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

[ruski_canuk]

Okay, I will try one more time, but I don't know if it will do any good.

1 - If a critic claims that a Mormon spiritual experience is no better than a spiritual experience of any other faith, I will whole heartedly agree.

2 - If a Mormon says, "I know the Church is true because I asked God and He gave me a witness of the spirit that it is true.", and then a critic says, "What about a Jehovah's Witness or a Muslim or an Evangelical that says the same thing.", I say, this is not a valid comparison because, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims and Evangelicals do not pray and ask God if their church is true, in fact many of these specifically teach that this is not a valid way to know if a Church is true, which I have already shown to be true.

3 - This has nothing to do with superiority or arrogance, it is simply a statement of how the comparison in a certain situation is not valid. It would be like me saying, "My wife cooks the best pork in the world.", and you saying, "What about an Orthodox Jew's wife". Since an Orthodox Jew doesn't cook pork, it is not a valid comparison.

4 - I have asked for anyone to show examples from the teachings of other faiths that would prove me wrong, but, as of yet, no one has done so.

If this doesn't clear it up, then I guess the problem is with me. Maybe someone else who understands and agrees with me can explain it better.

Best regards,

T-Shirt

Thanks BFB, my forehead is getting sore from banging it on my desk.

Perhaps that explains why it isn't getting through

Let's try to break this down as carefully and simply as possible so as to do something as extreme as banging heads into desks.

True or False: You are saying that the LDS source of a testimony uses different methodology than other religions to achieve their belief in their religion ? (I will assume true, please correct me if I am wrong)

True or False: People gain faith that their particular brand of religion is the most correct or true (not all religions claim this, but many do, I am talking about these transcendental truth claimants, like Mormons, Muslims, Catholics, etc). They also believe that the particular method used (be it dancing in the moonlight, praying to mother mary, praying 5 times day or meditating for days) is satisfactory, even an optimal, way of strengthening their claim to transcendental truth. I think from what you've said the answer is true, but again please correct me if I am wrong.

True or False: There is no objective way to decide which methodology (though they be different) is the most correct methodology (or if any is correct) for deciding that your religion is the most correct. In essence, none is superior to the other for concluding that one's faith, or religion, is superior in terms of total accumulated truths (using non-physical or "spiritual" means).

I have no idea how you feel about this third one. You are emphasizing the differences in their methodologies which suggests to me that you are really answering false to the last question.

I hope that this is not ambiguous.

[ruski_canuk]

Ruski Canuk says;

I find after reading your posts that you have a problem with members saying "I know the church is true."

First: You enjoy putting your words in our mouths of what we should say which I find highly arrogant. Which is ironic because you accuse us of being arrogant.

Second: When you say "a more humble way would be: is doing two things saying you are more intelligent than us and at the same time accusing us of pride.

Third: If you don't like us declaring it a truth and would prefer us to testify in a more softer, less abrasive less knowing and more I think, but cant know for sure way and then try to assuage and persuade us to do so and if we don't then call us arrogant I find that anti-Christ

ouch but truth can hurt sometimes...

I have a problem with LDS claiming to know that their religion is true just like I have a problem with those who know climate change is (or isn't) mainly human caused. I have a problem with people who know that God doesn't (or does) exist. In short, when people claim to know things which are the most uncertain, my red flag alarm goes off. Those positions are more delusional than arrogant, more blind than overconfident but all of those words apply.

I'm not sure where intelligence comes into play. I'm certain that there are thousands of LDS more intelligent than I am who employ this delusional and blind statement (the "I know" sickness).

So by accusing people who pretend to know the unknowable, I am an anti-Christ ? Cmon Anijen.

ouch but truth can hurt sometimes...

Yea - the inconvenient truth.

[Hammer]

It could be the fact that I've been awake for close to 40 hours, but I don't really get what you're saying.

Basically, I don't deny the possibility that a god or higher intelligence may exist. The existence of a god can never be proven or disproven. I have become very spiritual since my departure from religion, perhaps more so that I ever was as a church-goer. I feel more in touch with things taking an evening stroll on an autumn evening along the Red Cedar river than I ever did reading the scriptures of ANY religion. I feel more of a spiritual uplift kickstepping out into a stadium of screaming sports fans than I ever did sitting in a church on a Sunday morning. To each person, the path to spiritual "enlightenment" is different. Mine comes from my normal activities rather than a man-made institution.

I think you have confused spiritual with emotional. Easy to do for those who don't know God.

