What's new
By:

This guy is Mormon?

LogGrad98 said:
That first question is really the core of it, isn't it.

My sister-in-law is a staunch anti-mormon. She started out LDS, very active in her childhood and into her 20's. She went to BYU-Idaho (then it was Rick's). Then she went back east and her attitudes changed. She started sleeping around and all that crap and left the church and for a long time was very very bitter. It consumed her, the animosity she felt to the church and, in her words, the "devastating culture of guilt and shame" that ruined her life, tainted her relationships with everyone. We had some long, often painful, discussions of what the church meant to all of us (my wife and I and her siblings). I really felt for her, even while her siblings lashed out, since they were also dealing with some of the emotional issues from their shared childhood (if you look up "dysfunctional family" in the dictionary you get a photo of my wife's family).

Finally, after about a decade of this, it seemed almost overnight, my SIL had a change of heart. I got her to talk about it one day and what she said mirrored what you say here almost exactly.

Her change of heart was not coming back into the LDS fold, but rather, being at peace with her own belief system. She felt at odds with her family, and herself, and she realized it was not "their" problem, it was hers. What you described about feelings is EXACTLY what she said brought her peace. She had fasted and prayed and read the bible, wanting to find peace. She had an epiphany (her words) that, although the mormon church is ABSOLUTELY wrong, it isn't necessarily evil. It doesn't have to be viewed as the enemy. She said her feelings told her that the path she was on was ABSOLUTELY correct. She described "feeling the spirit" exactly how we learn about it in the MTC (no she never went on a mission). She said the spirit helped her forgive the mormons she felt set her up to fail in her young life (my wife confirms her ward was like this more than others, driving every little thing home as if it were another chain dragging you to hell with no hope of release). And she felt she received forgiveness from the spirit for the contentions she caused in her family. She has worked to make amends since then as well.

It very obviously brought her peace, as the discussions around religion do not get mean and ugly any more. She "bares her testimony" of the falseness of the mormon church, of the truth of the bible and the freedom and warm spirit and peace she felt after her long nights "pouring out her soul" to God, and accepting, and being accepted and forgiven by, her Savior. She says she knows God lives, and knows that the LDS church is not his church since the spirit whispered it to her so clearly.

The evidence in her is astounding, if you knew her. She is very outspoken and often puts her foot in her mouth (even today but much less so). This is in no way something she could fake. She was always so bitter it showed in her face. She could not be around mormons without making comments. Even in random conversation she would blurt out that they were going to hell and they are destroying their children and should go to jail for raising their kids in such a damaging environment. It was painfully obvious she was not living a happy life. She has been far happier since her "spiritual rebirth" (her words), and I would say one of the most spiritual people I have known. She shows long-suffering and charity in ways she never even could before. And it has now been over a decade.

She is now far more christian in her words and deeds than her (somewhat overly-pious) brother who has been in the bishopric and/or stake presidency for the past 12 years or so, since he was about 26. My SIL shows a true testimony of Christ far stronger in its outward manifestations than my BIL ever has. I would be forced to say that I think she truly had a mighty change of heart, and received his image in her countenance. And it was in opposition to the Church.

So did the spirit whisper the truth to her? If not, how do you explain it?
Click to expand...

Here's my take.

I don't believe the god will necessarily take them away from the church that you are referring to. I'm not sure about this (is anyone really?). I guess it depends on the grand scheme of things that god already knows.

However, I think what happened to your sister was the following:

She had a self realization/spiritual experience with god that allowed her to be at peace. It sounded to me like she had issues with keeping the commandments and the guilt or shame or social rejection (which can happen to LDS wards) seemed to be worse than the actual sin itself. I think in many cases, bishops and other leaders struggle with members with these issues. The fact? Bro/Sis had sex. The fact? Time machines haven't been invented yet, so go through the repentance process (whatever the case might be) and get over it.

Unfortunately, many people don't get over it.

I have a friend who fell into porn while serving his LDS mission. The guilt and depression led him to other problems. It has been nearly 4 years since the end of his mission, and he's no longer a member (but still believes in the gospel and is working to be baptized once again). He's gotten over the shame stuff mostly, since losing church membership, friends and family knowing what he had done, huge embarrassment, getting kicked out of BYU (and losing his scholarship), etc was tough. What motivates him now isn't to be socially accepted or to appease vanity in "keeping the commandments." It's that, he prefers an addicitionless and righteous life. Where he has girlfriends for their companionship, beauty, and love, rather for personal physical gratification. He wants to be in control of his body and mind. He wants to be able to participate in church callings and ordinances that he liked to participate in previously. He wants peace and happiness back into his life.

