The following was written in the late 19th century by a young man familiar with the two Mormon churches: The Utah LDS Church and the Midwest Reorganized LDS Church founded by Joseph Smith III: “’Except you believe, ye shall be damned’ is the first proposition in the church.’ … In art, in science, in every department of life, intelligence is never required to give credence to or act upon any proposition unless it is capable of demonstration, actual demonstration, or it is based upon apparrent (sic) fact, apparent even though their causes and mode be hidden. But in religion another basis is acted upon and we are expected to believe and stake our salvation upon this belief. … The seeker for salvation must first believe and the vital object, salvation or damnation, hangs thereon. This is absurd.”
The author was David Hyrum Smith, the youngest son of the slain LDS prophet, Joseph Smith. Born after his father had been murdered, David was cossetted by his family and lived the life of a writer, artist and missionary. The young father — in his 20s — had returned to a mission to Utah after several requests. Reorganized church prophet, Joseph Smith III, who the letter was addressed to, must have regretted extending the call, writes Valerie Tippetts Avery, author of “From Mission to Madness: Last Son of the Mormon Prophet,” a fascinating biography of David Smith. To young David, already prone to instability, the mission call served to convince himself of something that tormented, that he had spent years angrily refuting — that his father had preached and practiced polygamy.
The knowledge, confirmed to David by former plural wives of his father, led to other doubts, expressed by David in these letters to his brother. In the following excerpt, David reasonably objects to the longstanding Christian doctrine that a loving father willfully leaves his children abandoned on earth. David was reflecting on his new fatherhood and the love for his son as he wrote: “I have a child, I keep myself obstinately hidden from him I make no revelation to him but in an obscure and very doubtful way the requirement of love and obedience comes to him, And death or life hangs in its acceptance. How very unjust if he be ignorant, prejudice guide him, if wise, then reason tells him, if I have a father he must come near me first, love me, and teach me to love him. … I do not argue the benefit of Faith and trust in God as a general application of moral principle but the attaching of salvation upon such ambiguous grounds is unjust.”
Writes Tippetts Avery, “Fatherhood had taught David to distrust the seemingly deliberate obscurity of God.”
Yet David Hyrum Smith took his newfound skepticism a step further, arguing against the dogma that man can only seek important further knowledge from a selected prophet. This doubt struck at a key doctrine of both churches. He wrote: “If faith unto salvation was an eternal principle and true, it could be discovered and demonstrated so as to be of general benefit as the law of gravitation or the rules of mathematics. But as it comes to us it makes us subservient to our falable (sic) fellow Man for eternal life, a most absurd proposition. But you again might speak God has revealed himself. But here again is an absurdity our fellow man brings us a revelation, and we are only guided by our faith in him. We do not know he has had this revelation and eternal salvation depends upon our faith in our fellow man and his revelation. Unjust and absurd.”
In his writings, David Smith further pointed out the inconsistency of ascribing belief based on one man’s claim of divine prophecy. For every Joseph Smith, he told his brother, there were Brigham Young, “Spiritualists” and Strangites” (an offshoot of Mormonism).
Young Smith’s ideas could be dismissed as heresy or apostasy by rigid believers. The proper term is doubt, though, which is a healthy expression, and a prerequisite toward a mature belief and hope. Any follower of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or any Christian religion, should acknowledge the inconsistencies demanded by Christian theology, which are:
• That belief is required without presentable evidence.
• That our father in heaven has deliberately abandoned us from palpable presence.
• And that for every claim of a Joseph Smith or a Thomas Monson, there are thousands of similar claims from prophets with hundreds of millions of adherents.
We cannot prove theology, and we should not try. Beliefs we hold may not affect others as we are affected. History exists which presents those we worship as servants of God as sinners of lust and power.
The mystery of belief, if it can be defined, is that to doubt is to believe. Doubt turns sand into a rock. To not doubt is to omit an ingredient for faith and hope.
More will be written about David Hyrum Smith. There is an irony to his letters. Mental illness overcame him and he spent the last half of his life institutionalized. A melodramatic person might see his fate as God’s punishment. While that supercilious jeering still exists, we should investigate the questions he shared with his brother. Failure to do so results in most churches having at best, a 20 percent activity rate.
Ahead of the Game
Behind the Zion Curtain
Bishop’s Counsel
Blogging the Rambler
Boxing, MMA News
Economics, etc.
