GrayMars

Thank you. I think some of this was presented at the beginning of the meeting about the Holy Ghost and finding out if it is the right church. Of course, I quickly forget this kind of thing, so it's good to have someone clarify what exactly I should be focused on when hearing the missionaries out. I'm not dumping everything on you below, it's just I needed a place to put it. I'm glad you agree with honesty as the best policy, I know not being honest would just result in havoc: a bad experience and an irrational justification for disliking the Church (and right now I don't have a dislike for you all, maybe some disagreements). I find it difficult to process topics like Jesus when speaking to missionaries, because I've spent some time looking into this topic myself and it has played an important role in the way I view Christianity in particular, as well as religion (or at least the Abrahamic ones). It is important not to put so much value in my own view of Jesus (and of God) that I close myself off to hearing from people with different views than my own. It's easy to choose to spend time looking at different views and realizing that mine lacks something, or that I didn't know something. That is the simple part. The hard part is being able to look and say "You know what. My mind is made up about that." I fear confrontation though, or even feeling like someone is at odds with me. They're free to disagree, but if it goes beyond that i say I'm afraid. And being afraid of confrontation makes it even worse. Do you think I should just say "My mind is made up about that (at the moment)"? Another thing I fear is not being accepted. And it's an irrational fear in this instance, I just know it. I have a lot of fears, a lot of goals, a lot of stuff I need to work on. I'm lucky to have people in my life already who want to support me. I need to meet new people, but I feel I'm at a time where doing something so drastic would alter me in a bad way. Right, thanks for everything. The reason to be anxious is twenty-fold, really. I agree that there isn't a purpose to being anxious in regards to the reason the missionaries and I are getting together to speak.

Hi all. So I had a chance encounter with missionaries through the week while out for a walk. It was quite a pleasant introduction, and I was able to meet with them today. I wish I had come here first for words of advice and encouragement. My memory is really bad, but I heard the LDS side of the Authority of the Church on quite a basic level (which was a question I had during our first encounter), reading the Book of Mormon (of which I already own a copy but have read very little of it), and I came clean to them that I am not a believer. We spoke a bit about that, which probably took up the majority of the meeting. We also touched very briefly on health related matters (but not the Word of Wisdom yet). They know that I am a little bit familiar with Mormons, although even I am admitting what I do know is just a drop in the ocean. Anyhow, it was a daunting experience this time around, in comparison to when we first met. Overall, I'd say the experience was positive from the perspective of having an openness to speak (on both sides), but while I was kind of overwhelmed with the situation due to anxiety, I also felt a little underwhelmed by the explanations that were given. They asked me to read the Book of Mormon, which I will do. They asked me to go to church, and I asked them to call me back about that as I am feeling unsure. I don't know if there's much of a point to posting this, but I'm just really feeling not so relaxed about the whole thing. I think it's good that I was able to be honest and forthcoming today and not hold off until later. They expressed that some people do that. So I'm glad about that. I think I have worries about things like the Word of Wisdom and being baptized (neither of which have been brought up yet). I don't think I am ready for baptism. Can anyone offer some sage wisdom? lol GrayMars

First, hello! I haven't posted or lurked here in a good while. Some history, I've asked the question of whether or not the LDS as a church holds authority on matters of faith. It began as I asked the same question of the other churches, and in coming to understand the Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans, I came to believe they all make a really interesting claim about having apostolic succession - or a lineage going all the way back to the apostles. So when I became interested in the authority of the LDS as a church, I asked whether it claims a lineage of its own. This led me to the question of the Great Apostasy since it throws a wrench in that idea (or maybe it does?). I must have read about it somewhere, but my memory isn't so good. Can someone give me the idea without going into the history of it, like maybe if you were to give an expansive definition - and how does it differ from the others (i.e. apostolic succession)? What I'm really looking for here is not a justification that the LDS hold authority for whatever reason that is tied to the Great Apostasy, but I would be interested also in hearing how you came to say, you know what: this makes sense. Because from where I am now, it's hard to conceptualize an informed point of view. It's like, these groups all say "Yeah, we have an answer!" and then you guys are like "But it's not the right answer!" So how do I come to reject this notion of a lineage being the best or only form of evidence for being an authentic tradition? I'm the kind of person who rejects all Protestant denominations besides the Episcopal Church which is technically Protestant but has its merit. LDS to me is one that I personally need to look at in as much depth as, if not more than, the three churches I have mentioned. GrayMars P.S. I'm friendly.

