I have strong feelings contrary to moral principles...

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I would never say there aren't some very good things approached in the BofM text. But after some study I just see them more as a biblical "midrash" combined with tenets of hermetics, alchemy and kabbalism, all of which were in fairly good supply in Joseph's background and region. For a small discourse one could look here:

I think this conversation all in all has been interesting. However, I do want to bring back a tiny bit of the original point of my post:

I have every single reason to leave the Church. I have done the research. I have no reason to stay. I would probably be happier in some sense out of the church. I have no "emotional investment".

I am a physically active, spiritually dedicated, wholly devoted Mormon.

Why? I fly in the face of every single reason I have seen for why someone would stay in the Church.

Why I am still here?

Because I would consider my "spiritual" experiences in general to be extraordinary.

Because the Spirit has been a powerful witness in my life.

Because I have had visions and prophecies in my personal life, directly related to the church, I have seen come to pass. Things I saw with clarity and kept in remembrance years before they eventuated.

Because I have seen things that are too sacred to share, both physically and spiritually.

Because I have had paradigm changing experiences with dark forces and seen it in others, and know more from personal experience of their reality and power than I assume most ever will in this life (hopefully).

Because many of these experiences tie directly into the truthfulness of the Gospel and Church as it stands today.

Because I know what has been revealed, because I have witnesses stronger than just a "feeling" or "voice". Because I, as Paul, am a slave to Christ, and am so joyfully. Because I am honor-bound and desire to take my knowledge and joy in the Gospel (the actual Gospel, not necessarily the organizational church) and help others, especially the youth and the downtrodden to find that same joy and hope in Christ through God's church and teachings. Because I must protect the youth and the weak from the adversary who I know to be real. Because I know the church is not perfect because of Man and the world the Church must exist in, but it is God's true and living church, and it will bring all closer to Christ. Because as a result of my experiences I know that the man Thomas S. Monson is God's authorized mouthpiece for the world and church as a whole, and the apostles are called and ordained of God. Because I know that Jesus if the Christ, that he knows me, and that his atonement helps me to be a better person and to fight the carnal man, that he makes up for my inadequacies.

In every single way, I would be happier outside of the church, EXCEPT the knowledge I have would destroy me, and that includes a sure knowledge of how I would be held accountable.

I love to discuss history, doctrine, etc. I can't say that I do not have to accept a few logical gaps, areas of no knowledge, etc in regards to the church today and its history. The problem I face is that for whatever reason, I have had experiences that go far beyond good feelings and whisperings, and a few cannot be separated from the restored Gospel. Some of us are still here because we have a greater knowledge, not because everything makes sense.

Aside from that, the discussion can keep moving forward. That was an interesting read and link Pale Rider. Thanks for sharing.

[Palerider]

History is such a swirling mush of influences, and cultural flotsam and jetsam, one has to take the truth where one finds it.

The proof is in the pudding, and nothing else much matters. We will, and can never know where it all came from anyway- so who cares?

All I know is that it has given my life more meaning than I ever thought possible in all my years of study.

Hey MFB,

Is that last line referring to the study of history or the BofM? I wasn't clear on that.........

[Palerider]

I think this conversation all in all has been interesting. However, I do want to bring back a tiny bit of the original point of my post:

I love to discuss history, doctrine, etc. I can't say that I do not have to accept a few logical gaps, areas of no knowledge, etc in regards to the church today and its history. The problem I face is that for whatever reason, I have had experiences that go far beyond good feelings and whisperings, and a few cannot be separated from the restored Gospel. Some of us are still here because we have a greater knowledge, not because everything makes sense.

Aside from that, the discussion can keep moving forward. That was an interesting read and link Pale Rider. Thanks for sharing.

I can never argue with another person's individual spiritual experience. I just always hope they (not you in particular Matt, but others that are here) give me the same courtesy.

[mfbukowski]

For that matter, it's not a large jump from:

It's not a large jump from anything to anything once you make that jump.

"That's one small step for a man, but a giant leap for mankind".

What many who are LDS do not realize is that the simple jump to making God a human being now makes all of humanism theology. Man indeed is God. Man created everything. (at least the Man of Holiness did) We are co-creators in all we see.

That in itself is such a revolutionary proposition- that Christianity is perfectly compatible with humanism- that almost no one comprehends it.

