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

[BigWig]

Is this really that hard to grasp? First, it is you critics that are making the comparison, not us. We are simply pointing out that the comparison is not a valid one. To illustrate, here is an example of a valid comparison:

Mormon: "I felt the Spirit so strongly in Sacrament meeting today"

Catholic: "Today's Mass was a very spiritual experience."

Evangelical: "At worship service, I felt overcome by the Spirit."

These would be valid comparisons, and I have no argument with these people's experiences. I do not view the Mormon's experience as, in any way, superior to the other's.

Here is an example of an invalid comparison:

Mormon: "The Church recommended that I study it's doctrine and then pray to ask God if their church is true. I did so and had a powerful confirmation that it is, indeed, true."

Catholic: "While praying the Rosary, I felt the love of God in a powerful way."

Evangelical: "While singing with uplifted arms, I felt the Holy Spirit throughout my body."

While these are all examples of spiritual experiences, and none is superior to the others, they are not equal in comparison.

The LDS Church specifically asks people to obtain a witness of the Spirit as to whether or not it is Christ's true church. Unless you can show an example of any other Church that encourages the same type of thing, your comparisons are not valid.

I don't know how to be any more plain and if confusion persists, I can only deduce that either I am not very good at expressing my thoughts, or many of you are being intentionally, obtuse.

Best regards,

T-Shirt

Talking over each other is not helping.

How do you know that your church is true? We believe that you ask God and he tells you. Other people believe that when they affiliate themselves with His church (or accept Christ and become born again), he enters their lives. Some believe that God has told them that the apostolic succession continues through the Bishop of Rome.

These are sincere people. They believe just as fully as you do that God has led them to their church/belief system. It's inappropriate to try to frame their spiritual knowledge in our paradigm and then interpret it as inferior.

What's the alternative?

[T-Shirt]

. It's inappropriate to try to frame their spiritual knowledge in our paradigm and then interpret it as inferior.

Can you show me where I have done this?

T-Shirt

[BigWig]

Not really, but conversely, the "science" doesn't negate the claims of the Book of Mormon, either.

Oh, and Joseph Smith's affairs?

Oliver Cowdery:

I had some conversation in which in every instance I did not fail to affirm that which I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nastly, filthy affair of [Joseph Smith's] and Fanny Alger's was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deserted from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself.

Of course this also does not negate Joseph's claims of a prophetic call (after all, even Oliver came to terms with it).

[Sleeper Cell]

I wouldn't use the word "upset." It is the intellectual honesty that bugs me. To say that it is an issue of Church history (or DNA, or whatever else) when it really is something else. For instance, a highly publicized (by the ex-communant himself) excommunication which he claimed was because he was saying DNA proved the Book of Mormon wrong and that an adulterous affair had nothing to do with it.

Your point is well taken. On further consideration, I should have put the word â??upsetâ? in quotes to indicate that this was the word used by a previous poster, and does not reflect the way I would characterize those to whom he refers. I have edited my post accordingly.

[BigWig]

Can you show me where I have done this?

T-Shirt

I'm not trying to pick a fight.

Basically, here's what's happened:

From Charity:

I have been given a witness of the Spirit. What is better than that?

From BishopRic:

So when a Seventh Day Adventist, a Southern Baptist, or even a radical Muslim makes the same claim, what differentiates your experiences? Seriously, I know you will claim yours is more "right" than theirs, but how can you really know?

From T shirt:

I challenge you to find an example of a Seventh Day Adventist, a Southern Baptist or a radical Muslim who has made the same claim.

After some back and forth with some examples, T shirt said:

Here is an example of an invalid comparison:

Mormon: "The Church recommended that I study it's doctrine and then pray to ask God if their church is true. I did so and had a powerful confirmation that it is, indeed, true."

Catholic: "While praying the Rosary, I felt the love of God in a powerful way."

Evangelical: "While singing with uplifted arms, I felt the Holy Spirit throughout my body."

While these are all examples of spiritual experiences, and none is superior to the others, they are not equal in comparison.

The LDS Church specifically asks people to obtain a witness of the Spirit as to whether or not it is Christ's true church. Unless you can show an example of any other Church that encourages the same type of thing, your comparisons are not valid.

So, now you're saying that since their spiritual knowledge didn't come as a response to the prayed question "Is my church true?", it isn't "comparable."

