Why Not Engage the Evidence for Historicity?

[Analytics]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know anyone who has gone through a faith crisis who has spent more time investigating one side over the other. It's fairly obvious you haven't been through such a crisis, as you would not have said that if you had. I'm sure you asked your initial question in good faith, but I think the premise is wrong from the start. 

The mental dynamics of a faith crisis are interesting. I don't think the human brain is a very effective tool for comparing two distinct paradigms--especially when intense psychological and sociological pressure are weighing in. Some people have a testimony which has never wavered--they always "knew" that it is all true. Others can kind of see both sides and can see the totality of the evidence going either way. They end up playing mental games where they subconsciously seek to counterbalance negative evidence with positive evidence, and end up thinking that it was deliberately designed to be inconclusive so that whether or not you believe is necessarily a test of faith because, well, that is the plan.

Occasionally, some people break out of that. It is a humbling experience. Rather than thinking you are a special person who has the truth, you consider in your gut that you might be just another normal person and that the religion you are struggling with is just another false religion pretty-much like all the others. That is when the faith crisis happens. When that happens, the objective is to figure out the truth--not achieve an emotional equilibrium with the evidence that provides for the possibility of faith. When you get to that point emotionally, you look at the apologetic "evidence" with a bit more skepticism. You really want to figure out the truth--regardless of what it might be.

When you are at that point, you carefully consider the apologetic evidence. But you are a bit more skeptical, and if you find the apologists playing fast and lose with the facts, you can quickly lose confidence in them. You feel betrayed. You feel like the apologists lack integrity and are driving you away. You fill like you've taken the red pill and are waking up disoriented in a totally different universe than the one you spent your entire life in.

[cinepro]

28 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

That being said, the point of my list in the OP wasn't to be persuasive, nor was I expecting or asking anyone to demonstrate that it isn't persuasive or to provide persuasive counterarguments. I was trying to gather reasons about why those who are caught in the middle of all this, and who don't really have much exposure to the apologetic evidences,  refuse to engage.

Perhaps there is one more point in all of this:

While a lot of faith crises involve arguments regarding The Book of Mormon (for example, it's one section of many in the CES letter), a much larger issue is Joseph Smith.  More specifically, should Joseph Smith be trusted, and was he a Prophet?  If the answer to those questions is "no", then that takes away a lot of the reason to believe the claims of The Book of Mormon.

Over the years, I've talked with a lot of people who lost faith and left the Church, and generally speaking, the men usually cite The Book of Abraham as the key problem that led them to doubt, and the women usually cite polygamy.  And once you doubt Joseph Smith's integrity and abilities based on The Book of Abraham or polygamy, then The Book of Mormon almost becomes collateral damage.  Chiasmus and Nahom are interesting, but once someone has passed the point of no return, they're not going to help much.  Once The Book of Abraham destroys their faith in Joseph's ability to translate (or "translate"), or polygamy destroys their faith in Joseph's character and integrity, then The Book of Mormon doesn't really matter.  Believing in The Book of Mormon means trusting Joseph Smith was telling the truth.  And once you don't trust Joseph Smith anymore, there's no reason to believe.  You can dive into the other evidences, but they are all adequately explained by probability theory, cultural influences, or the fact that not being able to explain something isn't an "evidence."

So maybe it's not so much that people who are "caught in the middle of this" refuse to "engage."  Perhaps you are seriously overestimating the value of those evidences to those people in the first place, even if they were proven to be valid.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Most people I know, when confronted with a faith crisis, read everything they could get their hands on from the church's position and from apologists.

I accept that.  Many (perhaps most) of the people I have known have not done this.

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent strokes, I guess.

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The ones who step away without ever looking at the other side are pretty rare, indeed.

My experience has been quite the other way.  The "ones who step away" tend to give the Church's position, and relevant "faithful" scholarship pertaining to it, little attention or weight.

There are also plenty of non-doctrinal reasons people "step away."  For example, is disagreement with the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity as pertaining to homosexual behavior a "doctrinal" issue?  Or is it more sociological/emotional/personal?  Many narratives seem to be "I reject the Church's position on same-sex marriage because my friend is gay is offended that the Church does not endorse same-sex marriage."  That does not seem to be so much a doctrinal dispute, but rather some other kind of dispute.  If that's the case, if a person is making decisions based on emotional/moral objections to the Church's stance, then those objections are not really readily open for testing or analysis.  They just are.  And to be candid, I don't really fault them for this (though I still don't agree with them).

