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

[Anijen]

When Joseph said "no man knows my history" I believe that to be partly true. Many times a historian will interpret history from how they are taught that history. In the early twentieth century the Civil War and reconstruction had many views (not just North and South). When growing up I was taught the Civil War was started over states rights, most all scholars now disagree and conclude that slavery was what started the war.

historiography can be a fickle thing. If one leaves the church over history of the church perhaps they need to consider whose version of history they follow. The church does not hide its history as some claim but it does not need to write about polyandry every month to satisfy someone who in all likelihood is heading out the exit door anyway. To also glean history from an anti-mormon source one can only expect a biased view and in many cases a view that is pseudo-history.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Anijen

[selek1]

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.

Now this, I agree with.

It is not my place to judge the sincerity of your heart, nor to pass judgement on your struggles to know and understand God.

Where I judge (and we all do), I try very hard to limit myself to the facts in evidence and upon how the "accused" treats others.

I have failed and succeeded to varying degrees over the years. And I try every day to do better (as I suspect is the case with most people).

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.

I can understand this, even if I disgree with how you respond to that burden. I, too, react poorly to things I consider hurtful (even if I later regret that initial response).

The frustration and how I deal with it is a burden I carry.

Somehow, I doubt you would see the humor in a reference to Christ making our burdens light- but there it is. You are not alone in that weakness. I think the club has t-shirts, but I haven't gotten mine yet.

But it did not emerge in a vacuum.

These things never do. And for what it's worth, I empathize in your struggles and am very sorry that 1) you have not found what you seek and 2) were wounded by the inability of others to either understand or to make their understanding more clear.

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.

I whole-heartedly agree with this statement. We, as human beings, are inescapably selective in determining how to weight the evidence that is presented to us.

How we assess that evidence- whether we let it become the grain of sand that becomes a pearl or the burr under our saddle is invariably filtered by what has come before and the witnesses which we have (or have not) received.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Spammer. I wish to clarify something:

If I have judged you harshly or unfairly in this thread, it is only because of the behavior presented on this thread.

I accept your statement that Moroni's Promise has not been fulfilled for you. I, too, have had my own "long, dark, night of the soul". And while I have theories as to why that might be, I doubt they would be of any comfort to you.

I can promise you, however, that I do not automagically assume that you were secretly lusting for sin, or somehow insincere in your quest. That is not my place to judge- nor (truly) even to speculate.

If I have wronged you, I apologize.

If I have wounded you, I ask how I can salve that wound.

If I have sinned against you, I ask forgiveness.

Tell me how I can ease your burden, and share what joy (and what little knowledge) I have gained.

[selek1]

When Joseph said "no man knows my history" I believe that to be partly true. Many times a historian will interpret history from how they are taught that history. In the early twentieth century the Civil War and reconstruction had many views (not just North and South). When growing up I was taught the Civil War was started over states rights, most all scholars now disagree and conclude that slavery was what started the war.

historiography can be a fickle thing. If one leaves the church over history of the church perhaps they need to consider whose version of history they follow. The church does not hide its history as some claim but it does not need to write about polyandry every month to satisfy someone who in all likelihood is heading out the exit door anyway. To also glean history from an anti-mormon source one can only expect a biased view and in many cases a view that is pseudo-history.

Bravo Zulu, Anijen.

Well said.

[3DOP]

The Old Testament is an historical record which shows continuity from the times of Moses to the times of Christ. If one applies the historical standard too rigorously, using one's own intuition, it is impossible that they would believe after reading the accounts of infidelity and immorality at the highest levels of authority, that the Mosaic law, and the Temple ordinances were still valid. Yet, we see our Lord and the Holy Family observing those very laws and observing the ancient attendance at Herod's Temple, where Jesus refers to it as the house of God. Those who take their cues from this inspired history, do not lightly assume an apostasy based upon rejection of the faith or ugly behavior on the part of its members. Twice the Temple of Solomon was rebuilt because of apostasy, but the true practices and beliefs lived on in exile only to return as we see in the lives of valid priestly characters like Zacharias and Simeon, the priests to whom Christ sent the healed lepers, and even the very Pharisees who sought His death, for the high priest sat on "Moses' seat".

I do not acknowledge that the Catholic Church was ever AS bad historically as has been portrayed by her detractors anyway. But that is why history has been twisted. People apply their own intuition regarding when one may safely assume the Church to be false. If you are going to argue that no one should leave the true church for historical reasons, I agree completely. But it would undermine the presuppositions that support both the Reformation and any subsequent Restoration.

Edited January 18, 2012 by 3DOP

[Duncan]

Would those who left the Church over historical issues come back because of them? If someone found something in a dig or a document or something? What about a witness from the spirit? If we say we haven't had a witness from the spirit then, to me, we can't say it isn't true or true but we can say we just don't know

[Kevin Christensen]

My practical philosophy in dealing with historical issues has been give things time, keep my eyes open, and re-examine my assumptions now and then.

