For those who stopped believing, how *sure* are you that the church is a lie and what makes you so sure?

[Not Buying It]

No matter how much we toss around different wording or semantics, it doesn't change the evidence: The church is not what it claims to be. It never has been. Whether Joseph was deluded, and every "prophet" since Joe, right up to old Russel continue to be deluded, the church is still not what it claims to be, and it cannot live up to any of it's grand and wonderful promises.

Yep - it cannot possibly be what it claims to be. The evidence against it is overwhelming. How sure am I? 100%. No question. The nature of reality would have to be so foreign to what we perceive it to be for it to be even remotely possible that it isn’t a lie.

[Reuben]

Lie... Fraud... Pious Fraud... Delusion... Deception... Unintentional Deception... Intentional Deception... Self Decpetion... Just. Plain. Old. Deception...

No matter how much we toss around different wording or semantics, it doesn't change the evidence: The church is not what it claims to be. It never has been. Whether Joseph was deluded, and every "prophet" since Joe, right up to old Russel continue to be deluded, the church is still not what it claims to be, and it cannot live up to any of it's grand and wonderful promises.

I totally agree with this last paragraph. I also recognize the harm that comes just from making those grand and wonderful promises.

I have to recognize degrees of culpability, though. In my mind, the harms caused by the church are usually tragedies, not crimes. I want to blame it and every one of its leaders all the way back to Old Joe Smith with his magic spectacles and spirit guardians. But I can't. I can't see myself as good and the church (or even just Joseph) as evil because that puts me right back where I was but with different beliefs, and recognizing self-deception is the way I stay out of that mode of thought. I have to recognize my own tendency to deceive myself, too, so I have a chance at detecting when I'm doing it and can exercise self-compassion for all the dumb things I've believed in the past and all the dumb things I'm sure I believe now.

I just can't call what the church teaches "lies" and feel like I'm being honest and compassionate. I can call it "error," "falsehood" and "bullshit," though, and I frequently do.

[moksha]

My training in Bayesian statistics makes me unwilling to infer a posterior distribution over a discrete set with a zero-probability outcome.

Can you say that in English?

[Reuben]

My training in Bayesian statistics makes me unwilling to infer a posterior distribution over a discrete set with a zero-probability outcome.

Can you say that in English?

You can't believe something you think is impossible, you often have to wade through seemingly impossible explanations to find the truth, and we're not doing logical deduction, anyway.

[Dravin]

I am 100% sure that the evidence for the church being correct about it's truth claims is insufficient to convince me to believe them. That is the great thing about burdens of proof; it is the church's burden to demonstrate it is true and if it fails to do so one is justified in not believing.

[mooseman]

The straw for me was the evolution of the priesthood. Once i layed down the timeline and looked at how it and doctrine grew and changed as leaders ran into problems i couldn't see it as anything other than fake. Line upon line isnt the same as doing anything to retain power and influence, but its clearly how "the lords will is revealed" and destroys any good it could have held. 99.995% sure its all made up and 80% sure js didnt believe it was real.

[Hagoth]

I'm not 100% sure. I'm only as sure about the LDS church as I am about FLDS, Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Santa Claus.

[Hagoth]

The straw for me was the evolution of the priesthood. Once i layed down the timeline and looked at how it and doctrine grew and changed as leaders ran into problems i couldn't see it as anything other than fake.

I would love to see a visual timeline that illustrates this theme. It would track doctrines on one side of a central line and problems/pressures on the other, and then highlight abrupt changes of doctrines as they coincide with needs and pressures. Somebody to that!

[jfro18]

The straw for me was the evolution of the priesthood. Once i layed down the timeline and looked at how it and doctrine grew and changed as leaders ran into problems i couldn't see it as anything other than fake.

I would love to see a visual timeline that illustrates this theme. It would track doctrines on one side of a central line and problems/pressures on the other, and then highlight abrupt changes of doctrines as they coincide with needs and pressures. Somebody to that!

I'll work on that... I have been researching the priesthood stuff anyway. I don't know how clean it can be since a lot of things are muddied, but maybe that would make it all the more clear that it's not right.