So, IMO, your sister felt that keeping the commandments brought about much guilt. Much like breaking the laws in society. However, it appears that to a degree, her perspective changed that night from "I must keep the commandments because they're commandments" to "I want to live a good clean life (which is keeping the commandments) because living so will bring me peace, joy, and happiness.

IMO, too many members of most Christian and non-Christian faiths look for quantitative data to base their faith on. I'm keeping xxxxxxx commandment so I must feel good about myself. It's almost like a checklist. When in reality, righteous living should bring about good feelings (and blessings).
 
GVC said:
And yet, having 100% of the truth hasn't gotten you to church this year...
Click to expand...

I laughed at this post at first, and will rep ya for such a nice zinger.

However, in all seriousness... I knew last year that the Jazz had no chance at getting into the playoffs. That didn't stop my emotional attachment... Or need... to watch them.

Religion is such an emotional issue. Faith cannot be measured, but felt.

I can relate somewhat to Archie. Being an RM I'm expected to be at church every week. Having been a church member for most of my life, and having investigated other faiths, I feel like the LDS church has as much truth out there as can be revealed.

However, there are some days... Many days... that despite all this knowledge, I don't feel like going to church. Maybe it's partly because my lifestyle isn't what many ideal RMs should have? Maybe there's something in my life that needs changing? Maybe I have issues (some that I don't even know exist)? Maybe I'm at a stage in my life now, where after a long week or work and school, a nice walk up the canyon can be as spiritually refreshing as 3 hours of church?

Perhaps my spiritual maturity is increasing as opposed to becoming more religious?

Who knows? What do ya'll think?

But religion is just one of those emotionally charged things. where, you could know exactly what you should do, and yet, if you don't feel like it, you won't do it.
 
Kudos to all for us actually being able to have a respectful discussion about religion for a change.


jazzman12 said:
Very interesting way to look at it. I like it. Does this mean you feel it's not as black and white as the LDS church being the only "true" religion?
Click to expand...

Well, I still believe the LDS church is the only true church, as far as being the only church authorized by God (having the true "priesthood", as we would say). And being a restoration of the church Christ set up. And being led by a prophet today.

However, the LDS doctrine about the Spirit World takes a lot of the "edge" off of the "only true church" teaching. That is, people can still accept Christ and accept His church (the LDS church) in the hereafter. Therefore, I'm not able to judge what plan God may have for people in the here-and-now. For MOST people, I would say that the Spirit would teach them to accept the LDS church. But there may be exceptions.


Archie Moses said:
Doesn't work that way, Colton.
Click to expand...


Like catratcho said, this is my own personal view, and I'm not being a spokesperson for the church on this one. So I will admit that it MIGHT not work like this.

Much of this view comes from a certain experience while a missionary. In the two years I served in Germany, I challenged countless people to read the Book of Mormon, pray about its truthfulness, come to church, and so forth. With only a single exception, everyone that did this sincerely (as far as I could tell) had a spiritual experience and came to believe they should join the LDS church. However, the single exception was enough to get me thinking. He was a great guy, who read much more of the Book of Mormon than most, had countless discussions with us, came to church, and even started praying in the fashion we taught him. And yet he never received the testimony of the Spirit that he should join the LDS church. I believe the 2-3 month experience with us made him more active in his OWN church, however. And since then I've heard of similar experiences from others, LogGrad98's sister-in-law being one of them.

So the ideas I expressed in my previous post are my attempt to reconcile experiences like that, with LDS teachings about the Holy Ghost and teachings about how the gospel is taught in the hereafter.
 
Well put Colton.

I appreciate the discourse too, because I must admit, especially when I was dealing with cancer, I had my anger and increasing doubts to deal with. It was at this time that my sister-in-law went through her personal "saving" and I spoke to her about it. It made it very hard to reconcile many things in my mind. Not the least of which is the fact that exactly what we teach potential converts, and each other, could also happen to someone else and lead them down a different path.

I guess the weirdest thing was during our discussion I felt the spirit as strongly as I ever had in my life up to that point. As strongly as I did in the temple on my wedding day. As strongly as I ever did on my mission. I had experience with this. It wasn't new to me. I sure hope I didn't mis-interpret what I felt, but it also made me think that, if it truly WAS false, then wow, how can ANYONE ever really tell. I mean that is the core basis for all of our (LDS) belief system. If it can so easily be reproduced for nefarious purposes, how can anyone really trust what they feel.

So that was kind of what I was looking for here. How is that explainable? What does it mean in the grand scheme of things? My belief has evolved to be like Colton's. I think the spirit bears witness of "good", not just "true". I also think, especially given the fact that less than what, a hundredth of 1%, or a millionth of 1%, of everyone who ever lived ever got a chance to hear the message in life, that the work to be done AFTER this life is a far larger scope. Also, God is smart too. I think he loves his children enough to recognize what it would take for them to be the best prepared they can be to accept the gospel, whether in this life or the next. So if my sister-in-law is doing the right things, repenting, reading scripture, praying earnestly, then why wouldn't he give her that spirit as it is promised even in the Bible, as a means to remove her animosity toward the church and its members as a means of preparation.

