Can Mormons leave for legitimate reasons?

[Kenngo1969]

Kevin W. Graham Previously Posted: Actually Ke[n]ngo, I didn't even read your post. I was responding to Camoriah, sorry.

Ken Responds: But... but... It was so well and carefully crafted! I'm hurt! J/K If you don't read my posts, you're in good company: you have that in common with 99% of FAIR Boarders!

[Kevin Graham]

Hey now, I said I didn't read it, I didn't say I ignored it.

BTW, that was a fabulous post!

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm sure I understand you now. You do not believe decisions to join the Church are rational or intellectual.

No. That's not what I said. That's not what I've ever said. That's not what I believe. Your summary doesn't merely misrepresent what I've said many times on this very thread; it flatly contradicts what I've said.

(calmoriah gets it perfectly, though.)

Good grief, what a bone-crushing headline that could make for an anti-Mormon forum.

And it's precisely the kind of distorting and misrepresentating headline that I would expect to see in such a forum.

Years ago, when FARMS reprinted an old article by the metallurgist Reed Putnam in which Brother Putnam argued that the Book of Mormon plates might have been made of a gold alloy called tumbaga -- an alloy known in the pre-Columbian Americas and consistent with witness accounts of the weight of the plates -- John L. Smith's Utah Evangel featured a blaring headline to the effect "FARMS Admits Joseph Lied! Plates were Not Gold!"

[Calm]

Go to the FAIR homepage and search the two terms. This is what you get:

1) Critic: 36 hits

2) Anti-Mormon: 651 hits

Nuff said.

And that is an apologetic forum so this coincides with what I said perfectly.

I find it interesting how little I hear this term outside of apologetic forums.

I would expect in areas where apologetics are the focus...this term likely is used more

My apologetic experience occurs primarily on two message boards, both of which have had nonLDS complain about being called "anti-mormon." Many of the LDS have expressed on those boards or privately to me the conscious choice of using "critic" or a similar term instead "anti-mormon" out of consideration for others and/or a desire to be precise.

What I said before about my personal experience:

unless some ministry or someone who gets paid for doing this stuff is being talked about

Pahoran, who is probably the one on ZLMB best known for using term (due to people complaining about his usage in the past) defines the term in a precise way:

The prefix anti- simply means "against," while Mormon refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is, of course, simply false to say that someone is anti-Mormon simply by virtue of believing something else; to be an anti-Mormon, they must be actively engaged in opposing.

He certainly doesn't call all critics of things LDS 'antis'. Summary: OVerall, I see most LDS on the boards being very careful to use the term "anti-mormon" in a more limited way, if at all.

Since FARMS is not a message board, I would not be suprised that the usual state of affairs exists, but simple frequency of terms does not indicate context, including whether or not the term is being used as a noun as "critic" is or an adjective to describe a quality of a behaviour or article, and therefore one can't determine with just what you posted whether or not the usage of the term is less restricted there as you claim. It is also an academic journal so I would be less surprised if they limited their usage to a more precise form and the higher frequency of the term "Anti-mormon" is a result of actual content, not a result for a preference over the term of "critic" in the cases where it could be viewed as appropriate. Dan probably would have insight into that.

(calmoriah gets it perfectly, though.)

That's because you have me completely under your mind control.

Do you want starch in your shirts this week, O Master?

[Kenngo1969]

Kevin W. Graham Previously Posted, in Response to Daniel C. Peterson: I'm sure I understand you now. You do not believe decisions to join the Church are rational or intellectual.

Ken K. Gourdin [i realize that's not my "usual" moniker; I just thought I'd "jump on the bandwagon" with respect to using full names and middle initials, since it sounds so "distinguished" and all Of course, I'm not worthy to carry either one of you gentlemen's water bottles, but it does sound distinguished! ] Responds: Isn't the decision to join the Church a sort of "hybrid" decision, such that it involves both our feelings and our intellect? What does the Scripture say?

