Engaging in Denial
Posted on April 27th, 2006 by Clark Goble
Fellow blogger here, John Mansfield, came up here to Provo last week and we had an enjoyable time at lunch. We’d actually both worked at Los Alamos while at college and knew each other from the ward there. We had some good conversations but the one thing that kind of struck with me was a discussion of people leaving the church. Now I don’t want to step on any fingers here. I know the reasons people leave the church are varied. Further I know nearly everyone struggles with something sometime in their life. I recall reading a statistic about how many active members had spent at least a year inactive and it was quite high. (Sorry I don’t recall the figures) I know that several of my Stake Presidents as well as my Mission President has spent quite a bit of time inactive. So I’d urge caution that we not engage in value judgments regarding why people leave the church. Our duty is to love those who leave and pray that they find their way back. Having said that though, John and I discussed the interesting question of whether one has to engage in a kind of denial to leave.
Now clearly people can go inactive while retaining a testimony. Lots of people leave not because they disbelief in God or the Church but because they are angry. Perhaps at God. Perhaps at the Church. Perhaps at the members. But that’s not what I wish to get at.
Let’s assume that someone actually had a testimony given by revelation. (And clearly not all Mormons do - indeed I sometimes feel pessimistic and wonder how many within the church really do)
But if you have had real spiritual experiences, don’t you have to seriously deny them so as to leave? I know, memories being what they are, even profound experiences can fade. And because they aren’t fresh, we can come to doubt them. Thus the importance of not just having a testimony, but continually renewing it. But to what extent do we have to deny the experience of our spiritual experiences to even re-interpret them as “not real”?
» Filed Under Any
Comments
135 Responses to “Engaging in Denial”
But to what extent do we have to deny the experience of our spiritual experiences to even re-interpret them as “not real”?
I have a very close friend, who’s a very thoughtful, life-engaged person. He was a member of a branch presidency when he left the church. He became convinced that he had never had any real spiritual experiences. He came to look upon those experiences as childish and not “real”. That’s why he was able to leave.
He still had to admit that there were good, normal, rational people that he knew who had had very spiritual, “incredible” experiences that he could not account for (hearing a voice tell them to get baptized, etc.) but that since he hadn’t had those experiences, and his own had been of a lower caliber, they must not have been real, and therefore he could leave the church without having to deny his own experience.
Basically, he deconstructed his testimony, it seemed to me.
Time.
That’s all. We may have some strong spiritual experiences, but then if we do not feed that constantly, we forget.
By small and simple things are great things come to pass - both on the upward trend and the downward.
My parents left the church shortly after I returned from my mission. First mom, then dad. He was in the high council at the time. My dad was one that was sought as a strength in the church. But through time, he stopped studying the scriptures and like Nonny said, deconstructed his testimony. Unless those spiritual experiences are constantly happening, we tend to forget what it was really like. Hence a good reason to write in our journal, but even that can be tossed to the wayside.
Rather than deny them, one could simply reinterpret them.
For example, we commonly tell people that if the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith must have been a prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley must be a prophet today, and you should join and be active in the Church. But one could just as easily interpret a spiritual testimony of the Book of Mormon as requiring one to rely on the book’s contents to guide one’s life without drawing any conclusions at all about the value of activity in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I should note that I’m using “reinterpret” differently than you. My usage has nothing to do with the reality of the experience, just its meaning.
I don’t think you have to deny any “spiritual” experiences but merely reinterpret them. During the Super Bowl a couple years ago there were some commercials for a mortgage company (I think it was Amerisave but I can’t remember right now) with the punch line “don’t judge too quickly, we won’t.” One of the commercials had a guy cooking dinner when a white cat causes things to go haywire. The cat ends up with marinara sauce all over it and the man holding the cat in one hand by the hind legs with a 9″ butcher knife in the other hand– at which point his girlfriend/wife walks in on the encounter. The punch line of the commercial is that a quick assessment of the situation might lead one to the initial conclusion that the guy was butchering the cat (with the possible plan of serving it) rather than the correct conclusion that he was trying to prepare a nice, romantic dinner for his significant other.
Reassessment is an exercise that I don’t think people do often enough. How many times do people take offense when none was intended? How many times do we ascribe much more significance to our interactions with others than those encounters really deserve?
The profoundly important spiritual experiences that have occurred in my life shape my views, thinking, and approach to every aspect of life. Some of them have been quite specific in their content and application. Others have had a more open texture, providing me with some meaning at the time of their occurrence, and providing me with further and more profound meaning over time. And finally, some experiences have provided me with a new context and perspective from which to understand earlier experiences.
In discussion with my closest friend, I recently compared those experiences to stars in a constellation. They give definite shape and contour to the image that I can construct from them, but just as different cultures, viewing the same stars, have constructed different images from them, so, too, are there multiple constructions that readily fit the constellation of spiritual experiences I’ve had. As Lehi teaches, when there is more than one alternative, we both can and must discern which is best, and then choose that one over the other. Making those kinds of decisions, of course, can be heart-wrenching.
I think there are a lot of factors - one in particular is that the strongest spiritual experiences for many do not seem causally dependent on particular LDS doctrines, but rather are associated with them. So say someone feels the spirit in sacrament meeting when true principles are taught about faith, service, sacrifice, the Atonement, and so on, and has a secondary testimony of the Book of Mormon, temple attendance, etc. because they feel the spirit while reading / participating. That may lead to even a very strong feeling with regard to the truth of the the whole package that may later be re-examined without denying the reality of those experiences at all - such as a downgrading the Church from the “only true Church” to the “most true Church”.
A second consideration is that spiritual impressions are often notoriously hard to interpret correctly, and are often mixed with other unusual phenomena, such that people retain confidence in generalities, but lose confidence in specifics, especially after a series of experiences where one seriously mis-interprets various promptings, feelings, or impressions.
The Church often relies on a basic testimony of the the calling of Joseph Smith or Book of Mormon to logically endorse every other aspect of ecclesiastical and doctrinal authority. As discussion here often shows, that procedure has serious limits - unless the majority of the participants here are literally faithless and unfeeling - presumably experience, rationality, and perhaps even the Spirit place limits on how much one is willing to swallow without further consideration.
Any good (e.g. classically Mormon) theory of the Spirit will endorse this process, if not taken too far afield. The idea that we are all spiritually depraved, and unable to come to any rational conclusions about the gospel precepts, and have to rely indefinitely on raw, unconfirmed faith with regard to doctrines that have everything else going against them reeks of a “mystery” religion - everything classical Mormonism is not.
I can only speak for myself, but there was a time when I deconstructed my testimony and at the end, I there were these spiritual manifestions that I unquestionably experienced. Personally, the best solution was to accept them for what I believe to be. To completely leave, I would have to, in essence, deny what has happened.
I think we should recognize that there are many Church members who simply have never had any real spiritual experiences that they are able to recognize. For them, denial is a different type of issue than for somebody like myself, who has had very, very strong spiritual experiences that are simply undeniable. I don’t know how the Lord will sort out those types of apostates compared to the apostates who really had a testimony and went through a complete denial process. I guess I would think that “to whom much is given, much is expected.” In my case, that means a lot is expected because a lot has been given. But there really are a large number of people who were born in the Church and have never had spiritual confirmations. What about them?
Geoff, “Apostate” is a pretty strong word to use for someone who simply lacks a testimony. It generally refers to people who become outright enemies or competitors of the Church - people who think that the Church itself is an evil or corrupting influence, or start/join a competing religious denomination and actively preach against the one they left. Dissenters and inactives usually don’t qualify.
Thank goodness!
Call me paranoid, Clark, but I just can’t shake the feeling that this post was written with me in mind. But then again it might possibly be the case that the world actually doesn’t revolve around me!
“But to what extent do we have to deny the experience of our spiritual experiences to even re-interpret them as “not real”?”
I think that this is phrased incorrectly, at least as it applies to me. I don’t deny that the experiences which I had were ‘real’ in anyway at all. My beef is that both the source and content of these experiences is ambiguous at best. (I am actually planning a post which kind of treats this subject.) What further complicates the picture is that I have felt what I once interpreted as ‘the spirit’ while doing and thinking things which are directly contrary to the teachings of the church, and even directly contrary to the experiences which I had had before.
I should add that I still have a vivid recollection of what those experiences were like, if only becuase I still have them.
I think that there are many lines of thought which are largely wrong, though they continue in the church for reasons which should be relatively apparent:
“If we don’t foster spiritual experiences, we come to forget them necessarily.”
“Any kind of reinterpretation of such experiences is DENYING them altogether.”
“A reinterpretation of such experiences amounts to the unforgivable sin.”
“People don’t reinterpret such experiences unless “something” happened to them such as a death in the family or even more likely sin.”
There are others.