I still wonder if I have it right, or even close, or if we were both just deceived on a grand scale. It is non-canonical, as I said before, but to me it makes sense, and feels right. But it is definitely NOT what is taught in Sunday school or in the MTC.
 
GVC said:
Obviously, I try not to be offended by others' opinions of what is right/true (and, obviously, this takes some effort at times). Why the **** should I care (all other things equal, of course...those going on killing sprees for their beliefs deserve some attention)? Again, I called you sanctimonious because you seemed to take a "we're good, you're bad" tack. I don't think responding to such statements with harsh words makes the responder sanctimonious. Touchy, short-tempered, hateful...maybe.

All that other **** about choosing systems of belief to sustain a feeling of self worth I have no problem with. If this is the only shot we get, why waste it away being miserable?
Click to expand...

Since my last offerings here, I've watched an old Westinghouse TV production on Pontius Pilate, you know, the dude who asked "What is Truth?"

In this production, the wife of Pontius Pilate, a dame named "Procula", leaves him and becomes a Christian. Years later, in another part of the Roman Empire, Pilate is regularly ordering Christians o be killed according to Roman law. . . . when Procula is brought into his court. . . . and Pilate just couldn't go on with the killing. . . .

Well, in fact my previous comments were just a fairly laid-back exposition of the teachings of Jesus. The guy said he was the Son of God, the very "Truth". . . . and he linked adherence to his teaching to knowing the "truth". I'm also very aware that a lot of cults have a sort of circular logics, or self-defined "truth" where people are supposed to obey without question while being promised they will get some kind of reward for doing so. And that because of the way our minds work to harmonize cognition with choice it can become a self-sustaining "reality" for those who do it.

But I think Jesus did better than that. When folks came to Him to ask who God is or what is truth, Jesus "reflected" the question, like a mirror "reflects" things. His harshest words were for hypocrites, especially religious ones. His response to "seekers" was re-direction. It is set forth in the "faithful" accounts that He was perfect, a perfect example, someone we could follow. His teaching was that "he is the way, the truth, and the light". When people asked him who the Father was, he said "whosever has seen Him has seen the Father". This amounts to a claim of absolute personal truth. When folks asked him how they could know, his answer was that they could only know if they would be true. Jesus encouraged people to ask, to question, to seek. . . . in the rubber-on-the-road reality of sincerity of all that, and plainly said that only by being true within yourself would you comprehend what it means for anyone, particularly God, to be "true".

Jesus' teaching called for a personal truth of character, which He said meant that when the faithful believer comes to God, they would be "like Him" in that essential personal character of being true or virtuous. Somehow, I just don't think all this means your salvation or 'exaltation' is hanging on whether you "fit in" with a bunch of other people's expectations, or the creeds of organized religions, per se.

I think I might be seeing something in your response like you gave Mormonism the ten-year trial experiment and all. I'm not active LDS, and I think I'd have to do some "untrue" things to try to be "active". Maybe I'm doing some "untrue" things in not being "active", as some would think. I personally walked away from it when I realized the implications of certain things I find inconsistent. I was pretty jaundiced about the whole "infallibilty" fallacy the LDS leadership was getting tuned up on, and recollecting the history I learned about the Catholics and their infallible Pope and their inquistions and all. . . . But that was all a long long time ago, and now I know more about my own problems. In the past fifteen years or so I've enjoyed listening to a lot of fundamentalist bible thumper christian ministers, you know those guys who insist that the bible is the infallible word of God, spirit-breathed, and all. I knew I differed from them on certain points, but I overlooked all that because I enjoyed listening to people who take the time of day to read some scripture and think about it all. I've seen those "infallible" expositors of the infallible Word argue the historical problems of the texts, the translation issues of the text, the various interpretations of the texts, etc etc etc, and I think I'm just about ready to humor the LDS with their problems.

In the movie about Pontius Pilate, his wife made a big point about the issues of his own character involved in sending an innocent man to the cross because of political pressures. Pilate stood on the letter of the Roman law, which required treason to Rome or some other heinous crime for a judgment of crucifixion, he wrote "King of the Jews" on the cross as the reason why Jesus had to be crucified, to the dismay of the chief Priest and Jewish leadership who wanted no such label on Him. Even though Jesus clearly stated that his "Kingdom" was not of this world, clearly denying that He was promoting insurrection against Rome.

