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

[T-Shirt]

Nope, I don't.

According to the board guidelines, " If you are asked for documentation or given a call for references you are required to provide it."

T-Shirt

[AKS]

Hey guys, here's a great little scam: if we can't answer Pahoran's arguments...

I seriously doubt this is what you want (an answer to your arguments). If it were, someone with your intellect would quickly infer that the best way to achieve the result would be a little tact, even if you feel none is deserved. Or maybe you're not so smart.

[AKS]

What does this have to do with the topic?

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.

Just to get this straight, you're saying that no other religion (to your knowledge) uses spititual constructs to validate the truthfulness their church? Do you have any evidence that other religions teach that prayer, etc is not a valid way to establish a testimony? The absence of evidence is not... Well you've heard it before.

[BishopRic]

According to the board guidelines, " If you are asked for documentation or given a call for references you are required to provide it."

T-Shirt

Oh, that makes alotta sense. How does one "reference" his experience? Okay, let's see, reference BR 12:24. It's all there.

[T-Shirt]

Just to get this straight, you're saying that no other religion (to your knowledge) uses spititual constructs to validate the truthfulness their church? Do you have any evidence that other religions teach that prayer, etc is not a valid way to establish a testimony? The absence of evidence is not... Well you've heard it before.

sigh.

[Pahoran]

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.

You suspect wrongly.

Pahoran is asking someone to withdraw an unsupported accusation? lol

Why yes, as a matter of fact. That should be surprising--why?

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.

Only because you and the rest of the cheer squad are trying to make this thread all about a poster. Which is the one and only reason why your darling aren't-you-Mormons-wicked thread was closed.

We are here to discuss LDS apologetics, not personalities.

I seriously doubt this is what you want (an answer to your arguments).

Which is as accurate as any other accusation you've made.

If it were, someone with your intellect would quickly infer that the best way to achieve the result would be a little tact, even if you feel none is deserved. Or maybe you're not so smart.

Actually you've got it backwards. I'm not pestering you about the problems I perceive with your beliefs. Rather, it is my faith that is routinely under attack here. If you lot want to make your accusations stick, you're going to have to stand the heat. I am entitled to deal with those attacks according to their merits as I perceive them. If anyone imagines that their arguments can hold water, then let them front up and do so.

Just don't expect me to treat them with kid gloves.

Now, does anyone at all have anything at all to say about the topic of the thread, or has it run its course? The current quantity of anti-Pahoran ad hominem would seem to indicate the latter.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hawkmoon]

I seriously doubt this is what you want (an answer to your arguments). If it were, someone with your intellect would quickly infer that the best way to achieve the result would be a little tact, even if you feel none is deserved. Or maybe you're not so smart.

You do know that you just gave more evidence to his point, right? I find it rather bemusing to read this faux indignation regarding his lack of tact, and obviously low demeanor, from someone who just posted this:

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.

The fact that Ruski and mms are in agreement with you does not bode well that your "insight" has any real value.

[T-Shirt]

Oh, that makes alotta sense. How does one "reference" his experience? Okay, let's see, reference BR 12:24. It's all there.

I have asked for references on statements you have made which should be verifiable, if they are accurate. If you can't do it, then just say so.

T-Shirt

[Tchild2]

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

Classic Pahoran, baiting and trolling on the Fair boards.

[T-Shirt]

Classic Pahoran, baiting and trolling on the Fair boards.

Classic critic's diversionary tactic to avoid having to actually support his claims.

T-Shirt

[battlefieldboy]

To get back to the Original Post on How Many People are Leaving the Church over Historical Issues I think the answer is nobody knows but based on a sampling of the posts of ex members here it could be a major reason most choose to leave.

BTW does the church release statistics of how many people leave the church yearly compared to how many join.

Also does the Church consider you still a member if you haven't attended in over 2 years and you haven't requested your name to be removed? Do they purge their rolls so to speak?