I enjoy the perks of ongoing discovery in considering how much I would have missed without ever knowing what I was missing, if for instance, I'd cut and run at the first sign of something I did not know before. None of my own publications would have happened. And there is much I've read by others that I am glad I'm around to appreciate. For instance, Quinn's recent take on the First Vision

http://ldsfocuschrist2.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/2006-joseph-smiths-experience-of-a-methodist-camp-meeting-in-1820-d-michael-quinn/

Matt Brown's book on A Pillar of Fire also helpful.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Craig Paxton]

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*.

You forgot to mention...that they had a desire to sin...

Oh that it was as simple as pigeon holing those who leave so simply…with a few marginalizing words.

Seriously...as someone who is no longer involved with the church (except here), the reasons are much more complicated and as plentiful and individual as the10's of thousands of once active members who decide to leave an organization that they once loved and devoted their life to.

Let's set the record straight. Active church going members are in the minority. A majority of "members" of the church are not actively involved with the church at all…many, while still counted among the 14 million members…don’t even consider themselves Mormon. And this majority…leaves over many reasons.

But you asked why would anyone leave over historical issues…and that is quite simple to address… the only reason anyone would leave for historical reasons is that they have come to the conclusion that the church simply is not what it claims to be. Period.

Speaking only for myself…I was an active member of my stake high Council, a former member of my ward’s bishopric…I had EVERY reason to want to remain within the fold. But over a life time I came to the conclusion that the church I had built my testimony on…was a myth…it didn’t exist…and the one that did exist…wasn’t believable to me. It was a man made organization.

One thing that the environment of the church does well is produce a people of high integrity. I believe that it is this integrity brings some to eventually leave once they come to the conclusion that the church is not what it claims to be.

Are there member who leave because they are lazy, have a desire to sin, were offended or were never assimilated into the fold…YES…but those that leave over historical issues are not these people….those who leave over historical issue leave because they no longer believe that the church is what it claims to be and leave because they have integrity and will not fake belief despite community or family pressure..

Edited January 18, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[BookofMormonLuvr]

History IS important when evaluating the truth claims of a religious organization. For example...If you are looking into the "Children of God" sect, I think its highly important to consider that their founder considered sex with children an act of God. To say the history, and the character of the founders, of a religious movement is irrelevant is foolishness.

[Duncan]

My practical philosophy in dealing with historical issues has been give things time, keep my eyes open, and re-examine my assumptions now and then.

I enjoy the perks of ongoing discovery in considering how much I would have missed without ever knowing what I was missing, if for instance, I'd cut and run at the first sign of something I did not know before. None of my own publications would have happened. And there is much I've read by others that I am glad I'm around to appreciate. For instance, Quinn's recent take on the First Vision

http://ldsfocuschris...-michael-quinn/

Matt Brown's book on A Pillar of Fire also helpful.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

This is awesome, thank you!

[Deborah]

My practical philosophy in dealing with historical issues has been give things time, keep my eyes open, and re-examine my assumptions now and then.

Indeed. By being patient and putting aside those things that I don't understand I have been rewarded by answers and it seems the more we learn (ie the Joseph Smith Papers project) the more the history falls into place confirming I was right to stick with it.

The problem is though in order to do this one has to have a spiritual experience which can override any of the questionable information that we get confronted with. It's harder to cast aside the spiritual confirmations and experiences just because we are faced with something we don't quite know the answer to. I suppose if one has never had a spiritual confirmation to begin with then there is no anchor to hold you through times of doubt.

It's the philosophy of not throwing out the things you do know because you are presented with something that causes questions.

[Duncan]

History IS important when evaluating the truth claims of a religious organization. For example...If you are looking into the "Children of God" sect, I think its highly important to consider that their founder considered sex with children an act of God. To say the history, and the character of the founders, of a religious movement is irrelevant is foolishness.

well, I believe that having sex with kids is beyond disgusting but not for "historical reasons" . I can disagree with a Church for religious reasons and not for historical reasons-for example I believe that God does X or not and I base that on this verse or that verse or experience

[Duncan]

Indeed. By being patient and putting aside those things that I don't understand I have been rewarded by answers and it seems the more we learn (ie the Joseph Smith Papers project) the more the history falls into place confirming I was right to stick with it.

The problem is though in order to do this one has to have a spiritual experience which can override any of the questionable information that we get confronted with. It's harder to cast aside the spiritual confirmations and experiences just because we are faced with something we don't quite know the answer to. I suppose if one has never had a spiritual confirmation to begin with then there is no anchor to hold you through times of doubt.

