Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

You guys really ought to try actually reading the thread.  I already provided the standard sociological research for those interested.  The reasons for religious switching are well-understood, and do not surprise anyone, except those with overt bias and apriori notions.

Emma Green, “How Will Young People Choose Their Religion?” Atlantic, Mar 20, 2016, online at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/how-will-young-people-choose-their-religion/474366/ .

Frank Newport, "The Religious Switcher in the United States," American Sociological Review, 44 (1979), 528-552.

J. T. Richardson, ed., special issue on "Conversion and Commitment in Contemporary Religion," American Behavioral Scientist, 20/6 (July-Aug 1977).

Lewis R. Rambo, Understanding Religious Conversion (1995).

Lavina Fielding Anderson, "What Are Nonmembers Interested In?" Ensign, 7/10 (Oct 1977), 72-76, based on research on July 1975 LDS converts by Gordon C. Whiting and M. Richard Maxfield.

S. L. Albrecht & H. M. Bahr, "Patterns of Religious Disaffiliation: A Study of Lifelong Mormons, Mormon Converts, and Former Mormons," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22 (1983), 366-379.

“Why People Leave the LDS Church,” Sunstone Review, 4/3 (Mar 1984), 10.

Sociologist Gary Tobin says that 2 of every 5 “Americans switch religion at least once” (Moment, 27/4  [Aug 2002], 58).

David G. Bromley, “Unraveling Religious Disaffiliation: The Meaning and Significance of Falling From the Faith in Contemporary Society,” Counseling & Values, 35/3 (April 1991):164-185, online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1991.tb00989.x/abstract .

Thomas Wirthlin McConkie, Navigating Mormon Faith Crisis: A Simple Developmental Map (Mormonstages.com, 2015).
 
Michael R. Ash, "Shaken Faith Syndrome" (2008 FairMormon Conference) said:

Ex-Mormons complain, among other things, about:

Indeed, our own Bill Reel has rightly commented:

 

Just to be crystal clear, this is the quote you are trying to defend by posting these article links.

Quote

Most Mormons who leave the LDS faith do so based on their social comfort level, and any judgment made about the BofM is merely ancillary to that social feeling

 

You already tried this approach to defend you OPINION.  Throw a bunch of articles on the wall and see if anything sticks.  while the articles do talk about people leaving religion, not A SINGLE ARTICLE SUPPORTS YOUR POSITION.  Not a single article has any studies to back up your claim.  Not a single article presents any concrete evidence that agrees with your statement.  Not a single article can be used to support your position.

If you disagree, then post an actual study.  Like I said, your statement is just your opinion.  You can't even support it with a single study.  

Now I think I have repeated the same thing over and over enough so that you actually get what the question is.  I have asked the question in all caps.  I have put the type in bold letters.  I have italicized the question.  I have done everything I can to get you to focus on the actual question.  I have read your articles and found no study in them to support your position.  If you ignore the CFR this time, then you are obviously blowing smoke.  And just in case you still haven't gotten the question, here it is ONE MORE TIME

Your claim

Quote

Most Mormons who leave the LDS faith do so based on their social comfort level, and any judgment made about the BofM is merely ancillary to that social feeling

 

CFR any study that supports your claim

[california boy]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

But do Christians devote their life to a prophet or to the Lord Jesus Christ? The greater deception would be (according to the Bible) if Jesus was not whom He claimed to be. The book of Mormon and the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith legacy contain no more eternal ramifications for the Believer, than Peter not being the 1st Pope. The key of salvation is the Messiah/Christ of the Bible, and not Popes or Prophets.or the book of Thomas for that matter. 

Elder Holland was not talking about Mormon's devotion to Christ in this talk  Elder Holland was talking about the claims of Mormonism being the restored gospel.  I am sure you can find plenty of talks by Elder Holland that address how Mormons view Christ.  I think you will find that Mormons DO NOT worship any prophet. They are in complete agreement with how you view the saving graces of Jesus Christ.  And they would agree that no prophet saves them.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just to be crystal clear, this is the quote you are trying to defend by posting these article links.

