OK, I Am Confused. Do Mormons Believe In The Trinity?

[cothrige]

[snip]

I am hoping that I answered your questions 4 and 5 by my above responses to questions 1 and 2, including the “balance of power” concept that is actually more of a balance than, say, the U.S. Supreme Court, because these brethren don’t move forward with policy changes unless they have come to a unified agreement, and they do disagree before they get there. The inspiration/revelation come after much discussion, prayer, fasting, and deliberation including using scriptural knowledge.

Long answer, but those were some deep questions.

Many thanks for the answers. They were quite helpful. You were very patient in allowing me to clarify and ask and ask again, and I do very much appreciate it.

And I have to tell you, I am surprised. I had always thought that the LDS believed in a strong teaching authority in their Church, having that somewhat in common with us Catholics, but it sounds like you have no teaching authority whatsoever. It actually seems like a person could believe everything a Muslim does, and publicly deny every statement ever made by any LDS source and still be as good a Mormon in their beliefs as Joseph Smith himself. I do have to admit, you and Scriptorian were right. You really don’t believe in any infallibility in your Church at all. I had really honestly thought that we were just talking past each other using words with different meanings, but I was absolutely wrong. Thanks immensely for taking the time to explain things to me.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Equivocate much, Rebecca? You talk about murder, I respond about murder, and suddenly you are talking about something altogether different?

C’mon. Stay on task here.

I believe I did.

Well, we do have a problem with your aghast claim that God intended ‘adultery’ to mean ‘more than one wife.’

Remember David? He didn’t get in trouble for having more than one wife or concubine. Neither did Solomon, come to think of it.

God allows sin. I think that is obvious.

I have to wonder if there ever will come a time when you realize what you are defending.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Only when I’m right, Rebecca.

Only when I’m right.

…come to think of it, isn’t that what YOU want? For me to admit that I am not a Christian because YOU say so? At least I am not attempting to deny that YOU have faith in Christ, or are Christian.

I would like for you to not insist that Christians call you something you aren’t. When it is Mormonism itself, everything it teaches, that defines itself as not Christian.

A Christian embodies much more than Faith in Christ. I have not questioned this about you.

A Christian believes in One God. Not 3 or 5 or 10,000 or who knows how many gods and goddesses are floating out there in your pantheon.

 

[dianaiad]

I believe I did.

God allows sin. I think that is obvious.

I have to wonder if there ever will come a time when you realize what you are defending.

I think you need to go back and read precisely what it is that God had to say to David.

 

[cothrige]

**Any doctrine that can be confirmed from that canon is official LDS doctrine. Any doctrine that cannot be, is not. **

Sorry, I accidentally browsed past your post and read Parker’s first. So, perhaps you could address some questions about what you say here, given what I read there.

1. I am gathering that there is no actual requirement in your Church that one accept any idea of what is or is not scripture. So, how can you use certain books as a test? For instance, if I were a Mormon and I didn’t believe that the Book of Mormon was scripture, how would it be possible to teach me from it?
2. As I am sure you know scriptures are only the first resource. They always present exegetical and interpretation questions beyond the mere text. Since your Church has no teaching authority to state without doubt just what the exact meaning of a scripture is how can one ever really rely on the scriptures as a proof? You say, for instance, that the ultimate test of a person’s teaching, whether high or low, is conformity to scripture. However, again, if I were Mormon and thought that the scripture taught a Triune God I would obviously be testing any teaching against that interpretation. Since there is nobody in the Church that can definitively correct me I can’t really see how the scriptures can be said to be a proof.

Perhaps I am confusing some issue, but I am trying to absorb all that is being said by several people, and I can’t always be sure I am getting things just right. The LDS seem to have a very alien way of understanding things to what I am used to, and so I have no doubt that something isn’t clicking somewhere.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think you need to go back and read precisely what it is that God had to say to David.

I think if you read it, precisely, you would understand one of the inherent evils of polygamy. ie, the wives of a man defeated are given to the victor, along with the rest of the property.

There is nothing there that says God commanded David to marry this wife-property that became his because of victory in battle.

It is clear in Genesis what God says about marriage. One man, one wife. Jesus clarified, and reiterated, this when he taught against divorce. A man is to marry a woman, not women, and the two cannot separate. Mormons somehow read into his a man is to marry a woman, and a woman, and a woman, and a woman, and the two cannot separate.

