What would it take for you to leave Mormonism?

[_Who Knows]

I'll second what Seth wrote.

Mak - if the church brings you joy - great. If it brings you spiritual witnesses - great. But you do realize that this says absolutely nothing about the truth of the church. Like Seth said, millions of people experience these sorts of things in various religions. Do you really think they provide even a shred of evidence for any sort of truth regarding religion? Sure, it may be 'true' for that individual, but saying it's somehow universally true is just plain wrong.

Like I said - if it makes you happy - good for you - just so long as you know that it means absolutely nothing in terms of real/universal truth.

[_Mercury]

I'll second what Seth wrote.

Mak - if the church brings you joy - great. If it brings you spiritual witnesses - great. But you do realize that this says absolutely nothing about the truth of the church. Like Seth said, millions of people experience these sorts of things in various religions. Do you really think they provide even a shred of evidence for any sort of truth regarding religion? Sure, it may be 'true' for that individual, but saying it's somehow universally true is just plain wrong.

Like I said - if it makes you happy - good for you - just so long as you know that it means absolutely nothing in terms of real/universal truth.

Let me anticipate macs response:

"its all relative"

[_Aquinas]

1) All people who post on a message board of the religion they left are pathetic
2) Vegas Refugee posts on a message board of the religion he left
3) Therefore, Vegas Refugee is pathetic

Is this supposed to be bad logic for me to break apart or is this your attempt at proper logic?

It's perfect logic, Vegas. ;)

Here's another example:

1. All people who make passive aggressive personal attacks are childish.
2. Aquinas makes passive aggressive personal attacks on Vegas.
3. Aquinas is childish.

See how that works?

;)

Liz, how were my attacks passive-agressive? You seem not to know what passive-agressive means, if anything they were just agressive comments. Besides, you just used the same argument style to attack me, so not only are you childish, but also unoriginal.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Is that thread here or at MAD? If it's at MAD, do you have a link (I can't use the search function)?

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.

But you're basically creating a 'can't lose' situation for yourself here. You're saying that you'd require a spiritual experience (that tells you the church isn't true) that's on par with your conversion spiritual experience. But this will never happen, because you would never accept this - as you feel that such an experience is not possible. In other words, if some type of spiritual confirmation came that the church wasn't true - it wouldn't be from the spirit because the spirit would never say such a thing - it must be from the devil or some other source. Hopefully that made sense.

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.

Well yes, if you view it that way ('sinning' is something real which makes you lose 'the spirit'), then that's what will probably happen. If you can approach it from the point of view that there are no 'sins' - only consequences for 'bad' choices - and that there is no 'spirit' - only your conscience - then you may arrive at a different result.

There is a logical/doctrinal contradiction in the remarks of ABman and Maklelan, I think. It is a fundamental premise of Mormonism that a person receives a physical body and comes to earth in order to be "tested." Doesn't it therefore make sense that the greatest of all tests is determining whether or not the Church is true? It seems, as others have pointed out, that there is nothing at stake for Mak and ABman. They have created this cozy little "safe place" for themselves in which all challenges to their faith can be neatly swept aside. Not much of a "challenge" at all.

[_Aquinas]

1) All people who post on a message board of the religion they left are pathetic
2) Vegas Refugee posts on a message board of the religion he left
3) Therefore, Vegas Refugee is pathetic

Is this supposed to be bad logic for me to break apart or is this your attempt at proper logic?

So how about it Vegas? Break it apart...

[_Who Knows]

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=16399&st=0&p=1207985098&#entry1207985098

Thanks. I didn't read the whole thread (16 pages! - a lot of it from Number9 - ugh!) but i get the jist of it.

It's interesting to think about - but again - unprovable or untestable or unfalsifiable. How do we know there's not some type of spiritual photon (not sure if i'm using the correct term here) that's emitted from everything, that reacts with spiritual eyes to produce an image similar to what a human sees.

I don't care to get into debating it because i'm way out of my league with that one. But I would just say that I fail to see how this 'could be' the sort of logic you would require. You're still dealing with unknowns that leave wiggle room for faith - if you so choose.

[_Aquinas]

One of the funniest things I see on MDB is the evangelicals making arguments against Mormonism using other BS doctrine as a "logical" basis.

What "BS doctrine" are you refering to? I didn't give a reference to doctrine at all, but to a philosophical argument.

[_why me]

Umm...what would it take to get me out of the church? Ummmm...well...I would need a Book of Mormon manuscript written in Joseph Smith's hand complete with rough drafts that definitely showed his writing process at work. Outside of that...well...I would always doubt a critic man or woman of science. And as my grandpappy said: never trust an atheist since there ain't no such thing.

[_asbestosman]

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=16399&st=0&p=1207985098&#entry1207985098

It's interesting to think about - but again - unprovable or untestable or unfalsifiable. How do we know there's not some type of spiritual photon (not sure if i'm using the correct term here) that's emitted from everything, that reacts with spiritual eyes to produce an image similar to what a human sees.

I don't care to get into debating it because i'm way out of my league with that one. But I would just say that I fail to see how this 'could be' the sort of logic you would require. You're still dealing with unknowns that leave wiggle room for faith - if you so choose.

It's true that Tarski's argument is not solid. However, I suppose that one might find creative questions along those lines that would be solid. Again, it'd have to point out a contradiction, not just a mere "gee wiz, I hadn't thought of that" type thing.

Aquinis has done a better job in trying to point out a contradiction. Unfortunately I disagree with the soundness of Summa Theologiae. I will dissecting it in a bit, but I'm still working on it.

[_Yoda]

You seem not to know what passive-agressive means, if anything they were just agressive comments. Besides, you just used the same argument style to attack me, so not only are you childish, but also unoriginal.

Now that was aggressive. ;)