Apostasy

[BCSpace]

Please elaborate. How does science support your testimony?

I'll let BC Space provide his own answer, but as for me, when I behold the wonderful complexity of life, I see the hand of God. When I scramble to the top of a mountain ridge and look out on the world spread at my feet, I see the artistry of God. When I hug my family members, I feel the eternal love of God.

When people argue about whether the earth is ten thousand or ten billion years old, I think of the scripture where God tells us that time is only to man, but that all things are present to him. Relativity teaches us that time can be manipulated, so what is the issue with "time" being one eternal round?

And on a much more mundane level, as I have studied and read the Book of Mormon, I not only feel the power of it's principles, but am utterly, totally convinced by the evidence contained within it's pages that it is of ancient and Middle Eastern origin. And once convinced of that, everything else falls into place. Keystone indeed!

It's as good an answer as any.

I disagree. . . . I've always believed it is possible to gain . . . a testimony from the logical side.

I've edited your response down to the essentials of what I found interesting.

What, precisely, does it mean to get a testimony? Certainly you can gain knowledge from the study of science. But knowledge is not a testimony. Are you saying that the Lord will witness truth to you through the study of science? If so, then I agree that science can lead to gaining or strengthening testimony.

Yes. And knowledge of one thing can lead to a testimony of other things not known. See also John 7:17.

Science is an enemy to God. We should not accept all science. Science is mans wisdom! Gods ways are not mans ways and mans ways are not Gods ways. Science is Gentile thinking that tries to explain away things like homosexuality, Indians in America, etc...

Other than a global flood (where there is much scientific evidence against), for which I excuse the LDS Church for using standard christian doctrine in lieu of actual direct revelation on the subject, I can't think of a single case where science is in conflict with LDS doctrine including homosexuality and American Indians and their DNA etc.

Science does not seek to "explain away" but rather come to a knowledge of the truth, just like the Gospel does on the spiritual side. What is true is that there are those who try to use science to "explain away", but those certainly aren't scientists or they are not acting in that capacity. In science, no evidence for is not evidence against and once you realize that, you see that the scientific method is a perfectly safe way find the truth

Edited February 14, 2013 by BCSpace

[Sethbag]

Either the enormous force of Joseph Smith's personal charisma was enough to summon every ounce of belief from his followers despite the enormous personal sacrifice such belief entailed, or he somehow was able to envelop them (all of them, repeatedly!!!) in communal delusions. (Or both). Yeah. You're right. Those options make perfect sense! Thanks for clearing that up!

Will the last person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints please turn out the lights?

Um, wasn't apostasy something Joseph had to deal with right from day 1 all the way until his death? How many men were ordained Apostles who later apostatized? How many of the original 3 and 8 witnesses? How many members of the First Presidency?

You act as if Joseph's charisma (or some other, perhaps supernatural magnetism) was able to hold it all together against all odds. Well, no, that's not the case, is it?

From a fairly large population of people in both the United States as well other places where Mormons proselyted (ie: England, etc.), Mormonism was able to convert a very small minority to faith in Joseph Smith and his church. From that pool of converts, Joseph Smith was able to retain the loyalty and faith of some percentage (half? I don't know exactly, but half would seem to be an upper bound, at least at a casual glance at early Mormon history) of this relatively small number (small relative to the population at large) over the long term.

So far, none of this looks like something that couldn't have happened if Joseph Smith were not in fact a "true" prophet in the sense Mormons say he was. In fact, very similar feats have been performed, throughout history, by any number of religious entrepeneurs. At the very least, one need not appeal to the supernatural in order to explain it. It is consistent with normal human events.

[Sethbag]

What, no acknowledgment of your nomination for "Best Laugh of the Day"? I'm hurt!

Thank you. I would also like to thank the Academy, and most especially to my wife and daughter and their undying support, without which none of this would have been possible. What? Turn off that music, I'm not done!

