Shaken Faith Syndrome, 2Nd Edition

[ERayR]

Of Course I do...But at the same time I'm very confident that I've chosen correctly. I've bet my "Eternal Salvation" that I'm correct. I do feel ,based on the evidence that I've taken into account, that the church is not what it claims to be...but not with standing...I also understand how others looking at the same information may conclude otherwise. Some chose belief inspite of the information, other interperate it in such a way as to accomodate faith while still other like my self find faith unsustainable becasue of how we understand the the information.

May I ask you the same question? Have you ever considered the possibility that you've erred in your choice?

Yup.

[ERayR]

Belief isn’t a decision it’s a reaction to evidence…likewise non-belief is also a reaction to evidence or lack thereof…the preponderance of evidence (I feel) supports my decision to leave the church…it was based on what I understand to be real…the logical choice and for me the choice with the most difficult consequences. Deciding to leave the church is not the easy way out…but it was easier to leave and live authentically than fake belief in a church I no longer believed was what it claimed to be?

The path forward for all however is to have mutual respect for all paths....which is something I try very hard to do...so Yes I respect those in the church who wish to maintain belief

I disagree. Belief is a choice. One chooses how they react. Hence Joshua's admonition to "Choose Ye this day whom you will serve . . ." (Joshua 24:15)

[CV75]

^{While the book (both editions) comes a little too late to salvage my faith in Mormonism…I know that there will be those that are just now being exposed to Mormon difficulties who will find this book as a Godsend. When I was first exposed to these difficulties in Mormonism I looked for such a resource and found nothing. Instead, I turned to trusted leaders and even met with General Authorities but even they couldn’t provide satisfactory answers.While I see your book being especially helpful to those just entering a faith crisis…what may be even more helpful to those having their faith tested would be for the church to be more forthcoming in the manner in which they teach church truth claims. Perhaps…just maybe…if I had been inoculated throughout my life time in the church…I might have avoided my own faith crisis…but then that would mean that I’d still be Mormon. And while I certainly respect those that can maintain belief and thus their faith in Mormonism…for me…it was just less mentally painful to be out of the church rather than remain in. I guess at some point along this process…one has to choose personal happiness…which ever side of the fence that takes you to}

I think "inoculation" (I'm asuming it is s reference to advertising or PR) as a preemptive tactic is a horrible concept on many levels.

1. Bearing testimony is not a tactic.

2. Testimony is not preemptive but guided by the Spirit in the moment it is needed.

3. Proclaiming the gospel is not oriented toward destroying an enemy but saving both friends and enemies.

4. Advertising and PR are not the same as proclaiming the Gospel, and faith is not built by advertising and PR.

5. Authentic faith is placed too squarely on the shoulders of its possesor to be manipulated by others--the enemies of faith do not attack one's faith but leverage one's doubt and fear.

5. To be influenced by inoculation, one has to be very passive and susceptible to manipulation, which are not compatible with faith.

[Calm]

I think "inoculation" (I'm asuming it is s reference to advertising or PR) as a preemptive tactic is a horrible concept on many levels.

Inoculation in this context is usually used to refer to a teaching of a concept or historical event at least enough so there is an awareness of it by those who are faithful believers, not to advertising or PR. Thus the first exposure to a controversy is encountered in a positive environment rather than the negative one that would be experienced if one were first to come across something from critics. Edited May 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[Johnnie Cake]

I disagree. Belief is a choice. One chooses how they react. Hence Joshua's admonition to "Choose Ye this day whom you will serve . . ." (Joshua 24:15)

I appreciate what you are saying...but at the core of that choice was some evidence to build your belief upon...otherwise your merely building your faith/belief on false hopes. I can choose to believe the sky is red till the cows come home...but because that belief isn't built on some underlying reality...my faith is waisted

Inoculation in this context is usually used to refer to a teaching of a concept or historical event at least enough so there is an awareness of it by those who are faithful believers, not to advertising or PR. Thus the first exposure to a controversy is encountered in a positive environment rather than the negative one that would be experienced if one were first to come across something from critics.