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If you think about it, this is the wrong place to ask that question in the first place. How many people here aren't familiar with apologetics? I'd say a conservative estimate is zero.

I agree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

Perhaps there is one more point in all of this:

While a lot of faith crises involve arguments regarding The Book of Mormon (for example, it's one section of many in the CES letter), a much larger issue is Joseph Smith.  More specifically, should Joseph Smith be trusted, and was he a Prophet?  If the answer to those questions is "no", then that takes away a lot of the reason to believe the claims of The Book of Mormon.

Over the years, I've talked with a lot of people who lost faith and left the Church, and generally speaking, the men usually cite The Book of Abraham as the key problem that led them to doubt, and the women usually cite polygamy.  And once you doubt Joseph Smith's integrity and abilities based on The Book of Abraham or polygamy, then The Book of Mormon almost becomes collateral damage.  Chiasmus and Nahom are interesting, but once someone has passed the point of no return, they're not going to help much.  Once The Book of Abraham destroys their faith in Joseph's ability to translate (or "translate"), or polygamy destroys their faith in Joseph's character and integrity, then The Book of Mormon doesn't really matter.  Believing in The Book of Mormon means trusting Joseph Smith was telling the truth.  And once you don't trust Joseph Smith anymore, there's no reason to believe.  You can dive into the other evidences, but they are all adequately explained by probability theory, cultural influences, or the fact that not being able to explain something isn't an "evidence."

So maybe it's not so much that people who are "caught in the middle of this" refuse to "engage."  Perhaps you are seriously overestimating the value of those evidences to those people in the first place, even if they were proven to be valid.

Well said. The Book of Mormon didn't play a part in my faith crisis. I concluded a long time before that it was likely not an ancient record, but I accepted it as revealed scripture. I figured it was like the Book of Job, an extended allegory. But you're right that it was the realization that Joseph wasn't much of a translator and wasn't exactly a man of integrity that caused the shelf to collapse. I've read a lot of Book of Mormon apologetics, and some of it is interesting, but it's difficult to overcome the weight of everything else, of which Book of Mormon authenticity is just a part.

[Analytics]

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Sounds like it was written for a general audience, which tends to bring disapproval from the more academic-minded. I may have to check it out. I need to finish reading Vanity Fair first.

It's written for a general audience, but it is also written by a serious scholar who is making real academic arguments. It's like Guns, Germs, and Steel with high-octane fuel. I found a review in an academic journal that took issue with a few of Harari's conclusions, but in general the people who don't like the book are going to be conservatives who don't like somebody challenging their pre-conceived notions of reality.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Analytics said:

It's written for a general audience, but it is also written by a serious scholar who is making real academic arguments. It's like Guns, Germs, and Steel with high-octane fuel. I found a review in an academic journal that took issue with a few of Harari's conclusions, but in general the people who don't like the book are going to be conservatives who don't like somebody challenging their pre-conceived notions of reality.

I didn't mean to imply he isn't a serious scholar, just noting that general-audience books tend to get sniffed at a little by some academics. 

[Ryan Dahle]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Most people I know, when confronted with a faith crisis, read everything they could get their hands on from the church's position and from apologists. The ones who step away without ever looking at the other side are pretty rare, indeed. If you think about it, this is the wrong place to ask that question in the first place. How many people here aren't familiar with apologetics? I'd say a conservative estimate is zero.

Well it sounds like our personal experiences with those in these situations have been very different. I appreciate your input. 

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I was trying to gather reasons about why those who are caught in the middle of all this, and who don't really have much exposure to the apologetic evidences,  refuse to engage. Simply pointing out that there are intelligent people and intelligent counterarguments on the both sides (which has been the nature of many of the responses), doesn't explain why someone in initial faith crisis mode, chooses to spend far more time investigating one side over the other. I'm not looking for THE answer to my question. I just wanted to see what patterns or consistencies might arise.   

I tried to make this point when I first responded to your OP.  That most members are not believers because of the strong evidence for historicity.  People are converted to Mormonism because of an experience they have (emotional & spiritual).  At the same time, they just assume that the historical claims are true because they trust the messengers have told a plausible narrative of the history.  But its the personal experiences they've had that tie them to Mormonism.  