I think D&C 46:14 implies not everyone will have a testimony but may (through the spirit) believe anyway. That is they may not have the kind of evidentiary experience they can point to. The spirit works with them more subtly. I think we have to be careful not to assume the spirit isn’t working on them. Sometimes we can only discern the effects of the spirit in hindsight.
I was more thinking of people who have had profound experiences and then leave. While I think re-interpretation and examination is a necessary and ongoing experience, it seems that for some classes of experience to be able to re-interpret the experience so radically requires a kind of denial or repression. We often talk of repression or denial of traumatic experiences. But I think it happens with good experiences that are strong as well. It would be more convenient if they didn’t happen, so we make it as if they did not.
When I had a crisis of faith at BYU, I asked with great anguish and sincerity “Is the church true? Would it be right for me to devote my life to it?” and I felt powerful spiritual feelings. Warmth started in the center of my chest and radiated out until it filled my whole body with something like electricity that lasted for minutes. I had heard enough faith-promoting stories to conclude that this was from God and the answer was yes. I felt great relief. Crisis solved.
When I had a crisis of faith in Beijing, I asked with great anguish and sincerity “Is the church false? Would it be right for me to leave it?” and I felt powerful spiritual feelings. It was exactly the same experience; starting as a “burning in the bosom” and radiating out in waves. But it seemed doubly as powerful because I was also remembering the first experience and its context. At BYU, I was expecting to be told to stay Mormon. But in Beijing, I was thinking “I can’t believe I’m having this experience. I never expected this answer. I thought I would more likely get rebuked, or at least ignored. This is astounding.”
I still have spiritual experiences from time to time even now. I have to interpret them differently than I did before, because I can no longer believe in LDS-exclusive access to constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. And yet despite my interpretation changes, the experiences still happen.
Don’t worry, I already know which of these experiences you want me to either deny or radically reinterpret.
There are times where I go back and question the validity of my spiritual experences, and I have to admit some of them were not what I thought of at the time. The thing that keeps me active and believing are a handful of experences that I can not deny, even if I try, most of which I have shared with no one, even my wife, because they are so precious to me.
Speaking in the most general terms, people I have known who have fallen away tend to have gained a new interpetaive paradigm that assignes other causes that the ones percieved before. In other cases, I find that people make certan assumptions about God or the Spirit and judge by those assuptions, which may lead them to deny what they thought was the spirit because it contradicts those assuptions.
Personally, from my personal experence and scripture reading, I hold very few assumtions about how God acts other than he Loves us and wants to help us. Perhaps it’s simplistic, but looking over the my life, that of people I know well, and the range of the scriptures, there God’s methods are so varied that it is hard assume anything about His operations amoung His childern.
Nate T brings up a very good question in my opinion: why are those experiences which are taken to be most sure and steadfast are typically kept private? It would seem that those are the very experiences which should be shared the most, for they seem to be the most faith promoting. This question, for the record, isn’t aimed at Nate.
As far as I can tell the Holy Ghost comes and goes as he/it/whatever pleases If (insert pronoun here) wants to constantly accomany someone, who are we to say it’s wrong? We have that promise and what others have is no buisness of ours.
As far as contradicting revelations go, it happens, and I have had them, and don’t radically reinterpet them, accept them and perhps use them for further study and prayer. Things may seem contradictory to us now, but God has a way of working them out to our understanding.
On a lighter note Beijing winters have an effect on people. I remember when the dorm room directly on the floor above me caught fire. It was Dec. 23 and I had to go out into the snow with just my PJ’s on. Perhaps God was telling me something then!
First,
Thanks for this post, I appreciate posts like this that focus on issues that deal with our faith and culture. Sometimes I feel like all the Mormon Blogs flutter around in the fluffy exterior and never get into the real problems/issues that we as members face.
But anyway, in addressing the initial post I think that to some extent there is always a deconstruction. In the times that I have had a crisis in faith I have found that I essentially must ‘choose’ who to trust. Both my fundamental logic and my spiritual experiences seem to have convincing arguments on their side and I must ultimately choose who to trust. When I have chosen logic over faith it has always been unpleasant, both emotionally and in the outcomes that have followed. Faith has always made me feel better about life and everything-regardless of how difficult it was to accept at first. Consequently I continue to see how faith proves itself as useful and true.
30 years ago in a BYU dorm, after weeks of praying and studying, I prayed in great frustration to know whether God was really there. I felt strong spiritual impressions on that occasion that he was indeed there. I have since served a mission, been married in the temple, raised a handful of faithful children, and served in a variety of callings, including Bishop. Yet, I am now consumed with doubt, and for a few years now, God has been silent. Last fall, in response to President Hinckley’s challenge, I reread the Book of Mormon and prayed about it many times. On most occasions, I felt nothing. On a few occcasions, I had strong feelings that it was unmitigated nonsense. On no occasion did I have a positive experience. So how can I not reinterpret my experiences of a decades ago when God seems to have disappeared? I am forced to either deny my previous experiences, or my experiences of the last few years.
As someone who has left the church during this month and was a second counsellor in the Bishopric, I just went through a reinterpretation of all my powerful, sincere encounters with the Spirit. I felt that I had to reinterpret those experiences, because I found what is to me clear and conclusive evidence that the Church was not true. Since I had had spiritual experiences that I had interpreted as confirming the truthfulness of the Church, I had a problem. I spent six months questioning my clear and conclusive evidence that the Church was not true. I examined every assumption, gathered original sources, read every apologetic work that offered a feasible hypothesis defending the Church, and emailed apologists.
This was not a matter of me not being able accept some questionable practice or doctrine. I could do mental gymnastics to become ok with every shady episode in Church history. The advantage apologists have is that arguments against the Church are almost never rock solid. So, in that small uncertainty, one can insert faith and give Joseph the benefit of the doubt. Not so in this case. Even the apologists have to ignore some evidence to get their explanations to work.
So, I had to reinterpret the “Spiritual experiences”. What do we really know about that experience. We may feel peace, joy, love, certainty, confidence, perhaps a burning in the bosom, we may even have thoughts come to mind. What do we know of their source…nothing. We have to assign meaning. In the Church we are taught that these feelings are coming from the Spirit and testifying something is true, etc. But, it could be that those impressions are only coming from our brains. So, leaving the Church does not necessarily involve a denial or the experience, but a reinterpretation because we never knew it was from God in the first place.
There are plenty of times that we feel confident, but were wrong. Dreams feel real. Sometimes we are sure that we remember something only to find out that we were wrong. I still feel that “light” that encompasses me, the love that moves me to tears, but I no longer believe that those feelings are a reliable source of truth.
That was fast Enochville, considering your posts elsewhere.
I’m curious what you consider your “clear and conclusive evidence that the Church [is] not true” ?
This string makes me sad. I think so many of these struggles flow directly from the black-or-white, it’s-all-true-or-none-of-it-is position taken by the majority of the members (not to mention leadership). It’s this theology that needs reinterpretation, not anyone’s spiritual experiences.
Recently I was watching someone on BYU TV give a talk on the BoM. She was an architect or some-such, and analogized the Church to the ’single point of failure’ concept in engineering. She went on and on about how the BoM falls into that category. If it’s not literally an ancient text, the whole Church collapses, etc. Not that I hadn’t heard this plenty before, but it was starkly presented in that talk. I was left shaking my head thinking “Wow, that is such a set-up for trouble.”
The Community of Christ has grown to a place where some members believe the BoM is an ancient book, while others believe it’s an important, inspired scripture of early 19th century origin. You can believe either way (or switch back and forth) and still be considered a faithful member. Seems much healthier and saner to me. But hey, apparently I’m almost an apostate anyway so what do I really know? I know that I love reading the BoM and find it to be very helpful and comforting. Won’t hold my breath for any proof coming out of Central America though, that’s for sure!
So I hope that the people like Enochville won’t throw out the whole package. There is so much good there.
Don’t deny either. We as humans are inherently limited in our perceptions and contradictions, or seeming contradictions are a fact of our existance, no matter how logic and reason try to order our world. The best thing we as humans can do is try to live with this fact. This might seem like philosophic gobly gook, but this is really what I have found in my life.
All one can do is find the very core beliefs that definds one and cling onto them for dear life, whatever they are.
This gave me some thought.
Part of the problem for me, is that the experences go beyound words and any attempt I have made to formulate them in my mind ends with the represntation being a cheap knockoff of what happened. The Spirit needs to be there to convey them and thus I wait for a promting to share them. This has not come.
Not only did I leave the church, while NOT denying or reinterpreting my testimony, I requested name removal.
Look at the early history of the church. Sure, many left and became apostate, but many left and never denied their testimony. And many came back, Signey Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, (who both had undeniable testimonies) and Thomas B. Marsh.