It's the philosophy of not throwing out the things you do know because you are presented with something that causes questions.

exactley. I am not going to get out of a relationship with Christ because of Oliver Cowdery made a mistake or Charles C. Rich gave bad advice or whatever

[Deborah]

Also I think it is sad that once you leave the church over something you have read in the history, you miss all the new information that is rapidly coming forth. In other words you are stuck with the old information without seeking further enlightenment with all the new research going on.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

well, I believe that having sex with kids is beyond disgusting but not for "historical reasons" . I can disagree with a Church for religious reasons and not for historical reasons-for example I believe that God does X or not and I base that on this verse or that verse or experience

You seem to not understand. History BECOMES a religious reason, I look at history and evaluate it in the light of scripture.

[Analytics]

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...

Thoughts?

On the first day of my daughter’s high school history class, the teacher showed the last five minutes of the movie, Chariots of Fire. He then gave a quiz that consisted of questions about the meaning of various details in that scene. Everybody failed of course, because you needed to see the whole movie to understand what was going on at the end. His point was that that’s the point of history—to understand the present, you have to understand the past.

People leave the church because of historical issues when the study of history informs them that the church isn’t what they thought it was.

[LeSellers]

People leave the church because of historical issues when the study of history informs them that the church isn’t what they thought it was.

The key phrase here is "not what they thought it was".

However they arrived at the thought, the fact is that it was their thought, not the reality, that was in error.

And, unfortunately, they compound their error by leaving the Church.

Lehi

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The key phrase here is "not what they thought it was".

However they arrived at the thought, the fact is that it was their thought, not the reality, that was in error.

And, unfortunately, they compound their error by leaving the Church.

Lehi

So anyone who leaves the church over historical issues is ill-informed and unlearned?

Interesting.

[Duncan]

You seem to not understand. History BECOMES a religious reason, I look at history and evaluate it in the light of scripture.

can you flesh that idea out? I can see how my religious experiences become history in the sense that it happened

[Duncan]

So anyone who leaves the church over historical issues is ill-informed and unlearned?

Interesting.

but again doesn't the witness from the spirit matter?, for anything at least?

[california boy]

exactley. I am not going to get out of a relationship with Christ because of Oliver Cowdery made a mistake or Charles C. Rich gave bad advice or whatever

Do you think that by leaving the church you are severing your relationship with Christ???

[Duncan]

Do you think that by leaving the church you are severing your relationship with Christ???

That's a good point-well, for me, I think I would stop attending any Church altogether! but that may have more to do with where I am now with Christ then for any historical reason!

Edited January 18, 2012 by Duncan

[Craig Paxton]

The key phrase here is "not what they thought it was".

However they arrived at the thought, the fact is that it was their thought, not the reality, that was in error.

And, unfortunately, they compound their error by leaving the Church.

Lehi

So Lehi...if you some how came to the conclusion that the church was not what you thought it was...you'd remain in it? Really?

The church is experienced 14 million different ways...you have one of those perspectives...and for you it is true...but I'd dare say that if something within your church truth paradigm shifted...causing that perception to also shift...you too would leave. Would you really remain a member if you didn't believe it was everything it claims to be? I can't imagine that you would remain in something that you perceived was a fraud..Personally I want to believe that you would have the integretyto leave if you somehow came to the conclusion that it was not what it claims to be.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[LeSellers]

if you some how came to the conclusion that the church was not what you thought it was...you'd remain in it? Really?

Yes: it's true.

My personal views are unimportant in light of this fact.

I am in my seventh decade. In the 1960s, what I thought about the Church in my teens is not what I know to be the case today. I did not leave when I heard the news in June of 1978, in spite of my thought , at the time, that Elder M^cConkie was right. And this, even though the Priesthood ban was unexplained and, thus, confusing to me.

What I though about the Church when I was fifty is not what I know to be true today. My view of the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, for instance, was a different thing in 1998 than it is today. I did not leave the Church over that, either.

The examples could stream endlessly. But the fact that what I thought may not have been correct (in historical terms) does not affect the fact that it's true.

Lehi

Edited January 18, 2012 by LeSellers

[HiJolly]

So Lehi...if you some how came to the conclusion that the church was not what you thought it was...you'd remain in it? Really?

Really. I have remained in it, even though I know it isn't what I once thought it was. I mean really, how could it possibly fulfill the mythical/literalistic views of a Primary attendee?

And you know what? I also remained in my Dad's family, even after I found out he actually *wasn;t* the strongest, smartest, bravest man in the whole wide world. Which I *also* believed at one time.

The church is experienced 14 million different ways...you have one of those perspectives...and for you it is true...but I'd dare say that if something within your church truth paradigm shifted...causing that perception to also shift...you too would leave. Would you really remain a member if you didn't believe it was everything it claims to be? I can't imagine that you would remain in something that you perceived was a fraud..Personally I want to believe that you would have the integretyto leave if you somehow came to the conclusion that it was not what it claims to be.

This is the thing. You are so sure that discovering the truth is justification for anyone leaving the Church. But you are wrong. It is completely inadequate for me.

[deleted snark barb. Sorry.]

HiJolly

Edited January 18, 2012 by HiJolly

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you think that by leaving the church you are severing your relationship with Christ???

Absolutely, with out any hesitation.