Polygamy has never been commanded by God. It is all various ways that cultures, and individuals, skirt what God has ordered.

 

[dianaiad]

I think if you read it, precisely, you would understand one of the inherent evils of polygamy. ie, the wives of a man defeated are given to the victor, along with the rest of the property.

There is nothing there that says God commanded David to marry this wife-property that became his because of victory in battle.

It is clear in Genesis what God says about marriage. One man, one wife. Jesus clarified, and reiterated, this when he taught against divorce. A man is to marry a woman, not women, and the two cannot separate. Mormons somehow read into his a man is to marry a woman, and a woman, and a woman, and a woman, and the two cannot separate.

Polygamy has never been commanded by God. It is all various ways that cultures, and individuals, skirt what God has ordered.

That’s quite the eisigesis. God told David that he was given the WIVES and concubines…that GOD gave them to him.

Would God give him something sinful, and then cavil at yet another woman? This was about considerably more than property.

 

[Irish_Kathy]

That’s quite the eisigesis. God told David that he was given the WIVES and concubines…that GOD gave them to him.

Would God give him something sinful, and then cavil at yet another woman? This was about considerably more than property.

In the first place, When God truely gives a woman to a man in the Bible it’s never as just property, but as a partner. In the second place, whenever a man in the Bible takes a second wife, it never does anything but cause problems between all of the wives involved. That dosn’t sound like something that God would want for anyone. It’s our decisions that cause problems, not God’s.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Now, bearing the burden of her own eternal salvation and that of her family, and with a deadline approaching, Lucy prayed more fervently for an answer. She couldn’t sleep the entire night. Just before dawn, and Joseph’s deadline, she “received a powerful and irristable testimony of the truth of the mariage covenant called ‘Celestial or plural mariage’” and “I afterwards married Joseph as a plural wife and lived and cohabitated with him as such.”

The above was said by Lucy Walker a plural wife of Joseph Smith.

Yep Lucy Walker whose mother had died, the youngest of her siblings sent to live with kind friends, her father sent on a two year mission by JS and she now housed in JS’s house “bearing the burden of her own eternal salbation and that of her family”. If this isn’t a hundred shades of wrong nothing is.

 

[Irish_Kathy]

Yep Lucy Walker whose mother had died, the youngest of her siblings sent to live with kind friends, her father sent on a two year mission by JS and she now housed in JS’s house “bearing the burden of her own eternal salbation and that of her family”. If this isn’t a hundred shades of wrong nothing is.

From what I’ve heard about Joseph Smith’s wives, they didn’t exactly live together in peace eather. Didn’t one of them even leave him?

 

[RebeccaJ]

That’s quite the eisigesis. God told David that he was given the WIVES and concubines…that GOD gave them to him.

Would God give him something sinful, and then cavil at yet another woman? This was about considerably more than property.

Mormons believe God creates laws that say one thing, and encourage us to break them, followed by enforcing His laws again. This is not the belief of any Catholic. We do not see that God acts in this way, we see that humans attribute thing to God that did not originate with Him, at all. People of the OT were not immune to this.

If we see:

• God created marriage ordered as one man, one woman
• Moses says it is ok to divorce
• People practice polygamy
• Jesus clarifies, again, that marriage is one man, one woman and divorce was never the law

We don’t see that God wavered from point to point to point. We see that humans erred in their understanding. And with this understanding, we seek to not offend God and commit the same errors. Especially when Jesus, who we follow, has made it quite clear.

Nathan said to David, the LORD has blessed you. Of course, we understand Israel were God’s covenant people, and they were indeed blessed. This does not mean that when we look at the WHOLE of scripture, at everything that GOD has taught regarding marriage, that we should think Nathan declared God commanded polygamy. In the WHOLE of scripture, it is quite clear. God has ordered marriage as between one man and one woman.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Matthew 19:

3 Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, 4 saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” 4 He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” 7 They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?” 8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

Jesus states, that marriage is between one man and one woman. They are joined together as one. This, I think we agree on.

This bond cannot be broken. Divorce cannot break it. Jesus then clearly states. A man who divorces and remarries, is committing adultery. A woman who divorces and remarries, is committing adultery.

Have you never asked, why is a man who divorces his wife and marries another committing adultery? Why is a woman who divorces and marries again committing adultery? Do you not understand it is because according to Jesus, the bond of marriage cannot be broken, and thus, they are still married.

