How many true churches are there?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

That was the first intelligent post in this thread. How in the world can peoople pile on somebody for doubting? The people that never doubt are the ones that scare me.

Come on, you don't think the Archilochus quote is intelligent?

I hear what you're saying, but in fairness to my devout friends, fusnik's game is to play both sides of the fence, the objective being to tease, even arouse and bait. What I see them saying is that fusnik doesn't bear the indicia of someone who genuinely believes in Mormonism. Related to that, they say that he isn't treating what they see as sacred things with sufficient seriousness and respect, baiting as he is. I can't really argue with any of that. Personally, if fusnik really doesn't believe in it, I think he'd be happier just being genuine about it. Then he could be forthright in his critique and no one could attack him for his beliefs, so long as he didn't disrespect others'. But playing both sides of the fence you open yourself up to this kind of criticism.

[OhioBlue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Come on, you don't think the Archilochus quote is intelligent?

I hear what you're saying, but in fairness to my devout friends, fusnik's game is to play both sides of the fence, the objective being to tease, even arouse and bait. What I see them saying is that fusnik doesn't bear the indicia of someone who genuinely believes in Mormonism. Related to that, they say that he isn't treating what they see as sacred things with sufficient seriousness and respect, baiting as he is. I can't really argue with any of that. Personally, if fusnik really doesn't believe in it, I think he'd be happier just being genuine about it. Then he could be forthright in his critique and no one could attack him for his beliefs, so long as he didn't disrespect others'. But playing both sides of the fence you open yourself up to this kind of criticism.

Well said.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Come on, you don't think the Archilochus quote is intelligent?

I hear what you're saying, but in fairness to my devout friends, fusnik's game is to play both sides of the fence, the objective being to tease, even arouse and bait. What I see them saying is that fusnik doesn't bear the indicia of someone who genuinely believes in Mormonism. Related to that, they say that he isn't treating what they see as sacred things with sufficient seriousness and respect, baiting as he is. I can't really argue with any of that. Personally, if fusnik really doesn't believe in it, I think he'd be happier just being genuine about it. Then he could be forthright in his critique and no one could attack him for his beliefs, so long as he didn't disrespect others'. But playing both sides of the fence you open yourself up to this kind of criticism.

At risk of getting taken for a fool, I am going to take Fusnik at his word. What he is doing seems very familiar, and it is something I saw a lot among the smart kids at Yale -- people value their testimony and they value church membership, so when something doesn't fit they try to make it fit in whatever way will salvage their testimony. I once compared my own testimony to something I preserved in a mason jar covered with a rubber sheet and a rubber band lid. On the top of that rubber sheet was the impression of the SLC temple. As my own doubts began to go after my testimony, the struggle would pull at the rim of the mason jar, deforming it. I would find that the rubber sheet would no longer cover the opening. No problem. I would simply stretch the rubber sheet to cover the deformed opening of the jar. This would keep happening, and I would keep stretching the rubber sheet to keep my in my testimony.

One day I showed up to church with my testimony and I noticed a new picture of the SLC temple had been framed and hung on the wall. I looked at the image and then looked down at the same image printed on my rubber sheet. Only I couldn't match one to the other for how different they now looked. I still had a testimony, but it was a testimony in a church of my own making.

This wasn't really a problem, except I always felt like a stranger in my own church. Whenever I wanted to discuss anything I thought my ideas would always be shut down and shut up.

Ironically, what you see in Fusnik is probably his attempt to SAVE his testimony, and not the process of losing it. I have known plenty of people that have salvaged a passing testimony through this process. I have known others who would look at the rubber sheet and look at the picture on the wall and say, "I don't belong here." Both paths can be filled with their own sorts of happiness and trials.

Also ironically, I thought that places like CG were supposed to be safe places to talk about our faith, where ever it might be. But many in this thread are starting to sound like the voices from my elders Q.'s past -- shut him up and shut him down.

