dartagnan wrote:Contrary to charity's wishful thinking, critics do not generally approach LDS issues with an "absolutely no room for doubt that the Church isn't true" perspective. They operate on what the evidnece supports, but are usually willing to hear new evidence if it can be presented. Most critics I know are willing to be dissuaded from their assumptions if a case can be made. But the problem is that the apologetic position is often an intellectually bankrupt endeavor, and compelling arguments from them are almost non-existent. It usually falls back on the hopes that God will come and strike the critic down with a spiritual confirmation.
Actually, I, like many of you, started with a conviction that Mormonism was true. I was born into the faith. I gained a strong spiritual witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon. I served faithfully for two years as a missionary. In that time my testimony grew. I returned from my mission, attended BYU, received two degrees from them. I married in the temple, and until a year ago was pretty active in my ward, even serving in leadership positions.
I did not imagine, when I first participated in online apologetics, or when I acquired a higher education in ancient studies, that the end result would be losing my faith. I actually went to BYU with the goal of studying with Hugh Nibley. I did get to take some classes with him, and he played no small role in my decision to specialize in a study of the ancient world. At first I was drawn in by apologetic answers. I was angered when I heard other LDS scholars criticize Nibley.
Then, as I acquired knowledge in my field, I came to see the problems with Nibley's work, and then the problems with the work of other apologists. I came to understand the standards of evidence which people who study antiquity generally apply in order to reach reliable conclusions. I continued to watch apologetics unfold, and I have to say that what I saw was increasingly disconcerting.
In other words, I did not set out with the preconceived idea that Mormonism is not what it claims to be. I once had a deep conviction that it was precisely what it claims to be. Over time, I saw what I took to be overwhelming evidence against this, particularly when it comes to Mormon viewpoints about the past. I see no way in which the historicity of the Book of Mormon, JST, Abraham, etc., can be defended credibly, although I would not say that it is eternally, utterly impossible. The same goes with the Mormon concept of early Christianity, an apostacy, etc. I find it all very implausible. I am not, however, closed off to good evidence and arguments that would challenge my views.