[wenglund]

Go to the FAIR homepage and search the two terms. This is what you get:

1) Critic: 36 hits

2) Anti-Mormon: 651 hits

Nuff said.

Go to the last two pages of this thread and do a FIND word search of just Kevin's posts. Here's the number of times he personally used the two terms:

1. Critic = 1 hit

2. Anti-Mormon = 16 hits

"Nuff said"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kevin Graham]

== No. That's not what I said. That's not what I've ever said. That's not what I believe. Your summary doesn't merely misrepresent what I've said many times on this very thread; it flatly contradicts what I've said.

Well, given your reluctance to answer very simple yes/no questions, I can't say this is entirely my fault. I've tried to take every precaution from misrepresenting you by asking very simple yes/no clarifying questions. My intent is to understand you perfectly. Bewildering as it may seem, you'd rather write paragraphs, inbetween sighing, explaining why you shouldn't have to "repeat" yourself.

Now this is what you said on the very first post:

"No decision to accept the gospel or to reject it is likely to be purely rational, uncolored by 'personal' factors."

Fine. So what does this mean? Well, it seems clear that you do not believe a decision to join the church can be "purely" rational anymore than a decision to leave it. Now you might want to highlight the difference between "rational" and "purely rational," but in the context of this discussion, which was precipitated by Beowulf's adamant claim that ex-Mormons do not leave for rational reasons based on knoweldge period, I was operating under the assumption that you and Wade both were in full support of what he said. At least, it seems, that is how he took it, and that you chastized me and not him was another indicator that you both supported him.

In the end, however, you essentially disagree with him, not me. Who woulda thunk it?

Now I tried to get you to answer the very simple question, "Can ex-Mormons leave the Church for partially intellectual reasons?" but this is like pulling teeth. If you say yes, then I don't see where we disagree. If you say no, then this means people cannot join the Church for partially intellectual reasons either.

Further, if partial intellectualism is involved in decision making, then isn't it justifiable to refer to such a decision as "intellectual"? And if so, then Beowulf's original claim is pure nonsense. If not, then why not? I've argued that, by definition, all decisions are intellectual. Do you agree? If so, then ex-Mormons claiming to make intellectual decisions cannot be faulted and Beowulf's just making a bald assertion.

This whole debate is about whether or not ex-Mormons can leave for intellectual reasons. You threw in the qualifier "purely" intellectual, which was never the argument. Thus, the original claim remains untouched and Beowulf's argument remains fallacious and inductive. Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with ex-Mormons saying they left for intellectual reasons, unless we want to criticize all LDS who talk about their own "intellectual" decisions in joining the Church.

== And it's precisely the kind of distorting and misrepresentating headline that I would expect to see in such a forum.

Which is why I'm pressing the issue, to get some explicit unambiguous clarification from you on the matter.

[wenglund]

I was operating under the assumption that you and Wade both were in full support of what he said. At least, it seems, that is how he took it, and that you chastized me and not him was another indicator that you both supported him.

In the end, however, you essentially disagree with him, not me. Who woulda thunk it?

Not exactly, and almost the exact opposite.

At least for my part, I agreed with what I understood Beowulf to have essentially said, and I disagreed with how you interpreted, or misinterpreted, him (just as I and others disagree with how you have interpreted, or misinterpreted, what Dr. Peterson has said).

Since you seem fond of looking for patterns (such as the "critic"/"anti-Mormon" pattern you noted earlier), do you see a pattern emerging here?

Just trying to help.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Beowulf]

No Kevin, they do not disagree with me. Or at least I do not disagree with them.

I am in complete agreement with what Dan Petersen and several other posters on this thread have stated. If it does not appear that way to you, it is perhaps because I have not been articulate enough.

Willful misreading of what I said, despite constant restatings of it, may also be a factor, but I will not belabor that here.

I will restate it again, in yet another way...

