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

[zomg]

What?

You (or your wife) had multiple husbands?

Lehi

Haha?

[cinepro]

My observation remains valid, in spite of your smart-alecky and dismissive response.

Then a question:

I have an employee who has left the Catholic church (hasn't officially taken his name of the books, but no longer associates himself with the church). He claims that the sexual abuse scandals and some issues with the history and doctrine of the church were what caused him to stop going. Since he has stopped going, he no longer attends mass with his family, and he eats hamburgers on Friday during lent (previously, he would abstain from meat on Fridays during lent).

To what degree would you say that this man left the Catholic church because he wanted to stop going to mass and eat hamburgers on Friday during lent?

Edited January 25, 2012 by cinepro

[cinepro]

My conclusion (which I realize I am in the wrong forum to have many agree with) is that the LDS Church is no better or no worse than other religions.

Oddly, you'll find many apologetic arguments are at their very core some version of that same proposition (at least the "no worse" part).

Edited January 25, 2012 by cinepro

[Analytics]

Then a question:

I have an employee who has left the Catholic church (hasn't officially taken his name of the books, but no longer associates himself with the Church). He claims that the sexual abuse scandals and some issues with the history and doctrine of the church were what caused him to stop going. Since he has stopped going, he no longer attends mass with his family, and he eats hamburgers on Friday during lent (previously, he would abstain from meat on Fridays during lent).

To what degree would you say that this man left the Catholic church because he wanted to stop going to mass and eat hamburgers on Friday during lent?

We know that lots of people have criticized the Catholic Church over the years, therefore there is no conclusive proof of falsity. Thus, he must have stopped going because of the burgers.

[cinepro]

The editors note that the bad blood between them might have been caused by their competing business interests (Kimball was building on the hill; Smith on the flats) or possibly because Joseph Smith had just proposed plural marriage (unsuccessfully) to Kimball's wife.

But to be clear, other than that they got along swimmingly.

[Jeff K.]

Then a question:

I have an employee who has left the Catholic church (hasn't officially taken his name of the books, but no longer associates himself with the church). He claims that the sexual abuse scandals and some issues with the history and doctrine of the church were what caused him to stop going. Since he has stopped going, he no longer attends mass with his family, and he eats hamburgers on Friday during lent (previously, he would abstain from meat on Fridays during lent).

To what degree would you say that this man left the Catholic church because he wanted to stop going to mass and eat hamburgers on Friday during lent?

What is the difference between a scandal yesterday and a scandal a thousand years ago? If it had been brought out that wrong had been done a thousand years ago, the answer among Catholics would be the organization is of God even when men are imperfect. Wouldn't that same hold true today? To what extent is it the scandal and to what extent is it doctrine? Which doctrine did he learn recently that was unknown to him before?

[Jeff K.]

I might add the Catholic church is not nearly as scrupulous in teaching the basic doctrines to its members as are Latter-day Saints.

[LeSellers]

I might add the Catholic church is not nearly as scrupulous in teaching the basic doctrines to its members as are Latter-day Saints.

I'm not sure about that. There is the catechism, and all baptized Catholics must have gone through that process. It's pretty comprehensive.

Now, it is not in much depth, but that's a whole different question, ain't it?

Lehi

Edited January 26, 2012 by LeSellers

[Jeff K.]

It is a depth issues, yes.

[why me]

Is that evidence that all is well, then?

If not, then it is understandable that individuals might be troubled by this tidbit.

It is evidence that all may have been well and also why we should not jump to the conclusion that all was not well. And critics do jump to the conclusion that all was not well. See the problem? I can any take on it that I want. But the facts are also important and nothing proves that these women were used for lust or abused. Ih fact, just the opposite

[why me]

All I did was imagine what I would do if another man wanted to be sealed to my wife. I didn't like the way it made me feel. I read about it in Rough Stone Rolling (don't know if you consider Bushman a "critic") It didn't feel right.

It can be rather difficult but then again, we weren't there at that time and we have no idea what happened. But what we do know is that the women werre treated well and some joined Emma on the funeral march to bury JS. And after the murder, many of his plural wives stayed in the church. And even those who may not have followed the saints west still didn't speak ill of JS.

Why? Maybe what actually happened was something not lustful or abusive but something else. When we imagine we need to separte our cultural sociological imagination from the actual events.

