The Philosophy Of Leaving The Church Over Historical Issues-Like What Is It?

[LDSToronto]

And yet we can make a simlar list about the divinity of Jesus Christ. Faith begins with submissino to God. Pride is a terrifying beast and demands to be fed in so many different ways. Where pride is absolute faith is cast out. I know that beast well. Does this way of being bring you happiness and a sense of peace?

I am very happy. I've never really understood what people mean when they talk about a "sense of peace", but I imagine it means they don't fear death. I don't fear death.

I don't consider myself prideful and I've never been called prideful.

H.

[LDSToronto]

No, you completely miss the point of being in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mysticism does not make you a member of that church.

1-To be the only true church (and the word true meaning with authority) for ordinances of salvation which is the only reason a church should exist.

2-Book of Mormon was given to Joseph Smith to translate, yes. What the material was or was not is not actually ascertained since no metallurgical tests have been done

3-The Book of Abraham was written with the help of Egyptian Papyri, it may or may not have been a direct translation rather than an instrument used for revelation

4-Joseph Smith was visited by two personages of glorified flesh and bone

5-Angels, visited Joseph Smith on many occasions

6-Prophets do speak on behalf of God for the entire church, AND we as individuals speak on behalf of God for ourselves.

Casual digging into these claims leads to casual misunderstandings without any focus on the key issues. Doubt usually exists since it often works hand in hand with faith so there should be nothing disturbing about doubt existing.

We can see how one set of claims is slightly and perhaps significantly different from the other set of claims and how the doubts for one set of claims may not be the same doubts another set of claims might produce. Any claim based on faith may indeed have an element of doubt.

And evidence is rarely if ever objective, it is subjective to the desired interpretation of the individual.

I agree that casual digging can lead to confusion. But what about deep diving? Believe it or not, I was fine when all I did was leave it at a casual, superficial level of investigation. As soon as I made an honest study of the issues, I realized that the thing I had based my faith on was full of cracks and holes and contradictions.

H.

[LDSToronto]

It is possible to have a Mormon faith that is not built upon the above foundations. You can be agnostic, or perhaps even a skeptic, about all the above issues, and still be a Mormon. It is possible to even get a temple recommend, as long as despite skepticism of #6, you agree to sustain the authority of Mormon leaders, and as long as despite #1, you don't affiliate with Mormon breakaway groups.

I think the two things that are essential to Mormonism are: (1) mysticism (i.e., the idea that you can receive knowledge directly through revelatory experience), and (2) a belief that Joseph Smith was at least a better than average mystic.

Cobalt, I appreciate this perspective and for a while I tried to re-arrange my faith foundation as well. This way was not easy to maintain; I had to know that the church's claims were solid. I joined the church because of what it claimed to be, not because of what I made it out to be.

H.

[Deborah]

As soon as I made an honest study of the issues, I realized that the thing I had based my faith on was full of cracks and holes and contradictions.

And yet others have made an "honest" study and found their faith firmly based. I still question how thorough and "honest" study can be when we have such limited knowledge in so many areas.

[Cobalt-70]

I do not see the words "Jesus Christ" in your essentials, which makes your terms ineffectual as an essential component. Our church cannot exist without Jesus Christ

I dunno. I think if a hypothetical sect came along that viewed Joseph Smith in a higher position than Jesus, you'd have to call that sect Mormon. In practice, Jesus would obviously have to fit in there somewhere. To some extent, the Jesus element is subsumed in the belief that Joseph Smith was a pretty good mystic. But as to which particular belief about Jesus is essential to Mormonism, it's hard to say. For example, a Mormon does not necessarily have to believe in a virgin birth (Brigham Young didn't), or that Jesus was the Old Testament YHWH (again, Brigham Young didn't).

[ExAntiMormon]

It is one reason Mormons and anti Mormons can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.

I don't at all agree with this.

I think both sides are only seeing the "evidence" they want to see, but there is a point where one side is actually seeing more, that being the actual truth.

The anti-mormon sees only the negative, the basic believing mormon sees only the good, which is why when they encounter the negative they are easy to apostatize, their world view is shattered. Then you have the more educated mormon which sees the good and the bad (this also is another point of apostasy), but then ALSO sees more truth and fact beyond that which actually supports the "basic" believing mormon view and not the anti-mormon view (this is a point in which apostasy concerning the truth is no longer possible, given the Church actually is true).

