Faith vs knowledge

- I borrowed this because I like it -

If faith is believing in something that you can't see or something that you don't have 100% knowledge of, then if you know something, or are presented with verifiable facts, your faith in the matter disappears. Most members acknowledge that it works this way, but only acknowledge it in the positive sense. "The brother of Jared didn't have faith in god anymore because he saw god. He now KNOWS".

If it is proven that something isn't true, your faith also goes away in the matter, regardless of which side (true/false) your faith rested on. In the Church, this negative aspect is completely ignored and dismissed.

For example, you present the fact that Joseph Smith was a liar. FACT: Joseph Smith lied about polygamy (and cite your sources, especially the church-sponsored ones, b/c everyone knows that everything about the church that doesn't come from official sources are anti-mormon lies from the devil intended to drag you down to the gulf of endless misery and wo). Believing members would say "I still have faith that he was a prophet of God." They won't even accept the FACTS that you presented to them.

I think if they did accept verifiable FACTS, and if they still chose to have faith in something that would still make Joseph Smith a prophet in their minds, their testimony would have to go something like this:

"I have FAITH that Joseph Smith was somehow a prophet of God, even though I KNOW he was a liar, a bigamist, an adulterer, etc"

It'd be nice if everybody on fast Sundays was completely honest about what they KNOW and what they only have FAITH in. It's sickening hearing people say that they KNOW things in testimony meeting when they merely HOPE and have FAITH. It'd be much more entertaining if they didn't lie.

I gave up on the church because I accepted verifiable FACTS that made my FAITH in the church evaporate. I tried to keep going, to read the apologist's rebuttals, to somehow make it work in my mind so we could all stay on the same page, but it was sickening because I KNEW.

I KNEW the facts. What really pushed me over the edge were the facts that I hadn't heard of before, like polyandry, and JS translating by putting a stone in his hat and putting his head in it, and some of the major changes in the BoM and D&C, the Book of Abraham, and the Kinderhook plates. It wasn't the fact that I hadn't heard of a lot of them before that bothered me. The first time I read them I dismissed them because they seemed so outrageous and different from what I had been taught and everything I had heard. The clincher for me was when I saw church friendly sources confirm the FACTS, that they actually occurred.

From that point on, it didn't matter to me what the conclusions were that people from both sides drew from the FACTS, even though I did side almost entirely with LDS-critical conclusions.

My FAITH in the LDS church is gone, and won't ever come back, because now I KNOW.

What is necessary for our salvation?

- I borrowed this because I like it -

Mormons get to have it both ways.

They malign others for cherry-picking the doctrines they're willing to believe/follow, while doing it themselves. They ignore big swaths of their own scriptures/doctrine by using excuses like "it's not necessary for our salvation", but it's utterly arbitrary what they "pick and choose" as necessary or not.

What standard do they sort by? What determines what's "necessary" and what's not?

The scriptures are supposed to BE the standard, yet they apply some other standard to the scriptures that allows them to deselect parts of them. What is the standard then? The prophets? OK, so you have a prophet who can, and does, supercede scripture...why have scripture then? If there are parts of scriptures that aren't necessary for salvation, but EVERYTHING the prophet says IS necessary...then heck, ditch the scriptures in favor of the prophet.

Oh but the prophet is bound by the scriptures? Oh, only the ones that are necessary for our salvation? But he himself decides that? And what about the words of prophets that are now embarrassing or controversial? The church wants to have the option of distancing itself from those teachings so a living prophet trumps a dead prophet.

....Uhhhm, I'm sensing a circular feedback loop here.

What would cause you to leave the church?

Ask a true believer if they can think of a hypothetical valid reason for leaving the church. In other words, can they think of something that would be grounds for leaving, if that reason can be reasonably demonstrated to have a basis in fact.

Due to the emotional connection most members have to the church, I find it unlikely they will be able to imagine any scenario or information that would cause them to leave the church.

Is there really a place in the church for gray?

Many members who learn of the troubling issues and facts that all but completely discredit the fundamental claims of the church still want to associate and attend the church.

They take a more liberal and laid back approach to doctrine and what the brethren say. But in a church that is so black and white, is there room for gray in the middle?

According to what church leaders have said, the answer is 'no.'

“Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.”
Smith, Joseph Feilding. (1976) Doctrines of Salvation. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft. Vol 1, p. 188

…[t]hat becomes the hinge pin on which this whole cause turns. If the First Vision was true, if it actually happened, then the Book of Mormon is true. Then we have the priesthood. Then we have the Church organization and all of the other keys and blessings of authority which we say we have. If the First Vision did not occur, then we are involved in a great sham. It is just that simple. (Italics added)
from the lesson manual Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley

“I would like to say that this cause is either true or false. Either this is the kingdom of God, or it is a sham and a delusion. Either Joseph talked with the Father and the Son, or he did not. If he did not, we are engaged in blasphemy"
Hinckley: Conference Reports, October 1961, p.116

…the Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon…if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church.
Benson: Ensign, November 1986

Based on what church leaders have said, and the information I now have, I have no choice but to conclude the church is a fraud.

