What (If Anything) Would Convince You That The Church Is Not What It Claims To Be?

[citizen28]

I think it's true that we're all affected by confirmation bias to some degree, and I don't think many here would claim to "know" without equivocation that all Mormon truth claims are valid or invalid (that's the point of faith right?), so I'm wondering if there is anything (hypothetically) that would tip you toward unbelief. A few possibilities I can think of might involve:

1. A personal experience of some kind

2. A perfectly substantiated historical fact

or

3. Anything else you can think of

I am personally an unbeliever, but I still appreciate the believing perspective, and I'm sincerely interested in any thoughtful response.

[TAO]

Only a personal experience, and it would have to be so strong as to overcome all my positive ones.

My positive ones have been a really strong influence in my life, and I trust them fully. So it's really unlikely if not close to impossible for this to happen to me, I guess.

It'd probably be more likely for me to fall from the church for being too lazy or from misusing my time or whatnot... =/. I'm glad I know those are my weaknesses though, so I can work on fixing them =D.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think it's true that we're all affected by confirmation bias to some degree, and I don't think many here would claim to "know" without equivocation that all Mormon truth claims are valid or invalid (that's the point of faith right?), so I'm wondering if there is anything (hypothetically) that would tip you toward unbelief. A few possibilities I can think of might involve:

1. A personal experience of some kind

2. A perfectly substantiated historical fact

3. Anything else you can think of

I am personally an unbeliever, but I still appreciate the believing perspective, and I'm sincerely interested in any thoughtful response.

The question needs to be formulated along a spectrum of belief(s) which are held for a wide variety of reasons and with varying degrees of assurance. That is, one may have in mind mathematical or scientific "certainties" which are based on replication of empirical testing or upon internal, axiomatic coherence (as for geometry). Or one may have spiritual beliefs of various sorts, based on a variety of sources.

One may find belief in a civil religion most practical, and the associated ideology may be quite satisfying and patriotic, but this may entail hard core adherence to anything from the Comintern to the United States of America -- and who is to say which is most correct or provides the greatest good for the greatest number, or which is most utilitarian (people go to war over such beliefs).

Few of us have the Mosaic experience with a burning bush on a mountain top, and for most of us confirmation bias is no more frequent than disconfirmation bias. Some on this Board opt for probability and plausibility as a measure of truth, others prefer an empirical test such as described in Alma 32. Some simply pray about it, in accord with Moroni 10:5. Your choice, if you even want to bother. However, since there are no "perfectly substantiated historical facts," and few people capable of even evaluating such a claim, we are left to our own devices. Good luck.

I have always preferred to take an intellectual approach to such questions, and have never asked God whether this or that claim is true. On one occasion, however, God approached me via his Holy Spirit and took me by surprise -- He wanted to give me a message about what I should be doing and what He expected of me. I took that unexpected message to heart.

[Jeff K.]

Only the spirit can confirm or deny what is claimed in faith.

[selek1]

What would force me over to the edge into non-belief?

I suspect that just one more irrelevant, what-if, push-poll, here-is-my-exit-story-type thread might just do it.

Or not, as the case may be.

Edited March 2, 2012 by selek1

[Storm Rider]

I have to join with Selek on this. I reject this type of question and really don't think they are appropriate. One of the fundamental teachings of the LDS Church is that God talks to his children today just as he spoke to them in ancient days. This teaching will never change. How about you explain to us what would tip you from your unbelief to belief?

[thesometimesaint]

Established authenticated letters from all presidencies from Joseph Smith Jr to the present day First Presidency that it is all made up.

[LeSellers]

Lessee:

I'm standing outside on a bright, cloudless day. I see my shadow before me (meaning my back is uncharacteristically to the [spiritual] light), and suddenly the shadow disappears because a brighter light, now in front of me has overpowered that of the sun.

Is this possible? I suppose so, but likely? No.

To convince me that the Gospel of Jesus Christ, His Priesthood, and Church were not true, there'd have to be something far greater. Because, just as you cannot turn off the sun, not even at night, you cannot show me what I know to be true is not true—only that, perhaps, there are greater truths unrevealed at this point. But, given the IX Article of Faith, that still falls within the scope of the Restoration.

Lehi

[Deborah]

so I'm wondering if there is anything (hypothetically) that would tip you toward unbelief.

Having been in the church many years I've seen all kinds of reasons people leave the church. What it comes down to is that no matter how strong your testimony if you do not guard it you can be led away to unbelief. I've learned to not take my testimony for granted and to never say "I never...." So I would like to say based on my past experience I would not fall into unbelief but I've seen too many people I thought the same thing about fall away for what I think are the dumbest of reasons.

