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

[Craig Paxton]

You do know that Protestantism was the more rebellious flavor (see Henry VIII) at that time in history and that Fawkes wanted to put Catholic authority back at the head of the state? Fawkes was advocating and fighting for a more authoratative state.

I get a chuckle every time I see the Fawkes masks at protests.

...and V for Vendetta is probably the cultural reference that most modern protesters get. Sadly.

Here is an interesting view on the Fawkes masks and humorous (rough language warning) http://www.cracked.c...-you-think.html

What your link and you get so completely wrong is the realities that Fawkes was fighting for...as I stated in my first post on this subject...he wanted to restore the Catholic church...and its form of authority it is true...but what I believe you fail to understand is that at the time he was doing so he was the underdog, he was the protester, the reble and the minority fighting against the repressive majority protestant power of the day, that since the days of Henry the VIII had been waging war agaisnt the English Catholic church...THAT is the message you are missing ...Fawkes is the symbol of the minority fighting the repressive powers of the majority. He is the freedom fighter and symbol of the minority... standing up to authoritative abuses,...that is where you and your link get it so wrong.

No need to chuckle now that I've been able to educate you...

Edited January 19, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Nevo]

There's no evidence that he had intercourse with any of them.

There is ample evidence. Read Brian Hales or Greg Smith for starters.

[Duncan]

I did serve a mission and I am certainly familiar with Moroni's promise. I do not believe personal spiritual expericnes are a reliable means to obtain universal truth. I happen to think there are very strong arguments against the idea a person can learn how the universe really is on the basis of personal spiritual experiences. But that is a debate for another thread. For the sake of argument I will assume personal spiritual experiences are a good means to learn universal truth. How does this counter my point? Finger print evidence may be a very good reason to suspect a person committed a crime this does not mean DNA evidence is not also evidence. Similarly even if we assume personal spiritual experiences are a good means to learn truth this does not mean other sources of evidence don’t exist or are not useful. Like for example how a person or institution behaves. In fact the scripture explicitly teach as much. While John chapter one does indeed teach we can pray and gain wisdom from God. The Bible also teaches how a person behaves is good evidence regarding claims to divine inspiration.

Matthew 7:15-17

15. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

(bold added by me)

So your own scriptures agree with me that a person’s behavior can be used as evidence regarding claims to be inspired by a loving just God. Therefore church history is a legitimate source of evidence regarding claims to divine inspiration. Again I am not claiming church history should necessarily lead someone to leave the church I am only claiming it is a legitimate exercise to use the behavior of a person or institution as evidence regarding claims to divine inspiration. I am somewhat surprise you disagree.

Let’s go back to my example: I have two persons claiming to be inspired by a perfectly moral and loving God Jane and Joe. Jane is a spotless example of loving charity engaging all day every day in selfless service to her fellow men. Joe on the other hand seems to be a vicious sociopath spending his time hunting down and torturing innocents to death. Are you prepared to argue Joe has an equal chance of being inspired by God as Jane? After all if we can’t use behavior as evidence regarding claims to divine inspiration Joe’s habit of torturing infants to death cannot be used as evidence regarding his claims.

Best,

Uncertain

Thanks for the response! what do you mean universal truth? I believe the Gospel is universal and true but not necessarily the only epistemology out there. I am not too familiar with the sciences but they have ways of knowing that's different from other academic disciplines. You can't have a false prophet without a true one. Just because someone acts stupidly or illegal could mean they interpreted something badly. So God gives the idea of polygamy but how that plays out God may not agree with and of course their is repentance. I think God would want to inspire Joe but I doubt he would listen and so I don't think he would make a good prophet

[Brade]

I haven't read through the entire thread, so forgive me if I repeat a lot of what's been said before. It isn't my view that the best available history proves the Church false (whatever it means for a Church to be true or false anyway). It is my view that the best available evidence is at least not sufficient grounds to believe that the relevent foundational Mormon claims are true and to commit oneself wholeheartedly to a Mormon lifestyle.

If I trusted spiritual experience as a valid means of belief formation for the relevant sorts of claims, then I'd believe foundational Mormon claims in spite of any compelling non-spiritual evidence against. For my part, I have come to distrust spiritual experience as a valid means of truth-getting. Having arrived at that view, I'm left to assess the best available evidence without, as believers might put it, an eye of faith. In that light, I find the evidence at least insufficient for belief, but probably sufficient to believe many or most of the relevant foundational claim are likely not true. And I take the latter view with respect to many of the Church's foundational claims.

