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

[stemelbow]

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

To get myself on topic and offer something, I think its pretty clear that many to most who abandon faith do so because they truly think the foundational events have been proven false. Truthfully, I'm fine with that. I think it shows integrity to leave because you feel the foundational events have been proven false.

Mind you, I don't think the foundation events have been proven false.

[Darth_Bill]

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

I think that this is a problematic stand. People don't rise from the dead...yet someone has to prove it didn't happen? Doesn't the burden of proof reside with those that are making the extraordinary claims? Also, wouldn't this blast any concept of faith we have? We have faith because there really isn't any tangible evidence. If we did have evidence, it wouldn't be faith.

[stemelbow]

I think that this is a problematic stand. People don't rise from the dead...yet someone has to prove it didn't happen? Doesn't the burden of proof reside with those that are making the extraordinary claims? Also, wouldn't this blast any concept of faith we have? We have faith because there really isn't any tangible evidence. If we did have evidence, it wouldn't be faith.

How does one prove someone rose from the dead 2,000 years ago? Check eyewitness accounts? the evidence on this is published. The critic then is left to prove his/her position, it seems to me. "No, it didn't happen because in spite of the witness accounts, it couldn't have happened".

So? Don't believe it then. An impasse is created and we're left either relying on faith or not. For me, proof is in faith--faith is evidence, weirdly. I simply can't show you my faith. All I know is I wouldn't believe without it.

The critic will then, undoubtedly respond, "faith isn't evidence of anything".

To you. So? I'm not battling you over it. If faith is possible, then so is someone rising from the dead. If its possible that it was all made up. Good enough. Stating that possibility doesn't do away with my faith, though.

[Duncan]

I think that this is a problematic stand. People don't rise from the dead...yet someone has to prove it didn't happen? Doesn't the burden of proof reside with those that are making the extraordinary claims? Also, wouldn't this blast any concept of faith we have? We have faith because there really isn't any tangible evidence. If we did have evidence, it wouldn't be faith.

well, I suppose both sides would have to come up with some kind of evidence that back up their claim just like in court. I guess though about the evidence part of your post is that the bits and pieces from say 2000 years ago are connected to the bits and pieces of Christ's resurrection-so, we hope that Peter, and the others were credible people to be giving their testimony and not hooligans trying to make a buck or something-that is all I can think of right now I am trying to eat my lunch and will return in a moment!

Edited January 24, 2012 by Duncan

[Darth_Bill]

>How does one prove someone rose from the dead 2,000 years ago? Check eyewitness accounts? the evidence on this is published. The critic then is left to prove his/her position, it seems to me. "No, it didn't happen because in spite of the witness accounts, it couldn't have happened".

Exactly, and depending on your take on the NT, you have only one "eye-witness" account in John. You also have Paul with a short vision (his first and he alludes to others). So, you have one eye-witness and some compilations of oral history. Having studied Hinduism, people can write anything and some people will believe it.

>So? Don't believe it then. An impasse is created and we're left either relying on faith or not. For me, proof is in faith--faith is evidence, weirdly. I simply can't show you my faith. All I know is I wouldn't believe without it.

>The critic will then, undoubtedly respond, "faith isn't evidence of anything".

Because it isn't. Faith can change how people act, but 1 billion people believing in flying monkey men doesn't make hinduism as true either. I didn't say faith is a bad thing. We all act on faith for a lot of things, but it isn't evidence.

>To you. So? I'm not battling you over it. If faith is possible, then so is someone rising from the dead. If its possible that it was all made up. Good enough. Stating that possibility doesn't do away with my faith, though.

Nope, it doesn't. Otherwise all religion would be quite rare. Science too, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

And, no, I'm not battling you over it either.

Actually, the restoration has more founding evidence, and a LOT more witnesses, than the founding of Christianity. If it wasn't for the restoration, I wouldn't believe in Christianity at all.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Darth_Bill

[stemelbow]

Exactly, and depending on your take on the NT, you have only one "eye-witness" account in John. You also have Paul with a short vision (his first and he alludes to others). So, you have one eye-witness and some compilations of oral history. Having studied Hinduism, people can write anything and some people will believe it.

