Has Anyone Ever Been Convinced To Switch Sides?

[Craig Paxton]

.

I might be considered one who has changed sides. But that needs explanation.

No, I have not left the church, nor do I ever plan or even want to leave it. I however, have had a considerable shift in my understanding in relation to the nature of the faith and religion I was raised with.

A paradigm shift would be an apt discription, and I do attribute much of it to my time spent here as well as other places outside the corridor of church correlated materials.

Yeah I like that..."A Paradigm Shift". While my conclusion regarding Mormon truth claims had already been formed prior to my first post here....I used this board to test those conclusions...to subject them to examination and see if they would/could stand up to "Believers" scrutiny. Some of my prior conclusions fell by the way side...others have been reinforced...while still others, I've been able to view from differnt prespectives and have gained a better appreciation of the lengths apologists will go to support their perceived truths...but my overall worldview regarding Mormon truth claims remain intact

Edited March 23, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Mark Beesley]

I'm a non-believer of Mormon truth claims...but I respect those of you who maintain the ability to do so. I've observed since first discovering this board, that the same posters (on both sides of any question) keep posting the same old rehashed arguments over and over and over again....to the same old retreaded threads. (and I'm not counting myself out of any guilt) But I am curious, have any of these arguments ever convinced someone from the oposite camp to switch sides and either become a believer or a non-believer...or is posting here just a place to waist our time?

My participation on discussion boards caused me to do a lot of research. In particular, when I would get into discussions with the moderator on another anti-Mormonism board, rather than giving knee-jerk responses, I would take the time to research what his position was. What at first blush might have appeared to be valid argument on his part invariably lost credibility when considered in light of the complete gospel. More than once, as I pondered certain questions, the Spirit witnessed the truth to me. Of course, in sharing my insight with the moderator in subsequent discussions, there was never any movement towards agreement on his part. Conversely, I can say that say that at times I did agree with him and changed my opinion. An example?

I used to believe and argue that churches that paid their clergy were somehow inferior because of that. I used the language of the Book of Mormon regarding priestcrafts to justify such an opinion. I no longer hold that opinion because of my discussions with this gentleman, and my subsequent research.

If anything, I would say that to the extent I have used these discussion boards as am impetus for critical thinking and searching for understanding, I have benefited and such use has not been a waste of time. On the other hand, to the extent that I have tried to show someone that their own way of looking at things is faulty, such use has been a waste of time.

[Craig Paxton]

My participation on discussion boards caused me to do a lot of research. In particular, when I would get into discussions with the moderator on another anti-Mormonism board, rather than giving knee-jerk responses, I would take the time to research what his position was. What at first blush might have appeared to be valid argument on his part invariably lost credibility when considered in light of the complete gospel. More than once, as I pondered certain questions, the Spirit witnessed the truth to me. Of course, in sharing my insight with the moderator in subsequent discussions, there was never any movement towards agreement on his part. Conversely, I can say that say that at times I did agree with him and changed my opinion. An example?

I used to believe and argue that churches that paid their clergy were somehow inferior because of that. I used the language of the Book of Mormon regarding priestcrafts to justify such an opinion. I no longer hold that opinion because of my discussions with this gentleman, and my subsequent research.

If anything, I would say that to the extent I have used these discussion boards as am impetus for critical thinking and searching for understanding, I have benefited and such use has not been a waste of time. On the other hand, to the extent that I have tried to show someone that their own way of looking at things is faulty, such use has been a waste of time.

I couldn't agree more with your conclusion...excellent points

[Jeff K.]

In a very real sense I have had to sharpen my understanding of various different points, and articulate my faith more clearly while also seeking to understand the less esoteric aspects. But one thing I have certainly learned and accepted as a fact, most who criticize are not seeking understanding. More often than not they seek destruction and their probes or probing questions are little more than a search for a weakness to exploit. It is unfortunate because I have an excellent relationship with certain atheists and those in other religions. When we speak we compare and contrast without seeking destruction, all of us having faith in our own belief systems, all of us thinking the other is wrong, but simultaneously respecting the wonderful work we all do in our own way. We don't ask each other how the other's funds are spent, nor do we look to see the weaknesses of each other leaders and histories (as such they exist in all organizations). We see those points as irrelevant.

I love the diversity even as I hope for the unity that will one day come to these wonderful friends of mine. Have they changed my mind in our discussions? Only in my admiration of their god like qualities, their mercy, their forgiveness, their love for their fellow man. I remain a man who follows whom I see as a prophet, as they do in their beliefs.

