LDS and the bible vs BOM

[jane_doe]

I’m asking because your explanation doesn’t seem to be consistent with Posts #155 and #203 or anything I’ve ever heard about Mormon Confession.

For reply to #203, I already addressed way back in #105.

Post #155 is another example of a bishop missing the memo (in my opinion). Iperous’ as well. If you want I can get on my very big soapbox about how sometimes people (bishops and priests included) can be complete blockheads.

Sometimes what we’ve heard about another faith isn’t the truth. And even within that faith, there is variety on how people view things (As with always, I’m speaking as myself and opinions).

 

[Stephen168]

For reply to #203, I already addressed way back in #105.

Post #155 is another example of a bishop missing the memo (in my opinion). Iperous’ as well. If you want I can get on my very big soapbox about how sometimes people (bishops and priests included) can be complete blockheads.

Sometimes what we’ve heard about another faith isn’t the truth. And even within that faith, there is variety on how people view things (As with always, I’m speaking as myself and opinions).

iepuras’ answer agrees with everything I’ve heard before.

 

[Stephen168]

This is a prime example of why I’m getting confused / frustrated. Jerusha in red, me in blue (speaking as myself).

Repentance IS a change of heart. Yes, I totally agree!!

What we are pointing to is that in Mormonism, the repentance process is in the actions of men.

Ummm… no. There is no Mormon sacrament of “Confession” or “Repentance”. Repentance is the change that occurs in your heart (as stated right above). >99% of repentance in Mormon-dom never involves anyone by but you on your knees with the Lord. There is no confession booth, there in no special prayer to recite, you don’t even have to go to church for it. Just you+Lord.

For the <1% of sins which do require someone to help you, it is because they are supposed to coach/support you in reconciling with the Lord. A Mormon bishop does not “decide” if you’ve been forgiven or not, that’s the Lord’s call

The sacrament of Reconciliation in Catholicism is an outward sign of that inward change.

Ok.

Unless we have the humility to confess our sins to another human being, especially when they are serious, odds are that we are not truly repentant, and will commit those sins again. And a bit of advice doesn’t hurt.

Now I’m once again confused about the Catholic position: you say don’t need another person, but then say it’s not true repentance unless you confess to another human being.

I think Posts #200 and #212 answer the question.

 

[iepuras]

Now I’m once again confused about the Catholic position: you say don’t need another person, but then say it’s not true repentance unless you confess to another human being.

When I go to confession to confess my sins to a priest, he acts in persona Christi, meaning in the person of Christ. So in reality, I am not confessing to a human being. I am confessing to Jesus Christ.

Catholicism (and the other ancient Christian churches) are “incarnational”. We believe the invisible God incarnated and took on flesh and became visible to us in the person of Jesus Christ. This is why we use/do a lot of physical things in our worship and private devotion. These physical things and actions are highly symbolic and God uses them to impart graces.

The sacraments are a prime example, which were instituted by Jesus Christ. For example, through baptism, we are washed clean from our personal sins and Original Sin and we become a member of the Body of Christ. We use water and words (I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). We are anointed with oil. We are given a new garment. We are given a candle. In the Byzantine Rite, we hold onto the priest’s stole and walk around an icon of Christ three times. All highly symbolic. Jesus Christ Himself acts and confers graces through the sacraments by virtue of the rites (the physical actions) that are performed by priests.

We also have what we call sacramentals which are liturgical ceremonies instituted by the Church that bear a resemblance to the sacraments and dispose a person to cooperate with and receive grace. Sacramentals include the dedication of a church building, consecration of the altar, the blessing of homes, the blessing and sprinkling of holy water, the blessing of objects of personal devotion (crucifixes, icons, rosaries, etc).

God created our bodies and souls, the material and the immaterial. Through His Incarnation, God ennobled matter. God imparts His truth and grace not only through words and ideas but also through physical signs as well. Jesus is the Word made flesh. So we avail ourselves of the sacraments which are an outside sign of internal grace imparted to us by Jesus Christ. We use incense to represent the prayers of the saints going up to the throne of God. We bless ourselves with holy water when we enter a church. The priest comes and blesses our homes. We use prayer beads when we pray. We do the sign of the cross. We venerate icons and the Gospel. This list is endless of physical things we do, in addition to the internal things, that dispose us to receiving grace and bringing us closer to God.

 

[TOmNossor]

Guys, I’m trying to talk about repentance as a change of heart (my opinion of true repentance), and understand Catholic view of things. But you guys keep trying to tie it back to the actions of men, which is not repentance at all. It is becoming frustrating.