Humanism becomes theology.

Just a little jump.

[mfbukowski]

Some of us are still here because we have a greater knowledge, not because everything makes sense.

Well for me, knowledge always makes sense. Spiritual revelation is the only way we can know anything in my opinion. Making sense of the chaos in which we live absolutely requires revelation.

Moroni 10:5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

That is about the only scripture I take very literally.

[caudicus]

There have been a couple of studies in regards to people changing religions, and really, their conclusions make a lot more sense than some of the blatant crap I see here.

Leaving the church has nothing to do with immorality. Most people change religions at some point in their life, and it almost always has to do with the fact that the church they were attending wasn't meeting their needs in some way. Almost always, these needs are social in nature.

This eliminates some reasons often assumed by critics, that it has something to do with evidence or logic. When a person's feelings about the church changes, so do their religious views. It isn't an overnight occurrence, it is a process.

Of course, there are probably exceptions, but, in the end, it is obvious that the emotional component is the most critical aspect of belief (or lack thereof).

The first chapter of "Prometheus Rising" is titled "The Thinker and the Prover." It describes how there is an aspect of each of us that is "The Thinker" who feels something is true and another aspect that is "The Prover" which tries to prove what we think. If you want to get past your natural tendency to deceive yourself, you have to circumvent this emotional component.

"...if the Thinker thinks passionately enough, the Prover will prove the thought so conclusively that you will never talk a person out of such a belief..."

At the very least, you need to respect the fact that the most reasonable point of view is the one that concurs with the voluminous evidence that contributes to our gradually improving approximation of objective truth.

[mfbukowski]

Hey MFB,

Is that last line referring to the study of history or the BofM? I wasn't clear on that.........

I don't blame you- it wasn't clear.

No, I was referring to the totality of my experience, having years of study of philosophy, and having been an atheist, Communist, Catholic, Buddhist, and maybe leaning toward a few other "ists" and "isms"!

But it would include certainly history and the BOM as well. All that led me to believe that nothing was "true", and that we created our own reality as mini-gods, or at least that was one way to describe it. Most of everything we think we "know" is made up cultural "stuff". All we can know about what is true is what works for us in our lives.

Then I discovered Mormonism and had a profound spiritual experience which I know was from "outside" myself. Some one other than me made that experience, I will never doubt that.

It kind of all fell together after that. The notion that God is a man fit perfectly with that. I already believed I existed somehow before birth, and that we were here to become the very best we could be as human beings. (ethical humanism)

Of course the clincher was the spiritual experience.

That for me was direct evidence that there was "someone" who could hear and answer prayer. The Mormon model seemed to suddenly snap everything into a unified world-view for me, which explained many of the questions I had about how everything fits together.

And that world view works very well for me.

[mfbukowski]

At the very least, you need to respect the fact that the most reasonable point of view is the one that concurs with the voluminous evidence that contributes to our gradually improving approximation of objective truth.

Uh huh.

Please explain what "objective truth" is. No one has been able to do that in a few thousand years. Good luck.

[Acris Venator]

Identifying that opposites exist (Newton's third law of motion) in physics is a world away from saying that they must exist for righteousness and evil to exist. For those given to doubt it may seem like an easy jump, but to Amulek who watched women and children burn over this principle, it would probably be more like jumping the Grand Canyon.

[Deborah]

Leaving the church has nothing to do with immorality. Most people change religions at some point in their life, and it almost always has to do with the fact that the church they were attending wasn't meeting their needs in some way. Almost always, these needs are social in nature.

I suppose it depends on what you consider immorality. Adultery certainly is an issue and I know people who have left because of this. I also know people who have left because they chose a homosexual lifestyle. Those are moral issues to some of us.

That isn't to say that most people leave because of these moral issues and in fact agree most left because their needs weren't being met or they simply didn't want to live up to the perceived expectations of the church.

[caudicus]

Uh huh.

Please explain what "objective truth" is. No one has been able to do that in a few thousand years. Good luck.

Your condescension is always so refreshing. If you want to play "redefine the term to win my argument," then go ahead. You know the meaning, though, and that is the truth that transcends an individuals point of view... like the realities of theory of gravity.