I learned a new term from Kimball Hunt on the ‘nacle. “Schiz producing double-bind.” I think a lot of people go through that, knowing the church is true, but being unable to accept certain doctrines, or certain behaviors on the part of other members or leaders.
In my case, it also had to do with unrepented sin. Part of the double-bind was whether my sins justified others sinning against me.
Part of it is the current LDS culture and past official policy of just ignoring “bad things” in the church, and pretending they don’t exist. So those of us who have been on the receiving end of “bad things” get treated as liars or whiners by those who believe the “bad things never happen in the true church” line.
Another important thing is that when we lose the Spirit, the small offenses of others are magnified and become intolerable. Even past offenses I shrugged off in the previous three years before leaving became not only magnified in memory, but the scabs covering those wounds were ripped off, as what happens in cases of post-traumatic stress disorder.
It’s taken me a long time to resolve and work out. When starting the road of repentance, I not only had to forgive myself, but I had to realize that those OTHER guys (including local members, local leaders and a couple general authorities) did indeed sin, because unless I forgave them, my bitterness towards them would hinder my return.
So my attitude at the time of leaving was “the church is true, but too many of those dang Mormons are a bunch of a-holes.” I was very mad at God for allowing such a bunch of jerks to run his church. Now I’m more willing to accept he has a reason for choosing the leaders and implementing the policies that he does. But as I voiced over at the recent long T&S thread, I’m still confused at whether certain things, such as past MTC leadership practices, were really in accordance with his will, or if they were aberrations.
Clark, one of the things that faithful Spirit-filled Mormons often don’t understand is that the offenses you can easily shrug off because you have the Spirit can still be highly offensive and large stumbling blocks to those who don’t have the Spirit. And it’s not just because of excommunicate-able offenses that one loses the Spirit. Losing the Spirit due to a series of minor personal offenses, then that starts another chain of events which leads a person who holds a “burned in” testimony to leave.
Another point is that sometimes REALLY bad things REALLY DO happen in the true church, whether by well-meaning incompetence, human flaws, or even sometimes by malicious intent. Those who’ve never been truely and deeply HURT often just don’t have the empathy for those who have been. The church’s delayed response to child-abuse among church members is an example. The church’s delayed response to bishops and stake presidents sending out severely unqualfied missionaries is another.
The kind of testimony I had, and still have, is described on page 38 of Gospel Principles. It’s “burned in” via the Holy Ghost. It’s not just woven into every fiber, it’s branded into every fiber of my being.
I don’t have his quotes handy, but I think part of my leaving may have been similar to Oliver Cowdery’s during the Missouri persecution. (And I certainly acknowledge that my trials were not as bad as those in Missouri back then.) I think Oliver said something like “This is the true church, so we shouldn’t have to put up with those kinds of things.” The person who leaves is not necessarily saying “The church isn’t true” but rather “I’m not going to put up with those things.”
“But if you have had real spiritual experiences, don’t you have to seriously deny them so as to leave?”
That depends, as others have alluded to, on what your spiritual experiences have been.
Having a testimony based on revelation that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, that Christ atoned for our sins, and the like could easily survive a loss of faith in the Church itself.
Even testimony on matters that are more uniquely Mormon could survive without a “serious denial” if put into the right context (e.g., Mormonism being one of many righteous paths).
Are there any situations where walking away from Mormonism would require a serious rejection of prior spiritual experiences, sure. But it seems to me that in many (most?) cases that would not be required.
Jeff, it wasn’t written with you in mind. Just to ease your mind. (I nearly put that in as a disclaimer)
The bit about spiritual experiences you mention probably needs a bit of expansion though. I’d say that the most significant spiritual experiences aren’t some feeling but contain some content. It’s the combination of experience with content that I find amazing that some can get past. Perhaps you’re including that. In which case I’d be interested in seeing how you can explain that away. It seems akin to explaining away what someone is speaking to you.
Bookslinger, I agree with your comments completely. Indeed I think it more common than many might that many leave the Church despite having a testimony. I think that many inactive members fit into that category. They might not deny but there is some anger - either at God, the Church or some member - that keeps them away. I can think of instances in my own life where I’ve felt that. It takes a lot of humility to get past it.
Ben S. - Yes it was fast. I used to feel like I knew the Church was true, but since January, I no longer felt I “knew” anymore, I believed and my faith was sufficient for me to be able to continue to receive inspiration in my calling and give blessings, etc. A couple of days before General Conference I finally came to the conclusion that Joseph Smith never was a prophet, seer, or revelator, and that he had actively deceived all who believed in his mission.
I will not share the evidence in a public setting like this, but you can email me if you really want to know. You can email me through my profile on hatrack: http://tinyurl.com/rg3pb
Wow, Clark, thanks for starting the “Why I Left The Church Thread.”
I don’t have a lot of time to expound at the moment, but I “left” the Church about seven years ago. “Left” is in quotes because I continued, for my wife and kids’ sake, to attend meetings and hold callings. I guess you could say mine was less of a denial and more of a reinterpretation. I suddenly found myself attributing all of my rock-solid spiritual experiences to other things. Hindsight was 20/20, or so I thought, and I began deconstructing my testimony as best I could based on my reattribution of spiritual things to less than divine causes.
It was only after a close brush with death a several months ago that I realized the cause of my fall had been unrepented sin. Somewhere along the way I had decided that changing was impossible, so it was repressed by fear and a number of other emotions. I repressed it enough that when I began reinterpreting my beliefs I honestly didn’t even factor in my own unrighteousness.
Sometimes I think you have to take an absolutely honest, 100% bias-free, sincere look at yourself in order to get to the root of a problem. I thought I had searched my soul. But when you’re looking death in the face, you tend to look at things differently than before. Sometimes it’s like my mother’s cataract operation- she never realized how horrible her sight was until those were removed. It’s amazing the baggage you shed when faced with death. It was in that position that I realized my problem and fixed it.
I’m not out of the woods yet as far as health goes, but I cannot tell you how liberated I feel now that I have rediscovered my testimony. I can only pray that those of you who have left or are sitting on the fence can find your own route back. I abhored the confusion, frustration, fear of my unofficial apostasy. May you find peace- and may you find it by more pleasant means than I did.
Sometimes people go inactive for reasons utterly unrelated to theology and testimony. My stepfather has been a pretty consistent believer in all aspects of Mormon theology for something close to 35 years (I know he was baptized when he was at Basic Training — I think that was in 1969, but I’m not quite certain) but he’s spent at least 20 of those completely inactive, and hasn’t gone to church more than half a dozen times in the last two years. Why? Because it was easy not to go, or there was something else that needed doing, or there were pressures from third parties (one of whom hadn’t participated in any meeting except as a piano player in two years, and had started hating going to church, completely,) and so forth. There was a period, between the time that I was about 11 and the time my younger sister turned 8 (a total of something like 4 years) where we never went to church at all, but we prayed, watched the Living Scriptures videos, and read the scriptures.
When my sister wanted to get baptized, we became fully active again — in a matter of months we went from not even being on the proper ward’s rolls to me being in Seminary, her getting baptized, and my parents holding callings again. Then we moved to Ohio and found ourselves in a branch where we were needed but not suffocated or overburdened, and it all worked fine. My parents have been sort-of inactive for the last three years (they get visit/home taught regularly, and my mom works in the Family History Center, but don’t attend church much) because she was attending law school on the weekends out of state and he works out of state as a consultant, but they came to church almost every week that they’re in town. You could even call me less-active, since I don’t attend Institute and consider all non-Sunday meetings optional — but I’ve missed fewer Sundays than any other teacher in Primary, despite taking 7 weeks off to line up for Star Wars in Hollywood last year. My sister doesn’t care about Personal Progress and refuses to go to Girls’ Camp or EFY or Youth Conference (we’re trying to change her mind for this last one) but she’s read her scriptures every day for 870 days straight and shows up to Seminary 10 minutes early every day.
Anyway, “active” and “inactive” and “less active” and even “nonmember” are bureaucratic terms; I think they have only a limited bearing on what we can say regarding a particular person’s testimony.
This is a great discussion and an important one. Thanks for introducing it. I had a few thoughts.
A week after I joined the church, after having what was for me a unique and first ever unexpected, unwanted spiritual experience, two close and respected friends invited me to bow out.
One was a guy my age whose father was a Baptist Minister. He encouraged me to talk to his Dad about the LDS church. He said there were some things about the LDS church that I needed to know. Prior to joining the church I was an atheist and I fully recognized the sadness of “knowing†there was no God and no afterlife. It was such a stunning experience to become a believer almost overnight (- 2 weeks from first contact to belief-4 more weeks to baptism) I just felt that now was not the time to challenge my new found belief. The happiness I felt was simply empowering.
The second friend was a girl, a smart one, who challenged me to show her any rationale for believing in the existence of a God other than the scriptures. I thought on this for a night and my answer, was for me, quite remarkable.
