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

[KevinG]

If I go out of my way to criticize and test the faith of others I'm not sure how many invitations I'd get to speak over their pulpit or teach their Sunday school classes. I would not expect to be welcomed with open arms if my intent was to undermine the doctrines and practices I personally disagreed with.

It seems silly for those who take a similar stance with Mormonism to lecture the LDS Church on how they aren't being made welcome enough.

It would be an injustice for the LDS Church to say come on in and we won't mention the open advocacy sins or practices that will lead to damnation or draw others away from their faith.

[Jeff K.]

Wolves always want to be invited into the flock (couldn't help the avatar pun)

[sjdawg]

Well, in God's eyes it probably was less important. People are free to do what they want but in a church where ecclesiastical leaders feel a responsibility for the spiritual well-being of their flock it's kind of hard not to try to get people on the right track as far as what priorities should be. If people are going to get offended at this maybe they should re-evaluate the choices they are making and ask if that is what God really wants. If they still feel they need to continue on the path they are on why get offended but just tell the bishop this is the direction God wants us to go now. Unless it is of course not God telling them that but their own egos.

The local leadership was told many times. These kids are olympic calibre athletes and they train every night of the week. They (I'm pretty good friends with them) weren't offended; they just got tired of explaining their decisions and having the explanations fall on deaf ears. If we want our decisions respected we have to be willing to respect the decisions of others.

Edited January 23, 2012 by sjdawg

[Deborah]

If we want our decisions respected we have to be willing to respect the decisions of others.

I agree, but keep in mind church leaders are lay people and not always the most tactful.

[Jeff K.]

In my town we have the "Nadadores", they are an Olympic calibre team, in fact we always have people on the Olympic team, as well as national and international championships. Sunday practice is not required. It may be different for other sports. I think sometimes we prioritize one way when we should be prioritizing another. I can understand your decision but that doesn't mean I would hold it equal to the right decision.

[sjdawg]

In my town we have the "Nadadores", they are an Olympic calibre team, in fact we always have people on the Olympic team, as well as national and international championships. Sunday practice is not required. It may be different for other sports. I think sometimes we prioritize one way when we should be prioritizing another. I can understand your decision but that doesn't mean I would hold it equal to the right decision.

I don't think their issue had anything to do with Sunday practice. It had to do with the weekday activities and the harrassment (my word, not theirs) they took over their choice to support the athletics as a family at the expense of YM/YW activity participation.

[sjdawg]

In my town we have the "Nadadores", they are an Olympic calibre team, in fact we always have people on the Olympic team, as well as national and international championships. Sunday practice is not required. It may be different for other sports. I think sometimes we prioritize one way when we should be prioritizing another. I can understand your decision but that doesn't mean I would hold it equal to the right decision.

I don't think anyone asked them to "hold it equal to the right decision". They simply wanted it acknowledged as "their decision" and for the ward to stop making them a project. They had explained their decision several times but the ward leadership didn't relent.

[Jeff K.]

I don't think their issue had anything to do with Sunday practice. It had to do with the weekday activities and the harrassment (my word, not theirs) they took over their choice to support the athletics as a family at the expense of YM/YW activity participation.

Well that shouldn't be, we have football players in our ward, divers, and others who are active in school (which we encourage along with letting people know they are successful and hard working saints), sometimes during season they can't make it (to youth activities). One accomodates when necessary, just as they would if they had finals.

edit: I think a problem "can" occur when too much sports takes away from church activities

Edited January 23, 2012 by Jeff K.

[sjdawg]

Well that shouldn't be, we have football players in our ward, divers, and others who are active in school (which we encourage along with letting people know they are successful and hard working saints), sometimes during season they can't make it (to youth activities). One accomodates when necessary, just as they would if they had finals.

edit: I think a problem "can" occur when too much sports takes away from church activities

It's just one person's experience. I'm assuming each ward and/or bishop would deal with it differently.

[Craig Paxton]

I have yet to see any critic explain away all the witnesses...

(Waves hand) These are not the Witnesses you are looking for... Well you can't say that you have yet to see any critic explain away all of the witnesses...any more....I just waved my hand using my super duper Jedi powers

Edited January 23, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Pahoran]

(Waves hand) These are not the Witnesses you are looking for... Well you can't say that you have yet to see any critic explain away all of the witnesses...any more....I just waved my hand using my super duper Jedi powers

And that's exactly how anti-Mormons attempt to get rid of the witnesses; by mere dismissive hand-waving. Thank you Craig, for demonstrating how it is done.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

Isn't your avatar just to provoke the Mormons here? A child molester? Really, now.

No. My avatar is here to give you guys something to crusade against when you can't make a half-decent argument. I'm nothing if not charitable.

H.

Edited January 24, 2012 by LDSToronto

[ERayR]

No. My avatar is here to give you guys something to crusade against when you can't make a half-decent argument. I'm nothing if not charitable.

