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

[Thinking]

While reading many of the posts from the this thread, I noticed some basic defenses which apologists use when confronted with negative historical information.

The "I Will Understand It Later" Defense:

I was extremely upset when I learned about some aspects of church history and especially about the early days of polygamy and Joseph Smith. That was several years ago, and I've just had to educate myself and come to my own peace with my issues and realize that we really can't make sense out of everything. We have to decide where our personal happiness lies, and let some things go--or at least leave them on the back burner for awhile.

I don't believe that anybody should leave anything on the "back burner" when making important decisions.

The"Other Churches Aren't Perfect Either" Defense:

Most churches have historical skeletons in their closets and the lds church is no exception...Whoever leaves over historical issues must be a firm believer in human perfection since history is made of living individuals who are now dead or alive and yet, very much imperfect.

This defense makes no sense because the LDS Church claims to be the only true church. You can't have your cake and eat it too. IOW, you can't set your church above the others as the only true church, then attempt to justify your problems by pointing out the problems of the "false" churches.

The "I'll Stay For The Values" Defense:

I mean if you've lost your testimony you can at least have the honesty to admit that its worth staying for the Christlike principles that it teaches even if you can't be a card carrying member.

What has your own prophet said?

"Each of us has to face the matterâ??either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing." (Gordon B. Hinckley, April 2003 GC)

[Irondukesteve]

While reading many of the posts from the this thread, I noticed some basic defenses which apologists use when confronted with negative historical information.

The "I Will Understand It Later" Defense:I don't believe that anybody should leave anything on the "back burner" when making important decisions.

But to make a fully informed decision one should learn as much as possible. Over such a big decision it may take years to gather all the information. Here is an example...on the UTLM site it talks of BY advocating women leaving men of leaving lower priesthood standing and marry men of higher priesthood level. HOWEVER...when I read the talk in full it was nothing like this and was much more practical and sincere. If I had decided to leave the church over this I would have been a fool!

The"Other Churches Aren't Perfect Either" Defense:This defense makes no sense because the LDS Church claims to be the only true church. You can't have your cake and eat it too. IOW, you can't set your church above the others as the only true church, then attempt to justify your problems by pointing out the problems of the "false" churches.

God works through the meek and humble of the world not through the wise and strong. Those who think with pure reason and do not listen to the still small voice will never find God...

22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29That no flesh should glory in his presence.

The "I'll Stay For The Values" Defense:What has your own prophet said?

Prophets say many things...this is his opinion over which we can agree or disagree. Everyone interprets Mormonism differentely. Some choose to live by every principle taught in the Doctrines of Salvation whilst others are more selective. It doesnt mean that either are insincere or do not classify themselves as Mormon. How does one compromise being an "athiest catholic" (of which many of my friends are) or an atheist Jew? You see...Mormonism is truely a world religion where people can identify themselves with aspects of Mormon culture and beliefs without adopting them all. Mormonism is not as dogmatic as most outsiders think it to be.

[Thinking]

But to make a fully informed decision one should learn as much as possible. Over such a big decision it may take years to gather all the information. Here is an example...on the UTLM site it talks of BY advocating women leaving men of leaving lower priesthood standing and marry men of higher priesthood level. HOWEVER...when I read the talk in full it was nothing like this and was much more practical and sincere. If I had decided to leave the church over this I would have been a fool!

Your argument proves my point. You read the original material to understand it fully. You did not leave it on the back burner.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The "I Will Understand It Later" Defense:I don't believe that anybody should leave anything on the "back burner" when making important decisions.

Wow. So you fully comprehend every aspect of all questions before you make a decision? Why are you called "Thinking"? It seems you need not think; you already know.

The"Other Churches Aren't Perfect Either" Defense:This defense makes no sense because the LDS Church claims to be the only true church. You can't have your cake and eat it too. IOW, you can't set your church above the others as the only true church, then attempt to justify your problems by pointing out the problems of the "false" churches.

I'm not certain where you get the idea that the "only true Church" must be "perfect." This is a straw man argument, Thinking. What did the Lord say about the "perfection" of the Church?

D&C 1:30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

This would imply a general sense of a True Church; and that because regular guys are involved, the potential to make mistakes is there.

[urroner]

The "I Will Understand It Later" Defense:I don't believe that anybody should leave anything on the "back burner" when making important decisions.

When my first wife left me, I put the decision to whether divorce her or not on the back burner for two years and from what I understand, whether to get divorced or not is an important decision.

I think that you have conflated what is important with what is urgent.

"Important" means "of much or great significance or consequence" and often important decisions requires time in order to make the correct or the most correct decision, while "urgent" means " compelling or requiring immediate action or attention" and thus, there is no time to put it on the back burner.