Viewed this way, it isn't merely that the history has caused me to lose faith. Rather, I've lost faith in faith, so to speak. I was well aware of most of the major controversial historical issues long before I decided to be much less active in Church. For years I maintained my activity because the validity of spiritual experience was much more an open question to me and I thought it best to maintain activity while I attempted to sort that all out. When I came to realize the extent of my distrust of that epistemological method, and became more aware of the reasons behind my distrust, I decided it was time to square up to the history I was already familiar with and assess whether my beliefs about it and my beliefs about certain other more philosophical and theological issues warranted the level of participation and commitment I had been engaging in. After serious consideration I determined that to maintain my own integrity and out of fairness to the Church I shouldn't be involved in the Church in at least certain ways - e.g. I shouldn't be attending the temple, teaching Sunday school, etc.

I'm still grappling with the question of the extent to which I want to be involved. It isn't as clear cut to me as that if I don't believe, then I shouldn't participate at all. But, it's difficult to see how I should participate. On top of that, it's often perplexing attending church and hearing taught so many things I think are either unjustified or simply mistaken. From that I question why I ought to subject myself to participation in something with which I find so much to disagree. Nevertheless, I like Mormon community. It's what I've grown up with and so if nothing else it's a familiar community and service avenue. And that's the major reason I consider being a part of it despite deep disagreement with much of the foundational claims and the way the Church falls on many contemporary issues; I just haven't sorted out whether that's a good enough reason for me.

I don't claim to represent what it is for most people who leave over historical issues, but I do offer my perspective as evidence that it isn't as clear cut as "leaving" merely over historical issues. I "left" because the historical evidence viewed with a distrust of spiritual experience doesn't compel belief. The difference between me and, say, Teryl Givens (and I know this because I've asked him about it) is that he does trust spiritual experience sufficiently even though he thinks, as I do, that the historical evidence is insufficient for belief and commitment.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Brade

[Senator]

There's no evidence that he had intercourse with any of them.

It's awful that a particular US President pops into my head upon the heels of that statement.

[Uncertain]

Thanks for the response! what do you mean universal truth? I believe the Gospel is universal and true but not necessarily the only epistemology out there. I am not too familiar with the sciences but they have ways of knowing that's different from other academic disciplines. You can't have a false prophet without a true one. Just because someone acts stupidly or illegal could mean they interpreted something badly. So God gives the idea of polygamy but how that plays out God may not agree with and of course their is repentance. I think God would want to inspire Joe but I doubt he would listen and so I don't think he would make a good prophet

By universal truth I mean a truth claim that is universal in scope. For example the claim the LDS church is the only church with Gods authority is a universal truth claim it is a claim that is universal in scope. This is compared to personal truths that may be personally true for some people but not true for all people. For example the claim I like to read books is true concerning me but may not be true concerning everyone else it is a personal truth claim. In any case I appreciate the discussion.

Best,

Uncertain

[Sky]

I haven't read through the entire thread, so forgive me if I repeat a lot of what's been said before. It isn't my view that the best available history proves the Church false (whatever it means for a Church to be true or false anyway). It is my view that the best available evidence is at least not sufficient grounds to believe that the relevent foundational Mormon claims are true and to commit oneself wholeheartedly to a Mormon lifestyle.

If I trusted spiritual experience as a valid means of belief formation for the relevant sorts of claims, then I'd believe foundational Mormon claims in spite of any compelling non-spiritual evidence against. For my part, I have come to distrust spiritual experience as a valid means of truth-getting. Having arrived at that view, I'm left to assess the best available evidence without, as believers might put it, an eye of faith. In that light, I find the evidence at least insufficient for belief, but probably sufficient to believe many or most of the relevant foundational claim are likely not true. And I take the latter view with respect to many of the Church's foundational claims.

Viewed this way, it isn't merely that the history has caused me to lose faith. Rather, I've lost faith in faith, so to speak. I was well aware of most of the major controversial historical issues long before I decided to be much less active in Church. For years I maintained my activity because the validity of spiritual experience was much more an open question to me and I thought it best to maintain activity while I attempted to sort that all out. When I came to realize the extent of my distrust of that epistemological method, and became more aware of the reasons behind my distrust, I decided it was time to square up to the history I was already familiar with and assess whether my beliefs about it and my beliefs about certain other more philosophical and theological issues warranted the level of participation and commitment I had been engaging in. After serious consideration I determined that to maintain my own integrity and out of fairness to the Church I shouldn't be involved in the Church in at least certain ways - e.g. I shouldn't be attending the temple, teaching Sunday school, etc.

