We don´t leave you based on emotion, at least speaking for myself. The evidence would be overwhelming in any court of law. And if isn´t so why doesthe church try to hide facts from its members and prospective converts, while embelishing its own history?

Forget about JS: imagine you have to evaluate an anonymous individual character, and that man has married minor girls, been arrested for tresure digging, has failed about 93,5% of his prophecies, cheated on his wife, practiced plural marriage even before he supposely received the revelation and the priesthood that allowed him to do so? Where would you stand as far as this man´s character is concerned?

And yes, I felt emotions, cause I spent a major part ofmy life dedicated to a cause that is by any logical tennet a fraud. Because I was made believe in something and spen 2 years ofmy life deceiving people!

“I find every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cry out, It is a matter of faith, and above reason” (John Locke)

What’s the difference between an “ad hoc rationalization” and a legitamate alternate conclusion? (hint: your opinion) There is a difference between believing that there were actual civilizations and places and taking a 100 percent literal tack on the supposed events in the book.

You aren’t really proposing that we could somehow ever have conclusive evidence that Christ rose from the grave, are you?

Another example, there is ample archealogical evidence for the people, places and traditions of the bible, that doesn’t mean all Christians believe in talking donkeys.

How do you propose to ‘prove’ the supernatural?

Ultimately, I think you fail to understand the thought process that many who leave the church go through because it just isn’t something you have experienced.

What do I have to gain by believing and following the ‘prohets’? Planets, eternal life with my family and loved ones, power, glory.. you name it. What do I get by being an atheist? annihilated. So do you really think I wouldn’t like to believe mormonism?

I would also like to believe the guy who posts signs in my town that say I can fire my boss and make 20k-60k/mo. It is not a will to disbelieve or anger that causes me not to call his number, it’s just experience.

“Well, dds, how about taking that first step.”

I see no evidence to convince me to.

“If you don’t find this thread interesting, then pass it by– don’t contribute.”

This may be sound advice, and perhaps some that I should have initially followed. My complaint regarding relevance however had no bearing on whether the topic was interesting. Rather, I submit that it is highly subjective and offers little in the way of furthering the case for Mormonism, or exposing its critics. So even though a case can be made against the rationality behind some the RFM commenters, the “anti-Mormon” movement at large will remain unimpeded by exposing this tendency of it’s more obscure adherents. Perhaps that was never your intention and I am making a mountain out of a mole hill. I have followed FAIR for quite a while, and found it to be a good venue for discussing all thing’s LDS, and felt that this particular treatment regarding the behavior of “some” LDS critics was not up to par with the general topical precedent of this site.

“There is, of course, no perfect analogy– and once again, you’ve missed the point of the thread.”

I don’t think I’ve missed the point at all. There’s a clear distinction between emotion as interpreted by the LDS and how it relates to the revelatory process, and the emotional hysteria exhibited by a few disgruntled Mormon critics. I think we clearly disagree on how proportionate the irrational critics are to the sum, and perhaps that is why I object to the overall criticism.

“If I understand you correctly then, your point is that some critics of the Church are hypocrites because they dismiss emotional reasoning from followers of the LDS faith, while demonstrating a high level of pathos oriented rhetoric in their criticism of the Church.”

That’s basically the jist of it.

“A couple of points worth considering

“1) Relevance: Let’s say we agree, now what?”

Some of my co-workers liked and saw the movie, 4 Christmases. I’ll bet you can find a blog about it somewhere. So what? Most of the thread on most message boards don’t hold my interest. So what? If you don’t find this thread interesting, then pass it by– don’t contribute.

“I assume you are not suggesting that fickle emotions could be the only basis for opposing the Mormon Church. There exists plenty of “evidence”, and I would argue much to caliber of your alleged “evidence” in favor of LDS claims, which is rational and provides logical support to the skeptical perspective. The fact that critics invest some emotion into their conclusions does not alltogether dismiss these logical criticisms.”

You’ve obviously not read my book. As I’ve repeated said in this thread, I believe that there is evidence both for and against Mormonism. I think the weight favors the “for” position. The point of this thread was to show something that I found interesting– some critics claim that Mormons reject rational evidence in favor of belief, while they proudly claim that they would reject rational evidence in favor of disbelief. I haven’t claimed that this is the norm. I find such claims, however, fascinating.

“2) Emotion vs. Revelation: …The critics are claiming to at least recognize the bias of emotion, and understand the need to bridle that emotion with the other two elements.”

But many (most?) educated Mormons also recognize the need for faith and reason (it’s even recommended in the scriptures). And from what I’ve seen, many critics do _not_ recognize the bias of emotion nor do they understand the need to their emotions.

“Some however, are still not able to manage this. This is not too suggest however that all LDS are irrational/illogical emotional drones. There are plenty of Mormons who think with more than just their gut, but from a marketing perspective, that is at least how the Church sells it. So to suggest that the emotional rants of RFM’er are akin to the LDS “feeling the spirit”, does not quite work.”

There is, of course, no perfect analogy– and once again, you’ve missed the point of the thread.

“I agree with your observation that many LDS critics will claim to be certain in their evaluation, whereupon presenting their case the argument is less than compelling. I would not relegate this phenomenon to the critics though, but to untrained, “would be” scholarship.”

I would agree with this final statement. This “untrained” perspective, manifests itself in some of the arguments made by critcs– I see it frequently. I’ve been corresponding for two days with just such a person in private email. If find this fascinating. I find it fasinating that many Mormons don’t make an effort to study more about their religion. Maybe someday I’ll blog about that.

“3) Overgeneralization: Whether or not this was your attempt, it has seemed to be the effect.”

It was neither my attempt, nor is it apparent that this is the effect.

“…there is sometimes an attitude within the Church that people will usually only leave because they have in some way been offended.”

You haven’t read my book.

If I understand you correctly then, your point is that some critics of the Church are hypocrites because they dismiss emotional reasoning from followers of the LDS faith, while demonstrating a high level of pathos oriented rhetoric in their criticism of the Church. A couple of points worth considering

1) Relevance: Let’s say we agree, now what? I assume you are not suggesting that fickle emotions could be the only basis for opposing the Mormon Church. There exists plenty of “evidence”, and I would argue much to caliber of your alleged “evidence” in favor of LDS claims, which is rational and provides logical support to the skeptical perspective. The fact that critics invest some emotion into their conclusions does not alltogether dismiss these logical criticisms.