I know this is true, see my username. Thus, both sides aren't actually looking at the same evidence, one side is actually ignoring evidence to make their conclusions, and that's the anti-mormon side. I stopped being an anti-mormon the moment I first put away I judgment, and then went back to find out the actual truth on every issue. When I did this, because I had eliminated my bias and only wanted the objective and absolute truth, I actually saw MORE than I saw before which supported the LDS side, and not the anti-mormon side.

[Mariner]

And yet others have made an "honest" study and found their faith firmly based. I still question how thorough and "honest" study can be when we have such limited knowledge in so many areas.

At least you were candid enough to put the word "honest" in quotes.

Should you not also at least acknowledge that, like LDST, the vast majority of people who have considered the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church have judged them as false and/or found them unconvincing?

[ExAntiMormon]

BTW, one reason I know that the anti-mormon side ignores evidence, not only the fact that I've been there, thus I know when I had the same anti-mormon judgments, I now know where and how I was ignoring evidence, but the fact that after years and years of trying to explain things to anti-mormons, they still maintain their same view, no matter how much evidence is provided to debunk that view.

I'll give an example of this. For some ten years at a particular forum, myself, other LDS, and even an honest good non-LDS has explained mormonism to this anti-mormon over and over again, how this person get's stuff wrong. One particular example is that she believes only Mormons can go to heaven. For ten years, all of us have explained over and over and over again, many different ways what our actual theology is, that even non-mormons can go to heaven, even the highest glory, that it's the entire reason for Temple Work. Yet, even after literally 100's of times, and many different people over all those years, this person refuses to budge on their judgment. They quote some LDS leaders words which she believes supports her view, and completely ignores what we have said and shared entirely debunking her claim. Yet, again and again, no matter what, her hate of mormonism prevents her from seeing anything other than what she wants to see.

This is example of how anti-mormons are not seeing the same evidence and making different judgments, they are seeing only what they want to see, and then making a false judgment from it. And no matter how we explain otherwise, their judgment really never changes. I've seen it with nearly every single anti-mormon I and others have interacted with. They see "head in hat" only, when the actual record indicates some "SIX" other methods that the translation occurred by. And no matter how much you show them the evidence of these six other methods, it's STILL "head in a hat" ONLY for them.

You can't get more blind than that.....

[Deborah]

At least you were candid enough to put the word "honest" in quotes.

Should you not also at least acknowledge that, like LDST, the vast majority of people who have considered the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church have judged them as false and/or found them unconvincing?

It's in quotes because I question how honest the search is on the part of those who leave because of the history. The "vast majority" have found them false? I think not. You'd be surprised at how much people know but because it isn't an issue they don't bother to discuss it or anguish over it.

[Deborah]

after years and years of trying to explain things to anti-mormons, they still maintain their same view, no matter how much evidence is provided to debunk that view.

This is why I say those who leave supposedly because of the history have cut off their learning. They hang on to the same old arguments. The Joseph Smith papers project for example has uncovered so much new material and those who have worked on this come away with stronger testimonies of the truth claims of the Prophet Joseph and the church than before. Why is that. It's because they have a bigger picture. They have diligently searched out documentation for years from newspapers, journals and court records and put the pieces together in a whole picture that we never had before. They have corroborated certain things and shown the lack of evidence for others. It's sad that those who have cut themselves off from further knowledge will never see the big picture.

We are always finding new information on ancient texts and customs which seem to support the internal consistencies in the BOM for example. Our knowledge is still growing and it seems to be in favor of the truth claims of the church.

[Tarski]

The key phrase here is "not what they thought it was".

However they arrived at the thought, the fact is that it was their thought, not the reality, that was in error.

And, unfortunately, they compound their error by leaving the Church.

Lehi

If it wasn't what they thought it was then how did they know what it was they had a testimony of? Just whatever it turns out to be?

Try this:

People leave the church because of historical issues when what they learn reveals a reality inconsistant with their minimal core intuitions of what it means for the church to be a godly work.

or...