When someone learns that the plausible narrative of the history isn't accurate, this can fracture that trust relationship with the messengers.  For some, this fracturing of trust comes quickly and doesn't cause them to feel like they need to research all the apologetics.  I think apologetic arguments actually accelerate their fractured trust because of the way these arguments are constructed.  They contrast so strongly with the very binary correlated narratives, that people who've been taught to look at religion as black and white, don't have the patience to try and learn a whole different way of orienting towards the world.  This very binary paradigm that is effectively perpetuated by correlated Mormonism, becomes a barrier for people going through this stage of fractured trust.  

So I can't blame people for not diving deeply into the arguments for and against.  I think some do, and I certainly have, but many others don't for very understandable reasons.  

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The mental dynamics of a faith crisis are interesting. I don't think the human brain is a very effective tool for comparing two distinct paradigms--especially when intense psychological and sociological pressure are weighing in. Some people have a testimony which has never wavered--they always "knew" that it is all true. Others can kind of see both sides and can see the totality of the evidence going either way. They end up playing mental games where they subconsciously seek to counterbalance negative evidence with positive evidence, and end up thinking that it was deliberately designed to be inconclusive so that whether or not you believe is necessarily a test of faith because, well, that is the plan.

Occasionally, some people break out of that. It is a humbling experience. Rather than thinking you are a special person who has the truth, you consider in your gut that you might be just another normal person and that the religion you are struggling with is just another false religion pretty-much like all the others. That is when the faith crisis happens. When that happens, the objective is to figure out the truth--not achieve an emotional equilibrium with the evidence that provides for the possibility of faith. When you get to that point emotionally, you look at the apologetic "evidence" with a bit more skepticism. You really want to figure out the truth--regardless of what it might be.

When you are at that point, you carefully consider the apologetic evidence. But you are a bit more skeptical, and if you find the apologists playing fast and lose with the facts, you can quickly lose confidence in them. You feel betrayed. You feel like the apologists lack integrity and are driving you away. You fill like you've taken the red pill and are waking up disoriented in a totally different universe than the one you spent your entire life in.

 

12 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Perhaps there is one more point in all of this:

While a lot of faith crises involve arguments regarding The Book of Mormon (for example, it's one section of many in the CES letter), a much larger issue is Joseph Smith.  More specifically, should Joseph Smith be trusted, and was he a Prophet?  If the answer to those questions is "no", then that takes away a lot of the reason to believe the claims of The Book of Mormon.

Over the years, I've talked with a lot of people who lost faith and left the Church, and generally speaking, the men usually cite The Book of Abraham as the key problem that led them to doubt, and the women usually cite polygamy.  And once you doubt Joseph Smith's integrity and abilities based on The Book of Abraham or polygamy, then The Book of Mormon almost becomes collateral damage.  Chiasmus and Nahom are interesting, but once someone has passed the point of no return, they're not going to help much.  Once The Book of Abraham destroys their faith in Joseph's ability to translate (or "translate"), or polygamy destroys their faith in Joseph's character and integrity, then The Book of Mormon doesn't really matter.  Believing in The Book of Mormon means trusting Joseph Smith was telling the truth.  And once you don't trust Joseph Smith anymore, there's no reason to believe.  You can dive into the other evidences, but they are all adequately explained by probability theory, cultural influences, or the fact that not being able to explain something isn't an "evidence."

So maybe it's not so much that people who are "caught in the middle of this" refuse to "engage."  Perhaps you are seriously overestimating the value of those evidences to those people in the first place, even if they were proven to be valid.

So true, both of you. ETA: Shoot, didn't see hope_for_things, to add his as well. 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Tacenda

[CA Steve]

39 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

 I was trying to gather reasons about why those who are caught in the middle of all this, and who don't really have much exposure to the apologetic evidences,  refuse to engage. 

Perhaps it is a carryover from when they were full believers. My experience when talking with believers  in real life about many of the issues Mormonism faces is that quite a bit of them simply are not interested in apologetic material even as believers. So this same type of mentality may be what is manifesting itself when these believers run into an issue that causes them to lose faith. They were not big on apologetics before, why would you expect them to turn to them after a faith crisis? For many, it may not even be an issue of whether or not there is a good explanation or not, it may be the fact they were blindsided by an issue they feel they should have already known.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I accept that.  Many (perhaps most) of the people I have known have not done this.

I've found many who have a faith crisis are already very well read regarding what the church has stated on certain difficult issues.  So I think it's quite natural to spend more time reading the "other side" (so to speak) or material that they've not been familiar with previously.  I'm not talking anti-Mormon literature, but just actual sources (documents, histories, quotes, journals, etc.) that give a broader picture rather than the formerly "white washed" version of church history, for example.  The church is doing much better at getting away from the sanitized church history version, but that doesn't mean it's still not new to many members when they hear something (for example, the truth regarding Joseph's polygamy and polyandry).  So of course, they're going to spend more time reading new material when searching for the truth when they are familiar with the old material.