My point is that, to them, it's as conclusive as your testimony is to you. Is there a reason that their spiritual confirmations about the nature of God are incorrect simply because they didn't come as a response to a specific question? I don't think there's any reason to believe that. In fact, I know many faithful Latter-day Saints whose testimony is founded firmly on things like:

"I was in the temple, and I felt the love of God in a powerful way."

or

"While listening to President Hinckley speak, I felt the Holy Spirit throughout my body."

Are these, then, not evidences of truth from God?

[T-Shirt]

I'm not trying to pick a fight.

Basically, here's what's happened:

From Charity:

From BishopRic:

From T shirt:

After some back and forth with some examples, T shirt said:

So, now you're saying that since their spiritual knowledge didn't come as a response to the prayed question "Is my church true?", it isn't "comparable."

The action that brought about the experience is not comparable. I have never said that other's experiences are invalid or inferior. Good grief, is this that hard?

My point is that, to them, it's as conclusive as your testimony is to you. Is there a reason that their spiritual confirmations about the nature of God are incorrect simply because they didn't come as a response to a specific question? I don't think there's any reason to believe that. In fact, I know many faithful Latter-day Saints whose testimony is founded firmly on things like:

"I was in the temple, and I felt the love of God in a powerful way."

or

"While listening to President Hinckley speak, I felt the Holy Spirit throughout my body."

Sigh...I gave you specific examples to illustrate my point, and then you proceed to mix them all up. Oh well, it must be me.

T-Shirt

[Oracle]

Of course this also does not negate Joseph's claims of a prophetic call (after all, even Oliver came to terms with it).

Did he come to terms with it before or after he was excommunicated because he would not back down from Joseph regarding Joseph's behavior in this affair?

Joseph Smith's "affair" if we are going to go by LDS standards... Joseph married (and even that is a question to historians) Fanny Alger in 1833. Joseph Smith did not receive religious powers to seal until April 3, 1836 when those keys were restored by Elijah. Joseph had neither the legal authority or the priesthood authority to perform a sealing. As such, this relationship with Fanny was unacceptable in both the eyes of God and man.

By any other standard, all of the polygamous wives to which there was a sexual component were "affairs."

[Sleeper Cell]

In your opinion, does the affair negate the science? If so, why do you not reject Joseph Smith because of his affairs?

Of course, â??the scienceâ? stands or falls on its own, and ultimately has nothing to do with the character of the scientist. However, when the scientist (or others) claims that â??he was a good Mormonâ? in order to bolster the credibility of â??the science," it is not unreasonable to examine just how good a Mormon he was.

[charity]

In your opinion, does the affair negate the science? If so, why do you not reject Joseph Smith because of his affairs?

He got the science all wrong. But that is beside the point. The fact is that he had an affair with his sister-in-law, and was excommunicated for it. It is pretty much a given. Have an affair, get caught, get excommunicated. His sin was between him and the Lord and the disciplinary council of the Church. But where he really showed his true colors was in blowing off the sin, and trying to blame the Church for the discipline by saying it was because of his [completely wrong] ideas about DNA and the Book of Mormon.

You will get to face the Lord on the charges you made against His prophet. Be ready to eat some words.

[BigWig]

The action that brought about the experience is not comparable. I have never said that other's experiences are invalid or inferior. Good grief, is this that hard?

Sigh...I gave you specific examples to illustrate my point, and then you proceed to mix them all up. Oh well, it must be me.

T-Shirt

What, then, is your point?

BishopRic said that they had a spiritual witness of the truth of their belief systems. You disagreed. Why do you disagree?

[BigWig]

Did he come to terms with it before or after he was excommunicated because he would not back down from Joseph regarding Joseph's behavior in this affair?

Joseph Smith's "affair" if we are going to go by LDS standards... Joseph married (and even that is a question to historians) Fanny Alger in 1833. Joseph Smith did not receive religious powers to seal until April 3, 1836 when those keys were restored by Elijah. Joseph had neither the legal authority or the priesthood authority to perform a sealing. As such, this relationship with Fanny was unacceptable in both the eyes of God and man.

By any other standard, all of the polygamous wives to which there was a sexual component were "affairs."

I think that's the point I'm making: there is evidence that Joseph had an illicit affair with Fanny Alger.

Can we know for sure?

No.