People leave the church because of historical issues when what they learn makes discarding belief feel more rational and honest than maintaining it.

In other words, when the spell is broken.

[Tarski]

BTW, one reason I know that the anti-mormon side ignores evidence, not only the fact that I've been there, thus I know when I had the same anti-mormon judgments, I now know where and how I was ignoring evidence, but the fact that after years and years of trying to explain things to anti-mormons, they still maintain their same view, no matter how much evidence is provided to debunk that view.

Can I please have my chance to hear this evidence?

I'll give an example of this. For some ten years at a particular forum, myself, other LDS, and even an honest good non-LDS has explained mormonism to this anti-mormon over and over again, how this person get's stuff wrong. One particular example is that she believes only Mormons can go to heaven. For ten years, all of us have explained over and over and over again, many different ways what our actual theology is, that even non-mormons can go to heaven, even the highest glory,

You are being disingenuous. We both know that to get to the highest degree of glory one must accept that the LDS church is God's true church on earth and the only one with priesthood authority. One must be baptized either in life or by proxy into membership in the same church --by whatever name--that is called the LDS church. It is not suffcient in this regard to be baptised by a Catholic priest.

Not only that one must take on themselves the covenants that are part of what defines the LDS church and sets it apart from competing religions. One presumably must accept the prophethood of Joseph Smith as well as all the manifold doctrines that together set Mormonism apart from other religions. One must accept the anthropomorphic nature of God and deny the orthodox doctrine of the trinity.

The list goes on and on and narrows down what is acceptable until what we arrive at is ultimately exactly what this supposedly stubborn person meant by "being Mormon".

Let us add this: A large majority of active members would agree that the statement is substantially true even if they might wish to use another identifier for their church besides "Mormon". Why is that?

Oh sure, Ghandi might be going to heaven but only if he accepts Mormon doctrine, covenants, and authority, and becomes a baptized member of .........drum role......well, not the Catholic church...what shall we call it?

I think your friend can see that you are just playing word games.

You can't get more blind than that.....

Indeed.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Tarski

[LDSToronto]

And yet others have made an "honest" study and found their faith firmly based. I still question how thorough and "honest" study can be when we have such limited knowledge in so many areas.

Good for other people. I'm not questioning other people; I'm sharing my experience and I'm not so naive as to think that everyone will have the same experience I do.

H.

[LDSToronto]

It's in quotes because I question how honest the search is on the part of those who leave because of the history. The "vast majority" have found them false? I think not. You'd be surprised at how much people know but because it isn't an issue they don't bother to discuss it or anguish over it.

Deborah, I hope that you can at least distinguish between "staying in the LDS church" and "believing in the LDS church". The two are different things.

H.

[Jeff K.]

Deborah, I hope that you can at least distinguish between "staying in the LDS church" and "believing in the LDS church". The two are different things.

H.

Only to hypocrites. How can one feel they belong to something when they no longer believe in it? Better to live life honestly. How easy it would have been for me to deny a desire to be LDS and still casually attend another church. I cheat myself and those around me when I do that.

[ExAntiMormon]

Can I please have my chance to hear this evidence?

LDS do so on this forum on every issue, thus your question is moot.

You are being disingenuous.

Perfect example of my point. Yes, it's us LDS that a being "disingenuous" and have no idea how to explain and view our OWN theology. Yes, YOUR views are the actual truth of things.

We both know that to get to the highest degree of glory one must accept that the LDS church is God's true church on earth and the only one with priesthood authority. One must be baptized either in life or by proxy into membership in the same church --by whatever name--that is called the LDS church. It is not suffcient in this regard to be baptised by a Catholic priest.

Not only that one must take on themselves the covenants that are part of what defines the LDS church and sets it apart from competing religions. One presumably must accept the prophethood of Joseph Smith as well as all the manifold doctrines that together set Mormonism apart from other religions. One must accept the anthropomorphic nature of God and deny the orthodox doctrine of the trinity.

In the post mortal life, all truth will be made manifest, Christ after all wasn't a Mormon. Mormonism is only the current day authorized Church of God. Thus, it doesn't matter if a person was Catholic in this life, in the next he will know the whole truth, which includes mormonism. Do you really think when the absolute truth is known, people are going to still deny it? Nope. They will then be judged according to their heart and actions, and will receive a Glory accordingly.

