of appeal back to one's bishop and activity. All, of course, anonymously.

rcrocket

So Bob,

You were in Northern States circa 1972. Welling was my mission president for a couple of months before I went home. He hated my guts. I was a Zone Leader who contradicted his go win one for the gipper style of evangelizing. He did not say a single word to me when I left. Probably gave me a bum rap to my locals. Perhaps you loved the guy. I thought he was a prick.


Four pages in one day? ain't nobody going to tell me the poop that tubes everyone faith?
I know the LDS Church has been overcome by witches since the beginning. So was Ancient Israel. Satan always attacts and attacks with stealth and precision that would put the CIA, KGB, Mossad to shame in tactics and manipulations.

One church president was a scripturally proven Son of Perdition. I can prove it.

If early Church witches wrote crap about Joseph Smith it was a smear most likely just to keep the TBMs offbalance and shy like their working the MMMassacre to defile Zion and keep it toppsy turvy from being able to assert itself righteous. These people play chess with people from craddle to grave from behind the chess board and their great pride is that they remain undetected. They act like gods who love to slink into the shadows and effect the drama and take possession of all things. They would keep the Church growing just to farm it out like they still do the Masons and Catholics and they set up America for the shelter. Benjamin Franklin was a stone witch.

The Pilgrim were sincere about Zion. They held that a person had to be spiritually accomplished to take communion. That is advanced understanding before the Book of Mormon ever revealed that commandment two hundred years later. What polluted and defeated the Pilgrim Zion? WITCHES People. Witches. Druids if you prefer. They never write anything down and strive to be invisable these days.

[_Mister Scratch]

I do condemn the posters on MAD who post anonymously I just don't post there, or rarely post there. But hear ye all ends of the earth. If you post anonymously any negative things about any known and living person (be it Quinn or Metcalf) you will burn in hell some day.

Then you have damned yourself, eh, Lee Bishop, Bishop Lee, Null Hypothesis, and whatever other aliases you've used?

[_mms]

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?

[_Inconceivable]

I've come to the conclusion that if the Holy Ghost were to testify that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, I am still justified to reject this witness based strictly on his morality alone.

If God is willing to break his own rules and give His True Messenger a pass for immorality, I would prefer to hold out a little longer For that Further Light and Knowledge He Promised to Send Me. I hold my covenants Sacred, particularly the ones concerning fidelity.

Wouldn't he at least send someone that had repented of committing the sin next to murder?

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi MMS, on another of your threads, i said i didn't know your story. I do now. Not unique in any way. You wrote:

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?

It appears your indoctrination has been long and effective. I respectfully suggest broaden your vision from the little picture of Mormonism to THE big picture of established, institutionalized Christianism that LDSism is part of.

Joseph Smith is simply another reformer and transformer of what has been passed to folks as entry into the great beyond and joy-ever-after with "God" and loved ones. Sounds good to those who have difficulty with "here and now". And, as much cultural as anything we generally simply assimilate, with little question, what we are taught at the family table. Generally speaking. Please don't think i'm suggesting every thing

MMS, you come from the Mormon table. Be aware of the other "family tables": JW, 7DA, RC, and hundreds of others from which many are pushing back their chairs with questions that increasingly stymie the 'head-a-the-family'.

Being taught/conditioned/indoctrinated in the superiority of LDSism, it being THE ONLY TRUTH, you probably miss the fact of its similarity to most other Ecclesiastical persuasions.

LDS mythology has the boy-dreamer enlightened to the reality, "...that all churches are an abomination to "God"..." I suggest, in that Joseph Smith might have got it correct. Then he followed suite and instituted another gathering place for dissidents who pushed back from another table.

I think Jason Bourne put it well with his view of church membership. It isn't all or nothing. It isn't black or white. One size doesn't fit all. Attend, or not, as you enjoy your chosen table.

IF/WHEN a person understands, and accepts, there ain't no "true church" the door of their understanding opens to the freedom of truth! As Jesus the social working teacher taught. There are simply competing churches with the same generally well intended purpose, that CAN--but not always do--serve up good stuff.

Don't sweat the mythos of Christanism's sects. Read about them. Think about them. (Folks for 1,000's of years never had that option.) Then enjoy the fact, "...humanity was not made for religion..." To paraphrase the name sake of the subject/object of our attention. Then do what brings to YOU what YOU want. Oh, be aware, there is no after-life reason for any of this concern, IMSCO... Warm regards, Roger

[_truth dancer]

Hi MMS...

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 think this is accurate. You will find out a lot more than you ever dreamed of, and it will be non-faith promoting information.

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.

The idea that the spirit Trump's evidentiary witness is common... nothing can make sense, of feel right, or seem good but many hold onto the idea that the spirit tells them the church is still true.

It creates questions about the spirit and why it would witness of things clearly NOT true (Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith's lies and deception), and more importantly it makes one wonder about God.. and how God would create a system where the spirit would confirm conflicting truth throughout the world, and why billions of people feel the spirit but their "truth" is all incorrect with the exception of their particular belief, and why God would use such a tricky, nebulous way to come to truth, and why one spiritual experience is better than another, and how can anyone judge one from the other, and why our reality isn't good enough to base life decisions on, and why we would have to have such a witness when our minds and hearts tell us something contrary to what we are supposed to believe.

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.

Those who do not allow questions, who do not learn about the world, who remain confined in a belief system without engaging in life, who inundate their minds with a particular worldview, who only associate with like minded folks who confirm their limited perspective, who reinforce their beliefs at every opportunity, who harbor fear of learning new information, who do not allow for new understanding, who have a determined mind that they NOT let go of their belief no matter what, and who believe their lives will fall apart if they find a new truth or understanding, will most likely remain with a belief, regardless of what it is.

In other words, I think you are correct. If you just stop exploring, stop questioning, remind yourself that your issues are because of Satan's influence, determine you will never allow a question to enter your mind or heart, put the issues on the shelf, etc. etc., you may be able to go back.

I would suggest most who have lost belief once had to make the decision (consciously or unconsciously), to continue to learn, search for truth, find answers to their questions, or not.

If I go through this process and do not obtain an answer that it is true, I have a problem . . . or do I?

Depends... (smile).

Some see it as a sort of freedom to move into what feels more true and holy, others find it a challenge to figure out how to move forward into the real world, still others may have difficulty figuring out how to manage their new found truth with family and community.

I've heard many, many stories of letting go of belief and I can't think of one time where the journey did not ultimately end with more peace. Not that the journey was an easy one, but it seems to be the good one for those who take this path.

Best wishes to you,

~dancer~

[_Trevor]

I think there is are different kinds of criticism. One can criticize to hurt others. That is indeed bad. One can be critical in order to explore his own thoughts. One might also be critical in hopes that someone will either change or better explain their position. One might also be critical of something in order to warn others or to contemplate avoiding things.

I just want to point out here that the two statements about criticism made by Mormon leaders that I find most memorable both characterize it as something bad that should not be done. President Hinckley wrote a piece in the Ensign about criticism that seemed to equate it with the sin of pride, and then President Oaks comment that you shouldn't criticize the Brethren, even when they are wrong about something.

It sounds to me like the system must be pretty fragile if such fear of scrutiny and questions exists in its upper ranks.