The Philosophy Of Leaving The Church Over Historical Issues-Like What Is It?

[Duncan]

I have never understood the philosophy of why someone would leave the Church over historical issues. I have a degree in History, have taken philosophy classes and have had a lifelong interest in history. I am also very active. I am obviously not saying I am a some smartie artie but I am not dumb as a plum either-I hope! But what idea is out there that says that the Church can't be true because of X Like why would someone leave the Church over some historical issue(s) I am absolutely not judging anyone or downplaying history like "you stopped coming because Martin Harris did X? seetus lupetus, you must a hit at parties..." I am trying to seek understanding in this! I don't stay in the Church because of historical issues and not to sound smug or anything but I believe I have had spiritual witnesses to me that the Church is true, Joseph Smith is a prophet and Jesus is the Christ and history to me, briefly, is not what is true (we can't know every thing) but what happened and believed. An example is what did Winston Churchill believe about God? to me that is a historical question, whether or not he was right or if there is a God is irrelevant and not a historical question. Thoughts?

[KevinG]

The cases I have known personally included people who were stressed, offended, worried, struggling or lacked support from family or ward members... the historical facts were the final straw or a convenient excuse to stop struggling with the burden of their membership*.

My experience is not completely generalizable. I'm sure there are those who believed for intellectual reasons and when those reasons were shown to be different than they originally thought felt that the LDS Church could no longer be trusted or true.

For me I have a hard time giving up what God has revealed to me through revelation over the imperfections, mistakes or misunderstandings of LDS past and present.

*often a reason for us to repent as a people. Our families and brethren should not find membership to be a struggle socially.

Edited January 18, 2012 by DaddyG

[Duncan]

I know more inactive LDS then active and I am trying to think of people who quit over some issue and I agree though that it's a combination of things.

[RadioFreeDeath]

I imagine that the historical issues are used to cast doubt on the veracity of our LDS truth claims. For example if Joseph Smith actually did write the Book of Mormon instead of translate it, than that casts doubt on his place as a true prophet and therefore the truth of the church.

Now that argument works better on some things than others. For example Mountain Meadows is a stretch to connecting it to truth claims. But the Church relies heavily on the fact that it is a God inspired church and if historical events cast doubt on such a fact than there is an issue. Again though connecting a historical issue to a truth claim about the church can be a challenge. I for one like you don't find any historical arguments persuasive or linkable to church truth claims but thats the concept at least.

[KevinG]

I know more inactive LDS then active and I am trying to think of people who quit over some issue and I agree though that it's a combination of things.

Sounds like a missionary opportunity. Aren't you a single adult? That is a tough time to be active and feel a part of the Church. I've noticed a significant dip in activity among the peers of my own single adult children.

Edited January 18, 2012 by DaddyG

[cinepro]

I have never understood the philosophy of why someone would leave the Church over historical issues.

I suppose the only way for you to understand it would be to imagine possible scenarios where you learn something new about Church history and it causes you to leave the Church. What would it take?

If the answer is "nothing", then you'll never understand it.

[KevinG]

I suppose the only way for you to understand it would be to imagine possible scenarios where you learn something new about Church history and it causes you to leave the Church. What would it take?

If the answer is "nothing", then you'll never understand it.

I suppose the only way for you to understand it would be to imagine possible scenarios where you receive a revelation of something new from God and it causes you to revise your opinion about how well you knew the history of the Church. What would it take?

If the answer is "nothing", then you'll never understand it.

(yup, that sounds condescending either way.)

[Duncan]

I suppose the only way for you to understand it would be to imagine possible scenarios where you learn something new about Church history and it causes you to leave the Church. What would it take?

If the answer is "nothing", then you'll never understand it.

if I learned that Joseph Smith never actually lived or Pennsylvania doesn't exist then maybe but I leanr something new about Church history and it doesn't make me question or if it does then cool but I am not shaken either way by it

[Duncan]

Sounds like a missionary opportunity. Aren't you a single adult? That is a tough time to be active and feel a part of the Church. I've noticed a significant dip in activity among the peers of my own single adult children.

yes, it comes and goes I suppose but God knows where I live and one day I will have a special lady friend! so until then

[KevinG]

yes, it comes and goes I suppose but God knows where I live and one day I will have a special lady friend! so until then

I should introduce my single daughter. You aren't a stalker are you?

