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

[LDSToronto]

Have you let go of your belief in God upon the same logic. (I'm not trying to entrap or condemn, just wanting to get a grasp at where you are at.)

It's something I've given a lot of thought to, and could probably flip-flop around on like a dying fish for hours. Prior to joining the church I did not believe in God, though I did find value in religious tradition (I have some affinity to Catholicism having grown up amongst many French-Canadians). What attracted me to the LDS Church was the notion that Joseph had seen God and could describe him. I believed in the god Joseph saw.

Now, with that god out of the picture, I find that am not so inclined to believe in any notion of a Judeo-Christian-Islamic god, but at the same time, have not completely let go of the notion, either.

It's complicated.

H.

[Senator]

It's complicated.

Indeed!

Thanks for the reply.

[Storm Rider]

The Church claims:

1. To be the only true and living church upon the Earth

2. The Book of Mormon was given to Joseph upon metal plates

3. The Book of Abraham was translated from Egyptian papyri

4. That Joseph was visited by two personages of flesh and bone, God and Jesus Christ

5. That an angel visited Joseph on multiple occasions

6. That prophets speak on behalf of God for the entire church

....and many more things. Even the most casual digging into these claims will reveal that there are reasons to doubt them. If these fundamental claims can't be shown to be completely true, I don't see why I should ignore that evidence and continue giving my life to a Church that can be shown to be less than it claims to be.

H.

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?

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 19 January 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

The expectation of honesty and transparency is an artificial one. Christ did not embrace transparency when it was not deemed in the gospel's best interest. Then there is also the issue that sometimes people are flawed and we are not perfect autonomons who automatically reflect the doctrine in what we do, we sometimes reflect our own inherent weaknesses as we carry out the Lord's will.

Could you give an example of what you mean by Christ not embracing truth and transparency?

I think it is deception or misrepresenting by the church AFTER the events took place that is what bothers a lot of people.

On the run this AM..... There are a number of times when Christ was specific as to who to tell things to and who "not" to tell things to after the fact.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

But how did this refute the truth claim of the book of mormon? And at the end of the day, this is what is important. Many people leave but sometimes for all the wrong reasons. I can see leaving the lds church if one no longer believes in the book of mormon. That there belief is determined by absolute proof that it is a fraud. But that hasn't happened yet. What we do have are other critics' interpretations of how it came into being. But whether or not one feels comfortable with the temple ceremony is not a good reason to leave.

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

[Hestia]

Reminder of Board Guidelines:

Things not to do:

Personal attacks. You may dispute a member's opinion, but you may not label them for having that opinion.

Attempting to provoke people.

Due to the question in the OP it is reasonable to get some responses that seem like "Why I Left the Church" threads. However, the OP is asking why someone would leave over historical issues so we are getting some responses to that question. I'd like to keep this open a while longer so let's be careful to address the points without insults.

[Glenn101]

There are certain things about the restored gospel that will send many people away when they get to know it. And others will stay. William Law and Brigham Young are two examples. Both had very negative reactions when first introduced to the idea.

Brigham is reported by Utah historian, Ken Verdoia to have said "I will accept this principle. And it's the first time in my life that I desire the grave. I wish I were dead rather than have to do this."

Wiliam law left the church. Brigham did not.

I think that Paul hit the proverbial nail on the head in I Corinthians 13:12 when he said "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

When looking at history, we are looking "through a glass darkly". It still all boils down to the simple question, as one other poster put it, "Is it true?" "Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God?" "Was he acting at God's behest?" Those answers have not changed for me over the years, (not as many as LeSellers), but still more than a few. I will not deny that there was a time I wanted those answers to change, to be wrong. But it was I that needed to change, because the truth does not.

Glenn

[Kevin Christensen]

(bold added by me)

Fair enough, I certainly don't disagree. Of course it all depends on how exactly distateful a persons actions are. I dare say if I heard someone was claiming God told him to kill hobos and bury them in his basement. This one distateful action would be enough to cause serious doubt in my mind that he really was being guided by God.

Best,

Uncertain

The way I see it, the fact that some grapes or figs have fallen off the vine or tree and gone bad, if someone dropped a grape and squashed it, or if a grape has been gnawed by birds or bugs doesn't make a grape any less a grape, or the vine that produced the grape any less a true vine. And if I find good grapes on the vine or figs on the tree, those good grapes and figs remain good fruit regardless. The same analogy works with figs. A perfect thorn is still not a grape. A beautiful thistle is still a thistle, not a fig.

According to Kuhn, paradigm choice always involves deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved, and which paradigm is better." "More significant" and "better" are both valuations. Perspective, selection, and standards of comparison are inescapable, and also, obvious when you stop and think seriously.