Briefly it was this. The odds of The Big Bang (and whatever came before the Big Bang) evolving into human life were enormous BUT according to her (and previously me) possible. Therefore, I reasoned thusly. Assuming there was no God then I held that the odds of our race solving the problems of aging and death and thus becoming immortal were huge but considerably less that her Big Bang Odds. Ergo, we would become, for all intents and purposes, Gods.
We would construct a constitution, call it CHARITY, in order to avoid violence and promote harmony and thereby perpetuate the race and we would enact tests for those who chose to live by the constitution. In a word we would have all the teachings and doctrines found in the Restored Church. The last part of this bit of reasoning is that if the odds of becoming Gods will happen in some distance eternity then there is a great likelihood that it has already happened and we are now here on earth being tested.
One point that has figured greatly in my philosophy of life is the idea of agency. It seems clear that any kind of eternal life without agency would be hell. Any kind of testing during earth life must entail a certain degree of agency. Therefore, our religious life must be so ordered so that this agency is not impinged upon.
Too often we have been raised and taught in the church, maybe not by design, that because God is behind the church and our prophets receive constant revelation that everything in the past must be unimpeachable and understandable. However, there are good reasons for God not to reveal everything for the moment. Recall the Lord saying to Emma, who wanted to see the plates, “Murmur not because of the things which thou hast not seen for they are withheld from thee and from the world, which is wisdom in me in a time to come. D&C 25:4. It is not just to test our faith that these things are held back but to foster our agency.
Satan would have curtailed our agency and we almost always think that he would have done so by some physical restraint on our actions but in reality he, or God, could have done it by presenting so much positive evidence, in effect removing the veil, that we would have been just as constrained to do right as if either had forced us to do so.
Terryl Givens gave an excellent talk on this subject at a recent BYU Devotional It can be found at LDS. Org and looking under “Speeches” BYU Devotional Terryl Givens “Lightning from Heaven” OR just go and google it on the net.
When I “count my blessings†11 active kids, all happy and educated and married (8 of them so far) to great guys and gals raising incredible grandchildren (30) I have no doubt about the rightness of my decision to stick with the church.
My game plan is to daily reinforce my testimony by exposing myself to those things that bolster my beliefs.
My bottom line is this:
- if there is a God then he is with this church.
- If there is a God and he is not of this church we will find him.
- If there is a God and he is against this church He will convert
- AND if there is no God we will, of this race generate Gods and we will adopt the doctrines and principals of this church with refinements.
I am now 63. I had a good friend leave the church recently. My comment to him was, at the very least, he was the biggest gambler I had ever known.
Dennis
Clark,
That’s too bad. I was almost hoping that it was about me. (I’m joking but not lying. ;-))
The experiences which I mention are not simple cases of the “warm-fuzzies.” Emotion without some form of intellectual content is complete trash when it comes to questions of truth in my opinion. The experiences which I mention are moments of what most would call insight or inspiration; what Joseph called sudden strokes of ideas which seemed to originate from outside of me. When these things happen in my mind and new ideas just start cranking out, I really do feel excited and good. The problem is that it didn’t take too long to notice that lot’s of these ideas were flat out wrong, even though I accepted them for some time. Furthermore, I experienced these same sensations in my path toward agnosticism. These things simply seem to mean that this is not at all a good or reliable path to truth.
I should also mention that I feel really, really sorry for those people in this thread that have experienced such horrible things in the church. I know that the church and its members mean well, but experiences somewhat similar to the ones related are still all too fresh in my mind. If anything such experiences make me want to never be associated with many of the, what I take to be, offenders ever again even if I did end up forgiving them. I know this isn’t really what this post is supposed to be about, but I do want all bloggernaclers to know that it gives me great comfort to know that there are lots of members out there you aren’t completely crazy.
It would be nice if someone can answer this for me. We claim the Church to be the only true church in the world. Okay, I have believed that since I was twelve years old.
For the last five years or so, I have been trying to come to grips with what I see as a contradiction to the claim. It seems to me that the Church tries to live something more along the lines of the law of Moses than any kind of New Covenant. We teach that a person must keep the commandments and that we are saved by grace, only after we have done all we can do. And that grace only saves one as far as resurrection being guaranteed. But Exultation must be earned.
I am sorry, but I find this kind of teaching to be at best flawed, and at worst, false doctrine. Keep in mind, we are the only true church.
I have seen that some members of the Church have figured out, that the above teaching is not correct. Stephen Robinson, Robert Millet, and Blake Ostler all have stated that 2Nephi 25:23 is misinterpreted, therefore, the “after all we can do” concept of grace that we are taught in the Church is incorrect. But yet, the leaders of the Church still continue to teach, what appears to be false doctrine. Why?
I have come to this conclusion during the last few years. We are not here to learn how to keep the commandments, because no one does, nor can. So it seems to me, that we are here to learn how to love one another, and how to forgive one another, because it would be impossible to live in heaven without such love. Of course the corollary to this, is that we would be doing our best to keep the commandments out of love and repenting when we fail to do so. That seems like a much better way of doing things to me.
The tension I feel because of all of this is pushing me out of the Church. I am trying to hold on, but every year it becomes more and more difficult.
CEF said: “And that grace only saves one as far as resurrection being guaranteed. But Exultation must be earned.”
I am not sure why I am bothering to defend the Church here, but what you said above is not the doctrine of the Church. Mormons believe that Exaltation is a gift from God that we qualify for, not earn. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We can’t earn it. It is only available through the atonement of Christ. We qualify for the gift through entering into and keeping covenants whereby we take advantage of God’s grace.
I don’t believe that anymore, but what you said was not accurate.
Fantastic thread, it has really brought everyone to a confessional perhaps for one of the first times in their lives. Not that I really want to know the details of the problems that people face with testimonies, but it is interesting to note that there are many people on the verge of leaving the church or have left that have a “good understanding” of doctrines of the gospel. It really goes to show how differing our levels of progression and understanding really are. It also goes to show that perhaps a challenge we will face in this life is our testimony (1Ne14:7).
Sure there are the obvious reasons for leaving the church such as sin/transgression, but perhaps the less obvious one is ‘choice’. Anyone that leaves the church for reasons other than sin, usually does so of their own free will and choice and not because of the lack of realities of the doctrines or the apathy that creeps in because they only bring you to the brink of ‘choice’ because in the end we must still make that ‘choice’. The choice really is plain and simple, ‘Should I stay or should I go?’ Nobody or thing ever makes us leave anything except for our choices. What is really annoying about all of this ‘inactive’ banter is that there always seems be a reason/crutch for leaving the church, but in the end it was the person’s choice and they must in some way be accountable for that in their mortal and eternal lives.
It is such a blessing when I hear this sort of thing that we have been left to choose our way in this life by faith and not actually knowing God because what would happen if we actually knew God instead of only being required to exercise faith in him? In the end perhaps this why, Clark, people deny and walk away because if they actually thought about God in the context that the church teaches, how could they choose other than to stay in the church if they want what the church calls eternal life?!?!? It becomes nothing more than a self-rationalization of truth and they do nothing more than choose! I am good with all this leaving the church and in fact I condone it if you can actually be happy knowing you chose in the end because you have probably found your kingdom of happiness, but I cannot support it if someone tries to rationalize it through something or someone else and not take accountability for that simple choice!!
I am sorry enochville, but what I said is indeed very true. If it were not, I would not feel so much tension in my life.
About four years ago, Elder Nelson of the Twelve spoke at our stake conference and taught that exaltation must be “earned.” Our SP teaches the same thing all the time. You can also find such a teaching in the Ensigns.
“Stephen Robinson, Robert Millet, and Blake Ostler all have stated that 2Nephi 25:23 is misinterpreted, therefore, the “after all we can do” concept of grace that we are taught in the Church is incorrect. But yet, the leaders of the Church still continue to teach, what appears to be false doctrine. Why?”
Perhaps Robinson, Millet, and Ostler are wrong and hence the leaders still continue to teach truth. What makes these men the authority figures on interpretation of the Book of Mormon?
I don’t doubt that we have to earn it, or qualify for it. It’s all the same to me. It’s not the sum of our good and bad deeds we do in life and hope that our good outway the bad. Rather it is what we become. God can give us mansions galore, but he cannot give us his character. My dad can give me everything he has in his earthly possesions, but he cannot give me the experience that he has had and the learning that he has done through his lifetime.
If, as mormon theology goes, we are trying to be exalted and become Gods (one of many definitions of exaltation, I’m sure) then by grace alone we will not and cannot get there. We have to become as he is by learning and using those things in our life that God has taught us.
Now if you are talking about achieving the celestial kingdom, I will bet there will be a lot of people that will use a lot of grace to get in there, with the hope of achieving a higher exalted purpose to our existence.