[Duncan]

I should introduce my single daughter. You aren't a stalker are you?

me a stalker? ha! you must be joking, you've seen my glasses

Edited January 18, 2012 by Duncan

[Storm Rider]

We LDS too often and too quickly put men on high pedestals. We equate men of God with being nigh perfect, righteous men in all they do. They forget the history of men called of God we find in the OT and the NT. The vast majority of prophets and apostles in the scripture were weak men, full of sin, who did great things through God's calling.

When they find out that Joseph played loose with the truth about not admitting spiritual wifery, plural marriage, etc. it is disconcerting. When they find out that he was sealed to many women when they falsely assumed that polygamy began with Brigham Young, they somehow feel offended. They have put Joseph on a high pedestal, as well as others, and all these men could do was fall off regardless of their calling as servants of God.

[Libs]

I am someone who left over church history.

It was a cumulative thing. Joseph's polygamy...which wasn't bothersome, in itself, but the ages of some of the "girls" and the fact that he married some already married women, was very disturbing to me. The "Sunday School" explanation I had gotten, about early polygamy, was that God allowed it, because there were so many widows that needed taking care of, after the Mormon wars. And to "spread seed" quickly. I was really thoroughly shocked when I learned the "truth". I put truth in quotes, because I learned a lot of this stuff, at first, from anti-sites...which, of course, put the worst possible spin on everything.

There was that....and then the Book of Abraham...and then questions about, even, the Book of Mormon (which I really thought I had a witness of from the Holy Spirit).....and on and on it went, until I just couldn't stay anymore.

I have, since, done a lot more reading and feel I have a more balanced view...but, my testimony didn't quite recover.

I still love many things about the church, though....and I don't speak against it, anymore. (I did, for awhile, because I thought I should, but I was wrong about that)..

[Peppermint Patty]

Duncan,

For some people, claiming that they have problems with Church History is just an excuse to cover-up their laziness.

I have a brother-in-law that spends his days chillin on the couch watching Judge Judy and eating Doritos. He claims that he can't be bothered with the Church anymore because of its "history". However, when pressed on the issue he can't give specifics about what parts are troubling to him.

It should also be noted that my brother-in-law is 40 years old with two kids and still lives at home with his mommy. She pays all his bills and takes him everywhere because he has no drivers license. On second thought, it's probably good that he stays home on Sunday.

[inquiringmind]

I imagine that the historical issues are used to cast doubt on the veracity of our LDS truth claims. For example if Joseph Smith actually did write the Book of Mormon instead of translate it, than that casts doubt on his place as a true prophet and therefore the truth of the church.

Now that argument works better on some things than others. For example Mountain Meadows is a stretch to connecting it to truth claims. But the Church relies heavily on the fact that it is a God inspired church and if historical events cast doubt on such a fact than there is an issue. Again though connecting a historical issue to a truth claim about the church can be a challenge. I for one like you don't find any historical arguments persuasive or linkable to church truth claims but thats the concept at least.

Do you find the question of whether Joseph wrote or translated the BOM irrelevant?

(I mean, would you still believe if you thought he wrote it?)

Edited January 18, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Spammer]