[ruski_canuk]

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

You just needed to broaden your understanding "spiritual confirmation" to more than Mormons. What other method besides study and prayer is employed to give people their spiritual beliefs ? I'm not away of any...

I'm not attacking you Pahoran just saying that you are near impossible to have a respectable conversation with. Essentially every other apologist, much less average TBM, employs at least a small measure of respect and refrains from personal attacks and constant insults.

[Hawkmoon]

You just needed to broaden your understanding "spiritual confirmation" to more than Mormons. What other method besides study and prayer is employed to give people their spiritual beliefs ? I'm not away of any...

I'm not attacking you Pahoran just saying that you are near impossible to have a respectable conversation with. Essentially every other apologist, much less average TBM, employs at least a small measure of respect and refrains from personal attacks and constant insults.

This is too funny! I mean the irony is getting really thick in here! You just attacked Pahoran (and yes it is an attack); continue to insult him throughout this thread; and then pretend as if you are not exactly what you accuse him of being? Amazing... really. Look, while Pahoran can be very direct, vociferous, and at times even a bit insulting-- to insinuate that he does not make many substantive points is ludicrous to say the least. Furthermore, to do so by ad hominem personal attacks is... well, hypocritical. But then I suspect you are intelligent enough to know this already-- or maybe not.

[AKS]

You do know that you just gave more evidence to his point, right?

No I didn't. In fact I don't even know what his point is that I gave more evidence to.

I find it rather bemusing to read this faux indignation regarding his lack of tact, and obviously low demeanor, from someone who just posted this

There was no intended indignation, faux or otherwise. I was simply opining that the reason his points aren't addressed is the lack of civility in his posts, and further he knows this is the case.

[Pahoran]

Just to get this straight, you're saying that no other religion (to your knowledge) uses spititual constructs to validate the truthfulness their church?

I don't think anyone has actually used the phrase "spiritual constructs" or anything like it. What would that mean, exactly?

Do you have any evidence that other religions teach that prayer, etc is not a valid way to establish a testimony? The absence of evidence is not... Well you've heard it before.

As a matter of fact, AKS, evidence has been led, in this very thread, to that effect. There is a persistent view in a number of faith traditions that personal revelation is not available to the great unwashed masses. The mugs in the pews are not supposed to expect their prayers to be answered, at least not in any way that might be construed as direct personal communication from deity. Evidently this would seem to diminish the utter majestic aloofness of God; to the extent that he is naively thought of as responding to the prayers of mortals, that means that he is no longer absolutely sovereign, but is interacting with us as if we were His equals, O, horrible thought!

But in any event, the anti-Mormon accusation before us is, "you mindless morgbots marginalise the spiritual experiences of others when you refuse to accept that their personal testimonies, based upon the answers they've received to their prayers, are just as likely to be 'true' as yours are, and this is a horrible instance of 'spiritual arrogance.'" If the accusers are unable to substantiate (1) that others do indeed receive such direct personal answers to the specific truth claims of their respective faiths, and (2) that we do indeed discount them, then the accusation fails and we stand acquitted.

You attempted to reverse the burden of proof. May we take it, then, that you, at least, cannot support the accusation?

(I'd like to see anyone try to parlay any "personal attacks" out of that.)

Regards,

Pahoran

[AKS]

Amazing... really. Look, while Pahoran can be very direct, vociferous, and at times even a bit insulting-- to insinuate that he does not make many substantive points is ludicrous to say the least.

Nowhere did ruski insinuate that pahoran doesn't make any substantive points. Perhaps your induction skills are lacking.

What I find disingenuous is the notion that members of other religions don't expect to get a spiritual confirmation of their beliefs.

[Thinking]

(I'd like to see anyone try to parlay any "personal attacks" out of that.)

Instead of a personal one-on-one attack, you take aim at some anonymous worshippers from an anonymous church.

The mugs in the pews...

[AKS]

I don't think anyone has actually used the phrase "spiritual constructs" or anything like it. What would that mean, exactly?

No spiritual contruct is mine. I mean any ambigious, non-repeatable, non-verifiable means of obtaining truth.