Jesus is teaching, right here, and recorded in THREE other places in the NT, that a person who is married, and marries another, is committing adultery.

This is why I say, Joseph Smith, who was married, and married again, was committing adultery. It is not something I just made up. It is, exactly, what Jesus taught.

 

[ParkerD]

Sorry, I accidentally browsed past your post and read Parker’s first. So, perhaps you could address some questions about what you say here, given what I read there.

1. I am gathering that there is no actual requirement in your Church that one accept any idea of what is or is not scripture. So, how can you use certain books as a test? For instance, if I were a Mormon and I didn’t believe that the Book of Mormon was scripture, how would it be possible to teach me from it?
2. As I am sure you know scriptures are only the first resource. They always present exegetical and interpretation questions beyond the mere text. Since your Church has no teaching authority to state without doubt just what the exact meaning of a scripture is how can one ever really rely on the scriptures as a proof? You say, for instance, that the ultimate test of a person’s teaching, whether high or low, is conformity to scripture. However, again, if I were Mormon and thought that the scripture taught a Triune God I would obviously be testing any teaching against that interpretation. Since there is nobody in the Church that can definitively correct me I can’t really see how the scriptures can be said to be a proof.

Perhaps I am confusing some issue, but I am trying to absorb all that is being said by several people, and I can’t always be sure I am getting things just right. The LDS seem to have a very alien way of understanding things to what I am used to, and so I have no doubt that something isn’t clicking somewhere.

Cothrige,
I noticed your questions here, and have wanted to further clarify so am using this as an opportunity–not to detract from what Zerinus will answer.

If an LDS member doesn’t believe the Book of Mormon, they are probably going to feel quite uncomfortable in the various classes, and I assume in many of the congregational meetings where members speak using the scriptures or testifying about the scriptures. I just don’t think they would remain active members. It would be too discordant. By scriptures we mean only four books: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The Doctrine and Covenants was added to in 1978.

Some doctrinal concepts have a breadth of possible meanings, but most do not and most come directly from scriptural text that is considered adequately clear. The scriptures are quoted from all the time as the source of the teachings. Teachers are encouraged to use the scriptures and printed manuals as the basic source of their teaching.

I might as well take an example from the Catholic Encyclopedia on-line here, from the article about “God”. A paragraph says:

“2) Unity or Unicity of God
Obviously there can be only one infinite being, only one God. Did several exist; none of them would really be infinite, for, to have plurality of natures at all, each should have some perfection not possessed by the others. This will be readily granted by every one who admits the infinity of God, and there is no need to delay in developing what is perfectly clear. It should be noted, however, that some Theistic philosphers prefer to deduce unicity from self-existence and infinity from both combined, and in a matter so very abstract it is not surprising that slight differences of opinion should arise. But we have followed what seems to us to be the simpler and clearer line of argument: The metaphysical argument by which unicity, as distinct from infinity, is deduced from self-existence seems to be very obscure, while on the other hand infinity, as distinct from unicity, seems to be clearly implied in self-existence as such. If the question, for example, be asked: Why may there not be several self-existing beings? The only satisfactory answer, as it seems to us, is this: Because a self-existent being as such is necessarily infinite, and there cannot be several infinities. The unity of God as the First Cause might also be inductively inferred from the unity of the universe as we know it; but as the suggestion might be made, and could not be disproved, that there may be another or even several universes, of which we have no knowledge, this argument would not be absolutely conclusive.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic Answers, “God”)

The LDS don’t go into this kind of explanation generally, although a text describing LDS belief in the Godhead was published by the First Presidency in the early 1900’s. That text isn’t referred to in any teaching that I have seen during my lifetime. It is a point of reference that may be used in articles, but it is not treated as something like an infallible declaration of belief.

Incidentally, we don’t believe that God’s omnipotence precludes the existence of His Son who is also omnipotent and the Holy Ghost who is also omnipotent. They derive their omnipotence from their knowledge of all truth (omniscience) and their precise desire and willingness to completely adhere to all truth. One would do the same precise thing which the other would do, because knowledge of all truth guides them to the one best, most loving, most freeing in terms of allowing agency in humankind, course of action in any given circumstance. To me this is not limiting at all and does not express that they “have some perfection not possessed by the others”, but obviously does not square with the above Catholic definition, which frankly is not logical to me (but I don’t need it re-explained).