[Darth_Bill]

I don't know if it is appropriate or not. I used to be in the "Nothing short of a Whatever" group until something happens in your life and the "What?" question pops in your head and it just doesn't make sense anymore. And I've learned that "dumbest of reasons" sometimes doesn't apply either. People leave for a lot of reasons, and sometimes for not what they state. I question doctrine, which evidently no one has ever seen before. I must be some closet porn addict instead. I must want to drink...etc.

And I'm still working out things. I can always come back as I haven't exited.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Darth_Bill

[Saints Alive]

It would take one of several things to make me question the church:

1. Christ / God / some other deity personally and physically visits me and specifically tells me that The church is unequivocally false and unredeemable

2. The Spirit contradicts itself and bears testimony (stronger that it already has) that the church is false

3. The first presidency comes out and state that everything has been made up

Short of those three things nothing would convince me unequivocally that the church is anything less than what it claims to be.

BTW: I can see some introspective value in these types of questions, It sort of lets you evaluate your testimony but it should be kept in perspective.

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

3. I'm am so convinced Joseph Smith was inspired to restore the ancient religion that the only thing that could make me turn is by doubting he was 'divinely' inspired, or perhaps doubting a modern leader, by which I would still think of myself as a Mormon in a lighter sense because I would still follow the teachings. I would still think of them as legitimate. Or I could see me doubting a local leader, I don't always have much faith in them, though if it turned me away, it would probably be only an excuse for laziness in some personal desire to not go to church or to avoid callings, but that would only be an excuse. I could become a Catholic or some other organized religion with solid self understanding and an assumed divinely inspired leader..

Edited March 2, 2012 by Ray Callis Hatton III

[Brade]

My overal assessment of the best available historical evidence has convinced me that many of the Church's claims are unlikely to be true. I would believe those claims despite the evidence, however, if I also sufficiently trusted that spiritual experience were a valid means of apprehending the truth of those sorts of claims. However, I don't sufficiently trust spiritual experience as a means of truth-getting and so I'm left with how I am compelled to assess the best available historical evidence.

[JDave]

My overal assessment of the best available historical evidence has convinced me that many of the Church's claims are unlikely to be true. I would believe those claims despite the evidence, however, if I also sufficiently trusted that spiritual experience were a valid means of apprehending the truth of those sorts of claims. However, I don't sufficiently trust spiritual experience as a means of truth-getting and so I'm left with how I am compelled to assess the best available historical evidence.

What sorts of claims? Claims that Jesus atoned for our sins, or claims that some historical incident in Joseph Smith's life happened as the Church claims?

[citizen28]

Only a personal experience, and it would have to be so strong as to overcome all my positive ones.

My positive ones have been a really strong influence in my life, and I trust them fully. So it's really unlikely if not close to impossible for this to happen to me, I guess.

It'd probably be more likely for me to fall from the church for being too lazy or from misusing my time or whatnot... =/. I'm glad I know those are my weaknesses though, so I can work on fixing them =D.

What kind of personal experience are you talking about? I had many of the positive feelings that which I interpreted as the Holy Ghost, but it all started to unravel when I began to question my interpretation of these experiences, especially when I realized I had no objective way to distinguish between my own feelings, the feelings of the Holy Ghost, and/or false revelation. Many of us grew up with the idea that the Holy Ghost communicated with us through our feelings. Do you think it's actually more than that?

[citizen28]

The question needs to be formulated along a spectrum of belief(s) which are held for a wide variety of reasons and with varying degrees of assurance. That is, one may have in mind mathematical or scientific "certainties" which are based on replication of empirical testing or upon internal, axiomatic coherence (as for geometry). Or one may have spiritual beliefs of various sorts, based on a variety of sources.

One may find belief in a civil religion most practical, and the associated ideology may be quite satisfying and patriotic, but this may entail hard core adherence to anything from the Comintern to the United States of America -- and who is to say which is most correct or provides the greatest good for the greatest number, or which is most utilitarian (people go to war over such beliefs).

Few of us have the Mosaic experience with a burning bush on a mountain top, and for most of us confirmation bias is no more frequent than disconfirmation bias. Some on this Board opt for probability and plausibility as a measure of truth, others prefer an empirical test such as described in Alma 32. Some simply pray about it, in accord with Moroni 10:5. Your choice, if you even want to bother. However, since there are no "perfectly substantiated historical facts," and few people capable of even evaluating such a claim, we are left to our own devices. Good luck.

I have always preferred to take an intellectual approach to such questions, and have never asked God whether this or that claim is true. On one occasion, however, God approached me via his Holy Spirit and took me by surprise -- He wanted to give me a message about what I should be doing and what He expected of me. I took that unexpected message to heart.