2) Emotion vs. Revelation: I still think this is a false comparison. In my experience the complaint that Church critics make regarding LDS “emotion” is that in some cases we are encouraged to interpret our feelings as a “witness” of the Holy Ghost, particularly in confirming truth claims surrounding Joseph Smith, the First Vision, or The Book of Mormon. I believe this explanation comes out of a false reading of Galations 5, particularly since this scripture was used in the former missionary discussions as “evidence” for alleged symbiant Holy Ghost/emotional experience relationship that skeptics are apt criticize. While it is true that each human utilizes either some high or low level of emotion in conjunction with ethos and logos for their decision making, in the Church we are often told that we can be certain that our emotions are not of ourselves, but of God. The critics will then argue that is why the Church is so agressive in their production of media which can fabricate a natural emotional response, in order to sell their religion. The critics are claiming to at least recognize the bias of emotion, and understand the need to bridle that emotion with the other two elements. Some however, are still not able to manage this. This is not too suggest however that all LDS are irrational/illogical emotional drones. There are plenty of Mormons who think with more than just their gut, but from a marketing perspective, that is at least how the Church sells it. So to suggest that the emotional rants of RFM’er are akin to the LDS “feeling the spirit”, does not quite work. I agree with your observation that many LDS critics will claim to be certain in their evaluation, whereupon presenting their case the argument is less than compelling. I would not relegate this phenomenon to the critics though, but to untrained, “would be” scholarship.

3) Overgeneralization: Whether or not this was your attempt, it has seemed to be the effect. That is why I suggested the list in my first comment. It would helpful in making the criticisms you have, to know exactly how representative the emotional criticism is to the entire equation of LDS dissaffection. I am not suggesting that you espouse this line of thinking, but there is sometimes an attitude within the Church that people will usually only leave because they have in some way been offended. Elder Bednar gave a talk some few conferences back wich has been suggested to have furthered this fallacy. While offense, which is largely emotional, is certainly going to represent some fraction of the ex-mormon population, it is certainly not the whole, and likely not the majority. It has been said, and I tend to agree, people join religions for a number of highly diversified and personal reasons – why should we see the departure from religion any different.

[Mike]“How you “feel about” the Church (because of your preception that they’ve lied about their history) would “have greater weight than actual evidence” (proven!) that the BoM was an actual historical record.”

[dds]“You seem a little desperate here to attribute emotion where there is none. That is quite a patch work job there. Lack of trust doesn’t have to be an emotional thing.”

If you had followed my earlier posts, “emotions” are part of the many extra-rational things that contribute to decision making. Do you believe that it’s possible to completely seperate emotions from religious concerns?

“Are you angry with your parents for lying about Santa Claus? Were you ever? Given the churches history of lying, it simply more difficult to believe them.”

Did your parents lie to you about Santa? Do you distrust every thing they tell you now? (And, BTW, for the record I don’t agree with your claim about the Church lying.)

“Even without such a history can they be considered an unbiased, reliable source? Can you?”

Can they (the Church?) be considered a reliable source? Yes. Can I? I hope so? Are they unbiased? Is there anyone who is?

“I would not accept JS on the sole basis of historical evidence for the BOM simply because it would be illogical to do so. The premise simply does not justify the conclusion.”

Which gets at the heart of the matter. Your conclusion– that JS can not be a prophet– drives your acceptance/rejection of evidence. This is done all the time, but it’s certainly not unbiased and completely logical.

“Are you really asserting that if A) The BOM is a historical record then not only B) there is a God but also C) JS was a “prophet” of that God”

As noted earlier, I can’t think of another scenario that doesn’t rely on ad hoc rationalizations that would come to a different conclusion. If the BoM is an historical record than, A) Christ visted the New World– hence he is the Savior and God exists; B) There were prophets in the New World who wrote a record for the Latter-days to be translated by a modern-day prophet; C) JS was a prophet who translated that record.

“and that D) The current largest congregation of Mormons is the only true and living church on the face of the earth?”

This would be the biggest question. But since the Congregation of Christ (formerly RLDS) rejects the BoM as historical, it logically makes sense that the Mormon Church still carries the torch.

“aaand E) because its the only true and living church on the face of the earth, dds should go back or he cannot be saved/exalted.”

If the LDS faith is true, then yes, I would hope that you’d feel the desire to return.

“One step at a time, amigo.”

Well, dds, how about taking that first step.

“You acknowledge that there is no evidence for or against Mormons, so your claim that critics dismiss “evidence”, which doesn’t exist by the way (see beginning of sentence), out of an emotional motive is subjective.”

You’ve misunderstood me. I believe that there is plenty of evidence for Mormonism. I believe that the abundance of evidence favors Mormonism. I don’t believe that evidence “compells belief” — see my earlier post. I also understand that the acceptance/rejection of evidence is subjective.

“The emotional railings of the RFM commenters do little to impact the Church,”

Agreed.

“…and only represent the way RFM folks feel about the Church, not what their rational objections were. Yes, some only think with their gut, but I would expect for them to be on the fringe.”

I don’t doubt that some (most) feel that they have valid intellectual reasons for leaving the Church. My gripe is that they typically (and I hear this all the time– not just from RFMers) think that _they_ are the ones who rely solely on intellectual evidence and do not involve any emotions (or other factors) in their decision making. They then claim that Mormons are the exact opposite.

“As for the comparison between the LDS emotional thinking, and the RFM emotional thinking, the two are completely seperate – so this is a false comparison anyway. In LDS thinking the emotions are the modus operandi of the Holy Ghost, and quite literally some believe that these feelings can be a barometer for gaging truth. In other words we will say based on feelings or sensations that we know absolute truth. Whereas with the emotional RFM commenters, yes they are motivated by emotion, they do not cling to those emotions as a manifestation of the divine.”