Eye of Faith
In-A-Gadda-Da-Vegan
Inside the Ropes
Orrin’s Musings
Prep Sports Spotlight
Standard.Net Development
Standing Out
The Baseball Report
The Political Surf
Through My Lens
Why are you crying?
WSU Sports Blog
Great blog. It’s interesting that JS III points out the problem with Moroni’s challenge – that you have to first believe the proposition to be true before you even ask the question, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Faith precedes the miracle. You might suspect the Gospel is true, but you have to first live the Gospel to gain a testimony of it. Once you act on the assumption the Gospel is true, and start living it, you’ll be subsequently blessed with a testimony that it is true.
Rick, this was the very fallacy David Smith was criticizing. It’s a circular argument. You have to live the gospel to learn that it’s true. Yet what conceivable reason is there for someone to live the gospel if they don’t know it’s true? As David said, this is absurd.
Maybe I should live Catholicism to see if it’s true. Or Scientology. Or Satanism. Do I need to live every religious heritage on Earth to find the one that’s true? And if I don’t, I’ll be damned? It IS absurd!
P.S. I’ve lived the LDS gospel for over half a century, and the effect that had on me was to believe less and less as time went by, until I’ve come to the conclusion that the church is not what it claims to be. So your assertion is not true. You don’t necessarily learn the gospel is true by living it.
“I have a child, I keep myself obstinately hidden from him I make no revelation to him but in an obscure and very doubtful way the requirement of love and obedience comes to him, And death or life hangs in its acceptance.”
These are very interesting observations, and more so because they come from Joseph Smith’s son. I have always struggled to understand why as a principle we claim the right for all members endowed with the Holy Ghost following baptism, yet retain a hierarchy for managing the revelations. There are two problems here, one pointed out in the proceeding comments – that we are then burdened with the imposition of always having to extend our leaps of faith to not only God, but also to men. That is difficult proposition. Secondly, the need for a hierarchy on revelation implies that there will naturally arise disputes. These disputes will only be relevant if we require that others be held accountable for our revelations. If it is to be this way, a more clear and observable means for determining the validity of revelations would seem to be in order, above and beyond simple appeals to authority.
It is interesting to see that even Joseph Smith’s son was struggling to reconcile these considerations.
First of all, thanks to everyone for not slapping down some stupid anti-this or anti-that commentary, but for having a civil conversation. Second, I won’t be checking back to see any responses. Sorry, too much work to spend time chatting.
I see matters somewhat differently. I am an adult convert to the LDS Church after having fairly thoroughly investigated seven other Christian Churches and reading descriptions of a number of other world religions…written by authors from those world religions. I found good ideas and good people in all religions and am blessed to have GOOD friends in those religions.
As I came to “investigate” the LDS Church, I did NOT accept anything on blind faith, but used reason, past experiences, past and current revelations, questioning, testing, experimenting, “living,” etc. to validate my assumptions … and then my decisions. In some ways, it was like learning to “drive (a car)” spiritually. Kick the tires, check the engine, get behind the wheel, etc….learn the rules and learn to drive (spiritually).
The experimenting and deciding was much more empirical and methodical than what any other church or religion ever asked me to do.
My (now) years of being a member has not weakened, but actually strengthened my faith in the LDS doctrine despite my personal weaknesses, trials, stupid mistakes, slow maturing, etc. and despite those weaknesses EVERY soul in the LDS Church.
I actually see the LDS doctrine as matching most closely that which Christ and old testament prophets taught and also fully recognize and SEE that God does not withhold blessings from others of different faith … or even from the few atheists/agnostics I know.
There certainly are things that I wonder about in the LDS Church, particularly about “people,’ but the BASIC doctrines sit well with me and appear to be the most merciful doctrine out there . . . particularly when I consider, among many other doctinal pieces, the eternal destinies of those who were innocent and/or unaware of Christ and die(d) without knowing of or following Christ.
I could share much more, but I am headed back to work.
To one and all, I wish you a blessed day.
It’s regrettable that MM won’t check back, because I’d like to tell him how much I appreciate his testimony. It is much like mine. That is, I was raised as an evangelical, but decided as a young man that rationality and a requirement for evidence should lead me to become an atheist. Which it then did. Many years later, I found myself baptized a member of the Church. That’s been 10 years now.
Michael Martindale thinks that the concept of faith is absurd. No wonder his testimony has weakened. He’s making the mistake that I made years ago.