[Helen47]

I think the Book of Abraham questions is the main issue that triggered my leaving the LDS church. I remember reading avidly Nibley's articles in the IE. But then I can accross Dialogue and found the papers by Baer etc and that was my undoing. I could easy find pictures of Isis and Maat in the local state library. I was always puzzled how in fac 3 the scene of Isis and Anubis were bringing Hor in before Osiris was a Prince, slave and waiter???? Was the waiter upset about something Abraham said? Looked like he was being restrained? can't you see how comical Smith's interpretation was. Of course noone was there to question his interpretation.

[Sethbag]

By the way, when I say that apostasy is underrated in the church, I'm not just being ironic. I mean it, literally. Let me explain.

Amongst the various possible motivations for apostasy, one of them (which applies in my case, for instance) is that one becomes convinced that the church isn't actually true as a matter of fact. One would think that a church which values truth and the value of searching for truth would support the decision of one who concludes that the church isn't actually true to leave it.

In fact we see the contrary, with such a decision seen as illegitimate, suspected of being a ruse or ploy to cover up some hidden wrongdoing, and so forth. In other words, a church whose official stance is that truth, and searching for truth, are highly prized and treasured, is revealed only to be interested in "truth" that it agrees with as such, or truth as it sees it, and in efforts to find truth that result in the same conclusions as the church. Well that's not much of a virtue, is it? Do not all the other churches likewise?

Edited February 14, 2013 by Sethbag

[mfbukowski]

This made me smile. It reminded my of the TED talk On Being Wrong. People readily admit that others believe plenty of things that are wrong. But ask them what they believe is wrong and they come up at a loss for words.

"Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said 'one can't believe impossible things.'

'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." -- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

I wish I had thought it up. I am not sure where it originated. I read it in an interview with Sterling McMurrin done by Blake Ostler, but I don't think it was his originally.

[Maidservant]

Either the enormous force of Joseph Smith's personal charisma was enough to summon every ounce of belief from his followers despite the enormous personal sacrifice such belief entailed, or he somehow was able to envelop them (all of them, repeatedly!!!) in communal delusions. (Or both). Yeah. You're right. Those options make perfect sense! Thanks for clearing that up!

Will the last person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints please turn out the lights?

Heh . . . I'm going to remember this.

[Kenngo1969]

Um, wasn't apostasy something Joseph had to deal with right from day 1 all the way until his death? How many men were ordained Apostles who later apostatized? ...

Yes, but if Joseph Smith's personal traits were the main reason for his success in attracting followers who did not apostatize (often at great personal cost), shouldn't the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have died with him?

You act as if Joseph's charisma (or some other, perhaps supernatural magnetism) was able to hold it all together against all odds.

Actually, my point is that if his personal charisma and ability to envelop followers into his alleged delusions had been his only methods for attracting followers, the Church of Jesus Christ should have died with him.

From a fairly large population of people in both the United States as well other places where Mormons proselyted (ie: England, etc.), Mormonism was able to convert a very small minority to faith in Joseph Smith and his church. From that pool of converts, Joseph Smith was able to retain the loyalty and faith of some percentage (half? I don't know exactly, but half would seem to be an upper bound, at least at a casual glance at early Mormon history) of this relatively small number (small relative to the population at large) over the long term.

It's one thing for a follower to say, "Yeah, he has interesting ideas." It's quite another for someone to say, "I believe God inspired him," and still another for a follower to say, "Not only do I think he has good ideas; not only do I believe God inspired him; not only am I willing to contribute enormous personal resources; I, and those I love, would die for this cause if necessary."

... In fact, very similar feats have been performed, throughout history, by any number of religious entrepeneurs. At the very least, one need not appeal to the supernatural in order to explain it. It is consistent with normal human events.

I disagree. Interest in one's ideas is one thing; willingness to contribute considerable time, money, and other resources is another; and willingness to contribute one's life, if necessary (to an enterprise that continues to this day, unlike many which have begun with great fanfare and have temporarily attracted great interest and a great following, only to die with the death of the central figure) is still another.

[Kenngo1969]

Heh . . . I'm going to remember this.

