Accepting Differing Levels of "Faith" and "Knowledge" in the Church

Perhaps those who "reject" a religion's truth-claims should withdraw; perhaps not. I tend to believe there are reasons for many to remain affiliated with a religion (in this case, the LDS Church) even if they can't embrace the truth claims. Those reasons might include things as simple as, "It's the best I know, even if I don't believe it's exclusively true," and as complex as, "My wife (or husband) and kids are happy in it, they embrace it, and I am willing to participate as a non-believing member of record in order to maximize their peace and happiness."

What really concerns me is any exclusion of those who believe truth-claims are "unknowable" - since I believe they actually ARE unknowable to many.

Our own scriptures say that some are given the gift "to know", while others are given the gift "to believe" those who know. I think there is great selfless service that can be provided by those who either believe those who know or even don't believe those who believe or know - if they stay in the Church. I have NO problem whatsoever with members who reject exclusive truth claims retaining their membership, as long as they don't fight the Church. I have no problem with those who think things are unknowable staying the Church - with no disclaimers whatsoever. I think they belong in the Church every bit as much as someone who feels they know everything - or even as someone who actually might know everything.

Fighting the Church is one thing; simply not accepting certain claims is quite another. Simply saying certain things can't be known is at a completely different level. Personally, I would hope that NOBODY whose only "issue" is an inability to accept truth-claims or feel they are knowable would face excommunication over it or be encouraged to leave. I would feel a deep sense of loss and injustice if that were to happen.

To say it differently, I don't think accepting all truth-claims (especially the exclusive ones) even is a requirement of worthy temple attendance (or even ward or stake leadership), much less regular membership. I know a highly visible member of leadership in a stake where I have lived who doesn't like the "only true church" phrase because of how it can be and is interpreted by many - inside and outside the Church. I understand his concern, and I share it to a degree. He is a faithful member, with a truly miraculous conversion story, and to think that he should give up his membership simply because he can't accept that particular "truth claim" is abhorrent to me.

If Blogging Has Become Your (or Your Spouse's) Primary "Wholesome Recreational Activity"

An Open Plea for Marital Advice - nmiles' husband (By Common Consent)

My Foundational Advice for Investigators

If you are serious about trying to reach an understanding of Mormonism, you should be considering everything with an open heart AND mind and praying sincerely to the Father in the name of the Son to feel the confirmation of the Holy Ghost - so you have your own personal prophecy / witness from God. It really isn't much more complicated than that. If you sincerely believe God is telling you to accept Mormonism as restored Christianity (as the closest thing we can get to what Jesus himself actually taught), you have an obligation to act on that; if you sincerely believe God is telling you NOT to accept Mormonism as restored Christianity (as the closest thing we can get to what Jesus himself actually taught), you have an obligation to act on that, as well. It's between you and God, and it's up to you to act according to your own inspiration / prophecy / direction from God.

My only advice:

Try to set aside all previous interpretations and give our beliefs the benefit of the doubt. Too often, people with whom I have discussed these things can't get past what they have been taught in other denominations, even when it seems clear from a simple parsing of the Bible itself that those teachings aren't in harmony with the words of Jesus himself. That is true especially of evangelical denominations.

My standard is simple:

When dealing with the Bible, ALWAYS grant top priority to the words of Jesus. Interpret EVERYTHING else through the lens of his words. For example, if there seems to be a discrepancy between what Jesus says in the Gospels and what a prophet or apostle or disciple or early Christian father says, Jesus wins - EVERY TIME, regardless. If there is a discrepancy between what a NT prophet or apostle says and what an early Christian father says, the NT prophet or apostle wins - EVERY TIME, regardless. If you do that honestly and scrupulously, I believe you will see that the teachings of "The Restoration" are aligned very well with the original teachings of Jesus, slightly less well with the teachings of Paul, slightly less well with the teachings of some of the most influential early Christian fathers, not all that well with most of the Protestant reformers and not well at all with most 19th, 20th and 21st Century Protestant ministers.

Timing Is As Important As Content

Truths that are powerful, truthful, yet not always helpful - Stephen M (Mormon Matters)

Non-Mormon Prophets

Mormonism defines "prophecy" loosely as "what is revealed through the Holy Ghost". That is my own definition, but it comes from the Bible Dictionary that is included as a part of the scriptural helps that are in the KJV Bible that the Church publishes. Under "Prophet", it says:

"In a general sense a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, as in Num. 11: 25-29; Rev. 19: 10."

