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.

Where do we find God's will?

If we are to align our will with the will of God, how are we to know Gods will? So far, we only have the word of other men who claim to speak for God. But these men are fallible and therefore we can't assume everything they ever say is straight from God's mind.

So where is the line where Gods word ends and man's word begins? Is it really up to each individual to determine which conference talks and what lessons are the Word of God, and which ones are merely the words and opinions of men? If I pray about a talk or principle, and I receive an answer that it is just the opinion of a man, is that an acceptable conclusion?

Do I really have the option to determine, through prayer and spiritual confirmation, what applies to me and what I can disregard? Is this approach really compatible with church doctrine? If not, then that means members are required to follow every directive handed down from the Brethren, regardless of how the individual feels about the matter. If you take the church at its word, then the one-size-fits-all directions from the Brethren really must be applied to every individual, regardless of personal circumstances or tastes.

And you are then also required to follow every directive from the Brethren, even if they happen to be speaking as men.

Why so sensitive?

When those outside of Mormonism write articles about the church or articles are written on the subject, Mormons usually bristle at the descriptions and characterizations and claim the author is biased or "has an axe to grind."

I think it's more a simple fact that from the outside, Mormonism looks kinda wacky. But if you're in the church, you filter everything through your "believing" eyes and twist everything around so it appears normal.

So when an outsider calls it as they see it, the church member is offended and cries persecution. This emotional reaction is only exacerbated by the clear and explicit direction from the Brethren to avoid exposure to anything critical of the church or even anything that may portray the church in a critical manner. And objective critiques of the church certainly fall under this description.

Young Women's object lesson

An hilarious, and also very disturbing, account of an object lesson from a Young Women's activity. Is this something you would be comfortable exposing your children to?

- I borrowed this because I like it -

When I was in Young Women's, I went to a stake activity with my sister and my mom. They had set up the primary room with tables lining the perimeter. At each table, there were examples of choices a person could make during their lifetime.

For example, one could get married in the temple, get a tattoo, obey or disobey the WOW, or go on a mission (to name a few). Each girl was supposed to mark off on a paper which decisions she wanted to make in life. It was pretty obvious from the beginning where this activity was headed.

So, just to be smart-asses, my sister and I rebelled. So did my mom, lol. We all got temporary tattoos and none of us went on imaginary missions. I wouldn't say we did anything too horrible, but we definately weren't making all the obvious decisions for brownie-points, either.

At the end of the "game", our points were tallied up and we were sent to one of three different rooms, depending on our scores. Now, this was a pretty large activity, keep in mind. Most of the young women went to the Relief Society room, where they seemed to be throwing a party. They had cake, music, and punch. This was supposed to represent the celestial kingdom. I don't remember much about what the second room looked like, but I wanna say it was a small room with a few chairs and some bread and water. A couple girls went to that room. It was, of course, supposed to represent the Terrestrial kingdom.

And which room do you suppose me, my mom and sister ended up in? The Telestial Kingdom room. This was a small, empty room with no chairs and nothing but a sleeve of saltine crackers to eat. We stood there, waiting for someone to come and tell us the game was over and we could go join the rest of the group.

Finally, people started showing up. But it was only to visit and gloat about the wonderful cake they were eating. We were never allowed to enter the Celestial or Terrestrial room, and we were told so, outright. We really did assume there would be some sort of message at the end and we'd all be included to eat cake. But, if there was a message, we didn't hear it. All of the other YW's leaders were in the Celestial room (except for my mom). My mom, on the other hand, was pissed. She thought they'd made their point. After waiting a substantial amoint of time, we left without saying goodbye to anyone.

Elder Uchtdorf explains the reality of questioning the Church

According to President Dieter F Uchtdorf, those who take a closer look at the claims of the church are to be compared to those who believe the earth is flat and those who believe the moon is a hologram.

"For those who already embrace the truth, his primary strategy is to spread the seeds of doubt. For example, he has caused many members of the Church to stumble when they discover information about the Church that seems to contradict what they had learned previously. 

 If you experience such a moment, remember that in this age of information there are many who create doubt about anything and everything, at any time and every place. You will find even those who still claim that they have evidence that the earth is flat, that the moon is a hologram, and that certain movie stars are really aliens from another planet. 

And it is always good to keep in mind, just because something is printed on paper, appears on the Internet, is frequently repeated, or has a powerful group of followers doesn’t make it true. Sometimes untrue claims or information are presented in such a way that they appear quite credible. However, when you are confronted with information that is in conflict with the revealed word of God, remember that the blind men in the parable of the elephant would never be able to accurately describe the full truth." CES Jan 2013

Apparently anything critical of the Church can reasonably be compared to the ludicrous claims of those believing the earth is flat or claim the moon is a hologram. That's a very interesting, and condescending, position to take Brother Uchtdorf. Maybe you would care to address some of these silly and easily dismissed claims against the Church? I'm more than willing to discuss specifics with you.