I can come up with them ... once in awhile. (Give God the praise; I'm a sinner! )

[longview]

How kindly disrespectful of you! You aren't new but you haven't participated much and so I will give you this one free pass. I'm not a member any longer because I no longer believe many of the truth claims of the LDS. I am not an anti-Mormon by any means and I hope that I have done a good job of demonstrating this.

Your "Humble yourself and fall in line" attitude is unwelcome. Get to know me better before you start spitting this slop.

My comment does sound disrespectful. I apologize for that. I admit that I feel annoyed at the many posters that seem to vacillate on what I consider to be foundational truths. I have been debating with my "apostate" brother about the Trinity (which I consider to be schizophrenic) contrasted with LDS view of the Godhead (which I firmly believe in).

[Walden]

Science is an enemy to God. We should not accept all science. Science is mans wisdom! Gods ways are not mans ways and mans ways are not Gods ways. Science is Gentile thinking that tries to explain away things like homosexuality, Indians in America, etc...

Wow, what a complete misunderstanding of science.

Science does not attempt in anyway to "explain away things like homosexuality, Indians in America, etc." as you seem to presume. Science is concerned with identifying the natural world using using natural tools, instead of the supernatural tools that religion uses. Thus, science does not try to "explain away things like homosexuality," but rather, define it in a manner that does not call on gods, spirits, the supernatural, etc. Science is not concerned with passing judgement, it is concerned with obtaining truth utilizing tools such as observation, experimentation, analysis, etc.

Funny how believers will cling to only those scientific findings, laws or theories that might bolster their argument for their supernatural belief (for instance, the misguided arguments surrounding thermodynamics and it's relation to creationism), but consider any science that contradicts their beliefs to be hogwash.

[omni]

One of the things I learned is you can not in no way gain a testimony through looking through the lens of science (I hope Kerry you will someday realize this), although it is very possible to lose a testimony looking only through a scientific perspective.

What is very very very (I know, redundancy alert) needed is the spiritual path in gaining a testimony, after all we are in search of spiritual enlightenment. I can not emphasize enough the importance of prayer, scripture study, and service (with a large emphasis on prayer). I love to study and learn and it has become my hobby in life. I will never (again) let the things I learn cross contaminate the sacred or spiritual things, no matter how contrary they might appear. I fully accept the idea of men living before Adam, a non global flood, etc things that might otherwise be contrary to some.

I understand the need for a spiritual conversion, even going so far as to making it the basis of your testimony. However, there should also be a logical and scientific aspect that supports the spiritual part. For example, I understand the need for faith and don't expect to see a sign in some ancient ruins saying "welcome to Zarahemla". On the same token I also don't expect loads of scientific evidence to completely contradict the BoM.

Same thing with the BoA, just because you should have a spiritual confirmation that it's true, doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to find any scientific evidence to support it.

[Calm]

Funny how believers will cling to only those scientific findings, laws or theories that might bolster their argument for their supernatural belief (for instance, the misguided arguments surrounding thermodynamics and it's relation to creationism), but consider any science that contradicts their beliefs to be hogwash.

Some believers....not all.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I think any one dimensional approach to belief yields a weak foundation and easily toppled structure. Strength comes from embracing all forms of learning available to us.

True, must use all the sense's.

[Damien the Leper]

My comment does sound disrespectful. I apologize for that. I admit that I feel annoyed at the many posters that seem to vacillate on what I consider to be foundational truths. I have been debating with my "apostate" brother about the Trinity (which I consider to be schizophrenic) contrasted with LDS view of the Godhead (which I firmly believe in).

Your approach and beliefs aren't easily shared. It would be better for you to remember that even in Mormonism, there isn't a standard.

[Garden Girl]

My point of opening this thread is on apostasy. I have personally gone through such a stage in my life (a very long time ago). That journey has become the biggest regret in my life because of missing so much.

Hello Anijen...