I'm still grappling with the question of the extent to which I want to be involved. It isn't as clear cut to me as that if I don't believe, then I shouldn't participate at all. But, it's difficult to see how I should participate. On top of that, it's often perplexing attending church and hearing taught so many things I think are either unjustified or simply mistaken. From that I question why I ought to subject myself to participation in something with which I find so much to disagree. Nevertheless, I like Mormon community. It's what I've grown up with and so if nothing else it's a familiar community and service avenue. And that's the major reason I consider being a part of it despite deep disagreement with much of the foundational claims and the way the Church falls on many contemporary issues; I just haven't sorted out whether that's a good enough reason for me.

I don't claim to represent what it is for most people who leave over historical issues, but I do offer my perspective as evidence that it isn't as clear cut as "leaving" merely over historical issues. I "left" because the historical evidence viewed with a distrust of spiritual experience doesn't compel belief. The difference between me and, say, Teryl Givens (and I know this because I've asked him about it) is that he does trust spiritual experience sufficiently even though he thinks, as I do, that the historical evidence is insufficient for belief and commitment.

Of course I would be happy to see you return, but maybe the best thing for you would be to not participate in the Church for the time being, but to keep an open mind. Should you decide to come back and fully participate in the Church, it is much easier after simply being inactive rather than having your name taken off the records and needing to be re-baptized. Hopefully you accept home teachers, as that would still give you an outlet to the Mormon community and service aspect that you like. Whatever you decide, I wish you the best!

[Cobalt-70]

Most nonlds do not think about this at all. They tend to see the early apostles as pretty near perfect and yet, we know that at the time of christ they were far from perfect. But after christ's death and when they went about with the missionary effort, people view them as pretty much perfect. It is as if a wonderful transformation took place after Christ was murdered. But knowing human nature, we should be able to guess that they were never perfect regardless if the new testament more or less implies so. The unwanted accounts were weeded out long ago.

We know, at least, that some of the early apostles did not get along very well. Paul speaks mockingly of James, Peter, and John in Galatians 2, for example, even going so far as to call Peter a hypocrite. He then recounts a story of how he publicly embarrassed Peter. So these guys were certainly not "one" in the sense that Jesus wanted them to be.

[Brade]

Of course I would be happy to see you return, but maybe the best thing for you would be to not participate in the Church for the time being, but to keep an open mind.

Oh, I'm not currently participating, and I'd like to think I have a fairly open mind.

Hopefully you accept home teachers...

I do. I was clear when I spoke with my bishop about all this that I'm not hostile toward the Church and I don't have any objections to having home teachers except not wanting the Church to waste resources.

Whatever you decide, I wish you the best!

Thanks. For me, this isn't a sad experience. It's exciting. I like trying to figure out the world and I'm open to changing my mind and it doesn't bother me in the least to have my mind changed.

[Senator]

Of course I would be happy to see you return, but maybe the best thing for you would be to not participate in the Church for the time being, but to keep an open mind.

Brade,

I mean no disrespect to Sky, but my recommendation would be for you to continue to participate as much as you honestly desire to. Sure, given your state of mind at the present would disqualify you to the temple and certain other leadership and teaching positions. But there is still much you can do in the church, and I for one would welcome your presence!

The point being, faith must be organically grow. It cannot be contrived or manipulated. It cannot be simply concluded upon intellectually, yet it must still pass intellectual muster. The intellect demands substance, evidence. This is where Alma's theory becomes so relevant. Plant the seed. Give it proper nurishment, and see if it produces. In this case the product is enlargement of soul. I can't see how this can be achieved outside of the seedbed.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Senator

[LeSellers]

We know, at least, that some of the early apostles did not get along very well. ... these guys were certainly not "one" in the sense that Jesus wanted them to be.

Beware!! The END is near.

I just repped ⁷⁰Co, the radioactive one.

The END is near.

Lehi

Edited January 19, 2012 by LeSellers

[ExAntiMormon]

There is a lot of truth in what you say about "more to the story", Ex-anti-Mormon (love your handle, btw! )..

The problem is, there is so MUCH information, I was feeling that I could spend a lifetime trying to sort through all of it.