[Craig Paxton]

In a very real sense I have had to sharpen my understanding of various different points, and articulate my faith more clearly while also seeking to understand the less esoteric aspects. But one thing I have certainly learned and accepted as a fact, most who criticize are not seeking understanding. More often than not they seek destruction and their probes or probing questions are little more than a search for a weakness to exploit. It is unfortunate because I have an excellent relationship with certain atheists and those in other religions. When we speak we compare and contrast without seeking destruction, all of us having faith in our own belief systems, all of us thinking the other is wrong, but simultaneously respecting the wonderful work we all do in our own way. We don't ask each other how the other's funds are spent, nor do we look to see the weaknesses of each other leaders and histories (as such they exist in all organizations). We see those points as irrelevant.

I love the diversity even as I hope for the unity that will one day come to these wonderful friends of mine. Have they changed my mind in our discussions? Only in my admiration of their god like qualities, their mercy, their forgiveness, their love for their fellow man. I remain a man who follows whom I see as a prophet, as they do in their beliefs.

I wonder how many of these friends are former members of the church?

But one thing I have certainly learned and accepted as a fact, most who criticize are not seeking understanding. More often than not they seek destruction and their probes or probing questions are little more than a search for a weakness to exploit

Pretty broad statement....and this certainly hasn't been my experience...I think that once people of differing opinions get past the fact that they differ on their viewpoints....and are willing to listen and attempt to understnad the position of the person who holds the differening opinion...then and only then can common understanding begin.

I don't think that this forum lends itself to this kind of discussion....at least my expereince has been that everyone is trying so hard (myself included at times) to defend their possitions that they don't take the time to listen or really care what the premise of their oposition really is. If they say black you (and I'm not reffering to YOU specifically) say white, if they say up you say down...there is little room for finding common ground...at least I haven't seen much attempt to find common ground in this forum...it seems more important to defend.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Jeff K.]

Two are former members of the church, or rather one is inactive and will never again join, the other is now a universalist.

Jeff K., on 23 March 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

But one thing I have certainly learned and accepted as a fact, most who criticize are not seeking understanding. More often than not they seek destruction and their probes or probing questions are little more than a search for a weakness to exploit

Pretty broad statement....and this certainly hasn't been my experience...I think that once people of differing opinions get past the fact that they differ on their viewpoints....and are willing to listen and attempt to understnad the position of the person who holds the differening opinion...then and only then can common understanding begin.

The broad statement is relatively accurate, even in its broadness.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm a non-believer of Mormon truth claims...but I respect those of you who maintain the ability to do so. I've observed since first discovering this board, that the same posters (on both sides of any question) keep posting the same old rehashed arguments over and over and over again....to the same old retreaded threads. (and I'm not counting myself out of any guilt) But I am curious, have any of these arguments ever convinced someone from the oposite camp to switch sides and either become a believer or a non-believer...or is posting here just a place to waist our time?

Every convert to the Church has switched sides.

[stemelbow]

But I am curious, have any of these arguments ever convinced someone from the oposite camp to switch sides and either become a believer or a non-believer...or is posting here just a place to waist our time?

Wait a second why must it be so limited? There can be plenty of reasons why people post and participate that don't ahve anything to do with being converted to one side or another. I realize if people don't want to believe they find reasons. Likewise if people want to believe they'll find reasons. Of though, people who leave complain about some LDS behaving badly, then go and behave far worse while maintaining LDS are the bad ones. It makes the complaints about the beliefs seem superficial and meaningless. mind you, i don't think all folks who leave follow this route.

[David T]

Discussions here have facilitated and nuanced some important paradigm shifts in my ways of thinking.

[Brian 2.0]

So you left the Church in favor of books, articles, and other people? Why can't you have books, articles, other people, and the Church at the same time? I wasn't aware that one needed to leave the Church in order to find books, articles, and other people.

I don't want to put words in Toronto's mouth, but I doubt he would say that he left the church in favor of books, articles, and other people. Nor do i actually think you believe that Toronoto actually means that as well... rather that in his reading of book, articles, and listening to other people he re-evaluated his beliefs based upon new information and those new beliefs placed him outside the church.

[zerinus]

I don't want to put words in Toronto's mouth, but I doubt he would say that he left the church in favor of books, articles, and other people. Nor do i actually think you believe that Toronoto actually means that as well... rather that in his reading of book, articles, and listening to other people he re-evaluated his beliefs based upon new information and those new beliefs placed him outside the church.

Well I don't think that he needs a spokesman. He appears to be perfectly capable of speaking for himself.

[LDSToronto]

So you left the Church in favor of books, articles, and other people? Why can't you have books, articles, other people, and the Church at the same time? I wasn't aware that one needed to leave the Church in order to find books, articles, and other people.