While I agree that RFMers don’t see their feelings as a “manisfestation of the divine” I’m convinced that their emotions play a role in their “gaging truth”– it’s a fact that we all do this. The earliest quotes in the post succintly demonstrate that fact. I don’t fault them for utlizing emotions to discount pro-LDS evidence. What I find troubling is that many ex-Mormons and critics claim that they are above this. That they can make emotionless, purely logic-driven decisions on matters of religion, while claiming that Mormons make purely emotion-driven decisions while disengaging their brains.

But when I did learn about it, I didn’t really care.

It was kinda like – “So what? Let’s see what’s on TV.”

Like if I’d suddenly learned that Joseph liked to wear funny striped pantaloons rather than the suit and waistcoat faithful Mormon art always portrays him wearing. It’s possibly slightly divergent from my preconceptions. But hardly anything earth-shattering.

You seem a little desperate here to attribute emotion where there is none. That is quite a patch work job there. Lack of trust doesn’t have to be an emotional thing. Are you angry with your parents for lying about Santa Claus? Were you ever? Given the churches history of lying, it simply more difficult to believe them. Even without such a history can they be considered an unbiased, reliable source? Can you?

I would not accept JS on the sole basis of historical evidence for the BOM simply because it would be illogical to do so. The premise simply does not justify the conclusion.

Are you really asserting that if A) The BOM is a historical record then not only B) there is a God but also C) JS was a “prophet” of that God and that D) The current largest congregation of Mormons is the only true and living church on the face of the earth? aaand E) because its the only true and living church on the face of the earth, dds should go back or he cannot be saved/exalted.

One step at a time, amigo.

Mike:

I have agreed with your position that some exmormons base their decision on emotions. I just don’t see this as a relevant response. You acknowledge that there is no evidence for or against Mormons, so your claim that critics dismiss “evidence”, which doesn’t exist by the way (see beginning of sentence), out of an emotional motive is subjective. The emotional railings of the RFM commenters do little to impact the Church, and only represent the way RFM folks feel about the Church, not what their rational objections were. Yes, some only think with their gut, but I would expect for them to be on the fringe.

As for the comparison between the LDS emotional thinking, and the RFM emotional thinking, the two are completely seperate – so this is a false comparison anyway. In LDS thinking the emotions are the modus operandi of the Holy Ghost, and quite literally some believe that these feelings can be a barometer for gaging truth. In other words we will say based on feelings or sensations that we know absolute truth. Whereas with the emotional RFM commenters, yes they are motivated by emotion, they do not cling to those emotions as a manifestation of the divine.

And yet we see dds continuing to make this same ironic arguement on this thread.

After dealing with borderlanders and ex-Mormons for many years, I’m convinced that “some” (and I’ve never said or implied “all”) critics actually think this way. They proudly claim that they would reject God, reject Mormonism, and reject all evidences in favor of Mormonism, for emotional reasons (while they often deride believing Mormons for accepting Mormonism for emotional reasons).

And for the record, I don’t think that believers or critics can make such decisions based on strictly intellectual factors. There is no evidence– for or against Mormonism– that automatically compells a rational person to accept or reject Mormonism. Other factors (including emotions) are always involved.

It’s the hypocrisy of some ex-Mormons that was the topic of this thread.

I hope you are right. You’re earlier comments, however, do not imply such objectivity.

“The church has been deceptive about the translation story.”

I disagree, but this is a topic for another time.

“I grew up in the church, attended seminary throughout HS and served a faithful mission. Never was I once ever told about a rock in a hat.”

I grew up in the church, attended seminary, etc. I learned of the rock in a hat over 2 decades ago. It’s even talked about in the Ensign. Quite a cover-up, that.

“It is logical to be skeptical of an organization that has a history of lying about its history.”

While this certainly can be a valid reason for being skeptical, it should be weighed against other factors. And again, for the record, I disagree with your claim that the Church typically lies about its history.

“Proven by whom? It’s one thing if an unbiased university study brought this information forward and it was accepted by the scientific community at large. It is entirely different if the only ‘proof’ is theories put forth in a professional apologists book.”

Your words: “Likewise, if it were proven that the BOM was a historical record it wouldn’t cause me to draw any conclusions about JS. Especially when the church has been so deceptive about the supposed translation in the first place.”

I infer from your earlier comment that in this hypothetical scenario, the BOM would be “proven” to your intellectual satisfaction. If not, why would you even state it or why would it not cause you to drawn conclusions about JS?

“You are putting words in my mouth. I have never said I would reject evidence outright. But I would be skeptical and rightfully so.”

Your words: “Likewise, if it were proven that the BOM was a historical record it wouldn’t cause me to draw any conclusions about JS. Especially when the church has been so deceptive about the supposed translation in the first place.”

In your earlier statement, it is implied that if the BoM was “proven” to be true (which means that YOU would– in this hypothetial scenario– accept it as a proven historical record) you would still not draw conclusions about JS because of your distaste for what you see as lies from the Church. So despite the fact that the BoM was “proven” you would “reject evidence outright” for JS’s prophetic abilities because of your preceived problems with other truths about Church history.

“I don’t claim to be a robot, no. I think you are making a straw man argument here. Exmormons aren’t faulting the LDS for not being 100 percent objective, we are faulting the notion that how we feel about something should have greater weight than actual evidence.”

Your words: “Likewise, if it were proven that the BOM was a historical record it wouldn’t cause me to draw any conclusions about JS. Especially when the church has been so deceptive about the supposed translation in the first place.”

How you “feel about” the Church (because of your preception that they’ve lied about their history) would “have greater weight than actual evidence” (proven!) that the BoM was an actual historical record.

“Let’s not forget that the emotional advantage was originally very strongly in favor of the church. I deeply wanted to believe the church and wanted it to be true, the evidence was just too overwhelming against it. So, no, my personality hasn’t fundamentally changed, if the evidence was there, I would carefully review and accept, one claim at a time.”

But such a position doesn’t square with your other statement.

It was never claimed that the comments here exhibit a “complete explanation” why people leave the Church. The fact is that people make important decisions based on rational and irrational (extra-rational) information.

We are just running in circles with this now. I would address any new evidence scientifically and objectively as possible.

