How Many People Are Currently Leaving The Church Over Historical Issues?

[ruski_canuk]

That's rather strange.

This is a standard--and well-refuted--anti-Mormon claim, about Islam in particular. But it is never documented.

Never.

Rather, we find upon actual investigation that the notion of spiritual confirmation, as Latter-day Saints understand it, is quite foreign to Muslim understanding, belief or folkways. Dan Peterson, who just might know almost as much about Islam as you do--never mind trying to know as much as you imagine you do--has written on this topic a number of times. Personal spiritual confirmation is just not a Muslim construct, period.

So instead of demanding that we accept your unverifiable personal experience as dispositive of the matter, how about you document your claim, please?

And it will need to be documented from actual Muslim authorities. A while back someone thought they had pulled off a slam-dunk by finding a Muslim convert who claimed to have received just such a spiritual confirmation. It turned out, however, that said convert was in fact an apostate from The Church of Jesus Christ, who was deliberately crafting her conversion narrative in such a way as to make it appealing to adherents of her former faith.

So can you document it?

And are you willing to admit that your judgemental pronouncement about "spiritual arrogance" was at least hasty?

Regards,

Pahoran

Remind me not to relate my experiences to you in the future if you will ask me for them and then tell me that I should have recorded the study session after I tell you. They don't package it as "spiritual confirmation" but the message is the same thing - they knew through non-scientific means that Islam was the one and only true religion.

[Pahoran]

So now I'm an apostate;

Well aren't you?

studied with an uncritical eye;

Didn't you?

form knee-jerk reactions;

Don't you?

I'm holier than thou; highly uninformed; merely have culturally conditioned reactions; etc...

So let me get this straight.

You provide us with a post that consists of nothing but your personal reactions to some things you read, and you demand that I do what: draw no conclusions therefrom? Why did you write all that stuff if it wasn't supposed to inform any of our conclusions?

It was "sickening" to you that ancient men of renown and stature weren't perfectly sanitized, PC, 21st century SNAGS; it was "sickening" to you that 19th century giants weren't perfectly sanitized, PC, 21st century SNAGS; it was "sickening" to you that Joseph would do anything so supremely awful as to join a lodge--and all of that "sickening" is allowed to reflect upon Joseph and the Church, but it's just grossly unfair if any of it reflects upon you?

RDL, I don't know what time of day it is where you live. But you know that big yellow thing that's up in the sky? You know what the difference is between it and you?

The whole world really does revolve around it. That's what.

You seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable for you to blatantly accuse a dead man of "philandering" but nobody should dare to question either the reasoning or the motives behind that accusation. Just how privileged do you expect your opinions to be?

I mean, really?

I won't bother responding to your post point by point, because obviously it would do no good. I'm sure you've been through this routine with other "apostates," and I can't imagine it does anybody any good. I would only suggest that you consider whether the insults you lobbed my way--completely unprovoked, as I didn't make a single accusation toward you for your beliefs or opinions--are in the best interest of whatever purpose you're trying to serve by posting here. Unless, of course, your purpose is to ridicule and have fun at the expense of people like me, who have different beliefs and opinions and life experiences--in which case, if it makes you happy, feel free to paste and parse and insult me for these two paragraphs as well.

What "insults?" Really, I mean it; what "insults?"

And accusing a better man than you can ever hope to be of "philandering" isn't an accusation?

All I can say to that is, "oh."

Regards,

Pahoran

[moriancamur]

So now I'm an apostate; studied with an uncritical eye; form knee-jerk reactions; I'm holier than thou; highly uninformed; merely have culturally conditioned reactions; etc...

I won't bother responding to your post point by point, because obviously it would do no good. I'm sure you've been through this routine with other "apostates," and I can't imagine it does anybody any good. I would only suggest that you consider whether the insults you lobbed my way--completely unprovoked, as I didn't make a single accusation toward you for your beliefs or opinions--are in the best interest of whatever purpose you're trying to serve by posting here. Unless, of course, your purpose is to ridicule and have fun at the expense of people like me, who have different beliefs and opinions and life experiences--in which case, if it makes you happy, feel free to paste and parse and insult me for these two paragraphs as well.

IF we have charity we would not presume the worst in others. I am not surprised you are offended by such an unprofessional, dishonest and personal attack.

[Pahoran]

IF we have charity we would not presume the worst in others. I am not surprised you are offended by such an unprofessional, dishonest and personal attack.

Unprofessional, I'll grant you. I'm not paid to do this.

But "dishonest" and "personal?"

How?

Can you support that accusation?

