In retrospect, the thing that bothered me most

[_leeirons]

See, I think you take the religous tack that all humans exercise faith. You and I part ways on your definition when you do that, lee.

Whenever religious people imply that daily activities require the use of faith I think they complicate a useful understanding of the meaning. I think faith should only apply to religious thoughts and distinguish them from what we do in a practical sense.

One could assert that it takes faith to go to the faucet for a drink of water. You never know if there will be water...you act on faith. That's simply not true. I act on the combined experiences I have with the water faucet. If it quit giving me water for a period of time I'd go elsewhere. Faith is not involved: experience is.

When a scientist proceeds with scientific research it's because he's testing the viability of theories not showing faith.

As I said, I think wrapping up all activities in a religious word confuses and complicates understanding.

Experience in evolution? Experience in the big band? Experience in string theory? I am a scientist, by the way. Scientists don't like to focus on the FACT that major theories are simply frameworks within which we perform experimentation, and are ALL still largely unproven. It takes faith to be BASING YOUR LIFE'S WORK on an unproven framework. Most people just stick to stuff they can grab that does not require faith: a hammer, a truck, a glass of water from the faucet.

Faith is not simply a religious word, unless you consider having faith that your favorite sports team will win to be a religious activity, or having faith that your friend will not let you down to be a form of relgious devotion. You trust that the pitcher has not been paid-off to throw the game. You trust that your friend will be there when she said. Your trust does not guarantee the outcome. Thus, your ACTIONS are prompted by trust (probably associated with experience), but not knowledge (after all, the events have not yet transpired for you to KNOW whether or not your trust was in vain). This is called having faith.

But what about "faith in Jesus Christ."

[_MormonMendacity]

See, I think you take the religous tack that all humans exercise faith. You and I part ways on your definition when you do that, lee.

Whenever religious people imply that daily activities require the use of faith I think they complicate a useful understanding of the meaning. I think faith should only apply to religious thoughts and distinguish them from what we do in a practical sense.

One could assert that it takes faith to go to the faucet for a drink of water. You never know if there will be water...you act on faith. That's simply not true. I act on the combined experiences I have with the water faucet. If it quit giving me water for a period of time I'd go elsewhere. Faith is not involved: experience is.

When a scientist proceeds with scientific research it's because he's testing the viability of theories not showing faith.

As I said, I think wrapping up all activities in a religious word confuses and complicates understanding.

Experience in evolution? Experience in the big band? Experience in string theory? I am a scientist, by the way. Scientists don't like to focus on the FACT that major theories are simply frameworks within which we perform experimentation, and are ALL still largely unproven. It takes faith to be BASING YOUR LIFE'S WORK on an unproven framework. Most people just stick to stuff they can grab that does not require faith: a hammer, a truck, a glass of water from the faucet.

Faith is not simply a religious word, unless you consider having faith that your favorite sports team will win to be a religious activity, or having faith that your friend will not let you down to be a form of relgious devotion. You trust that the pitcher has not been paid-off to throw the game. You trust that your friend will be there when she said. Your trust does not guarantee the outcome. Thus, your ACTIONS are prompted by trust (probably associated with experience), but not knowledge (after all, the events have not yet transpired for you to KNOW whether or not your trust was in vain). This is called having faith.

But what about "faith in Jesus Christ."

Thanks for proving my point, lee. You make words meaningless when you use the word faith to describe how your respond to sports teams and wild religious claims as you do in your life work.

Your science will result in silly efforts if it's based on faith -- and will probably be Earth Science-like -- if you pursue it like religious people do when an Oracle of God makes a pronouncement.

[_leeirons]

Thanks for proving my point, lee. You make words meaningless when you use the word faith to describe how your respond to sports teams and wild religious claims as you do in your life work.

Your science will result in silly efforts if it's based on faith -- and will probably be Earth Science-like -- if you pursue it like religious people do when an Oracle of God makes a pronouncement.

"So there..."

C'mon MM, please don't reduce this to quick, cutting comments.

Read the definition of "faith" in whatever copy of Webter's dictionary that you can get your hands on. You will see that I used the word properly in every case in which I used it. You think that "[my] science will result in silly efforts if it's based on [(from Webster's) confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of an idea]." Certainly, cosmologists proceed with their science with the confident belief in the value of the big bang theory. According to Webster's, this is faith. Will you now try to redirect by claiming that I am misinterpreting the dictionary, or that Webster was a Christian and can't be trusted?