“I find this interesting but not completely surprising. If it were “proven” that he BoM was an historical record, I’m sure that other theories can be formulated to account for it’s existence, but all such theories would be simple creations designed to come up with anything other than the story claimed by JS (and I strongly suspect that any competing theory would heavily rely on ad hoc rationalizations). The purpose of creating an alternate theory for a JS translating a real historical record is simply to avoid the acceptance of JS as a prophet. Your comment below is evidence of this thought process.”

The church has been deceptive about the translation story. I grew up in the church, attended seminary throughout HS and served a faithful mission. Never was I once ever told about a rock in a hat. The result of discovering the church’s deception is distrust. Distrust isn’t necessarily an emotional thing, is it? I don’t have to be angry that I was lied to, I just consider an organization who has lied repeatedly in the past (even given sermons about when its ok to lie for the Lord) likely to do so still.

“So, because you preceive the church as “deceptive” it gives you rationalization or a peg upon which to hang your unbelief– even, as you note above, if it were proven that the BoM was an historical record?”

It is logical to be skeptical of an organization that has a history of lying about its history. Proven by whom? It’s one thing if an unbiased university study brought this information forward and it was accepted by the scientific community at large. It is entirely different if the only ‘proof’ is theories put forth in a professional apologists book. That isn’t to say your ideas couldn’t be true. I would however, wait until your evidence was reviewed by unbiased experts in the respective fields of study before I spent any real time examining your claims.

“My parents have lied to me about many things, so even if we had proof that Santa rode a flying sleigh pulled by reindeer, I would reject it because my parents are known liars.”

You are putting words in my mouth. I have never said I would reject evidence outright. But I would be skeptical and rightfully so. Wouldn’t you be skeptical if your parents called you tomorrow and told you they had new evidence of the reality of Santa Claus? Would not your skepticism be rational rather than emotional? Would you even want to waste your time with this story? And if so, would you want to waste your time with all the other fantastic myths out there with supposed evidence to back them up?

“Your basic assumption is that people must really leave for emotional reasons despite their own claims to the contrary. I can tell you in my case this simply isn’t true. I have studied the matter as intellectually as I know how. I simply do not find it believable.”

“My basic assumption is that _all_ people rely on more than intellecutal reasoning in making many of life’s important choices (and if you ever read SFS, you’ll see that science sides with me). Your claim that you are the lone exception to this phenomenon is interesting in light of your other statements in this thread. The reason you offer for rejecting the BoM– should proof be found that it is an actual historical record– is because you don’t trust the Church because of what you preceive as past lies. Sorry, but such a position is most certainly not based solely on intellectual reasoning.”

I don’t claim to be a robot, no. I think you are making a straw man argument here. Exmormons aren’t faulting the LDS for not being 100 percent objective, we are faulting the notion that how we feel about something should have greater weight than actual evidence. Let’s not forget that the emotional advantage was originally very strongly in favor of the church. I deeply wanted to believe the church and wanted it to be true, the evidence was just too overwhelming against it. So, no, my personality hasn’t fundamentally changed, if the evidence was there, I would carefully review and accept, one claim at a time.

“Yes. Agreed, and that’s why I don’t think such “proof” will ever be found. I believe that there are strong indicators– evidences that favor belief– but faith will still play a major role and each person can weigh the strength of competing evidences for themselves.”

Constructing the basis for a logical argument based on science and then filling in the gaps with an appeal to the supernatural is logical fallacy. If mormonism is true, prove it. If Mormonism can’t or won’t be proven true then the point is moot.

Which is exactly why the comments posted there should not be accepted as a complete explanation for why, presumably rational people, leave the Church and then exhibit an irrational (emotional) vent about it on a website.

Which is fine, if you need that sort of thing I guess.

I understand your argument that critics antipathy towards the Church are as equally emotionally driven as the believers. I even agree that the critics have no higher intellectual ground as a basis for their positions. I think at least until the Church opens the vaults and makes the entire records available on the web, we have the record as good as it is going to get. Even if the Church were to open the vaults, there is no certainty that a “smoking gun” would be found in either favor or opposition to LDS religious claims. So again, I am content that the facts are available as good as they will ever be. Nothing exists which wholly proves or disproves Joseph Smiths alleged call as a Prophet, or the general premise of the Church. What is left is Pathos, ie, how do we feel about the evidence and what conclusions are we willing to draw therefrom.

This is just a long way of me saying, I think I get it and I agree. I am still left with, so what! Particularly because in order to make your case you have resorted to the Recovery from Mormonism boards, which I agree are loaded with irrational heat of the moment “anti-Mormon” vents. Therein lies my complaint. I think someone here has referred to the RFM boards as a place where angry like-minded invividuals commiserate. I think that is an adequate description of my experiences having read many of the posts there. Some are thoughtful and articulate expressions of personal experiences transitioning from Mormonism. The vast majority however are ridiculous ad homenem slander offered in the company of similar thinking people. Naturally this type of behavior is not prohibited on the website, therefore it is encouraged. Because of this I do not think the RFM boards are at all instructive as an overall explanation for a persons experience with leaving Mormonism. If anything, it just demonstrates their feelings of/against Mormonism at the time of writing, nothing else.

My complaint is that the RFM comments were made in an atmosphere of generally unintellectual anger. Even RFM will tell you their purpose is the assist in the “recovery” from Mormonism, and not to be an academic venue for intellectual criticism. So you chose an outspoken emotionally volatile group and pointed out, “hey look your just being emotional”, as defense to the criticism of the correlation in LDS theology between emotion and the revelatory process. My hypothesis is that many of the commenters (not all, possibly not even most) could provide an intellectually cogent rationale for their departure, where they given fair warning that their experience was about to be scrutinized for the purposes of a book and a blog such as this.

Try to stay on topic. Making wild assertions that have nothing to contribute to the topic of this blog thread just makes you look silly.

“if i was provided evidence that the church was true:i would join reluctantly in order to avoid hellfire.”

If you think that joining reluctantly squares with LDS beliefs, I think you need to study a bit more.

“i stated why in my previous post in the doctrinal points which you did not address. But you seem to address line by line everything else lol.”

I did not address them because they were/are irrelevant to the topic of this thread, lol. If you want to start a blog– one that is not so heavily censored so competing opinions are deleted (like RFM) then I’m sure you’ll have many people jumping in to respond. This thread is not the place to discuss what issues favor for or against Mormonism– now matter how interestings such things tend to be– this thread is to show that some critics, who claim that Mormons reject evidence in favor of feelings, are actually (and ironically) guilty of doing this very thing themselves.