I have never met a person who left the Church for purely intellectual reasons, who say "it is not true, as I have discovered, from reading such-and-such a book," who never had a grudge with their bishop or some other ward member for a presumed slight, who never had trouble with a believing spouse or sibling or parent, who never had personal habits that made it difficult for him to feel comfortable alongside more puritan colleagues, who never had a disagreement with Church leaders over political issues, over social issues, over something or other.

In other words, it is always SOMETHING besides purely intellectual pursuits that leads a person away.

This is what I have been saying, what Dan has been saying, what everyone has been saying on this thread, except you. (Why can't you accept that this is a truism. That it is not mind-reading, or psychobabble, or whatever term you want to use to describe it.)

Kevin, in your case, if it ever happens to you (God forbid), it will not be because of a purely intellectual decision, it will be founded (at least partly) on rising anger at the annoying people on the FAIR boards (apparently myself) who won't let you go on ranting about this, that, or the other.

Now I have said all I am going to say. Leave me alone so that I can discuss some other thread that is more interesting (to others, if not to me).

Beowulf

[King Folly]

I have never met a person who left the Church for purely intellectual reasons, who say "it is not true, as I have discovered, from reading such-and-such a book," who never had a grudge with their bishop or some other ward member for a presumed slight, who never had trouble with a believing spouse or sibling or parent, who never had personal habits that made it difficult for him to feel comfortable alongside more puritan colleagues, who never had a disagreement with Church leaders over political issues, over social issues, over something or other.

Just because you've been saying it doesn't make it a truism.

BTW, Hello. It's nice to meet you.

--KY

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, given your reluctance to answer very simple yes/no questions, I can't say this is entirely my fault. I've tried to take every precaution from misrepresenting you by asking very simple yes/no clarifying questions. My intent is to understand you perfectly. Bewildering as it may seem, you'd rather write paragraphs, inbetween sighing, explaining why you shouldn't have to "repeat" yourself.

My point is, and has always been, that it isn't a "simple yes/no" matter. That's what I've said, that's why I've declined to answer your yes/no questions, that's why I've answered in paragraphs, and that's why I've objected to the yes/no dichotomies you've presented.

Now I tried to get you to answer the very simple question, "Can ex-Mormons leave the Church for partially intellectual reasons?" but this is like pulling teeth.

I already answered that question. I cannot answer it any more clearly than I have already answered it. I am incapable of any greater clarity than I attempted in my first, second, third, and fourth responses to that question.

[Kevin Graham]

== Not exactly, and almost the exact opposite.

Then enlighten me. Where do we disagree? This should be interesting.

== At least for my part, I agreed with what I understood Beowulf to have essentially said, and I disagreed with how you interpreted, or misinterpreted, him (just as I and others disagree with how you have interpreted, or misinterpreted, what Dr. Peterson has said).

No, what Beowulf said was clear and concise. There is no "interpretation" involved here. I gave him plenty of opportunity to change, correct or clarify himself, and he has maintained the same position all along. When someone says point blank, "knowledge" is never the reason for a particular decision made, it is perfectly clear that this is what is meant. I even quoted him twice from two different posts where he reinforces this position. You and Dan have skirted the issue, inadvertently probably, and have created a red herring with the "purely intellectual" argument. That was never the argument.

And again, where do we disagree? From what I can tell, I agree with everything Dan has said thus far. I keep asking questions to make sure this is the case. He seems to take questions as a form of aggression for some reason. I suspect it has something to do with the psychoanalytical assumption that I am out to demonize Mormon apologists.

== Since you seem fond of looking for patterns (such as the "critic"/"anti-Mormon" pattern you noted earlier), do you see a pattern emerging here?

Yes in fact, though I don't think you'd be interested in what I think it is.

== No Kevin, they do not disagree with me.

Dan clearly disagrees with you. He has made it perfectly clear that it isn't a "yes/no" matter. You, however, have presented it as such the minute you declared all ex-Mormons do not leave due to intellectual decisions, nor do they leave "because of knowledge." If you want to correct your own statement to conform to what others have been saying, then be my guest.