It’s easy to say that if you depend on spiritual confirmation, lots of other religions offer the same. But I think that this is not true – not in this sense: Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father … We can talk about non-Christian religions if we want, but within Christianity, there are powerful reasons to believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ’s Church.
Fortunately I do check back. Talk about distorting my words, LMA!
I find it fascinating that Mormons seem to think if a person doesn’t fully believe in LDS doctrine, that person must not have any faith. I am a firm believer in God, I am a Christian, I still embrace a number of concepts that LDS doctrine teaches. So where you got the idea that I think faith is absurd, I couldn’t say.
What I find absurd is people who put blind faith in men who claim to speak for God. David Smith, poor soul, saw the huge inconsistencies and contradictions and, on occasion, outright lies men who claim to speak for God perpetrate. It disturbed him to the point of mental imbalance.
I can relate to how he felt. I’ve been through it myself, discovering that so many things I was so sure were true turned out to be bogus.
But I’ve never lost my faith in God. Only in men who claim to speak for him. Putting faith in men is what the scriptures call “putting one’s faith in the arm of flesh,” and that’s considered a bad thing.
Our Heavenly Father is more forgiving, More Willing to
\Entreat\ his People, and more moderate in forgiving
our \short-comings\, on this Earthly probational
Second Estate.
\Out of the Bishops’ Closet\
[Bishop Anthony Feluz]
San Fransisco Press ltd.
There are a couple of misstatements of fact that are continually perpetuated because of a gap between the way Mormon’s live vs. the actual doctrine taught. I believe it is a misnomer to say you must live the religion before you can know it is true. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints centers their proselyting efforts on one basic act that if a person will try, the results will have a ripple effect on their understanding. The Church asks each individual to read the Book of Mormon with, “a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ.” Essentially we are all challenged to read the book with an open mind, free from preconceptions. As we read an invitation to “ask God the Eternal Father in the name of Christ is these are true.” If a person will follow those steps the promise is, “He will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost.” This request is considerably less of a commitment than being asked to live the tenets of the religion. If a person will approach the Book of Mormon in this manner and receives a response from God directly they will know the following:
1. The Book is truly of divine origin.
2. Joseph Smith had to be a Prophet of God.
3. God speaks directly to all men and women if they call upon him.
4. If God will answer you regarding the truthfulness of a book, what else is He willing to reveal to you if you ask?
5. Most importantly, you are not another face in the mass of humanity on earth in God’s eyes. He knows you enough to answer your inquiry directly.
The last misconception that is oft repeated because the Church has shifted culturally away from the doctrine Joseph Smith taught: Follow Christ, not man. The first point illustrated the principle of personal revelation. Why should that stop with an answer to a prayer about the Book of Mormon? There is a divine role for a Prophet but it was never intended to replace personal responsibility for seeking Christ individually. From the Documentary History of the Church we read: “President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel- said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish Church- that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls- applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints- said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall- that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy.” (DHC 5:19)
All too often the doctrines taught by Joseph are replaced by false traditions and misunderstandings that jeopardize everyone in and outside of the Church. There is plenty of blame to cover both sides of the aisle.
Scott, your point of view is sound from a true believer’s standpoint: the dotrine has always taught personal revelation and personal respinsibility for one’s spirituality and moral choices. Yet from the beginning, church leaders have had a pattern of contradicting this doctrine, demanding that the members follow THEM, and the Spirit only secondarily.
However, I must address your logical deductions from the Book of Mormon. What you said is the party line for the church:
Spiritual manifestation = Book of Mormon is true = Joseph Smith was a prophet = the current LDS president is a prophet = the LDS Church in the 21st century is true.
Unfortunately these supposed logical deductions are not valid. Anywhere along the chain of reasoning can break down.
Spiritual manifestation = Book of Mormon is true
But what does it mean to say the Book of Mormon is true? Does it mean it’s literal histopry, that there really were Nephites and Lamanites and Jaredites, and all that stuff really happened in history? Or could it mean that the concepts and doctrines in the book are true, but the history is not necessarily literal?
Book of Mormon is true = Joseph Smith was a prophet
If the Book of Mormon has inspired truths in it, then it’s reasonable to conclude that Joseph Smith was given a divine calling to produce it. But does it necessarily follow that Joseph Smith was called to be a prophet and establish a church that supposedly was a restoration of primitive Christianity? Or did Joseph Smith make grandiose assumptions from his calling about the Book of Mormon and struck out on his own to form a church? There are those who believe this is exactly what happened, and it’s a perfectly reasonable scenario to consider.