 

You already tried this approach to defend you OPINION.  Throw a bunch of articles on the wall and see if anything sticks.  while the articles do talk about people leaving religion, not A SINGLE ARTICLE SUPPORTS YOUR POSITION.  Not a single article has any studies to back up your claim.  Not a single article presents any concrete evidence that agrees with your statement.  Not a single article can be used to support your position.

If you disagree, then post an actual study.  Like I said, your statement is just your opinion.  You can't even support it with a single study.  

Now I think I have repeated the same thing over and over enough so that you actually get what the question is.  I have asked the question in all caps.  I have put the type in bold letters.  I have italicized the question.  I have done everything I can to get you to focus on the actual question.  I have read your articles and found no study in them to support your position.  If you ignore the CFR this time, then you are obviously blowing smoke.  And just in case you still haven't gotten the question, here it is ONE MORE TIME

Your claim

 

CFR any study that supports your claim

I agree with what you've written here.  I don't see what facts support Robert's claim.

I would also add that the majority of articles on that list are either too old to be applicable or they aren't specifically about Mormons.

 

[pogi]

16 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

The Bible says a Believer is conformed to the image of the Messiah. 

Funny how we can read the same sentence and interpret it completely different ways.  I interpret that to mean that our truth will eventually corresponds with his truth, i.e. we become a God like Him. 

He will forever be my God, and I will forever be subject to His eternal laws, but his laws will become my laws and my laws his laws, as he is in me, and I am in him, and we are one. 

16 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I see nothing to convince me that I will be GOD.

You just are not looking in the right places.  Your beliefs are subject to your perspective and paradigm, my beliefs are not.

Here is an example of how perspective and interpretation changes our understanding of reality.  Say this sentence with an emphasis on a different word every time:

I never said she stole my money.

Even if we both limited our perspective to the Bible alone, we still would not see eye to eye on this, because we interpret the same words differently.

Here is an example of how limited information changes our understanding of reality.  Think of each line as a new book of scripture.  Note how new lines of information alter the meaning of previous lines without changing the words. 

1. Jason loves

2. Jason loves prostitutes

3. Jason loves prostitutes from Salt Lake City

4. Jason loves prostitutes from Salt Lake City who turn their lives to God.

5. Jason loves prostitutes from Salt Lake City who turn their lives to God.  He loves the other ones too, but they sadden him. 

If you limited your New testament to the gospel of John for example, then your perspective of the life of Christ would be different from someone who has all of the gospels.  If you limited your New testament to the 4 gospels, then your perspective of Christianity would be limited.  New books of scripture alter the meaning and perspective of old books.  Without Mormon scripture, I wouldn't expect you to believe in the potential for godhood.  That would be strange indeed.  That would be like a Jew believing in the divinity of Christ without believing in the new testament.  No one would expect such a strange notion. 

 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by pogi

[Jeanne]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't think there is space or time enough to show you how many members (or their full stories) have lost their testimonies after reading the Gospel Essays. 

This is so true..some of the essays really throw people for loop...and so they begin the search, the answers..and so many things learned has nothing to do with our earlier teachings of mormonism..all the way from primary

[Foreigner]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

  New books of scripture alter the meaning and perspective of old books.  Without Mormon scripture, I wouldn't expect you to believe in the potential for godhood.  That would be strange indeed.

Not at all. Just an example of standard distorted Mormon perspective.

True Bible believer finds BoM as the true second and secondary testimony, showing the same message like Bible, yet giving deeper insight into plan of salvation.

And it is already Old Testament where men are called gods, while in New Testament Jesus himself confirms the statement, and there is much more.

Let you examine a book: " Are Mormons Christians ?" by S. E. Robinson. It shows that idea of deification was believed in original Christianity, supported by several orthodox Christian saints. Even today, there are churches and christian leaders who express strongly potential for godhood. All based on Bible!

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

Not at all. Just an example of standard distorted Mormon perspective.

Poor choice of words on my part.  I should have said that adding new books of scripture may alter the perceived meaning of other scripture, and not the intended meaning obviously. 

Mormon scripture not only clarifies, but does add new revelations not found in the Bible such as the eternal nature of intelligence for example.