John 17: 3

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

[California]

Why do you say I am so sure of myself ? I am not trying to tell you what God is and expecting you to believe me. I am saying that I don't know... Here is what you said:

Your statement on the church is a statement about reality. Whether something is in fact true. Your statement about color is a subjective taste. Totally different things. A more humble position would be:

I love the church and it works for me. If it doesn't work for you, that is fine. I respect your opinion and would love to share ideas and opinions with you without calling you names or attacking your character. I know that my spiritual experiences are personal and for me and cannot be used to judge what is best for others.

That is much humbler than calling someone an apostate and telling them that they are arrogant simply because they have a different opinion about the most abstract ideas of life (namely religion).

I don't think you understand. a... I know God doesn't lie, this implying of course that I know there is a God

b... I know what He has told me so c... I know the Church is true. A+B=C.

It's actually quite logical, but unless you accept that fact that God is someone who actually cares about order and does not want religious war going on and would prefer that we all just believe one thing so that we wouldn't have to fight, and that we would see things the way they really are, implying that there is a BEST way of doing things, you will never be able to understand that you really CAN know. I don't see how we a person can accept the fact there if there is a some sort of God, he doesn't care to try and solve our problems.

[California]

Okay, I will try one more time, but I don't know if it will do any good.

1 - If a critic claims that a Mormon spiritual experience is no better than a spiritual experience of any other faith, I will whole heartedly agree.

You have to accept the fact that you will never and can never know what other people are feeling. You can see the vestiges of something that they feel or think, and you can see the outward proofs of something going on inside of them like tears, for example, but that is all. It's like reading a book. You know what the words on the page are, but you can't really ever know what the writer was feeling at the time of writing it. It's all superficial, and speculative.

The only thing that a person can truly be sure of is what they themselves feel. That is all they completely have access to.

Ruski Canuk says;

Third: If you don't like us declaring it a truth and would prefer us to testify in a more softer, less abrasive less knowing and more I think, but cant know for sure way and then try to assuage and persuade us to do so and if we don't then call us arrogant I find that anti-Christ

ouch but truth can hurt sometimes...

I second that... I have thought that for a while now...

[Hammer]

I was telling someone yesterday about the Law of Adoption - she's one of my TBM friends. She replied that it just didn't matter. But I think it does matter - the history matters. The frustrating thing is that this a typical response for someone who is questioning. Recently GBH stated that everything hinges on JS - so the history of JS matters. I've been told to study his life - this isn't to just accept it all - it's to study it out in my mind. Does everything have to go on faith? Is it so wrong to ask for some proof?

Having a spiritual testimony about the calling of JS matters. Not JS himself. My salvation has nothing to do with whether or not JS was perfect or even if he was just a little flawed or if he was totally wacko-- my salvation depends upon whether or not I am able to reach the Lord and gain HIS OPINION on the matter.

[Bsix]

It has been my experience BSix, that you are utterly wrong in your assumption. I have never met a devout member of another religion whether it be christian or not, that was not utterly convinced that their belief system was closest to God's will. Simple as that. The most powerful testimony I heard on my mission was that of a Catholic Monk. I will never forget it.

As a point of interest. The Church of England over here has a program called the Alpha Course. At the end of the course people are invited to a weekend convention. Here they are encouraged to feel the spirit and witness that Jesus is Lord and Saviour. Apparantly emotions run very high at these events in terms of spiritual witnessing.

As a student I met many a methodist (the kindest of which was my college chaplain), presbyterian and the local CSA (Christian Student Assocation) who were utterly convinced that they were following Jesus' authentic Gospel, to the extent that as a believer in the Book of Mormon, I was excluded from joining.

Mary

Six: With all due respect, I believe that Abulafia may be misreading the intent of my comments.

If you will note that my comments did not dismiss the spiritual feelings that people claim in regards to their religion. I did not dismiss the fact that most, if not all people believe that the concept they hold of God if the most accurate and true of all possible.

I understand that traditional Christians profess deep spiritual feelings. They see the hand of God touching them and guiding them through the events of their lives. Many believe that God calls them. I did not deny that.

My comment pretains to the concept of prayerful confirmation of truth claims regarding which church is true, confirming scriptures, or specific doctrines. Generally speaking, most traditional Churches reject the notion of prayer and revelation in the manner with which the LDS Church advocates.

It is fairly common for traditional Christians to attack the Mormon approach of direct, personal spiritual fact finding. My comments were limited to that particular aspect of the discussion.