[RubinHighlander]

For me it goes well beyond the historical evidence and current observations of policies, etc. When I was at the pinnacle of my CogDis I took that scripture from the BOM that suggested I could "prove me now herewith" and "exercise a particle of faith". So I allowed myself to live my life, at least mentally and emotionally, as it if the church was all BS. I wanted to observe how I would feel entertaining the thought that there was no longer and angel and devil trying to influence my every decision. I got rid of guilt and fear. It was an amazing transformational experience that allowed me to take the final deep dive down the rabbit hole of evidence that gave me confidence I didn't have to believe it anymore. I was so much happier and less stressed; life was now more amazing and awesome than ever before. I've never had a doubt or regret ever since. After all the lose threads I pulled on, all I learned about how crazy it all is, I still dabble in learning more about the history and watch how current events unfold; I'm amazed at how much more crazy BS there still is.

[jfro18]

So instead of working on my day job, I'm trying to do a write-up of the priesthood restoration. It is really difficult to simplify it down to a basic timeline, but holy crap it is amazing to read both the timeline along with the FAIR responses. You could do an easy 20 page write-up just of the priesthood issues... I never realized how hollow the apologist arguments are.

Does anyone have any semi-credible source that gives evidence the priesthood was actually restored before 1831? Or that it the Aaronic/Melchizedek was done earlier? Or that John the Baptist and others were mentioned?

[mooseman]

The straw for me was the evolution of the priesthood. Once i layed down the timeline and looked at how it and doctrine grew and changed as leaders ran into problems i couldn't see it as anything other than fake.

I would love to see a visual timeline that illustrates this theme. It would track doctrines on one side of a central line and problems/pressures on the other, and then highlight abrupt changes of doctrines as they coincide with needs and pressures. Somebody to that!

Thats a good idea. I only ever did it as a word flow chart....kind of "first vision earliest version says it was a "forgiveness of sins" event common amoung people. Promisies fil he'll stop treasure seeking, Gets plates and translates them same way he looked for treasure, revelation to sell copyrite, no buyers, attempts to join methodist but kicked out because of mystic believes, first vision now God says join no church, starts church, only suppose to be a translator per revelation, Hyde in charge, revelation changed smith in charge cause John the Baptist came, ect"

It became like a marathon to me-one mile i could do. 10k, still going strong....by the time you get to the martyrdom it doesnt hold, and you still have to run the every other prophet, but its all the same course. Even with Hinckley, who i respect more.than the others, you see the same pattern over and over. I could handle the church not being true. Any organization needs mythos. I cant particiapte with it being harmful, and that pattern is harmful.

[mooseman]

So instead of working on my day job, I'm trying to do a write-up of the priesthood restoration. It is really difficult to simplify it down to a basic timeline, but holy crap it is amazing to read both the timeline along with the FAIR responses. You could do an easy 20 page write-up just of the priesthood issues... I never realized how hollow the apologist arguments are.

Does anyone have any semi-credible source that gives evidence the priesthood was actually restored before 1831? Or that it the Aaronic/Melchizedek was done earlier? Or that John the Baptist and others were mentioned?

Nope. Cause its all retro fitted after the fact when its needed. Its like Odin having the Gauntlet, then Hela declaring it fake, only to have Pippen make it....its actually a sign of fiction that an event keeps changing based on current need **cough first vision cough ***

[wtfluff]

I just can't call what the church teaches "lies" and feel like I'm being honest and compassionate. I can call it "error," "falsehood" and "bullshit," though, and I frequently do.

How about if we look at "the church's" own definition of "honesty/lying"?

Gospel Principles, Chapter 31 - Honesty, Section: To Lie Is Dishonest, 2nd paragraph:

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

I have no problem whatsoever saying that "the church" teaches lies. By their own definition of lying, they teach lies. "We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth, example: 'Several months before her 15th birthday' ".

[alas]

If he believed it, it's a delusion rather than a lie.

I distinguish between unintentional and intentional deception. We unintentionally deceive others all the time by unintentionally deceiving ourselves first.