There is a reasonable point of view, and, as you are so willing to display, you don't want to admit the fact that there is a perfectly reasonable point of view that is contrary to your own. Many TBMs don't want to acknowledge this fact, because it drags the scope of the conversation about Mormonism far, far off the tracks of where your average apologist wants it to be.

I suppose it depends on what you consider immorality. Adultery certainly is an issue and I know people who have left because of this. I also know people who have left because they chose a homosexual lifestyle. Those are moral issues to some of us.

That isn't to say that most people leave because of these moral issues and in fact agree most left because their needs weren't being met or they simply didn't want to live up to the perceived expectations of the church.

Deborah... would you like links to the studies? Your own personal experience is noted, and it may be that the majority of people you know who have left the church were having affairs, but the reality, based on a larger sample than that of your own personal experience, is painting a very different picture.

[Deborah]

Your own personal experience is noted, and it may be that the majority of people you know who have left the church were having affairs, but the reality, based on a larger sample than that of your own personal experience, is painting a very different picture.

You need to read more carefully. I said and I quote "That isn't to say that most people leave because of these moral issues and in fact agree most left because their needs weren't being met or they simply didn't want to live up to the perceived expectations of the church." You are the one who said no one leaves over immorality and I was pointing out that some do.

[caudicus]

Where did I say that?

[Deborah]

would you like links to the studies?

I question these kinds of studies because people will give reasons which put them in the best light. Why would someone admit to committing adultery if they can give a reason that doesn't sound so, well immoral.

It's the same with any survey, even when done anonymously. People will say things that put them in the best light.

[Deborah]

Where did I say that?

You said "Leaving the church has nothing to do with immorality." In fact in some cases it does.

[caudicus]

If you say so, though some of them were designed to see through that, because most people who leave a church decide, after the fact, that they were somehow smarter, or that they learned through some means that is was false. The reality is that the emotional change took place first, and they backed up their disbelief according to how they felt.

[caudicus]

You said "Leaving the church has nothing to do with immorality." In fact in some cases it does.

Of course, there are probably exceptions, but, in the end, it is obvious that the emotional component is the most critical aspect of belief (or lack thereof).

Yet, later, I specify that it is "most." please don't cherry pick.

The problem you create with your argument, is that people who leave because of immorality, leave simply because they are immoral, yet still believe. Is that ever the case? Sure, I know a few people who stopped going after getting involved with drugs and some other bad habits, but, you know what? They came back, because deep inside, they still believed.

[jwhitlock]

Yet, later, I specify that it is "most." please don't cherry pick.

The problem you create with your argument, is that people who leave because of immorality, leave simply because they are immoral, yet still believe. Is that ever the case? Sure, I know a few people who stopped going after getting involved with drugs and some other bad habits, but, you know what? They came back, because deep inside, they still believed.

A couple of observations here.

Deborah wasn't doing any cherry picking at all. Your statement about it having nothing to do with immorality was clear and to the point. Trying to take your own later quote out of context, when the exceptions you were referring to talked about the emotional component - and not immorality, in order to accuse her of cherry picking just simply doesn't fly. I re-read your post several times, and your intent (at that time, at least) was quite clear. If you'd like to backtrack, then do so. Otherwise, her point about what you said is accurate and well taken.

Secondly, you basically set up a straw man with Deborah's comments. Did she ever claim they left "simply because the are immoral"? Did she ever claim that they then don't believe? Perhaps you'd like to point out where she made those statements. Immorality, however it is defined, can have significant influence in moving a person away from the Church, even if they still believe.

Otherwise, the emotional component is something interesting to think about. After-the-fact historical evidences are most often nothing more than rationalizations to justify a decision already made, and the emotional aspect probably is more foundational than most people want to admit. However, the emphasis on the social driver for that emotional decision may be overblown, especially in the case of the Church. There is a significant spiritual aspect - which is the point of the OP - that plays a part in how LDS, both in and out of the Church, view their attachment to the Church. I would tend to doubt that the studies were able to quantify that particular aspect very accurately.

[mfbukowski]

Your condescension is always so refreshing. If you want to play "redefine the term to win my argument," then go ahead. You know the meaning, though, and that is the truth that transcends an individuals point of view... like the realities of theory of gravity.

There is a reasonable point of view, and, as you are so willing to display, you don't want to admit the fact that there is a perfectly reasonable point of view that is contrary to your own. Many TBMs don't want to acknowledge this fact, because it drags the scope of the conversation about Mormonism far, far off the tracks of where your average apologist wants it to be.