I guess that's why faith is important. Really, that is the bottom line. Faith and what you believe to be a Holy Spirit confirmation of the things you believe. Plus, a lot of people rely on their own experiences with the gospel, which is not a bad way to go, either. It works for them. The "proof" is in living it and seeing it work in your life.

Yes, I remember the time when I too believed there was "so much" information.

Yes, and Faith is actually the key. When I was ready to put away my judgments, and to study again to find out the actual truth, I had the same concern that it seemed impossible to really know because of the amount of information. But I decided to trust in the promise God gave, if there was a God, and if we have faith, he will show all things. So, I went forward, studied did an overview study of all the various religions again, to see if any could qualify as making sense, none again did. I then started going back to Church studying being super active, doing everything possible to understand it well, and also continued studying LDS scholarship. This time, I would compare an anti-mormon book with an LDS book on the same subject, or compare issues. I came to quickly see that anti-mormonism perverted the truth on nearly every issue, used a little truth and fact to tell great lies. I then studied the issues I most had problems with, and came to know the actual truth, and then one day, I truly knew for sure and forever that the Church was literally true, and not another man-made religion.

This entire process took no more than about 6 months and a couple of hours a day on average. So, when I was really ready, the actual truth came quickly despite what seemed impossible with the amount of information. Of course, my years of experience prior to that helped a great deal, being a part of different religions and the Church, choosing the Church over those religions, etc. Had I not already known the Bible well, things would have taken longer, but because of my faith, it all came together, and the fullness of the truth came to light. Bottom line, is had I not chosen to put away my judgments against the Church and religion in general, I never would have been able to then learn again and discover the actual truth of things.

This sadly is a problem with anti-mormons. They are so invested in their criticisms of the Church, that it's the final truth of things, that no matter what we say to them, they will not understand. Someone's who's invested in a strong judgment, especially an intimate one, they will not change their minds unless they choose to see the value of putting away that judgment to find out what is really true. We must always remember that the importance of Apologetics is not to contend against the anti-mormon, but to share the truth with those who are teachable, the others who might read our words.

Thank you about my username. I'm actually getting ready to start a website and Youtube page collecting ex-anti-mormon story's.

Since ex-mormons have mimicked us, I'm going to mimic them. More importantly, I think it can provide a good service to those interested in the truth.

[ExAntiMormon]

You haven’t studied this in much detail, have you. Throughout his life, Joseph Smith adamantly denied practicing polygamy, and the Church’s denials were canonized in the D&C. When William Law publically accused Joseph Smith of secretly teaching and practicing polygamy, Joseph Smith responded,

For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ; they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me.

Joseph Smith was effectively in a conspiracy with his clerks to create an exhaustive and comprehensive record which could be used prove he didn’t practice polygamy. That is one reason why Joseph Smith III and the reorganized church denied he practiced polygamy at all, and why the Brigham Young branch can’t definitively list who he married and on what dates.

Well, the reason for this is not "conspiracy", but the fact that Joseph actually wasn't practicing Polygamy.

He was practicing the Sealing Ordinance only.

BTW, we actually do know when most of Joseph's sealings occurred.

[altersteve]

Well, the reason for this is not "conspiracy", but the fact that Joseph actually wasn't practicing Polygamy.

He was practicing the Sealing Ordinance only.

BTW, we actually do know when most of Joseph's sealings occurred.

This is also my position. As I said earlier, though Joseph had many women sealed to him, he only had one wife. There is a difference.

[Kevin Christensen]

SNIP The Bible also teaches how a person behaves is good evidence regarding claims to divine inspiration.

Matthew 7:15-17

15. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

(bold added by me)

This is, of course, an important passage regarding false prophets, but "Ye shall know them by their fruits" may not, in personal practice, be the same thing as "ye shall know them as soon as you hear anything that you find personally distasteful." The Bible also includes at least 70 or so arguments put forth by those who rejected true prophets. Those arguments include all sorts of rightious indignation and disapproval that has not lost its edge to the present day. The trick, I think, is to figure out what really characterizes good fruit.

This sort of thing, for instance.

http://www.fairlds.o...hettestsfv5.pdf

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited January 20, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[cinepro]

This is also my position. As I said earlier, though Joseph had many women sealed to him, he only had one wife. There is a difference.

Be careful which hill you choose to make a stand on.

