Hi all,

This is my first post after many years away from the RfM boards. I've been an atheist for the last 10 years or so, and off a whim (perhaps a misguided one, but a whim nonetheless) I decided to meet up with my Bishop after the last time he called asking if he could meet with me.

The purpose of the last few meetings has been to try to explain to him that I didn't leave the church because I was "offended" or I'm "sinning", but because I have an alternate worldview of things now and that's a legitimate reason to leave. Yes, it might be a difficult to impossible goal to leave this impression on a TBM, but that was my intent.

Everything I've tried to bring up, legitimate reasons, has been shot down with various forms of rationale. It's as I expected -- even my strongest attempts to nail jello to the wall have failed. But I want to make one last attempt.

So, the topic de jour is faith and spiritual revelation. I know I can feel similar spiritual feelings when feeling patriotic or love for my family, but the Bishop will counter that all this (patriotism, love for family) is part of the church's message, so it makes sense I'd feel that way.

I explain to him that me returning to church would be a miracle, and if he wants this miracle to occur, I'm going to need more than just the "still small voice". I'm going to need to see some kind of sign that's impossible to just "happen". If the church is true, something like this isn't outside the program, for miracles and signs supposedly happened all the time.

So, the topic is signs vs. quiet Holy Ghost-type revelation. What are your best arguments for explaining why the still small voice is simply inadequate for determining truth??

Please help... I don't anticipate these meetings going much longer, but I want to give it my best shot for explaining "the Exmormon side" as best I can.

Thanks!

Joseph Smith only became a Mormon after God and Jesus, then Moroni came down and told him it was the only way. The brother of Jared totally forgot about God and when he went to say sorry God showed up and the brother of Jared never doubted again. Moses was completely unprepared to meet God on Sinai and he would have never have gone back to Egypt unless God asked him to in person. Jesus's step dad Joseph would have turned Mary out because she was pregnant until Gabriel came and told him not to.

Why do these people get extraordinary proof and you have to follow your gut?

Yep and if you ask for a burning bush they'll tell you you are a fornicator... ;)

that the voice is always indentical to your own voice.

But what about signs? About three weeks before General Conference in 2007 I gave a talk in Sacrament meeting about the First Vision and how we know that God knows each of us personally because He even called young Joseph by name. That event is the most important event in the history of the world according to mormonism. I knew without a doubt that it really happened that way, and I spoke with tears in my eyes. Others seemed to be feeling the same way, and someone told me after ward that the spirit was very powerful in that meeting.

When General Conference came around, one of the GA's gave a talk very similar to mine and I knew then that this was a sure sign, an undeniable witness, that my words over the pulpit that day were true.

One month later PBS had their program called "The Mormons" and for the first time in my life I found out that there were other versions of that singular moment in history.

A few weeks after that I had gathered all the versions together and began to compare them with teachings from the LDS scriptures, and guess what? The one version that the church that thus far tried to explain away and even deny (the 1832) was the only version that was scripturally sound.

So what sign did I get from God? None.
Despite the overwhelming feelings, they were just that- feelings.

In order for the Holy Ghost to testify of truth, that truth has to be true. Otherwise, you are just feeling good about thinking something is right.

Here's a excerpt from an email I sent to a TBM friend explaning my position on this.

"I’ve been doing a lot of reading and contemplation about epistemology. The church’s process for finding and establishing truth was not working for me. It’s entirely based on emotion. More than a billion Muslims in this world and a billion or so Hindus and a billion Catholics and probably close to that number of Buddhists can all pray and feel that God is answering their prayers. Who am I to tell them that my emotional response to a Mormon prayer is any more real than theirs? Unless we can establish that some people’s emotions are more valid than other’s then it became clear to me that either everybody’s emotional response was valid or nobody’s was. I recognize that this could be a false dichotomy but I just can’t see a reasonable middle path, especially since god claims to be '…no respecter of persons.'

Emotions simply are not a reliable method for establishing truth. Therefore, anything that I could claim as truth must stand apart from my emotional response to it."

Why is it so important to meet with a Bishop. Why do you need to explain anything to him. Who cares. He's just a guy, he has no more insight then anyone else.

I would turn it around. As a thought experiment, ask him what spiritual manifestation it would take to convince him the church is false. Hold his feet to the fire and make him answer.

Whatever he says, reply that this is what it would take to convince you of the error of your current path.

Express a willingness to change if said manifestation happens.

He will either refuse to answer, say "nothing would convince me, even Jesus himself appearing", or give a real answer.

Odds on the above three are 99%, 1% and 0%.

Ask for the same level of reciprocity, since you are as convinced as he is that your current believe (or lack thereof) is "true".

Return and Report!

It's not important, Anon Confussed... But my hope was that if someone is that curious why we left the church, we should never be ashamed to tell them why.