From Numbers 11:25-29:

and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease ... (and Moses said) would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!

From Revelations 19:10:

I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Given this definition, Mormonism has no problem accepting non-Mormons as "prophets" in that most expansive sense - as someone through whom God chooses to speak through the Holy Ghost. In fact, this is very consistent with the OT perspective, when numerous "prophets" lived at the same time and seemed to come out of the woodwork prior to great calamities. There is a difference between that, however, and the "calling" of someone to the "Priesthood office" of prophet. 

Those who have been called and ordained as prophets and apostles are "set apart" to prophecy (to share the word of God as moved upon by the Holy Ghost). They aren't "perfect" (complete and whole and fully developed) in this responsibility (meaning they aren't infallible), but they do "read the signs of the times" and share their inspiration with the world as a result. That also is why, frankly, we should have little problem letting go of things that were said in a different time than our own (or even in a different culture concurrent to our own) - since what God communicates with his children can change according to the needs of the people at any given time or in any given culture. He also communicates according to their willingness to listen. 

For example, if highly addictive substances are unknown in one society, there is little reason to expect God to prompt a prophet to speak of them; if, however, those substances exist or will be introduced shortly in another society, there is every reason to expect prophets in that society to mention them. This also explains why the Jewish priests in Jerusalem at the birth of Jesus had no idea about the prophecy regarding the star, while "wise men" from the east did know of it. One group was open to being told about it; the other group was not - so, apparently, God simply didn't inspire any prophets from that area to mention that upcoming sign. 

Was Muhammad a prophet? Given the totality of what he taught, I have no problem believing he might have been. I feel the same way about Confucius, Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, and any number of other seemingly inspired preachers. I don't view them as Prophets or as having been called and ordained through the Priesthood as prophets and apostles, but I have no problem with them proclaiming the word of God through inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Frankly, I include many rabbis in this category, despite their lack of faith in Jesus Christ - since they do have faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whom we believe to have been the pre-mortal Jesus.

To Walk More Blamelessly before God

My New Year's Resolution for the month of April is "to walk more blamelessly before God" - taken from the first sentence of Alma 5:27, which reads:

Have ye walked, keeping yourselves blameless before God? 

As I began to contemplate this question and how to internalize it a little more fully this month, I separated it instinctively into three core concepts:

1) We must walk our life's journey; we cannot sit, nor can we run.

2) We must walk "before God". 

3) We must strive to be blameless in "how" we walk.

I will attempt to address each of these points each Saturday this month and try to wrap them together on the final Saturday of the month.


1) We must walk; we cannot sit, nor can we run.

A number of scriptures come to mind immediately when I consider walking - not sitting or running.  Among them are the following:

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Mosiah 4:27 

And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. 

Ecclesiastes 9:11 

I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. 

The central idea in these and other passages is that all things must be done with patience at a proper pace - that "enduring to the end" most often is a case of continuing to walk a long journey steadily and humbly rather than sprint to a near finish line.  The interesting thing, to me, is the differing imagery that is employed in these three passages to address the same general topic.  

The first passage (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8) presents an image of someone walking through life at a pace that allows him to look around and see each "time" and "season" for what it is.  There is no rushing around in such a hurry that he misses the signs that tell what he should be doing at that moment.  He literally is strolling and observing - and, thus, acting according to what he observes in relation to his own life.  

I believe the person who walks thus is tune with the things that he sees, is more likely to see all that is put before him and, thus, less prone to miss what God wants of him.   

The second passage (Mosiah 4:27) adds an element of stamina to the first image.  In this verse, the person not only is in tune with what is placed before her, but she also walks at a pace that does not exhaust herself - that allows her to continue to walk without needing to take long pauses but at the maximum pace that she is capable of accomplishing.  She does not walk faster than she is able, but she does walk as quickly as she is able to do consistently for the length of her journey.  Thus, she covers the maximum distance possible for her - regardless of how that distance compares to the distance walked by anyone else.  

I also love the inclusion of the phrase "in wisdom and order" - as it implies, to me, an active and conscious prioritization on the part of the walker.  She acts as an "agent unto herself" - using her wisdom to "order" her life appropriately - again, regardless of how others order and prioritize their own lives.  