Joseph Smith was a prophet = the current LDS president is a prophet
There were those who considered Joseph Smith to be a fallen prophet. Some thought it happened almost immediately, some during the Nauvoo period, even Brigham Young thought Joseph fell during his last few days of life before Carthage. This could put the whole question of authorized successorship in jeopardy.
Even if Joseph didn’t fall, there was serious turmoil over who should succeed him. The “victors” (those that went with Brigham Young) have rewritten history (as victors will) to make Brigham Young as successor sound like a slam dunk, but it wasnt. There wre probably about half a dozen or so equally legitimate claims to succession as Brigham Young’s. Joseph simply dropped the ball on the succession issue and sent out unclear, conflicting messages on how succession should take place.
At Brigham Young’s death, a similar succession crisis occurred, and again the “victors” rewrote history to make it look like succession of the senior apostle was a slam dunk, But it wasn’t at the time.
Quite a few members thought the church apostatized around the turn of the century with the repudiation of a number of doctrines that thrived during the Brigham Young era. Splinter groups still believe that.
The church of today is radically different form the church of the 19th century. Is it “continual revelation” that made the changes, or apostasy? A reasonable argument can be made both ways.
We read in the Book of Mormon about a constant cycle of apostasy, restoration, spirituality, then apostasy again. We can see less definite but still similar patterns in the Bible. Why do we think we of today are immune from such cycles?
One or two quotes from presidents saying, “The Lord will never let the leaders lead the church astray,” but how do we know those statements were accurate? They came at a time witht he president had a vested interest in bolstering acceptance of somethign he was doing, and they’re certainly a self-serving thing to say about oneself when one is posturing as the mouthpiece of God. It’s reasonable to question whether such statements are valid inspiration from God or a self-serving effort to command obedence.
When I look at the church of today and compare it to the Pharisees of Christ’s time (who were obviously in a state of apostasy, considering Jesus’ reactiosn to them), I see the church leaders of today acting very similarly to the Pharisees of old. This is a red flag for some level of apostasy that cannot be lightly dismissed.
the current LDS president is a prophet = the LDS Church in the 21st century is true
This is probably the most valid link in the chain, but the chain has multiple places before it where the chain can logically break, so it becomes a rather irrelevant link. The simple fact is, there is no compelling link between “the Book of Mormon is true” and “the LDS Church of today is the true church.”
There’s a POSSIBLE chain of links that can lead ot that conclusion, but there are lots of places along the way where just as valid alternate deductions can be made that brak the chain. So things are just not as simple as Scott would like to make them out (and most other Mormons too). It takes a lot more than a single spiritual manifestation about the Book of Mormon to conclude all the rest of it is true.
The Savior apparently did not think it a false premise that one could know if something was from God by trying to live by those principles which purported to come from God. “Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” (John 7:16-17)
I have found in my own life that combining the Savior’s injunction to live by His teachings, including those revealed through Joseph Smith and following Latter-day Prophets, and then doing as James (James 1:5-7) and Moroni (Moroni 10:4-5) counsel, I have gained a sure knowledge, for myself, that the gospel of Christ as restored by Joseph Smith is true. If others affirm that they have followed these steps and not received that same answer- that is between them and God. I can only give witness to those things I know from my own very real experience.
I don’t dispute your point. I agree with the quotation you cited and know it to be true as well. I was addressing Michael’s argument that approach is circular. I believe anyone can know if they will live the doctrine of Christ. My comments were directed to his post stating:
“Rick, this was the very fallacy David Smith was criticizing. It’s a circular argument. You have to live the gospel to learn that it’s true. Yet what conceivable reason is there for someone to live the gospel if they don’t know it’s true? As David said, this is absurd.”
The circular argument goes away if one begins with sincere inquiry to God about the veracity of the Book of Mormon. Once you receive an answer then keeping the commandments continues to build upon the foundation of the original inquiry.
I agree completely.
Scott, you ignored most of what I said and only reiterated the circular argument. Why should anyone live a doctrine they have no reason to believe is true? You have to live it as if you believe it’s true to know it’s true. The only ones who would do that are those who have a pre-existing reason to believe it’s true. It takes an external reason to enter the circularity of behaving like you believe to see if you believe.