[cacheman]

Your argument proves my point. You read the original material to understand it fully. You did not leave it on the back burner.

I think that we all tend to leave things on the back burner. It's impossible to have all the answers before making a decision. I don't think that this is a mormon phenomenon, but simply a fact of life. We tend to make our decisions based on our personal perceptions of the sum total of the evidence. Outliers aren't necessarily that important in our decision making.

cacheman

[RDL]

If "historical issues" means learning that LDS church history (bizarre early doctrines, the sexual promiscuity of prophets and apostles, etc...) is far different than what I was taught prior to my mission, then I definitely left over historical issues. A first edition Mormon Doctrine I found on my mission really drove home the blatant racism of at least one "apostle," and from there it was all downhill. I decided to investigate whether the LDS church was "true" without accepting that notion as a premise, digging far deeper than I ever had. Once I started looking objectively, the doctrine and history eventually sickened me, and I felt duped. Disbelieving was an obvious choice, although formally leaving was not.

If anybody cares, that is.

[freakin a man]

If one has a testimony of the Church given by the Spirit, then whatever issues that arise in church history simply is not important. I just can't imagine standing before the Lord and saying to him "Yeah, I know the holy ghost witnessed to me the truth of things but there was some historical issues I did not like, therefore I left the Church." I am sure the Lord will not have kind words for that person with the final statement from him "Depart from me ye worker of iniquity".

[RDL]

If one has a testimony of the Church given by the Spirit, then whatever issues that arise in church history simply is not important. I just can't imagine standing before the Lord and saying to him "Yeah, I know the holy ghost witnessed to me the truth of things but there was some historical issues I did not like, therefore I left the Church." I am sure the Lord will not have kind words for that person with the final statement from him "Depart from me ye worker of iniquity".

Reading this post reminds me how happy I am that I'm not a Mormon anymore, and even happier that I don't think like one. Thanks!

[charity]

If one has a testimony of the Church given by the Spirit, then whatever issues that arise in church history simply is not important. I just can't imagine standing before the Lord and saying to him "Yeah, I know the holy ghost witnessed to me the truth of things but there was some historical issues I did not like, therefore I left the Church." I am sure the Lord will not have kind words for that person with the final statement from him "Depart from me ye worker of iniquity".

I agree.

What would Jesus have said to the apostles before the resurrection if they had told him they coudln't committ themselves because the didn't know if there was going to be a resurrection or not, and they didn't want to wait around and see, just on the off chance that such an unlikely thing were to happen?

[jerryp48]

Reading this post reminds me how happy I am that I'm not a Mormon anymore, and even happier that I don't think like one. Thanks!

I honestly was thinking the same thing in reverse about your post. How do you think that others can be presented with the same information as you and come away with the a unscathed testimony?

[LifeOnaPlate]

If "historical issues" means learning that LDS church history (bizarre early doctrines, the sexual promiscuity of prophets and apostles, etc...) is far different than what I was taught prior to my mission, then I definitely left over historical issues. A first edition Mormon Doctrine I found on my mission really drove home the blatant racism of at least one "apostle," and from there it was all downhill. I decided to investigate whether the LDS church was "true" without accepting that notion as a premise, digging far deeper than I ever had. Once I started looking objectively, the doctrine and history eventually sickened me, and I felt duped. Disbelieving was an obvious choice, although formally leaving was not.

If anybody cares, that is.

Remember: anyone called of God must be perfect in all they say, think, and do.

??

[Thinking]

Outliers aren't necessarily that important in our decision making.

What parts of Mormon history would you consider to be outliers?

[Thinking]

When my first wife left me, I put the decision to whether divorce her or not on the back burner for two years and from what I understand, whether to get divorced or not is an important decision.

I think that you have conflated what is important with what is urgent.

"Important" means "of much or great significance or consequence" and often important decisions requires time in order to make the correct or the most correct decision, while "urgent" means " compelling or requiring immediate action or attention" and thus, there is no time to put it on the back burner.

You are misunderstanding my point. I never said you shouldn't put things on the back burner. I said you should not "leave anything on the back burner when making important decisions."

I've put things on the "back burner" but I don't leave relevant things there when making a decision.

About ten years ago I contacted an insurance agent to purchase an insurance policy. I told him what I wanted and he set me up with a policy that sounded like what I wanted. When he delivered the written policy, he highlighted the parts I should read. I very carefully read the non-highlighted parts also, which were not acceptable to me. I cancelled the policy.

[cacheman]

What parts of Mormon history would you consider to be outliers?