I know just what you mean... I didn't actually apostasize, I simply became inactive. I had married non-LDS and as often happens eventually slipped into inactivity. And was inactive for just over 30 years. During these years I retained glimpses of my testimony and would receive promptings from time to time about returning to Church. Finally, upon the sudden heart attack death of my mom in my presence, (and holding her as I saw the light go out of her eyes, knowing she has passed through the veil) I was whipped around and literally ran back to the Church. I began at square one again and through study, prayer, fasting became stronger than ever... and here I am today.

So, in my prayers I often tell Heavenly Father how sorry I am for the wasted years, but of course there's nothing I can do about them... but I can and do live each day, walking the path that I had strayed from all those years ago.

GG

[Sethbag]

Yes, but if Joseph Smith's personal traits were the main reason for his success in attracting followers who did not apostatize (often at great personal cost), shouldn't the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have died with him?

Were they? Do you know this? Is it your contention that of the of the relatively low percentage of people who were ever converted to the church that didn't then apostatize at some point, the only reason they did this was because of Joseph Smith's personal charisma? I invite you to establish that this was the case, but it's almost rhetorical to ask you to do it, because neither one of us likely expects that you can.

Actually, my point is that if his personal charisma and ability to envelop followers into his alleged delusions had been his only methods for attracting followers, the Church of Jesus Christ should have died with him.

Who says those were the only things? The church was a lot of things. Joseph Smith was a big one of those things. There were a lot of other members, other apostles, various missionaries who converted people, etc. I don't think you get to play hypotheticals with me that assume that Joseph Smith's own personal qualities account for all of the non-apostatizing early membership.

It's one thing for a follower to say, "Yeah, he has interesting ideas." It's quite another for someone to say, "I believe God inspired him,"

You say this, but history has shown that people are willing almost at the drop of a hat to claim that someone or other has been inspired by God, has the truth from God, has been called of God to tell the rest of us what to do, and so forth.

and still another for a follower to say, "Not only do I think he has good ideas; not only do I believe God inspired him; not only am I willing to contribute enormous personal resources; I, and those I love, would die for this cause if necessary."

Again, this is not a phenomenon that is unique to early Mormonism. Early Mormonism is a drop in the bucket of all the churches that have, at one time or another, been able to convert large numbers of people who gave all their money to the church, obeyed the leaders absolutely, and so forth.

In fact I just read about some cult in Russia right now where a guy claims to be Jesus Christ returned, and he's got thousands of people moving up to the mountains with him, putting all their money together in some kind of commune.

If the fact that people converted to the LDS church and put a lot (or all) into it and suffered for it is proof that the church is true, then there are dozens of true churches out there, including this Messiah dude over in Russia right now.

I disagree. Interest in one's ideas is one thing; willingness to contribute considerable time, money, and other resources is another; and willingness to contribute one's life, if necessary (to an enterprise that continues to this day, unlike many which have begun with great fanfare and have temporarily attracted great interest and a great following, only to die with the death of the central figure) is still another.

Let's see. Seventh Day Adventists. Jehovah's Witnesses. For that matter, the Roman Catholic Church. Southern Baptists. The Methodists. The Lutherans. The Moonies haven't fallen apart yet, and Rev. Moon is dead now. I'd have to think the Hare Krishna leader is long gone, yet they persist. The bottom line is that this standard of evidence for teh LDS church's being true or not is completely meaningless. It simply doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Avatar4321]

Hit up Mormonthink and do some reading.

Of course I'm pretty sure you're familiar with a lot of this stuff. You're just trying to "gotcha" me.

Ok, though. The church is obviously not true because it's pretty obvious Joseph Smith just made things up, it's not at all clear that any of his more substantive claims, such as to have had hands laid upon him by resurrected or "translated" beings to confer authority on him from the Creator of the Universe, involve actual occurrences or are in fact later inventions designed to bolster his influence over his followers. Supposedly ancient scripture allegedly translated by Joseph Smith appears to have been of modern invention, etc.

Btw, I realize that it's not obvious to you that the church isn't true. Just like it's not obvious to JWs that their church isn't true either. It's pretty obvious that Lord Xenu was a figment of L. Ron Hubbard's imagination, but try telling that to Tom Cruise. There's a reason for this pattern, and it's actually quite interesting.