Furthermore, the promise is only intermittently effective. People have tried the promise and claim it worked, but plenty of others have tried it and had it fail for them. LDS apologists will at this point claim it’s because they didn’t ask “sincerely,” but that turns into another circular argument.
“Pray sincerely and God will reveal the truth to you.”
“I prayed and he didn’t.”
“Then you didn’t pray sincerely.”
“How do you know?”
“Because he didn’t reveal it to you.”
Circular! It totally ignores the whole point of the experiment in the first place. The point is to find out IF the BoM or church or whatever is true. It’s not valid to assuem it’s true before proving it’s true. Maybe the experiment failed not because the guy wasn’t sincere, but becuase the experiment failed! The promise is false!
The truly sincere seeker for truth must acknowledge that possibility.
Further furthermore, how do we know what aspects of living the “gospel” are what caused the positive experience that brings a person to conclude it’s all true? LDS doctrine includes a great deal of general Christian doctrine. Perhaps it’s THAT doctrine that the person is spiritually responding to, not the specifically LDS stuff.
James 1:5 “If you lack wisdom, ask God… and it shall be given you.” An atheist could argue, “It’s ridiculous to pray when I don’t believe God exists – and I would be a hypocrite to pretend.” One doesn’t start by believing, one starts by hoping – that’s what faith is! The Book of Mormon challenge means that you must hope its true when you pray. A person who reads it and hopes it’s not true won’t get an answer. But a person can start from absolute scratch, “Oh God, if You exist, give me wisdom to know the truth. Please tell me if this is it.”
Richard, still a circular argument. What obligation does a nonbeliever have to “hope” that a claim by some religious group is true? Have you studied Scientology with the same hope and sincerity you expect the atheist to use studying your religion? If not, why? Because you think there’s almost zero chance it’s true?
Well, a lot of people feel the same way about Mormonism.
No one is going to suddenly out of the blue one day start reading the Book of Mormon hoping it’s true, or suddenly out of the blue one day start living LDS doctrine hoping it’s true. SOMETHING has to precede these things to get the person started on that circle. That’s why I call these circular arguments, because you believers seem to think people should be willing to START with the circle.
But no one is going to do that. There’s no reason to. You believers think there is only because you’re biased–you already believe.
D. Michael – I suspect a lot of LDS folks are in the same boat as you and become bored after many years being in the church. This even happens to people who’ve rexperienced great spiritual renewal at the time of their conversion. The reason for your increasing apathy toward the gospel is a matter for you to take up with God as I cannot comment on it. But, I suspect that the embers of a testimony still lurk somewhere in the depths of your soul that when properly fanned will burst again into flames.
If you Google his name, you will find his website very quickly. I would never say that you can draw solid conclusions about someone on such a slender basis. But I would say that one’s level of surprise at comments on these blogs diminishes.
Purely a cheap shot, LMA. Spreading rumors without any facts behind them.
Spreading rumors? What are you talking about? I also don’t understand what you mean by “cheap shot.” I’m just saying that based on information that you’ve provided about yourself, I’m not terribly surprised by your views expressed on blog pages here. No reason to take offense.
How offensive to ASSUME I got bored and just left! But a very typical assumption to make.
I didn’t get bored. I left kicking and screaming. I never in a million years dreamed I would leave. It happened over time as I learned more and more about the real history and the real actions of the church. It happened over time as I had my eyes opened and started seeing things through clear eyes instead of rose-colored believers’ glasses. I left for serious, complex reasons. To this day I could still co-exist with the church if it were willing to coexist with me.
But it won’t, and for the very reasons Doug’s blog entry discusses–the unwillingness of the leaders and the members to let me be responsible for my own spiritual journey. The demand leaders made to place their pronouncements above what the Spirit witnessed to me.
I have absolutely no apathy toward the gospel. I have very strong feelings about it. Some of them are negative, namely those aspects where the leaders have corrupted it.
Those of you who have assumed negative things about me which are virtually opposite from the reality are displaying some of the very aspects of the Mormon attitude that drove me away. You can’t bear the thought that someoen might actually have valid reasons for questioning the church or the version of the gospel it preaches, so you have to assume negative, insulting reasons for it.
Which doesn’t sound so very Christian to me, so why should I believe that you are the true Christians?
A true Christian Mormon is a hard thing to come by. Doug is a believer who tries to understand, not make negative assumptions about me, and that’s why Doug is a Mormon I can be friends with. How sad more Mormons are not like him.