Since these outliers result from our own personal perceptions, then they could, and often are, different for different people. For example, for someone who feels that the overall evidence overwhelmingly supports the truth claims of the LDS church, perhaps Joseph's alleged dishonesty about plural marriage to Emma and others would be an outlier. On the other hand, someone who feels that the overall evidence points to the LDS church as a manmade institution, an outlier might be the consistency of the BoM witness' claims.

I think that most people if not everybody shelves some issues that are difficult to make sense of in the context of their own worldview. For example, I have not heard a better explanation for the word "sheum" associated with grain in the BoM than that given by LDS believers. But, that outlier doesn't tip the scales enough for me to alter my overall beliefs. So, I put it on a shelf (along with a few other items), every once in a while dusting it off. I'm not ashamed to say that I don't know everything. There are things I don't have answers for, but I believe that eventually things will confirm what I currently believe. At the same time, I'm open to the possibility that my beliefs will continue to evolve.

Hope that clarifies a bit.

cacheman

[Thinking]

Since these outliers result from our own personal perceptions, then they could, and often are, different for different people. For example, for someone who feels that the overall evidence overwhelmingly supports the truth claims of the LDS church, perhaps Joseph's alleged dishonesty about plural marriage to Emma and others would be an outlier. On the other hand, someone who feels that the overall evidence points to the LDS church as a manmade institution, an outlier might be the consistency of the BoM witness' claims.

I think that most people if not everybody shelves some issues that are difficult to make sense of in the context of their own worldview. For example, I have not heard a better explanation for the word "sheum" associated with grain in the BoM than that given by LDS believers. But, that outlier doesn't tip the scales enough for me to alter my overall beliefs. So, I put it on a shelf (along with a few other items), every once in a while dusting it off. I'm not ashamed to say that I don't know everything. There are things I don't have answers for, but I believe that eventually things will confirm what I currently believe. At the same time, I'm open to the possibility that my beliefs will continue to evolve.

Hope that clarifies a bit.

Nope.

What parts of Mormon history do you consider to be outliers?

[Pahoran]

If "historical issues" means learning that LDS church history (bizarre early doctrines, the sexual promiscuity of prophets and apostles, etc...) is far different than what I was taught prior to my mission, then I definitely left over historical issues.

No. You definitely did not.

There was no "sexual promiscuity of prophets and apostles, etc." Plural marriage was never about "sexual promiscuity." That such false accusations have been made, and you fell for them, means that you left over lies told by others.

A first edition Mormon Doctrine I found on my mission really drove home the blatant racism of at least one "apostle," and from there it was all downhill.

A "first edition Mormon Doctrine" represents the opinion of no apostle. Just so you know.

I decided to investigate whether the LDS church was "true" without accepting that notion as a premise,

Do you know the difference betwee "not accepting" and "outright rejecting and refusing to even consider the possibility?"

digging far deeper than I ever had.

Into what? Anti-Mormon hate propaganda?

Once I started looking objectively, the doctrine and history eventually sickened me, and I felt duped. Disbelieving was an obvious choice, although formally leaving was not.

If anybody cares, that is.

Cares about what? Factual accuracy?

Clearly you do not.

Regards,

Pahoran

[WestBerkeleyFlats]

Pahoran is hilarious.

No. You definitely did not.

There was no "sexual promiscuity of prophets and apostles, etc." Plural marriage was never about "sexual promiscuity." That such false accusations have been made, and you fell for them, means that you left over lies told by others.

Pahoran must have a rather idiosyncractic notion of sexual promiscuity, one that does not include marrying dozens of women, some as young as 14.

A "first edition Mormon Doctrine" represents the opinion of no apostle. Just so you know.

It represented the absurd opinions of a future apostle.

Do you know the difference betwee "not accepting" and "outright rejecting and refusing to even consider the possibility?"

The irony is that this statement, minus the misspelling, is more relevant to Paharon.

Into what? Anti-Mormon hate propaganda?

Cares about what? Factual accuracy?

Clearly you do not.

Regards,

Pahoran

I hope Pahoran is a troll doing his best impression of an unsophisticated adherent of the LDS faith. The alternative, that he is ingenuous, is heartbreaking.

No personal attacks. If you came here just to target a specific poster, you don't belong here. = mods

[LifeOnaPlate]

It represented the absurd opinions of a future apostle.

Nice. I wonder if the strange fishermen from Galilee ever entertained weird or off-base opinions. Your implication? They mustn't have. Else that would prove them, as well as their leader Jesus of Nazareth, who selected them, a fraud.

[Zakuska]

Pahoran must have a rather idiosyncractic notion of sexual promiscuity, one that does not include marrying dozens of women, some as young as 14.