Can ex-Mormons leave for intellectual reasons?

Beowulf: NO.

Dan: N/A

== I will restate it again, in yet another way...I have never met a person who left the Church for purely intellectual reasons

Ahh, just as I expected. Conform it to Dan's argument and pretend this was your position all along. That's just fine. Does this mean you accept the notion that ex-Mormons can leave the Church for reasons that involve intellectualism and knowledge?

== That's what I've said, that's why I've declined to answer your yes/no questions, that's why I've answered in paragraphs, and that's why I've objected to the yes/no dichotomies you've presented.

So you believe that because no faith based decision is "purely intellectual," then this means it is not properly described as "intellectual" at all? This is where the rubber meets the road. Can ex-Mormons legitimately say their decisions are intellectual? This is a yes/no question, period. You're preoccupation with the "purely" qualifier is one of your own making and has no bearing on the concept of an "intellectual decision." Every decision by definition is intellectual. Whether or not other "factors" influence that decision is irrelevant to the fact that the intellect is always involved.

== I already answered that question.

So goes the rumor, but I find it remarkable that you could have answered a question numerous times when I just recently asked it. I tried this three times, the first two went accordingly:

1) So, is it safe to say that you agree ex-Mormons could leave the Church for reasons that are at the very least, partially intellectual? (Feb 7 2005, 11:38 AM )

You responded to pretty much everything in my post but this question.

2) Can ex-Mormons leave for reasons that are at least partially intellectual? You didn't respond to this, nor the last paragraph. (Feb 7 2005, 08:48 PM)

To which you responded, "I've actually responded to this issue in virtually every post I've written on this thread."

Please point me to the question I asked which relates to partial intellectualism. It doesn't exist prior to the instances above, so I'm confused what it is you think you've answered. I have a hard time processing the notion that the question is anything but a yes/no question. Can ex-Mormons leave for reasons that are at least partially intellectual?

== I cannot answer it any more clearly than I have already answered it. I am incapable of any greater clarity than I attempted in my first, second, third, and fourth responses to that question.

Don't sell yourself short, I'm sure you can manage. I didn't realize agreeing with someone could be so exhausting. You seem to realize that I agree with you, but don't like the fact that I do.

[praetorian1964]

A question, Kevin--

Does anyone join or stay in the church for purely intellectual reasons?

[Daniel Peterson]

Kevin, I'm bored. You've created some sort of pseudo-controversy where I can see none. None, at least, that's either legitimate or at all interesting to me. I'm unlikely to have anything more to say on this topic. It's like the famous tar baby: The more I try to push myself away, the more I get stuck. Better to leave altogether.

So you believe that because no faith based decision is "purely intellectual," then this means it is not properly described as  "intellectual" at all?

What do you think, Kevin? Have I ever said anything of the sort? Have I favored an absolute black-and-white dichotomy anywhere on this thread, or have I not? Hint: Consider my very first post on this thread -- which, clearly, should have been my last. (I reproduce it below.) I've repeated the same position six or eight times since, trying different formulations. Always vainly.

This is where the rubber meets the road. Can ex-Mormons legitimately say their decisions are intellectual? This is a yes/no question, period. You're preoccupation with the "purely" qualifier is one of your own making and has no bearing on the concept of an "intellectual decision."

Must I view the issue precisely as you do? Must I accept your definition of the question? Must I accept your absolutizing, mutually exclusive categories?

Every decision by definition is intellectual. Whether or not other "factors" influence that decision is irrelevant to the fact that the intellect is always involved.

Please cite the passage from my posts here with which you think you're disagreeing.

I find it remarkable that you could have answered a question numerous times when I just recently asked it.

I answered it before you asked it. That's a major reason why I find your repeated asking of the question so tiresome.

Here's the entirety of my first post on this thread:

All of the following rests upon on the assumption that the Church is indeed God's true church, and that Mormonism is, in its essence, God's unique saving truth.  (Without that assumption, the question seems somewhat pointless.)