Paradigms are defined by standard examples from which a person decides to generalize about the whole. "I don't like this look of this grape," or "The taste offends me," or "the claims make about by or about his grape offend me," or this "grape didn't taste like I expected," or "who can deny that this grape is sour," or "look at the repellent mess this grape makes," or "I can't make chocolate milk from this grape, and I'm a chocoholic," or "No one told me all the facts about all of the individual grapes," or "I know someone who was poisoned by a grape," or "that grape turns my stomach," are all honest reactions. But, from where I stand, they involve the wrong questions, the wrong sampling, the wrong criteria of judgement.

I know how to identify a grape vine, and I know how to find the good fruit on the vine.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited January 23, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[divinenature]

I remember that I once compared lds history books published by Desseret to history books published in the USSR. However, I don't think that the lds church is responsible for this but the publishers and what they are willing to publish and to members about what they are willing to write about. Desseret for example did have Rough Stone Rolling on their shelves and other books that may interpret history differently and the church did not demand that such books be taken off the shelves. What I think needs to happen is that academic lds members need to write good books on church history and demand that desseret publish them if they are intellectually worthy to be published.

I'm not sure how one can 'demand' that a publishing company publish their book...

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.

More to the point of the thread. I do not think that the history in and of itself is the singular reason anyone leaves the church. It is what those historical issues mean to them in relation to their faith and the doctrines and practices of the church. That is my take on it anyway.

[california boy]

And what is transparency? I don't know if churches teach their history at all to their membership. They teach doctrine. How many average catholics know their history? Or protestants of various shades of belief? Not many. And certainly these histories contain a lot of imperfection. And most churches believe that their church is of god. Maybe for some strange reason you expect more from the lds religion, maybe weekly history lessons on church history as at BYU.

I actually agree with your position, almost. I only expect more from the Mormon church if it is the true church of Christ. It is probably as good of explanation as to why I am not a member of organized religion.

I guess if I was to really believe and follow in a church of Christ, then I would have to beleive that it was indeed His church run by Him. I would have to believe that the prophet was indeed a prophet. Not in title only but one that spoke REGULARLY with Christ. If Christ and holy messengers regularly visited Joseph Smith in his life time, then I would expect the church of Christ to have that same kind of direct communication with Christ. That church does not exist on the earth. Decisions in the Mormon church and indeed all churches are made by men discussing issues and then making a statement. No one really knows what God wants them to do. They just FEEL they know what God wants them to do. Feelings can be wrong. And if it is just feelings, then why belong to any church organization?

That said, do believe that the Mormon church is a great church to belong to. Many of its teachings including some that are unique to the Mormon church are more in line with the FEELINGS I have about Christ. I don't discourage anyone who wants to follow the teachings of the church.

[stemelbow]

I have never understood the philosophy of why someone would leave the Church over historical issues.

In response to the OP, as an LDS believer, I'd say I don't know if there is any more reasonable reason to leave the Church. Once the historical issues become hard to resolve its much easier to question the basis for faith--or spiritual experience. Once there is reason to doubt the spiritual its much easier to accept that the church is not what it claims to be. That makes far more sense to me then other reasons for leaving--like being lazy, or not wanting to follow commandments and such.

[Deborah]

Once the historical issues become hard to resolve its much easier to question the basis for faith--or spiritual experience. Once there is reason to doubt the spiritual its much easier to accept that the church is not what it claims to be.

I guess this is where we differ. How can the spiritual not be what it is? How do you then let something as subject to interpretation and bias as history override the other? I suppose I've seen too much of how what is written as opposed to what I have actually heard (ie the media interpretation of what someone said as opposed to what I actually heard the person say) being twisted. Therefore the spirit is the only thing one can depend on.

[stemelbow]

I guess this is where we differ. How can the spiritual not be what it is? How do you then let something as subject to interpretation and bias as history override the other?

its an interesting question, but all things considered there is something quite subjective, it seems to me, in the interpretation of spiritual experience as well. I don't think either the spiritual or the historical are fool-proof enterprises. In the end, for me, the spiritual experience of my life far outwieghs the conclusions often drawn, though reasonable, of historical data by those who find reason to leave the Church. I merely explain how it seems reasonable for some people to leave for historical reasons. I don't blame them at all. I'll leave such judgment to God.

I suppose I've seen too much of how what is written as opposed to what I have actually heard (ie the media interpretation of what someone said as opposed to what I actually heard the person say) being twisted. Therefore the spirit is the only thing one can depend on.

Different people conclude different things when claiming to rely on the Spirit. While I find reliance on the Spirit a very useful thing in my life, I also realize my own ability to interpret and comprehend may lead me astray. That's important to note, because the historical can easily lead people astray too.

[KevinG]

Have you ever had a temple recommend interview?

H.

You mean the one where I voluntarily make an appointment to voluntarily discuss what I feel should be voluntarily confessed to the Bishop (who takes my word at face value) for the purposes of receiving counsel and voluntarily arranging my affairs so I can voluntaritly attend the Temple when I feel I am worthy to do so?

[KevinG]

I should have given odds on how many posts would skip the OP and list the reasons they left the Church. Although I have to say how pleasing it is a good number of people didn't go there right away.