If not, feel free to withdraw it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scorpion]

I would like to know what is known about this because I don't trust Palmer, (the guy who was in CES for 35 years), about it being an outrageous number.

He usually only shows one side of the coin.

A lot don't leave because of family reasons, though they would like to. They are the New Order Mormons. They go and are active, but don't believe. I suspect this group is bigger than those who actually do leave.

[ruski_canuk]

You seem to know a great deal about "spiritual arrogance," which is fine, since you project so much of it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran has a free pass to imply that someone is lying, ridicule, name call and the like RDL. Just the rules of the game here.

[BishopRic]

Just to be clear I have spoken with many 7th Day Adventists and never once had them talk about a prayerful spiritual confirmation of their faith. Undoubtedly they feel the influence of Christ, it keeps them going in their faith. Why should the spiritual experiences of "non-Mormons" negate my spiritual experience as a Mormon?

I think your "experience" is unique. My best friend in graduate school was a SDA, and his conviction for his faith was equal (and surprisingly similar) to those of us Mormons. He even experienced many of the same "miracles" and inspirational guidances that I did on my mission while he served his.

Your question about negating your own spiritual experience is interesting to me. I don't think it does...it's just that I don't think yours can negate anybody else's.

[Pahoran]

http://100777.com/spiritual/prayerwarriors

http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/pribble/bornagain.html

A couple links that come up on a quick internet search. Just because one religion packages that truth affirming experience as "a testimony from the spirit" and another as "enlightenment" or "born again" or whatever doesn't mean they are essentially the same thing. The divine sanctioning your religion as the most correct.

Did you even read what those URL's link to? Neither of them says anything about "the divine sanctioning your religion as the most correct" or anything like unto it.

You're getting vaguer and vaguer, Ruski. Again: when we speak of "spiritual confirmation," we speak of direct personal confirmation of one or more of the specific truth claims of the Church. Not of a generic "communion with the divine" or "regeneration experience" or anything else.

But you are right in one point; it really "doesn't mean they are essentially the same thing," just like you said.

Remind me not to relate my experiences to you in the future if you will ask me for them and then tell me that I should have recorded the study session after I tell you. They don't package it as "spiritual confirmation" but the message is the same thing - they knew through non-scientific means that Islam was the one and only true religion.

No, it's not "the same thing." And no, I did not and would not ask you to relate and unverifiable anecdote as evidence of the doctrine of a major world religion.

I'm not that daft.

Regards,

Pahoran

[moriancamur]

I suspect if you are trying to find fault in my approach, you will find it. I'm not here to argue. My experience is that there were more personal attacks by the Mormon apologists towards the historians I studied than vice versa. It was simply my experience. After getting past the emotion of it, I studied the issues and evidence and came to my conclusion.

If that is true, I commend the church for the change. As I studied, I got nothing but "you shouldn't read that anti-Mormon material....!" I agree, to make a potentially life-altering decision, much self initiated research is necessary.

welcome Ric. You have expressed yourself and responded well in many respects. It is hard for some of the less intelligent among us to comprehend more than one perspective at once so expect some to resort to personal attacks and incitement.

You know we all tend to see what we want to see. If you want to see good or evil somewhere you will. A bit like Zeniff who saw the good in the Lamanites. True there was good among them but look where it got him!

It is an impossible task to reconcile some aspects of church history with Christian teaching. No honest historian attempts to. I daresay an in depth investigation into all our lives would reveal something to criticize. It doesn't mean our intent is not overall sincere. It doesn't mean we don't have a knowledge of certain truths we endaevour to follow. The church is not true in the way you originally thought, but that doesn't mean its not true. Just because there have been mistakes does not mean there are no absolute truths. Just because a member of another church testifies of being born again, or a muslim speaks of following his gut feeling on things doesn't mean there is not a church somewhere with truth that transcend the rest.

[AKS]

About Pahoran... If his posts contain any real insight into the topic at hand it is too obscured by sarcasm to be helpful at all. I suspect that he attempts to get threads closed by inciting illicit responses from people who diagree with him.

[BishopRic]

I have not experienced this in my 49 years as a member.

T-Shirt

Your tone is argumentative. I'm not interested in that. You have your experiences, and I mine. I'm willing to share those, but not interested in debating. IMO, it is futile to tell another their experience is wrong.

[T-Shirt]

Your tone is argumentative. I'm not interested in that. You have your experiences, and I mine. I'm willing to share those, but not interested in debating. IMO, it is futile to tell another their experience is wrong.