The website only brings up a bluish background in my browser window. I'll make sure to try again at another time, but thought I'd just tell you my experience in case something is broken that needs fixing. It could be on my end though. Anyhow, I'll let you know if it works or not next time.

The NET Bible is great if you study on your computer (or other device?). I personally use e-Sword, and have this bible in my collection. I have the free version which comes with some, not all, of the translation notes. I don't know that I would want to rely on them anyways. There's always room for bias, and although I'm extremely biased I like to view things through my own lens.

Well, the KJV is far from my favourite translation. For a literary reading of scripture, the KJV isn't bad, if you don't mind its many quirks. I used the King James Version extensively when all I cared about was getting the basic message of the text and didn't know much about bibles, but there are better versions out there for this if you're living in the 21st century. The translation I choose depends almost entirely on the purpose I'm reading for. If I want a good and accurate translation that is easy to read and has the approval of a large circle of scholars, I'm going to go in the direction of the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), or if for some reason you can't, the Revised Standard Version is respected too. If I'm looking for a literal translation (called formal equivalence, the NRSV also uses it to an extent) that matches the text in Greek, prisonchaplain mentioned the NASB (New American Standard Bible). It's a fairly good translation and can be used for serious study, but as prisonchaplain said the problem with literal translations is they don't read quite as smoothly. That and some of the wordings can be interpreted as misleading since it translates the exact wording which is not always taken to mean the same thing that the person who wrote it meant (from a different area of the world, who spoke a different language, at a different time in history). There are some people who think that most bibles say basically the same thing (just in a different way) and therefore all bibles are good. I'm not one of those people, at least to an extent I'm not. Most bibles do say much of the same, but not all of them are good for serious study. If your intent is serious study, please avoid bibles like The MESSAGE, the NIV, or the KJV. Sorry, I'm pretty sure the KJV is the bible comes packaged with LDS, but it's from the 17th century. Great bible in its day, even a great literary work in this day, but it's not a good study bible. I'm not a Mormon so I'm not sure how much importance is placed by the Church on the bible version you use or if they even recommend the KV these days. I know it's a public domain bible so they may just package it for that reason, if so I'd love to know.

Why try to reconcile your notions about the universe with your religious faith? Both explanations have a substantial amount of beauty in them. You could always say God kickstarted the Big Bang, that would be fine and good; however, be aware that this would neither be the natural explanation for the universe, nor the story of the creation narrative in the Bible. Also, remember that there are two creation narratives in the Book of Genesis? They contradict one another, yet they lay alongside one another. Both of them have survived until now, haven't they? So, you could say that Heavenly Father was the instigator (of the Big Bang), but be aware that by doing so you are in effect writing your own narrative. The same accusation has been made by New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, who said that those who accept everything in all the gospels (according to...) as if they are one story, that they are writing their own gospel. He said this merely as a warning. Ehrman's warning is simply one reason I ask why you'd try to reconcile this. Another reason is, I'm an advocate of being able to compartmentalize (where needed) religious belief and understanding of the natural world. It's clear to me that that, even though they may sometimes agree, they are very much separate enterprises of knowledge. I say separate enterprises not to mean they (science and religion) are incompatible. I very much believe that they are compatible, but I think they are quite unrelated. Any questions, just ask.

As an outsider I would also like to compliment the Church on its website, it has made the Church very accessible with all its materials in a number of formats. Honestly the best church website I have ever visited, bar none.

Sorry that your relationship has put you in doubt about your religious convictions. Because I'm not satisfied with any of my previous conclusions about the existence of God, and therefore not making assumptions, I really can't share a "why I believe" with you. I suspect that, more than anything, your husband's stance is rooted in the fact that there is no scientific reason to suppose God exists. This I believe is true, but I stop short of coming to a conclusion about God's existence based on this because I don't think it mandates one. Not everyone is coming to agree that science forces us into the non-believing category. If you look around, you'll find a variety of points of view on the issue. It's OK to be a believer and have doubts, in my opinion. I wouldn't call myself a believer at the moment, but certainly I love to investigate many viewpoints and make a path for myself. I hope I've contributed a useful post here even though it didn't meet all your demands. GrayMars