Xenophon wrote:If you say you meant no condescension, I believe you. I know these topics can be rather sensitive.
I do understand your point and I don't think you "irrational" to continue in your faith. The only problem I really have with your statement, as laid out in my original post, is using phrases like "empirical evidence". You use a very technical phrase with a very clear meaning in relation to a very abstract and non-testable idea. By your own admission we can't know 100% anything concerning God until the next life (or lack there of).
I can't speak for all anti- or ex-Mormons, but I will say you are guilty of the same thing you accuse Themis of up thread. By lumping all ex-Mormons into some category about why or how they "fell away" (I will say you won't win many over by declaring they have "given up"). Many that I know don't completely lose faith in Christ or Heavenly Father, just in the creations of Joseph Smith. Many more that I know have gone on to do more good in this world than they ever did as members.
You may find their choices misguided but it would technically fit in your explanation for those that don't come to or stay with Mormonism. Perhaps it is part of their enduring trial to remain faithful to Christ even as the leave the Church (you can make no more claim to the inner workings of God than any other Man).
I respect what you are saying, but for me, empirical evidence means proof, and I think I am not equivocating in this, meaning the same type of evidence as forensic evidence, such as if the body of Bigfoot finally were to be found, and they were able to perform an autopsy on it. I for one do not believe in Bigfoot, although I'm an ex-squatcher. And so, for an arena where there is nothing at stake like eternal salvation, I am perfectly fine with demanding evidence to know the truth of the matter. Eternal salvation is a different matter entirely, and demands a different approach than the one you are all demanding from people of faith. Because
it is indeed the one exception to where proof can be demanded. Because proof cannot be demanded of this thing by its nature, because of the way God has structured it, and the rules that he has put in place for it.
I make this distinction to many Mormon apologists that I deal with continually with the issue of the Book of Abraham. These apologists to me insist that there is a missing papyrus based on old hearsay or old unreliable evidences. I choose to base my opinions about the Book of Abraham in my research on it in using what I call the forensic evidence of the Book of Abraham, which happens to be the Sensen Papyrus and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, comprising the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar documents and the Book of Abraham original manuscripts. These are the forensic evidence of the translation process regardless of what the John Gee's of the world try to say. It is an interesting conundrum for apologists that on the one hand they say that only the Book of Mormon text can be used for Book of Mormon Geography and that we should do away with all the old geography statements from former prophets. But on the other hand, the FARMS/FAIRMormon/MI scholars group continually says that we need to rely on the same types of problematic documentation that makes unsubstantiated claims about the Book of Abraham. For actual moving forward in the area of the Book of Abraham research, on both sides, critics and apologists alike need to acknowledge each other as colleagues, and come to a mutual consensus on forensic evidence. From there, critical scholars and apologist scholars will diverge on their respective conclusions about the facts, but at least, the forensic facts will be decided on by consensus, and everyone will be better off for it regardless, because apologetics will take a step forward, even though critics will never agree with its conclusions regardless of the basis for those conclusions. At least critics will then agree with the apologists at that point on the forensic facts of the matter.
And so, actually, I can assure you that in my research and in my speaking, I am quite clear with my use of the phrase empirical evidence. Because touching Christ's feet and hands and feeling the wounds are indeed that, as much as a body is physical evidence before those that would perform an autopsy on Bigfoot, which probably doesn't exist. But that is what it would take.
There is no irrationality in faith when there is something of great magnitude and weight and value at stake, where there is too much risk to not commit to be faithful. It is worth any price to pay, any sacrifice that is required, including suspension of a demand for proof, and continued obedience and endurance. Here is another point, is that the law of sacrifice demands sacrifice of whatever is necessary. Therefore faith is a rational sacrifice, and so, it is the type of sacrifice is the sacrifice of a need for proof to endure.
I can't agree with you that people that leave Mormonism having once been converted, and having a certain amount of light, are in the same state as people that never had that light, who weren't supposed to ever get that level of light in mortality. The people from whom the light is withheld are in that state for a deliberate reason that the Lord knows about their mortal mission that would necessitate it. The people that leave Mormonism have broken covenants, and are responsible for that, and can never be in the same position as those who never made them, and never knew that level of light.
You say that I will never win these people over with the way that I am speaking. I didn't think that I would ever win anyone over, but I don't mince words about what I see as facts. I can't always treat people with kid gloves that make excuses for their state when it is a result of their own choices, as much as an alcoholic is responsible for his state.