2Ne 25:23 isn’t talking about exaltation, but salvation from sin and death which does indeed come by grace.
Let’s not get confused here.
When I was less active post mission, it had very little to do with testimony or lack thereof. I became sexually active while a single endowed elder, and there’s just no place in the church for someone like that. During that time, I always knew where a belonged, but there was no way I was even going to contemplate going back until marriage. I was even open with home teachers about it to get rid of them. When I did come back (dragged in by my wife-to-be to confess and ask the bishop to marry us), the folks at my church court said words to the effect I had self excommunicated. They were 100% correct.
BTW, the PC term is “less activeâ€.
I think this thread indicates the diversity and complexity of our individual reasons for staying and for leaving. The term “testmiony” itself is pretty broad and multifarious, and we use it to cover a lot of ground. Testimonies are as individual as we are.
Although this is a little off the topic of your original post, Clark, one thing I’d like to see put to rest (not that anyone’s proposed it here, as far as I can tell) is the old canard that people who question, doubt, or leave are inevitably rationalizing and concealing their sins. In some cases, this is undoubtedly true, and it’s probably equally true that intellectual problems can’t be addressed very meaningfully until serious sins are resolved. But coming from a family with a wide range of beliefs, activity levels, and relations to the church, I’ve been blown away by some comments that have been made to my family members. During one period of inactivity, one of my sister was asked by her home teacher if she had a Word of Wisdom problem (evidently the only reason he could conceive for inactivity!). On the contrary, she lived the Word of Wisdom so strictly that she didn’t even have Coke in her apartment. Another of my sisters has been subject to intermittent attempts to ferret out her sins–her “real issues” because no one seems to believe they are what she says they are. As a church and a culture, let’s stop this kind of thinking and make more of an effort to understand where people are coming from and take them at their word about what they say their problems are, until we have reason not to. The pseudo-Freudian subterrenean investigations are insulting and condescending (suggesting that some random church member knows more than you do about what your concerns are!) and do way more harm than good.
Dennis McKay, in a sense I’m a believer in that possibility you ennumerated last. (With the caveat that all socio-religious systems try to effect altruistic harmony among humankind and in this sense are true, if ya can follow me on this.)
And Bookslinger, thanks for your mentioning my likewise experiencing a “schiz inducing double-bind” (and I’d coincidentally heard of this term from “psycho-cyberneticist” (et cetera) Gregory Bateson in 1975(/76?) but didn’t actually experience this phenomenon myself until 1977-83 which resulted in my “going completely inactive” (that is, leaving the church).
I’d believed. But like Kierkegaard I knew my belief must entail a leap of faith and had decided I must receive a Calvinist-like witness. Thus I never partook of the sacrament from the ages of 16 or 17 until I turned 21. At 21 I was called on a mission. I’d told my bish I was hoping to study and receive this witness but he’d said one finds out by following — and this is what the general authority at the old Missionary Home in Salt Lake City said, too.
So as a proverbial “beta test of the Church’s software” I’d determined to follow. Perfectly.
And my mish pres perhaps assigned me to my first companion after I’d mentioned to the pres when I’d first come in something adulatory about Paul H. Dunn, whom my first comp happened to love (as maybe that’s how the inspiration of assignmnets often works). But elder S_____ only liked Dunn, other than that thought everything having to do with following mission rules a lot of “HOO-rah,” and just lied everything — and I mean everything.
There was something rotten in the state of Denmark. And my mish pres ended up several times severely rebuking me ‘caus I inwardly was brooding about this caused my mish pres to severely rebuke me (and not bacause of any actual disobedience on my part!) — but rather because of my tone and countenance.
So my Bateson-esque “double bind” was that I then tried to cover up my brooding and try to believe that it didn’t matter whether one lied or not. But what kind of idealistic notion of a true form of altruism is that? So I resolved this double bind by leaving the church. So now I’m still philosophically some kind of existentialist but (unlike the father of existentialism Kierkegaard,who was a believer) I’m one not possessing any specific type of religious faith. (Sorry this post’s so long though, guys! Smiles.)
CEF,
I would really sit down and think about what it means for a church to be true. What is a church? If we are simply talking about an organization of people, how can such be true? Are the Sacramento Kings the only true basketball team? This simply makes no sense.
If truth is to have meaning in this context it would seem to suggest that there are propositions which are either true or false. Perhaps one could define the church as the only church with true doctrine. This too, however, is problematic, for truth in this matter isn’t an all or nothing affair; and we certainly aren’t “all true” in our beliefs as a church. Not by a long shot.
Maybe we could say that it is the only authorized church. I guess that’s the best way to establish exclusivity, but truth doesn’t really seem to play much of a part here. Nevertheless, such a view allows for all the errors and injustices which so many people see in the church. There is that saying that the church is perfect, but it’s members aren’t. This is garbage, for the simply fact that the church IS it’s members; there is not such thing as a church without any members in it. Thus the church isn’t perfect. It isn’t “true.” But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t authorized by God.
Sorry for not editing.
KLH,
My bishop told me a similar line about having to work until you know. This sounds suspiciously similar to “fake it ’til you make it”. Additionally, this strategy can and has been used to get people to go along with pretty much any movement.
I also think that it largely misses the point I was trying to make to him: I am not willing to give up my entire known existence in the cause of something which seems to be so unjustified evidentially speaking. Me working hard for the rest of my life in order to find the necessary evidence is simply side-stepping the issue, not to mention getting the cart before the horse. My point was that I have been a very faithful and hard-working member for 25 years. I have prayed long and hard and have read the BoM through about 30 times. It’s time I got something other than the vague insights which I described in 34.
Yes, Anonymoose, it is a choice. But it is not rationalizing any more than staying in the church is rationalizing. If, after years of study, prayer and service everything within screams “it is not true”, then am I rationalizing when I stay or when I leave? I have stayed, and probably always will, but I feel like I am rationalizing by doing so. God knows where to find me. He seems uninterested. So far, I see very little evidence that he wants me to stay.
Related to Anonymoose’s choice, when I came out to my wife saying that I didn’t really believe anymore, her response was to blame herself in some way. “If I had only helped steer you away from philosophy” and all that. My reply probably wasn’t the one she was looking for. I told her that I took great offense to her wanting to take the credit for the decision which I was making. I felt that I was making the correct decision and I wanted to take full responsibility for it. This isn’t to say that I rejoiced in my decision however.
Dennis McKay(… & perhaps re Terryl Givens’ take on Satan’s plan of “enforcing” compliance?):
Any “worldly” prince relies on compliance — and this absent full knowledge (absent omniscience), having faith in other mere humans’ status of authority. Yet without there being some mechanism of human authority there is only anarchy.
Thus, my personal belief is this. Everytime any human being whomever says, “Follow me” he or she is effecting Satan’s plan — how bout that!
Yet my rejoinder to this is “clause B”: For this world to accomplish anything whatsoever requires some intrepid idividuals to do just that!
* * *
So how this works in practice is — Bush invades Iraq I basically give him the benefit of the doubt in this while I still I carp and complain and criticize without feeling disrespectful or irresponsible for my doing so. If in another generation Bush’s actions are looked back upon as having been instrumental of some paradigm shift in “Arab nationalist” lands (just as Napolean’s once were in lands of Imperialist monarchies), then maybe he can receive kudos should anything worthwile have developed from his jingoism.
Still I believe jingoism — and any exertions of human force — to be something that must prove its merits and not as things that must be thought to be right merely due to the tribalist mentality of “We’re right and you’re wrong.”
If anyone ‘kin follow my thinking here. Uh OK let me try again.
There are in any tribe war chiefs and prophets of peace. The peace prophets are of God, of course — except some people some will claim them to be of the devil in cases where the people seem to be faced some some enemy that seems truly pernicious. And although the war chiefs basically say that it’s they who should automatically be assumed to be of God, in reality they’re just as likely to be of the devil; and in fact any means of force they employ must be justified by whatever good ends they’ve obtained. And I extend this priciple to any and all examples of human cooperation, leadership, and authority of any type.
Therefore: Long live democracy! And yet let’s be sure to educate the stupid masses to agree with “us who are more enlightened”! lol.)
Lost (#48), I tried to be careful to exclude examples like this. I don’t think we need say everyone can easily obtain a testimony (for whatever reason). I think D&C 46 requires this. The question is more when someone has had a significant, content-filled experience and deny it.
Jeff (#49), it’s unfortunate people say things like that since from what I can see philosophy has next to nothing to really say to the issue that could decide the issue. Typically the things philosophy does debate are those things that don’t have obvious and easy answers. I’ve noticed some people who see thinkers leave the church blame inquiry for it. Which is silly considering how many thoughtful and learned people have strong testimonies.