If he did, does it necessarily follow that he didn't see God the Father and Jesus Christ or that The Book of Mormon is untrue?

No.

Someone questioned the idea that Joseph had an affair. I was just offering some evidence. I'm not trying to defend the behavior at all.

[T-Shirt]

What, then, is your point?

BishopRic said that they had a spiritual witness of the truth of their belief systems. You disagreed. Why do you disagree?

If you haven't figured it out yet, I doubt you ever will. I grant that the problem just may be in my communications skills.

My best to you,

T-Shirt

[LifeOnaPlate]

If you haven't figured it out yet, I doubt you ever will. I grant that the problem just may be in my communications skills.

My best to you,

T-Shirt

I understood, appreciated, and agreed with the explanation, for what it's worth.

[BigWig]

If you haven't figured it out yet, I doubt you ever will. I grant that the problem just may be in my communications skills.

My best to you,

T-Shirt

I sincerely wish you wouldn't shrug me off so quickly. This is an issue with which I have personally struggled and I would really appreciate some insight.

If God tells me that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, why does my good friend feel so confident that God has told him that his (incompatible) religious beliefs are true? In particular, he believes that God has told him that the Mormon Church is a cult. I can think of four logical possibilities:

1. I'm right and he's wrong.

2. He's right and I'm wrong.

3. We're both right.

4. We're both wrong.

I struggle with accepting option 1 because it's really just around the corner from option 2. Option 3 is some version of universalism and option 4 is skeptical. What do you think it is?

[T-Shirt]

I sincerely wish you wouldn't shrug me off so quickly. This is an issue with which I have personally struggled and I would really appreciate some insight.

I really don't know how to word it any better, but I will try.

It is demonstrably true that much of mainstream Christianity condemns the method that the LDS Church teaches for gaining a knowledge of truth. Therefore, it would be fallacious to compare the method of LDS to other Christians in this process. When a critic claims that other people have arrived at their conclusion in the same manner that LDS do, it is not true, or at least not that I can see. This is what I have asked the critics to refute. To this point, none have done so.

In other words, when I tell a non-LDS Christian that I have received a witness of the spirit that the LDS Church s true, they respond by telling me that my method of learning such a thing is not Biblical and is therefore flawed and it cannot be correct. It would then be incorrect to claim that my method is the same as theirs. Do you not agree?

If God tells me that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, why does my good friend feel so confident that God has told him that his (incompatible) religious beliefs are true? In particular, he believes that God has told him that the Mormon Church is a cult.

I have said before and I will say again, a person needs to be true to himself. If he is absolutely confident in the revelation he claims to have received, he should be true to that revelation and stand up for it. I can only speak for my own revelation, and I will not judge others for theirs, only they know if they have really had such a revelation or not. Although, I will interject again, that it is often the non-LDS Christians who discount my revelation on the basis of it being un-Biblical, rather than me discounting theirs.

I can think of four logical possibilities:

1. I'm right and he's wrong.

2. He's right and I'm wrong.

3. We're both right.

4. We're both wrong.

I struggle with accepting option 1 because it's really just around the corner from option 2. Option 3 is some version of universalism and option 4 is skeptical. What do you think it is?

If you are comparing apples to oranges, then none of them apply. If you are truly comparing apples to apples (which I maintain has not been the case) then, if I remain true to myself, I would have to chose number one, but that does not make the other person's experience any less valid to him then mine is to me. I would simply tell them that I have to be true to what I feel the Lord has told me. And, I would hope he would do the same, if he is confident in his experiences. That being said, if you insert the words, "may be" into numbers one and two, then I am comfortable choosing numbers one, two or four.

I hope that helps. If not, then I am at a loss for how else to explain it.

My best,

T-Shirt

[BishopRic]

I sincerely wish you wouldn't shrug me off so quickly. This is an issue with which I have personally struggled and I would really appreciate some insight.

If God tells me that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, why does my good friend feel so confident that God has told him that his (incompatible) religious beliefs are true? In particular, he believes that God has told him that the Mormon Church is a cult. I can think of four logical possibilities:

1. I'm right and he's wrong.

2. He's right and I'm wrong.

3. We're both right.

4. We're both wrong.

I struggle with accepting option 1 because it's really just around the corner from option 2. Option 3 is some version of universalism and option 4 is skeptical. What do you think it is?

