Sethbag wrote:My main issue with the LDS church is that it isn't "true" in that mormonistic jargon version of the word, ie: it's not really a church set up by a God who actually exists, and invested with his "authority".
Quite simply, the LDS church is a manmade creation, which is no more true than any other church out there.
That's an issue that they cannot ever resolve. There is no answer they can give to any question of history, which will take the church from manmade to Godmade. There is no God, and this non-existent God did not deputize Joseph Smith, and this same non-existent God did not grant Joseph Smith any Heavenly authority to build an earthly kingdom for said God. The LDS prophets, seers, and revelators, never reveal anything, they never "see" anything, they never prophecy anything, they are just old men who have toed the party line in the Mormon church for long enough that they've entered the inner circle of power, with a lifetime appointment.
The entire thing is well-intended by today's believers, but good intentions do not make a manmade institution into the Eartly Kingdom of God that the believers claim it to be.
There is no answer, to any question, which can change any of this. The church wasn't true before Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham. The church wasn't true before Joseph Smith screwed Fanny Alger. The church wasn't true before Joseph Smith sent some men on missions and then propositioned and bedded their wives while they were gone. The church wasn't true before the Book of Mormon was invented by whomever was responsible for it, or the Kirtland banking scandal, or the Missouri Mormon wars, or anything else. It was never, ever true to begin with. Everything else about Mormon history is merely symptoms of this not being true; they aren't the cause of it.
So many Mormons who have the kind of attitude mentioned in the OP seem to regard the church as holding an a priori presumption of truth, and non-belief is an aberration that must be explained and justified. If they can only resolve whatever issue it is, you'll have to come back, and whatnot. Well guess what? The LDS church is no more worthy of belief, or deserving of belief, nor is belief or allegiance owed to it in any greater degree than they are owed to any church on the face of the earth. Which is to say, it's owed nothing by us. This church is not presumptively true until proven otherwise. It's presumtively just as not true as any other church until and unless they can prove otherwise.
Seth, thanks for another fantastic post! You make great points and I always look forward to reading your comments.
Sethbag wrote:There is no answer, to any question, which can change any of this. The church wasn't true before Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham. The church wasn't true before Joseph Smith screwed Fanny Alger. The church wasn't true before Joseph Smith sent some men on missions and then propositioned and bedded their wives while they were gone. The church wasn't true before the Book of Mormon was invented by whomever was responsible for it, or the Kirtland banking scandal, or the Missouri Mormon wars, or anything else. It was never, ever true to begin with. Everything else about Mormon history is merely symptoms of this not being true; they aren't the cause of it.
Damn straight! Thanks for putting that back into perspective for us. That's a bedrock-baseline fact that I for one often lose track of.
So many Mormons who have the kind of attitude mentioned in the OP seem to regard the church as holding an a priori presumption of truth, and non-belief is an aberration that must be explained and justified. If they can only resolve whatever issue it is, you'll have to come back, and whatnot. Well guess what? The LDS church is no more worthy of belief, or deserving of belief, nor is belief or allegiance owed to it in any greater degree than they are owed to any church on the face of the earth. Which is to say, it's owed nothing by us. This church is not presumptively true until proven otherwise. It's presumtively just as not true as any other church until and unless they can prove otherwise.
You know, Sethbag, you're the Babe Ruth of message board posters. You never fail to hit them out of the park.
Seth, thanks for another fantastic post! You make great points and I always look forward to reading your comments.
Very, very true.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Scottie wrote:This is the fatal flaw in your logic here. No matter how much evidence against the church, the "whispering of the spirit" is counted as proof. It's not evidence, it is downright proof, and denial of this proof is outside the realm of reality.
In the TBM mindset, there are 2 kinds of people. Those whom the spirit has confirmed the truth, and those who the spirit has yet to confirm the truth to. The evidence doesn't matter.
Yeah, it's interesting to be one of those people who did receive that spiritual "confirmation" and yet who rejected the church because of the evidence and my conscience. I must be a son of perdition or something.