From the perspective of eternity, there can be no legitimate reason for leaving the Church of God or for turning one's back upon God's revealed truth and will.  Such a decision is simply and always wrong.

However, our knowledge here is limited, fragmentary, imperfect, and distorted.  So it's possible that one can leave the Church for reasons that, given the flawed nature of our knowledge in mortality, genuinely appear to be good and sufficient.  It's a matter of our perceptions.

But our perceptions are always colored by our own individual personal history, character, knowledge, ignorance, desires, mental and emotional health, ambitions, etc.  So no decision to accept the gospel or to reject it is likely to be purely rational, uncolored by "personal" factors. 

We can trust that God knows this and appreciates it far better than we do, and that, in his mercy, he will take such factors into account.  Those who have sincerely done their best will, I believe, be blessed for it, even if they took mistaken detours.  On the other hand, I wouldn't want to tempt God.  And those who have lived carelessly, heedlessly, and cynically, are also living recklessly.

Having said all of this, I add for the record that my experience with friends, relatives, and acquaintances who have left the Church has been very similar to Beowulf's.  I'm not sure if I know of a single case of purely intellectual apostasy.

Do I say, in that first post, that intellectual issues play no role, that the intellect is "not involved," so that a decision that is not "purely intellectual" cannot be considered "intellectual" at all? Do I suggest that ex-Mormons cannot legitimately claim intellectual reasons for their disaffection? Did I not rather say the precise opposite? Is there any basis in anything I said here for your incessant interrogation?

And you will find that my subsequent posts take exactly the same reasonable, common sense position. We are embodied beings, rational but seldom purely so. Rather obvious, it seems to me.

[Beowulf]

What Dan said (in his first post).

You apparently consider that a shift in my position. It is not.

[wenglund]

== Not exactly, and almost the exact opposite.

Then enlighten me. Where do we disagree? This should be interesting.

Here is a brief list from my recollection:

1. I understood differently than you what Beowulf had said. So, we disagree on what Beowulf said.

2. Based on my understanding of Beowulf, I indicated in my first post my agreement with what he had said. This sparked your indignation towards me, wherein you expressed your disagreement with what I had said.

3. When I reiterated my belief, and explained my actions, you then agreed with my stated belief, but disagreed with my agreement with Beowulf, and disagreed with my actions (or inaction as the case may be).

4. I have understood differently than you what Dr. Peterson has said. So, we disagree there as well.

5. You said that "you have believed everyting Dr. Peterson has said." I disagree with this.

6. When I recently indicated that we disagree on how we each understood Beowulf, you now disagree that we disagree.

Here is what I said:

== At least for my part, I agreed with what I understood Beowulf to have essentially said, and I disagreed with how you interpreted, or misinterpreted, him (just as I and others disagree with how you have interpreted, or misinterpreted, what Dr. Peterson has said).

And here is where you clearly disagree, ironically, that we are disagreeing:

No, what Beowulf said was clear and concise. There is no "interpretation" involved here. I gave him plenty of opportunity to change, correct or clarify himself, and he has maintained the same position all along.

There were not a few other examples scattered throughout your response to me which could be sited. But this should suffice.

Nor, for that matter, do I seem to be alone in disagreeing with you.

1. Dr. Peterson apparently understood Beowulf differently than you. So he disagrees with you there.

2. When he expressed his agreement with Beowulf, that likewise sparked your indignation, and you disagreed with him at that time.

3. When he reiterated his belief, you expressed some agreement in what he said, but disagreed with his agreement with Beowulf.

4. You have asked him several times to answer a question. He said that he already had answered multiple time. You repeatedly disagree that he has.

5. This means that you understand differently what Dr. Peterson has said, and are thus in disagreement on the meaning of what he said.

6. You now claim that you "agree with everything that Dr. Peterson has said." Clearly, he disagrees with this.

7. Cal believes that Dr. Peterson answered your question, but that you didn't understand. You obviously disagree.

8. Beowulf understands what he said differently than you do. Thus you disagree.

9. Beowulf's believes that what he said was in agreement with what Dr. Peterson and I have said, and thus we are in agreement, but you obviously disagree.