Edited January 19, 2012 by cinepro

[ExAntiMormon]

No serious scholar disputes or denies the fact that Joseph Smith was involved with polygamy. Not even the Church disputes it. The few that do, if there are any, are on the fringes. It is not mainstream thinking. Those that believe otherwise are profoundly mistaken. It is an uncomfortable reality, but if it helps, I still believe Joseph was a true prophet.

Actually, the serious scholars believe he "likely" was, but they are only basing that on the mass number of "third party" accounts (i.e. the women who claimed they were intimate with Joseph), thus they assume they can't all be lying. Thus, it's not a 'fact' at all.

As we should now be understanding what has become known as the "Cain Phenomena", it is not an uncommon thing for mass numbers of women to claim sexual affairs with someone famous, with no actual evidence of it.

The actual history only seems to support that he was practicing the "sealing ordinance", not actual polygamy.

Understand, it's always possible he did take advantage of someone, thus not totally honest, thus fallible. But, it has always been an assumption that Joseph practiced polygamy, due to the claims about it. There however is no first or second hand accounts of it actually being done.

[altersteve]

There is ample evidence. Read Brian Hales or Greg Smith for starters.

If there is "ample evidence" of Joseph having sexual relations with women other than Emma, then why is there no evidence of Joseph making these other women pregnant?

[altersteve]

Be careful which hill you choose to make a stand on.

?

[ExAntiMormon]

?

He's stating that if evidence does come out supporting that Joseph was intimate with some of his sealings, then that would do harm to your judgment in this.

This is why I leave an "out" for myself, in saying that it "could" be possible Joseph was intimate with some, and thus wasn't honest, and thus was fallible.

But, I once left the Church over this issue and some others, so I'm confident that the facts indicate that Joseph didn't practice polygamy. It's possible he may have made a mistake and crossed a line, but even then that's still not Polygamy.

[Nevo]

If there is "ample evidence" of Joseph having sexual relations with women other than Emma, then why is there no evidence of Joseph making these other women pregnant?

There is. See, for example, Brian C. Hales, "The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?," Mormon Historical Studies 9, no. 1 (2008): 42-57, and Don Bradley, "Mormon Polygamy Before Nauvoo? The Relationship of Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger," in The Persistence of Polygamy: Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormon Polygamy, ed. Newell G. Bringhurst and Craig L. Foster (John Whitmer Books, 2010), 14-58.

[cinepro]

As we should now be understanding what has become known as the "Cain Phenomena", it is not an uncommon thing for mass numbers of women to claim sexual affairs with someone famous, with no actual evidence of it.

CFR that anyone has referred to a situation of "numbers of women" claiming to have sexual affairs with someone famous as the "Cain Phenomena".

But if you're saying that it's just as likely that Cain did what those women said he did as it is that Joseph Smith did what those women said he did, I would agree with you.

[Sky]

Actually, the serious scholars believe he "likely" was, but they are only basing that on the mass number of "third party" accounts (i.e. the women who claimed they were intimate with Joseph), thus they assume they can't all be lying. Thus, it's not a 'fact' at all.

As we should now be understanding what has become known as the "Cain Phenomena", it is not an uncommon thing for mass numbers of women to claim sexual affairs with someone famous, with no actual evidence of it.

The actual history only seems to support that he was practicing the "sealing ordinance", not actual polygamy.

Understand, it's always possible he did take advantage of someone, thus not totally honest, thus fallible. But, it has always been an assumption that Joseph practiced polygamy, due to the claims about it. There however is no first or second hand accounts of it actually being done.

From what I understand, the practice of plural marriage was revealed to Joseph as early as 1831, but he kept it private from the general membership of the Church for a considerable period of time. But to make the claim that Joseph had nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy and that it actually originated with Brigham strikes me as pure revisionist nonsense. Here is what I found from the LDS newsroom and FAIR Wiki websites, respectively.

[Brade]

This sadly is a problem with anti-mormons. They are so invested in their criticisms of the Church, that it's the final truth of things, that no matter what we say to them, they will not understand. Someone's who's invested in a strong judgment, especially an intimate one, they will not change their minds unless they choose to see the value of putting away that judgment to find out what is really true.

Hold on. Is that a fair assertion to make? If it is, would it be fair to say the same thing about mormons? If not, why not?

[Jaybear]

The actual history only seems to support that he was practicing the "sealing ordinance", not actual polygamy.

Sealed as in sealed to each other as husband and wife for all time and eternity?