I left the church due to a combination of two factors: 1) historical problems like Joseph Smith's polyandry and lying about same, problems with the Book of Abraham, the complete lack of archeological or DNA evidence that Nephites or Lamanites ever existed, philosophical problems with Mormon cosmology, etc.; and 2) my failure to gain a testimony or even feel the spirit - ever - despite faithful church attendance (mission, seminary grad, tithe payer, temple marriage, magnifying my callings, and so forth) and a sincere, earnest desire for a witness. Without any spiritual experiences at all to provide some cushioning, I felt the full force of all of the historical and doctrinal problems and it eventually just became so obvious to me that the church was not true, just as obvious as the fact that the moon is made of rocks and not cheese, with little moon men sailing those seas of cheese in wooden vessels. My departure from the church originally had nothing to do with feeling stressed, offended, worried, struggling or [lacking in] support from family or ward members, a convenient excuse, or laziness. I was a good member, a good person, a good missionary, faithful in my callings. I eventually got so tired of trying to keep it all together in face of my failure to feel anything spiritual at all. But once I began making it known that I was having doubts, really and truly struggling, and that I had read and prayed about the BoM many times with zero effect, then family, friends, and church leaders began the standard passive-aggressive campaign of asking me about whether I was (i.e., accusing me of being) stressed, offended by someone, spiritually lazy, not truly sincere and desirous of a testimony in the first place, lacking in faith, secretly desirous of sinning, etc. Or, I was told the spirit did whisper to me, but I wasn't listening. People even asked if there was something I needed to confess to the bishop, something I had done that had offended the spirit. Can you imagine what that felt like? Starting in high school, when I first began to earnestly pray for a witness, through my mission, and into adulthood as an eternally-married, tithe-paying, calling-magnifying church member, I never lost hope that I would gain that spiritual witness that I so desperately wanted, that my parents, relatives, and close friends all had received. I had siblings who made bad choices as teens/young adults, but not me. I went on my mission. I contined to respect my parents. I kept going to church. I strove to keep the commandments. I held fast to the iron rod. So when I did begin to lose heart a couple of years after my marriage, especially after learning some very disturbing facts about Joseph Smith and the BoA, I did what was natural and turned to those I was close to for help. What I got was the stock claptrap that Mormons tell each other behind someone's back about those who fail to gain testimonies or leave the church. You know, the stuff trotted out regularly in foyer discussions, sacrament meeting talks, and elders quorum lessons about 'How to Receive Personal Revelation'. Some of the same things mentioned in this thread. Yes, I eventually became very offended indeed, intensely angry at Mormons, but not until after my crisis of faith had reached a tipping point and I was subsequently accused by those whom I loved and respected, family members and church leaders alike, as being insincere and secretly desirous of sin. But it all began with my discovery of some egregious historical and doctrinal problems in the official, whitewashed story I'd been raised with.

[selek1]

In many respects, the deconversion process- whatever the justification for said deconversion- is identical to conversion process.

Those noted for their excessive zealotry and rigidity of thought in conversion to the Church are prone to be every bit as excessive in their hostility and dogmatism in their deconversion from the Church.

The issue lies not in their allegiance or hostility, but in their singlemindedness and intellectual inflexibility .

Case in point, one of the Church's most notorious critics famously claimed that as a missionary, he had been "ready to strap on a bomb" at the behest of his Bishop. He later became equally zealous in his denunciations of the Church after it failed to live up to his rigid and unrealistic expectations.

Those who leave the Church over "historical problems" tend to hold unrealistic expectations of historical evidence and the Church itself- and find themselves condemning the Church when the facts don't support their presuppositions and preferences.

With extraordinarily rare exceptions, they are neither trained historians nor intimately familiar with the matters they decry as "problematic".

They seldom care about (and more often are entirely ignorant of) the weaknesses and limitations of the available evidence, the sparcity of fact, and the inescapable flood of naked speculation.

Instead of acknowledging the reality of what the available evidence can and cannot tell us, they instead seize hold of whatever interpretation of "history" best suits their assumptions and prejudices- without regard for whether "history" was written by people with a less-than-unbiased agenda.

Having staked out their few square feet of contention, they defend it desperately and (rhetorically, at least) violently.

They can brook no argument, nor make any room for honest disagreement.

They offer no quarter to those who interpret facts or evidence differently than the High Priests of their New Orthodoxy.

Ironically- this demand for rigid ideological purity is precisely the charge those same High Priests are fond of levelling against the Church.

According to such a world view, you are either stand in complete agreement with them or you are evil.

You must either accept their assumptions uncritically, or expose yourself as being deluded/disingenuous/duped.

In such a worldview, suspicion and mistrust are the predominant motivators, as even our closest loved ones must be viewed through an ideological prism and their every word and motive second-guessed.

Any effort to understand and reach out to those who are struggling can never be considered sincere or genuine (nor even the result of honest disagreement).

Such efforts can never be made in good faith, but can only be:

"the standard passive-aggressive campaign"

"the stock claptrap that Mormons tell each other behind someone's back"

"the same things mentioned in this thread"

"whitewashed story"

Edited January 18, 2012 by selek1

[Spammer]

I was raised in the church, fifth generation on both sides, pioneer stock, etc. There was no conversion process as you described, nor was there excessive zealotry or rigidity of thought. Only a sincere, desperate desire for any kind of spiritual witness. Yours is yet another lame justification that you need to adhere to mentally to account for the fact that Moroni's Promise did not produce the expected outcome in my case. I suppose if I had received some kind of witness, then that might have been enough to overcome the historical problems I encountered. That is a counterfactual that can never be tested. But, of course, I fully realize that you will either stick to your guns or come up with some other explanation to protect the integrity of Moroni's Promise. The blame must ipso facto be with me by default, since the Lord's promise is sure. Those who seek but do not find have no one but themselves to blame. Their failure is proof of their insincerity, zealotry, or rigidity of thought.