Many go to their church leaders for answers too (as well as going to FAIR and other good sources for some of the more difficult topics), but that hasn't gone very well for the most part, IMO (seeking answers from local church leaders who have been unfamiliar in the past with many of these topics too).

Edited June 26, 2018 by ALarson

[Analytics]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I didn't mean to imply he isn't a serious scholar, just noting that general-audience books tend to get sniffed at a little by some academics. 

That's true. But I had a feeling Bukowski was talking about Amazon reviews that gave it 1 star--there might be a real academic in that crowd, but there aren't many.

[Ryan Dahle]

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Perhaps there is one more point in all of this:

While a lot of faith crises involve arguments regarding The Book of Mormon (for example, it's one section of many in the CES letter), a much larger issue is Joseph Smith.  More specifically, should Joseph Smith be trusted, and was he a Prophet?  If the answer to those questions is "no", then that takes away a lot of the reason to believe the claims of The Book of Mormon.

Over the years, I've talked with a lot of people who lost faith and left the Church, and generally speaking, the men usually cite The Book of Abraham as the key problem that led them to doubt, and the women usually cite polygamy.  And once you doubt Joseph Smith's integrity and abilities based on The Book of Abraham or polygamy, then The Book of Mormon almost becomes collateral damage.  Chiasmus and Nahom are interesting, but once someone has passed the point of no return, they're not going to help much.  Once The Book of Abraham destroys their faith in Joseph's ability to translate (or "translate"), or polygamy destroys their faith in Joseph's character and integrity, then The Book of Mormon doesn't really matter.  Believing in The Book of Mormon means trusting Joseph Smith was telling the truth.  And once you don't trust Joseph Smith anymore, there's no reason to believe.  You can dive into the other evidences, but they are all adequately explained by probability theory, cultural influences, or the fact that not being able to explain something isn't an "evidence."

So maybe it's not so much that people who are "caught in the middle of this" refuse to "engage."  Perhaps you are seriously overestimating the value of those evidences to those people in the first place, even if they were proven to be valid.

Right, and those are the types of personal answers I was looking for. I'm not "overestimating" how much these people value the evidences I am talking about. My point is to find out more specifically what reasons people have for not valuing them enough to research them. 

[Ryan Dahle]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I tried to make this point when I first responded to your OP.  That most members are not believers because of the strong evidence for historicity.  People are converted to Mormonism because of an experience they have (emotional & spiritual).  At the same time, they just assume that the historical claims are true because they trust the messengers have told a plausible narrative of the history.  But its the personal experiences they've had that tie them to Mormonism.  

When someone learns that the plausible narrative of the history isn't accurate, this can fracture that trust relationship with the messengers.  For some, this fracturing of trust comes quickly and doesn't cause them to feel like they need to research all the apologetics.  I think apologetic arguments actually accelerate their fractured trust because of the way these arguments are constructed.  They contrast so strongly with the very binary correlated narratives, that people who've been taught to look at religion as black and white, don't have the patience to try and learn a whole different way of orienting towards the world.  This very binary paradigm that is effectively perpetuated by correlated Mormonism, becomes a barrier for people going through this stage of fractured trust.  

So I can't blame people for not diving deeply into the arguments for and against.  I think some do, and I certainly have, but many others don't for very understandable reasons. 

I think this is a good point. 

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Right, and those are the types of personal answers I was looking for. I'm not "overestimating" how much these people value the evidences I am talking about. My point is to find out more specifically what reasons people have for not valuing them enough to research them. 

I picture a scale, and the evidence on the other side of the evidence you've listed IMO, outway. 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Tacenda

[smac97]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I tried to make this point when I first responded to your OP.  That most members are not believers because of the strong evidence for historicity.  People are converted to Mormonism because of an experience they have (emotional & spiritual).  At the same time, they just assume that the historical claims are true because they trust the messengers have told a plausible narrative of the history.  But its the personal experiences they've had that tie them to Mormonism.  