In the end, when Pilate gave up on being such a stickler for the law of Rome, and could not send his wife Procula to the same death as he sent Jesus, he understood the meaning of Jesus.

The only truth that we have is what we will live by.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GVC
Colton, after further thought, I've come to this conclusion. Sometimes the spirit knows it's not someone's time to accept the gospel.
 
Archie Moses said:
Colton, after further thought, I've come to this conclusion. Sometimes the spirit knows it's not someone's time to accept the gospel.
Click to expand...

I thought about it a bit more myself, and I think that's a good way of putting it. It's not that the Spirit is telling the person to NOT accept the gospel, it's perhaps just that the time isn't quite right.
 
babe said:
Since my last offerings here, I've watched an old Westinghouse TV production on Pontius Pilate, you know, the dude who asked "What is Truth?"

In this production, the wife of Pontius Pilate, a dame named "Procula", leaves him and becomes a Christian. Years later, in another part of the Roman Empire, Pilate is regularly ordering Christians o be killed according to Roman law. . . . when Procula is brought into his court. . . . and Pilate just couldn't go on with the killing. . . .

Well, in fact my previous comments were just a fairly laid-back exposition of the teachings of Jesus. The guy said he was the Son of God, the very "Truth". . . . and he linked adherence to his teaching to knowing the "truth". I'm also very aware that a lot of cults have a sort of circular logics, or self-defined "truth" where people are supposed to obey without question while being promised they will get some kind of reward for doing so. And that because of the way our minds work to harmonize cognition with choice it can become a self-sustaining "reality" for those who do it.

But I think Jesus did better than that. When folks came to Him to ask who God is or what is truth, Jesus "reflected" the question, like a mirror "reflects" things. His harshest words were for hypocrites, especially religious ones. His response to "seekers" was re-direction. It is set forth in the "faithful" accounts that He was perfect, a perfect example, someone we could follow. His teaching was that "he is the way, the truth, and the light". When people asked him who the Father was, he said "whosever has seen Him has seen the Father". This amounts to a claim of absolute personal truth. When folks asked him how they could know, his answer was that they could only know if they would be true. Jesus encouraged people to ask, to question, to seek. . . . in the rubber-on-the-road reality of sincerity of all that, and plainly said that only by being true within yourself would you comprehend what it means for anyone, particularly God, to be "true".

Jesus' teaching called for a personal truth of character, which He said meant that when the faithful believer comes to God, they would be "like Him" in that essential personal character of being true or virtuous. Somehow, I just don't think all this means your salvation or 'exaltation' is hanging on whether you "fit in" with a bunch of other people's expectations, or the creeds of organized religions, per se.

I think I might be seeing something in your response like you gave Mormonism the ten-year trial experiment and all. I'm not active LDS, and I think I'd have to do some "untrue" things to try to be "active". Maybe I'm doing some "untrue" things in not being "active", as some would think. I personally walked away from it when I realized the implications of certain things I find inconsistent. I was pretty jaundiced about the whole "infallibilty" fallacy the LDS leadership was getting tuned up on, and recollecting the history I learned about the Catholics and their infallible Pope and their inquistions and all. . . . But that was all a long long time ago, and now I know more about my own problems. In the past fifteen years or so I've enjoyed listening to a lot of fundamentalist bible thumper christian ministers, you know those guys who insist that the bible is the infallible word of God, spirit-breathed, and all. I knew I differed from them on certain points, but I overlooked all that because I enjoyed listening to people who take the time of day to read some scripture and think about it all. I've seen those "infallible" expositors of the infallible Word argue the historical problems of the texts, the translation issues of the text, the various interpretations of the texts, etc etc etc, and I think I'm just about ready to humor the LDS with their problems.

In the movie about Pontius Pilate, his wife made a big point about the issues of his own character involved in sending an innocent man to the cross because of political pressures. Pilate stood on the letter of the Roman law, which required treason to Rome or some other heinous crime for a judgment of crucifixion, he wrote "King of the Jews" on the cross as the reason why Jesus had to be crucified, to the dismay of the chief Priest and Jewish leadership who wanted no such label on Him. Even though Jesus clearly stated that his "Kingdom" was not of this world, clearly denying that He was promoting insurrection against Rome.

In the end, when Pilate gave up on being such a stickler for the law of Rome, and could not send his wife Procula to the same death as he sent Jesus, he understood the meaning of Jesus.

The only truth that we have is what we will live by.
Click to expand...
Just looking over some old stuff. I should have responded to this post at the time it was written (oh well). Good stuff.
 
Qman said:
The answer is no, not all mormons are really serious about their religion. Based on his interviews with newspapers it sounds like Jabari is a serious about his religious.
Click to expand...

So... he's gonna go to college for .5 years and then head up to the MTC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top