[cinepro]

What is the difference between a scandal yesterday and a scandal a thousand years ago? If it had been brought out that wrong had been done a thousand years ago, the answer among Catholics would be the organization is of God even when men are imperfect. Wouldn't that same hold true today? To what extent is it the scandal and to what extent is it doctrine? Which doctrine did he learn recently that was unknown to him before?

The issue wasn't the scandals. The issue was to what degree we would attribute a desire for non-mass attendance and Friday meat eating to him leaving based on him not attending mass or abstaining from friday meat after having left the Catholic church.

In other words, do we expect people to abide by the tenets of a religion they don't believe in, and if they don't, does that serve as an indicator as to why they chose to leave (see Sky's post #444)?

Edited January 25, 2012 by cinepro

[why me]

There's a not-very-faith-promoting scene in the latest volume of Joseph Smith's journals released by the Joseph Smith Papers where the Prophet, at a Nauvoo City Council meeting, scribbles down a revelation on a piece of paper and throws it across the room at fellow council member Hiram Kimball. The revelation commanded Kimball—a non-Mormon—to cease and desist from "insinuating evil" against the Prophet or be cursed.

The editors note that the bad blood between them might have been caused by their competing business interests (Kimball was building on the hill; Smith on the flats) or possibly because Joseph Smith had just proposed plural marriage (unsuccessfully) to Kimball's wife.

(Postscript: Sarah Granger Kimball remained a stalwart member of the Church, and Hiram joined the Church the following year. He died in 1863 in a steamship explosion while en route to serve a mission in the Sandwich Islands.)

And yet, this is also a second hand account unless of course, this was one of those rare occasions where he actually wrote an entry. Those were certainly intersting times and it would have been interesting to witness the scene. What I have discover from writing in a journal is that the writing of the event never captures the actions and movements of the characters involved. But on this one, I have to go with the bottom line: they both joined the church and remained faithful.

[why me]

It certainly would have been interesting to be around at the time of JS. Perhaps some of us would have went by the wayside because we could not accept the human traits of the prophet. Or we would have been burnt in a church investment. Or some other complaint of the saints back then.

Edited January 25, 2012 by why me

[KevinG]

I might add the Catholic church is not nearly as scrupulous in teaching the basic doctrines to its members as are Latter-day Saints.

They do have ten times as much history to cover.

My good Catholic friend is very well versed on his doctrines and the teachings of Catholic leadership and scholars. We have some wonderful discussions that have led me to believe our common faith in Christ and His works is very similar.

[Libs]

I might add the Catholic church is not nearly as scrupulous in teaching the basic doctrines to its members as are Latter-day Saints.

Not sure about today, but they used to be.

My son recently married a Catholic girl and they had to spend a weekend at a Catholic retreat, in preparation. It's was pretty rigorous.

[Nevo]

And yet, this is also a second hand account unless of course, this was one of those rare occasions where he actually wrote an entry.

I suspect Willard Richard was an eyewitness to the events described. I don't think we can assume that the account was secondhand (and by implication less reliable) just because it isn't in Joseph Smith's handwriting.

Anyway, I agree that one of the important takeaways from this episode is that Hiram and Sarah didn't let their disagreements with Joseph keep them out of the Church. That's a good lesson for everyone I think.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Nevo

[Libs]

Not sure about today, but they used to be.

My son recently married a Catholic girl and they had to spend a weekend at a Catholic retreat, in preparation. It's was pretty rigorous.

That didn't sound quite right.

Just to clarify, they stayed in gender segregated dorms. The Catholics don't endorse "overnights" before marriage.

[KevinG]

That didn't sound quite right.

Just to clarify, they stayed in gender segregated dorms. The Catholics don't endorse "overnights" before marriage.

Ha! I was going to say you might have confused the pre-marriage lessons with the post-marriage honeymoon. Vigorus weekend retreat indeed.

[mbh26]

I guess it depends on what you base your testimony. If you pray about an issue when you're basically ignorant about it, will you get a different answer than if you pray about it knowing more information that was left out? Is revelation an absolute and immutable truth or is it changing and subject to further light and knowledge?

Are we really being permitted to exercise our agency if there exists a lock on information that we are not permitted to know because the casualty rate is too high? Is dishonesty ok as long as it results in building up the kingdom? For me dishonesty doesn't just mean telling something that you know is not true. It also means not fully disclosing all the information you know to be true.