9. When Beowulf rephrased what he believed and had said, you disagreed that that was what he believed and had said.

Should I go on?

Obviously, everyone seems out of step but you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Dr. Shades]

Dear Beowulf:

You stated that you have never met an apostate who left Mormonism for purely intellectual reasons. Well, assuming this Internet forum counts as "meeting," then I'm pleased to make your acquaintance!

I personally fought tooth and nail against the notion that the LDS church wasn't quite what it claimed to be. I honestly and sincerely wanted it to be true, but I nevertheless forced myself to keep reading since willful ignorance is never the answer.

Dear Mighty Curelom:

The single best essay on the topic of apostasy is The Believer and the Apostate. I think you'll find it an enjoyable and enlightening read.

[Kevin W. Graham]

== Does anyone join or stay in the church for purely intellectual reasons?

NO!

That was easy, huh?

(me thinks someone is catching on)

[Kevin W. Graham]

== What do you think, Kevin?

I think I've already made my position obvious, which is this. All decisions are intellectual to some degree, and can be classified as such without worrying about external factors that might not make the decision "purely" intellectual. Whether or not something is "purely" anything, is beside the point.

== Have I ever said anything of the sort?

Why do you respond to questions as if they are assertions? I'm doing the best I can to piece together your position based on your infrequent answers, your silence and your claims to have responded to questions prior to when I asked them.

== Have I favored an absolute black-and-white dichotomy anywhere on this thread, or have I not?

You have not, but the issue has very little to do with how you and I view it. It has everything to do with how ex-Mormons view it. For them, their decisions are called intellectual, and nothing presented on this forum has proven this to be improper. The only thing you've offered is the, "Well they can't be purely intellectual" observation, and again, this isn't something I necessarily disagree with.

Kevin: This is where the rubber meets the road. Can ex-Mormons legitimately say their decisions are intellectual? This is a yes/no question, period. You're preoccupation with the "purely" qualifier is one of your own making and has no bearing on the concept of an "intellectual decision."

== Must I view the issue precisely as you do?

Of course not.

== Must I accept your definition of the question?

Dan, it doesn't matter what definition you accept. The fact is, the definition exists whether you accept it or not, and this makes any ex-Mormon claim legit. Again, this is the point of the argument.

== Must I accept your absolutizing, mutually exclusive categories?

I'm merely staying focused on the original argument, doing my best not to get sucked into the red herring wormhole.

== Please cite the passage from my posts here with which you think you're disagreeing.

I'm pretty sure we are now disagreeing on whether or not it is proper to call a decision based on partial intellect, "intellectual." If this be the case, then I'm comfortable knowing I have the dictionary on my side. If this isn't the case, then I must be in the twighlight zone.

== I answered it before you asked it. That's a major reason why I find your repeated asking of the question so tiresome. Here's the entirety of my first post on this thread:

Well, thanks for narrowing its location to one post. This should make the hunting easier... or not. Let's see.

== All of the following rests upon on the assumption that the Church is indeed God's true church, and that Mormonism is, in its essence, God's unique saving truth. (Without that assumption, the question seems somewhat pointless.)

Doesn't answer the question.

== From the perspective of eternity, there can be no legitimate reason for leaving the Church of God or for turning one's back upon God's revealed truth and will. Such a decision is simply and always wrong.

Doesn't answer the question.

== However, our knowledge here is limited, fragmentary, imperfect, and distorted. So it's possible that one can leave the Church for reasons that, given the flawed nature of our knowledge in mortality, genuinely appear to be good and sufficient. It's a matter of our perceptions.

"Good and sufficient" doesn't pertain to the question of partial intellectualism, let alone answer it.

== But our perceptions are always colored by our own individual personal history, character, knowledge, ignorance, desires, mental and emotional health, ambitions, etc. So no decision to accept the gospel or to reject it is likely to be purely rational, uncolored by "personal" factors.