In my experience Perdition people believe in the Gospel and reject it anyways. If you are dissuaded by evidence you don't qualify. If you grow to the hate the Gospel while still believing in God and the reality of it you're in trouble. No one here publicly fits that. The only way anyone I know of on this board could qualify is if one of the critics believes it and is lying. I don't think that's the case.
I do think many LDS have the tendency to overstate the difficulty of becoming Perdition.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
moksha wrote:Although you mention "trained in the ministry", for the most part, I have noticed a curious absence of God-Jesus talk from the posts of many apologists. Perhaps they are concentrating of defending purely Mormon items. Your observation that they speak little of Jesus' good news, and thus bundle it as a less significant portion of the whole, seems accurate.
This is unfortunately true here though I try to speak of it when I can. Mostly I find myself here on the defensive though. I don't usually set the agenda. With the exception of Coggins (and most of his threads tend toward politics) it is rare that believing LDS start threads here so what we are discussing is dictated by the OP. I will say that in my private religious life sentiments akin to, "Jesus thou Son of God have mercy on me." and "I can't carry this burden anymore, I give up, it's yours" are the bread and butter of my prayers and meditations. Church History, doctrine, etc. come up some in my studies but rarely are they the topics brought here.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
In my experience Perdition people believe in the Gospel and reject it anyways. If you are dissuaded by evidence you don't qualify. If you grow to the hate the Gospel while still believing in God and the reality of it you're in trouble. No one here publicly fits that. The only way anyone I know of on this board could qualify is if one of the critics believes it and is lying. I don't think that's the case.
I do think many LDS have the tendency to overstate the difficulty of becoming Perdition.
This makes no sense to me. It reminds me of the story of Satan in the pre-existence. Supposedly Satan knew the plan of salvation like everyone else, and, of course, he had no need for faith because he was right there with Heavenly Father. And supposedly the plan of salvation was not new but had been utilized in previous worlds. So everyone knew how it would end, and yet Satan was still stupid enough to volunteer to be Satan. It makes no sense.
Likewise, it makes no sense to suggest that someone might really believe - in fact know (the language in the D&C is quite strong) that the church is true, and still fight against it. That means that they would know they were condemning themselves to an eternity in outer darkness.
It just makes no sense at all.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
This makes no sense to me. It reminds me of the story of Satan in the pre-existence. Supposedly Satan knew the plan of salvation like everyone else, and, of course, he had no need for faith because he was right there with Heavenly Father. And supposedly the plan of salvation was not new but had been utilized in previous worlds. So everyone knew how it would end, and yet Satan was still stupid enough to volunteer to be Satan. It makes no sense.
Likewise, it makes no sense to suggest that someone might really believe - in fact know (the language in the D&C is quite strong) that the church is true, and still fight against it. That means that they would know they were condemning themselves to an eternity in outer darkness.
It just makes no sense at all.
What Satan rebelled against is that the plan was too hard. Too many people would fall short in his opinion. Sound familiar? I hear it all the time on this board. Who Knows has a whole thread devoted to God being a jerk. Satan didn't volunteer to be a devil, he became one by his own free agency.
Is it that unusula for members who believe in God to think the plan of salvation is unfair and too hard? Ask Kim, and a few others around here. Its really not that rare, but just as sad.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Gazelam wrote:What Satan rebelled against is that the plan was too hard. Too many people would fall short in his opinion. Sound familiar? I hear it all the time on this board. Who Knows has a whole thread devoted to God being a jerk. Satan didn't volunteer to be a devil, he became one by his own free agency.
Is it that unusula for members who believe in God to think the plan of salvation is unfair and too hard? Ask Kim, and a few others around here. Its really not that rare, but just as sad.
It has never occurred to me to even consider the "fairness" or "hardness" of the LDS plan of salvation. It simply wasn't an issue in my leaving, and it doesn't sound like it was for most exmormons. Some people, like Who Knows and KA, have posted about how they realized after leaving that it was absurd/unfair/cruel what have you. But I don't think anyone here said they left because it was unfair or too hard. You're putting words into people's mouths.