I'm afraid I lost your point on "be[ing] Earth Science-like." What does earth science have to do with "silly efforts?"

I know I keep pushing the point on Jesus Christ, and you keep ignoring it, and seem to be getting angry about it. So, I'm trying to be like Jesus... just from the perspective of a role model, he's a pretty good one (that is if you believe what people say about him). Who is your role model? Is he/she dead (yet)?

Whether or not you like to think about it, you came from somewhere, you are here, and you will have some ultimate "end." Beyond this, it's just a matter of deciding what you believe about this, or simply trying to ignore it. I don't think you are doing the latter, or you would not even be at this website. So why are you still talking to us, assuming we are just a bunch of silly people?

[_MormonMendacity]

C'mon MM, please don't reduce this to quick, cutting comments.

I didn't. Words like faith shouldn't be used in the way you use them for the reasons I stated. I'm trying to understand the word -- not just throw it around like it's the same everywhere we use it. So there.

Read the definition of "faith" in whatever copy of Webter's dictionary that you can get your hands on. You will see that I used the word properly in every case in which I used it.

I am surprised that your dictionary doesn't include the following:

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

My point, which you seem determined to miss, is that the faith you use in science is not the same as you would use in religion...and that distinguishing between the two is helpful. Unless of course, you have another reason to legitimize your religious beliefs by pretending they are like scientific research.

Distinguishing between the two types of motivating factors should help in understanding, although most religious people I know want to imply they are the same.

You think that "[my] science will result in silly efforts if it's based on [(from Webster's) confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of an idea]." Certainly, cosmologists proceed with their science with the confident belief in the value of the big bang theory. According to Webster's, this is faith. Will you now try to redirect by claiming that I am misinterpreting the dictionary, or that Webster was a Christian and can't be trusted?

No...just that it appears you're so intent on being right that establishing an understanding is far less important to you. This isn't about using a dictionary as the ultimate authority on what faith is...it's about using faith in research like you'd use faith in god. I contend that they are different or your research would be subject to persistent problems that you would never work through. I mean, if you have faith in your theory -- like you do in godly pronouncements -- you never question it, right?

I'm afraid I lost your point on "be[ing] Earth Science-like." What does earth science have to do with "silly efforts?"

Good point. I meant to say "Flat-earth Science".

I know I keep pushing the point on Jesus Christ, and you keep ignoring it, and seem to be getting angry about it. So, I'm trying to be like Jesus... just from the perspective of a role model, he's a pretty good one (that is if you believe what people say about him). Who is your role model? Is he/she dead (yet)?

I'm sorry, I can't seem to find a "...point you're [pushing about] Jesus Christ..." that I am ignoring. Please endulge me by posing your questions again, one more time.

I'm not sure I follow your assumption that I need or have a role model. Can you please explain that one, too?

Whether or not you like to think about it, you came from somewhere, you are here, and you will have some ultimate "end." Beyond this, it's just a matter of deciding what you believe about this, or simply trying to ignore it. I don't think you are doing the latter, or you would not even be at this website. So why are you still talking to us, assuming we are just a bunch of silly people?

Why all the accusations, lee? Where did I state that I'm angry or that I think you're silly people? Reread the posts. I think that you're more like me than even you would want to admit...inflicted by all sorts of subjective evaluations and faulty reasoning. And the type of faith that is expected from religion appears to be full of it...especially when you can't get the prophets to be specific in their pronouncements. At least evolutionists are open to a better explanation for their theory. Are you?

[_Guardiands]

"Maybe the answer to your question on the usefulness of faith in Jesus Christ is that it can help you lead a happy life.

On this note, I do believe that many (both those who are still members and those who are not) have lost their way AND ARE NOT HAPPY"

Wow, well I can't speak for everyone, but I'm about as happy as they come. I mean, I'm extremely happy with myself and my life. Happier, in fact, since I've questioned by dogmatic beliefs.

Faith in Jesus Christ leads me to a happy life? What is it about believing in someone else that determines your happiness? I'm a big fan that you determine in a large degree your state of happiness. And I'm not really seeing how believing in a supernatural being capable of rising up again after being killed is gonna make me happier.

