Evidence and Mormonism

[drumdude]

My impression is that there are more people leaving the Church today quite deliberately — whether because they’ve come to disbelieve its doctrines or to find something unacceptable in its history or to reject and repudiate its teachings on sexuality

He got it right in this sentence. Then proceeded to lay out an argument for the opposite. Quite strange.

[MG 2.0]

My impression is that there are more people leaving the Church today quite deliberately — whether because they’ve come to disbelieve its doctrines or to find something unacceptable in its history or to reject and repudiate its teachings on sexuality

He got it right in this sentence. Then proceeded to lay out an argument for the opposite. Quite strange.

I didn’t read this article you’re referencing but I’d gander a guess that he found workarounds that others didn’t and/or don’t.

That seems to be the difference between those that leave and those that stay.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

to make sure I understand, "the secret that would guarantee never slipping into inactivity" is....
to never be inactive.

Got it.

During the years I went through my faith crisis back in the nineties and into the new millennium I kept going to church.

It made a difference.

If I had gone inactive I would have separated myself from the influence of the Spirit and thus the continued motivation to seek truth and understanding.

Regards,
MG

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

During the years I went through my faith crisis back in the nineties and into the new millennium I kept going to church.

It made a difference.

If I had gone inactive I would have separated myself from the influence of the Spirit and thus the continued motivation to seek truth and understanding.

Regards,
MG

More like this, Doc.

Regards,
MG

Edited to remove quote tags from altered quote. If you quote another person’s post, please do not change the quoted material unless you clearly indicate that you have done so. RI.

[Marcus]

My impression is that there are more people leaving the Church today quite deliberately — whether because they’ve come to disbelieve its doctrines or to find something unacceptable in its history or to reject and repudiate its teachings on sexuality

He got it right in this sentence. Then proceeded to lay out an argument for the opposite. Quite strange.

his rationale for why people may have left the LDS church in the 70s was offensive

Most people who were once committed members but had dropped out of the community of the Saints seemed to me then, although I can’t prove it and although I may be wrong, to have pretty much drifted away. Sometimes it was because they had lapsed in their adherence to the Word of Wisdom or to the law of chastity. Sometimes they had been offended. Sometimes, they simply found the demands of the Church... too onerous, and they wanted a break.

left unsaid, a decision that the LDS church was not valid is what led to a person deciding not to continue participating.

[Philo Sofee]

My impression is that there are more people leaving the Church today quite deliberately — whether because they’ve come to disbelieve its doctrines or to find something unacceptable in its history or to reject and repudiate its teachings on sexuality

He got it right in this sentence. Then proceeded to lay out an argument for the opposite. Quite strange.

He obviously to anyone over 8 years old left out the part of the lying leaders on their history, and the brainwashing to convince all others they don't lie. One can never trust a liar so deliberate, and so the main reason for quitting is just that issue.

[MG 2.0]

He got it right in this sentence. Then proceeded to lay out an argument for the opposite. Quite strange.

He obviously to anyone over 8 years old left out the part of the lying leaders on their history, and the brainwashing to convince all others they don't lie. One can never trust a liar so deliberate, and so the main reason for quitting is just that issue.

How is evidence that leaders have not always been straightforward reason to not receive the ordinances of salvation and live as disciples of Christ?

The church is a LOT more extensive and far reaching in its mission and purpose than the people God may have called to lead it.

Misplaced priorities maybe?

Granted, for many the ordinances/covenants and associated commandments just aren’t all that important or necessary. It is for that reason, along with others, that most folks will not be baptized and join the church in this life.

Regards,
MG

[hauslern]

I would like to thank the guy who corrected my quote of Clifford which spurred me on to read more on evidentialism "“it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”[1] By “evidence” Clifford seems to mean experiences and reasoning that bear on the truth of a belief: evidence is information relevant to determining whether a belief is likely true or false.[2] If Clifford is correct, we don’t have a right to believe whatever we want: indeed, it can be morally wrong to hold certain beliefs, if we lack good evidence for them."