DMM explains that he objected to “[t]he demand leaders made to place their pronouncements above what the Spirit witnessed to me.” This explains everything. When did humility stop being a virtue?
Scott, you describe what I call the syllogistic trap that many LDS members fall into as they wend their way along the path of understanding. Because one comes to a determination that the BoM is “true,” (whatever that may be), that doesn’t necessarily mean that one must accept that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I read the BoM often and appreciate the insights I receive in doing. I also believe that it was an inspired work. It took me a long time for me to reconcile with Joseph Smith the “prophet,” however. Indeed, it wasn’t until I read Bushman’s “Rough Stone Rolling” about Joseph “warts and all” that I could accept Joseph as a “prophet.” We learn spiritual things a little at a time. There is great danger in taking a syllogistic approach to the gospel. Using your logic (as many have done), if I, as a member, have difficulty with one fundamental tenet of Mormon doctrine (not the book), I must throw the baby out with the bath water. I have friends and acquaintances who have left the church over what, for me, were singular issues that could have used more thought and study. Even if the particular issue were never ultimately resolved, that doesn’t mean that (e.g.) eternal progression has to lose its luster as a tenet of the gospel. It has been very sad to see these folks leave the church and (in many cases) religion altogether as a matter of “intellectual honesty.” We truly need to take things line upon line and worry less about backing up a couple of lines in a given moment, so that we give ourselves a chance to come to a resolution without discounting everything else.
I appreciate your attitude, William. But it’s not necessarily sad at all that someone leaves the church to continue on their spiritual journey. When I left, I took with me all the good aspects of LDS theology (eternal progression being one of them) and left behind the crap and corruption that made life stressful trying to coexist at church.
However, I will agree that it’s sad that the overriding Mormon attitude makes it so difficult for non-cookie-cutter Mormons to stay. There are exceptions to be sure, but they’re too few and far between to be an effective counterbalance to the intolerance.
@ D. Michael Martindale
I have read your lengthy yet articulate arguments concerning the possible apostasy of the church after JS or even during his life. As I read your argument, it is obvious you are educated and informed. However, the thought kept re-occurring to me that you have over analyzed the simpleness of Christ’s doctrine. To be learned is good, but Christ taught that we should be as \little children\, having a more simple faith and the ability to believe in that which is hard. I don’t believe in blind faith, but when that faith is on the road to being dismantled, we have to go back to the basics, the milk of the gospel – Christ, God the Father, Plan of Salvation, Apostles & Prophets and the organization of the church, revelation. Is there another church that teaches these in the way that you believe?
I am not sure if I have made my point. I hope that you find what you are looking for. I sincerely believe it will lead you back to Christ’s church. I know it did for me. I had to become as a \little child\ and simply put my faith in God and in His son, Jesus Christ. Take care.
DMM, Thanks for the comment. I have read your comments on the various blogs and have also read some of your other writings. I am happy you have found your own spot in the continuum of the eternities. I wanted to make two points. The first is that spiritual discovery is not necessarily linear like another poster suggested. Doubts are fine and should be respected. The church should be inclusive and patient enough to allow for doubts. I underscore patience. Secondly, the inability to understand or accept a particular religious tenet doesn’t mean that the rest cannot be true. There simply is no definition of a TBM that applies across the spectrum nor should there be. An example:
I grew up in rural Arizona where certain members of the EQ routinely “cussed” during priesthood meeting (shock). Some smoked cigarettes as they drove their tractors down the furrows of their fields during the week. Nevertheless, they were present every Sunday, they tithed, and they showed up to work on the church farm at 5:00 a.m. I am sure that to some, these gentlemen may not have been “bishop” material. Even so, these individuals were truly “salt of the earth” type folks. They didn’t take advantage of their neighbors in business deals even though it may have been legal to do so. They provided corn for the ward parties. They ran their cotton pickers to help their neighbors and their balers when their neighbors needed to get the hay out of the field before the rain came. TBMs? Youbetcha. More humble and more charitable than many of the fast day testimony bearers. ‘Just saying, there is a place for all TB members of every stripe. BTW one of these (who had porn in his drawer and beer in the fridge — for awhile) became a bishop — and a great one at that. I know, ’cause I worked for him before the mission. Again, the gates need to be opened a bit wider and everyone needs the space to deal with his (or her) doubts or “unbelief” as the scriptures describe it. Mark 9:24
Pingback: Link bomb #9 | Main Street Plaza