There is no "disingenousness" here.

The list goes on and on and narrows down what is acceptable until what we arrive at is ultimately exactly what this supposedly stubborn person meant by "being Mormon".

Let us add this: A large majority of active members would agree that the statement is substantially true even if they might wish to use another identifier for their church besides "Mormon". Why is that?

Oh sure, Ghandi might be going to heaven but only if he accepts Mormon doctrine, covenants, and authority, and becomes a baptized member of .........drum role......well, not the Catholic church...what shall we call it?

Further, you are not representing the other person. She is coming at this from a "religious" perspective, while you are from another perspective.

She actually believes we teach that someone must be mormon in THIS life, not simply in the next.

I think your friend can see that you are just playing word games.

Nope, but you are. Thank you also for showing how anti-mormons have their views, and no matter what the actual truth is, you still hold to them. No word games here, simply the actual facts. Mormonism is both Universalistic and Literal in our Theology. She claims we are not a Universalistic religion when in fact we are in part of our theology.

[Tarski]

LDS do so on this forum on every issue, thus your question is moot.

Perfect example of my point. Yes, it's us LDS that a being "disingenuous" and have no idea how to explain and view our OWN theology. Yes, YOUR views are the actual truth of things.

In the post mortal life, all truth will be made manifest, Christ after all wasn't a Mormon. Mormonism is only the current day authorized Church of God. Thus, it doesn't matter if a person was Catholic in this life, in the next he will know the whole truth, which includes mormonism. Do you really think when the absolute truth is known, people are going to still deny it? Nope. They will then be judged according to their heart and actions, and will receive a Glory accordingly.

There is no "disingenousness" here.

Further, you are not representing the other person. She is coming at this from a "religious" perspective, while you are from another perspective.

She actually believes we teach that someone must be mormon in THIS life, not simply in the next.

Nope, but you are. Thank you also for showing how anti-mormons have their views, and no matter what the actual truth is, you still hold to them. No word games here, simply the actual facts. Mormonism is both Universalistic and Literal in our Theology. She claims we are not a Universalistic religion when in fact we are in part of our theology.

I am sure she will be reassured to know that it is only the case that a person needs to accept Joseph Smith and all Mormon doctrine and enter into all of the LDS temple rituals. She will realize that it makes all the difference in the world to her silly point that this one true church might not be called by the same name in the afterlife. But then, a rose by another name.........

[Storm Rider]

I am sure she will be reassured to know that it is only the case that a person needs to accept Joseph Smith and all Mormon doctrine and enter into all of the LDS temple rituals. She will realize that it makes all the difference in the world to her silly point that this one true church might not be called by the same name in the afterlife. But then, a rose by another name.........

The purpose of the LDS Church is the building up of the Kingdom of God. I believe it does this by leading people to Jesus Christ and provides an avenue by which they enter the waters of baptism and receive the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

I also believe that many other churches lead people to Jesus Christ and teach a broad, in some cases very in-depth understanding of the Savior and how to live a saintly life. I also believe that these people will be in the Celestial Kingdom one way or another.

Priesthood authority is significant and cannot be passed over lightly. All disciples of Christ and all those who come to know of Christ will have the opportunity to be baptized by one having authority either in this life or the next. If not, Jesus could not be the Son of God for he said that we must be baptized. His mission is not to condemn God's children to hell, but to save them. He has created a path for all who seek him to receive all the saving sacraments or ordinances.

You seem caught up with the name of the Church and its organization. It is a mortal structure only. Jesus leads his Kingdom and call to all to come unto him. Do that, serve him, seek after truth and grow in an understanding of his Gospel and all will be well for you and those you serve.

[why me]

By the way, I don't believe in the Book of Mormon.

And that is fine. But your belief is a matter of opinion most likely based in the historical. But it is only your interpretation of how the book came to be. And it has much to do with historical interpretation. For example: If I go into the past about how the book came to be, I see Joseph with others engaged in bring forth the book. I have witness testimony that there were plates from which Joseph translated from and I see witnesses to the actually seeing of the book and from witnesses who actually handled the book.