[Libs]

Well, there is always a little truth in the uncomfortable stereotypes. Sometimes, people do talk behind your back and make up stuff about why you left. But, often (in my experience) people also reach out, in genuine concern, and really want to help. It is not one or the other, but both.

As for rigidity in thinking, that is true, sometimes, as well, but not always. Actually, I am a pretty open thinker and went through a lot of phases in my journey into LDS history. I'm not usually prone to living in the extremes and I know a lot of others, who have left, don't fit that description, either. OTOH, I know some active LDS who are very rigid in their thinking, and that is a part of what keeps them strong in the church. They refuse to even look at anything that might be critical. Not meaning that as a judgment...just an observation. We are all different and have different coping mechanisms and ways of dealing with information.

Note: This post was in response to selek's last post.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Libs

[noel00]

One of the historical issues that started me on leaving the church was the authenticity of the First Vision. In our youth group at the time, we visited with a SDA youth group. I got to know a guy who like me was a bit of a bookworm. He has copies of some of the Tanner's books, which he lent me. Significant sections dealt with the revival question in 1820. I also had at the time subscribed to Dialogue where in a back issue there was a roundtable on the 1820 revival This was between Bushman and Wesley P Walters (Spring , 1969).

At the same time I asked an American couple if they knew what the church leaders thought of Dialogue, They said some were disappointed with the ineffective response given to an article by a Presbyterian pastor. I later knew who that was. When Backman's book came out later, I noticed that Walter's paper was not mentioned anywhere in the book - Interesting!!!

I wrote to the Tanners and asked them if they thought that Backman made a reasoned response to Walter's revival question. They sent my letter onto Wes Walters and thus began a long friendship.The 1823-24 date seems the best period to match the one described in JS First Vision account (official version. The Oliver Cowdery account in the Messenger and Advocate seems supported by contemporary data. When did the Smith family join the West Palmyra Presbyterian Church. Cowdery and William Smith's account seems to support the 1823-24 date. If they ever find those records missing from the West Palmyra Pres Church (missing since 1930 - lds cent (100 years)) then the question would be settled. I wonder who the thief was and what they did with those records?

So you have a revival in 1823-24 supported by the data, Smith Snr said there was present a pastor who said Alvin Smith had gone to hell (Alvin died in 1823). Thus Smith Snr decided after this not to join the Pres Church. I think it was Marvin HIll who accepted this and argued Smith in his memory of the events of 18 years earlier was conflating the story.

If Smith had told Cowdery the groved story, which he surely must have, why did he write the account in the Messenger and Adocate which clearly in a number of details contradicted the offical account? So in some ex-Mormon's minds this issue has been sufficient reason for concluding that Smith was not telling the truth. Therefore the LDS church is not what it claims to be.

I only have an amatuer interest in history. To me Backman's failure to mention Walter's paper in his important work, shows me he is fearful of others (TBMs maybe) becoming aware of it's existance. I always thought one should include all viewpoints in one's bibliography

[selek1]

I was raised in the church, fifth generation on both sides, pioneer stock, etc.

Given the number of Mormons and anti-Mormons who rely (vainly) on their pedigree to establish their credibility, one would think that religious faith were some sort of blood-borne pathogen or hereditary condition

Unfortunately for your argument, we know that this is not the case. Birth to the "high-blooded", to royalty, to the bloodlines of prophets, nor even to pioneer stock is no guarantee of fidelity, purity, or even of common sense.

Even kings can sire fools (and if history is any precedent, vice-versa).

There was no conversion process as you described, nor was there excessive zealotry or rigidity of thought.

Yet you yourself have presented an absolutist and either/or picture of your circumstances and of those who tried to minister to you in your disaffection.

Yours is yet another lame justification that you need to adhere to mentally to account for the fact that Moroni's Promise did not produce the expected outcome in my case.

On the contrary- I have absolutely no problem accepting that Moroni's Promise did not produce the expected outcome in your case.

It is you- not I- who has presented that outcome as some sort of fait accompli.