It's so built-in that we don't notice. Our visual systems fill in the blank spot where the optic nerve attaches and guess colors in the peripheral of the visual field, but we think it's all real. We think our memories are like video or audio files, but each memory is mostly reconstructed at recall, and is changed to fit our current beliefs and re-stored with modifications. Every object we see, every label or relationship we infer, every decision we make (especially about which evidence to take in), every memory we store, every memory we recall, every belief we form... absolutely everything that happens in our brains is heavily influenced by what motivates us, and this is done without our awareness. We are self-deceiving to the core.

Some of us do it more than others. I think Joseph was a champ at it. He wanted to be a seer, so his brain figured out a way to believe that he was. He didn't lie because to him, his falsehoods were the truth.

Everyone here has self-deceived with regards to the church. How many times did we see the counterevidence and resist its implications? We were highly motivated to ignore it or explain it away. If after that we said, "I know it's true," we deceived someone else, unintentionally.

Lie... Fraud... Pious Fraud... Delusion... Deception... Unintentional Deception... Intentional Deception... Self Decpetion... Just. Plain. Old. Deception...

No matter how much we toss around different wording or semantics, it doesn't change the evidence: The church is not what it claims to be. It never has been. Whether Joseph was deluded, and every "prophet" since Joe, right up to old Russel continue to be deluded, the church is still not what it claims to be, and it cannot live up to any of it's grand and wonderful promises.

I’d never disagree with that.

The difference between a lie and a delusion is that with a delusion, first you lie to yourself. Still a lie wether I lie to you first or lie to myself first.

[IT_Veteran]

The difference between a lie and a delusion is that with a delusion, first you lie to yourself. Still a lie wether I lie to you first or lie to myself first.

I look at it like maybe he had a mental illness. If someone hears voices in their head, genuinely, is that a lie? Or a delusion?

[alas]

The difference between a lie and a delusion is that with a delusion, first you lie to yourself. Still a lie wether I lie to you first or lie to myself first.

I look at it like maybe he had a mental illness. If someone hears voices in their head, genuinely, is that a lie? Or a delusion?

Joseph Smith does not appear to have the kind of mental illness that leads to hallucinations or hearing voices in his head. He appears to have had more of a personality disorder kind of mental illness. There is a big difference between the mental illnesses with delusions and those with psychosis/hallucinations, although there is some crossover. A paranoid schizophrenic will have delusions AND hallucinations, but for the kind of personality disorder that JS showed symptoms of, it would just be delusions.

And people who hear voices in their head know the difference between their own thinking. Which is why they know they are hearing voices. My brother tried to explain it once to me. But with hallucinations, they can't really tell if what they are seeing is there or not until they look closer. Then if it disappears, it was not here in the first place. But my brother said, you don't have time for that when you are driving down the road and see a kid in the road. I had a schizophrenic client once who explained it and her words kind of matched my brothers. They know what is real in some ways. But often have to kind of test. Or at least the ones who are functional enough to test. Never tried to discuss it with someone who was full blown psychotic.

People with delusions do not know their delusions are not real, because the definition of delusion is that they believe it. But...

You know how people say the 3/4 of what comes out of Pres tRump's mouth is a lie. I don't think he knows that because I think he is delusional. Same with Joseph Smith. I don't think he though what he said was a lie, at least toward the end of his life.

But back up. At first, Joseph showed every sign of knowing there were no gold plates. So, pretending there were plates was a lie. He knew there were no gold plates. If there had been he would have sold them for cash. But all his actions say he knew there were no plates. But then later, he seemed to honestly think he was translating those papyri. Was THAT a delusion? He made no attempt to try to figure out the "reformed Egyption" like he did with the real Egyption. His efforts with the real Egyption at first looked like efforts to actually translate. Then he "translated" and got a book.

But when we lie to ourselves, there is a ego saving reason. At FIRST, we know the truth, but it *hurts*. So, we make up something that doesn't hurt. At this point, we still know and hate the truth. But after we have told ourselves the comforting lie several times, we start to believe it. It is a gradual process of lying to ourselves until we develope the full delusion.

So on some level of consciousness, most delusional people still know the truth. Now the ones who are psychotic also don't, but the ones running around semi functioning in society still know the truth enough to get upset and defensive about it. So, it is still a lie, because they are not psychotic, and they still know at some level.