I then have witness accounts of how Joseph translated the book. Some claimed that his head was in a hat etc. Now I need to evaluate whether these people were deluded, fraudsters or sociopaths or they experienced exactly what they said to experience in their testimonies. I then have deathbed testimonies from some of the witnesses reconfirming their experiences. Now what do I do with all this historical information? And how do I interpret it?

Now you can come up with other historical information and the two can be compared. But how to interpret the involvement of all these people sticking with it until the end of their lives?

[why me]

I'm actually more interested in the books and support materials published by the church for use in Sunday School and other classes. Those are what the general membership has access to. Not all members have the money to buy special books from DesBook or any other company. What every member has access to are the manuals and materials the church gives to them and many (if not most) have access now to the Internet.

I think that it goes to audience and purpose. The purpose of the manuals is to learn what god expects from us on this earth. They are not meant to teach history or interpret history. But to teach the gospel of life. However, DesBooks can publish good history books about the lds church by reputable lds historians if they wish. And the audience would be those people interested in church history. Difficult for critics to say that the lds church hides its history when its publishing house is publishing excellent books on lds history. And that was my point. I don't go to sunday school to learn church history but to learn doctrine. Likewise for priesthood. However, if I have an interest in Joseph Smith and polygamy, I go to DesBooks. But what would I find?

[why me]

One of the main reasons I left the LDS Church is because I DO know the Book of Mormon is true.

Interesting but I think that you would need to explain.

[divinenature]

I think that it goes to audience and purpose. The purpose of the manuals is to learn what god expects from us on this earth. They are not meant to teach history or interpret history. But to teach the gospel of life. However, DesBooks can publish good history books about the lds church by reputable lds historians if they wish. And the audience would be those people interested in church history. Difficult for critics to say that the lds church hides its history when its publishing house is publishing excellent books on lds history. And that was my point. I don't go to sunday school to learn church history but to learn doctrine. Likewise for priesthood. However, if I have an interest in Joseph Smith and polygamy, I go to DesBooks. But what would I find?

Again, you continue to ignore the fact that much doctrine and practice within the church is based upon alleged historical events.

The manuals in the church are teaching doctrine AND alleged history. It teaches many, many things as literal historical events and facts.

As long as it continues to teach that way it will cause disturbance when members find out that what they were taught at church was not an accurate representation of the historical record.

The history of the church (which it teaches in church meetings) cannot be divorced from the doctrines and practices of the church which are derived from those alleged historical events. They are sealed one to another.

[ERayR]

I agree that casual digging can lead to confusion. But what about deep diving? Believe it or not, I was fine when all I did was leave it at a casual, superficial level of investigation. As soon as I made an honest study of the issues, I realized that the thing I had based my faith on was full of cracks and holes and contradictions.

H.

You should have based your faith on personal revelation then there wouldn't have been any cracks and holes. As soon as you base it on someone elses claims then it isn't long before another comes along poking holes in those claims, then anoter comes and pokes holes in that and pretty soon you have nothing to stand on.

[ERayR]

This is why I say those who leave supposedly because of the history have cut off their learning. They hang on to the same old arguments. The Joseph Smith papers project for example has uncovered so much new material and those who have worked on this come away with stronger testimonies of the truth claims of the Prophet Joseph and the church than before. Why is that. It's because they have a bigger picture. They have diligently searched out documentation for years from newspapers, journals and court records and put the pieces together in a whole picture that we never had before. They have corroborated certain things and shown the lack of evidence for others. It's sad that those who have cut themselves off from further knowledge will never see the big picture.

We are always finding new information on ancient texts and customs which seem to support the internal consistencies in the BOM for example. Our knowledge is still growing and it seems to be in favor of the truth claims of the church.

Its not just the knowledge it is the personal revelation at each step of the way.

Edited January 21, 2012 by ERayR

[ERayR]

As long as it continues to teach that way it will cause disturbance when members find out that what they were taught at church was not an accurate representation of the historical record.

What historical record would that be? Please provide a concrete example.

The history of the church (which it teaches in church meetings) cannot be divorced from the doctrines and practices of the church which are derived from those alleged historical events. They are sealed one to another.

And that is a problem because? Just because the doctrines and practices are connected to historical events does not nullify either. Again provide some concrete examples.