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

And it is already Old Testament where men are called gods, while in New Testament Jesus himself confirms the statement, and there is much more.

If you believe in the potential deification of man based on the Bible alone and are not a Mormon, then I stand corrected.  You may not consider it strange, but I would still consider it unusual. 

You are a foreigner in a strange (peculiar) land indeed 

[LittleNipper]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

Funny how we can read the same sentence and interpret it completely different ways.  I interpret that to mean that our truth will eventually corresponds with his truth, i.e. we become a God like Him. 

He will forever be my God, and I will forever be subject to His eternal laws, but his laws will become my laws and my laws his laws, as he is in me, and I am in him, and we are one. 

You just are not looking in the right places.  Your beliefs are subject to your perspective and paradigm, my beliefs are not.

Here is an example of how perspective and interpretation changes our understanding of reality.  Say this sentence with an emphasis on a different word every time:

I never said she stole my money.

Even if we both limited our perspective to the Bible alone, we still would not see eye to eye on this, because we interpret the same words differently.

Here is an example of how limited information changes our understanding of reality.  Think of each line as a new book of scripture.  Note how new lines of information alter the meaning of previous lines without changing the words. 

1. Jason loves

2. Jason loves prostitutes

3. Jason loves prostitutes from Salt Lake City

4. Jason loves prostitutes from Salt Lake City who turn their lives to God.

5. Jason loves prostitutes from Salt Lake City who turn their lives to God.  He loves the other ones too, but they sadden him. 

If you limited your New testament to the gospel of John for example, then your perspective of the life of Christ would be different from someone who has all of the gospels.  If you limited your New testament to the 4 gospels, then your perspective of Christianity would be limited.  New books of scripture alter the meaning and perspective of old books.  Without Mormon scripture, I wouldn't expect you to believe in the potential for godhood.  That would be strange indeed.  That would be like a Jew believing in the divinity of Christ without believing in the new testament.  No one would expect such a strange notion. 

 

 

 

The problem seems to be that IF the book of Mormon were true (and I know it to be highly suspect), then the "Church" in the New World of that day, had no copies of the New Testament and only the Old Testament and the books contained within the Book of Mormon. Christians of the Old World eventually had both the Old and New Testaments. So which had the clearer perspective  according to your logic? No where in the Bible is man informed that he would ever be able to create from nothing. If Adam & Eve had not sinned, I imagine that they might have eventually been able to visit other planets if that was what God desired; however, GOD is not limited by anyone but HIS OWN nature. We are limited by the fact that we must depend on His creation and permissive will to be creative (We will never be able to speak a universe into existence). Yet we could build a rocket to carry someone to another planet, if that be God's desire. 

You may ask, where I get this from. Well, look at Satan in the Bible. He wanted to be God. And if according to Mormon thinking, it is God's intent for everyone to be gods, why would Satan be a odds with his Creator simply because he wished to be God? Well, you might say that his timing was not God's; however, again, what would Adam be doing how if he told Eve, "Get away from that tree and let's get back to our gardening."

What I am saying is that while God can take on a human form, it is impossible for man to change to God. Believers are brothers of Messiah/Christ because they get adopted by God. We can then be brothers and sisters to Messiah/Christ, because He has assumed a human identity and not because we get GOD power.  Any power at our fingertips is dependent entirely on GOD. God's power is not dependent on anything or anyone else and is limited only to His own nature of love, perfection, and justice.

Edited January 10, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No, I don't. Nothing in LDS history compels a person to accept it or believe it. It is, in fact, quite easy to overlook or dismiss. In this it resembles the Saviour Himself:

Thousands of people witnessed the Saviour's ministry and preaching firsthand, and yet nothing He did compelled them to accept Him. Most people simply overlooked Him or looked the other way. Most of those who got caught up in the early enthusiasm of having found a messiah turned their backs on Him. In the end, no amount of evidence is sufficiently compelling.

Even the Prophet Joseph admitted that his own history wasn't compelling: 'I don’t blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself'. I feel the exact same way. And even then, as both scripture and some of my acquaintances have demonstrated, even personal experience doesn't compel acceptance. It certainly makes acceptance a real possibility and invites belief, but always such things remain choices.