I have enjoyed the interaction with you these past few days. Thanks very kindly.

 

[cothrige]

Cothrige,
I noticed your questions here, and have wanted to further clarify so am using this as an opportunity–not to detract from what Zerinus will answer.

No, please. I am trying very hard to wrap my head around the LDS understanding and viewpoint, and believe me, it will likely take several of you to get through.

If an LDS member doesn’t believe the Book of Mormon, they are probably going to feel quite uncomfortable in the various classes, and I assume in many of the congregational meetings where members speak using the scriptures or testifying about the scriptures. I just don’t think they would remain active members. It would be too discordant. By scriptures we mean only four books: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The Doctrine and Covenants was added to in 1978.

Yes, I could see that, socially speaking, a member who denies the validity of the Book of Mormon may be in an awkward situation. But, strictly speaking, the LDS faith (Mormonism is an inappropriate title, correct?) doesn’t demand acceptance of that book, or any other, right? I was imagining that a member could demand that no book reveals God and still be in good standing in the faith. Have I understood correctly?

Some doctrinal concepts have a breadth of possible meanings, but most do not and most come directly from scriptural text that is considered adequately clear. The scriptures are quoted from all the time as the source of the teachings. Teachers are encouraged to use the scriptures and printed manuals as the basic source of their teaching.

Well, that seems sound and reasonable to me, overall. At least for sound and reasonable situations. But, consider, I am trying to build an intellectual model of this, and so I am wondering about less reasonable stuff too. The first question for me is what does your Church define as the scripture. It sounds to me like none are, technically speaking, defined at all. A definition sets a limit, by definition , and no limits seem to be set here in reality. Granted, there is a list, and it is clearly accepted by a vast majority. However, on an entirely theoretical level, that list seems only to be a suggestion since there is no way to know, on its own merits, that such a list is actually accurate. So, as a ridiculous example. there is nothing un-mormon (uggh!) about rejecting all four of these and instead insisting that only the Gnostic books are scripture. Sure, silly, but technically possible, and as legitimate an LDS view as the Book of Mormon, or so it would seem.

I might as well take an example from the Catholic Encyclopedia on-line here, from the article about “God”. A paragraph says:

"2) Unity or Unicity of God
Obviously there can be only one infinite being, only one God… [very big snip] (Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic Answers, “God”)

Yeah, sure, I was just saying the same thing to my kids the other day.

The LDS don’t go into this kind of explanation generally, Yeah, I should hope. although a text describing LDS belief in the Godhead was published by the First Presidency in the early 1900’s. That text isn’t referred to in any teaching that I have seen during my lifetime. It is a point of reference that may be used in articles, but it is not treated as something like an infallible declaration of belief.

Yes, I have gathered that from other conversations in which people had quoted from what I think may have been that document. At the time I had thought it was because it might have been something rather informal, such as perhaps our Baltimore Catechism. (We might perhaps mention that, of course, the Catholic Encyclopedia is also not infallible, but I know you know that.)

…To me this is not limiting at all and does not express that they “have some perfection not possessed by the others”, but obviously does not square with the above Catholic definition, which frankly is not logical to me (but I don’t need it re-explained).

Don’t you worry. I wouldn’t think of it.

I have enjoyed the interaction with you these past few days. Thanks very kindly.

Well, I certainly have enjoyed it myself. And I would like to think, given your efforts, I may actually have learned something tangible by the end. Not about that Catholic Encyclopedia excerpt perhaps, but about something. And thank you very much for the help and answers. I do very much appreciate it.

 

[Scriptorian]

Many thanks for the answers. They were quite helpful. You were very patient in allowing me to clarify and ask and ask again, and I do very much appreciate it.

And I have to tell you, I am surprised. I had always thought that the LDS believed in a strong teaching authority in their Church, having that somewhat in common with us Catholics, but it sounds like you have no teaching authority whatsoever. It actually seems like a person could believe everything a Muslim does, and publicly deny every statement ever made by any LDS source and still be as good a Mormon in their beliefs as Joseph Smith himself. I do have to admit, you and Scriptorian were right. You really don’t believe in any infallibility in your Church at all. I had really honestly thought that we were just talking past each other using words with different meanings, but I was absolutely wrong. Thanks immensely for taking the time to explain things to me.