I wouldn’t expect you to. Of course some parts carry much more weight than other parts. What if there was “proof” that Joseph actually had a visitation from God and Christ, or a visitation from the angel Moroni. Don’t you think that “proof” for those parts of the story would have a better chance of convincing you to embrace the whole?

“…if it were proven that the BOM was a historical record it wouldn’t cause me to draw any conclusions about JS.”

I find this interesting but not completely surprising. If it were “proven” that he BoM was an historical record, I’m sure that other theories can be formulated to account for it’s existence, but all such theories would be simple creations designed to come up with anything other than the story claimed by JS (and I strongly suspect that any competing theory would heavily rely on ad hoc rationalizations). The purpose of creating an alternate theory for a JS translating a real historical record is simply to avoid the acceptance of JS as a prophet. Your comment below is evidence of this thought process.

“Especially when the church has been so deceptive about the supposed translation in the first place. I consistently see that the church will lie or conceal unsavory details to make their story more palatable, which makes me trust them even less.”

So, because you preceive the church as “deceptive” it gives you rationalization or a peg upon which to hang your unbelief– even, as you note above, if it were proven that the BoM was an historical record?

My parents have lied to me about many things, so even if we had proof that Santa rode a flying sleigh pulled by reindeer, I would reject it because my parents are known liars.

“Your basic assumption is that people must really leave for emotional reasons despite their own claims to the contrary. I can tell you in my case this simply isn’t true. I have studied the matter as intellectually as I know how. I simply do not find it believable.”

My basic assumption is that _all_ people rely on more than intellecutal reasoning in making many of life’s important choices (and if you ever read SFS, you’ll see that science sides with me). Your claim that you are the lone exception to this phenomenon is interesting in light of your other statements in this thread. The reason you offer for rejecting the BoM– should proof be found that it is an actual historical record– is because you don’t trust the Church because of what you preceive as past lies. Sorry, but such a position is most certainly not based solely on intellectual reasoning.

“If there was irrefutable evidence to prove that the church was what it claims to be woudn’t that invalidate faith and in turn the whole philosophical basis of the church?”

Yes. Agreed, and that’s why I don’t think such “proof” will ever be found. I believe that there are strong indicators– evidences that favor belief– but faith will still play a major role and each person can weigh the strength of competing evidences for themselves.

BTW, despite the repeated claims on RFM, I’m not the one who posed the question to the RFM list, I simply observed the answers from those who posted responses to someone else’s query.

While the rest of your list would certainly make for an interesting discussion, it is still a seperate issue from the point of this blog post. If you go back to the beginning, you’ll see that the point of this blog post was to show that while some critics claim that Mormons deny evidence in favor of feelings, we find that some of those very same critics actually deny evidence in favor of feelings. Nothing more, nothing less.

if i was provided evidence that the church was true:i would join reluctantly in order to avoid hellfire. i stated why in my previous post in the doctrinal points which you did not address. But you seem to address line by line everything else lol.

“It’s kind of like asking me what I would do if we discovered evidence that Santa lives at the North Pole.”
^^

We are not the same sorry. Texas barn shooting and reasonable doubts are not the same.

Now please analyze this line by line and tell me why i’m doing the exact same thing as you.

I haven’t said that no intellectual evidence could bring me back. My point is that if suddenly there existed evidence for one part of the story I wouldn’t immediately embrace the whole.

If we found out there was a guy named S.Claus at the north pole wouldn’t you still need quite a bit more evidence to conclude he was all the story books made him out to be?

Likewise, if it were proven that the BOM was a historical record it wouldn’t cause me to draw any conclusions about JS. Especially when the church has been so deceptive about the supposed translation in the first place.

I consistently see that the church will lie or conceal unsavory details to make their story more palatable, which makes me trust them even less.

Your basic assumption is that people must really leave for emotional reasons despite their own claims to the contrary. I can tell you in my case this simply isn’t true. I have studied the matter as intellectually as I know how. I simply do not find it believable.

If there was irrefutable evidence to prove that the church was what it claims to be woudn’t that invalidate faith and in turn the whole philosophical basis of the church?

1) Intellectual Dissafection
A) Scriptural/Doctrinal/Religious
B) Church History
C) Philosophy
D) Science
E) Authority
F) Esoteric & Secretive

2) Conformity – Inability to adapt to Mormon cultural norms
A) The Convert
B) The life long member
C) Social networks within/Outside the Church
D) Unworthiness
E) Social conflicts “being offended”
F) Regional socio-economic and socio-cultural

I realize there may be some overlap in those topics, and is by no means comprehensive. It would also be helpful to break issues up into two or three categories of people:

1) Born in the Covenant/Life long member
A) Always or mostly active
B) Less active/reactivated

2) Convert
A) Recent Converts
B) Long time converts

3) Concentrations of Mormon influence
A) Those who live in regions of high mormon Concentration (Utah, Idaho, California, Arizona), vs those who don’t.
B) Concentration of Mormon influence within family (pioneer ancestry, The Bishops kid/spouse, the only member of the Church in the family).

This data could be usefully assembled into a survey, which would then be submitted to the RFM board – and then insightful dialog could ensue between the RFM folks and and the FAIR group. The RFM boards are just a place where anybody who’s hacked off with Mormonism can go to sound off. FAIR attempts to be a bit more scholarly, therefore FAIR holds the cards for initiating a reasonable intellectual discussion with the RFM commenters. Given that, the RFM comments should not be held to scholarly standards, nor should they serve to reflect the full dynamic of each persons tranistion, thoughts, justifications, etc, for leaving Mormonism.

Obviously you haven’t been paying much attention to party rhetoric as of late.

“I have also left the church for intellectual reasons. If archeological evidence surfaced tomorrow that proved the BOM was at least a historical record of of people that existed it would not bring me back.”

Then I must ask this question. If you left for purely “intellectual reasons” what “intellectual” evidence could bring you back? I sincerely find your position fascinating. If archaeological evidence (your words) “surfaced tomorrow that proved the BoM was at least an historical record of people that existed” wouldn’t that say something about the person who restored/translated the record?