In other words, you can't answer the question.

There are many reasonable positions contrary to my own. I was hoping you could express one and show how it is reasonable.

The truth of gravity has no relation to the truth of testimony and you have not explained how they are related. There is objective evidence for gravity (verifiable by many people's common observations), while the truth of a testimony is subjective, (or expressed as a first-person statement and therefore not verifiable by anyone other than the speaker)

So the search for "evidence" which is verifiable by others, for a testimony, which is verifiable only by the believer is doomed to failure.

So there can be no "objective truth" for what is known through testimony. In other words there can be NO

...truth that transcends an individuals point of view... like the realities of theory of gravity.

IF what we are talking about in the first place is an "individual's point of view". The subjective point of view is not "transcended" by the objective point of view- they are just different, and serve different purposes.

To believe so is a logical error- a "category error".

That was one possible "reasonable" answer to my question- and had you read my siggy, it would have become clear.

Condescension, like all emotions, is in the eye of the beholder, and ascribed to someone else. I did not intend to be perceived that way- I was looking for a reasonable answer, that's all.

[mfbukowski]

After-the-fact historical evidences are most often nothing more than rationalizations to justify a decision already made, and the emotional aspect probably is more foundational than most people want to admit.

And besides that, there is a major epistemological problem with our knowing anything about what "truly" motivated historic events.

So on one hand, we can't know what they were thinking in the first place, and then everyone who writes an account of what they think someone was thinking, has to justify their own rationalizations of what they think was thought.

So to me, as soon as we get out of the realm of verifiable historical "fact"- the date of the battle of Gettysburg etc, and get into the realm of motivation and who said what to whom and why, we get more into "his-story" rather than factual history.

It becomes pretty much smoke and mirrors imnsho.

[caudicus]

I see you accepted the invitation to play the word games.

I did not claim the truth of a testimony related to the truth of gravity. I would suggest that they are entirely unrelated, since one relies upon the personal experience of an individual and the other would rely upon the investigation by thousands of individuals.

However, if we were wiped from the earth tomorrow by nuclear holocaust, gravity would still exist. We may not have a perfect description of reality, but we get closer and closer as investigation is allowed to proceed.

If you want to argue this, then your goal is not knowledge, but an attempt to discredit what has already been established the world over as a reasonable point of view. More is the pity.

You and I both know that the methods in which modern investigators examine the universe to discover the natural laws that govern us do not apply to the subjective components of an LDS testimony. Of course, religious studies have taken place, and you know as well as I do, that your testimony is no more or less valid than the testimony of millions and millions of people all over the world who believe just as fervently as you do.

[caudicus]

A couple of observations here.

Deborah wasn't doing any cherry picking at all. Your statement about it having nothing to do with immorality was clear and to the point. Trying to take your own later quote out of context, when the exceptions you were referring to talked about the emotional component - and not immorality, in order to accuse her of cherry picking just simply doesn't fly. I re-read your post several times, and your intent (at that time, at least) was quite clear. If you'd like to backtrack, then do so. Otherwise, her point about what you said is accurate and well taken.

Secondly, you basically set up a straw man with Deborah's comments. Did she ever claim they left "simply because the are immoral"? Did she ever claim that they then don't believe? Perhaps you'd like to point out where she made those statements. Immorality, however it is defined, can have significant influence in moving a person away from the Church, even if they still believe.

Otherwise, the emotional component is something interesting to think about. After-the-fact historical evidences are most often nothing more than rationalizations to justify a decision already made, and the emotional aspect probably is more foundational than most people want to admit. However, the emphasis on the social driver for that emotional decision may be overblown, especially in the case of the Church. There is a significant spiritual aspect - which is the point of the OP - that plays a part in how LDS, both in and out of the Church, view their attachment to the Church. I would tend to doubt that the studies were able to quantify that particular aspect very accurately.

So, you, too, ignored the "Of course, there are exceptions" part? It's only a couple of lines down. Take a look.

If you leave the church, it is because you do not believe. If you believe and remain inactive, you still consider yourself Mormon. At that point in which you do not consider yourself Mormon, that is when you have left. Perhaps I was not clear, but I assumed most people defined it as such.