What it comes down to is this -- do you trust Fusnik? His POV is either genuine, or he is a troll. What are the consequences of treating him like a troll when his beliefs and doubts are genuine? What are the consequences of treating his beliefs and doubts as sincere when he might in fact be a troll? If the latter, we are taken for fools, but no harm is done. But if Fusnik is sincere (and I believe he is) then the consequences of treating him like a troll will be to alienate him even more from a community where he felt that he could be open and free to talk about the current status of his testimony. And that does its own kind of damage.

Treat the man with respect. Not all of our testimonies are going to be so 'mature.' At the end of the day, a lot of those smart kids at Yale were able to salvage a testimony, and live a happy life in the church.

[fusnik11]

Glad the cougarboard bastards show their colors, loved the comments, 'offended you go the the temple,' 'hope the lady knows what she is getting into,' 'grow some guts like SU and NS,' fortunately for me, I really enjoy your internet company, so I let the comments slide off my back, no offense, spare me the apologies.



As for my testimony, if anyone cares here goes....

I firmly believe in the restoration, I believe the temples are places where pagan signs, pagan tokens, and 'apostate' keywords are given to demonstrate to us who we truly are now, and what the Lord wants us to be.

How's that?

I believe priesthood and it's power is as simple as genuine love and charity. Is it that far fetched to believe that priesthood, or the power to act in God's behalf is as simple as treating people with genuine love and charity? Isn't that the true manifestation of God's love? True and unabrided charity?

I believe that every church serves as a prepatory period for further light and knowledge. How can any rational, or spiritual man/woman, honestly believe that a loving God who has ruled for eternities and will rule for eternities will allow this blink in time known as life, serve as the judgement point for our eternal destinations? Cannot all life experience, regardless of creed, serve as a preparing ground for continued progression?

The temple, IMO, makes hypocrites of us all. Unfortunately we don't see it, we don't see that we maintain with us certain rites that are damning our spiritual souls. Do I see it? Not even close, but I strive, I labor, and I try my best. The temple was for a long time, the only reason I went to church and stayed active. It's one of the main reasons I stay active today, and it will be a reason why I always stay active. Hopefully one day, I graduate from temple class, and can strip off of me the 'natural skins' of this probation and become one with God and Jesus.

Hopefully I didn't offend too many.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Robin

At risk of getting taken for a fool, I am going to take Fusnik at his word. What he is doing seems very familiar, and it is something I saw a lot among the smart kids at Yale -- people value their testimony and they value church membership, so when something doesn't fit they try to make it fit in whatever way will salvage their testimony. I once compared my own testimony to something I preserved in a mason jar covered with a rubber sheet and a rubber band lid. On the top of that rubber sheet was the impression of the SLC temple. As my own doubts began to go after my testimony, the struggle would pull at the rim of the mason jar, deforming it. I would find that the rubber sheet would no longer cover the opening. No problem. I would simply stretch the rubber sheet to cover the deformed opening of the jar. This would keep happening, and I would keep stretching the rubber sheet to keep my in my testimony.

One day I showed up to church with my testimony and I noticed a new picture of the SLC temple had been framed and hung on the wall. I looked at the image and then looked down at the same image printed on my rubber sheet. Only I couldn't match one to the other for how different they now looked. I still had a testimony, but it was a testimony in a church of my own making.

This wasn't really a problem, except I always felt like a stranger in my own church. Whenever I wanted to discuss anything I thought my ideas would always be shut down and shut up.

Ironically, what you see in Fusnik is probably his attempt to SAVE his testimony, and not the process of losing it. I have known plenty of people that have salvaged a passing testimony through this process. I have known others who would look at the rubber sheet and look at the picture on the wall and say, "I don't belong here." Both paths can be filled with their own sorts of happiness and trials.

Also ironically, I thought that places like CG were supposed to be safe places to talk about our faith, where ever it might be. But many in this thread are starting to sound like the voices from my elders Q.'s past -- shut him up and shut him down.