I’m not doubting you; I’m actually not surprised by your answer– belief can not be compelled or forced. I nevertheless find it interesting and ironic that apparently no “intellectual” evidence could convince you, yet you left for “intellecutal reasons.”

“We already as much evidence about the Bible and it doesn’t make me want to start attending any Christian churches. The atonement isn’t going to start making sense on any rational level just because we dig up a chariot in Guatemala or something.”

True, but finding evidence that “proved” (your words) the BoM certainly supports the prophetic call of Joseph Smith. Recognizing that real Israelites, cananites, etc. lived in the Old World doesn’t tell us anything about the scriptural veracity of the Bible.

“It’s kind of like asking me what I would do if we discovered evidence that Santa lives at the North Pole.”

And if evidence “proved” that Santa not only lived at the North Pole but had elves making toys and flying reindeer– you would still reject a belief in Santa?

“I am an ex-mormon who has left the church for intellectual reasons. To answer the question put forth in the original post, as to whether I would come back to the faith if evidence were provided in the affirmative, I can strongly say that I would.”

I’m glad to hear this.

“Let’s say that DNA evidence were to appear that strongly supported the Book of Mormon. That in and of itself would not be sufficient to bring me back to the fold. DNA is not the only problem with the Mormon church. Though, it would definitely give me pause.”

Again, I’m glad to hear this. I don’t think that there is a silver bullet for either side of the issue (see Shaken Faith Syndrome), but while I see the preponderance of evidence weighing in favor of belief, I can appreciate that not everyone will agree with this assesment.

“Granted, if DNA supported the Book of Mormon and we started finding strong archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon and other evidences started appearing, then I would eventually be persuaded to believe again.”

Glad to hear as well.

“I left the church very reluctantly. It’s sad that apologists so rarely understand how difficult this process is. I have lost friends and alienated loved ones as a result. If there was anyway that I could be honest with myself and still believe in the church, you can be sure I would.”

I don’t know how “rare” this is. Many/most of us have family and friends who are also outside the Church. I can appreciate the very real disturbing feelings you probably encountered in your decision to leave; and I don’t doubt that it wasn’t an easy choice. Not to keep plugging my book, but it really does deal with this topic at length.

I have no qualms with those who decide to leave or to those who reject my beliefs. I have a problem, however, with those who claim that Mormons (and more typically LDS apologists) are brain-dead hacks who ignore reality and cling to fantasy because they are either too dumb, dishonest with themselves, or simply hang on to feelings over evidence. I especially have a problem with those who make such accusations and then turn around and proudly proclaim that they would never return even if the evidence in favor of Mormonism was overwhelming.

“yes yes, we must explain the “apostates”. When we view them we have to look for some pattern to describe their behavior….”

Ironic how ex-Mormons typically describe “believers” as engaging in circular logic, ignoring the facts in favor of feelings, etc. It almost seems that ex-Mormons are “look[ing] for some pattern to describe their behavior…”

“There is no good reason for leaving the church especially when you said you knew it was true.”

It’s obvious that you haven’t read Shaken Faith Syndrome.

“As stated by many here, leaving based on emotional or evidences is preposterous. You will notice that all ex-Mormons have left because of emotional or evidential circumstances.”

See comment preceding yours.

“man, i would be a wonderful LDS apologist. too bad i’m too wrapped up in my circular logic to see through to the truth.
now, as you may have guessed, i’m not lds. now also, your filter has come to see me as an ex-mo, and therefore anything i say is put in a certain compartment in your brain: the trash bin.”

You’re not, by chance, trying to find a “pattern” in the behavior of LDS apologsits, are you?

“It seems that you want to understand the ‘apostate’, while actually all you want to do is wrap them in one nice neat package that is explainable to mormons and keeps them in their nice cozy ‘church is true’ moods.”

“Kettle” meet “Black.” Ironically enough, this was one of the major points of my original blog post.

“This is shown when minor spelling errors are emphasized rather than actual argument points.”

Evidence here would certainly improve the strength of your assertion.

“the many strange things i had to bear during mormondom were compartmentalized until i became exmo, where i could then understand why i could never go back.”

Thank goodness you have an open mind. You would “never go back”? Really, even if the evidence strongly favored Mormonism? It must be nice to finally be free of the limited Mormon mind that compartmentalizes people into one category and looks for patterns in their behavior.

“Most likely, you will ignore this. or jump circles around the points.”

Most likely. Since I’m incapable of thinking in any form other than ciruclar logic and since only Mormons compartmentalize others and look for patterns in their behavior, what else could you expect of me?

“i’m hoping you just ignore it.”

That’s an interesting remark.

“I already know it can’t have any impact on apologists.”

Of course not. Apologists, unlike real human beings (i.e., ex-Mormons) only engage in circular thoughts and lump people into behavioral groups.

So I’m listening; explain to me how you would reject “evidence for EVERYTHING” because such evidence can not, apparently in your view, be “justif[ied]” with your view of Mormonism as a “murderous fascist cult.” Explain to me how this implies your open-mindedness.

The difference is that the democratic party doesn’t claim to be all about family. Isn’t it a little different when your church claims to feel so strongly about the sanctity of family that they need to make a proclamation to the world about it? Yet, the teachings of the church contain countless triggers which effectively divide the family.

Even the temple, in its promise to unite families forever really only divides the so-called worthy family members from the ‘unworthy’ ones at a time that should be unifying to a family, a wedding.

As an atheist, I still have a loving relationship with the religious members of my family. It is no secret or shame for them to believe as they do or me likewise. Ostracism is almost always about fear, not love.

But I would point out it probably happens when someone goes Democrat in a highly Republican family, and vice versa. Or when someone leaves Catholicism in a Catholic family. Or when someone expresses views against homosexuality in a highly liberal family.

Ostracism is just a part of family in ANY ideological context.

For example, my aunt recently left the church after nearly 60 years of active membership. She was immediately and almost completely ostracized by her children.

Two of her children told her specifically that she is never allowed to be alone with any of their children, as if she were a pedophile or something. This is violence, and it only goes on because her children have been raised to believe that their mother is now somehow evil or possessed with the spirit of the devil.