I think it's a good question, and I have another example that might illustrate the same challenge.

While on my mish, I had an experience that I felt was a miracle. We hadn't had much success for a while, and diligently prayed for guidance. A man's face came to me that I had seen a few weeks earlier while riding my bike to a meeting. I felt inspired to go see him...he had that golden response "I've been praying and waiting for you...." He was baptized a week later. It became the powerful homecoming story that confirmed to everybody the church was true.

Fast forward a few years. I enter grad school where I am the only LDS member in my class. There was one SDA classmate that I became good friends with. We talked religion occasionally, but mostly to compare and contrast. One day at lunch, he "bore his testimony: to me about his conviction. I told him I was quite certain Mormonism was true because of this miraculous event I'd had on my mission. He then told me of his (hadn't heard the details of mine yet), with an almost identical process. He had served his SDA mission to Brazil, and had his "golden" investigator experience that confirmed his "testimony."

Of course mine was more right....LOL!

Years later it became one of the "issues" that sparked my questioning of "spirit," and "God's inspiration." Today, I don't consider myself any particular religious "label." I am a bit of a Universist, and I am comfortable with the possibility that we were both inspired in our "miracles." Whatever "God" or "Spirit" is, I think it's possible for any of us to have these kinds of events. We may misinterpret what is really happening, but I think it is possible...and I certainly don't see any one religion having a corner on the God market.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think it's a good question, and I have another example that might illustrate the same challenge.

While on my mish, I had an experience that I felt was a miracle. We hadn't had much success for a while, and diligently prayed for guidance. A man's face came to me that I had seen a few weeks earlier while riding my bike to a meeting. I felt inspired to go see him...he had that golden response "I've been praying and waiting for you...." He was baptized a week later. It became the powerful homecoming story that confirmed to everybody the church was true.

Fast forward a few years. I enter grad school where I am the only LDS member in my class. There was one SDA classmate that I became good friends with. We talked religion occasionally, but mostly to compare and contrast. One day at lunch, he "bore his testimony: to me about his conviction. I told him I was quite certain Mormonism was true because of this miraculous event I'd had on my mission. He then told me of his (hadn't heard the details of mine yet), with an almost identical process. He had served his SDA mission to Brazil, and had his "golden" investigator experience that confirmed his "testimony."

Of course mine was more right....LOL!

Years later it became one of the "issues" that sparked my questioning of "spirit," and "God's inspiration." Today, I don't consider myself any particular religious "label." I am a bit of a Universist, and I am comfortable with the possibility that we were both inspired in our "miracles." Whatever "God" or "Spirit" is, I think it's possible for any of us to have these kinds of events. We may misinterpret what is really happening, but I think it is possible...and I certainly don't see any one religion having a corner on the God market.

Hence why building faith on miracles is a shaky foundation, kids.

[Bsix]

It has been my experience that it is extemely rare for a traditional Christian to claim that they have sought after and received a personal spiritual witness as to the truth-claims of their religion. The great majority of traditional Christain faiths reject the LDS style of praying for confirming spiritual witnesses of doctrinal issues. In almost all cases, the only traditional Christains who claim to have used the LDS approach are those who are responding to an LDS witness of personal revelation. For example: "You say you've received revelation that the LDS Church is true...well...I've prayed about my church and received revelation that it is true as well."

With that said, if anyone tells me that they have received such a personal spiritual confirmation, I say "Good for you. Follow your heart and may God bless you in your journey." I may respectfully disagree based on my personal view...but there is no way to resolve the issue with any certainty.

More common...but still rare...is when a traditional critic of Mormonism tells me that they prayed about the LDS Church and that God told them it is false. In that case, you just have to respectfully disagree and wish them well in their journey.

Regards,

Six

[T-Shirt]

I am comfortable with the possibility that we were both inspired in our "miracles."

This may surprise you, but I think it is possible that both of you were inspired.

T-Shirt

[LifeOnaPlate]

This may surprise you, but I think it is possible that both of you were inspired.

T-Shirt

Ditto.

[T-Shirt]

It has been my experience that it is extemely rare for a traditional Christian to claim that they have sought after and received a personal spiritual witness as to the truth-claims of their religion. The great majority of traditional Christain faiths reject the LDS style of praying for confirming spiritual witnesses of doctrinal issues. In almost all cases, the only traditional Christains who claim to have used the LDS approach are those who are responding to an LDS witness of personal revelation. For example: "You say you've received revelation that the LDS Church is true...well...I've prayed about my church and received revelation that it is true as well."