Jeff (#47) I’m actually a big fan of the fake it until you make it. Mainly because I think our culture is too into immediate gratification. We are an impatient people who rarely are willing to inquire long enough to give things a fair chance. I recognize that this idea can (and sometimes is) abused. But at the same time, I know tons of people who only gained their testimony on their mission. It seems unfair to condemn this whole idea considering how successful it is for many. Having said that though clearly the Church is more picky about letting people on missions now than they were when I went in the late 80’s.
Kimball (#50) I think saying anyone saying “follow me” is being Satanic is simply wrong. We have to do this sometimes. Now this does mean we have to make a risk. We might be wrong. What I see you espousing is the abrogation of that kind of collective responsibility. I understand the thinking. It’s one reason why our culture has such strong libertarian tendencies. It means we don’t need be responsible for anyone but ourselves. But it seems to me that, from a gospel point of view, that is itself a kind of selfishness.
Sometimes we simply have to make a decision that is a collective decision. To argue there is only anarchy is, I think, just wrong.
But perhaps I’m misreading you.
Clark, my thinking really should be dressed up in enough proper philosophical language to be considered dressed up enough to go out! lol. But (for me to at least put on my best overalls here!) let me say I think every question rides on the cusp of an interplay of opposites: a dichotomy or duality, the most primal one of which is chaos and order.
Humans being what they are, imperfect, any order relying on human authority’s gotta be imperfect, gotta partake of both good and evil; but the ultimate test of whether any collective action is one or the other is its end results. (By their fruits ye will know them.)
E.g.: Although I personally believe in almost unlimited negotiations before resulting to warfare. Nonetheless, practical considerations always make our being prepared for the possibility of our using force in some contingencies necessary — and indeed at some point or another, with our limited abilities to effect reasonable results more peacefully, we may unfortuately “have” to resorted to warfare.
And the above is just talking about category ( i. ) conflict between two parties. But even with regard to category ( ii. ) our own interaction with the greater culture or even category ( iii. ) our own interaction with our own thoughts, after less than unlimited collecting of data and knowledge and then reasoning and thinking we have to make some decision. And these decisions we make will also be “imperfect” by definition.
So to some of us it is given to be decisive: as ( i a. ) re war chiefs within actions of armed conflict AMONG societies, ( ii a. ) or else re political advocates agitating WITHIN a society, ( iii a. ) or even re an individual coming to any kind of PERSONAL decision in her own life; while to others it is given to be reflective: as ( i b. ) re those who question war chiefs’ decisions, ( ii b. ) or else re those who question the positions of authoritative positions within society, ( iii b. ) or even re those who eternally question their own decisions and even thoughts.
And so which category above is ALWAYS on God’s side? Answer: None; they are all human. However, the interplay and the dynamic itself brings about the possibility of the best results. And parties, depending on their purposes and intended audiences take varied approaches of perception and communication so that the propogandist exaggerates, the spy misinforms, or the analyst carefully analyzes data.
The book of Ecclesiates says that an enless examination of good versus evil and of any and all dualities producing no sure knowledge, yet it says in the end we are to follow what we know to be right and to do our duty anyway. So then the ultimate question this advice begs is, What is what we know to be right and what is our duty?
Well, no man can judge another’s duties perfectly, can they!
Still, I believe it my own duty to think about things and question them and to be for most parts an anarchist who nonetheless is willing to forstall any final judgements of things to history or else to God. Yet I fully accept that others’ may and will take other positions than mine . . . as indeed they must!
Nathan- What I have read and studied about grace, leads me to believe that Robinson, Millet and Ostler have it correct, and the leaders of the Church do not. Obviously, they and I could all be wrong, but in five years of study, I have not found it to be so, and I have tried very hard to make a square peg fit into a round hole.
Ben- I don’t believe I am confused at all. Everyone is crazy but me.
Jeff G- I have thought a lot about just how the Church could be the true church and not have everything correct. Actually, that is exactly the way I think it would be. However, there are some core points of doctrine that a christian church should have, at least fairly close. I feel that ours has missed the boat on this one. Too many members of the Church are trying to work their way to heaven because of a misunderstanding of 2Nephi 25:23. It is not complicated at all. Yet, our leaders continue to pound it into the members, that we are not doing enough. The question is, when has one done “all you can?” Answer, you can always do more. So it would seem that members of our church go thorough their entire life without any grace, and yet it is grace that saves us.
So I am left with a puzzle that no matter how hard I try, it will not fit together. I ask myself, knowing what I know now, would I join the Church today if I were not a member and I was introduced to the LDS church. I honestly don’t know. And that of course bothers me.
I have been trying to give an answer to Clark’s question. I have a decent knowledge of the gospel, not great, just decent. I served a mission, held many positions in the Church and have had a few very spiritual experiences that have keep me in the Church all of these years.
I don’t know if I would call it deconstructing the experiences I have had, to try and ease the tension I feel, but I most certainly wrestle with the what seems to be things that do not add up to what I believe should be true.
For instance, if Joseph Smith did not receive the BOM the way he said he did, where did it come from? My answer- I seriously doubt that he could have written it on his own, it seems much too complicated for that to be true. How do I explain the experiences I have had in my life. This is much more complicated than the above. This is where the rubber meets the road.
The Lord has been kind to me and has shown that He has an interest in my well-being. Part of that has been to lead me into the Church, I have learned a lot and believe I am a better person for being in the Church. But I have come to believe that a person must find his/her own way in the world, and that the Lord will hold us accountable for what we discover to be true in our lives. Grace is something that I am not willing to give-up, it has been the one thing that literally caused a mighty change of heart in my life. I am a much more, kinder person, that I thought I could ever be. How could I give that up?
Yet, to be active in the Church, I would have to do so. My beliefs don’t conform with the Church any more. And, I crave christian fellowship. So yes, I am torn, how do I fix this problem? I am afraid that there will come a point in time that I will have to stop going to our church, if for no other reason, to maintain my sanity. I only hope the Church changes it’s position before I feel forced to make such a decision. And no, I don’t think that will happen.
To me, there are three levels of belief/faith/testimony.
1. I think it’s true.
2. I believe it’s true.
3. I know it’s true.
Between each level there is a grey area. The boundaries are not sharp. But there is a large enough area within each category, that if you are in the center of a level, you can be confident that you’re in that level.
1. To “think” it’s true, is opinion without committment. In the strictest definition of faith, this really isn’t faith because it has no committment. The next lower step “I _think_ it _might_ be true” is doubly iffy, or doubly unsure, as anything less than “I think” is merely a suspicion, and doesn’t rise to the level of faith.
In a loose definition of faith, “I think” would be inactive or dormant faith.
Some people use the word “think” instead of “believe” because they are too timid to take a stand. But if they are committed to acting on their belief, they should self-identify at the next level, and avoid using the phrase “I think.”
2. “I believe it’s true.” This is a testimony in the broad definition of testimony. This is based on some kind of internal spiritual evidence. At this level “belief” denotes committment. I’ve been told that the Greek word translated as “believe” in the New Testament (as when used by the Savior) denotes or at least has the connotation of acting upon or having a committment based upon that belief.
In the strict definition of faith, this level is then faith, because it is belief in action.
3. “I know it’s true.” This does not have to come from personal visits by angels or the Savior. This can come from knowledge transfered to us by the Holy Ghost.
In the strict definition of faith, this is NOT faith, because you KNOW. It’s been proven to you, even though the proof is totally internal and subjective.
In the strict definition of testimony, this is testimony, a known fact.
Page 38 of Gospel Principles described this kind of “knowing” born of the Holy Ghost that transcends evidence seen by the eye or heard by the ear. President Joseph Fielding Smith said “It is Spirit speaking to spirit, and it comes with convincing force. A manifestation of an angel, or even the Son of God himself, would impress the eye and mind, and eventually become dimmed, but the impressions of the Holy Ghost sink deeper into the soul and are more difficult to erase.” (Answer to Gospel Question, 2:151. And Gospel Principles page 38, ed. of 1997.)
———
I often feel unworthy to say it, because I have not always lived up to this knowledge that I’ve been given. But to be honest, I’m at #3, I know.
1. I know there is a God. I know he loves us, his children.
2. I know there is a Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who made an Atonement.
3. I know Joseph Smith was a prophet who saw God and Jesus Christ as a boy.
4. I know the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be.
Most of my other beliefs/testimonies about the Church and restored gospel are basically derivatives or logical deductions from the above 4 testimonies. As I live or act upon my beliefs of the derivative principles, further evidence is experienced which firms up, or solidifies the faith in that principle into a testimony of that principle, like soft clay baking into a brick.