Exactly

[ERayR]

I appreciate what you are saying...but at the core of that choice was some evidence to build your belief upon...otherwise your merely building your faith/belief on false hopes. I can choose to believe the sky is red till the cows come home...but because that belief isn't built on some underlying reality...my faith is waisted

Exactly

Not a valid comparison, There is firsthand observable evidence for sky color. For issues with church history, Book of Mormon historiography, etc. you have to choose which source of information you want to believe as you can not observe for yourself. To say it is not a choice is to attempt to absolve oneself from responsibility for ones own actions,

Of course if you choose to deny your own eyes there again it is still a choice.

Edited May 15, 2013 by ERayR

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

"Shaken Faith 2: Stirred, not Shaken"

Too late?

Do you speak in jest,, if not what gas changed that true look cannot change. Edited May 15, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Johnnie Cake]

Not a valid comparison, There is firsthand observable evidence for sky color. For issues with church history, Book of Mormon historiography, etc. you have to choose which source of information you want to believe as you can not observe for yourself. To say it is not a choice is to attempt to absolve oneself from responsibility for ones own actions,

Of course if you choose to deny your own eyes there again it is still a choice.

Well I was attempting to cut you some slack and be kind.....but if you wish to insist that your faith is not based on evidence but mere hope and a wish...well then...be my guest.

Perhaps that is why I'm not in the church any longer since my faith was built on a foundation of perceived evidence. And when that evidence disappeared or was reinterpreted in other ways based on new understanding...it simply melted away and was replaced with doubt, skepticism and new understanding...so my faith was always built on evidence and when that evidence disappeared so did my belief and faith

[mfbukowski]

I appreciate what you are saying...but at the core of that choice was some evidence to build your belief upon...otherwise your merely building your faith/belief on false hopes. I can choose to believe the sky is red till the cows come home...but because that belief isn't built on some underlying reality...my faith is waisted

All the evidence in the world cannot prove that Jesus is the Christ and God's son and our redeemer.

Seeking verifiable evidence for religious matters is barking up the wrong tree.

[volgadon]

Look at Pa Pa's pic, the sky can be 'red' just as easily as it can be 'blue.'

[mfbukowski]

Look at Pa Pa's pic, the sky can be 'red' just as easily as it can be 'blue.'

And definitions are subject to interpretation.

Clearly you are wrong - that sky is purple!

[Palerider]

All the evidence in the world cannot prove that Jesus is the Christ and God's son and our redeemer.

Seeking verifiable evidence for religious matters is barking up the wrong tree.

Even Heavenly Father doesn't expect faith totally absent of any empirical evidence. I don't recall Thomas being directly chastized for not believing until he could personally touch the Savior's hands and side. John recounts that the reason he writes as an actual witness of the events is so that we might believe.

I have stated on this site a number of times that when any one of you can verifiably take me to the City of Zarahemla, I'll be happy to pay your way for a visit to Jerusalem if you like. To paraphrase the scripture: Jerusalem I know and Bethlehem I know, but Zarahemla who are you?

Plus we have the evidence in the Savior's teachings themselves through which we recieve testimony and the gift of faith.

What if when I read the teachings of Joseph Smith I receive no such testimony? Heavenly Father freely gave me the testimony of His Son, would he not do the same for Joseph?

Edited May 15, 2013 by Palerider

[volgadon]

To be fair, I also know Troy, Giza, and Baalbek.

[Johnnie Cake]

All the evidence in the world cannot prove that Jesus is the Christ and God's son and our redeemer.

Seeking verifiable evidence for religious matters is barking up the wrong tree.