Excuse me if this seems blunt. I'm LDS, just not sure what I believe. And frankly, this hasn't caused me to enter any type of depression, it actually has made me a bit happier.

[_leeirons]

My point, which you seem determined to miss, is that the faith you use in science is not the same as you would use in religion...and that distinguishing between the two is helpful. Unless of course, you have another reason to legitimize your religious beliefs by pretending they are like scientific research.

Distinguishing between the two types of motivating factors should help in understanding, although most religious people I know want to imply they are the same.

We agree. There are (at least) two definitions of faith. And that is the point I was trying to make. Faith (as most people use it) and faith in Jesus Christ (as an expression of religious belief) are two different things. Having "the capacity" for faith does not make a person religious or irreligious.

This isn't about using a dictionary as the ultimate authority on what faith is...it's about using faith in research like you'd use faith in god. I contend that they are different or your research would be subject to persistent problems that you would never work through. I mean, if you have faith in your theory -- like you do in godly pronouncements -- you never question it, right?

And this is exactly the problem that scientists have had throughout the centuries... refusal to drop a theory in the face of evidence. Religious zeal does happen in science, to its detriment. That's why it is just as dangerous to proceed with a scientific postualte that, "There is no god." If there is a god that is connected to our reality, accepting such a postulate could ultimately be defeating. So, neither accept nor deny as a scientific postulate.

I'm sorry, I can't seem to find a "...point you're [pushing about] Jesus Christ..." that I am ignoring. Please endulge me by posing your questions again, one more time.

Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, that you will be resurrected, and that he is the only way to eternal salvation (speaking unscientifically, of course)? I assume you understand everything I imply in this question, having been a missionary yourself.

Why all the accusations, lee? Where did I state that I'm angry or that I think you're silly people? Reread the posts. I think that you're more like me than even you would want to admit...inflicted by all sorts of subjective evaluations and faulty reasoning. And the type of faith that is expected from religion appears to be full of it...especially when you can't get the prophets to be specific in their pronouncements. At least evolutionists are open to a better explanation for their theory. Are you?

Sorry, it's too easy to read insult in typing. I misread you, and I think you have misread me. So you are telling me that you are here because you feel "inflicted by all sorts of subjective evaluations and faulty reasoning," and you are trying to find your way through it. I'm here because I'm trying to understand why people who truly believe they have a prophet would not follow him, BY DEFINITION. I'm always asking, "If we truly believe this, why aren't we doing something about it?" The only answer I can come up with is that this is the way that God shows us that we can never possibly measure up to the perfection of Jesus Christ, no matter how hard we try. We always come up short. So, I need to learn not to judge people on where they are, because I have my own set of shortcomings, weaknesses, and lack of faith." The song goes "I'm TRYING to be like Jesus," not, "I'm being like Jesus."

[_leeirons]

Excuse me if this seems blunt. I'm LDS, just not sure what I believe. And frankly, this hasn't caused me to enter any type of depression, it actually has made me a bit happier.

So you weren't happy before. Now you have released yourself of obligation to belief in Jesus Christ. And now you're happier.

This is my point. Why are some happy with their faith and some not? I don't think it is because the happy ones have just decided to blind themselves to anti-mormon claims, or their own uncertainties. I think it is because they have rooted themselves in some aspect of "the Gospel" that makes them happy, whether it be the love within their family, or the thought that there is a higher power in control (especially for people suffering from chronic or terminal disease), or something else. Marital conflict is sure to breed unhappiness, and the Gospel probably frequently becomes a scapegoat for it. Viewing commandments or "prophetic guidance" as a burden rather than gift is sure to breed unhappiness. Essentially any feeling contrary to what the Church teaches as being good would lead to discontentedness.

Question: Do members become "agnostic" toward the teachings of the Church just based upon logical reasoning, or must the logical reasoning lead to emotional discontent before the onset of agnosticism? Or is emotional discontent the whispering advisor that is hiding behind the throne of logical reasoning?

Just trying to understand.

[_MormonMendacity]

<snip>

I think you and I were in almost perfect sync on everthing that preceeded this. Perhaps even in violent agreement.

I'm sorry, I can't seem to find a "...point you're [pushing about] Jesus Christ..." that I am ignoring. Please endulge me by posing your questions again, one more time.

Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, that you will be resurrected, and that he is the only way to eternal salvation (speaking unscientifically, of course)? I assume you understand everything I imply in this question, having been a missionary yourself.

I do not believe that anymore. 40+ years of believing and acting on that belief began to dissipate when I began to question the story and my testimony of it.

Why all the accusations, lee? Where did I state that I'm angry or that I think you're silly people? Reread the posts. I think that you're more like me than even you would want to admit...inflicted by all sorts of subjective evaluations and faulty reasoning. And the type of faith that is expected from religion appears to be full of it...especially when you can't get the prophets to be specific in their pronouncements. At least evolutionists are open to a better explanation for their theory. Are you?

Sorry, it's too easy to read insult in typing. I misread you, and I think you have misread me.

I agree. My apologies if I was terse or insulting.

So you are telling me that you are here because you feel "inflicted by all sorts of subjective evaluations and faulty reasoning," and you are trying to find your way through it.

Both. There are a lot of things that I have taken with me from my Mormon experience. Some good and some bad. I'm here partly because I'm still trying to understand how/why I believed it so readily and how others do. I'm here because it interests me from the perspective of a common experience I share with others who've left -- how we felt and how we are coping.

I'm here because I'm trying to understand why people who truly believe they have a prophet would not follow him, BY DEFINITION. I'm always asking, "If we truly believe this, why aren't we doing something about it?" The only answer I can come up with is that this is the way that God shows us that we can never possibly measure up to the perfection of Jesus Christ, no matter how hard we try. We always come up short. So, I need to learn not to judge people on where they are, because I have my own set of shortcomings, weaknesses, and lack of faith." The song goes "I'm TRYING to be like Jesus," not, "I'm being like Jesus."

Not to diminish your points about the questions you're asking about following and doing, I think those were my same thoughts when I was active.

I think that the notion that I'm here to filet the Church or its believers, and to do it in the face of the Church or believers is too easy for apologists. What I have written and posted about Mormons and Mormonism is not how stupid people are to believe it. Although I now think *I* was far too accepting, I love my friends and family and do not malign the Church or their beliefs in things -- but I do at time question them. I particularly question how they treat me and some of the people who've left the Church.

And as a followup to your question, while I do not believe the stories of Jesus or Joseph Smith or Nephi improve our abilities to make good life decisions, I do not intentionally mock people who do. I at times question why they accept the stories as true when there are, in my opinion, much better works to study than these 2,000 year old legends.

[_Guardiands]

Excuse me if I'm skeptical of you "trying to understand", but I'll take you at your word.

Happy in the church, happy now. Go around and ask antis that know me, I stick up for the church and I maintain that it was a great influence in my life. I'm happy with it or without it. unfortunately I've decided to live my life based on more objective than subjective bindings. And here I am, happy before and happy now.

" Do members become "agnostic" toward the teachings of the Church just based upon logical reasoning, or must the logical reasoning lead to emotional discontent before the onset of agnosticism? Or is emotional discontent the whispering advisor that is hiding behind the throne of logical reasoning?"

Emotional discontent? Amazing assumptions you make here. Do I have emotional discontent? Are you really in a position to make assumptions like this? I'm fairly certain I was emotionally content both in or out of the church.

What on earth ever gave you the idea otherwise? I get the impression that your emotional contentness is based on the church? Since why else would you assume that one only leaves the church for being emotionally discontent??? Probably not a healthy thing.

[_Bryan Inks]

Question: Do members become "agnostic" toward the teachings of the Church just based upon logical reasoning, or must the logical reasoning lead to emotional discontent before the onset of agnosticism? Or is emotional discontent the whispering advisor that is hiding behind the throne of logical reasoning?

Just trying to understand.

Anecdotal Answer: Based on my experiences and the experiences shared with me by others. . . it depends.

For myself, it was the logic that came first and the emotion that came after. For myself, I was doing research for my own sake to try and learn more. When the logic kicked in and I noticed that many things didn't add up (for a humorous cartoon of how this felt, see: This Comic) and I then began to feel betrayed and lied to.

Others that I know of, the reverse was true. They first felt that something was wrong and in an effort to disprove their feelings ended up confirming that the "still small voice" was right in telling them it was wrong.