I guess what I"m saying is I'm not trying to establish my faith as historically valid in an academic sense. The propisition is one of faith. Its not a propisition gathered by piecing together historical data and arriving at a conclusion. We're stuck doing it a bit backwards, because it is faith and not a conclusion based on sifting and toiling through years of study.

Because it isn't. Faith can change how people act, but 1 billion people believing in flying monkey men doesn't make hinduism as true either. I didn't say faith is a bad thing. We all act on faith for a lot of things, but it isn't evidence.

Well that there is evidence of the restoration does not make it true either. Because there is evidence for something does not mean that something is necessarily true. There can just as easily be contradicting pieces of evidences for any stated propisition. I don't see how your example shows that faith can't be considered evidence to individuals. Surely, I'm not trying to say its evidence in an academic sense.

Nope, it doesn't. Otherwise all religion would be quite rare. Science too, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

And, no, I'm not battling you over it either.

Actually, the restoration has more founding evidence, and a LOT more witnesses, than the founding of Christianity. If it wasn't for the restoration, I wouldn't believe in Christianity at all.

[KevinG]

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

Nice pun. That is Sasha- my fluffy baby. She's gentle as a lamb and loves children. She can often be found playng with all the neighborhood children as they gather outside. Some adults get freaked out until they realize she's not a wolf.

[KevinG]

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.

Ahhh... the Saints who confuse programs with the Gospel. We all have them in the ward. Sometimes they are the Bishop. Although I do agree that attending youth activities is a very good idea. We had a year of honor chorus and senior activities for our oldest. He had already received his Eagle and was pretty much aged out of most youth events so we focused on that for a while. We also had some kids who received grief for not participating in some activities. They had some health issues that they wanted to keep private but some of the leaders got too busy body with them over their activity level.

That is a good reminder.

[KevinG]

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.

I never knew it was Harvey Milk. I thought you were just a goofy looking guy with bug eyes. My bad.

[KevinG]

But anti Mormons expect it. We Mormons after all are supposed to be superhuman ...

Thank goodness we have Dr P.

[KevinG]

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.

I have a dear friend who used to make a hobby of answering critics on the internet. She would ask me to research or answer questions she could not find the answer too. Her personal life was in a shambles and she lacked support from her family when it came to living the Gospel in her daily life. At one point she got tired of the fight and simply gave up. She claimed it was historical issues but when I asked her to discuss them with me and see if we couldn't find an answer she refused to respond to me.

My suspicion is that "historical issues" are often a catalyst or an excuse, but the real reasons for departing the faith are deeper and harder to address.

[Analytics]

I have a dear friend who used to make a hobby of answering critics on the internet. She would ask me to research or answer questions she could not find the answer too. Her personal life was in a shambles and she lacked support from her family when it came to living the Gospel in her daily life. At one point she got tired of the fight and simply gave up. She claimed it was historical issues but when I asked her to discuss them with me and see if we couldn't find an answer she refused to respond to me.

My suspicion is that "historical issues" are often a catalyst or an excuse, but the real reasons for departing the faith are deeper and harder to address.

That is a fair point. If somebody's spiritual needs are being met in the church, they probably won't care very much about "historical issues." If their spiritual needs aren't being met, it can be easy to leave.

[KevinG]

That is a fair point. If somebody's spiritual needs are being met in the church, they probably won't care very much about "historical issues." If their spiritual needs aren't being met, it can be easy to leave.

Which leads me to the conclusion that loving our families and our brethren is more important that innoculating them with more information. People will believe what they are able to experience.

[stemelbow]

I have a dear friend who used to make a hobby of answering critics on the internet. She would ask me to research or answer questions she could not find the answer too. Her personal life was in a shambles and she lacked support from her family when it came to living the Gospel in her daily life. At one point she got tired of the fight and simply gave up. She claimed it was historical issues but when I asked her to discuss them with me and see if we couldn't find an answer she refused to respond to me.