[ExAntiMormon]

That's a good point Kevin.

Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

[sjdawg]

For me it was a belief that if Joseph Smith and other church leaders were truly involved in some of the things that history told me they were involved with then I couldn't believe that the Holy Ghost could reside with them and thus they couldn't receive revelation. If they weren't worthy of revelation they the Church was man-made and not inspired. If the church wasn't inspired then it was a waste of a lot of time that could be spent elsewhere.

It is a little more complicated than that but that is the extremely short version.

I sort of understand why one would think history is irrelevant but I certainly don't agree with that.

Edited January 20, 2012 by sjdawg

[Cobalt-70]

The Church claims:

1. To be the only true and living church upon the Earth

2. The Book of Mormon was given to Joseph upon metal plates

3. The Book of Abraham was translated from Egyptian papyri

4. That Joseph was visited by two personages of flesh and bone, God and Jesus Christ

5. That an angel visited Joseph on multiple occasions

6. That prophets speak on behalf of God for the entire church

....and many more things. Even the most casual digging into these claims will reveal that there are reasons to doubt them. If these fundamental claims can't be shown to be completely true, I don't see why I should ignore that evidence and continue giving my life to a Church that can be shown to be less than it claims to be.

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.

[Jeff K.]

LDSToronto, on 20 January 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

The Church claims:

1. To be the only true and living church upon the Earth

2. The Book of Mormon was given to Joseph upon metal plates

3. The Book of Abraham was translated from Egyptian papyri

4. That Joseph was visited by two personages of flesh and bone, God and Jesus Christ

5. That an angel visited Joseph on multiple occasions

6. That prophets speak on behalf of God for the entire church

....and many more things. Even the most casual digging into these claims will reveal that there are reasons to doubt them. If these fundamental claims can't be shown to be completely true, I don't see why I should ignore that evidence and continue giving my life to a Church that can be shown to be less than it claims to be.

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.

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.

[Jeff K.]

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

[Sky]

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.

You have a very liberal way of defining what it is to be a Mormon, which doesn’t work for me because using your parameters, virtually anybody could classify themselves as a Mormon regardless of their level of belief and commitment to the LDS Church. Your method also causes confusion as the term “Mormon” (according to the AP) is only properly applied to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and not breakaway groups that practice polygamy or opposed to the Church in some other way.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Sky

[Lightbearer]

I have never understood the philosophy of why someone would leave the Church over historical issues.

Neither have I, because for one thing it depends on who is telling the history. Do I believe some rabid Anti-Mormon scum or some faithless intellectual that depends on the testimony of traitors or liars for their history or do they believe the official Church history. I stand on fall with the Church because that is where my confidence is, not in cynical critics who's only purpose for existence is to sneer and to point with mocking fingers to try to undermine the faith of those who are trying to partake of the love of God. Edited January 21, 2012 by Lightbearer

[Cobalt-70]

You have a very liberal way of defining what it is to be a Mormon, which doesn’t work for me because using your parameters, virtually anybody could classify themselves as a Mormon regardless of their level of belief and commitment to the LDS Church. Your method also causes confusion as the term “Mormon” (according to the AP) is only properly applied to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and not breakaway groups that practice polygamy or opposed to the Church in some other way.

It was intended to be a very minimal definition of Mormon faith. It is the very minimum requirement that I think a Mormon faith would have to have. Some people who meet the definition, however, would not identify themselves as Mormons. Some of them might be primarily pagans or evangelicals, for example, or Unitarian Universalists who have somehow incorporated Joseph Smith into their worldview.

Clearly the Associated Press Styleguide is either wrong or out of date, because the Associated Press itself uses the term "Mormon fundamentalists" in countless news articles. A broader usage of the term "Mormon" is pervasive within the journalistic and academic communities, despite the LDS Church's brief campaign to claim sole ownership to the term a decade ago.

[Jeff K.]

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.

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

Edited January 21, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Sky]

It was intended to be a very minimal definition of Mormon faith. It is the very minimum requirement that I think a Mormon faith would have to have. Some people who meet the definition, however, would not identify themselves as Mormons. Some of them might be primarily pagans or evangelicals, for example, or Unitarian Universalists who have somehow incorporated Joseph Smith into their worldview.

Clearly the Associated Press Styleguide is either wrong or out of date, because the Associated Press itself uses the term "Mormon fundamentalists" in countless news articles. A broader usage of the term "Mormon" is pervasive within the journalistic and academic communities, despite the LDS Church's brief campaign to claim sole ownership to the term a decade ago.

A Mormon is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – pure and simple. That is a commonly understood and permanent definition. I guess I just find it odd how certain people are so eager to identify themselves as a Mormon while rejecting most or all of the doctrines of the Church. It speaks to the power that Mormon theology holds over people, whether they believe it or not. They want it both ways. It’s like it’s become some sort of ethnicity for them or something.