As I mentioned before, the LDS church claims that we are fallible and no one believes us…

No, truthfully, revelation is a difficult, deliberate, demanding process that requires years of careful effort and sincere repentance and persistent purification of the soul. (…not to mention prayer and scripture study.)

That is why Paul describes it at first as seeing “through a glass darkly…” I think of it as trying to listen for a cricket at a rock concert on a windy day with ear plugs and a slight hearing problem. You have to clear out the noise and fix your ears before you can even start to recognize what is being taught to you. Then you have to figure out the difference between the voice of God and your own thoughts. Then you have to measure each message or inspired thought against the scriptures to determine if you are listening to the right voice. Then you have to practice keeping that voice clear in your mind. Then you have to understand when, where, how, and why the Holy Spirit is speaking to you. Then you have to record those promptings so that you can study their meaning. Then you must thank God for his mercy and patience and love that he would bless you with his Spirit, and ask that the Spirit remain with you. And then you have to start the process all over again if you happen to yell at traffic, watch a surprisingly inappropriate movie, or do any of the millions of things that can drive God from your mind.

Very few people have the self-control to master their own minds. Others can’t control their mouths (or fingers on buttons, as the case may be…)

The reason so few are able to receive revelation is because God can’t trust them with it.

The truth is that the things of the Spirit can only be learned by the Spirit. It is a difficult process, but I promise you it is worth it. Treasures of knowledge beyond what you could possibly understand are available to us.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. (1 Corinthians 2:9)

 

[zerinus]

Sorry, I accidentally browsed past your post and read Parker’s first. So, perhaps you could address some questions about what you say here, given what I read there.

1. I am gathering that there is no actual requirement in your Church that one accept any idea of what is or is not scripture.

Of course that is not correct. Who gave you that idea? We have a scriptural canon, just like you do; except that our canon includes more books than yours does.

So, how can you use certain books as a test? For instance, if I were a Mormon and I didn’t believe that the Book of Mormon was scripture, how would it be possible to teach me from it?

That would be a strange Mormon who did not believe in the Book of Mormon. That would be like saying a Catholic who doesn’t believe in the Old or in the New Testament. Every true Mormon believes in the Book of Mormon. If he doesn’t, then he is a freak Mormon. That would be like a Catholic who didn’t believe in the Bible. I am sure there are more Catholics who do not beleive in the Bible than there are Mormons who do not believe in the Book of Mormon.

1. As I am sure you know scriptures are only the first resource. They always present exegetical and interpretation questions beyond the mere text. Since your Church has no teaching authority to state without doubt just what the exact meaning of a scripture is how can one ever really rely on the scriptures as a proof?

We certainly have that authority. If a controversy arose concerning doctrine in the Church, the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles are the final arbiter as to how the scriptures are to be interpreted. But it is not something that they would like, or need, to do very often. Such controversies do not arise in the Church that often. Rather, they encourage Church members to so acquaint themselves with the standard works, guided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that they can act as independent arbiters of what is true doctrine and what is not.

You say, for instance, that the ultimate test of a person’s teaching, whether high or low, is conformity to scripture. However, again, if I were Mormon and thought that the scripture taught a Triune God I would obviously be testing any teaching against that interpretation. Since there is nobody in the Church that can definitively correct me I can’t really see how the scriptures can be said to be a proof.

I don’t really understand you very well. Doctrinal understanding is not a “free for all” in the Church. The basic doctrines of the Church are well understood. How many Mormons do you know who believe that the scriptures teach the Trinity as it is understood by Catholics? I have never heard of one!

Perhaps I am confusing some issue, but I am trying to absorb all that is being said by several people, and I can’t always be sure I am getting things just right. The LDS seem to have a very alien way of understanding things to what I am used to, and so I have no doubt that something isn’t clicking somewhere.

It sounds like that to me too!

zerinus

 

[Jerusha]

I’m sorry to tell you this, but there are plenty of people within Mormonism who don’t believe in the BOM. They remain for social and/or financial reasons. There are two kinds. Some in higher positions remain because it gives them power over people, and a way to line their own pockets, either directly, or because of the social support structure. Others, who really have a sense of humor, remain because it gives them more opportunities to enlighten others, who otherwise would never speak to them again.

Your roamings on the internet are quite limited.

