Why the truthfulness of the Church doesn't matter.

[_I have a question]

Good evening, I have a question:

We spend a lot of time on this board examining the perceived truthfulness or otherwise of various aspects of Mormonism and the Church. The bottom line in any such discussion is that believers cannot be swayed by any amount of contrary evidence and non believers cannot be swayed by any appeal to spiritual witnessing or nuanced understandings.

On that basis, I don't see why the truthfulness of the Church (or any of its particular details) matters. Members attend Church because they want to attend Church, they say they believe because they want to believe. Nobody has categorically proven to them that the Church is true. They have self confirmed by interpreting feelings and experiences in a manner that suits what they want to believe. Non believers can be seen in the same, but reversed manner.

I don't know a single Mormon who believes in the Church against their will. Sure, I know some who attend and pretend. But the majority of people sat in those pews every Sunday, bearing testimonies, giving offerings of money and time etc do so because they want to believe that the Church is true (or at least true enough).

I'd speculate that this would be consistent across many Christian religions.

So. For the purposes of this thread let's put truthfulness to one side by assuming that the Church is true and that it is the only one run by God and that the doctrine etc is correct, and that the scriptures used are what they claim to be etc.

In other words, let's start by all accepting the Church is true. Period.

The reason the Church's truthfulness doesn't matter is because it isn't the determining factor in wether people attend Church or not. Even if the Church is true, there are policies, doctrines, practices, teachings etc that do not fit with my moral compass and values. The Church can be true and I would still opt not to be a part of it because I don't think it is morally right against what I have determined as a set of morals and values to try and live by.

Let me give you an example or two:
I disagree with the Church stance on gender and sexuality. The Church policies on these subjects may be true in terms of them being how God Himself wants to operate, but I don't agree with them. Therefore my integrity will not allow me to support an organization (albeit God's true Church) with either time, money or quiet acquiescence (attending), that holds those positions.
I fundamentally disagree with the practice of some leaders operating on a voluntary basis and providing for their own subsistence and the upper echelons of leaders drawing income from Church funds. That may be how God wants to operate His Church, that's fine. I disagree with Him and cannot support Him. Linked to this I am against what I see as hypocrisy in those same leaders exhorting members to be honest and to be seen to be honest in their dealings, whilst simulatneously disallowing any kind of member scrutiny of how the fiscal operations of the Church are conducted. Hank Paulsen famously stated that "compexity is the enemy of transparency" when it comes to financial dealings. The Church operates a highly complex system of companies and sub companies and money transactions, which ensures a total lack of transparency. It may be what God wants, but it isn't how I'm going to allow my money to be used.
I also disagree with what I see as hypocrisy in how the Church treats information and learning. The organization promotes that "We believe in being honest..." and that even misleading people or only telling part of the truth constitues lying. Whilst simultaneously hiding and misleading members about historical facts and even chstising members for voicing questions or doubts in the first place. That may be how God is instructing His leaders to operate, but it isn't how I will aloow myself to be treated.
I think the process for indoctrinating young adults (missionary programme) is abusive and mentally damaging. It is designed to Church break individuals in the same way that young soldiers are broken into marines. The Corp, always the Corp, the Church always the Church. If the missionary programme was about encouraging others to come unto Christ it would be a programme of humanitarian service, not door to door sales. God may well want to create generations of Church broken adherents who can cold call on anyone they meet. But I don't agree with Him that its the right thing to be doing to 18-20 year olds.

So my point is that it really doesn't matter if the Church is telling the truth about what God wants and how God wants His organization on earth to work. What matters are the values and standards that I myself live by. I would have to compromise those values and standards in order to support (believe in) Gods Church. My integrity won't let me do that, even if the Church/Mormon Gospel is what it claims to be.

My question: Believers - Do you attend Church against your better judgement and support things that seem morally wrong to you, because you know the Church is true?
Non-Believers - Would you attend and support the Church if you knew for a surety (let's not get into how that might be achieved) that it was true? If not, why not?

[_DrW]

Good evening, I have a question:

We spend a lot of time on this board examining the perceived truthfulness or otherwise of various aspects of Mormonism and the Church. The bottom line in any such discussion is that believers cannot be swayed by any amount of contrary evidence and non believers cannot be swayed by any appeal to spiritual witnessing or nuanced understandings.