I said this: "I went elsewhere to find answers"

You then asked: "So where was that "elsewhere"? Why don't you share it with us? Others might be interested as well, you never know"

I replied: "Books and articles and other people"

To which you replied: "So you left the Church in favor of books, articles, and other people? Why can't you have books, articles, other people, and the Church at the same time? I wasn't aware one needed to leave the Church in order to find books, articles, and other people."

Let me clear things up. You asked where that "elsewhere" was, that I went to find answers. When I answered books, articles, and other people, you erroneously read that I traded the Church for the previously mentioned things. Nay, I read books, read articles, and talked to people, and received answers to questions that I had not previously received answers.

When I was in the church, I had books, articles, and other people to talk to. Obviously, I did not trade the church for books, articles, and other people.

But, then again, I'm pretty sure you knew what I was saying, and made a decision to go down this path. That's OK, zerinus, I understand.

H.

I said this: " I went elsewhere to find answers,"

You said this: "So where was that "elsewhere"? Why don't you share it with us? Others might be interested as well, you never know."

I sai

[zerinus]

I said this: "I went elsewhere to find answers"

You then asked: "So where was that "elsewhere"? Why don't you share it with us? Others might be interested as well, you never know"

I replied: "Books and articles and other people"

To which you replied: "So you left the Church in favor of books, articles, and other people? Why can't you have books, articles, other people, and the Church at the same time? I wasn't aware one needed to leave the Church in order to find books, articles, and other people."

Let me clear things up. You asked where that "elsewhere" was, that I went to find answers. When I answered books, articles, and other people, you erroneously read that I traded the Church for the previously mentioned things. Nay, I read books, read articles, and talked to people, and received answers to questions that I had not previously received answers.

When I was in the church, I had books, articles, and other people to talk to. Obviously, I did not trade the church for books, articles, and other people.

But, then again, I'm pretty sure you knew what I was saying, and made a decision to go down this path. That's OK, zerinus, I understand.

H.

I said this: " I went elsewhere to find answers,"

You said this: "So where was that "elsewhere"? Why don't you share it with us? Others might be interested as well, you never know."

I sai

Thank you. I am still curious to know what were your questions, and what were the answers.

[KevinG]

I came here to find out more about the church, in particular its history. My knowledge has been expanded but not at the cost of my testimony which comes from God not people.

I continue to post because I do want to "defend the faith" from calumny and false accusations. I have included information I learned here in lessons and discussions - in particular when a faith promoting or destroying myth is repeated in class.

My primary audience is those who come here for information on the Church and unsuspectingly run into a buzzsaw of criticism and innuendo from those who think they should be informed of all the controversies (imagined and real) before learning the basic history and doctrines of Mormonism.

[KevinG]

I think some people come here and troll because they don't have access to the Family Search library any more.

[followerofemmanuel]

I have not switched sides, however I feel like I am getting a better understanding of what "real LDS folks believe". Before coming here I found other sources of information such asmormon.org and I also found many other sources of info on line, like the movie the God Makers and info from websites that I have come to understand as being in the "anti." catagory.

I see people on this board as "being real". I am learning that things are not all as rosey and perfect in the LDS church as some people would have painted (as all other faith groups do too). I am happy to find people here from a variety of faith journey's, grappling with questions that have eternal implications. I have also really enjoyed posts from very patient and understanding LDS folks who are happy to answer questions (without being defensive and assuming there is a hidden agenda).

Blessings!

Edited March 24, 2012 by followerofemmanuel

[LDSToronto]

Thank you. I am still curious to know what were your questions, and what were the answers.

My questions were many, the answers, satisfactory. I'm not about to rehash those questions here just to be told I'm a filthy anti-Mormon who was looking for a reason to disbelieve.

H.

[Mudcat]

I'm a non-believer of Mormon truth claims...but I respect those of you who maintain the ability to do so. I've observed since first discovering this board, that the same posters (on both sides of any question) keep posting the same old rehashed arguments over and over and over again....to the same old retreaded threads. (and I'm not counting myself out of any guilt) But I am curious, have any of these arguments ever convinced someone from the oposite camp to switch sides and either become a believer or a non-believer...or is posting here just a place to waist our time?

Bold mine. Hate to be perfectionist, but your typo likely missed the spell check. Happens to me all the time. In the second syllable it's "a" before the "r" and no "e".

That said, I haven't changed sides in that I am not an EV and am LDS. However, I have changed positions in relation to what I think about LDS.