I still think the empirical test from Alma 32 is a very compelling argument for belief. You can't really argue with someone who says they believe and follow church teachings because it brings them happiness. I think just about anyone inside or outside the church could agree with 2 Nephi 2:25.

You said that although you generally take an intellectual approach, it was an experience you had with the Holt Spirit that pushed you over. Do you think you would still believe if you hadn't had that experience?

[Jeff K.]

I do not think the empirical or logic is convincing where faith is concerned since by its definition, faith cannot be empirical.

[cinepro]

I think it's true that we're all affected by confirmation bias to some degree, and I don't think many here would claim to "know" without equivocation that all Mormon truth claims are valid or invalid (that's the point of faith right?), so I'm wondering if there is anything (hypothetically) that would tip you toward unbelief. A few possibilities I can think of might involve:

1. A personal experience of some kind

2. A perfectly substantiated historical fact

or

3. Anything else you can think of

I am personally an unbeliever, but I still appreciate the believing perspective, and I'm sincerely interested in any thoughtful response.

I don't look at "belief/unbelief" as an either/or scenario. So I can't answer the original question.

But if you asked what it would take to get me to stop going to Church, I would have to say the only thing that comes to mind is if the Church started practicing polygamy again.

Other than that, I'm pretty flexible.

[citizen28]

I have to join with Selek on this. I reject this type of question and really don't think they are appropriate. One of the fundamental teachings of the LDS Church is that God talks to his children today just as he spoke to them in ancient days. This teaching will never change. How about you explain to us what would tip you from your unbelief to belief?

That's a fair question. My disbelief is based on many things including an emotional reaction to the proposition that God grants special blessings to one very small group of people on what appears to be a highly arbitrary basis. This is compounded by the fact that many church teachings no longer make logical sense to me and what I see as damning historical facts (although I agree with Robert F. Smith that there is no such thing as "perfectly substantiated historical facts" - just very high probabilities based on imperfect evidence).

For me to believe would probably require me to trust personal experience over reproducable empirical data, and perhaps more importantly the desire to believe Mormon truth claims. I much prefer a universalist God who heals all the causes of human unhappiness in the afterlife (though has limited or no power in our current world, except maybe to comfort people), to the God of the standard Mormon narrative.

[citizen28]

Established authenticated letters from all presidencies from Joseph Smith Jr to the present day First Presidency that it is all made up.

Perhaps this is something we could all agree with. However, would such a letter from the current First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve suffice for you?

[citizen28]

Only the spirit can confirm or deny what is claimed in faith.

I do not think the empirical or logic is convincing where faith is concerned since by its definition, faith cannot be empirical.

What do you interpret as the spirit?

[citizen28]

Lessee:

I'm standing outside on a bright, cloudless day. I see my shadow before me (meaning my back is uncharacteristically to the [spiritual] light), and suddenly the shadow disappears because a brighter light, now in front of me has overpowered that of the sun.

Is this possible? I suppose so, but likely? No.

To convince me that the Gospel of Jesus Christ, His Priesthood, and Church were not true, there'd have to be something far greater. Because, just as you cannot turn off the sun, not even at night, you cannot show me what I know to be true is not true—only that, perhaps, there are greater truths unrevealed at this point. But, given the IX Article of Faith, that still falls within the scope of the Restoration.

Lehi

So would you consider yourself as someone who is past the point of faith and now has a perfect knowledge that the church is true?

[citizen28]

Having been in the church many years I've seen all kinds of reasons people leave the church. What it comes down to is that no matter how strong your testimony if you do not guard it you can be led away to unbelief. I've learned to not take my testimony for granted and to never say "I never...." So I would like to say based on my past experience I would not fall into unbelief but I've seen too many people I thought the same thing about fall away for what I think are the dumbest of reasons.

Well if you've been on this board long enough, you've probably seen just about every possible reason people have for not believing, but I agree that one must remain vigilant in sustaining belief since religious faith can be fragile if not cultivated.

[LeSellers]

So would you consider yourself as someone who is past the point of faith and now has a perfect knowledge that the church is true?

No, not yet (if ever in this life).

What I said was that what I know is so powerful that anything that would make me reject it could only be greater truth. And, as I also explained, greater truth is included (or allowed for or expected) in the Plan of Happiness, i.e., "Mormonism".

Lehi

[citizen28]

My overal assessment of the best available historical evidence has convinced me that many of the Church's claims are unlikely to be true. I would believe those claims despite the evidence, however, if I also sufficiently trusted that spiritual experience were a valid means of apprehending the truth of those sorts of claims. However, I don't sufficiently trust spiritual experience as a means of truth-getting and so I'm left with how I am compelled to assess the best available historical evidence.

I think my worldview is very much in line with yours. The historical issues didn't bother me much until I began questioning my interpretation of my spiritual experiences.