On that basis, I don't see why the truthfulness of the Church (or any of its particular details) matters. Members attend Church because they want to attend Church, they say they believe because they want to believe. Nobody has categorically proven to them that the Church is true. They have self confirmed by interpreting feelings and experiences in a manner that suits what they want to believe. Non believers can be seen in the same, but reversed manner.

I don't know a single Mormon who believes in the Church against their will. Sure, I know some who attend and pretend. But the majority of people sat in those pews every Sunday, bearing testimonies, giving offerings of money and time etc do so because they want to believe that the Church is true (or at least true enough).

I'd speculate that this would be consistent across many Christian religions.

So. For the purposes of this thread let's put truthfulness to one side by assuming that the Church is true and that it is the only one run by God and that the doctrine etc is correct, and that the scriptures used are what they claim to be etc.

In other words, let's start by all accepting the Church is true. Period.

The reason the Church's truthfulness doesn't matter is because it isn't the determining factor in wether people attend Church or not. Even if the Church is true, there are policies, doctrines, practices, teachings etc that do not fit with my moral compass and values. The Church can be true and I would still opt not to be a part of it because I don't think it is morally right against what I have determined as a set of morals and values to try and live by.

Let me give you an example or two:
I disagree with the Church stance on gender and sexuality. The Church policies on these subjects may be true in terms of them being how God Himself wants to operate, but I don't agree with them. Therefore my integrity will not allow me to support an organization (albeit God's true Church) with either time, money or quiet acquiescence (attending), that holds those positions.
I fundamentally disagree with the practice of some leaders operating on a voluntary basis and providing for their own subsistence and the upper echelons of leaders drawing income from Church funds. That may be how God wants to operate His Church, that's fine. I disagree with Him and cannot support Him. Linked to this I am against what I see as hypocrisy in those same leaders exhorting members to be honest and to be seen to be honest in their dealings, whilst simulatneously disallowing any kind of member scrutiny of how the fiscal operations of the Church are conducted. Hank Paulsen famously stated that "compexity is the enemy of transparency" when it comes to financial dealings. The Church operates a highly complex system of companies and sub companies and money transactions, which ensures a total lack of transparency. It may be what God wants, but it isn't how I'm going to allow my money to be used.
I also disagree with what I see as hypocrisy in how the Church treats information and learning. The organization promotes that "We believe in being honest..." and that even misleading people or only telling part of the truth constitues lying. Whilst simultaneously hiding and misleading members about historical facts and even chstising members for voicing questions or doubts in the first place. That may be how God is instructing His leaders to operate, but it isn't how I will aloow myself to be treated.
I think the process for indoctrinating young adults (missionary programme) is abusive and mentally damaging. It is designed to Church break individuals in the same way that young soldiers are broken into marines. The Corp, always the Corp, the Church always the Church. If the missionary programme was about encouraging others to come unto Christ it would be a programme of humanitarian service, not door to door sales. God may well want to create generations of Church broken adherents who can cold call on anyone they meet. But I don't agree with Him that its the right thing to be doing to 18-20 year olds.

So my point is that it really doesn't matter if the Church is telling the truth about what God wants and how God wants His organization on earth to work. What matters are the values and standards that I myself live by. I would have to compromise those values and standards in order to support (believe in) Gods Church. My integrity won't let me do that, even if the Church/Mormon Gospel is what it claims to be.

My question: Believers - Do you attend Church against your better judgement and support things that seem morally wrong to you, because you know the Church is true?
Non-Believers - Would you attend and support the Church if you knew for a surety (let's not get into how that might be achieved) that it was true? If not, why not?

Great post. The integrity issue you bring up is an important one for many here, myself included.

I'm sitting at the computer right now instead of doing something more useful because, every now and then, someone pops up on this, or some other board, and lets readers know that they finally found their integrity, and are on their way out, because of something they saw on the internet. And this board is on the internet.

More importantly, it is extremely rare that someone on whom the light has finally dawned will go back into the shadow of belief in Joseph Smith and Mormonism.

[_honorentheos]

Non-Believers - Would you attend and support the Church if you knew for a surety (let's not get into how that might be achieved) that it was true? If not, why not?

Yes, I'd go back. The hypothetical you propose would require a complete reevaluation of my worldview such that any attempt to claim integrity in the face of undeniable proof God existed, uniquely favored the LDS church, and that the Church was somehow or other "correct" meant whatever my integrity was based on was wrong or inferior to something I apparently didn't yet understand.

In the face of undeniable evidence that contradicted my worldview, yes, I'd change my behavior and reexamine my beliefs.