With that said, if anyone tells me that they have received such a personal spiritual confirmation, I say "Good for you. Follow your heart and may God bless you in your journey." I may respectfully disagree based on my personal view...but there is no way to resolve the issue with any certainty.

More common...but still rare...is when a traditional critic of Mormonism tells me that they prayed about the LDS Church and that God told them it is false. In that case, you just have to respectfully disagree and wish them well in their journey.

Regards,

Six

Well said, Six.

T-Shirt

[California]

I think the church is doing a good thing to open it's history more up by encouraging books like RSR. I also think that individuals are responsible for learning the history and coming to their own conclusions. Naively accepting admonitions to not study anything "anti" is no excuse, the real reason many Mormons do not go after the history is because they see no need to (they already "know") or fear what they may find. This position is arrogant, IMO, and unethical to pass on to impressionable children and is essentially the philosophy I used for 10 years during my teenage years and early 20s. I am not proud that I did, but I am glad to have learned some very useful lessons.

While many aspects of Mormonism discourage dissent, it isn't nearly as bad as some communities (JW, Omish, much of Islam etc).

Again though, it goes back to whether you know or not. Obviously some people don't know before they delve into the skewed and ultimately undecipherable past of the church. You cannot possibly reach a fair and absolute conclusion on which even unbiased people can agree regarding the reality of the Church as the only true church of God. That is impossible. So without a testimony, all you are left with is doubt and confusion, which while it doesn't make any sort of concrete argument against the church, doesn't help one to believe anyways.

And I have something to say about "anti" stuff. Morons like Grant Palmer DO present one side of the coin on many issues, and others say only the most blurry things about the church. There definitely is harm in reading anti stuff because it is skewed history. Say what you will about the church presenting a sanitized history, but it goes both ways.

This is a really bad case of denial. Be it communion with mother mary, mohammed, euphoria, spiritual enlightenment, meditation, God's voice, the spirit, etc, the divine communion experience is extremely common among religions. The classic position of course is to diminish the other experiences as less sincere or deep or whatever than your own. More spiritual arrogance.

It's not arrogance. It's confidence. I know the church is true. My favorite color is blue. It's not arrogance. It just bounces off certain people that way because they can't bear to not have what someone else has, which is absolute knowledge of SOMETHING.

[Bsix]

Hence why building faith on miracles is a shaky foundation, kids.

Six: To some extent I agree. Laman saw an angel. He was supernatually touched by his brother Nephi. He saw the Liahona work...and yet he was unfaithful.

Merely being a witness to...or participant in...a miracle may not result in true faith.

I came to the Church by means of a very deep and very real (to me) spiritual witness. I have applied faith to that witness and it has sustained me in my thirty years of spiritual growth and happiness in the LDS faith.

Regards,

Six

[California]

I've talked to many who claim exactly that. Every time I meet a religious person, I ask them why that religion and not another and the reason is almost always based on some spiritual experience that they had combined with the logic of the doctrine. Next time you run into a very devout catholic, ask them why catholicism.

Yes, one week ago I joined two muslims in their study of the Koran and received precisely that reason for why Islam and not others.

You know, for someone who is so sure of themselves, you don't seem sure about anything, except the obvious to your eyes, which usually changes over time.

[BigWig]

In other words, when I tell a non-LDS Christian that I have received a witness of the spirit that the LDS Church s true, they respond by telling me that my method of learning such a thing is not Biblical and is therefore flawed and it cannot be correct. It would then be incorrect to claim that my method is the same as theirs. Do you not agree?

Actually, I just think they're making the same mistake as you are.

Suppose truth exists. Now suppose there exists a God who can reveal the truth.

Now suppose two different people believe that God has communicated truth to them. But the truths are different! This is difficult for me to understand. And believe me, I spend a lot of time trying.

You and the non-LDS Christian you describe above want to evaluate the revelation based on its method of arrival. This is how I interpret that argument:

"The spiritual witnesses came as responses to different stimuli, and are therefore not comparable."

I just disagree completely.

I hope that helps. If not, then I am at a loss for how else to explain it.

Ditto.