True, most times it's just a waste of time and doesn't get anything accomplished. But there's just a slim chance that maybe he'll understand that there are other reasons for leaving the church than just "sinner" or "was offended". Legitimate reasons.

If we do nothing to address people's questions on why we left, the usual reasons will perpetuate, and if I can turn just one heart to be sympathetic to our reasoning, it would be worth all the useless bickering.

The best thing you can do is study, read up on the writings of Steve Benson.

You could also ask the bishop at what point does something that is false become true. Or does the truth have to start as truth first. A lie just doesn't become the truth over time just because it has aged.

Where in the bible did Moses change his story.

I saw a burning bush and heard the voice of God.

or was it

I stumbled across something burning and heard a voice in my head.

or did it start out as.

While I was cooking dinner, the smoke from the bush I was burning messed with my mind and I heard God.

Since Mormonism is high-churn religion (lots of people coming in, lots going out in any given year), apparently the witness that tells people Mormonism is the way to God is less effective than the same witness about other religions.

Why is that?

Proof that it is a high-churn religion: Pew Research has done surveys on churn in various religions. Mormons were near the top of the list. I can't find the link. The fact that it is high-churn can be deduced from conversion and growth numbers.

There are approximately 4 million active Mormons (30% of claimed membership).

There are about 300,000 baptisms per year, and 100,000 births (to active members) per year. That's a 10% growth rate per year: 400,000 new members on a 4,000,000 base.

However, the number of stakes is increasing by about 1% per year (28 stakes would be 1%). Where did the other 9% go? That's the churn. Yes, number of stakes is a pretty crude measure of real church growth, but it is the most reliable figure we have. The church is clearly not really growing by 400,000 people per year, which is what they want the world to believe.

Think of the number of people leaving LDS Inc every year as a kind of reverse tithing. Almost a tenth of their membership is walking away every year. That whole "witness of the Holy Ghost" has not been working out all that well for them.

These are all good; thank you for the replies thus far.

I'll post a reply on Sunday with the results of the discussion, but, consistent with the thread, don't expect any miracles. :-)

Does the Church also teach that throwing a large water fountain through a window so you can escape a mental institution, as part of it's message? I felt a very warm burning in my bossom when I saw this at the end of "One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest". I felt more inner joy and peace as I watched "Big Chief" slow mo running out of sight, than I ever felt reading that boring BOM.

it's another of those 'chasing tail' questions that can only be answered by attending the Temple, pray+pay+obey.

ChurchCo LOVES that dead-end thinking!

The "Holy Ghost" is simply one's own feelings they experience based on what they believe, or might believe, to be true. Feelings are NOT an indicator of truth. If someone called you telling you you won a million dollars in a sweepstakes, you'd have some seriously intense feelings. But you find out later that you were pranked. Were those feelings of joy and elation reliable in relation to the situation at hand? No. Did you still have those feelings after you were told the truth? No. Because your understanding of the situation changed. Its the same with the "Holy Ghost." Mormons "feel" the spirit, but its really just their own feelings reconfirming what they believe to be the truth. When stop believing you stop having those feelings.

We have all kinds of feelings about different things. I had good feelings about a girl I dated until I found out she was only interested in my money. Now I do NOT have good feelings about her. Those feelings did not express the truth about her. Feelings don't prove anything.

best reason for leaving mormonism ......FALSE DOCTRINE !!!

I do not feel like a LDS Bishop or any other LDS is qualified to discuss religion with me. I am not saying that I am qualified to answer religious questions, what I am saying is neither are they. To argue a point, there must be an agreement as to what is true and what is not. I can never have a point of agreement with a TBM on the LDS religion.

Any question or point of view that they express comes from their beliefs as a LDS. Since I do not believe the LDS is "the true church" why would I want to discuss religious beliefs with one of them?

For the LDS Church to be true, then all their doctrines must be true, there can't be one false doctrine and the church be true.

So, either the church is completely true, or it is false.

Since, to my way of thinking, I have found a multitude of false, when all I needed to find was one..then why would I discuss it with one of them?

I would not try to discuss on a rational level LDS belief with a TBM, because it is my belief that they are not rational, but rather that they have compartmentalized that part of their mind that has to do with religious beliefs.

Do you know this Bishop well? Are you trying to save him? If you are smarter and more educated than him, you will have a very frustrating and one sided conversation.

Faith is impossible to rationally defend. That goes for lack of faith, loss of faith, etc. It's just as difficult to talk someone out of their faith as it is to talk someone into faith.