But in any event, the anti-Mormon accusation before us is, "you mindless morgbots marginalise the spiritual experiences of others when you refuse to accept that their personal testimonies, based upon the answers they've received to their prayers, are just as likely to be 'true' as yours are, and this is a horrible instance of 'spiritual arrogance.'" If the accusers are unable to substantiate (1) that others do indeed receive such direct personal answers to the specific truth claims of their respective faiths, and (2) that we do indeed discount them, then the accusation fails and we stand acquitted.

Regards,

Pahoran

(1) Since Gods existence cannot be proved by any observable manner and that there are many many more educated and intelligent people in a religion that is not mormon, these other people must have confirmed their respective religions veracity by some spiritual means.

(2) It isn't an LDS principle that their church is the one true church?

[Pahoran]

There was no intended indignation, faux or otherwise. I was simply opining that the reason his points aren't addressed is the lack of civility in his posts, and further he knows this is the case.

I "know" no such thing. Your failure to respond to my post #340 does not support your opinion, and gives me further reason to believe otherwise.

What I find disingenuous is the notion that members of other religions don't expect to get a spiritual confirmation of their beliefs.

"Disingenuous," eh? What does that mean, exactly?

I made a post (#340) substantively addressing this very issue. You blithely act as if it isn't there, and then accuse your opponents of being "disingenuous."

Remarkable.

Once again: can anyone document the claim that other faith traditions do rely upon "spiritual confirmation of their beliefs" in any way that is meaningfully analogous to an LDS testimony?

If not, then exactly who is being "disingenuous" here?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

Once again: can anyone document the claim that other faith traditions do rely upon "spiritual confirmation of their beliefs" in any way that is meaningfully analogous to an LDS testimony?

Here's one. I found it by typing "spiritual witness" Christ into the search box on Yahoo.

Our church declares itself to be a part of the Peace with Justice Movement. We commit our congregation to:

(1) the advocacy of peace and justice, realizing that one is not possible without the other; and

(2) a ministry which empowers our members to work actively toward peace with justice. This declaration will be implemented through spiritual witness, education, stewardship of resources, organizing and action. (adopted June 1988)

http://www.atascaderoucc.org/

[Pahoran]

Instead of a personal one-on-one attack, you take aim at some anonymous worshippers from an anonymous church.

The mugs in the pews...

So it doesn't matter if Pahoran doesn't "personally attack" any participant on this thread, just as long as we can somehow squeeze out something nasty about someone.

So sorry to disappoint you, "Thinking[sic]," but the above does not represent my views of "some anonymous worshippers from an anonymous church." It represents the way I see them as being treated.

And I rather think you understood that.

No spiritual contruct is mine. I mean any ambigious, non-repeatable, non-verifiable means of obtaining truth.

Okay. And its relevance to this discussion is...?

(1) Since Gods existence cannot be proved by any observable manner and that there are many many more educated and intelligent people in a religion that is not mormon, these other people must have confirmed their respective religions veracity by some spiritual means.

"Must have?" So, IOW, this is your assumption, and nothing more; but it is somehow "disingenuous" of us to not merely capitulate to it?

That seems--strange.

Here's a suggestion: instead of trying to foist your unsupported assumption upon us as some kind of just-so story which it is "disingenuous" to reject or even have the awful temerity to question, how about you actually look into what some other faith traditions claim for themselves? You may actually learn something.

Of course, if you'd rather operate on assumptions instead of facts, don't let me spoil your party.

(2) It isn't an LDS principle that their church is the one true church?

Why yes; it is.

And this is relevant because...?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

So it doesn't matter if Pahoran doesn't "personally attack" any participant on this thread, just as long as we can somehow squeeze out something nasty about someone.

You issued the challenge.

[Bsix]

To get back to the Original Post on How Many People are Leaving the Church over Historical Issues I think the answer is nobody knows but based on a sampling of the posts of ex members here it could be a major reason most choose to leave.