Regards,

Six

[T-Shirt]

True or False: You are saying that the LDS source of a testimony uses different methodology than other religions to achieve their belief in their religion ? (I will assume true, please correct me if I am wrong)

No, that is not my position.

I am saying, however, that it is the critics who claim that every other religion learns their Church is true the same way the Mormons do. This is not so. If you can prove it, show me. This is what I have been asking all along. Most Churches have websites, see if you can find, on any of them, anything similar to the following:

1. How you can know our Church is true.

2. Read the Bible or Koran or the Bhagavad Gita or whatever, and ask God if it is true.

3. You can know this Church is true by asking God.

Frankly, I suspect people have already tried this and come up empty and now are just trying to confuse the issue by moving the goal posts.

True or False: People gain faith that their particular brand of religion is the most correct or true (not all religions claim this, but many do, I am talking about these transcendental truth claimants, like Mormons, Muslims, Catholics, etc). They also believe that the particular method used (be it dancing in the moonlight, praying to mother mary, praying 5 times day or meditating for days) is satisfactory, even an optimal, way of strengthening their claim to transcendental truth. I think from what you've said the answer is true, but again please correct me if I am wrong.

False.

I know of very few denominations who actually believe that theirs is THE true Church. Here is another challenge for you; Go to an official Catholic website, Jehovah's Witness website, Muslim website, Baptist website or any other you feel inclined to visit and see if you can find instruction on how to know if their Church is true. See if you can find anything remotely similar to this:

How can I know this is true?

Come back and report.

And just to reiterate, it is not, and has never been, my goal to point out these differences, but rather to point out that the critic's claim, that they are all the same, is false.

True or False: There is no objective way to decide which methodology (though they be different) is the most correct methodology (or if any is correct) for deciding that your religion is the most correct. In essence, none is superior to the other for concluding that one's faith, or religion, is superior in terms of total accumulated truths (using non-physical or "spiritual" means).

I have no idea how you feel about this third one. You are emphasizing the differences in their methodologies which suggests to me that you are really answering false to the last question.

It has nothing to do with whether a method is objective or subjective, right or wrong, good or bad, brilliant or moronic. It is about you guys claiming that all other Churches learn that their Churches are true the same way that Mormons do. This is not true and all I've asked you to do is find one.

I hope that this is not ambiguous.

Ambiguous or not, you still haven't grasped the argument, and I don't know if you will.

T-Shirt

[Bsix]

Let's use a specific example to further understand the point.

Ask traditional Christians how the Bible can be proven true. Almost without exception, the methodology that they would recommend is to use scientific and intellectual proofs. Archelology, textual comparisons, internal coorelation, history, etc. I know of no Christian group that woulld suggest a sprititual approach to proving the Bible. I know of no Christian group that specifically recommends praying to God and having him tell you that it is true.

Here is an excellent example of the traditional Christian approach to 'proving' the Bible: How do you know the Bible is true?

In fact, I cannot find a single example of a Christian resource that recommends a spiritually base methodology to authenticating the Bible. (If they do exist, they are the exception.)

In fact, most Christian apologists will tell you that spiritual fact-proving is false, unbiblical, and deceptive.

Without doubting the sincerity of the beliefs of traditional Christians...or insulting the spiritual experiences they claim...traditional Christians do seem to have a significantly different approach to authenticating the truth of religion and doctrine through personal and prayerful revelation.

Regards,

Six

[T-Shirt]

Thanks, Six.

T-Shirt

[Luigi]

No, that is not my position.

I am saying, however, that it is the critics who claim that every other religion learns their Church is true the same way the Mormons do. This is not so. If you can prove it, show me. This is what I have been asking all along. Most Churches have websites, see if you can find, on any of them, anything similar to the following:

1. How you can know our Church is true.

2. Read the Bible or Koran or the Bhagavad Gita or whatever, and ask God if it is true.

3. You can know this Church is true by asking God.

FLDS

Strangites

RLDS

I would imagine most 'splinter' groups of Mormonism teach this doctrine-I could be wrong though.

[Thinking]

Last night my wife was reading some quotes from a set of stickers which my daughter purchased for school. One of them applies to this thread.

"I've already made up my mind! Don't bother me with the facts!"

[Bsix]

"I've already made up my mind! Don't bother me with the facts!"

Six: True...true.

That is a universal observation that can be said of almost any sort of believer...or unbeliever.