I know the above 4 things by the power and effects of the Holy Ghost. I have felt him, and I have heard him, not as one hears the voice of a man, but as a spiritual voice. He has transfered the knowledge of those things into me. He has communicated with me in some mysterious, divine and unexplainable way, but it was also in a plainly obvious and undeniable way. And he has literally touched me Spirit to spirit; not just an “influence” as on many occasions, but on at least one occasion, it was a literal contact. And I testify that descriptions of that holy contact are in the Bible, and are more plainly described in the Book of Mormon, and are described to a “T” and completely nailed down in the book “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.”
My experiences are denied by all but a fraction of modern mainstream Christianity, even though they are described in the Bible. And imagine my awe and wonder reading, after the fact, descriptions of those experiences in the Book of Mormon. And imagine my further awe and wonder upon reading the teachings of Joseph Smith describing in the first person some things which I experienced.
Having once had that intimate divine contact with the Holy Ghost, his voice and “influence” are now recognizable as long as I’m doing my part to keep the channel open and clear. He is always there, but I often don’t listen. And I often allow the static of sin to obscure the channel.
I testify from my experience that page 38 of Gospel Principles is true. Once you’ve had that, you realize that you don’t need a visit from an angel or the Lord to fully know. Once you’ve had that, you can honestly and literally say “I know.” And from that point on, saying just “I believe” may be true, but it’s not the whole truth.
I further testify from sad experience that if you hide, ignore or try to bury that fire-like testimony, you will be a miserable wretch. And I testify from glorious experience that if you feed that testimony, and let that fire spread to all aspects of your life, and share that fire with others, you grow closer to the Divine.
re: 53
CEF, Have you investigated The Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) ?
I think they might be able to help you a lot.
You don’t have to be a member of the Utah-based Church to have a powerful experience of Jesus Christ and participate in the experience of the Restoration.
Bookslinger, thanks for your #54, a real patch of light in this otherwise increasingly dark thread. Your experience is similar to mine. Peace, brother.
CEF (#53), I would definitely hope that you stay always active in the church, but probably more important to maintain your sanity and make that choice! If you crave Christian fellowship, then perhaps the best suggestion that could come out of all of this is to talk directly with God himself and see what He thinks. I mean this next statement in the very best sense when I say, forget church for a moment and all of it’s meaning to you and talk with God about your life and what he would have you do in terms of His plans for you and then go from there and literally see what happens.
Geoff (#56), I am not sure if this is that dark as it illuminates the very essence of what we fail to do many times and that is to be honest with ourselves about the things that matter most and some people herein are doing that perhaps for the first time and good for them. God will not force them itno the kingdom even if they fake their way through life, just won’t happen as God will require honesty of the heart at judgement day and lying to ourselves about our beliefs and course we wish to choose is just not celestial!
Any experience is open to many interpretations. However, in my experience, certain classes of spiritual experience come with a fairly clearly discernible message, even if also typically those messages are themselves vague and open to interpretation. (Although not always) Can we reject them? Yes. Can we misunderstand them? Yes. I have numerous times. Sometimes in painful ways I still cringe over. But part of life is being willing to risk mistakes and go forward in an attempt to find out what works.
What I fear is that for many reasons (many outlined by various people above) we repress certain clear senses of our experiences. I remain convinced that the number one reason we do this is sin. When we sin the comprehension (and repetition) of spiritual experiences cease. We typically become like a little child and have to start our development over. Occasionally God will yell loud enough that even in this state we can hear. But I think things that aren’t constantly before us quickly get re-interpreted and forgotten. And when we don’t want to deal with them, that happens even quicker.
I just checked out Scriptures.byu.edu for 2Nephi25:23. When you brought it up above.
And in part because of a missionary split I had four or five years ago. We met a lady who was willing to talk about the gospel. She had an experience with a good friend back in Kansas who was Mormon who agreed to go with her to a Bible study class, as some non-denominational church or other, if she would take the missionary discussions. She claimed she was then nor now actively involved in any church–just a bible believing person, who wanted to see if the book of mormon could/should be added to her personal belief system. Her friend left the church, she claimed, because she discovered the power of grace taught in the New Testament. She agreed to let us come back, after I answered a particular question to her satisfaction. Her question: When upon your death you meet Christ, the judge of all what will you site for you plea to enter salvation and not hell. My answer was then, Matt 7:17-23. emphasizing 7:23.
I was unable to go back. A former Bishop, went with the missionaries and ended the conversation with her by using 25:23 the way we often do. As opposed to>>
Well in the scriptures.byu.edu. I learned a couple of remarkable facts.
1. 25:23 is cited much more often recently than in earlier times.
2. it is used more frequently to emphasize grace than to emphasize works and most frequently to talk about the interplay.
so perhaps, the Millett et al interpretation is really the up and coming one in our people’s understanding of that scripture and grace.
I have sometimes wondered if the intra-evangelical conversation whether works come because of grace or works come to get more grace might be useful to us Mormons. I think if we argued about the place of works after conversion as opposed to getting converted, it might do away with the fake it till you make it, works based salvation which I don’t think is justified by scripture ancient or modern.
Wow, eunuchville went apostate! I know I’m often remarking about the irony of “orthodoxy always leading to apostasyâ€, but his was very fast.
CEF,
Lighten-up and just accept that you’re an Evangelical Mormon as I have. Eunuchville is correct on one thing, I think your railing against a self salvation Utah-Idaho Mormon culture that promotes that crap, not the LDS church. Contrary to many of the comments above, General Conference talks pretty much seem to preach grace, as does the BofM when read in its entirety. Exaltation cannot be earned. It comes through the grace of Jesus alone who protects us such that the final judgment passes over his flock. One cannot face judgment and be exalted. Anyone promoting a teaching based on one scripture is usually spouting nonsense and probably belongs in a snake handling church. It’s like a mosaic: study one tile and you’re clueless; stand back and you’ll understand.
The $100,000 question is then how does one take advantage of grace? Is mere believing without obedience (or striving for righteousness) enough? What is the criteria the Lord uses to distinguish who gets graced and who doesn’t?
I believe the whole grace-versus-works or faith-versus-works debate is ill-framed.
As I understand LDS doctrine, it’s not an either/or. It’s a matter of grace _and_ obedience. Something we believe and/or do is the trigger that opens the door to Lord’s grace.
I believe the striving for progress in knowledge, righteousness and obedience is part of that key. And as others have pointed out, so is making and keeping covenants.
There’s a saying that whoever frames the debate wins. I think LDS need to stop accepting the faith-versus-works and grace-versus-works premises of those who oppose the restored gospel.
Clark: I agree that sin can dull our spiritual senses. However, I believe that the reason for this is not the sin per se, but our human tendency to rationalize in order to justify living the way we are living. I believe the real problem is not sin, but the desire to continue living in a way that is opposed to God.
It is pretty clear that God had no difficulty speaking to sinners such as Saul and Alma the Younger. Jesus also made it quite clear that he came precisely for the sinners–the whole need no physician. I have trouble believing that God would simply abandon a sinner who was pleading for some kind of a testimony on the basis that he was a sinner. If sin makes us impervious to the Spirit, then we are all doomed.
How do you respond to those good, faithful people who encounter the difficulties that you are quite familiar with, are not persuaded by the apologetic arguments in defense of the church and who plead with God for some kind of spiritual witness to bolster their flagging faith, and come away with nothing or even clear negative impressions? Those people are real. They cannot be dismissed as sinners or as rationalizers.
To everyone that has offered help, I thank you! Of all things in the Church to stumble across, I had to find grace. I believe it is the only thing that I am not willing to negotiate with. Anything else, I am willing to let alone until further light and knowledge is given.
For those really interested in grace, Ostler, in his new book, covers it in more depth and detail than I have ever seen in any LDS book. He has several chapters devoted to grace. He is one of the few members (that I know of) that can use the word grace repeatedly and not become uncomfortable with its use. Most members will use the words atonement or tender mercies, instead of grace. Of course, that only clouds the issue when talking to nonmembers. Not a really good thing to do, if you want to be a missionary church.
My greatest fear is that I will someday push the issue and end up in the same kind of boat that Margret (I forget her last name) got herself into. She was excommunicated.
I was looking for the following quote from the OT on http://scriptures.lds.org/
Eccl. 12: 13. “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.”
and searched for it by using the phrase “keep his commandments” and came up with a lot of other passages, too.
Look how often the keeping of the commandments was in the Old Testaments, not just the “ordinances” and the “sacrifices” of the Mosaic Law.
I often wonder at mainstream Christians, because sometimes it seems like they take the Atonement of Christ as a license to blow off the commandments. But they don’t. Because after the “faith-versus-works” argument is over, (or put on hold) they (the serious ones at least) readily teach and preach to each other to obey the Lord’s commandments.
Mainstream Christians teach quite clearly (but wrongfully, IMO) that “THE RULES CHANGED” at the Atonement. Their whole “faith-versus-works” paradigm is based on that. The “works” in the “faith-versus-works” paradigm of mainstream Christians is aligned with “Works of the Mosaic Law.”