Point A:
Jane, you are so confused. In the Non-Catholic forum, the only real understanding of the CoJCoLDS is obtained by asking disaffected LDS or Catholics who know everything about the CoJCoLDS what LDS believe.
Point B:
Catholic understanding is never to be found wanting in the Non-Catholic forum. Protestants who think the Pope receives revelation to be delivered to the entire church (like some kind of Prophet) are assured they have misunderstood Catholic teachings. LDS who think the Pope does not receive revelation to be delivered to the entire church (like some kind of Prophet) are assured that they have misunderstood Catholic teachings.
Similarly, confusion results when the Protestant sees the priest as “one who is called Father” and stands between God and the Catholic. No. Or LDS see Catholics as confessing their sins and then going about without any change of heart, no assistance in working through the repentance process by one of God’s representatives. No!
Point C:
I am an ex-Catholic so the corollary of Point A is that you can only learn about the Catholic Church from me.
…
I find the description of working through the repentance process in the CoJCoLDS offered by Catholics here REPUGNANT. This does not mean such things didn’t happen to these folks, but I think such is quite rare (at least in my experiences). I also think such recollections (like all recollections) are filtered through the persons offering them.
I personally find the sacrament of reconciliation within Catholicism to not be a cause for concern except for in that small percent of time when it is (the corollary of the experiences shared by ex-LDS here). The priest is “in persona Christi” (not to be misunderstood by our Protestant brothers and sisters as being “another Christ”). Confession is made by those who choose to confess. Often there is some form of penance prescribed, but this is usually a prayer or a few prayers. At the end of the confession the Priest (again “in persona Christi”) remits the sins of the person who has confessed. I agree with the Catholics who reported here that this can be very freeing. As this sacrament is plumbed by critic or committed Catholic there are complexities that arise. Sins are not remitted without “sincere sorrow and purpose of amendment.” That being said, habitual sins can be forgiven even when they come up again and again. The criticism of “it depends upon the LDS bishop” is not absent here either. I have confessed a sin to the priest in Italy (at the Vatican) and been really concerned with his response. I later shared with the priest in France my concern and I was comforted and told to not to trouble myself with it too much. I have no trouble seeing the wisdom offered by both men (or both priests “in persona Christi”). The truth is both/and. As one overly focused on reason, I can solve this conundrum without too much trouble (though it does not avail itself to a solution that demands things like astray=erring in fact the solution requires much more grace be afforded these seemingly diametrically opposed experiences). I was quite impacted by the Italian priest and needed the loving kindness of the French priest. Taking both would give me the proper attitude towards sin while still recognizing God’s love and that it is His Grace that forgives my sins.
Ideally in both the Catholic Church and the CoJCoLDS serious sins involve very similar paths. The sinner must repent and have a change of heart. The Catholic priest of LDS Bishop is to be a loving servant in this process. “Me and God alone” musts be avoided for most folks like me who practice self-justification all day long. Better people than me who always feel weighed down by their sins need help to see that forgiveness is always undeserved and they must forgive themselves too.
Differences do exist in that the Catholic reconciliation, like all Catholic sacraments, involve a greater focus upon the bestowal of Grace as a product of the sacramental act (but covenantal aspects shouldn’t be absent). LDS emphasize covenantal aspects of our sacraments more, but “bestowal of Grace” shouldn’t be absent.
If that helps, great. If not, sorry.
Charity, TOm

 

[jane_doe]

When I go to confession to confess my sins to a priest, he acts in persona Christi, meaning in the person of Christ. So in reality, I am not confessing to a human being. I am confessing to Jesus Christ.

Catholicism (and the other ancient Christian churches) are “incarnational”. We believe the invisible God incarnated and took on flesh and became visible to us in the person of Jesus Christ. This is why we use/do a lot of physical things in our worship and private devotion. These physical things and actions are highly symbolic and God uses them to impart graces.

Ah ha! iepuras makes some sense. So let me recap to see if I’m getting it right. This is specifically focusing on the priest’s role in confession:

For mortal sins, Catholics view as a the sacrament of confession to be a necessity. Part of this is obviously confessing to a priest. The priest, despite literally being a man, is not viewed as a man because while sitting in that seat he’s viewed as being Christ himself. Hence its not viewed as confessing to a man through the symbolism.

Am I in the ballpark?