I wrote that LDS history is neither compelling nor disqualifying. On the first point, see above. On the second point, I will simply reiterate that, from my trained perspective, anyone who claims that the details of Church history somehow 'prove' conclusively that the Church is not what it claims to be is either historiographically naive or engaged in some serious wishful thinking.

I have no way to assess that, but I would think that you shouldn't be surprised to learn that most university academics -- and maybe most especially those in disciplines in the 'humanities' -- tend not to be religious people.

As I am sure you know the full quote by Jospeh Smith you refer to above is a follows:

You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don't blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself. I never did harm any man since I was born in the world. My voice is always for peace.”

I certainly never interpreted it to mean Joseph Smith was saying his history was not compellling.   Rather that his claims were so fantastic he did not blame anyone for not believing it and had he not experienced it he would not believe it.

As to your point that Church history and the claims made in the historical narratives cannot persuade someone the church is or is not what it claims we will simply have to disagree.   What else do we Initially have to make a judgement as to whether the church claims of being a restoration of the church of Jesus Christ are worthy or not to pursue.   The entire claims of the church rests on the narratives of its founding. This is why th church has constantly emphasized the history.  Whether or not we can trust Joseph Smith as reliable and worth trusting enough in order to pray or seek confirmation from some other means rests on the the historical narratives.   Without that what do we have to make a judgement about this?  

[LittleNipper]

6 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Not at all. Just an example of standard distorted Mormon perspective.

True Bible believer finds BoM as the true second and secondary testimony, showing the same message like Bible, yet giving deeper insight into plan of salvation.

And it is already Old Testament where men are called gods, while in New Testament Jesus himself confirms the statement, and there is much more.

Let you examine a book: " Are Mormons Christians ?" by S. E. Robinson. It shows that idea of deification was believed in original Christianity, supported by several orthodox Christian saints. Even today, there are churches and christian leaders who express strongly potential for godhood. All based on Bible!

Jesus is being sarcastic in a way only those familiar with the Scripture would understand. The Pharisees and Saducees accused the only man who ever could legitimately call Himself “God” of blasphemy. And Jesus' response is if God called men “gods,” (rulers) then Jesus is not blaspheming if indeed He is God. This was all done according to the Scripture. Jesus’ point is that the word of God cannot be broken and then points out he was sent into the world by the Father and called himself the Son of God. So He could not be blaspheming.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

The problem seems to be that IF the book of Mormon were true (and I know it to be highly suspect), then the "Church" in the New World of that day, had no copies of the New Testament and only the Old Testament and the books contained within the Book of Mormon. Christians of the Old World eventually had both the Old and New Testaments. So which had the clearer perspective  according to your logic?

The idea of deification does not come from the BoM.  It was given in modern day revelation and recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants.  Here is a good article you can read about the Mormon theology on deification and how it came about. https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

You may ask, where I get this from. Well, look at Satan in the Bible. He wanted to be God. And if according to Mormon thinking, it is God's intent for everyone to be gods, why would Satan be a odds with his Creator simply because he wished to be God? Well, you might say that his timing was not God's; however, again, what would Adam be doing how if he told Eve, "Get away from that tree and let's get back to our gardening."

Here is further Mormon scripture which clarifies why Satan's motives were wrong.  Instead of glorifying God, he sought God's honor and glory for himself.  It was all "me, me, me, me ,me..."  Christ on the other hand said "thy will be done, and the glory be thine".  

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/4?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/29?lang=eng

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

Any power at our fingertips is dependent entirely on GOD.

Amen.  What if God desires to give us of His fullness?  

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I certainly never interpreted it to mean Joseph Smith was saying his history was not compellling.   Rather that his claims were so fantastic he did not blame anyone for not believing it and had he not experienced it he would not believe it.

In other words, that nothing in his claims could compel belief. They do indeed sound fantastical. In my experience -- and Joseph's, apparently! -- they only start to sound less so when we personally have analogous experiences.