Funny, I think it's pretty obvious Joseph Smith didn't make things up. The sheer probability of him guessing correctly on so many things alone is too unlikely to rationally conclude anything else.

BTW your point about priesthood authority is pretty weak considering it was mentioned very early before he had any followers. Not really sure how you think inventing priesthood authority gains influence over anyone. No power or influence ought to be maintained by virtue of the Priesthood alone. That doesn't sound like the doctrine of someone who is focused on influencing people by virtue of the priesthood.

[Walden]

Funny, I think it's pretty obvious Joseph Smith didn't make things up. The sheer probability of him guessing correctly on so many things alone is too unlikely to rationally conclude anything else.

BTW your point about priesthood authority is pretty weak considering it was mentioned very early before he had any followers. Not really sure how you think inventing priesthood authority gains influence over anyone. No power or influence ought to be maintained by virtue of the Priesthood alone. That doesn't sound like the doctrine of someone who is focused on influencing people by virtue of the priesthood.

If you find it "pretty obvious Joseph Smith didn't make things up. The sheer probability of him guessing correctly on so many things alone is too unlikely to rationally conclude anything elsedo what do you attribute".....to what do you attribute the large amount of alleged inconsistencies, errors or falsehoods contained in the Book of Mormon (those things that have been hashed out ad nauseum on these and other LDS boards, such as BOM accounts of animals that did not exist in the New World during BOM times, metals that did not exist, lingusitic & chronological inconsitencies, etc, etc.)???

If you correlate the things that Joseph "got right" and consider the probability as evidence of the truthfulness of the BoM, how does one reconcile the numerous things that he "got wrong?"

[wayfarer]

I think any one dimensional approach to belief yields a weak foundation and easily toppled structure. Strength comes from embracing all forms of learning available to us.

what did I do? what was I thinking? I gave calmoriah a rep point for this...

seriously -- the scriptures teach that there are gifts differing -- we all come from different points, and each point to the truth defines a slightly different instance of the 'path' or 'way' that leads to enlightenment in Christ. I like what Eliza Snow wrote: "He marks the Path and leads the Way, and every point defines to light and life and endless day, where God's full presence shines."

[wayfarer]

Hit up Mormonthink and do some reading.

Of course I'm pretty sure you're familiar with a lot of this stuff. You're just trying to "gotcha" me.

Ok, though. The church is obviously not true because it's pretty obvious Joseph Smith just made things up, it's not at all clear that any of his more substantive claims, such as to have had hands laid upon him by resurrected or "translated" beings to confer authority on him from the Creator of the Universe, involve actual occurrences or are in fact later inventions designed to bolster his influence over his followers. Supposedly ancient scripture allegedly translated by Joseph Smith appears to have been of modern invention, etc.

Btw, I realize that it's not obvious to you that the church isn't true. Just like it's not obvious to JWs that their church isn't true either. It's pretty obvious that Lord Xenu was a figment of L. Ron Hubbard's imagination, but try telling that to Tom Cruise. There's a reason for this pattern, and it's actually quite interesting.

I really have a serious issue with the proclamation, "It's obvious the church isn't true".

what does it mean for a 'church' to be 'true' or 'not true'. I could look at a photograph, and say, is that photograph a true and accurate representation of the subject, and perhaps it is or perhaps it isn't. If I make a claim and say that the photograph is a picture of bob, when it really is a picture of 'fred', then we might be justified in saying 'it is not true'.

But the church is not a photograph. It is meant to point to something, and that something is 'Christ'. Does the church accurately point to Christ? Can I come closer to Christ by reading the Church's scripture (the book of mormon, etc.)? Is my daily life closer to Christ when I live in harmony with what the Church teaches?