 

[Telstar]

I would highly recommend the Book “Walking With God” (Ascension Press). It takes you from Genesis to Revelation and really lays out the story of salvation history. Dr. Tim Gray is a great theologian who is currently the President of the Augustine Institute in Denver. You may know Jeff Cavins of EWTN fame. This is pretty much a summation of their Bible Study “The Great Adventure” which is an excellent resource.

I just looked it up and it certainly does sound interesting. Unfortunately, I have such a backlog of new books that I still haven’t read yet, I don’t think I’ll be buying it right away. I will definitely add it to my ‘books I’d like to read’ list, though.

 

[SteveVH]

I just looked it up and it certainly does sound interesting. Unfortunately, I have such a backlog of new books that I still haven’t read yet, I don’t think I’ll be buying it right away. I will definitely add it to my ‘books I’d like to read’ list, though.

 

[XuDan]

So would the following agree with your experience?

That was not my experience. That is the perception encouraged, but in actual practice it is not what I experienced. Some bishops were better about it than others, but in the end I stopped asking for help with my repentance process because it was excessive and needless humiliation for little to no actual help.

 

[Stephen168]

Ah ha! iepuras makes some sense. So let me recap to see if I’m getting it right. This is specifically focusing on the priest’s role in confession:

For mortal sins, Catholics view as a the sacrament of confession to be a necessity. Part of this is obviously confessing to a priest. The priest, despite literally being a man, is not viewed as a man because while sitting in that seat he’s viewed as being Christ himself. Hence its not viewed as confessing to a man through the symbolism.

Am I in the ballpark?

I think you’re in the ballpark (2 Corin 2:10)

 

[SteveVH]

Ah ha! iepuras makes some sense. So let me recap to see if I’m getting it right. This is specifically focusing on the priest’s role in confession:

For mortal sins, Catholics view as a the sacrament of confession to be a necessity. Part of this is obviously confessing to a priest. The priest, despite literally being a man, is not viewed as a man because while sitting in that seat he’s viewed as being Christ himself. Hence its not viewed as confessing to a man through the symbolism.

Am I in the ballpark?

You are in the ballpark but it is important to understand that we do not simply view the priest as being Christ himself, we believe that he is Christ himself as he acts “In the person of Christ”. He does this at the Mass as well which is why the priest can say "This is MY body… This is MY blood… It is Christ who changes the bread and wine to his own body and blood.

 

[Stephen168]

That was not my experience. That is the perception encouraged, but in actual practice it is not what I experienced. Some bishops were better about it than others, but in the end I stopped asking for help with my repentance process because it was excessive and needless humiliation for little to no actual help.

I just read an article on the LDS website that confirms what you and others have said.

The Bishop is the judge, he can punish you, and will have a “revelation” about when you are worthy enough for punishment to stop.

 

[iepuras]

I find the description of working through the repentance process in the CoJCoLDS offered by Catholics here REPUGNANT. This does not mean such things didn’t happen to these folks, but I think such is quite rare (at least in my experiences). I also think such recollections (like all recollections) are filtered through the persons offering them.

If you find what we are relating repugnant, then you are finding the behavior of certain LDS bishops repugnant. Please take it up with the LDS church as we are simply relating our own personal experiences and the experiences of our friends in the LDS church. It is good that your own experiences are not too bad. You are fortunate.

Are my recollections filtered? I don’t think so. I would have said the exact same things when I was Mormon. Sorry, but the truth isn’t always nice and pretty as you well know.

 

[taylorf]

As such, I expect more from God’s communication to the prophet than I experience in God’s communication with me, but I do not expect God’s communication with the prophet to create infallible communication from God to the prophet then to me.

I would assume revelation of eternal truths would constitute infallible communication? How do you differentiate that from the fallible?

 

[XuDan]

I find the description of working through the repentance process in the CoJCoLDS offered by Catholics here REPUGNANT. This does not mean such things didn’t happen to these folks, but I think such is quite rare (at least in my experiences). I also think such recollections (like all recollections) are filtered through the persons offering them.

That’s because it is repugnant that people are treated in such a way. You’re right about my experience being filtered, just not in the way you probably think. When I was still LDS I would have had some extremely harsh and extensive things to say about it all. I probably would have written a long essay or a novella on the matter. Now that I’m outside of the faith and it no longer affects me or is a factor as to weather or not I need to fear going to confession, I find myself not wanting to speak as harshly on the matter. In other words the filter applied by leaving the LDS church is that I no longer have a personal stake in the process and I am no longer hurt and bitter from it. Not what you were implying, but on the surface, your premise was correct.