'1. The Ship Case
To make his case, Clifford first asks readers to imagine a shipowner who has evidence that his ship might need expensive repairs. He doesn’t want to pay that expense so, through wishful thinking, he convinces himself of what he wants to believe. Clifford writes:

In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.[3]

If the shipowner’s belief that his vessel was seaworthy had been based on good evidence, the sinking would have been unfortunate, but he wouldn’t have been blameworthy. We blame him for this outcome, though, because his belief was formed contrary to the evidence available to him. He should have known better, or at least he should have believed better: his believing against the evidence was wrong.[4]

Petersen, Gee and Muhlestein believe contrary to the evidence that the Book of Abraham is true or historical. Is the burning in the heart evidence?
Can one reach a conclusion about the LDS church without the burning in the heart?

See https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2022/01/ ... of-belief/

[Dr Moore]

When I first heard the "shelf" analogy, I was already in my 40s. The conceptualizations, put it on the shelf and shelf items, reminded me at the time of so many reaction diagrams from high school chemistry.

activation-energy.png

If you haven't taken chemistry, or have forgotten, the diagrams above illustrate chemical reactions that produce, or rather release, energy.

Depending on the reaction, the desirable output might be the energy or the byproducts or both. Now, while systems tend toward their lowest stable energy state over time, that doesn't mean this happens right away, even if technically the reaction "wants" to happen eventually (because it results in a lower stable energy state).

For some reactions, that energetic nudge (or, activation energy - often heat - kinetic energy) is small, and for others, large. Even where the activation energy is large, it is worthwhile because in the end, more net energy is released than consumed. See here for a long-sought contemporary example: fusion.

Anyway, the "shelf" to me is simply the activation energy required to trigger a reaction that wanted to happen. Said differently, the strength of a person's shelf equals the cost of leaving. In the chemical analogy, it is the activation energy - the pain barrier, or switching cost - that one must overcome before leaving the church on the basis of data and evidence.

For some, that barrier is small. For others, impossibly high. Every shelf is different material and thickness.

Since we are talking about people, not molecules, it's worth clarifying one aspect of the analogy. If you add energy (heat) to a mix of chemicals, but not enough to overcome the activation energy, does anything happen, or nothing? The truth is, something does happen -- things get hotter! Molecules dance! Not unlike Mormons grappling with some, but not quite enough to be devastating, cognitive dissonance. That heat-induced dance is the big bang for Mopologetics.

[Rivendale]

When I first heard the "shelf" analogy, I was already in my 40s. The conceptualizations, put it on the shelf and shelf items, reminded me at the time of so many reaction diagrams from high school chemistry.

activation-energy.png

If you haven't taken chemistry, or have forgotten, the diagrams above illustrate chemical reactions that produce, or rather release, energy.

Depending on the reaction, the desirable output might be the energy or the byproducts or both. Now, while systems tend toward their lowest stable energy state over time, that doesn't mean this happens right away, even if technically the reaction "wants" to happen eventually (because it results in a lower stable energy state).

For some reactions, that energetic nudge (or, activation energy - often heat - kinetic energy) is small, and for others, large. Even where the activation energy is large, it is worthwhile because in the end, more net energy is released than consumed. See here for a long-sought contemporary example: fusion.

Anyway, the "shelf" to me is simply the activation energy required to trigger a reaction that wanted to happen. Said differently, the strength of a person's shelf equals the cost of leaving. In the chemical analogy, it is the activation energy - the pain barrier, or switching cost - that one must overcome before leaving the church on the basis of data and evidence.

For some, that barrier is small. For others, impossibly high. Every shelf is different material and thickness.

Since we are talking about people, not molecules, it's worth clarifying one aspect of the analogy. If you add energy (heat) to a mix of chemicals, but not enough to overcome the activation energy, does anything happen, or nothing? The truth is, something does happen -- things get hotter! Molecules dance! Not unlike Mormons grappling with some, but not quite enough to be devastating, cognitive dissonance. That heat-induced dance is the big bang for Mopologetics.

Me to. I love the idea of activation energy. A believer might point to a catalyst avenue that avoids that hill on your graph. They also claim that certain people are pre ordained to avoid this accumulation of chemicals that trigger decision making. For me activation energy is part of jump starting consciousness in the morning after sleeping. Justified true belief seems to play a role in this. That is , for a person to become convinced of something that cascade of chemicals has to reach the summit and plummet downward.