Regards,

Six

[ruski_canuk]

QUOTE(ruski_canuk @ Aug 17 2007, 07:35 AM) *

True or False: You are saying that the LDS source of a testimony uses different methodology than other religions to achieve their belief in their religion ? (I will assume true, please correct me if I am wrong)

No, that is not my position.

Let's stick to just the first question as right away it seems to have gone off track. Then we can move to the other questions.

So you answered 'false' to the first position. That is you disagree that "the LDS source of a testimony uses different methodology than other religions to achieve their belief in their religion ?". Perhaps the word 'methodology' is throwing you. I was hoping to build on a beachhead of agreement - that we both agree that the specific steps that different religions use to shore up faith in their brand of religion is not the same in terms of the ritual involved.

You keep repeating that critics say that the method is the same. They don't say that. The method might be very different (who to pray to, what exactly to pray about, what constitutes the spiritual experience, what words are used to describe the experiences, etc). Anyways, I won't go there until we can at least agree on words like "methodology".

Your comment on the goal posts is a good one as I think it is the focus of the mis-communication. Once I see that we agree at least that they have different methodology, I'll respond to that. I am not an expert as to the rituals used in other faiths to secure a LDS equivalent of a testimony but I will certainly do some research into it, not just for this thread, but because it is an interesting question. However, I can say with conviction that I know this is wrong:

I know of very few denominations who actually believe that theirs is THE true Church.

Muslims and Catholics represent 2-3 billion people and their doctrine is very clear about being THE true church. Compare that number to the 0.012 billion LDS... (have you shifted the goal posts on what constitutes "mainstream?").

As far as other mainstreamers (Hindus, Budhists, Sikhs, Other Eastern faiths (I think these guys don't have the one true church dogma), Jews, Shinto, and the remaining Christian sects, I'm not sure what exactly their method is. However, it might be useful to focus on catholics and muslims since they have the truth claims.

Six: True...true.

That is a universal observation that can be said of almost any sort of believer...or unbeliever.

Regards,

Six

I disagree. I think believer, and non-believer, can both be open to new facts and willing to shift opinion. Like any honorable virtue, it is something that should be striven for.

[T-Shirt]

However, I can say with conviction that I know this is wrong:

I know of very few denominations who actually believe that theirs is THE true Church.

What part of "few" don't you understand?

You are making this way more complicated than it really is.

T-Shirt

[ruski_canuk]

2-3 billion is a few ? So you give a tiny cult the same weight for this ? Please define what you mean by "mainstream" (greater than... 12 million ? ). You should clarify all the parameters so we can decide which religions do and don't count for your survey

[Luigi]

I know of very few denominations who actually believe that theirs is THE true Church. Here is another challenge for you; Go to an official Catholic website, Jehovah's Witness website, Muslim website, Baptist website or any other you feel inclined to visit and see if you can find instruction on how to know if their Church is true. See if you can find anything remotely similar to this:

How can I know this is true?

T-Shirt

I think that the criticism is not that all religions follow this model as much as the fact that all ultimately rely on somekind of untestable assumption or dogma. Ultimately all religions emphasize the need to 'just have faith' that some method is reliable while critics argue that you need to have a method which can be measurably tested either empirically or through repeated experimentation. The criticism against praying for truth and relying on a response which is usually described in emotions is that it is difficult if not impossible to measure and compare emotions and emotions have often been shown to lead individuals to wrong conclusions.

[Bsix]

If I recall correctly, the Catholic Church recently reaffirmed that it believes that it is the one true Church. I

Islam claims to be the true religion. I do not believe that any sects within Islam claim to be the one true Church in the same authoratitive sense that Catholics and Mormons do.

Protestants, at least the ones I am familiar with, do not claim to have exclusivity in regards to being the one true Church.

I am not aware of non-Christian Churches that claim to be the one true Church in the same as Catholics and Mormons.

I get the sense that some of the restorationist offshoots claim to be the one true Church.

So there you have it. The largest Christian denomination and a handful of small restorationist Churches make the claim. If I were to guess, no more than a couple of dozen...if even that...churches claim exclusive ecclesiastical Church authority.

Does that help move the conversation along?

Regards,

Six

[Bsix]

I think that the criticism is not that all religions follow this model as much as the fact that all ultimately rely on somekind of untestable assumption or dogma.

Six: I think that is a fair statement. We Mormons believe in a very specific form of spiritual manifestation. Other religions embrace less direct spiritual manifestation. For the most part, believing in religion and in God is a spiritual and faith based exercise.