While I understand that faith is essential to religion ... If not evidence and fact..what exactly is that leap of faith leapt from? I've hesitated to bring up Thomas Edison but perhaps it's time ... He said and I couldn't agree more that "faith as well intentioned as it might be must be built on facts. For faith built on fiction is a damnable false hope"

Makes perfect sense to me...

[oremites]

I've hesitated to bring up Thomas Edison but perhaps it's time ... He said and I couldn't agree more that "faith as well intentioned as it might be must be built on facts. For faith built on fiction is a damnable false hope"

Makes perfect sense to me...

I'm not sure why you'd hesitate to bring that up. I don't know anyone that would disagree with it.

"...therefore if you have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."

I guess it comes down to what you consider facts.

[Calm]

Look at Pa Pa's pic, the sky can be 'red' just as easily as it can be 'blue.'

No one seems to be remembering this either:

"Red Sky at morning, sailor's warning,

Red Sky at night, sailor's delight"

[CV75]

Inoculation in this context is usually used to refer to a teaching of a concept or historical event at least enough so there is an awareness of it by those who are faithful believers, not to advertising or PR. Thus the first exposure to a controversy is encountered in a positive environment rather than the negative one that would be experienced if one were first to come across something from critics.

I can appreciate improvements in the curriculum, which I address in the last paragraph. Even so, I still see inoculation as a tactic with the inherent pitfalls I described above. The Gospel message and the use of the keys to proclaim it are not tactical in nature, any more than love is tactical.

Also, while God does not instigate controversy and contention, He knows there will be every kind of opposition against Him, and so He asserts Himself in the most indisputable way possible for those with ears to hear and eyes to see. It is the Gospel of Peace, not of Preemptive Attack or Counterattack.

I think human history (Church history being a subset of that), like any other human discipline, pales in comparison to the Gospel aim, message and method, and to how His children are to be converted and healed. That Spirit presses and strives against every obstacle and distraction, and begins before the faithful believers encounter controversy (because by definition a faithful believer has received the truth already).

This is why I maintain that not being of proactive against controversy cannot impinge on God’s power. I see the Church’s improvements in handling its history in accordance with the latest disciplinary and technological standards as a function of using what God has helped mankind attain to make the most of its stewardship, just as it does in agricultural, educational, public relations and many other areas of “outreach.” Naturally a person’s exposure to any one of these blessings would give him pause when coming across something from critics.

[Palerider]

To be fair, I also know Troy, Giza, and Baalbek.

[mfbukowski]

Even Heavenly Father doesn't expect faith totally absent of any empirical evidence. I don't recall Thomas being directly chastized for not believing until he could personally touch the Savior's hands and side. John recounts that the reason he writes as an actual witness of the events is so that we might believe.

I have stated on this site a number of times that when any one of you can verifiably take me to the City of Zarahemla, I'll be happy to pay your way for a visit to Jerusalem if you like. To paraphrase the scripture: Jerusalem I know and Bethlehem I know, but Zarahemla who are you?

Plus we have the evidence in the Savior's teachings themselves through which we recieve testimony and the gift of faith.

What if when I read the teachings of Joseph Smith I receive no such testimony? Heavenly Father freely gave me the testimony of His Son, would he not do the same for Joseph?

John 20

²⁴But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

²⁵The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

²⁶And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

²⁷Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

²⁸And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

²⁹Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Luke 17

²⁰ And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

²¹ Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Would you like a dozen or so more quotes?

Religion is about changing our personal lives and attitudes- you will not become the best human you can be because of someone else's archaeological discovery

Do really think the Bible is worthless because we evolved or there was no flood? That Shakespeare is worthless because there was no Juliette?

Edited May 15, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

No one seems to be remembering this either:

"Red Sky at morning, sailor's warning,

Red Sky at night, sailor's delight"

Hey- I do! I regularly drive my kids nuts by saying it!

[mfbukowski]

To be fair, I also know Troy, Giza, and Baalbek.

Hey- me too! I didn't know you knew those guys!

I always felt sorry for Baalbek- what a crazy name, hey?