Something within us all points to Christ. Something within Joseph Smith pointed very well to Christ. And that something, which I choose to call God, revealed to Joseph a powerful scripture that leads people to Christ by speaking to that spark of Christ within us all. We can choose to look at Joseph Smith's methods for getting that divine spark across. we can pretend that he translated some ancient records and swear on our testimonies that he did. But any literal claim or lack thereof doesn't change whether or not the product of his prophetic experience points to Christ or not.

And the proof of that claim is entirely in the person experience one has. We have a word for that personal experience: "Testimony".

Edited February 15, 2013 by wayfarer

[Anijen]

I understand the need for a spiritual conversion, even going so far as to making it the basis of your testimony. However, there should also be a logical and scientific aspect that supports the spiritual part. For example, I understand the need for faith and don't expect to see a sign in some ancient ruins saying "welcome to Zarahemla". On the same token I also don't expect loads of scientific evidence to completely contradict the BoM.

Same thing with the BoA, just because you should have a spiritual confirmation that it's true, doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to find any scientific evidence to support it.

Omni I agree I hope people realize I also wrote; "looking only through a scientific perspective"

[Sethbag]

Wayfarer, I acknowledge that there are many ways we can approach the question of "is the church true?" In the most trivial sense, the church is true in that it does exist, and is a church, is therefore a true church. If you wish to define a church's truth status as "does it point people toward Christ?" then knock yourself out, though under that definition so are hundreds or thousands of other Christian churches.

When I say it, however, I am assuming a usage that most faithful Mormons would identify with. To definite it more closely, but hopefully succinctly enough, let's say it goes like this: the church is "true" if, and only if, there is an exalted homo sapiens named Elohim, who lives in a place that really exists, called the Celestial Kingdom, who is married to a number greater than or equal to one of exalted homo sapiens females, and who desires there to be an organization in existence on Earth to represent his interests, and to act as a conduit for him to get out the ideas and concepts which he believes it is necessary for us to know. This exalted homo sapiens appeared, in the flesh (and bone, but not blood) to Joseph Smith back in the early 1800s, and instructed Joseph Smith that he was to be his (Elohim's) viceroy, and tell the rest of us what he (Elohim) wants us to do, and that Joseph Smith was to set up and organize the organization that Elohim wants to have in existence, and be its leader. And that, finally, that organization exists today in the form of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Salt Lake City.

There's a lot more to it, but that's too much of a mouthful as it is. I assume that in most conversations with Mormons I just have to ask whether the church is true or not, and they pretty much know what I meant by it. It isn't supposed to be a trick question.

[Sethbag]

Omni, why wouldn't you expect to find a city with a sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla" in some language, or the contemporary and cultural equivelant? If Zarahemla really existed, then it existed somewhere, and there's a pretty good chance that, wherever that somewhere is, there's still some evidence of its past hosting of such a city.

I mean, this isn't anything unusual. There are ruins and archeological sites containing remnants and fragments and whatnot from ancient civilizations and cities, all over the world. What is so unusual about Zarahemla that should make it so that we'd assume its remains were forever undiscoverable?

[rodheadlee]

Hit up Mormonthink and do some reading.

Of course I'm pretty sure you're familiar with a lot of this stuff. You're just trying to "gotcha" me.

Ok, though. The church is obviously not true because it's pretty obvious Joseph Smith just made things up, it's not at all clear that any of his more substantive claims, such as to have had hands laid upon him by resurrected or "translated" beings to confer authority on him from the Creator of the Universe, involve actual occurrences or are in fact later inventions designed to bolster his influence over his followers. Supposedly ancient scripture allegedly translated by Joseph Smith appears to have been of modern invention, etc.

Btw, I realize that it's not obvious to you that the church isn't true. Just like it's not obvious to JWs that their church isn't true either. It's pretty obvious that Lord Xenu was a figment of L. Ron Hubbard's imagination, but try telling that to Tom Cruise. There's a reason for this pattern, and it's actually quite interesting.

Well the problem is my spiritual witness wasn't just a burning bosom, it was a booming voice in the sky. God, Heavenly Father spoke to me about getting sealed in His Son's Church. So no matter what a bunch of websites teach, I have to go with the teachings of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.