Well said.  And it is likewise often that "personal experiences" that lead them away from Mormonism.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

When someone learns that the plausible narrative of the history isn't accurate, this can fracture that trust relationship with the messengers.  For some, this fracturing of trust comes quickly and doesn't cause them to feel like they need to research all the apologetics.  I think apologetic arguments actually accelerate their fractured trust because of the way these arguments are constructed.  They contrast so strongly with the very binary correlated narratives, that people who've been taught to look at religion as black and white, don't have the patience to try and learn a whole different way of orienting towards the world.  This very binary paradigm that is effectively perpetuated by correlated Mormonism, becomes a barrier for people going through this stage of fractured trust.  

Very insightful.  "Binary correlated narratives" are, on their own, increasingly insufficient to maintain a testimony.  But then, I don't think the "correlated" content of the three-hour block was ever intended to function on its own.  We have been exhorted constantly to study the Gospel on our own, on a regular (daily) basis.  Pres. Faust touched on the insufficiency of a simplistic "black and white" narrative back in 2000:

Quote

An important part of the gospel message is that we not be too rigid: that we open our minds, develop some tolerance, and not be quick to render judgment. I learned when I was making my living in the legal arena that we do not always have all of the facts. There always seemed to be at least two sides to a question. Everything is not just black and white. The counsel of the Savior as He instructed His Twelve was, “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16).

It is not always easy to achieve appropriate balance. In addition to what we read in the newspapers, we can bring right into our homes in color most of the problems of an entire world. We also have our own personal ups and downs and challenges. The stresses of life are real and rather constant.

More recently, Elder Ballard said this in 2016:

Quote

Gone are the days when a student asked an honest question and a teacher responded, “Don’t worry about it!” Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue. Gone are the days when students were protected from people who attacked the Church.

Fortunately, the Lord has provided this timely and timeless counsel to teachers: “And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118).

This is especially applicable today because not all of our students have the faith necessary to face the challenges ahead and because many of them are already exposed through the internet to corrosive forces of an increasingly secular world that is hostile to faith, family, and gospel standards. The internet is expanding its reach across the world into almost every home and into the hands and minds of our students.

You can help students by teaching them what it means to combine study and faith as they learn. Teach them by modeling this skill and approach in class.

Sound counsel.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

So I can't blame people for not diving deeply into the arguments for and against.  I think some do, and I certainly have, but many others don't for very understandable reasons.  

I don't condemn anyone either.  All we can do is invite and exhort.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've found many who have a faith crisis are already very well read regarding what the church has stated on certain difficult issues. 

Yes, I acknowledge that.  But my experience has, in the main, gone the other way.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So I think it's quite natural to spend more time reading the "other side" (so to speak) or material that they've not been familiar with previously.  I'm not talking anti-Mormon literature, but just actual sources (documents, histories, quotes, journals, etc.) that give a broader picture rather than the formerly "white washed" version of church history, for example. 

I haven't experienced this.  Going to "actual sources" seems like a rarity.  

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Many go to their church leaders for answers too (as well as going to FAIR and other good sources for some of the more difficult topics), but that hasn't gone very well for the most part, IMO (seeking answers from local church leaders who have been unfamiliar in the past with many of these topics too).

Yes, bishops and stake presidents probably need to bone up a bit more on these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well said.  And it is likewise often that "personal experiences" that lead them away from Mormonism.

Very insightful.  "Binary correlated narratives" are, on their own, increasingly insufficient to maintain a testimony.  But then, I don't think the "correlated" content of the three-hour block was ever intended to function on its own.  We have been exhorted constantly to study the Gospel on our own, on a regular (daily) basis.  Pres. Faust touched on the insufficiency of a simplistic "black and white" narrative back in 2000:

More recently, Elder Ballard said this in 2016:

Sound counsel.

I don't condemn anyone either.  All we can do is invite and exhort.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

6 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think this is a good point. 

Thanks for the comments.  I wonder if I may have finally articulated a point that resonates as true across the typical expected boundary lines.  Rarely happens for me , but this is part of why I continue to engage in these conversations. 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I acknowledge that.  But my experience has, in the main, gone the other way.

I haven't experienced this.  Going to "actual sources" seems like a rarity.  

I've seen just the opposite.  Of course some may wander into anti stuff, but most I've seen want no more deceit and to look at the actual writings and sources.

I've also seen very few leave over personal experiences or being offended.  Most I'm aware of leave when they learn some hard truths about actual church history or church doctrines (of the past)....or lack of historical evidence regarding the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham (a big one for many).