Does God exist?

Maybe there is something valid about the idea of God. However, does he exist in the form we are taught in Sunday school? Maybe. But I tend to believe if he/she/whatever exists, it is in a completely different form. 

And I doubt our relationship to him is that of a father-child relationship. I guess as our creator one could say he is our father, but I don't believe it extends beyond that. 

As for the Spirit, I have had very powerful experiences not easily explained away. I wonder if there is indeed some cosmological explanation for the Spirit. And those feelings are real. However, I have experienced "the spirit" under many different conditions. And not all of them stemmed from church activities. Many different books, many of them not religious at all, have inspired me with feelings of the Spirit.

Because of this, I tend to believe religion as an institution is still man made. I think maybe religion capitalizes on this "spirit" and uses it to create and perpetuate belief among the members. They teach their members to interpret these feelings as being a manifestation their particular church is true. That would explain why religion gets it right sometimes, but misses the mark on other things. The strongest feelings I've ever felt from the Mormon church were while viewing an art exhibit at the Conference Center. But I have never felt anything remotely close to that while doing Endowment sessions in the Temple. Yet we are taught the temple is the place to go where we will be the closest to God. My experience has been the exact opposite. 

All of this also explains why so many religions describe the exact same feelings as the source for them "knowing" their mutually exclusive beliefs. 

What if I could somehow have my life back?

It is so very depressing to look back on my life and see every major life decision that I made. Because I made them all while operating under a false set of assumptions.

Every major decision I made appeared to be the right decision at the time. But now I look back and see how I have absolutely and completely blown any opportunity to lead a normal healthy life.

Even if I could somehow miraculously fix everything so that my life could be "right" from this day forward, that doesn't change the fact that multiple decades of my life are gone. History. Lost.

We only get one shot at this life and I'm not exactly off to a blazin' start. And the way things are looking, I fear the future decades will just be a repeat of the last decades. So very depressing.

The greatest tragedy would be if my children are subjected to the same life I've lived. Maybe somehow I can make a difference and break this destructive and harmful cycle. But again, history has shown that my children care very little for my opinions and ideas. But at least they'll have a choice. That's certainly more than I ever had.

Should we tell people the truth about the Church?

Who am I to knock cracks in the beliefs of someone else? If the church really works for someone, and they are genuinely happy, why would I want to rip their beliefs from them, even if it is all a mirage? At the same time, if someone really would be better off knowing the truth, I believe it is our obligation to inform them of the realities of the Church. But it's a fine line to walk. And you must be careful and deliberate.

I love the truth, but sometimes it gets you down

Of course I'm depressed. How else could I respond when I discover my whole life has been a sham, a mirage?

The true irony is how strongly I believed I really held the truth for what all of life means when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Why can't we leave it alone?

I would love nothing more than to "leave it alone." However, my wife still wants to attend. She also wants our children to attend and to be taught all the doctrine and to engage in all the rituals and rites of passage. (Baptism, priesthood, etc.)

I do so wish I could walk away and leave it alone. But it will continue to be an integral part of my life, whether I like it or not.

It's difficult to not become bitter towards an organization that misrepresents itself. It's hard to not resent the methods the church uses to retain members to the point where even when they learn the truth, they still want to be involved with it.

Why does the Church advocate a flawed method?

The method for gaining a testimony is diametrically opposed to the scientific method. To gain a testimony, you start with the assumption something is true and then work to find some sign or feeling to confirm that truth. If you receive any feeling or evidence that opposes the original assumption, then you go back and pray more until you receive the "correct" answer and you're convinced it's true.

The scientific method starts with a hypothesis and then performs experiments to either prove or disprove the hypothesis. Empirical data is used to measure truth and it is acceptable for the hypothesis to be proven false.

Fast and Testimony meetings have always puzzled me

How many groups of people have to constantly hold meetings where everyone gets up and publicly states their belief in the law of gravity? They have to continually reaffirm their testimony that gravity exists and is a force in their life. If something is really true, why would it be necessary to constantly re-convince ourselves of its truthfulness?

Do we really honestly want to know?

For the honest seeker of truth, nothing should be exempt from critical examination. Even if this means examining things you absolutely "know" to be true. (ie, Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, etc. )

I noticed an interesting line in a hymn during Sacrament Meeting

I was sitting in Sacrament Meeting, singing the opening hymn, when the words jumped off the page. "Truth shall triumph as the light. Chases far the misty night." - Truth Eternal, hymn no. 4 I firmly believe the internet, and its easily accessible information, is finally chasing the darkness and fog away. More and more members of the Mormon church are finally discovering the information that has been hid from them by their church leaders. And once they have that information, they then have the truth about the Church. And the fog is finally lifted.