I quoted this on this thread and asked you what it meant. You ignored my request, yet again. Here you address the issue of a decision being "purely rational" only. I understood this to mean, as I said before that, "You do not believe decisions to join the Church are rational or intellectual." But you responded that this was not only your position, but it in fact contradicted it! This is where it got ambiguous, because I understood "contradiction" to mean that the exact opposite of what I got wrong would be your position. So if the above is the opposite of your view, then this means you believe such decisions are rational. But obviously you don't. Again, the "purely" qualifier is not indicated in my statement though I think you assumed it applied. I've been laboring to get back and follow the original argument, not yours. And I'm not sure why your position on "purely rational" decision making precludes you from answering questions that have nothing to do with the argument of rational vs. purely rational.

== We can trust that God knows this and appreciates it far better than we do, and that, in his mercy, he will take such factors into account. Those who have sincerely done their best will, I believe, be blessed for it, even if they took mistaken detours. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to tempt God. And those who have lived carelessly, heedlessly, and cynically, are also living recklessly.Having said all of this, I add for the record that my experience with friends, relatives, and acquaintances who have left the Church has been very similar to Beowulf's. I'm not sure if I know of a single case of purely intellectual apostasy.

Nope, that didn't answer it either.

Dan, the reason this discussion is so convulted is because I have been focusing on the original argument while you keep changing it. The argument was never whether a "purely intellectual" decision could be made. You say all faith based decisions cannot be "purely intellectual." I agree. Fine. So what? Does this mean it is improper to refer to a decision as intellectual unless it is absolutely 100% intellectual? I'm guessing this is where we disagree.

Wade,

== Should I go on?

And you almost had me convinced there was disagreement on the substance at hand. The fact is, you and Dan never supported Beowulf's original claim. When this is demonstrated, you rely on the silly excuse that you didn't "interpret" it that way.

Hey Wade, the sky is blue. How did you "interpret" that statement?

== You apparently consider that a shift in my position. It is not.

It is a shift. You never argued for a "purely" anything. You're tacking that on now for the sake of argument.

Let's simplify this fellas. Wade, I'd like to see how you and Dan would answer these basic questions.

1) Can people leave the Church because of "knowledge"?

2) Can people leave or join the faith due to partially intellectual reasons?

3) Can a partially intellectual choice be properly called, quite simply, an "intellectual" choice?

4) If not (to #3), then why not?

This will help greatly to clear up the confusion. And please, for the love of God, don't tell me you've already answered them. If you have, then just do me a favor and humor me.

[Daniel Peterson]

Kevin.

Some basic principles:

Intellectual = Intellectual.

Impurely Intellectual is still Intellectual, just as Furry Rabbit is still Rabbit. Just as Dirty Water is still Water. Just as Partly Eaten Cake is still Cake. Just as Mind-Numbingly Obvious is still Obvious.

Whether anything is purely anything may be beside your point but it is not beside my point.

I respond to questions as if they were assertions when they contradict what I've already written and appear to be challenging me to defend or explain a position that I absolutely do not hold, have never held, have never uttered, have never thought, and have repeatedly denied.

Not every portion of a post will always answer a question that you have not yet posed.

"'Good and sufficient' doesn't pertain to the question of partial intellectualism, let alone answer it."

Rubbish. "Good and sufficient reasons," in the context of an explicit discussion of "knowledge," pertain to the intellect and to reasoning or they pertain to nothing at all.

"Does this mean it is improper to refer to a decision as intellectual unless it is absolutely 100% intellectual? I'm guessing this is where we disagree."