What like Joseph the carpenter?

[Pahoran]

Pahoran is hilarious.

Why thank you. I do my best to entertain.

And welcome to the forum, newbie. I'll just take a moment to sharpen something....

Pahoran must have a rather idiosyncractic notion of sexual promiscuity, one that does not include marrying dozens of women, some as young as 14.

While WestBerkeleyFlats clearly has a rather idiosyncractic notion of sexual promiscuity, one that includes marrying all of one's sexual partners, and several additional people with whom one does not have sex.

For example, there is no evidence of sexual contact between Joseph and the one (not "some") who was almost "as young as 14." Helen Mar Kimball, later Whitney, lived in her father's family before, during and after the period she was sealed to Joseph. There is no reason to believe the union was ever consummated. Maliciously based wishful thinking does not constitute a reason.

It represented the absurd opinions of a future apostle.

Which does not rehabilitate the falsehood. Whatever he later became, he was not an apostle when he wrote a book in his own name and for which he took sole responsibility. The book's shortcomings are in no wise valid evidence of the Church's truth claims. It is merely handy ammunition for someone entirely uninterested in the truth, but who is merely looking for something to throw.

Since we have not the slightest reason to expect you to know this, Westie, I will tell you that there are two things that do not happen when a person is called to a leadership position in the Church. (1) Their opinions are not immediately sanitised, and (2) their previous writings are not automatically canonised.

The irony is that this statement, minus the misspelling, is more relevant to Paharon.

In your opinion. Thank you for that.

And see that you never misspell anything in this forum.

For instance, my screen name is "Pahoran." Not "Paharon."

I hope Pahoran is a troll doing his best impression of an unsophisticated adherent of the LDS faith.

Let's see. I've got over 4000 posts in this forum. How many do you have again?

That's right; one.

The alternative, that he is ingenuous, is heartbreaking.

Hey, look guys! I've just been patronised by someone with one whole post to his credit, and no clues to speak of!!

Regards,

Pahoran

[cartoon bluejay]

For example, there is no evidence of sexual contact between Joseph and the one (not "some") who was almost "as young as 14." Helen Mar Kimball, later Whitney, lived in her father's family before, during and after the period she was sealed to Joseph. There is no reason to believe the union was ever consummated.

Hey! I'm sorry for piping in the conversation late but I was part of a thread yesterday and had some questions on this topic. I was directed to start another thread but I'm new and not comfortable with that. I brought up the same concern about JS and his 14 yr old wife. The same answer was given that there was not evidence of sexual contact. I'm just confused by this... why marry someone if there is no intent to have sex? Why would there be a need to marry someone and not consumate the marriage. I just don't understand. Can you help me with that?

[Zakuska]

Hey! I'm sorry for piping in the conversation late but I was part of a thread yesterday and had some questions on this topic. I was directed to start another thread but I'm new and not comfortable with that. I brought up the same concern about JS and his 14 yr old wife. The same answer was given that there was not evidence of sexual contact. I'm just confused by this... why marry someone if there is no intent to have sex? Why would there be a need to marry someone and not consumate the marriage. I just don't understand. Can you help me with that?

Bingo... because he was "Sealed" to her. Along with most of the others. As everyone knows... sealings can be totally platonic. Do you think JS had sex with all the Men who were "married" to him as well?

On a side note... Do you have problems with Mary the Mother of Jesus being 14 when she was given to Joseph the Carpentar and was impregnated by God instead? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Pahoran]

Hey! I'm sorry for piping in the conversation late but I was part of a thread yesterday and had some questions on this topic. I was directed to start another thread but I'm new and not comfortable with that. I brought up the same concern about JS and his 14 yr old wife. The same answer was given that there was not evidence of sexual contact. I'm just confused by this... why marry someone if there is no intent to have sex? Why would there be a need to marry someone and not consumate the marriage. I just don't understand. Can you help me with that?

There are actually other similar cases on record, where an older man would be take a teenage girl as a plural wife. The sealing would be performed, and the girl would continue to live in her parents' family until she was of age, at which point she would officially take up residence with her husband and commence married life. In this case, the sealing was something less than a marriage but more than a betrothal. Joseph's sealing to Helen may have been of this nature. Alternatively, given the relationship between Joseph and Helen's father, Heber C. Kimball, it may have been of the nature of a "dynastic marriage" intended to join two families. Historically, such marriages have remained unconsummated more often than not.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bach]

Nice. I wonder if the strange fishermen from Galilee ever entertained weird or off-base opinions. Your implication? They mustn't have. Else that would prove them, as well as their leader Jesus of Nazareth, who selected them, a fraud.

Fine by me!