[zerinus]

My questions were many, the answers, satisfactory. I'm not about to rehash those questions here just to be told I'm a filthy anti-Mormon who was looking for a reason to disbelieve.

H.

That is a tacit admission that your questions and answers are susceptible of that kind of interpretation. But if you have confidence in yourself, your questions and answers, and the direction you have taken in your life, why should that be, or why should you be worried about that?

[Stargazer]

My questions were many, the answers, satisfactory. I'm not about to rehash those questions here just to be told I'm a filthy anti-Mormon who was looking for a reason to disbelieve.

H.

Really? Why not? :-)

[Mariner]

In my humble opinion, putting Mormon logic on display over the internet is best left to the professionals. No matter how helpful, sincere (or egregious) the faithful posters on this board may be, when it comes to letting folks see the best the LDS Church has to offer in its defense, nothing and nobody holds a candle to FAIR.

Believers here might be surprised at know how many testimonies were given that little nudge over the edge by the writings of the pros at FAIR. My guess is that LDS Toronto, like many others I know, can thank the learned folks from FAIR for significant and decisive contributions to their now-failed shelves of disbelief.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Mariner

[zerinus]

In my humble opinion, putting Mormon logic on display over the internet is best left to the professionals. No matter how helpful, sincere (or egregious) the faithful posters on this board may be, when it comes to letting folks see the best the LDS Church has to offer in its defense, nothing and nobody holds a candle to FAIR.

Believers here might be surprised at know how many testimonies were given that little nudge over the edge by the writings of the pros at FAIR. My guess is that LDS Toronto, like many others I know, can thank the learned folks from FAIR for significant and decisive contributions to their now-failed shelves of disbelief.

There are no "professionals" in Mormonism. There are only amateurs.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I converted before I encountered this particular board, but the LDS bloggernacle in general helped to assure me that there were smart, genuine, and kind people in the Church, which definitely facilitated my "switch". Organizations like the Neal A. Maxwell Institute and FAIR were very helpful in shifting my paradigm in several ways, both before and after I joined, and they continue to provide this valuable service to this day. When I dig around in old threads here, I find posts written by sincere people which have helped to clarify my ideas; they don't cause me to "switch sides", but I'm definitely a different kind of believer thanks to the influence of such members.

But of course conversion can't be isolated to just this (or any) board. There are too many environmental influences that inform one's thinking to narrow it down to just this place, as great (and as frustrating) as it can be.

After all, why didn't I convert sooner? Was it some sort of post-traumatic stress thing after the first time I heard about Mormons as a kid, when my friend's mom scared me by telling me they were a cult that thought the Egyptians were aliens? Did I not want to be associated in any way with one of the few Mormons I knew at school, who was a complete (and rather dumb) jerk?

For that matter, why did I convert? Was it because when I was about Joseph Smith's age at the First Vision, my dad and my brother and I got to take part in the open-house ceremony for an LDS Temple in Ecuador and I experienced that same numinous feeling that I always feel in the Temple to this day? Was it because a girl I had a bit of a crush on sent me a Book of Mormon in the mail? Was it because I read (and was then employed) by Mormon author Orson Scott Card? Was it because I read a bunch of Hugh Nibley and Daniel Peterson and Kevin Christensen and Richard Bushman and Teryl Givens and Richard Hopkins? Was it because I watched a bunch of Backyard Professor videos on YouTube? Was it because I fell in love with Joseph Smith's theology while reading a busted-up used collection of his sermons while perched on a footstool on the second floor of Powell's Books here in Portland?

Did I convert because I read the transcripts of the Temple ceremony online before I'd even finished the entire Book of Mormon? Did I convert because I read a bunch of exposes and stuff on Masonry? Did I convert because of all the testimonies I read of people who'd left the Church for how racist and sexist and authoritarian and oppressive and anti-scientific it was?

It was all of those reasons; it was none of those reasons.

I find more support for my membership in the Church in reading Frazer and Eliade and William Irwin Thompson and John Barrow and Freeman Dyson and Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe and John Horgan and Pamela Sargeant and Richard Dawkins and Ian Tattersall and David Hackett Fischer and Plato than I ever have in listening to someone berate me for my views on evolution by quoting McConkie's list of deadly heresies. To untangle the entire chain of reasoning for why that is so would take many long books worth of arguments written in very fine print, just as every person's chain of reasoning which they use to make sense of the world would.