 

[zerinus]

I’m sorry to tell you this, but there are plenty of people within Mormonism who don’t believe in the BOM. They remain for social and/or financial reasons. There are two kinds. Some in higher positions remain because it gives them power over people, and a way to line their own pockets, either directly, or because of the social support structure. Others, who really have a sense of humor, remain because it gives them more opportunities to enlighten others, who otherwise would never speak to them again.

Your roamings on the internet are quite limited.

I am sure there are Mormons who don’t believe in the Book of Mormon, just as there are Catholics who don’t believe in the Bible. And that proves what exactly?

zerinus

 

[Jerusha]

The difference is that Catholics are not required to believe that all of the Bible is literal, historical truth. What is important is the meaning that we derive from it. Particularly that as man evolves, his perception of God also changes.

And the meaning of the Book of Mormon is to tolerate genocide, murder, and intolerance.

 

[ParkerD]

I’m sorry to tell you this, but there are plenty of people within Mormonism who don’t believe in the BOM. They remain for social and/or financial reasons. There are two kinds. Some in higher positions remain because it gives them power over people, and a way to line their own pockets, either directly, or because of the social support structure. Others, who really have a sense of humor, remain because it gives them more opportunities to enlighten others, who otherwise would never speak to them again.

Your roamings on the internet are quite limited.

Jerusha,
Perhaps you had missed one of my previous points that the Book of Mormon is written more for the members of the LDS church than for the world in general. It is a sifter of hearts, including those in the LDS church. I loved Scriptorian’s description of getting and keeping the Holy Spirit:

"No, truthfully, revelation is a difficult, deliberate, demanding process that requires years of careful effort and sincere repentance and persistent purification of the soul. (…not to mention prayer and scripture study.)

That is why Paul describes it at first as seeing “through a glass darkly…” I think of it as trying to listen for a cricket at a rock concert on a windy day with ear plugs and a slight hearing problem. You have to clear out the noise and fix your ears before you can even start to recognize what is being taught to you. Then you have to figure out the difference between the voice of God and your own thoughts. Then you have to measure each message or inspired thought against the scriptures to determine if you are listening to the right voice. Then you have to practice keeping that voice clear in your mind. Then you have to understand when, where, how, and why the Holy Spirit is speaking to you. Then you have to record those promptings so that you can study their meaning. Then you must thank God for his mercy and patience and love that he would bless you with his Spirit, and ask that the Spirit remain with you. And then you have to start the process all over again if you happen to yell at traffic, watch a surprisingly inappropriate movie, or do any of the millions of things that can drive God from your mind.

Very few people have the self-control to master their own minds. Others can’t control their mouths (or fingers on buttons, as the case may be…)

The reason so few are able to receive revelation is because God can’t trust them with it.

The truth is that the things of the Spirit can only be learned by the Spirit. It is a difficult process, but I promise you it is worth it. Treasures of knowledge beyond what you could possibly understand are available to us." (Source: Scriptorian)

Fringe members don’t do the above, don’t have the Spirit, and are attending church for the wrong reasons, yes, absolutely. But God is patient with them. Some may someday actually decide to read the Book of Mormon and the Bible instead of not having read them, or to read them with a sincere heart instead of a scorning, belittling heart. Others may pull themselves out of the church, or even if they don’t, they “will be their own condemners” at judgment day. Alma truthfully wrote:

"Then if our hearts have been hardened, yea, if we have hardened our hearts against the word, insomuch that it has not been found in us, then will our state be awful, for then we shall be condemned.

For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence.

But this cannot be; we must come forth and stand before him in his glory, and in his power, and in his might, majesty, and dominion, and acknowledge to our everlasting shame that all his judgments are just; that he is just in all his works, and that he is merciful unto the children of men, and that he has all power to save every man that believeth on his name and bringeth forth fruit meet for repentance." (Alma 12:13-15)

Isn’t it interesting how the internet has become a sifter of hearts also? No one is watching (except heaven). “Every idle word spoken” becomes “every idle word written” and every view made not only becomes a part of the memory, but a part of the soul which each person is constructing within their own body and mind with every action and every thought they choose for themselves in life. Those choices will be restored to them at judgment day. Some understand this, others don’t. But it hasn’t been that God has not been trying to persuade them to change. It is their choice in the matter.:newidea::sad_yes::yup:

I see by your post that it has sifted your heart already… You found in it what you were looking for. That happens with atheists and the Bible all the time. I have read their comments hundreds of times.