Faith is born inside the mind for some emotional or spiritual reason.

a couple of ideas:

1. Read Bob McCue's essays on this topic. They're a great read.

http://bobmccue.ca/category/post-mormon/


2. Here is a link to a test asking the reader to match up various statements of "testimony" with the religion of the believer. Give this test to the Bishop and find out why his should be any more compelling than any other. (scroll down to find the test)

http://www.theamateurthinker.com/2011/02/how-can-we-find-truth-part-4/


3. There are over 80 mormon splinter groups. One especially compelling group followed James Strang after the death of JS. Strang also had visions and revelations, claimed to find and translate scripture (the Plates of Laban), and claimed a divine mandate. He was able to SPIRITUALLY convert so-called Book of Mormon witnesses John and David Whitmer, Martin Harris and Hiram Page, Apostles John E. Page, William E. M'Lellin, and William Smith, Smith's sisters, Nauvoo Stake President William Marks, Bishop George Miller, and Joseph Smith's mother, Lucy Mack Smith. All of JS's family (except for Hyrum and Samuel Smith's widows), initially believed in Strang. His church numbered over 12,000 in its heyday. Also championing Strang was John C. Bennett, a physician who was one of the closest advisers of Joseph Smith, and his Assistant President and mayor of Nauvoo.

What can be made of this? How can so-called "testimony" be relied upon if the most intimate and faithful of JS's followers were able to gain a "testimony" of yet ANOTHER claimer of visions and translation skills?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._Strang

http://www.ChurchofJesusChristofLatterDaySaints.org

Wow, that is a damn good link (the testimony test one...I'm sure the Bob one is good, too, but I haven't had time to read it yet). Thank you!

I always KNEW there were similar sentiments about feeling peace in other religions, but I never knew where to find a good compilation of quotes like this. Brilliant!

OK great, yeah this is a good resource. I've copied the text before and modified it a little and given it to TBMs with pretty entertaining results. It helps to add that the people receiving "testimonies" of other truths outnumber mormons by huge margins. From a simple preponderance of the evidence point of view, if the "experience" seems to be identical across belief systems, why should I trust the smallest and most marginalized interpretation rather than the most validated and popular one?

Also you can note that even the so-called mormon witness isn't effective enough to prevent mormons leaving mormonism at a rate of about 3 to 1. Since it can easily be shown that the number of actual active, attending members worldwide is on the order of four and a half million members (and that most of the missing have been missing for years), there are actually three times as many inactive-former mormons than believers. By any measure it would seem that "god's plan of happiness" for the human race is a dismal failure. God can't even manage to hold on to the members he has, let alone attract more members to "roll forth like a stone to fill the earth."

By their fruits, bishop.

Definitely don't bring up how you feel the holy ghost while watching football or anything like that. That just endulges the idea that he's trying to sell that the holy ghost is a reliable means of determining truth. You need to drive home how shaky that claim is.

You: "How do you know that the holy ghost is a reliable means of determining truth?"
Bishop: "You must study pray with sincere intent and then you'll understand."
You: "And I will understand through the power of the holy ghost?"
Bishop: "Yes."
You: "Isn't that circular reasoning, saying that the holy ghost will tell you that the holy ghost is reliable? Don't you need some kind of external verification?"
Bishop: "You have to start with faith, then after you receive a witness from the spirit the evidence will be clear."
You: "But the evidence for ex-mormons is pretty clear to them too. The question is how you know that what you define as the spirit is actually truth."
Bishop: "The spirit is pure knowledge. The fruits are peace, love, goodwill, etc... Ex-mormons are all about tearing down."
You: "But how do you equate that with truth? Let me put forth a question - if you found an alternate explanation for your experiences with the spirit, would you be bound to fairly consider that explanation in your search for truth?"
Bishop: "Please explain"
You: "If you performed a scientific study that positively linked your sensations of the spirit with the presence of a chemical in your brain in 100% of cases, and demonstrated no feelings of the spirit without the presence of the chemical, would you consider the possibility that your feelings were caused by the chemical and not a spiritual being?"
Bishop: "No chemical can cause the feelings I've had - they have come at times when I've been completely sober."
You: "The question was hypothetical. Please don't evade it. I'm not saying that chemicals cause the spirit - I'm asking if you would consider the possibility in the hypothetical event that you observed a perfect correlation."
Bishop: "Well, if I did do that experiment, how do I know that the spirit didn't create the chemical in my brain?"
You: "It may well have, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that the experience came directly from the chemicals. A separate experiment would then be required to determine if the chemicals occurred naturally or through supernatural means. You still haven't answered the question as to whether or not you would consider the possibility that the holy ghost was not involved."
Bishop: "I wouldn't need to consider the possibility. I already know that it wasn't."
You: "You know because the spirit told you."
Bishop: "That's right."
You: "Well, then we have nothing further to discuss, because you've just brought us back to the circular reasoning I was afraid of in the first place. Thank you for confirming to me that mormons are incapable of logic and reason when it comes to determining truth."
Bishop: "You will never know the truth until you make a leap of faith. Logic and Reason can't take you the whole way."
You: "Have a nice day."

The problem with the holy ghost feeling of peace is that it's only true if it agrees with general church doctrine, otherwise you were misled by satan. So you really aren't trusting in a feeling to guide you, you're learning how to pride yourself for having "the truth" while at the same time losing your ability to think.