 

[Horton]

Ah ha! iepuras makes some sense. So let me recap to see if I’m getting it right. This is specifically focusing on the priest’s role in confession:

For mortal sins, Catholics view as a the sacrament of confession to be a necessity. Part of this is obviously confessing to a priest. The priest, despite literally being a man, is not viewed as a man because while sitting in that seat he’s viewed as being Christ himself. Hence its not viewed as confessing to a man through the symbolism.

Am I in the ballpark?

Close but…in persona christi means “In Roman Catholicism, the priest acts in the person of Christ in pronouncing the words that comprise part of a sacramental rite. For example, in the Mass, the Words of Institution, by which the bread becomes the Body of Christ and the wine becomes the Precious Blood. The priest and bishop act in the person of Christ the head in their leadership of the Church.” from Wikipedia.

Also from Wikipedia " Code of Canon Law (1983)7 as modified by Benedict XVI (2009)8: Can. 1008 By divine institution, some of the Christian faithful are marked with an indelible character and constituted as sacred ministers by the sacrament of holy orders. They are thus consecrated and deputed so that, each according to his own grade, they may serve the People of God by a new and specific title."

When we go to confession we are confessing to God.

 

[TOmNossor]

I would assume revelation of eternal truths would constitute infallible communication? How do you differentiate that from the fallible?

When one encounters God and comes to KNOW God, such is “revelation of eternal truth.” That this interpersonal communion reorients our lives toward God is the “revelation of eternal truth” that we need to receive. This KNOWing God is what we are called to in scripture. God can communicate this communion in a way that is infallibly understood by the person in relationship with God such that the relationship is salvific. I am not a once saved always saved, but through continuing this relationship we can know we are God’s people.
I would guess you are talking more about facts that are true so here is some more:
“Revelations of eternal truths” can come from God to the prophet, to me, sealed by the Holy Spirit. Revelations of eternal truths" can come from God to the prophet, to me, and then I reject them or the full implication of them because I am too sinful, prideful, … “Revelation of eternal truths” can come from God to the prophet, but be poorly understood because the prophet is too sinful, prideful, not ready to hear, or just an imperfect human. “Revelations of eternal truths” can come from God to me too, but again will sometimes take purchase in my being and other times fail to have the full impact I wish they would.
I have confidence in the messages I receive in conference especially when they are sealed by the Holy Spirit. This confidence is sufficient to reorient my life towards the messages I receive (and then vacillate back and forth because while there is a march toward God, I periodically find myself having said, “No my way!” and having to repent and remember and re-march the same old ground).
Eternal truths about God’s love, Christ’s atonement, my call to align myself with His will, … are solidly part of my experience of God and are “eternal truths.”
How God is one and how God is three is most likely an eternal truth. I think it unlikely that the best understanding of this is that put forth by Augustine who I think it is fair to call a “neo-modalist.” I think it unlikely that everything I have said (or even believe) on the subject is absolutely correct. So while it is an eternal truth, I do not think God has offered “revelation to be delivered to the entire world” far beyond the non-theologically-precise words in scripture. I also do not believe that the negative protection offered by conciliar and papal infallibility exists such that every statement put forth by the Ecumenical Councils is protected from error such that I should align my understanding with them (I am not Catholic). Even if I did believe in conciliar infallibility would it be the “words” that were infallibility sealed or would it be the original understanding of the fathers that used the words (the latter allowing what most folks believe to be a heretical statement from Nicea to be understood because of the fluidity of the meaning of words, but calling into question popular Catholic beliefs that were excluded by the original intent present in a few EC - while perhaps still allowed if you believe only words are sealed).

So, I can admit that I have less CERTAINTY when it comes to many true propositions than a faithful Catholic will. I do not think this certainty is necessary to KNOW (as in have a relationship with) God. I will also say that focusing on infallible truth has IMO a difficult past and infallible councils/declarations do not produce infallible knowing (as in individuals embracing/rejecting true propositions about) God.
I hope that helps, and it places my lack of certainty in a context too. I understand the apologetics used to defend infallibility of the Pope (and by extension of councils). I would be interested to know of the history of “infallibility.” I have read a good amount about Vatican I and Papal Infallibility, but little about when and how conciliar infallibility was first defined and understood. I have reason to believe that the Father’s at Nicea and especially afterwards were not certain what Nicea did was infallible.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

We know fallible claims from Eternal truth by:

When one encounters God and comes to KNOW God, such is “revelation of eternal truth.” That this interpersonal communion reorients our lives toward God is the “revelation of eternal truth” that we need to receive. This KNOWing God is what we are called to in scripture. God can communicate this communion in a way that is infallibly understood by the person in relationship with God such that the relationship is salvific. I am not a once saved always saved, but through continuing this relationship we can know we are God’s people.