I am not trying to argue with you. You seem like a good guy with real concerns and I welcome your thoughts and participation. However, you have made some bold claims here and all I have done is asked for you to back up those claims with real evidence, which you have not done. Ruski stepped in to help fight for you, but he has failed, utterly, to provide evidence for his claims as well. I am not trying to be rude, but if you are going to make claims you need to back them up.

Regards,

T-Shirt

[mms]

Unprofessional, I'll grant you. I'm not paid to do this.

But "dishonest" and "personal?"

How?

Can you support that accusation?

If not, feel free to withdraw it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran is asking someone to withdraw an unsupported accusation? lol

[Pahoran]

You seem to know a great deal about "spiritual arrogance," which is fine, since you project so much of it.

Pahoran has a free pass to imply that someone is lying, ridicule, name call and the like RDL. Just the rules of the game here.

Let's see.

You accuse others of "spiritual arrogance." You don't get pinged for it.

I turn the accusation back on you. I don't get pinged for it.

And that proves that I have some kind of "free pass," or that the rules that apply to others don't apply to me?

How does that work, exactly?

I do love a good mystery.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ruski_canuk]

Did you even read what those URL's link to? Neither of them says anything about "the divine sanctioning your religion as the most correct" or anything like unto it.

You're getting vaguer and vaguer, Ruski. Again: when we speak of "spiritual confirmation," we speak of direct personal confirmation of one or more of the specific truth claims of the Church. Not of a generic "communion with the divine" or "regeneration experience" or anything else.

But you are right in one point; it really "doesn't mean they are essentially the same thing," just like you said.

No, it's not "the same thing." And no, I did not and would not ask you to relate and unverifiable anecdote as evidence of the doctrine of a major world religion.

I'm not that daft.

Regards,

Pahoran

Not all religions hold the specious claim to transcendental truth. Those that do require some means to obtain that conversion. Yes I am speaking vague since religions achieve these assurances of supreme divine sanction in various ways. If you want to run a survey to check on those religions which claim supreme truth and how their adherents derived that then it would be interesting - do you know of any ?

I never said that my experience with the Muslims defines their doctrine - why do you take such leaps ? I could be wrong, maybe the muslims will admit that they belief their dogma is best because... well because because. I am not a scholar on these matters and won't claim to know the official dogmas of the various trumpeters of absolute truth. Tell me, what do you think such religious advocates will cite as their reason for believing that their dogma is supreme ? Maybe you are a scholar on this and can tell me the official doctrines of the sects out there.

[karl61]

I just figured something out: Pahoran is likely DCP.

edit in: have they ever posted at the same time?

[battlefieldboy]

I am not trying to argue with you. You seem like a good guy with real concerns and I welcome your thoughts and participation. However, you have made some bold claims here and all I have done is asked for you to back up those claims with real evidence, which you have not done. Ruski stepped in to help fight for you, but he has failed, utterly, to provide evidence for his claims as well. I am not trying to be rude, but if you are going to make claims you need to back them up.

Regards,

T-Shirt

Can't you just bear your testimony. That approach always worked when I was LDS. I guess that when we leave the church it makes our testimony unacceptable anymore. Oh yeah we can also share faith promoting stories.

I have a cousin that is lutheran and he is always sharing stories how he prayed to know certain things and how he feels the Holy Spirit testifying to him that what ever he was asking was true or good.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I have a cousin that is lutheran and he is always sharing stories how he prayed to know certain things and how he feels the Holy Spirit testifying to him that what ever he was asking was true or good.

I'm sorry, according to us Mormons, God only answers prayers by Mormons.

...

[ruski_canuk]

Pahoran has a free pass to imply that someone is lying, ridicule, name call and the like RDL. Just the rules of the game here.

Let's see.

You accuse others of "spiritual arrogance." You don't get pinged for it.

I turn the accusation back on you. I don't get pinged for it.

And that proves that I have some kind of "free pass," or that the rules that apply to others don't apply to me?

How does that work, exactly?

I do love a good mystery.

Regards,

Pahoran

Yes, I made the accusation, backed by two reasons, for spiritual arrogance. Believing that your individual experience is more valid for telling truth than others is one reason. The other reason is the unwillingness to learn caused by the false sense of certainty on issues that normally would deserve further inquiry. I have provided reasons for the accusation. You accusing me of spiritual arrogance is meaningless as you haven't defined what you mean by that. I'd love to try to defend myself, I just don't know what your claim is. It isn't for this that you should get pinged but for your constant disrespect and namecalling that you do to everyone who displays a different opinion than your own. I think we can have a decent, even impassioned, debate on these issues without resorting to personal attacks.