Have I ever said anything to that effect? Have I ever supplied any reason that could justify someone in concluding that I believe that something isn't intellectual unless it is 100% intellectual?. Ever? Ever? Does ordinary language suggest that that would be my view? Is it improper to refer to a person as angry unless she is 100% angry? (What on earth would that mean?) Is it improper to refer to a car as yellow unless it has been stripped of chrome and its windows have been painted? Should we not refer to seawater as water, because it also includes salt and other minerals? Are chocolate bars not actually chocolate, because they aren't only chocolate? For a movie to be funny, must it lack even a second of seriousness? If we say that a decision was made out of anger, does that mean that the person who made the decision had shut his rational faculties completely off? Isn't it the entire and entirely clear tenor of my position that such artificial either/or disjunctions are nonsensical and non-existent?

Enough. Enough. Enough. More than enough.

[Calm]

I personally fought tooth and nail against the notion that the LDS church wasn't quite what it claimed to be.

Just that comment demonstrates that more was involved in your decision than intellectual reasons.

[Dr. Shades]

Just that comment demonstrates that more was involved in your decision than intellectual reasons.

I respectfully disagree. Emotions were involved with my desire to stay. Intellect was involved when I made the choice to leave.

Even so, no matter how you slice it, I didn't leave because I wanted to sin or whatever, which was the insinuation behind Beowulf's post. Quite the opposite; I wanted it to be true. I wanted a (good enough) reason to stay. Hence, I am the real-world disconfirmation of Beowulf's assumption.

[Ray Agostini]

I think the idea that anyone makes purely intellectual decisions has been thoroughly debunked by all brain research. It has categorically been demonstrated that a significant portion of our decision-making is affected by both sides of the brain, and particularly the one effecting emotions, which I believe is the left side. Someone with time may be able to link the research. That, I think, will show the fallacy of the idea that one makes purely "intellectual" decisions. I don't have the time to add to this now, and won't as I'm off for a 16 hour working day.

In the case of Shades, here is what he wrote:

I respectfully disagree. Emotions were involved with my desire to stay. Intellect was involved when I made the choice to leave.

Shades, I think your emotions were far more involved than you imagine. I bet you didn't have a ruler to measure it?

You had latent desires to leave Mormonism. Okay, I know I'm speculating, but can you explain then why people like Dan Peterson, Nibley, and Bill Hamblin don't leave too, though they know the same information you do? I think emotions, and perhaps what we call "spirituality" have a lot to do with it. But because someone makes a decision based on spiritual or emotional feelings does not mean they are "dupes". It does not mean they are wrong. We are as I pointed simply are not purely intellectual beings, no one can be, and if they are then they will be rather cold and unfeeling. But it is impossible because the very nature of our brains dictate otherwise. The other point I'm making here is that if anyone thinks they can make a claim that they make "wholly intellectual" (and correct) decisions and they are "right", and that all others who make a combination of intellectual/spiritual decisions or even wholly emotional decisions are "wrong", is kidding himself. ALL decision-making involves brain processes that include both sides of the brain. In fact, in view of that research, if you make a wholly intellectual decision you might be the one off cue and deluding yourself. Humans are complex beings, not compartments.

Have a good day.

[Ray Agostini]

One other thing, Shades, your signature. There's a lot of emotional content there. I wouldn't call that very intellectual or logical at all. I think there's a lot of unconscious emotion involved in your thinking.

[Beowulf]

Dr. Shades:

Thanks for coming on board here. (I was wondering when you would. )

I qualified my comment enough to say "everyone I personally know". I cannot include people met on this discussion board, because I do not know anyone here well enough to judge.

I also want to clarify that when I said everyone has demons or personal issues, I thought I was being careful not to imply sinful living. I cannot make a judgment about a person's sins, not being God (or a bishop, who sometimes has to make such judgments). My sister is not a sinner. But she is certainly a bitter woman. And blames her misfortunes on God, or rather on her certainty that there must not be one.

I was jumped on regarding both above points (sigh). Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Nevertheless, while I sympathize with your position, I will go out on a limb and state that, at bottom, I do not believe you. That your leaving the LDS faith was intellectually based, or at least based only on that. There is always something else that nags at us. We are human, after all.

But if you insist, have it your way.

Respectfully,

Beowulf