It is you- not I- who has conflated that personal failure into some sort of eternal verity by which everyone around you mut be judged.

I suppose if I had received some kind of witness, then that might have been enough to overcome the historical problems I encountered. That is a counterfactual that can never be tested.

And yet the fact that your assertions can neither be proven nor disproven has utterly failed to prevent you from making dogmatic and unfalsifiable claims about the thoughts, motives, and experiences of others.

You accused those closest to you of offering "the standard passive-aggressive campaign", "the stock claptrap that Mormons tell each other behind someone's back", "the same things mentioned in this thread", and "whitewashed story".

You have twice now prophesied (erroneously) about my motives and thoughts- something you cannot possibly know.

In each case, you have offered only the accusation of deceit or disingenousness or a pathetic, passive-aggressive facade of mindreading and an airy wave-of-hand dismissal of any and all who might think differently than you.

Nowhere in your posts do we see any allowance for the possibility that those who disagree with you might be sincere.

Nowhere in your posts do we see any allowance for the possibility that others might be right and you wrong.

Nowhere in your posts do we see any evidence that you can accept that others might honestly disagree.

Nowhere in your posts do we see any evidence that you can accept that others might reasonably reach conclusions different than your own.

In point of fact, the only insight you offer into the minds of others is the dogmatic assertion that they are lying to you, judging you, and/or persecuting you.

In other words, I don't believe that you are dogmatic, rigid, and inflexible because you failed to receive an answer to Moroni's Promise.

I perceive you as dogmatic, rigid, and inflexible because you presentyourself as dogmatic, rigid, inflexible, and hostile.

But, of course, I fully realize that you will either stick to your guns or come up with some other explanation to protect the integrity of Moroni's Promise.

On the contrary, I have neither the need nor any interest in defending Moroni's promise in your case.

With the exception of the evidence you yourself have presented in this thread, I am not qualified to judge, nor particularly interested in doing so.

Your personal success or lack thereof vis-a-vis that Scripture is utterly irrelevant to my worldview.

The blame must ipso facto be with me by default, since the Lord's promise is sure.

Since the Lord's promise IS sure, this is a logical supposition- but it is not one that can be proven logically or factually.

It is also not an assertion that I have made in your case.

Setting that aside, however, I am forced to look at the evidence at hand- which is paints a remarkably stark- though not yet indelible- picture.

On one side of the scale, I have the fact that Moroni's promise has proven valid for me and for countless others of my acquaintance.

On the other, I have only your word about your thoughts, sincerity, motives, and the outcome.

I also have your unmitigated, naked hostility and unabashed derision.

You scarcely present yourself as an unbiased, well-reasoned, or disinterested witness.

You come across as unusually defensive, and as eager to judge and condemn others. You present yourself as confident in your own prejudices and assertions, secure in your fortress of "everyone is out to get me" and utterly impervious to ideas or thoughts that don't conform to your preconceptions and biases.

In short, you seem to be working hard to exemplify the zealousness and rigidity of thought I described earlier- though I was not in any way referring to you in my earlier post.

I admit, I referred to your litany of denigrations, but only for convenience' sake and for the fact that it was so typical of the sneers and smears leveled against the faithful.

Those who seek but do not find have no one but themselves to blame.

This is your dogmatic assertion, not mine. I (and most of the LDS on this board and of my acquaintance) take a far less absolutist view than you allege or might suspect.

Their failure is proof of their insincerity, zealotry, or rigidity of thought.

Again, this is YOUR absolutist allegation rather than mine. I don't believe the situation is as rigidly black or white as you project.

Thus we find the scale divided as follows:

On the one side, I now have my own experiences and those of people whom I know, respect and admire.

On the other side, I have the words of an unknown aggressor who radiates hostility, makes unfalsifiable assertions about the thoughts and actions of those around him, and who has demonstrated a naked contempt for anyone who disagrees with him.

Now- which way do you think the scale is tipping at this point?

Edited January 18, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

Well, there is always a little truth in the uncomfortable stereotypes.

This applies to stereotypes on both sides of the aisle.

Sometimes, people do talk behind your back and make up stuff about why you left. But, often (in my experience) people also reach out, in genuine concern, and really want to help. It is not one or the other, but both.

I agree. Latter-day Saints are just people- no better than, and certainly no worse than- any other.