How is an emotional component different from a spiritual component?

[mfbukowski]

I see you accepted the invitation to play the word games.

I did not claim the truth of a testimony related to the truth of gravity. I would suggest that they are entirely unrelated, since one relies upon the personal experience of an individual and the other would rely upon the investigation by thousands of individuals.

However, if we were wiped from the earth tomorrow by nuclear holocaust, gravity would still exist. We may not have a perfect description of reality, but we get closer and closer as investigation is allowed to proceed.

If you want to argue this, then your goal is not knowledge, but an attempt to discredit what has already been established the world over as a reasonable point of view. More is the pity.

You and I both know that the methods in which modern investigators examine the universe to discover the natural laws that govern us do not apply to the subjective components of an LDS testimony. Of course, religious studies have taken place, and you know as well as I do, that your testimony is no more or less valid than the testimony of millions and millions of people all over the world who believe just as fervently as you do.

Lol

You are your own worst enemy. I agree with everything you said in this post, except for the assertion that I am playing word games.

If you don't believe me, read the rest of my posts on this thread.

Oh- one other. "Gravity" would only exist if there was someone left to observe it. But perhaps you see that as a word game, I see it as an ontological point.

And just for the record, I never claimed my testimony was more "valid", since validity can only be measured objectively. To me, it IS more valid just as you love your significant other and I do not. (love your significant other) For me, my wife is my "one true love", but not for you.

Of course I believe you will eventually change your mind and we will all love the Savior, but of course that has to remain unproven for now.

[jwhitlock]

And besides that, there is a major epistemological problem with our knowing anything about what "truly" motivated historic events.

So on one hand, we can't know what they were thinking in the first place, and then everyone who writes an account of what they think someone was thinking, has to justify their own rationalizations of what they think was thought.

So to me, as soon as we get out of the realm of verifiable historical "fact"- the date of the battle of Gettysburg etc, and get into the realm of motivation and who said what to whom and why, we get more into "his-story" rather than factual history.

It becomes pretty much smoke and mirrors imnsho.

There is a great deal of subjectivity involved in interpreting historical events. That's not to say that some historians don't give it a good shot, but there are quite a few whose bias or agendas clearly override any attempt at balancing what went on. For instance, the birthplace of President Buchanan is here where I live, and we had an expert historian on him who made some very public statements supporting what he did in relation to the Mormons; almost a "fools rush in where the wise fear to tread" kind of stance. When it was pointed out to him that his conclusions concerning Mormons might be faulty, he just sniffed about being an expert and dismissed those contradicting viewpoints as irrelevant. His personal bias appeared to be one to make Buchanan look as good as possible; there was a high amount of subjective interpretation in his conclusions. Yet quite a few people took what he said as accurate, because he was the expert.

The same goes for studies, which now rival statistics for overall accuracy. I tend to take studies quoted with a grain of salt until I get a feel for what the agenda of the authors was. I would suggest that good, useful studies are well in the minority at this point.

[jwhitlock]

So, you, too, ignored the "Of course, there are exceptions" part? It's only a couple of lines down. Take a look.

I ignored nothing of the sort. I re-read your post several times to make sure I had the context right, and Deborah got it precisely right. The accusation of cherry picking was unfounded.

You made a number of good points, which unfortunately are undermined by you in this particular exchange. More the pity.

If you leave the church, it is because you do not believe. If you believe and remain inactive, you still consider yourself Mormon. At that point in which you do not consider yourself Mormon, that is when you have left. Perhaps I was not clear, but I assumed most people defined it as such.

I disagree. I know several people who have left the Church who still believe. There are a number of strong reasons, such as homosexuality, that can move a person out of the Church when they still believe. Over time, they may talk themselves out of believing, but interestingly enough, I know of some who have been out for a long time and who still are very convinced of the basic truth claims of the Church.

Lest you misunderstand, these are people whose names are no longer on the roles, either because they were excommunicated or because they asked to be removed. Cognitive dissonance can be a very strong motivator despite firmly held convictions.

How is an emotional component different from a spiritual component?

The spiritual has an often distinct outside influence; though emotional / spiritual experiences may often happen together, and may even be tied to each other, they do differ in a number of material ways. One sign of spiritual maturity is being able to discern between emotional and spiritual influences, and to act appropriately on them.