The final verse (Ecclesiastes 9:11) adds a truly unique and important element to the discussion.  The first part is a nice restatement of the others. However, the last part is a reminder that there really is enough time for ALL to accomplish what is set before them, if they but continue to walk - AND it emphasized an important disclaimer, if you will.  It is not just "time" that happens to all; "chance" happens to all, as well.  

"Chance" can be nothing more than "luck or fortune" - and that might be a legitimate reading of this verse.  However, given what is stated in the first part of the verse, I prefer to define "chance" as "opportunity or possibility".  With this interpretation, the last part of this verse would read: 

but all have time and opportunity

[In stating it this way, I believe it also is important to recognize directly that, when comparing life to a race of some sort, ALL can "walk" figuratively (since "walk" when juxtaposed with "run" connotes a difference in "pace or speed" rather than "manner") - while all cannot run.]

In summary, my resolution this month includes the commitment to strive to walk with my eyes open, seeking to see and recognize this "time" for what it is - to see the Lord's purpose for my life this specific and unique month.  It includes the need to use wisdom to order / prioritize the activities of this month.  It includes the faith that, if  I strive to walk in this manner, that there really will be time for me to accomplish whatever the Lord wants me to accomplish, that I really will have the chance to do so - that I truly may be more than I am now when I finish my mortal journey. 

When Someone Challenges My Christianity

Whenever someone asks me if I am Christian (or claims that I'm not), I try to say something like:

"That term ('Christian') means different things to different people. I believe I am a Christian, but I'm not sure if you would or not. Do you have a few minutes to listen to me explain my beliefs and see if you think I am?"

If they are serious and really want to know, they will listen - or pick a different time to do so. If they aren't interested in making that decision for themselves (or have made it already), they will turn me down - and that will be it. No debates, no hard feelings, no arguments, no change from before the question was asked. Nothing gained, but nothing lost. 

We had a training meeting for the bishops in our stake a few years ago, and one of the points that was made to them was to invite in such a way that it is easy for the other person to say, "No." Don't challenge; rather, invite - but give them a dignified and easily accessible way out in the invitation itself.  

That's what I try to do when someone questions my Christianity.

Zone Defenses Work Best in the Nursery

How to Seriously Enjoy Working in Nursey - Cynthia L. (By Common Consent)

Blessings Include the Prayer of Faith

This is a very personal topic for me, since some of my most intense and enlightening experiences have been associated with Priesthood blessings. I have had at least three experiences that simply can't be explained in any way other than the opening of the heavens and having divine messages delivered through my mouth. (I really mean that, and I guarantee that nobody could construct a reasonable argument with that conclusion if I did share the details.)

Having said that, I also believe strongly that there is a "gift" associated with healings. I don't mean a gift to be able to heal everyone of everything, and I don't even mean a "gift of healing power". What I mean is a gift to be able to ascertain the will of God in situations where the person will be healed or not healed - but where God has something He wants said regardless. I’m not certain it is a permanent and constant gift, but I am sure it is a targeted gift in those circumstances when He really does want to speak directly to the person (or even those listening). I really don't know how to describe it properly, but I do believe in it.

In my own case, there have been lots of times when I simply have not felt any particular inspiration - where I have not felt like a conduit for His words. In those cases, I simply have stated that I am the one blessing the person as a Priesthood holder ("I bless you . . .") and hoped that my sincere hope would be granted - and I have avoided making specific promises about healing. However, there have been lots of times when I have felt prompted to make certain clear and astounding statements - and often I have seen them fulfilled. Those instances could be explained away as just the natural healing process, and perhaps they were, but I take comfort in them, nonetheless. That, in and of itself, makes giving blessings worthwhile - and the possibility that God will, for whatever reason, rend the veil once every few hundred blessings makes the concept and the practice sublime to me.

I think ALL worthy individuals (inside or outside the Church) have the right and ability to bless others and pronounce promises of hope and faith, dependent on the will of God (whether through the Priesthood or not), but I am deeply thankful for my own experiences where the heavens opened and I spoke the word of God. It's hard to explain what that feels like, but I'm glad I waded through the "common" ones enough to experience the "uncommon" ones.

What Priesthood Service Is Supposed To Be

Handled With Care - Tracy M (By Common Consent)