When it comes down to it, you can't separate the decisions you make today from all the previous decisions you've made in your entire life. It's all connected, and everyone's personal history of connections are different. It's cumulative. If someone who wasn't me went to the Temple in Guayaquil with my family and read Smith's work over my shoulder at Powell's and had a crush on the same girl, they still wouldn't have experienced what I have, and I wouldn't have experienced what they did. They're them, I'm me. I can't use my testimony to compel belief in others; no one is going to convert just because I did, just like I didn't convert because someone else did. It's an entirely personal commitment. Yes, of course, places like this can influence one's paradigm, but is that really the reason for "switching sides"? Unanswered questions that "cause" some people to leave the Church don't bother others; arguments which were a part of the pivotal eureka moment for some people to join the Church, "causing" them to become members, aren't even a factor in another person's thinking. Everyone's an unorthodox cafeteria Mormon; we just choose different orthodoxies and side-dishes.

The way I look at it, the Church exists to bind people together into a shared Work; that work is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity. We give worth to the members of our family (Father, Son, Holy Spirit of Wisdom, the rest of the Divine Council) who have gone before to make such a thing possible. Everything else is just icing.

Edited March 24, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Xander]

In my humble opinion, putting Mormon logic on display over the internet is best left to the professionals. No matter how helpful, sincere (or egregious) the faithful posters on this board may be, when it comes to letting folks see the best the LDS Church has to offer in its defense, nothing and nobody holds a candle to FAIR.

If FAIR is the best the Church has to offer, then what does that say about Mormon logic? Some of the absolute worst apologetic arguments also come from FAIR. FAIR's recent DVD on the Book of Abraham is an absolute embarrassment piece riddled with one false assertion after another.

Why do you consider FAIR a group of "professionals"?

They're just a bunch of believers from all corners of the country who are trying to do whatever it takes to drown out criticism of the LDS corporation and provide apologetic theories to help fence-straddling Mormons stay on board. Their agenda has nothing to do with getting to the truth of anything. Their agenda has everything to do with helping the Church by persuading others that the controversies aren't really all that controversial, that the historical problems really aren't that problematic, that the falsehoods proven to come from LDS leaders are just personal opinions for which the Church should never be held accountable, that the outright falsehoods propagated by their apologists are really just innocent mistakes, that the falsehoods propagated by critics means they are liars working for Satan ("by their fruits you shall know them!") etc.

As to the topic of the thread, I do not know of anyone who was ever an avowed critic of the faith who decided to join the Church after reading apologetic arguments. I've been online ever since LDS internet apologetics hit the scene during the mid-90's and I've never even heard of such a thing happening. However, I have heard of a number of devout apologists who lost their faith after taking up the challenge to refute the critics. And unlike some of the claims by pseudonymous apologists who said they used to be anti-Mormon, the current critics and former apologists I'm thinking of usually have made their real life identity known. Paul Osborn was the most frequent visitor on the FAIR boards a few years ago and one of the most informed apologists on the Book of Abraham. I remember his posts were well over 10,000 before he decided to migrate to another forum and then abandon the Mormon faith. Mike Reed is another former FAIR writer who comes to mind. On the other forum, there are a large number of former apologists who are now critics, many of whom are professionals in academia. Two of them I know to be former bishops.

Oh, and did I mention me?

I cannot think of a single apologist who even claims to have been a critic in the past. Nor can I think of a single person who has joined the Church as an investigator after coming across the dreaded "anti" material. As missionaries we took it for granted that if the person had a book by the Tanners, then all hope was lost. I think the Church, along with FAIR, realize they'll always be on the losing side of an intellectual debate on the subject of Mormonism. This is why so much emphasis is put on the "spirit." The only people who are ever convinced of these apologetic arguments are those who begin reading them with the hope that they'll somehow show plausibility for whatever issue they are discussing. In other words, those who already begin with the "testimony" that the church is true and that any evidence to the contrary is just God testing our faith to see if we'll put the "reasoning of men" before the hand of God.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Xander

[Xander]

Unanswered questions that "cause" some people to leave the Church don't bother others

But as you just said, since you're not them, then how do you know? From my experience, it bothers plenty of people. The number of people migrating to the forbidden "other side" is quite impressive, especially when comparing them to the number going the other way. These people were just as devout and adamant in their testimony as the most loyal believers on this forum. In 2002, who would have anticipated my apostasy, or that of Paul Osborne or Mike Reed?

I think an argument can be made that FAIR's existence has produced more apostates than converts.

arguments which were a part of the pivotal eureka moment for some people to join the Church, "causing" them to become members, aren't even a factor in another person's thinking. Everyone's an unorthodox cafeteria Mormon; we just choose different orthodoxies and side-dishes.

If the Church agreed with you, then it wouldn't place such an emphasis on testimony-bearing towards others.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Xander