All 7 Of Jacob Hansen's Siblings Have Left The Church

[MG 2.0]

Did you ever have a firm faith and belief/testimony of the mission of Jesus Christ and in God the Father...at any time? Meaning before or after your loss of faith...assuming you had faith at some point/time in your life.

what you're trying to ask is, did you ever at any time know that 2 + 2 = 5 prior to changing your mind to 4?

how could you NOT have had faith prior to a loss of faith?

The question about faith is in regards to a subjective experience/knowledge. The logic question (2+2=5) has to do with objective knowledge.

Equating the two is a category error; they are not directly correlated.

If you want a more accurate analogy for the faith question, it would be:
Did you ever at any time believe that 2 + 2 = 5, before you learned it was actually 4?"
This focuses on the belief rather than knowledge, making it more parallel to the original faith question.

The faith question is about whether you ever believed something, regardless of its objective truth. The logic question is about whether you ever knew something objectively false, which is not possible in the same way.

(A little help with Perplexity A.I. was used to correlate the "what you're asking" correlation.)

My point is that along a spectrum of belief where we have God...then Jesus...then Joseph Smith and the Restoration, we have a greater likelihood of 'keeping the faith' if this is the order of priority. On the other hand if a convert (BIC member) goes at it in reverse where we have Joseph Smith and the Restoration...then Jesus...then God, we have a greater likelihood that a crisis of faith will occur without God being at the center, along with Jesus Christ. They are the foundation of Christian religious belief.

Joseph Smith and the restoration are essentially an 'add-on', albeit a critical one. Without the Restoration there would still be God (if God indeed exists). Christ is more likely to be Savior if God exists. But without God and Jesus the Restoration is just a story.

Jacob Hansen came to faith through this line of reasoning if I'm not mistaken. For me, it has logical consistency as long as one has already determined the likelihood of a creator rather than a something from nothing approach. For me, and for Jacob, once we made a determination that belief in God, as creator, was more likely than not, the rest of the restoration narrative was also more likely to fall into place.

I have a problem with your "what you're trying to do analogies" in that there isn't necessarily a one to one fit between your analogy and what is being said. It's another form of what Marcus likes to do in twisting things around to make them appear to be something other than what they are.

That doesn't work for me.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

Yours is the anticipated objection. But we can never know what we know. If I thought I knew what 2+2 was prior to discovering the answer I am now certain about, I'm not going to say that I knew it as a different answer in the past. If I say I knew that 2+2=5 earlier in my life, the response is, "So you knew, and then something changed such that you lost that knowledge?" But if I say, I was convinced, and I thought I knew but obviously I didn't, then the response is, "You hesitate. You speak as a person who never really had a testimony to begin with." The "know" language is applicable, for reasons you should be aware of if you ever go the F&T meeting.

---

As for your pyramid, I agree. If a person is secure within the faith, obviously, a good tactic to remain secure is focus on generalities and fluff like "God and Jesus," generalities accepted by society that aren't nearly as easy to falsify or to find fault with as Joseph's escapades. That problem is, as you note, that Joseph is what differentiates Mormonism from other Christian religions. If you knock on the door as a missionary and just talk "God and Jesus" then the investigator will be greatly confused about the point of joining Mormonism vs. anything else.

Invert the pyramid for investigators, to differentiate your product from others, but once a subscriber, right the pyramid and focus on generalities to avoid the controversies surrounding those differences. As a car salesman, point to the shiny paint job to justify the higher price, but if the paint doesn't hold up, emphasize it's got four wheels and runs as good as any other car.

[huckelberry]

Very important video. I wish everyone that struggles with their faith could watch this and then travel a similar path. I did. And it made ALL the difference.

Unfortunately, I think there are too many people that invert the pyramid.

Regards,
MG

I have found this apologist unpleasant a few times. This presentation was less abrasive, it was a plausible observation. People believing in God and Jesus have a necessary part of believing Mormonism. I do not see a simple pyramid. A person may believe in Jesus, then find that belief seriously challenged. Even seen through Jonathan Edward's view of preservation the kernel of grace does not mean immunity from serious doubt though immunity to indifference is likely. It is obvious that believing in Jesus leaves lots of opportunity to see other paths than the LDS path. Faith may suggest a responsibility to be careful in choosing paths. There is a responsibility to question Joseph Smith's claims.

The LDS culture is long on criticism of Christian churches. Some of that criticism may be substantial, some flimsy. Some LDS teachings create assumptions making other views hard to see. The Trinity being a prime example. For some people, the disappointment of Mormonism feels like only atheism is an alternative. Others find an opening to reconsider other understandings or paths.

For me, my teenage years were marked by faith moments that meant a lot to me. For me, hope was based first upon Jesus. Faith in LDS church came after. Even so I wondered at times about the possibility that God did not exist. A fascination with astronomy and evolution made me wonder at the huge size of space and time. In my experience, the collapse of Mormon faith knocked down belief in God for at least ten years. With that distance in time I started discovering faith without SLC. I even got past those arguments against traditional Christian views I was fond of as a teenager.