Mainstream Christians wrongfully accuse us of having substituted new ‘works’ for the old “works of the [Mosaic] Law”.
But the apostle Paul distinguished between “works of the law” (ordinances and sacrifices) with “good works” (obedience to the “higher law”, service, charity, etc.). Paul preached against works of the law, empty works, and dead works. But he did not preach against “good works” as in the keeping of the commandments. Those who resort to Paul as justification of the false dichotomy in the “faith-versus-works” debate ignore his preachings for keeping the commandments of the Lord, and maintaining a righteous outward walk of good works, and obedience.
This illustrates the bait-and-switch tactic inherent in the “faith-versus-works” argument. Our (LDS) definition of “works” is obedience to (or at least striving our best to obey) the Lord’s commandments that are clearly laid out in the NT, and those from the OT that he reiterated in the four gospels. Their (the mainstream Christians) definition of “works” is akin to the outward ordinances of the Mosaic Law. The mainstream Christians have taken our emphasis on obedience and mischaracterized it as “works of the (Mosaic) law”.
Allowing the debate to be framed in terms of “works” then, is where we lose it. We need to re-frame it in terms of obedience, or at least striving our best for obedience, and not making excuses for intentially breaking commandments.
The Lord said plainly that to love him is to obey his commandments, John 14:15.
Are there or have their been LDS who have so focused on the keeping of the Lord’s commandments that they have given the impression that the application of the Atonement to pay for our sins is something that is “earned” and not a gift by grace? Perhaps.
But there is something about faith plus obedience (or the striving to obey) such that both seem to be required for the unlocking or the opening of that gift. There has to be more than mere lip service acknowledging the Savior.
This is shown in Matt. 7: 21, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”
There is clear evidence that entering into the kingdom of heaven is linked with doing the will of the Lord.
So to those who struggle with this, please don’t allow the framing of the question to become a stumbling block, along with the differing definitions.
The whole “people who lack a testimony must be sinners” critique is true, but only because of how sin is defined. If you’re happy with the status quo of your spiritual underpinnings, and thus are by definition not, per se, a “sinner,” why would you go through all the perterbations to one’s spiritual temperment that a crisis of faith entails? But doubt itself is a sort of sin: the one of not having faith.
People who are more executive types tend to be called to church positions due to this fact — because they’re action types who don’t get hung up on “little” details and instead focus on the “big” picture. Which is fine. But for thinkers and creative types who just love the subversive: by definition we stubbornly believe what we do that’s out of synch or eccentric or subversive is not really sin. Whereas with the “executionary” types: while he’ll bend the rules, he’ll also maintain appearance and abide by whatever necessary political expediencies to get the job at hand done.
So, while finessing the paradoxical is the robust man of action’s stock in trade, being unable to stomach ambiguities is the mark of, yes, those prideful of thought (whose hyper sensitive reactions might at least alert believers to certain problems in the manner of the proverbial sickliness of canaries in a coal mine?)
I have been coming back to read this thread for a few days, and it has been interesting to see the variety of opinions on the relationship of works to grace question, as well as on the live-it-to-know-it question, and several variations on the doubt vs. faith question.
Just when I had about decided that the overall tone was getting way too cynical and dark for me (and, frankly, not what I expected from Millennial *), Bookslinger wrote #54. I second Geoff B in saying “Your experience is similar to mine. Peace, brother.”
Re grace/works, I found a post by Naiah Earhart on the Atonement to be very powerful: “Exploiting the Atonement”
I just found a good essay that talks about the topic, Engaging in Denial, and self-deception.
http://www.arbinger.com/pubs/bookstore/a1001.pdf
Arbinger is a little bit like Covey, repackaging gospel principles for a secular audience.
re: 60
Can you elaborate more on what you mean by “Evangelical Mormon” ? The second half of your paragraph (starting with “Exaltation cannot be earned…”) sounds like standard Evangelical thinking translated into Mormon terms.
The question your comment raise is this: If you reject what’s unique about the LDS world view (and it IS very different from Evangelicalism, and always has been–vague conference talks or not), why bother? What reason could there be for a Restoration if the end result is no different from what broader Christendom believed all along?
Can a person be apostate and not even realize it?
I’d like to add some things to #64 that might enhance what Bookslinger has so well put into words:
Try also Ether 12:6, which is perhaps the best at stating that blessings/witnesses come mainly from working through the issues or by faith first and not the other way round. If you’re waiting in the ‘Get into heaven by belief only’ line, you are going to wait a very long time because the entrance fee to salvation is faith and the salvation opener is grace! Maybe that’s why Jesus stands at the door and knocks. Another scripture that goes well with this might be D&C63:8-9 that we really don’t need to seek for ’signs’ or ‘witnesses’ because God is not a liar and we do not need to prove him herewith, he has been there, done that, and saved us all if we do as Bookslinger says and as Matt7:21 says also, the will of the Lord or all that we can — do I sense a remote reference to 2Ne25:23, that everlasting message that we seem to have misinterpreted as has been wrongly stated herein.
I have always thought that even if the evangelicals and others are correct that it is not works that get us there but out belief in Christ in the end, that I am still going to do all in my power to be better daily for the simple reason that I will never regret trying to do this my entire life no matter what lies on the other side. I am willing to live this way because I am sure that there is more to this existence than the 70 years I will spend here. In my mind, it would be an incredible waste of time to just sit and believe when I could ‘become’ something useful and make myself accountable to myself for what I could have done in this life to make my next life that much better. Sure I am failing in some things, but my faith is increasing knowing that my life is in line with what will make me happy and sane and that has everything to do with this thing we call ‘church’, or the ‘gospel’, that make me happy, and that is the choice we all have to make, what is it that I need to do in my life to make myself happy, but knowing also that there are laws and principles that govern true happiness?
As I have said previously, if you honestly feel that leaving this thing we call ‘church’ is going to make you happy, then do it, don’t passive aggressively sit around and worry too much about it because you just cannot justify it in your mind because of principles that govern this ‘happiness’. However, if you do decide to leave the church don’t forget that there are consequences for your actions in spite of how true or false the principles upon which they are founded are true. That’s the accountability you have to live with and if you can manage that and can justify not having to go through D&C19:16-19, then you know what you need to do. However, I close this by saying, that I never want to see anyone leave this church, it is the source of true happiness at whatever cost, and that cost can be quite high even to require your life, but it is always worth the effort to be better daily no matter the belief system you find in this life! We are imperfect people living in a perfectly formulated experience that we supposedly agreed to participate in, but that is what I am sure about not what others may be sure about.
#68
Let me say up front that “doctrine†isn’t the essence of my faith in Jesus and I personally find most, if not all, ridged belief systems intellectually stifling. While my thoughts remain fluid, here’s where I’m at:
I don’t belief the essential truths of the protestant reformers are overturned with the restoration, but rather I believe the restoration adds to those truths. Just as the best missionaries add to existing faith rather than tear down what’s already there. Like our Evangelical friends, I believe we are saved by faith in Christ alone. I know this because when I have intentionally sinned, I have felt the heavy burden of the judgment, and when I have turned to Jesus, that burden was immediately lifted even though I didn’t deserve such mercy and grace. Our puny works couldn’t possibly contribute in any significant manner to such a grand gift. In the end, faith in Christ is faith that He will protect us from the final judgment and exalt us to permit return to the present of the Almighty G-d. In short, that He’ll be there for us in our time of greatest need. Just like the sacrificial blood over the door protected the ancient Israelites from G-d’s judgment of the death of the firstborn.
That said, good works follow true faith. To paraphrase a non-denominational preacher I heard once: a person who refuses baptism, for example, because it is a work, and therefore not needed for salvation, has a bad attitude, doesn’t know Jesus and isn’t saved. I’ll add that those who use grace as to justify intentional sinning don’t know Jesus. Moreover, the saved person can voluntarily walk away from grace and that is the only way the bond with Jesus can be broken; no outside force can pry one from Jesus.
In direct response to your question, many things come to mind:
Restoration of the prophetic/apostolic age and more knowledge being revealed as we are ready for it.
Better understanding (still not complete) of the plan of salvation. Redemption of the unsaved dead. We don’t meet up with G-d at death. Missionary opportunities continue between death and resurrection. Souls have up to the resurrection and final judgment to accept Christ’s redemption, etc.
Restoration of priesthood authority to comply with commandments such as baptism, clearly something the reformers couldn’t do on their own. Only heavenly intervention could accomplish the restoration.
Temples where higher learning is taught (temples of this type are definitely a sign of the true church).
Additional witnesses, such as the BofM, adding more tiles to the mosaic for greater understanding.
One could go on and on.
In short, one can be an Evangeli