[mfbukowski]

While I understand that faith is essential to religion ... If not evidence and fact..what exactly is that leap of faith leapt from? I've hesitated to bring up Thomas Edison but perhaps it's time ... He said and I couldn't agree more that "faith as well intentioned as it might be must be built on facts. For faith built on fiction is a damnable false hope"

Makes perfect sense to me...

He was a genius as an inventor but obviously had no understanding of philosophy whatsoever.

But I have written volumes on this forum about these topics and really should be spending my time on other things. I wish you well in your search.

[ERayR]

Well I was attempting to cut you some slack and be kind.....but if you wish to insist that your faith is not based on evidence but mere hope and a wish...well then...be my guest.

You are not paying attention but only attempting to score points. Nowhere did I say that I based my faith nor asked you to base your faith on "mere hope and a wish". Read again. This time for comprehension. What I said is that it is a choice. You made the statement that belief wasn't a decision, I said that it was a decision. It is a decision which information you choose to accept and which you choose to reject. So please refrain from misrepresenting what I said. Thank you.

Perhaps that is why I'm not in the church any longer since my faith was built on a foundation of perceived evidence. And when that evidence disappeared or was reinterpreted in other ways based on new understanding...it simply melted away and was replaced with doubt, skepticism and new understanding...so my faith was always built on evidence and when that evidence disappeared so did my belief and faith

I agree that is probably the reason your not in the church but would disagree that the evidence disappeared. I do agree that it is probably that you chose to reinterpret it to align with other information that you chose to accept. What we can and obviously do disagree on is the validity of that information.

[mfbukowski]

From my blog:

Is religious experience the same as objectively verifiable scientific experience? Of course not!

The view that I would endorse says that religious experience is subjective, not objective. The difference is that many people can simultaneously verify an objective statement, whereas a subjective statement can only be "verified" or stated by the individual making the statement.

All of us can verify the boiling point of water, but only I can verify that I have a pain in my toe, or how I feel about abortion, yet in all these cases we commonly might call such beliefs "true" or "false".

What "truth" is can be complicated, obviously but I think, in a general way a pragmatic view of truth works best, and there is a reason for that.

In fact, in all cases "what works best" is a pretty good definition of truth generally speaking. A moral principle can be said to be true because it "works best for humanity" just as a scientific principle can be said to be true if it works better than the other hypotheses.

Planes fly better with wings than without, aspirin works better for a headache than rat poison. But if you want to kill rats, aspirin probably doesn't work at all.

All of these are objectively verifiable. We can line up 500 rats and everyone can observe how well they live with rat poison in their systems as opposed to aspirin. Everyone can see which works "better".

Note that in each case, we are finding what works better for a specific purpose. Hammers are not very good for taking small nuts off of small bolts.

The test for religious views are what works best to give us what we go to religion to accomplish. Most people turn to religion to seek solace, to give their lives meaning, to find their place in the universe, to decide if God exists, or if one should worship a higher power.

But those answers- what gives one's life meaning and peace for example, cannot be objectively verified. I cannot see what gives YOU peace. That is what testimony is for. That does not mean that statements about what gives one peace cannot be "true"- just that only you can know what beliefs work best for you.

Essentially what we do as Mormons and what happens in Alma 32 is that we ask others to "taste this and see if you like it". As it says in that scripture, if we try it and if we like it, and it becomes "sweet" to us, we will follow that path.

Obviously we know there are many reasons people do not follow up on the path, but it is our belief that though people may find something that works for them, we believe that our path works better than any other if they would just follow it and taste its results.

So I don't know if you call that "relativism' or not. I call it "Pragmatism". I think that the truth is found in what works best for its given purpose.

[ERayR]

I'm not sure why you'd hesitate to bring that up. I don't know anyone that would disagree with it.

"...therefore if you have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."

I guess it comes down to what you consider facts.

Yup Choice.