[huckelberry]

My last post ended with me claiming that I got past my teenage criticisms of traditional Christian teachings. I find myself realizing that asking myself whether that really is the case was the thing that got me hooked into participation on these message boards. I keep wondering about that comparison.

I remember thinking that Mormons had a more practical can-do attitude towards life. Too much negativity in traditional Christianity did not make people better, did not change greed, pride, and the lust for power.

I still think there is something in the comparison but it looks to be a very mixed bag to me now.

[The Stig]

Yes. So much so that as my testimony began to falter, I became suicidal when I could not seem to get the Heavens to communicate with me. For a full year, I got up every morning and willed myself to keep believing, even though the facts did not support such a belief. I lost my marriage, many friendships, and the equivalent of many, many days of time trying to recover that testimony. All I could think at the time was that there was something seriously wrong with me or that I was engaging in some terrible sin (neither was true) because I couldn't get an answer to a single prayer to reaffirm my belief in the Church's truth claims. When I finally admitted to myself that I didn't believe in the Church, it was less than an hour later that I could no longer justify belief in any form of a deity. Why? Because the Church had done such an excellent job of helping me pick apart any other religious belief system (I served my mission in Tennessee), that I realized every single one of them was filled with nonsense.

So, the next time you arrogantly affirm that "we" (as exmos) never actually believed, why don't you remember me and people like me who desperately wanted it to be true and then lost everything because we just couldn't believe it anymore. While you're at it, you can shove that condescending attitude about this topic straight up your ass. I, and I alone, am the sole expert on how strong my belief was and you have no business, whatsoever, telling my otherwise.

Vulnerability. That seems to be in short supply in these parts. Thank you for sharing your personal story.

May I follow up? When you said that you tried to "recover that testimony', what was that 'thing'...lack of a better word... which you believed you had that you then lost? You then use the word "reaffirm". Reaffirm what? Again, something you had? If you had something then lost it does that mean it never existed in the first place? I'm asking, truly wanting to know what your thought processes were. Did you later question your non-belief in the church because of what you had once had and apparently 'knew' it?

Regards,
MG

I don't think I'll answer anything more. I just don't believe you act in good faith around here.

[MG 2.0]

Vulnerability. That seems to be in short supply in these parts. Thank you for sharing your personal story.

May I follow up? When you said that you tried to "recover that testimony', what was that 'thing'...lack of a better word... which you believed you had that you then lost? You then use the word "reaffirm". Reaffirm what? Again, something you had? If you had something then lost it does that mean it never existed in the first place? I'm asking, truly wanting to know what your thought processes were. Did you later question your non-belief in the church because of what you had once had and apparently 'knew' it?

Regards,
MG

I don't think I'll answer anything more. I just don't believe you act in good faith around here.

Unfortunately, that is not true. I am saddened that we can't dig a bit deeper.

Best wishes.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Vulnerability. That seems to be in short supply in these parts. Thank you for sharing your personal story.

May I follow up? When you said that you tried to "recover that testimony', what was that 'thing'...lack of a better word... which you believed you had that you then lost? You then use the word "reaffirm". Reaffirm what? Again, something you had? If you had something then lost it does that mean it never existed in the first place? I'm asking, truly wanting to know what your thought processes were. Did you later question your non-belief in the church because of what you had once had and apparently 'knew' it?

Regards,
MG

I don't think I'll answer anything more. I just don't believe you act in good faith around here.

Smart move.

[Rivendale]

I don't think I'll answer anything more. I just don't believe you act in good faith around here.

Smart move.

The interactions are similar to how Margaret Toscano talked about her excommunication. Care bears in particular.

[Moksha]

When you said that you tried to "recover that testimony", what was that 'thing'...lack of a better word... which you believed you had that you then lost?

Regards,
MG

Stig may have believed that 2+2=5. That is understandable because such a belief brings comfort and serenity to many believers. Heck, it is even the basis of a Western State. Some people go a little overboard on this belief, even though they are told to stay in the boat.

[malkie]

Vulnerability. That seems to be in short supply in these parts. Thank you for sharing your personal story.

May I follow up? When you said that you tried to "recover that testimony', what was that 'thing'...lack of a better word... which you believed you had that you then lost? You then use the word "reaffirm". Reaffirm what? Again, something you had? If you had something then lost it does that mean it never existed in the first place? I'm asking, truly wanting to know what your thought processes were. Did you later question your non-belief in the church because of what you had once had and apparently 'knew' it?

Regards,
MG

I don't think I'll answer anything more. I just don't believe you act in good faith around here.

I came to the same conclusion a while ago, and, as a result, have almost completely stopped responding directly to MG.

Unfortunately that means that I sometimes have to leave his implicit (or even explicit) mischaracterizations unanswered. I simply hope that anyone reading his unanswered comments to me can recognise the truth. It's a bit more difficult when he only partly quotes me, but, as my son often says, it is what it is.

by the way, sometimes I find that it helps if I write a reply, save it as a draft, and then delete the draft a few days later [ETA] without posting it.