[robuchan]

A testimony/belief in the church can be described as a belief in a list of historical facts:

1. The New Testament account of Jesus Christ's life and resurrection is historically factual.

2. Joseph Smith's first vision account is historically factual.

3. The Book of Mormon is a historical record of actual people and prophets.

4. Joseph Smith's account of receiving the gold plates and translating them into the Book of Mormon is historically factual.

5. Joseph Smith's accounts of seeing other angels, receiving the priesthood, D&C account of witnessing Christ in the Kirtland temple, etc, are historically factual.

6. There were real people named Adam and Eve who were created by God and are the mother and father of mankind.

Since a testimony/belief in the church can be described as a belief in these historical facts, it should be easy to understand someone rejecting a testimony of the church by receiving more advanced information and analysis concerning these historical facts.

Two counter points

1. Literal interpretations are not necessary. ie any of these historical facts could be proven to be false, but there is another method of understanding the complete picture even when this is proven to be false. I can kind of accept this for some of the Old Testament myths. But the more of the facts above you convert into a non-literal interpretation, the weaker you make the church until there really is not point to it. If Joseph Smith made it all up himself based on a warm fuzzy, and if man evolved from apes 50,000 years ago and the power of Jesus is in the myth not the reality, and maybe no man has ever really talked to God, then do we have a religion at all? What's "true" about it?

2. importance even priority of a spiritual witness over intellectual understanding

Some will say, nothing learned through your intelligence is important. The spirit and what you learn through personal revelations is important. I don't doubt the power of spiritual revelation, but I do strongly doubt humans ability to interpret spiritual impression correctly. Humans have been regularly misinterpreting spiritual impressions since the beginning of time. Could you receive a spiritual impression that the earth is flat? Could or should that take precedence over the scientific understanding we have? Spiritual impressions can sometimes be harmful. ie God wants me to kill my baby. We are required to use our intellect to help us interpret spiritual impressions the best we can. The way we interpreted a spiritual impression in the past can and should change as more facts are gathered.

[Jeff K.]

Revelation isn't the end product or indication of the end product, it is part of the process. Line upon line, precept upon precept.

[Deborah]

Are we really being permitted to exercise our agency if there exists a lock on information that we are not permitted to know because the casualty rate is too high?

That's a little overboard. Not sure what locked information you are referring to. I've pretty much seen everything out there for years.

[mbh26]

That's a little overboard. Not sure what locked information you are referring to. I've pretty much seen everything out there for years.

Maybe knowing more of what is out there did not incite you to reexamine your testimony. For some people, it does. One thing I realized was that I was not going to hear the complete truth at lds.org. What they chose to tell me was chosen based on whether or not it would lead me to join and be active in the Church, not with the sole purpose of finding the truth. You could fairly criticize me as being young and naive, which I was, but at one time I really believed the highest priority was finding the truth. What I now know is that from their perspective, omitting truths, giving half truths, and even a few lies are considered "good," as long as it makes people more likely to join and be active in the Church. It's manipulative. Whether that is good or bad, it definintely created a mistrust between me and those telling the stories.

[Sky]

Then a question:

I have an employee who has left the Catholic church (hasn't officially taken his name of the books, but no longer associates himself with the church). He claims that the sexual abuse scandals and some issues with the history and doctrine of the church were what caused him to stop going. Since he has stopped going, he no longer attends mass with his family, and he eats hamburgers on Friday during lent (previously, he would abstain from meat on Fridays during lent).

To what degree would you say that this man left the Catholic church because he wanted to stop going to mass and eat hamburgers on Friday during lent?

I acknowledge that both the Catholic and the Mormon Churches have things in their past that are difficult to come to grips with. And some people do leave for those reasons. But those aren’t the only reasons why people become inactive or leave entirely. Unwillingness or inability or difficulty keeping the commandments is a real issue. It can cause the Spirit to eventually withdrawal from a person. But even mentioning this causes certain people to bristle because it implies that they gave in to a weakness. And it doesn’t allow for them to pin all the blame on the Church or its past.

We all know that the LDS has certain expectations of its members which many people view as excessive – i.e. no coffee, no tea, no alcoholic beverages, the law of chastity, wearing modest clothes, 10% tithe, temple attendance, loyalty to the Brethren, and serving in callings which can take up a lot of time and energy and take time away from family. Sometimes people simply get burned out and leave. This is the point I was trying to make.