Edited June 26, 2018 by ALarson

[champatsch]

Trying to lay out for those interested the achievement of Joseph Smith in 1829 when he composed the Book of Mormon by dictation. He achieved quite a few philological milestones. Those who think he gave us a specimen of 19c fiction must accept that the (morpho)syntax he used emanated from his own mental processes. Those who think he worded the Book of Mormon from revealed ideas, the B.H. Roberts position, must accept that the (morpho)syntax he used emanated from his own mental processes.

Achievement #7: "if it so be".  Joseph must have been steeped in biblical ways of expression in order to produce the brilliantly blended biblical phraseology found in many Book of Mormon passages such as Mosiah 18:21 or Moroni 10:30–31. Yet, he surprisingly acted independently of the King James Bible in much of his syntax, doing so, however, in a way that matched earlier English usage time and time again. One of these is "if it so be".

There are 42 of these in the Book of Mormon, and the King James Bible has 18 of "if so be", without an it. There is no overlap. This expression was around in Joseph's time, but fairly rare. What anchors Joseph's usage to earlier English are the seven cases where the modal auxiliary verbs should and shall are used after the phrase, all in the small plates section. That's when he was really hitting his stride, we have been told. That of course isn't really a studied view of Book of Mormon language, like much of what we have been given over the decades.

If anyone can find modern instances of "if it so be that" used with these modal auxiliaries, that would be important to know about. So far I have found a 1481 text, a translation of Cicero, that has both of these. The King James Bible has one with shall, which is easy enough for us to find today. Joseph must have picked up on that, but then decided he was going to be consistently different. At least we know he set a record in the use of this phrase, by a long shot. Texts with a lot of this phraseology, by which I mean about five, are by Chaucer, Lydgate, and the 1481 translators, William Worcester et al.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've seen just the opposite.  Of course some may wander into anti stuff, but most I've seen want no more deceit and to look at the actual writings and sources.

Ah, well.  That's why we come to this board.  To share our diversified experiences and observations.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've also seen very few leave over personal experiences or being offended. 

I'm not sure I'd put it that way.  A person who has a moral objection to the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity may originate in or be influenced by "personal experiences" (such as by having a loved one who is gay and who resents the Church's teachings on homosexual behavior), but that objection still ends up being a philosophical/moral disagreement with the Church's teachings.  And that objection deserves some respect.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Most leave when they learn some hard truths about actual church history or church doctrines (of the past)....or lack of historical evidence regarding the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham (a big one for many).

I'm not sure "most leave," but certainly many do.  I am reminded here of Mormon 9:31:

Quote

Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

Alas, I think often there is more condemnation of past leaders and members, and not as much learning from their "imperfections" so that we may "be more wise than [they] have been."

Foregiveness.  That's a biggie.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

29 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Right, and those are the types of personal answers I was looking for. I'm not "overestimating" how much these people value the evidences I am talking about. My point is to find out more specifically what reasons people have for not valuing them enough to research them. 

Again, this is an odd place to ask that question. 

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Alas, I think often there is more condemnation of past leaders and members, and not as much learning from their "imperfections" so that we may "be more wise than [they] have been."

Foregiveness.  That's a biggie.

Forgiving does not mean restored belief though.  From what I've seen, many who leave do not have hatred or hard feelings towards the church or the members.  They just no longer believe....that's gone for them.

[champatsch]

Achievement #8: "save it was".

The Book of Mormon has three of these, and there is a well-known instance in Doctrine and Covenants 9, received in the same way and at the same time as the Book of Mormon. This sort of phrase isn't in the King James Bible or in pseudo-biblical texts.  So far I've seen six independent examples of this phrase, all produced before 1700. Tyndale has the earliest example in his 1530 Pentateuch. After that we have 1607, mid 1600s, and three Scottish examples by two authors in the 1680s.

The author who may have produced the most "save it were/was/be" language is James Canaries. One of his books provides the best model for this common Book of Mormon phraseology.

In 1829, Joseph Smith produced record-setting amounts of this otherwise uncommon or obscure language. Not only was he brilliant biblically, but he was also brilliant in his ability to bring back to life moribund, extrabiblical (morpho)syntax.

Let me add that I recently looked through 73 of these in ECCO, and there was only one match, and it was 17c language, not 18c. It's tedious work screening out all the false positives.

Edited June 26, 2018 by champatsch

[Ryan Dahle]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, this is an odd place to ask that question. 

Right, but you'll notice I am not a seasoned member of this forum. I wasn't sure what would crop up. And I've found the varied responses valuable anyway, even if they weren't exactly what I was looking for.