True but doesn’t answer the question

I would guess you are talking more about facts that are true

Yes Facts, teachings, beliefs, practices

so here is some more:
“Revelations of eternal truths” can come from God to the prophet, to me, sealed by the Holy Spirit. Revelations of eternal truths" can come from God to the prophet, to me, and then I reject them or the full implication of them because I am too sinful, prideful, … “Revelation of eternal truths” can come from God to the prophet, but be poorly understood because the prophet is too sinful, prideful, not ready to hear, or just an imperfect human. “Revelations of eternal truths” can come from God to me too, but again will sometimes take purchase in my being and other times fail to have the full impact I wish they would.

Seems like you really don’t know and can’t trust yourself or the prophet.

I have confidence in the messages I receive in conference especially when they are sealed by the Holy Spirit. This confidence is sufficient to reorient my life towards the messages I receive (and then vacillate back and forth because while there is a march toward God, I periodically find myself having said, “No my way!” and having to repent and remember and re-march the same old ground).

So you or the prophet would know the difference between an infallible claim and an eternal truth because an eternal truth is “sealed by the Holy Spirit” What does that mean and how do you know it is sealed by the Holy Spirit? Why would the prophet teach a ‘revelation’ that is not sealed by the Holy Spirit and therefore false?

Eternal truths about God's love, Christ's atonement, my call to align myself with His will, ... are solidly part of my experience of God and are "eternal truths."

But how do you know?

How God is one and how God is three is most likely an eternal truth.

But it is not taught in Mormonism.

I think it unlikely that the best understanding of this is that put forth by Augustine who I think it is fair to call a “neo-modalist.” I think it unlikely that everything I have said (or even believe) on the subject is absolutely correct. So while it is an eternal truth, I do not think God has offered “revelation to be delivered to the entire world” far beyond the non-theologically-precise words in scripture. I also do not believe that the negative protection offered by conciliar and papal infallibility exists such that every statement put forth by the Ecumenical Councils is protected from error such that I should align my understanding with them (I am not Catholic). Even if I did believe in conciliar infallibility would it be the “words” that were infallibility sealed or would it be the original understanding of the fathers that used the words (the latter allowing what most folks believe to be a heretical statement from Nicea to be understood because of the fluidity of the meaning of words, but calling into question popular Catholic beliefs that were excluded by the original intent present in a few EC - while perhaps still allowed if you believe only words are sealed).

This has nothing to do with the subject.

So, I can admit that I have less CERTAINTY when it comes to many true propositions than a faithful Catholic will.

Yes, I think this is true. Mainly because you haven’t shown why there would by any certainty at all in Mormonism.

I do not think this certainty is necessary to KNOW (as in have a relationship with) God. I will also say that focusing on infallible truth has IMO a difficult past and infallible councils/declarations do not produce infallible knowing (as in individuals embracing/rejecting true propositions about) God.
I hope that helps, and it places my lack of certainty in a context too. I understand the apologetics used to defend infallibility of the Pope (and by extension of councils). I would be interested to know of the history of “infallibility.” I have read a good amount about Vatican I and Papal Infallibility, but little about when and how conciliar infallibility was first defined and understood. I have reason to believe that the Father’s at Nicea and especially afterwards were not certain what Nicea did was infallible.

It seems to me by what you’ve stated and I have read from other Mormons is that it really doesn’t matter. You believe what you want to believe. If you want to believe it, it is “sealed by the Holy Spirit.” If it turns out to be wrong, it was the pride and sinfulness of the Prophet.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I would guess you are talking more about facts that are true so here is some more:
“Revelations of eternal truths” can come from God to the prophet, to me, sealed by the Holy Spirit. Revelations of eternal truths" can come from God to the prophet, to me, and then I reject them or the full implication of them because I am too sinful, prideful, … “Revelation of eternal truths” can come from God to the prophet, but be poorly understood because the prophet is too sinful, prideful, not ready to hear, or just an imperfect human. “Revelations of eternal truths” can come from God to me too, but again will sometimes take purchase in my being and other times fail to have the full impact I wish they would.

Are you claiming to be a prophet?