[_Nightlion]

Non-Believers - Would you attend and support the Church if you knew for a surety (let's not get into how that might be achieved) that it was true? If not, why not?

Yes, I'd go back. The hypothetical you propose would require a complete reevaluation of my worldview such that any attempt to claim integrity in the face of undeniable proof God existed, uniquely favored the LDS church, and that the Church was somehow or other "correct" meant whatever my integrity was based on was wrong or inferior to something I apparently didn't yet understand.

In the face of undeniable evidence that contradicted my worldview, yes, I'd change my behavior and reexamine my beliefs.

+1

Before the Big Bad Bear gets you let me just inform you, I Have A Question, that it is ALLOW and not alloow. Eh?

[_deacon blues]

If solid physical evidence was found for the Book of Mormon I would believe it. I would still question some church political views, but I would follow the evidence. When I have done this, I feel good. I think that's the Spirit.

[_sock puppet]

Non-Believers - Would you attend and support the Church if you knew for a surety (let's not get into how that might be achieved) that it was true? If not, why not?

Yes, I'd go back. The hypothetical you propose would require a complete reevaluation of my worldview such that any attempt to claim integrity in the face of undeniable proof God existed, uniquely favored the LDS church, and that the Church was somehow or other "correct" meant whatever my integrity was based on was wrong or inferior to something I apparently didn't yet understand.

In the face of undeniable evidence that contradicted my worldview, yes, I'd change my behavior and reexamine my beliefs.

I too would return. The premise is that there is a god, Mormon god at that. If that were true, then his judgment would affect me for a very, very long time. Sure, I'd fear him, and return. Would I have to work through why then god is a moral derelict vis-a-vis 21st century thinking? Sure, and I am not sure how that would get sorted out or how quickly. But, there is no evidence of such a being that I've come across yet. Everything I've heard pointed to by religionists lends itself to a more reasonable explanation than that (Mormon) god exists.

[_Themis]

We spend a lot of time on this board examining the perceived truthfulness or otherwise of various aspects of Mormonism and the Church. The bottom line in any such discussion is that believers cannot be swayed by any amount of contrary evidence and non believers cannot be swayed by any appeal to spiritual witnessing or nuanced understandings.

They can and do all the time. most may be lurkers, but we see many who defended the church for years before finally accepting the evidence. I see others whose position has been altered to some degree by these discussions. Most of the time you wont notice it in a particular discussion. Humans have a tendency to not want to be seen as being wrong or admitting it.

[Guest]

I too would return. The premise is that there is a god, Mormon god at that. If that were true, then his judgment would affect me for a very, very long time. Sure, I'd fear him, and return. Would I have to work through why then god is a moral derelict vis-à-vis 21st century thinking? Sure, and I am not sure how that would get sorted out or how quickly. But, there is no evidence of such a being that I've come across yet. Everything I've heard pointed to by religionists lends itself to a more reasonable explanation than that (Mormon) god exists.

Sock, if it was categorically proven that the Church was true, would you support the Church in outlawing same sex marriage and calling it a sin?

[_honorentheos]

When we posit a world where the Mormon church is true, we're necessarily positing a world where there were real Nephites and Lamanites, where priesthood blessings are effectual in a way that matters, where the priesthood ban was the right thing to do until it wasn't. We're positing a world where whatever Joseph Smith was doing with polygamy, it was under divine direction and sanction. We're positing a world where the Church's stance on same-sex marriage is divinely inspired by a real God. The ethics of this world do not hold up in that hypothetical world.

[Guest]

Non-Believers - Would you attend and support the Church if you knew for a surety (let's not get into how that might be achieved) that it was true? If not, why not?

Yes, I'd go back. The hypothetical you propose would require a complete reevaluation of my worldview such that any attempt to claim integrity in the face of undeniable proof God existed, uniquely favored the LDS church, and that the Church was somehow or other "correct" meant whatever my integrity was based on was wrong or inferior to something I apparently didn't yet understand.

In the face of undeniable evidence that contradicted my worldview, yes, I'd change my behavior and reexamine my beliefs.

No, I would not go back.

If all of a sudden I knew for sure that 2+2=5, I would start questioning my mental state. There is no way to make the church true and have it remain the same church it is now.

Assuming we could reach such a conclusion and the church remained the same, the next question I would ask myself would be "do I want to follow a God who creates such a horribly bad system?".