At least my opinion mixed with psychology.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

The straw for me was the evolution of the priesthood. Once i layed down the timeline and looked at how it and doctrine grew and changed as leaders ran into problems i couldn't see it as anything other than fake.

I would love to see a visual timeline that illustrates this theme. It would track doctrines on one side of a central line and problems/pressures on the other, and then highlight abrupt changes of doctrines as they coincide with needs and pressures. Somebody to that!

I'll work on that... I have been researching the priesthood stuff anyway. I don't know how clean it can be since a lot of things are muddied, but maybe that would make it all the more clear that it's not right.

Here's a good starting point:

In addition to these Book of Mormon teachings, other churches at the time—including ones with which many early Church members were familiar—taught about the priesthood. The Disciples of Christ, from which many early members of the Church converted, for example, had developed its own priesthood doctrines, influenced by Alexander Crawford, a Scottish minister living in Canada. In 1827, Crawford had delineated the existence of three distinct priesthoods: a patriarchal priesthood (which he also called a priesthood after the “order of Melchisedec”), an Aaronical priesthood (originally held by Aaron), and a priesthood held by Jesus Christ. Crawford regarded Melchizedek as a greater priest than Abraham, citing the fact that Abraham paid tithes to him; indeed, according to Crawford, Melchizedek was one of the key players in the order of the patriarchal priesthood. Crawford also considered the patriarchal priesthood and the Aaronical priesthood as branches of the Levitical priesthood. Alexander Campbell and the Disciples of Christ were influenced by Crawford’s ideas, although Campbell differed somewhat in his conception of the priesthood, arguing that God had given a “priesthood” to the tribe of Levi and a “high priesthood” to Aaron and his sons. [13] Regardless, as one historian has claimed, Campbell taught his understanding of priesthood “to many of his followers who [became] part of the Mormonite community and continued to believe the same doctrine.” [14]

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/you-shall- ... priesthood

[didyoumythme]

You people are so articulate! It’s why I love NOM...I always find interesting things to think about.

The favorite apologist argument is to create a space, however small, to allow people who want to believe to continue believing. As long as people don’t look too close or follow logic to it’s end, then this ‘God of the gaps’ approach keeps them in. I am as sure that the ‘church isn’t true’ as I am that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn’t real. I cant live my life based on astronomically tiny probabilities, so the only option is to admit disbelief.

I relate mostly to Pierre-Simon Laplace when he said “I have no need for that hypothesis”. Mormonism answers no questions, but instead complicates life tremendously. A far cry from the simple gospel we were taught it was.

[jfro18]

Here's a good starting point:

In addition to these Book of Mormon teachings, other churches at the time—including ones with which many early Church members were familiar—taught about the priesthood. The Disciples of Christ, from which many early members of the Church converted, for example, had developed its own priesthood doctrines, influenced by Alexander Crawford, a Scottish minister living in Canada. In 1827, Crawford had delineated the existence of three distinct priesthoods: a patriarchal priesthood (which he also called a priesthood after the “order of Melchisedec”), an Aaronical priesthood (originally held by Aaron), and a priesthood held by Jesus Christ. Crawford regarded Melchizedek as a greater priest than Abraham, citing the fact that Abraham paid tithes to him; indeed, according to Crawford, Melchizedek was one of the key players in the order of the patriarchal priesthood. Crawford also considered the patriarchal priesthood and the Aaronical priesthood as branches of the Levitical priesthood. Alexander Campbell and the Disciples of Christ were influenced by Crawford’s ideas, although Campbell differed somewhat in his conception of the priesthood, arguing that God had given a “priesthood” to the tribe of Levi and a “high priesthood” to Aaron and his sons. [13] Regardless, as one historian has claimed, Campbell taught his understanding of priesthood “to many of his followers who [became] part of the Mormonite community and continued to believe the same doctrine.” [14]

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/you-shall- ... priesthood

I have been reading as much as I can for 1.5 months now and never came across this... how is this not included in more of the CES Letter type materials or even mentioned on FAIR as a source of plagiarism/copying/whatever you want to call it?

I can't find other people who wrote up the priesthood that way, but maybe I'm just not searching right.