What would it take for you to leave Mormonism?

[_Mercury]

Thanks for posting your story Vegas.

One little thing. I hate to be nit-picky, but do you really think garments are expensive? They cost about 3.50 per piece and I'd say they are about as well made as any other clothing sold in stores. Nothings' really very well made compared to manufacturing standards of the past. Of course, I can understand you being annoyed at having spent good money on something only to have to throw them away once you no longer believed.

I'm not sure what could make me lose my faith. However, I doubt any of the history stuff could do it. I've been studying "church skeletons" my entire adult life and I'm still a believer.

I had my "trial by fire" many years ago and I've never doubted the truthfulness of the gospel since that experience. But because of what I went through, I can empathize with those who lose their faith or who struggle with doubt or to live the standards.

Garments are cheaply made. How many pairs have you owned that start falling apart? I have boxers I've been wearing for 2 years (hardeharhar...i wash them) that don't have a single seam or fray out of place. Garmies are cheaply made compared to my experience with other comparable products made by the garment industry.

[_Who Knows]

Logic would have to play a major role...

What do you mean?

Because nothing else seems to hold much sway on me. People can easily talk my head off with history and the like. I'll never follow or understand. But if someone could sit down and perform something like a mathematical proof, it will be much more persuasive to me.

Also, I'm not much of one for being persuaded by rhetoric, accusations of racism, or emotional arguments. Do it like people do math or forget it.

But history is a part of the logic. Think Noah's flood, for example. Or Adam & Eve, etc.

edit - i'm still having trouble understanding this whole 'logic' thing. What would you expect to 'logically' test? Religion is, by definition, untestable from a logic perspective. Does it logically make sense that some invisible being magically impregnated a human being who later gave birth to a 'savior of the world'?

You seem to require logic to dis-prove it, but don't require it to believe it.

[_Mister Scratch]

The church provides more happiness than any other approach and also seems to work as it indicates.

More happiness for whom? And you know this how? Personal experience? If you are BIC, how do you know this, even accounting for personal experience?

More happiness for me and my family. Yes, from personal experience. The last question is one I refuse to answer. Call it a tacit admission of defeat if you will. I don't care.

I don't think anyone is claiming "victory" over you, ABman. Just trying to get you to maybe see a different perspective, that's all. : )

[_gramps]

Lots of ways will work. Have you tried any other ways to see if they would work even better?

If not, why not?

I'm not ignoring your question, but there are some personal things I'd rather not share--even behind a mask of anonymity. If you wish to see that as a tacit admission of me being a coward or knowing I'm wrong, so be it. I don't care what you think.

It can't be because you think the doctrine is logical or how the spirit works is logical, or is it?

Why not? I do not claim to fully understand how the spirit works, but I see no reason to suspect it isn't logical. I only suspect that I cannot now fully comprehend such things. I do, however, think that we can know enough for the present time.

I never said anything about a coward or knowing that you are wrong. Why the "I don't care what you think?" A little touchy, aren't we?

And I would never ask you to divulge something that you wish to keep private.

You are the one that said something like logic would have to be only way out. I really don't care what you think, either, but since we have no history at all on this board, I find your response a little over the top. Whatever.

[_asbestosman]

I never said anything about a coward or knowing that you are wrong. Why the "I don't care what you think?" A little touchy, aren't we?

And I would never ask you to divulge something that you wish to keep private.

You are the one that said something like logic would have to be only way out. I really don't care what you think, either, but since we have no history at all on this board, I find your response a little over the top. Whatever.

I really wasn't upset. I was merely trying to anticipate the next move from people. It has generally been my experience that when someone says they know or experience something that they will be called on it. If they persist in saying it's sacred or personal, then they are asked to admit defeat.

Your questions did not offend me. I would spew a lot more vile if they had. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[_gramps]

I never said anything about a coward or knowing that you are wrong. Why the "I don't care what you think?" A little touchy, aren't we?

And I would never ask you to divulge something that you wish to keep private.

You are the one that said something like logic would have to be only way out. I really don't care what you think, either, but since we have no history at all on this board, I find your response a little over the top. Whatever.

I really wasn't upset. I was merely trying to anticipate the next move from people. It has generally been my experience that when someone says they know or experience something that they will be called on it. If they persist in saying it's sacred or personal, then they are asked to admit defeat.

Your questions did not offend me. I would spew a lot more vile if they had. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No problem, but thanks for the clarification. You can be assured that I would never attack you about your spiritual experiences. I have had them, too. I just interpret them differently now than I used to. But, they are still very special to me. I would never deny that I had them. Whatever they were. But, by that same logic that you speak of, I definitely think the Mormon way ofknowing something is true, is not logical. It is circular. there is no way around it.

[_asbestosman]

edit - i'm still having trouble understanding this whole 'logic' thing. What would you expect to 'logically' test? Religion is, by definition, untestable from a logic perspective. Does it logically make sense that some invisible being magically impregnated a human being who later gave birth to a 'savior of the world'?

You seem to require logic to dis-prove it, but don't require it to believe it.

The logic would be along the lines of showing that fundamental doctrine A contradicts fundamental doctrine B. If, for examle, you could prove that the necessity of baptism logically contradicts the necessity of being sealed in the temple, then you'd be getting somewhere with me. Mind you it'd have to be a logical proof, not just a mere, "I don't see how it could work."

[_Who Knows]

The logic would be along the lines of showing that fundamental doctrine A contradicts fundamental doctrine B. If, for examle, you could prove that the necessity of baptism logically contradicts the necessity of being sealed in the temple, then you'd be getting somewhere with me. Mind you it'd have to be a logical proof, not just a mere, "I don't see how it could work."

You're a smart guy - you know that's impossible. I assume that you gave this requirement knowing that it's impossible.

Can you give logical proof as to why baptism is necessary, as well as being sealed in the temple?

Like I said, you appear to require logic to disprove the church, but don't in order to believe in it. Is this correct? And in fact you're requiring logic where it isn't applicable (which seems illogical to me). :)

[_Mercury]

I was merely trying to anticipate the next move from people. It has generally been my experience that when someone says they know or experience something that they will be called on it. If they persist in saying it's sacred or personal, then they are asked to admit defeat.

Your questions did not offend me. I would spew a lot more vile if they had. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I do not believe many Mormons practice things that are beyond question and honest inquiry. Believe it or not ABBA, but you shouldn't have to anticipate the next chess move. This is not a game, its debate A sizable percentage of us on this board practice it. So if you want to participate in discussions I suggest you look into a class on Philosophy, The professional practice of History, and speak to a Logician.

Or you could do something that a measurable percentage of us former Mormons take as granted.

[_asbestosman]

You're a smart guy - you know that's impossible. I assume that you gave this requirement knowing that it's impossible.

Can you give logical proof as to why baptism is necessary, as well as being sealed in the temple?

Like I said, you appear to require logic to disprove the church, but don't in order to believe in it. Is this correct? And in fact you're requiring logic where it isn't applicable (which seems illogical to me). :)

Of course I think it won't happen. That said, I will tell you where you might find a good start: Tarski's spirit vision thread. Stuff like that is getting somewhere in the neighborhood.

You're right that logic isn't sufficient for believing, but I think it plays an important role. The reason I'm sticking with logic for leaving isn't because I think I'm safe that way (although I do). I leave it at logic because I don't trust emotional arguments. Maybe if I had personal experiences on par with what I see as evidence for the church it would help, but logic would still be vital.

An no, I'm not going to sin on purpose just to see what life is like without the spirit. I do that enough out of foolishness as it is.