As for rigidity in thinking, that is true, sometimes, as well, but not always. Actually, I am a pretty open thinker and went through a lot of phases in my journey into LDS history. I'm not usually prone to living in the extremes and I know a lot of others, who have left, don't fit that description, either.

I read your earlier post before composing my own.

One of those phases was, as you described it, "the truth" as taught by anti-sites which put the worst possible spin on everything. By your own admission, you have since done a lot of reading and come to a more "balanced view".

While you were in your unbalanced view/"just couldn't stay" phase, would you say that you were really open to evidence in the Church's favor? Or were you suffering a rigidity of thought (however temporary)?

OTOH, I know some active LDS who are very rigid in their thinking, and that is a part of what keeps them strong in the church. They refuse to even look at anything that might be critical. Not meaning that as a judgment...just an observation.

Believe it or not, I've been accused of being a little...ummm.... positive... in my own thinking.

Like everyone else, I still have my good days and my bad (though the early onset of senility is making them less distinct ).

Nor were my comments intended to be a judgement or condemnation per se. I was simply offering my own observations on the commonalities of those who assert that "the Church is false because of incident X".

As you have suggested, the revelation of our true selves lies in the coping mechanisms we adopt.

For the record, I consider that Latter-day Saints who studiously avoid anything even remotely critical are stunting themselves emotionally and spiritually.

We are all different and have different coping mechanisms and ways of dealing with information.

True- but I think we can agree that those who "cope" by retreating into unreasoning dogmatism and by making paranoid and tendentious assertions about the hearts and minds of others have chosen the least healthy and least productive of the options available to them. Edited January 18, 2012 by selek1

[Spammer]

My position about passive-aggressive comments only apply to people who have made comments to me personally and, by extension in my view, to those who make similar comments to and about people like me who assert they tried and failed to gain a testimony. If that's a blanket statement and absolutist, so be it. Whether uttered in derision or out of genuine concern, to tell someone who is sincerely seeking that they might be insincere, overzealous, or lacking in faith is a slap in the face. If I seem to be hostile, it's only because such comments are very hurtful, no manner how well-meaning they may be in the minds of those who make them. The frustration and how I deal with it is a burden I carry. But it did not emerge in a vacuum. I mentioned my experience only by way of suggesting that perhaps the decision to stay/leave over historical issues is probably filtered through one's testimony or lack of one.

[Cobalt-70]

I think the problem is that many Mormons base their faith on the lives of Mormon leaders. Our culture and church teaching materials encourage this. If we do this, and people's faith gets based on a rosy-colored and unrealistic history, then when people find out that this history is not the full story, then their faith is undermined. We ought to be (1) doing a better job of telling the full story about our history, and (2) not encouraging people to base their faith on the lives of men other than Jesus.

[selek1]

I think the problem is that many Mormons base their faith on the lives of Mormon leaders. Our culture and church teaching materials encourage this.

Can you offer a concrete example of this phenomenon? Please be specific in explaining how the Church is encouraging an unrealistic a/o unhealthy link between the lives of our forebearers and the personal faith of our members.

If we do this, and people's faith gets based on a rosy-colored and unrealistic history, then when people find out that this history is not the full story, then their faith is undermined.

While I agree that this is remotely possible, I would like to see some additional specifics as to precisely how this would effect/infect an otherwise rationale, reasonable Latter-day Saint.

To be blunt- in my estimation, this theory sounds suspiciously like the Dungeons and Dragons Scare of the eighties and nineties in which it was alleged that otherwise normal, happy children were being seduced to witchcraft, Satanism, ritual abuse, and suicide by a harmless pasttime.

It sounded perfectly reasonable to those who were ignorant of the facts, who were pushing an agenda, or were simply secure in their prejudices, but the facts never bore out the allegations being made.

We ought to be (1) doing a better job of telling the full story about our history, and (2) not encouraging people to base their faith on the lives of men other than Jesus.

The first item is merely a rehash of the tired and trite "the Church doesn't give full disclosure" canard, and has been beaten utterly to death, Any attempt to resurrect its tattered, decaying corpse should be taken to another thread.

The second part has been asserted.

We now await the evidence to back it up....

Upon review, I also find the two portions delightfully (and ironically) contradictory.

In a single sentence, Cobalt is both demanding that we do a better job teaching about the lives of men other than Jesus Christ whilst simultaneously demanding that we we teach people to ignore the lives of those same men.

Edited January 18, 2012 by selek1