Eternal truths about God’s love, Christ’s atonement, my call to align myself with His will, … are solidly part of my experience of God and are “eternal truths.”

Why do you need a modern prophet to tell you this?

John 14:23

How God is one and how God is three is most likely an eternal truth.

Wait, what does “eternal” mean to you? I ask because most often I see LDS use the word eternal, in a framework of having a beginning. Such as, your God is thermal, but could have possibly (depending on the Mormon you ask) been not-a-God before becoming a God. But LDS will still this once-not-a-God, “eternal”.

Anyway, God is not “a” truth, God is truth.

Anyway I think it unlikely that the best understanding of this is that put forth by Augustine who I think it is fair to call a “neo-modalist.” I think it unlikely that everything I have said (or even believe) on the subject is absolutely correct. So while it is an eternal truth, I do not think God has offered “revelation to be delivered to the entire world” far beyond the non-theologically-precise words in scripture.

Revelation can be explicit or implicit. The Trinity is both. Jesus said He is God, not a God. He commanded that we baptize in the name of God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He did not say, baptize in the names of the individuals who comprise a Godhead.

I also do not believe that the negative protection offered by conciliar and papal infallibility exists such that every statement put forth by the Ecumenical Councils is protected from error such that I should align my understanding with them (I am not Catholic). Even if I did believe in conciliar infallibility would it be the “words” that were infallibility sealed or would it be the original understanding of the fathers that used the words (the latter allowing what most folks believe to be a heretical statement from Nicea to be understood because of the fluidity of the meaning of words, but calling into question popular Catholic beliefs that were excluded by the original intent present in a few EC - while perhaps still allowed if you believe only words are sealed).

Yes, you’ve made your opinion clear on this in just about every post you’ve made. We got it.

So, I can admit that I have less CERTAINTY when it comes to many true propositions than a faithful Catholic will. I do not think this certainty is necessary to KNOW (as in have a relationship with) God. I will also say that focusing on infallible truth has IMO a difficult past and infallible councils/declarations do not produce infallible knowing (as in individuals embracing/rejecting true propositions about) God.

More of the same.

I hope that helps, and it places my lack of certainty in a context too. I understand the apologetics used to defend infallibility of the Pope (and by extension of councils). I would be interested to know of the history of “infallibility.” I have read a good amount about Vatican I and Papal Infallibility, but little about when and how conciliar infallibility was first defined and understood. I have reason to believe that the Father’s at Nicea and especially afterwards were not certain what Nicea did was infallible.
Charity, TOm

And, you’ve asked about this already, and expressed already your opinion.

 

[Chris-WA]

LOL!!! “Mormons don’t like history”. That’s funny. I’ll have to go tell my sister (an ultra-orthodox Mormon getting a Bachelor’s in mid-eastern history/culture) that she should change her major .

Just because I don’t find history to be faith inspiring, that doesn’t mean there aren’t other Mormons that don’t find it interesting / faith-inspiring (there are a lot). Some people study mid-eastern stuff (like my sister), some guess about ancient New World stuff, some really delve into modern history (and every possible combo). And then some people (like me) just don’t care.

In terms of what people find faith-inspiring / faith-building, I think a lot of comes down to that individual. Some people are very inspired by history, I’m inspired by studying the natural world (I’m an ecologist by profession). And of course we all should keep the Holy Spirit in the forefront.

Chris-WA and others, what do you find faith-inspiring?

You missed the overall point of my post. When I say history is the enemy of Mormonism, what I mean specifically is LDS history. It is the enemy of Mormonism because it reveals that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Most LDS are ignorant of this, not necessarily of their own fault, but mostly because the foundational stories they have been taught by the church all of their lives are the sanitized, rosy versions of the truth. For decades historians, many of them faithful LDS, have tried to tell the rest of the story and often times found themselves either excommunicated or disfellowshipped for doing so.

Because the Internet has finally made this information so widely available, many LDS are learning the true history for the first time, and they don’t like what they find. The church is bleeding members because of it, and therefore had to do something to counter the problem. They decided to address some of these issues in a series of essays published on the church website. In these essays, the church is finally admitting some of the things the historians have been writing about for decades, although most LDS are quite unaware as the essays are not widely advertised to the membership and are not easy to find on LDS.org.

So you may be bored by history, but you will never know the real Joseph Smith until you read it for yourself. Thousands of LDS are leaving in large numbers over this very issue. They feel like they were lied to–and they were. To ignore history just because it doesn’t inspire you is to be ignorant of the truth.