H.

Oh well then in that case it is totally unnecessary..

[why me]

Here is why I love what you said, Jeff - I love it because you now have an opportunity to learn from an Apostle. Here's what Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said:

H.

You see ldstoronto, it is impossible for every mormon to read and remember everything that an apostle has said for the last 25 years and this is what critics do when it comes to debate with the lds. Before the computer, it went like this: General conference comes, people listen, ensign publishes talks, people read talks and two months later, people forget talks. And so the wheel went round and round. Now with the internet, every word, every sentence, every paragraph etc can be pasted and the critic can say: Hey lookie here...this is what so and so said in 2008 or in 1993 etc. At the end of the day, it makes very little difference.

I suppose that one can cherry pick what joel osteen said in 1998 from the internet and tell a joel follower, hey lookie here this is what joel said in 1998 etc.

I suppose that church members should study all ensigns for the last 50 years, memorize the talks and apply them in their lives. But reality doesn't work that way and it is not expected.

[Jeff K.]

But anti Mormons expect it. We Mormons after all are supposed to be superhuman while every slieght produced by the anti Mormons that holds false is of course supposed to be forgotten so that they can continue to return to the same thing again and again.

[why me]

No. My avatar is here to give you guys something to crusade against when you can't make a half-decent argument. I'm nothing if not charitable.

H.

And what is the arugument? Cherry picking conference for the last fifthty years and pasting quotations from this GA to that GA as if what they said was gospel and needs to be followed by the lds here? My gosh, then the lds church would be a cult. Mormons have a free mind to forget, reinterpret or do what any GA says if they think that it applies to them. But they also have a right to be human an forget a talk from 1998. It is quite amazing really. Mormons are accused of being in a cult and yet, when critics point out what was said in 2001 and it disagrees with what a member is saying on this board, the member is more or less told to repent and get back with by the critic. But you see, it doesn't work that way in the lds church. Members have much freedom to forget or not care. And that makes all the difference even if critics wish to remind mormons that they are in a cult and every word must be followed for all time.

[why me]

But anti Mormons expect it. We Mormons after all are supposed to be superhuman while every slieght produced by the anti Mormons that holds false is of course supposed to be forgotten so that they can continue to return to the same thing again and again.

It is quite amazing jeff that critics tell mormons that they are in a cult and everything must be remembered for all time...not just what is written now in magazines but what was written in the 1970's too. What the don't realize is that mormons are free to remember or forget what was said and most forget because it was not important to them at that time. But with the internet, a critic can past something from the ensign from 1988 and say, hey lookie here this is what so and so said and you have the nerve to say something else? Don't you realize that you are in a cult! How dare you have your own mind! You should have remembered what was said in 1988!

It becomes crazy after awhile. If I were a critic of catholicism I can do the same thing to a catholic. I can go back centuries and cherry pick quotations to get catholics on the defensive. Such is the internet where people do not want others to have their own minds...before that...we were free to forget and move on with our own minds.

[Jeff K.]

It merely displays how bereft of any sanity these anti Mormons are. They will continue to hammer in their misery and they will continue to orbit on the outside and hate what they see in the church. They rail against it with all their might, laughing and jeering, taunting even with avatars. But in the end, they are a pretty miserable lot. The church continues to grow, its people become strong in the Lord and they cannot, dare not, admit they probably sold themselves cheap for whatever short term gain they obtained. They should be objects of pity. But they aren't even that, they are simply annoyances that will one day be remembered as amusements, all the while the rest of us progress in knowledge and trial and strength in faith.

[why me]

And what is the arugument? Cherry picking conference for the last fifthty years and pasting quotations from this GA to that GA as if what they said was gospel and needs to be followed by the lds here? My gosh, then the lds church would be a cult. Mormons have a free mind to forget, reinterpret or do what any GA says if they think that it applies to them. But they also have a right to be human and forget a talk from 1998. It is quite amazing really. Mormons are accused of being in a cult and yet, when critics point out what was said in 2001 and it disagrees with what a member is saying on this board, the member is more or less told to repent and get back with by the cult. But you see, it doesn't work that way in the lds church. Members have much freedom to forget or not care. And that makes all the difference even if critics wish to remind mormons that they are in a cult and every word must be followed for all time and remembered.

[why me]

It is quite amazing jeff that critics tell mormons that they are in a cult and everything must be remembered for all time...not just what is written now in magazines but what was written in the 1970's too. What they don't realize is that mormons are free to remember or forget what was said and most forget because it was not important to them at that time. But with the internet, a critic can past something from the ensign from 1988 and say, hey lookie here this is what so and so said and you have the nerve to say something else? Don't you realize that you are in a cult! How dare you have your own mind! You should have remembered what was said in 1988! Now go back and memorize those conference talks.