It is saddening to see that an organization has its hooks so deep into its members that they will tirelessly defend the character of people they don’t even know, like JS and BY, yet will turn so quickly and viciously on the woman who gave them life.

But I also hate dumb argument and I hate overblown angry rhetoric. The ex-Mormon community has plenty of this floating around.

So does the faithful LDS community, and I dislike it equally, no matter which group of people I encounter it in.

flattop’s rhetoric about “murderous facists” was hysterical and completely out of proportion.

I would have attacked it, no matter which “side” it was advancing.

It has nothing to do with defending the Church or not. It just calling out a stupid argument.

We already as much evidence about the Bible and it doesn’t make me want to start attending any Christian churches. The atonement isn’t going to start making sense on any rational level just because we dig up a chariot in Guatemala or something.

It’s kind of like asking me what I would do if we discovered evidence that Santa lives at the North Pole.

Let’s say that DNA evidence were to appear that strongly supported the Book of Mormon. That in and of itself would not be sufficient to bring me back to the fold. DNA is not the only problem with the Mormon church. Though, it would definitely give me pause. Granted, if DNA supported the Book of Mormon and we started finding strong archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon and other evidences started appearing, then I would eventually be persuaded to believe again.

I left the church very reluctantly. It’s sad that apologists so rarely understand how difficult this process is. I have lost friends and alienated loved ones as a result. If there was anyway that I could be honest with myself and still believe in the church, you can be sure I would.

man, i would be a wonderful LDS apologist. too bad i’m too wrapped up in my circular logic to see through to the truth.
now, as you may have guessed, i’m not lds. now also, your filter has come to see me as an ex-mo, and therefore anything i say is put in a certain compartment in your brain: the trash bin.

It seems that you want to understand the ‘apostate’, while actually all you want to do is wrap them in one nice neat package that is explainable to mormons and keeps them in their nice cozy ‘church is true’ moods. This is shown when minor spelling errors are emphasized rather than actual argument points. as many LDS have said, “I’ve been in this for too long for it not to be true”. many ex-mos have said similar to the converse. this does not mean we are the same. because, we ex-mos have had two points of view. believing & post-believing. LDS only have 1 point of view, strictly enforced by diety.

the many strange things i had to bear during mormondom were compartmentalized until i became exmo, where i could then understand why i could never go back.

example: the statement: “god screwed this all up”. we already know god’s plan is perfect, so this is in the trash bin before we even consider it.

“evidence”: In D&C 19. particularly verses 6,7. the scriptures say eternal damnation & then this clarifies saying there is no eternal hell.

Points: 1. if i have a dad in heaven, i don’t want him to send us to earth if theres a chance of me or any of my friends going to an eternal hell. That is why i think “god is screwed up”.

counter-point: instead of addressing the issue that some will go into everlasting pain because of a “loving” god, various jumps and loops are done delving into various doctrinal points.

Point 2. God just lied in scripture. first he says there’s eternal damnation, then he says that was just a joke to make us work harder. That’s called: Deception.

counterpoint2.
but of course, this impossible. god can’t lie. so let’s jump around in circles around the problem until its time for church to get out. the church obviously, is still true next week.

This is obviously too long for any “non-questioning” mormon to read and understand, because if you were looking for an objective view point you’d be trying to understand the argument instead of figuring out what your response will be. or you would already be ex-mo.

Most likely, you will ignore this. or jump circles around the points. i’m hoping you just ignore it. I already know it can’t have any impact on apologists. I’m just having fun typing for some reason.

Thanks again for proving my point so succinctly.

It is always easiest to defend the indefensible by prejudging, discrediting, denying, damning, belittling and castigating without any dialog at all and without any knowledge of the facts. Allow me to call to your attention that in neither of your responses do you bother to ask what my valid evidence is. In fact, in your second response you actually iterate that you do not intend to ask. All of which exemplifies intellectual laziness in its most common form: willful ignorance.

Don’t worry about referring me to other examples of your supposedly respectful dialog: I’m well aware of the level of respect you display toward those you neither know or wish to know about.

But hey — please accept my congratulations in advance, Seth R.! I’m sure you and your attitude are very busily aiming for the rarefied heights within your cult. According to the laws of physics, hot air does quite often go in that direction. Good luck with it in the real world, though.

So frankly, I don’t care if we get to have a respectful conversation or not. Attempting to try would seem to be a waste of both our time.

As it happens, I do have respectful dialogue with plenty of ex-Mormons and participate regularly on some of their blogs. But your comments do not really encourage me to think that talking to you would be a useful exercise. My time is already spread thin. I don’t have much of it to waste on you.

And don’t pretend you were even interested in a two-way conversation with me either. You don’t throw around the kind of rhetoric you have thrown around if you’re interested in talking to faithful Mormons. So you can drop the sanctimonious “dialogue” act. You’re not kidding anyone here.

You wrote: “You look like just as much of a blibbering idiot as the people you claim to be critiquing. Take a couple Prozac and try again.”

First, Mr. Seth R.: “blibbering”? What is that?

Second, Mr. Seth R.: Thank you for the suggestion, but I am not inclined to pop pills when faced with ugly truths. That would be an attempt to deny that there are ugly truths in the world. That is an unrealistic point of view to take, is it not? It would seem, however, that many Mormons ARE heavily addicted to Prozac and other legal and illegal drugs. Why is that?
http://www.drugrehabreferral.com/states/utah
http://phn.ctlbyu.org/?p=23
http://www.squidoo.com/prescriptionaddictiondeaths

Third, Mr. Seth R.: Thank you for proving my point. It is far easier, not to mention far more intellectually lazy, for yourself and Mr. Ash to attempt to discredit me, attack me, and deny my documented and valid reasons for ditching the Mormon cult than it is to simply ask one serious question: “Why?” …and wait for a serious answer. And then to accept that answer as valid.

Why is that so, Mr. Seth R.?

It seems that it is far easier for yourself and Mr. Ash to arrive at your foregone conclusions by attempting to assign all of my reasons for leaving the Mormon cult to some kind of vague insidious “feelings” I must have had. I assure you that is not the case.

All either of you had to do was ask, but neither of you did. He did not ask because he did not want to know: his findings would not have supported his foregone conclusions. That is pretty lame scholarship on Mr. Ash’s part. What is your excuse?