My suspicion is that "historical issues" are often a catalyst or an excuse, but the real reasons for departing the faith are deeper and harder to address.

...and define.

[Libs]

There are "sometimes" deeper issues, I suppose. I think there were some deeper issues for me, that I didn't even realize until just recently. But, I don't know that the same can be said for all who leave over historical issues.

[KevinG]

There are "sometimes" deeper issues, I suppose. I think there were some deeper issues for me, that I didn't even realize until just recently. But, I don't know that the same can be said for all who leave over historical issues.

...which is why I fill my comments with qualifiers such as "I suspect" "often" and "sometimes".

[Libs]

...which is why I fill my comments with qualifiers such as "I suspect" "often" and "sometimes".

lol...okay...well done.

[sjdawg]

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.

And Mormons (or even Mormon Leadership) don't cherry pick conference quotes?

[Sky]

While not always true, and I know that it’s not popular to say this, but I have found that some people leave because they find the LDS lifestyle too restrictive. They feel that there are too many commandments and expectations and that they will never be able to measure up or fit the mold. They sometimes see the Church as a rather sterile environment. In my opinion, it becomes particularly challenging to stay with the Church if you reach age 30 and are still single with no prospects for marriage – especially for men. Keeping the law of chastity takes more and more willpower and determination. My hat goes off to people in this category who keep the faith.

And I’ve noticed that some of the people in my family who have become inactive or have left the Church entirely love a cup of coffee or a glass of wine or an occasional beer. Not saying they left just so they could enjoy coffee and alcoholic beverages, but it seemed to be a byproduct of their departure from the Church. And when they find out about some aspect of Church history that is troubling to them, it only becomes that much more of a catalyst for their loss of faith. I bring this up only because I know it is a very real issue and phenomenon.

[KevinG]

And Mormons (or even Mormon Leadership) don't cherry pick conference quotes?

Can you provide an example (a real quote) of faithful Cherry Picking that was designed to mislead someone about the true nature of Mormonism?

I'm sure I could provide a plethora of examples of the kind designed to smear, denegrate, misrepresent and tear down Mormonism.

[sjdawg]

Can you provide an example (a real quote) of faithful Cherry Picking that was designed to mislead someone about the true nature of Mormonism?

I'm sure I could provide a plethora of examples of the kind designed to smear, denegrate, misrepresent and tear down Mormonism.

every quote used by anyone is used to illustrate a select point. Whenever you quote anyone you are cherry picking words that you think demonstrate a specific point of view (positive or negative). Mormons don't think they are misleading anyone anymore than anti-mormons think they are misleading someone.

I could find quotes I disagree with or I think are misapplied on both sides of the argument.

Edited January 24, 2012 by sjdawg

[Deborah]

Mormons don't think they are misleading anyone anymore and anti-mormons think they are misleading someone.

Actually I think the fact that someone is "anti" something is more of an incentive to cherry pick quotes and then take those out of context as far as the time, place, audience, etc. LDS may use faith promoting quotes but the intent is just that, to be faith promoting, but they also have a bigger picture in mind which helps to put everything in context.

[sjdawg]

Actually I think the fact that someone is "anti" something is more of an incentive to cherry pick quotes and then take those out of context as far as the time, place, audience, etc. LDS may use faith promoting quotes but the intent is just that, to be faith promoting, but they also have a bigger picture in mind which helps to put everything in context.

Anti is generally the term applied by mormons towards others. It does nothing to speak towards that individuals own personal feelings or intent. (it is also used a little too liberally by many mormons in my opinion, but thats off topic)

[sjdawg]

Actually I think the fact that someone is "anti" something is more of an incentive to cherry pick quotes and then take those out of context as far as the time, place, audience, etc. LDS may use faith promoting quotes but the intent is just that, to be faith promoting, but they also have a bigger picture in mind which helps to put everything in context.

I would say people "Pro" something is equal incentive to cherry pick but that's just an opinion.

Edited January 24, 2012 by sjdawg

[thesometimesaint]

In theory maybe. In actual practice. The more you are against something the more you squawk. Few people will complain about having great day, must people will about a bad one.