Ultimately all religions emphasize the need to 'just have faith' that some method is reliable while critics argue that you need to have a method which can be measurably tested either empirically or through repeated experimentation.

Six: Secularists place their faith in a different methodology. To them, it is the best and most reliable way to find truth. I personally take the spiritual, faith-based approach.

The criticism against praying for truth and relying on a response which is usually described in emotions is considered unreliable by critics because it is difficult if not impossible to measure and compare emotions and emotions have often been shown to lead individuals to wrong conclusions.

Six: That is certainly a fair observation. It is the thing about religion that can be quite frustrating to secularists.

Regards,

Six

[California]

2-3 billion is a few ? So you give a tiny cult the same weight for this ? Please define what you mean by "mainstream" (greater than... 12 million ? ). You should clarify all the parameters so we can decide which religions do and don't count for your survey

I think that it's important to differentiate between the leaders of the church and the followers themselves. The major religions, while they do claim to be the only true church, don't preach a need to receive a personal witness, only to follow, which means that most do follow because of tradition etc. You have to take into consideration that most are never even challanged about their beliefs and so dont' see a need to change. Some are in religions where their lives are threatened if they even so much as read other religious lit.

[T-Shirt]

2-3 billion is a few ? So you give a tiny cult the same weight for this ? Please define what you mean by "mainstream" (greater than... 12 million ? ). You should clarify all the parameters so we can decide which religions do and don't count for your survey

Good grief. What part of denomination don't you understand?

T-Shirt

[Bsix]

The major religions, while they do claim to be the only true church, don't preach a need to receive a personal witness, only to follow, which means that most do follow because of tradition etc. You have to take into consideration that most are never even challanged about their beliefs and so dont' see a need to change. Some are in religions where their lives are threatened if they even so much as read other religious lit.

Six: Please allow me to make this observational nuance.

While many major religions think that they are the true religion. Very few actual denominations of sects teach that they'r organization is the only true authorized church. While that may be a subtle difference, it is quite significant to this discussion.

Regards,

Six

[BishopRic]

I think that the criticism is not that all religions follow this model as much as the fact that all ultimately rely on somekind of untestable assumption or dogma. Ultimately all religions emphasize the need to 'just have faith' that some method is reliable while critics argue that you need to have a method which can be measurably tested either empirically or through repeated experimentation. The criticism against praying for truth and relying on a response which is usually described in emotions is that it is difficult if not impossible to measure and compare emotions and emotions have often been shown to lead individuals to wrong conclusions.

Good points. I've been following this discussion from the sidelines lately, and find it interesting. I think it's a bit challenging to debate because it is impossible to define a fundamental term: "spiritual experience." What is it? We all have our own foundational ideas of what it is...but I don't think, as some have said, that we can really tell another what theirs -- or ours -- really is.

Earlier, I told of my own mission experience that at the time seemed to me to be a spiritual "miracle." Another snipped that we cannot rely on those. My SDA friend had the same "miracle," and most agreed that it was quite possible that both our experiences were truly spiritual (whatever that means).

But is that possible from the Mormon perspective? Can a Mormon believe that a SDA missionary can be led by God to a searching, praying investigator...and the connection is the answer to his prayer?

Next, I believe it is quite possible for many intelligent, spiritual people to disbelieve in the Mormon method of finding "truth," and not necessarily be "wrong." I think there is merit in Eastern thought about this...and that the charge to pray and receive a confirmation of historical truth may be a method of brainwashing and control that is difficult to challenge simply because it is...a feeling that is non-verifiable and non-quantifiable by human means.

The most obvious indication of this fact is to look at results...and as Luigi said, there have been some horrible destructive events in history based on "spiritual experiences." I personally look at a paradigm and see what it does to the person, or group. If it serves to create a culture and attitude of love and acceptance, I will give it a second look. If it divides and stratifies, I can't imagine that a caring, loving "God" would be the author of such.

Just my ramblings....

[T-Shirt]

Six: Please allow me to make this observational nuance.

While many major religions think that they are the true religion. Very few actual denominations of sects teach that they'r organization is the only true authorized church. While that may be a subtle difference, it is quite significant to this discussion.

Regards,

Six

Most Christians believe that "Christianity" is God's true Church, but as for denomination, it matters not, unless it is Catholic, Mormon or Jehovah's Witness.

T-Shirt

[Anijen]

gone