Are you so insecure that you can not allow that openness of dialog to happen? It would seem so.

Thanks for your comments. Despite what is claimed on the Recovery Board, I never visited RFM with any questions that relate to the topic of this blog post. I made a visible appearance when a relative of mine on that board made mention of our relationship and my recently published book, Shaken Faith Syndrome. The material for blog post came from several lurking visits to the Recovery board over a period of time.

Putting aside the existence of Kolob for the moment, I’m glad to hear that you would return if the evidence were persuasive for the truth of Mormonism.

I also agree with Elder Holland’s position. Obviously I find that the secular and spiritual evidences favors belief while you don’t. That’s ok and I can certainly appreciate that not every one is persuaded equally by every evidence– if that were the case there would be very little differences of opinion on a variety of topics.

The point of my blog post (which I had not submitted to the posters of the Recover board) was to show that _some_ critics claim that Mormons ignore all evidence and rely strictly on feelings for their belief in Mormonism. I pointed out that _some_ critics also ignore all evidence (or at least proudly claim that they would ignore pro-LDS evidence) and rely, instead, on feelings for their rejection of Mormonism.

If the basic truth claims of the Mormon Church were proven, then of course I would go back. I would be a fool not to, if in fact Kolob existed, and Mormonism was my only way to return to live there with Elohim.

I side with the truth and the facts, no matter how disturbing they are to me personally. That’s why I left the church when I saw the facts. As much as I loved the church, I couldn’t live a lie and be fed lies and told what to do and how to live by other men who were pretending to have divine authority.

And let’s be clear on what I mean by truth claims. The Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland said in plainly:

“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. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for 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…”

“To hear someone so remarkable say something so tremendously bold, so overwhelming in its implications, that everything in the Church — everything — rises or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and, by implication, the Prophet Joseph Smith’s account of how it came forth, can be a little breathtaking. It sounds like a “sudden death” proposition to me.”

“Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward.”

“Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, [1] after seeing the Father and the Son, [2] later beheld the angel Moroni, [3] repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually [4] receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which [5] he then translated according to the gift and power of God—or else he did not.
(Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, “True or False,” New Era, June 1995, Page 64)

I agree with Elder Holland. Either the Book of Mormon is the literal history from golden plated and the Angel Moroni, or the Mormon Church has been a fraud from the beginning.

Your comments do not paint you in a flattering light. You look like just as much of a blibbering idiot as the people you claim to be critiquing.

Take a couple Prozac and try again.

I did not know how far this could go until I was working for a pest control company in UT. I went to spray a home in Orem. There were books everywhere many on South America. I could also tell this was the home of an active LDS member. Interested by the plethora of books I wanted to find out who the person was behind all this. I asked the gray haired gentlemen what he did. He told me he was a Dr. of archeology at BYU and his specialty was Central and South America. So I said so you do Book of Moron stuff? No I only do science. I went on spraying a bit perplexed. When I finished I asked him to clarify his statement. I explained my confusion based on seeing many Books of Mormon and sighting other evidence that he was active LDS. He explained that his testimony of the Book of Mormon was based on the fact that it is an amazing theological document, but it did not happen in the Americas.

This experience stayed with me. I have since read things like Karen Armstrong’s The Bible a biography. She is a very well recognized biblical scholar. She claims that there is very good evidence that much of the bible was written for political purposes at later dates than they are claimed. She would tell you little of the bible is literal, but she believes very strongly in the transformative power of the Bible as a spiritual not a literal document.

I now question the importance of the questions like horses in the Book of Mormon. Just as we now know the Pearl of Great Price is not a literal translation of the scroll Joseph Smith translated it from. Why is literalism important when we are asking if something is transformative in our lives?

The whole question if we had proof of the falsehood of the church would we leave it quite strange in nature. I think proof of falsehood is easy to find if that is what we are looking for. That is if we are speaking in a literal sense. The question I think is “is the church truly a positive transformative effect in our lives?” If it is not than why not? If it is because of us than we need to change, in what ever way we need to to have positive transformative experiences in our lives. If it is because of the church, the doctrine, or the leadership than we should leave.

A rational support of a belief includes a critical comparison to another group who holds a similar one. The group who was massacred are the only North American Indian tribe who put in writing a belief in the horse before Columbus. (See Battiste Good’s Winter Count)

I asked a rational question: Why does the official LDS website continue to call the massacre a “significant victory”?

You have not displayed a rational answer, and this supports the topic of your blog, with you moving in a direction I did not expect you to take it.

I am not a critic of the LDS church, but I am a critic to the official website link of “significant victory” and had hoped that this FAIR blog could help to address it.

What is irrational is your failing to see how on-topic this was.

“As I demonstrated in Shaken Faith Syndrome, however, Latter-day Saints not only have rational reasons for believing the truth claims of Mormonism but all people—including critics—often rely on irrational feelings and bias in weighing evidence for important matters such as religion”.

It is irrational to ignore my question and claim that it was off-topic, when through it you have shown yourself to respond with irrational feelings.

The only thing that has been hijacked is the LDS faith, by FARMS. It would seem that the apologetics do not believe in the truthfulness of the LDS faith, but like Thomas S. Ferguson, they believe it to be a good organization. The attempted answers to critics are simply to provide support for those who still believe.

A claim by critics is that no American Indian record referenced Horses before the European, yet I have shown that one does, and that the LDS Church degrades this people. I have asked why. (What I have shown is far more substantial than another apologetic’s reference, found on FARMS, to an email concerning Cherokee legend).

It is not a one-note somba, but as an experiment with the one who asked the first question, you have shown your own results.

Now, if you have a sincere testimony of the truthfulness of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, and with your years of research and credibility as a published author, help to fix the wording at the Ash Hollow official LDS website. It is simply irrational not to.

What’s unimportant– for this particular blog entry– are your off-topic posts. You obviously have something to say, fine. Say it elsewhere. Post it on a message board where other interested parties can respond. Maybe I’ll even peek in if it suits me. This might be an interesting topic for another time, but not on this particular blog thread. You’re barking up the wrong tree and trying to hijack a blog thread that has nothing to do with your one-note somba.