What it comes down to is this -- do you trust Fusnik? His POV is either genuine, or he is a troll. What are the consequences of treating him like a troll when his beliefs and doubts are genuine? What are the consequences of treating his beliefs and doubts as sincere when he might in fact be a troll? If the latter, we are taken for fools, but no harm is done. But if Fusnik is sincere (and I believe he is) then the consequences of treating him like a troll will be to alienate him even more from a community where he felt that he could be open and free to talk about the current status of his testimony. And that does its own kind of damage.

Treat the man with respect. Not all of our testimonies are going to be so 'mature.' At the end of the day, a lot of those smart kids at Yale were able to salvage a testimony, and live a happy life in the church.

What is not stated is the counter viewpoint, which is that people can actually have spiritual experiences that strengthen their testimonies.

I have a friend who has left the church. If you ask him about the real nitty gritty spiritual stuff--the Holy Ghost stuff--he says, "I don't have an answer for that." IOTW, he does not deny his experience, and hasn't reconciled those experiences with his current path.

Versus my brother who says "I made all that stuff up, it came from within. There was no heavenly source."

I don't think my brother is lying. He believes what he is saying. But at some level it must nag at him.

I had a conversation with Robin a long time ago, where we argued over the basis of belief. I was a proponent of the heart, that is, of spiritual feelings. He was a proponent of the mind, of rationality, of "clear thought." I believed we had fundamentally different ways of approaching belief in the church. I believed then and I believe now, if your foundation does not rest upon the Holy Ghost, your house will be washed away.

I know Robin will have a response to this, that I have mischaracterized his beliefs, and that the Holy Spirit has led him in a different direction, etc.

At the end of the day, you either walk away or you don't. You either cross the line in the sand or you don't.

There are men that I would go to battle with. Men that I truly respect. They weren't perfect. But a common thread is that they were men of faith.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What is not stated is the counter viewpoint, which is that people can actually have spiritual experiences that strengthen their testimonies.

I have a friend who has left the church. If you ask him about the real nitty gritty spiritual stuff--the Holy Ghost stuff--he says, "I don't have an answer for that." IOTW, he does not deny his experience, and hasn't reconciled those experiences with his current path.

Versus my brother who says "I made all that stuff up, it came from within. There was no heavenly source."

I think you are right. Some spiritual experiences will strengthen testimonies for some people. Some doubts can be resolved. Still, there is a particular brand of doubt that is especially resiliant to religious dogma. Unlike your brother or your other friend, I don't doubt or deny the existence or significance of spiritual experience. I simply doubt my own ability to INTERPRET that experience with any degree of specificity that would allow me to confidently pick one dogma over another.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't think my brother is lying. He believes what he is saying. But at some level it must nag at him.

It probably nags at him less than you think.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I had a conversation with Robin a long time ago, where we argued over the basis of belief. I was a proponent of the heart, that is, of spiritual feelings. He was a proponent of the mind, of rationality, of "clear thought." I believed we had fundamentally different ways of approaching belief in the church. I believed then and I believe now, if your foundation does not rest upon the Holy Ghost, your house will be washed away.

I know Robin will have a response to this, that I have mischaracterized his beliefs, and that the Holy Spirit has led him in a different direction, etc.

If we are talking about RELIGIOUS BELIEF, then I think your description of our conversation and our general attitudes is fairly accurate. Reason prevents me from taking the logical leap that allows some to pick one religion/dogma over another.

If we are talking about belief in general, or approaches to life and spiritual experience, I think our roles are pretty much the opposite, and you become the man of 'reason,' and I am more the 'mystic.'

Anyhow, you are welcome to characterize our approaches in any way you find personally usefull.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Robin

At risk of getting taken for a fool, I am going to take Fusnik at his word. What he is doing seems very familiar, and it is something I saw a lot among the smart kids at Yale -- people value their testimony and they value church membership, so when something doesn't fit they try to make it fit in whatever way will salvage their testimony. I once compared my own testimony to something I preserved in a mason jar covered with a rubber sheet and a rubber band lid. On the top of that rubber sheet was the impression of the SLC temple. As my own doubts began to go after my testimony, the struggle would pull at the rim of the mason jar, deforming it. I would find that the rubber sheet would no longer cover the opening. No problem. I would simply stretch the rubber sheet to cover the deformed opening of the jar. This would keep happening, and I would keep stretching the rubber sheet to keep my in my testimony.