[mms]

About Pahoran... If his posts contain any real insight into the topic at hand it is too obscured by sarcasm to be helpful at all. I suspect that he attempts to get threads closed by inciting illicit responses from people who diagree with him.

He does not need to do that to get threads closed. Take a look at my thread from yesterday, entitled, "How Do You Faithful Lds Justify Your Conduct On This Board . . ." It was closed simply for inquiring about whether LDS are acting inconsistently with their beliefs by bashing people so harshly on this board (I thought it was a fairly well-presented question/post). Indeed, read the moderator's comments. Simply inquiring about this is enought to get a thread closed. I expect that this thread will close down shortly.

[ruski_canuk]

I just figured something out: Pahoran is likely DCP.

edit in: have they ever posted at the same time?

hmm...

[LifeOnaPlate]

He does not need to do that to get threads closed. Take a look at my thread from yesterday, entitled, "How Do You Faithful Lds Justify Your Conduct On This Board . . ." It was closed simply for inquiring about whether LDS are acting inconsistently with their beliefs by bashing people so harshly on this board (I thought it was a fairly well-presented question/post). Indeed, read the moderator's comments. Simply inquiring about this is enought to get a thread closed. I expect that this thread will close down shortly.

Why not use private message instead of publicly whining about people?

[BishopRic]

I am not trying to argue with you. You seem like a good guy with real concerns and I welcome your thoughts and participation. However, you have made some bold claims here and all I have done is asked for you to back up those claims with real evidence, which you have not done. Ruski stepped in to help fight for you, but he has failed, utterly, to provide evidence for his claims as well. I am not trying to be rude, but if you are going to make claims you need to back them up.

Regards,

T-Shirt

Nope, I don't. Again, I'm not here to "fight." I'm not interested in de-converting anybody. I sincerely believe that if your path is working for you, stick with it! I will share my experiences, and listen to others. I have no "concerns" about doctrine...just concerns that we should learn to live with and understand each other as we are.

[Pahoran]

Yes, I made the accusation, backed by two reasons, for spiritual arrogance. Believing that your individual experience is more valid for telling truth than others is one reason. The other reason is the unwillingness to learn caused by the false sense of certainty on issues that normally would deserve further inquiry. I have provided reasons for the accusation. You accusing me of spiritual arrogance is meaningless as you haven't defined what you mean by that. I'd love to try to defend myself, I just don't know what your claim is. It isn't for this that you should get pinged but for your constant disrespect and namecalling that you do to everyone who displays a different opinion than your own. I think we can have a decent, even impassioned, debate on these issues without resorting to personal attacks.

You still haven't backed up your claim that I have any kind of "free pass."

In fact, it seems to me that if anyone is really angling for a "free pass" it is those who keep falling back on the continuous whine about "personal attacks." It's getting to be a little bit like sitting next to a jet engine. Hey guys, here's a great little scam: if we can't answer Pahoran's arguments, we'll just cry that he's "attacked" or "insulted" us. That'll bring out the sympathy vote; there'll be at least half a dozen posts on Pahoran's general meanness, and hopefully his post will be buried and we won't have to answer any of his substantive points.

Of which, as you perfectly well know, there are many.

Nevertheless, and notwithstanding all the foregoing, I have no idea why people should imagine that they can freely malign safely dead Mormon leaders and still imagine their own on-line personae to be sacrosanct. Can you explain it to me?

Regards,

Pahoran

[T-Shirt]

Can't you just bear your testimony. That approach always worked when I was LDS. I guess that when we leave the church it makes our testimony unacceptable anymore. Oh yeah we can also share faith promoting stories.

I have a cousin that is lutheran and he is always sharing stories how he prayed to know certain things and how he feels the Holy Spirit testifying to him that what ever he was asking was true or good.

What does this have to do with the topic?

In case anyone is confused, let me make this as clear as I can. I believe that Catholics, Muslims, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and many others have spiritual experiences, even profound spiritual experiences. I do not believe that my spiritual experiences are any more valid or better than theirs. This is not the argument. When a Momon claims to have had a spiritual confirmation that his Church is true or that the Book of Mormon is true, the critic asks why his experience is any more valid than the same experience had by those of other faiths. This is a different argument and this is what I am asking you to support with evidence. I am unaware of any other mainstream Church that encourages study and prayer in order to specifically gain a spiritual confirmation that their Church is true. If there are others I would like to know. In fact, as I have already shown, many Christian churches specifically preach against such a thing, so unless any of you can provide evidence otherwise, you are comparing apples and oranges.

T-Shirt