How to Stay in the LDS Church after Losing Your Faith

[_Jason Bourne]

Most of the founding fathers were deists, Liz. These "Christian principles" you speak of exist without the framework of Christianity.

Most? I know some were but most? I am not sure that is true.

[_Jason Bourne]

Yes antichock. I get you fundamentalist point.

So get off my thread if you have nothing constructive to contribute. You posted this twice now.

[_Jason Bourne]

The US was founded by people who held to Christian principles. Right or wrong, that IS this country's legacy.

I think calling those principles Christian is a stretch. There is more of Greek Philosophy, the Enlightenment, and English Common law then anything uniquely Christian.

Yes. It is interesting that the First Amendment dealt with religion and for some reason it did not say "We are a christian nation." If they wanted to, the founders could have put the argument to rest right there, but they didn't. There was a variety of religious beliefs among the founders. They don't come across to me as preachers, but more like intellectuals trying to put together a new government based on the best ideas out there.

Please take this to another thread. It is not on topic at all.

[_Jason Bourne]

Not trying to bring you back in the fold. But if you think your children are being poisoned I am amazed you do not attempt to stop them.

So, do you tell them you believe Joseph Smith was a false prophet, that the Church is nothing about what it claims? Do you share historical complexities with them?

Did you hear me say that I think they're being poisoned? Wow. They know that I don't believe and they know why. They know that my wife believes and why she believes. That's about all I can do, isn't it? I have no desire to proselytize my kids out of the church. They can make their own decisions, and I will support them. My oldest son has chosen to leave the church, and I fully support him. His reasons are different from mine, and that's OK with me. I have a child who thinks I am headed for outer darkness, and I get a lot of guilt tripping about my choices. I feel pretty sad about it, but that's how she sees her world. Again, that's her choice, not mine.

Here is what cause me to conclude that:

Dr. Shades wrote:

??? So, he's saying that it's a good idea to have your children drink poison, so that you can have a wonderful laboratory on the workings of antidotes?

I will never, EVER understand that mindset. I could live to be a million years old and still never understand that mindset. I mean, c'mon: Why not just skip the middleman and not have them drink any poison in the first place?

A little help, please?

Runtu you then said:

I do not begrudge anyone's choices regarding the church. But I'm with you. I will never understand how people can justify staying in a church that they have to consistently undermine in order to protect their children. My father said to me once that my problem was that I took the church too seriously. "You'll be fine if you just take what you agree with and don't take the rest seriously at all, like I did." I told him that there is no guarantee that my children wouldn't take it as seriously as I had, no matter what my parental attitude was.

If I thought you were agreeing with Shades analogy. If I was mistaken I am sorry.

[_antishock8]

[_Runtu]

If I thought you were agreeing with Shades analogy. If I was mistaken I am sorry.

What I meant is that I couldn't pretend to believe in the church and then have to continually teach my kids to ignore what they're learning at church, which I think is what Shades was getting at. I don't believe in the church, so I'm open about that. That is what I meant.

[_Some Schmo]

Yes that is true if one decides to reject religion entirely. But then again, you still have other systems of belief to work with. Science is not perfect either? Do you reject it because it can and does change based on new findings?

The idea of science actually is as close to a perfect system of deriving truth as anything proposed so far, but no, it's not perfect in practice. There's a lot of bad science out there. But what gives science the nod is the fact that it embraces the fact that they don't know. That's what drives their work: eliminating what they don't know. They relish new findings in order to gain progressively more accurate perspectives, because their fundamental value is truth.

That's much different than changing your point of view due to social pressures, trends, and political aims. I do not regard the changes made by assorted religions to be progressive as much as strategic and manipulated.

[_Some Schmo]

Religion, however, is an integral part of society. Whether or not you choose to participate in a specific religion is an individual choice. That being said, I think it is important for children to be aware, and to be exposed to different religions, and how much they effect society at large.

Exposure is much different from immersion. I think children should be educated about the concept of religion as well, but with the same emphasis as is put on art, music, sports, or any other extra-curricular subject. It's just not as important as real subjects, like math, language, the sciences and social/political studies. And raising a child imposing that lifestyle on them gives them a distorted sense of the importance of religion.

Religion may be an integral part of society, but it need not be. Morals dictate your religion, not the other way around. Hence, religion is a useless appendage.

I, however, do see value for religion in my children's lives. I think it's important, however, that religion is presented in a way that they are truly capable of choosing for themselves what is going to be the most fulfilling path for them.

What is it you think religion gives your kids that they couldn't get otherwise? What value are you referring to?

It appears that essentially what you're saying here is that people need religion (some... any form of religion, as long as they choose it themselves). That's just not the case, anymore than a heroin addict needs heroin or a rich guy needs a luxury car.

[_Moniker]

Most of the founding fathers were deists, Liz. These "Christian principles" you speak of exist without the framework of Christianity.

Most? I know some were but most? I am not sure that is true.

You're right -- it's not true. I can't prove it. There were 55 delegates and outside of those even were men that had a heavy hand in shaping the nation such as Jefferson and Paine. It is difficult to precisely determine whether some of these men were truly products of the Enlightenment or their various religious denominations. Yet, the treaty with Tripoli signed in 1796 says this, "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." This was drafted under Washington and signed under Adams. The founding fathers WERE heavily influenced by Paine, Locke (both deists), and in turn then Jefferson and Franklin.

The revolution does however show that they discounted the Christian notion that the monarch was the mouthpiece for God. Isn't there scripture in the Bible that refers to rebellion as Satanic or something of the sort? I'd look for it but wouldn't know where to go.

Paine had no use for Christianity. Washington did not practice it.

Franklin: "Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."

Madison: "Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

Jefferson: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

~~~~~~~ This is sooo off-topic but I was replying to the original poster so didn't feel so bad about it~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[_John Larsen]

The US was founded by people who held to Christian principles. Right or wrong, that IS this country's legacy.

I think calling those principles Christian is a stretch. There is more of Greek Philosophy, the Enlightenment, and English Common law then anything uniquely Christian.

Yes. It is interesting that the First Amendment dealt with religion and for some reason it did not say "We are a christian nation." If they wanted to, the founders could have put the argument to rest right there, but they didn't. There was a variety of religious beliefs among the founders. They don't come across to me as preachers, but more like intellectuals trying to put together a new government based on the best ideas out there.

Please take this to another thread. It is not on topic at all.

I disagree. Liz was arguing that continued church activity may be justified since it can be used to teach foundational principles relavant to our civics. I was suggesting that that reason may not be a good justification after all.