It becomes crazy after awhile. If I were a critic of catholicism I can do the same thing to a catholic. I can go back centuries and cherry pick quotations to get catholics on the defensive. Such is the internet where people do not want others to have their own minds...before that...we were free to forget and move on with our own minds.

[Deborah]

General conference comes, people listen, ensign publishes talks, people read talks and two months later, people forget talks.

The fact that people do forget plays a large part I think in the claim that "The church hid this" when in fact they probably heard or read it at one time but at that time it didn't matter. It only matters later when they are looking for a reason to leave.

[LDSToronto]

You see ldstoronto, it is impossible for every mormon to read and remember everything that an apostle has said for the last 25 years and this is what critics do when it comes to debate with the lds. Before the computer, it went like this: General conference comes, people listen, ensign publishes talks, people read talks and two months later, people forget talks. And so the wheel went round and round. Now with the internet, every word, every sentence, every paragraph etc can be pasted and the critic can say: Hey lookie here...this is what so and so said in 2008 or in 1993 etc. At the end of the day, it makes very little difference.

I suppose that one can cherry pick what joel osteen said in 1998 from the internet and tell a joel follower, hey lookie here this is what joel said in 1998 etc.

I suppose that church members should study all ensigns for the last 50 years, memorize the talks and apply them in their lives. But reality doesn't work that way and it is not expected.

I didn't quote The Ensign.

H.

[Daniel Peterson]

I have never understood the philosophy of why someone would leave the Church over historical issues. I have a degree in History, have taken philosophy classes and have had a lifelong interest in history. I am also very active. I am obviously not saying I am a some smartie artie but I am not dumb as a plum either-I hope! But what idea is out there that says that the Church can't be true because of X Like why would someone leave the Church over some historical issue(s) I am absolutely not judging anyone or downplaying history like "you stopped coming because Martin Harris did X? seetus lupetus, you must a hit at parties..." I am trying to seek understanding in this! I don't stay in the Church because of historical issues and not to sound smug or anything but I believe I have had spiritual witnesses to me that the Church is true, Joseph Smith is a prophet and Jesus is the Christ and history to me, briefly, is not what is true (we can't know every thing) but what happened and believed. An example is what did Winston Churchill believe about God? to me that is a historical question, whether or not he was right or if there is a God is irrelevant and not a historical question. Thoughts?

I haven't read a single one of the intervening comments, but would still like to comment on the opening post.

I can certainly and easily imagine historical facts that would cause me to abandon my religious beliefs and to conclude that my spiritual experiences had somehow misled me.

If, for example, it could be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus died on the cross and never rose again, or that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery conspired to create fake plates in order to wow the yokels, I would abandon Christianity and/or Mormonism.

The empirical fact is that, in my judgment, no such knock-out blow has been landed, and no such knock-out blow is likely to be landed. In fact, I think that substantial and very good evidence points the other way. But the logical possibility is out there.

The recent Jockers/Criddle/Wetten fiasco, though, in which, after considerable hype, the Spalding theory once again crashed and burned, will serve to illustrate the fate of every attempt, thus far, to offer a comprehensive counterexplanation for the claims of Joseph Smith.

[stemelbow]

The recent Jockers/Criddle/Wetten fiasco, though, in which, after considerable hype, the Spalding theory once again crashed and burned, will serve to illustrate the fate of every attempt, thus far, to offer a comprehensive counterexplanation for the claims of Joseph Smith.

I can't get over how hard critics actually have it. I mean I live my religion because of my faith and for some reason they feel the need to criticize my religion based on theoretical, often contrived, arguments. Most the time, it seems its most appropriate to just say "So?" in response. They haven't proven a whole lot in many instances. They seem to pose a possibility and then suggest because they can offer a possibility that means I should not believe. The hill they have to climb, if they really wish to climb it, is far steeper and longer than they anticipated, I think. But then, I'm the dumb one who can't think for himself, or whatever.

[Duncan]

I haven't read a single one of the intervening comments, but would still like to comment on the opening post.

I can certainly and easily imagine historical facts that would cause me to abandon my religious beliefs and to conclude that my spiritual experiences had somehow misled me.

If, for example, it could be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus died on the cross and never rose again, or that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery conspired to create fake plates in order to wow the yokels, I would abandon Christianity and/or Mormonism.

The empirical fact is that, in my judgment, no such knock-out blow has been landed, and no such knock-out blow is likely to be landed. In fact, I think that substantial and very good evidence points the other way. But the logical possibility is out there.

The recent Jockers/Criddle/Wetten fiasco, though, in which, after considerable hype, the Spalding theory once again crashed and burned, will serve to illustrate the fate of every attempt, thus far, to offer a comprehensive counterexplanation for the claims of Joseph Smith.

I can see that, if the foundational events in Chrstianity and the restoration were somehow proven to be false