One day I showed up to church with my testimony and I noticed a new picture of the SLC temple had been framed and hung on the wall. I looked at the image and then looked down at the same image printed on my rubber sheet. Only I couldn't match one to the other for how different they now looked. I still had a testimony, but it was a testimony in a church of my own making.

This wasn't really a problem, except I always felt like a stranger in my own church. Whenever I wanted to discuss anything I thought my ideas would always be shut down and shut up.

Ironically, what you see in Fusnik is probably his attempt to SAVE his testimony, and not the process of losing it. I have known plenty of people that have salvaged a passing testimony through this process. I have known others who would look at the rubber sheet and look at the picture on the wall and say, "I don't belong here." Both paths can be filled with their own sorts of happiness and trials.

Also ironically, I thought that places like CG were supposed to be safe places to talk about our faith, where ever it might be. But many in this thread are starting to sound like the voices from my elders Q.'s past -- shut him up and shut him down.

What it comes down to is this -- do you trust Fusnik? His POV is either genuine, or he is a troll. What are the consequences of treating him like a troll when his beliefs and doubts are genuine? What are the consequences of treating his beliefs and doubts as sincere when he might in fact be a troll? If the latter, we are taken for fools, but no harm is done. But if Fusnik is sincere (and I believe he is) then the consequences of treating him like a troll will be to alienate him even more from a community where he felt that he could be open and free to talk about the current status of his testimony. And that does its own kind of damage.

Treat the man with respect. Not all of our testimonies are going to be so 'mature.' At the end of the day, a lot of those smart kids at Yale were able to salvage a testimony, and live a happy life in the church.

So Yale led you to apostacy. The U of U is very good at that, and I imagine Yale must be devastating.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

So Yale led you to apostacy. The U of U is very good at that, and I imagine Yale must be devastating.

Yale also led him to financial ruin. They are good at that too.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

So Yale led you to apostacy. The U of U is very good at that, and I imagine Yale must be devastating.

Yale was just the first place where I met a lot of members of the church who were willing to follow their hearts where ever that might lead, even if that took them out of the church. It had less to do with Yale, and more to do with the kind of student that Yale tends to attract. I think fusnik would have fit in and felt very happy and comfortable in the student ward that served Yale.

As for Yale leading to financial ruin, I will simply quote President Bush in his response to Putin's criticism of democracy in Iraq, "Just wait."

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Come on, you don't think the Archilochus quote is intelligent?

I hear what you're saying, but in fairness to my devout friends, fusnik's game is to play both sides of the fence, the objective being to tease, even arouse and bait. What I see them saying is that fusnik doesn't bear the indicia of someone who genuinely believes in Mormonism. Related to that, they say that he isn't treating what they see as sacred things with sufficient seriousness and respect, baiting as he is. I can't really argue with any of that. Personally, if fusnik really doesn't believe in it, I think he'd be happier just being genuine about it. Then he could be forthright in his critique and no one could attack him for his beliefs, so long as he didn't disrespect others'. But playing both sides of the fence you open yourself up to this kind of criticism.

My apologies. The quote was not only intelligent, but explains nicely the struggle to conduct meaningful dialogue on faith with those who are devout. I don't know whether Fus is sincere or just trolling, but I think it's amusing to see that with just the slightest provocation, people start rolling up into prickly little hedgehog balls.

Robin's experience with the Church sounds quite similar to my own. At some point I realized that I just didn't belong. I often tell my wife that while I don't believe that the Church is true, I don't discount the possibility that it could be true. But I add that even if it were true, It's not something that I really want to be a part of. God may indeed be playing a cosmic game of hide-and-seek with us, but it's a game that I don't enjoy and one that I choose not play.