Quote

As to your point that Church history and the claims made in the historical narratives cannot persuade someone the church is or is not what it claims we will simply have to disagree.   What else do we Initially have to make a judgement as to whether the church claims of being a restoration of the church of Jesus Christ are worthy or not to pursue.

In the beginning, nothing conclusive. The narratives are important because they invite a person to explore the truth claims attached to them. This is true of all stories, by the way, and not just Latter-day Saint ones. Trying to determine if something that exists and can be experienced in the present is real based on incomplete and necessarily secondhand stories from the past is a fool's errand.

Quote

Without that what do we have to make a judgement about this?  

Personal revelation and personal experience. That's what the original apostles had to go on: 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven'.

That's what those who listened to their witnesses had to go on: 'Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost'.

It's what Joseph the Seer had to go on: 'If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself'.

And that's what those who listen to Joseph's witness still have to go on.

Anyone who either believes or disbelieves religious truth claims because of 'history' misunderstands both history as a discipline and how God has operated from the beginning of time.

[LittleNipper]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

The idea of deification does not come from the BoM.  It was given in modern day revelation and recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants.  Here is a good article you can read about the Mormon theology on deification and how it came about. https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

Here is further Mormon scripture which clarifies why Satan's motives were wrong.  Instead of glorifying God, he sought God's honor and glory for himself.  It was all "me, me, me, me ,me..."  Christ on the other hand said "thy will be done, and the glory be thine".  

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/4?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/29?lang=eng

Amen.  What if God desires to give us of His fullness?  

God cannot make us God, anymore than God can sin. God is the standard. God holds everything together. We are but the fruit of His labor with no possibility of ever being a being from infinity past or anything other than HIS creation. And obviously, I do take exception to any prophecies of Joseph Smith as he demonstrated a lack of moral character, had mistaken observations, and errors in prophecies that deprive him of being a true prophet, in the biblical sense of the word. I understand that such is a taboo subject here and I'm sure those interested have already researched this themselves. Yet unprecedented is the fact the Mr. Joseph Smith had his finger in all the documents supporting Mormonism. How many people were alive on the earth at that time? 

Edited January 10, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Anakin7]

Little Nipper thank you for your personal observation on Theosis/Deification and Joseph Smith. Your polemical criticisms have been presented by our critics more than once and have been responded to to no end. Did you read the above linked articles ?, just curious. May you have and obtain The Grace of Jesus Christ in your soul. 

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

[Anakin7]

     For Little Nipper from my LDS Sentinel Kryptonian archives - http://www.14lds.com/joseph.htm 

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment In His Blood In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

[Anakin7]

     See also http://www.http://www.affcrit.com/archives/ac_02_02.html 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

Edited January 10, 2017 by Anakin7

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

God cannot make us God, anymore than God can sin. God is the standard. God holds everything together. We are but the fruit of His labor with no possibility of ever being a being from infinity past or anything other than HIS creation. And obviously, I do take exception to any prophecies of Joseph Smith as he demonstrated a lack of moral character, had mistaken observations, and errors in prophecies that deprive him of being a true prophet, in the biblical sense of the word. I understand that such is a taboo subject here and I'm sure those interested have already researched this themselves. Yet unprecedented is the fact the Mr. Joseph Smith had his finger in all the documents supporting Mormonism. How many people were alive on the earth at that time? 

So I guess Christ was wrong -- with God all things really aren't possible.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

God cannot make us God, anymore than God can sin. 

...according to the gospel of LittleNipper.

I truly do understand where you are coming from.  I would probably be saying the same thing from your perspective.

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Yet unprecedented is the fact the Mr. Joseph Smith had his finger in all the documents supporting Mormonism. 