Six: That is sort of like going into a Pizza Hut and asking how many people like pizza. I don't thinkl that anyone on this message board...believer or former believer is representative of the actual ebb and flow of LDS membership. Remember, you have members like me who have been in numerous leadership positions in numerous wards that have been positions to observe. We have reported that from our vantage point, the numbers seem quite low. To some extent, what you believe comes down to who you want to believe.

BTW does the church release statistics of how many people leave the church yearly compared to how many join.

Six: The Church does not publish those statistics. I am not aware of to many churches...if any...that publish those sorts of statistics.

Also does the Church consider you still a member if you haven't attended in over 2 years and you haven't requested your name to be removed? Do they purge their rolls so to speak?

Six: The Church does not remove the names of those who are not actively participating in Church meetings and activities. It has been my observation that less active members can go for years and never darken the door of an LDS Church...and still consider themselves Mormons. Some go through very long periods of disillusionment or distance from the Church and then return to the fold. At time, a spouse or parent can inhibit Church membership even though a person still has strong loyalty to the Church. Based on those sometimes common occurances, I think it is unwise for the Church to effectively excommunicate a member of the flock simply because they have not shown up for a while. For us, all of us are the Savior's lambs. We'll wait a lifetime on the chance that they will one day be ready to return to the fold.

Along those lines, I am not familiar with too many churches...if any...that proactively remove members for periods of inactivity. I seem to recall that the Jehovah's Witnesses are the only faith that may have some sort of membership discipline for inacitivity.

Regards,

Six

If y'all really think that an LDS poster is being rude and personally obnoxious...complain to the mods.

Regards,

Six

[Pahoran]

Here's one. I found it by typing "spiritual witness" Christ into the search box on Yahoo.

Our church declares itself to be a part of the Peace with Justice Movement. We commit our congregation to:

(1) the advocacy of peace and justice, realizing that one is not possible without the other; and

(2) a ministry which empowers our members to work actively toward peace with justice. This declaration will be implemented through spiritual witness, education, stewardship of resources, organizing and action. (adopted June 1988)

http://www.atascaderoucc.org/

Thank you. Now I have looked around this site to see if there is any merit to your apparent assumption that "spiritual witness" as used by the UCC means anything analogous to "spiritual confirmation of their beliefs." I am unable to find any explanation or expansion of that term. Absent such, please note that the context in which it appears is all about public activities. As such, it has nothing to do with the inner life of believers, and does not support such a construction. The most likely meaning of the passage appears to be something equivalent to "missionary work" or "witnessing a spiritual message to others."

So in reality it's not one.

You issued the challenge.

And you took your shot, and missed. The challenge was to find a "personal attack." Even if I had meant it as you pretended I did, it would still have been quite impersonal.

Regards,

Pahoran

[BigWig]

Oh say, what is truth? 'Tis the fairest gem!

I think it's inappropriate to judge the spiritual confirmations of faith of people with different theories of knowledge.

We basically believe that you can ask God "yes or no" type questions and that he will answer through the Holy Ghost (or a dowsing rod!). We ask God if the Book of Mormon is true and Joseph Smith was a prophet. We believe he answers through the Holy Ghost.

Catholics believe that the apostolic succession is clear. They may not kneel and pray "is Benedict the pope?" Nevertheless, many faithful Catholics have sincere, significant spiritual experiences that they believe are God's way of telling them "hey, you're on the right track!"

Many Christians have felt strongly that, upon accepting Christ into their lives, they have literally been born again. They felt like Christ came into their lives in a literal way.

They are as convinced that God has spoken to them as we are. They KNOW that their epistemology is correct. So do we.

I guess my point is: I don't think it's fair to claim the superiority of your spiritual communications (and mine) based on your own theory of knowledge.

They know that God has told them that their church is true. You know that God has told you that your church is true. They have simply sought communication in a different fashion.

I feel like I'm having a tough time making my point. Maybe it's this:

They may no have asked: "is my church the only true one?", but that doesn't mean that they don't believe that God has told them such.