Remarkable isn't it!  Quite miraculous in fact.  I will state this however, Joseph Smith was not alone in receiving many of these revelations, including one on deification which both he and Sydney Rigdom were whitnesses to.  There were always whitnesses to everything. I don't know how old you are LittleNipper, but ask yourself (assuming that you are at least 38), what had you accomplished by the time you were 38?  Could you stick your head in a hat and dictate a book of scripture with the scope of the Book of Mormon without skipping a beat or messing up names, dates, places, doctrines, etc. with no script and no rough draft?  Add to that the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants.  He took on the monumental task of translating the Bible and has volumes of other writings not included in scripture. He had published 3 books of scripture to the convincing of millions and founded one of the most successful proselyting churches of our time which would fill the entire world. If that was not enough, he was a candidate for the presidency of the United States, proposing a remarkable platform that offered solutions to “the slave problem,” championed the elimination of imprisonment for debt, made recommendations for a national bank, and suggested the annexation of Texas, Mexico, and Canada to the United States. He founded the city of Nauvoo, helping to author its charter and supervise its growth in the early 1840s into one of the largest cities in Illinois. He served as one of Nauvoo’s mayors, judges, and aldermen. He commanded its armed militia, the Nauvoo Legion, that at its peak was a force of about 3,000 men, and, in addition to all this, he oversaw the construction of two major temples.  All this with only 3 years of formal schooling.

Source: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/06/joseph-smith-prophet-of-the-restoration?lang=eng

I couldn't have said it any better myself..."unprecedented" indeed!

LittleNipper, my greatest desire is to "know God", because as Joseph Smith so eloquently stated, “if men do not comprehend the character of God they do not comprehend themselves.”

 

Edited January 10, 2017 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

On 1/6/2017 at 9:56 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

You have entirely falsified what I have said.  Moroni's challenge is not an intellectual one, and no degrees of any kind are needed to exercise that challenge.  You are very confused, and in the midst of your confusion you are lashing out with false claims about a number of things:  (1) the sociological research is very clear on why most people leave any religion, including the LDS Church.  (2) Accusing me of arrogance is an ad hominem, a personal attack, which does not address the data or facts.  (3) Failure to understand the actual historical or theological context of a religion's truth claims can make it impossible to get a handle on whether the narrative can actually be justified.

Discomfort with such facts can lead to anger and impatience (not at all uncommon).  I did not say that it was easy to make a fair intellectual evaluation of any religion, but there are no shortcuts -- such as you seem to want to take.

Quite frankly Bob, those who have argued against your very perceptive point here are clearly demonstrating the very error you point out.

They cannot understand your words and demonstrate the anger and impatience you characterize so well while demonstrating no intellectual acumen whatsoever.

Your point is a simple one yet apparently over their heads. It's almost embarrassing to watch their ignorance in action.

[pogi]

On 1/9/2017 at 1:15 AM, mfbukowski said:

Lost a post Augh

Think about this- God’s intelligence goes out through the universe and organizes it in a similar way to the way we organize our own little worlds

This is something I wrote for Interpreter

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

Great article Mark!  I think I am finally starting to understand you.  It is actually quite remarkable how we both have essentially come to the same understanding from entirely different sources using entirely different languages, conflicting only over semantics all this time.   It is good to know that I am not alone in my perspective within Mormonism.  It sometimes feels lonely. 

[Gray]

I would define intellectual issues differently than Robert. I think if your motive for leaving is issues-based (rather than an issue of socialization or comfort), you've left for intellectual reasons. It doesn't matter how well you understand the intellectual issues. And the question whether an intellectual reason for leaving is "valid" is entirely subjective and personal. 

Edited January 10, 2017 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

So I guess Christ was wrong -- with God all things really aren't possible.

There goes alleged omnipotence.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

I would define intellectual issues differently than Robert. I think if you motive for leaving is issues-based (rather than an issue of socialization or comfort), you've left for intellectual reasons. It doesn't matter how well you understand the intellectual issues. And the question whether an intellectual reason for leaving is "valid" is entirely subjective and personal. 

No, those would be called subjective and personal issues, and demonstrate Bob's point perfectly.

[Bobbieaware]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There goes alleged omnipotence.

To me the biggest question is: why wouldn't God want his sons and daughters to be just as happy and full of light as he is?

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No, those would be called subjective and personal issues, and demonstrate Bob's point perfectly.

Subjective and personal can't be intellectual? As in, not purely emotional, but issues based?

 

Edited January 10, 2017 by Gray