Why do so many Mormons become Atheists?

[moreta]

So I'm still awake, I went to watch Battleship at the cinema and drank a ridiculous amount of coca cola (yes I know bad Mormon)... poop deck huh, can someone provide me a quick link to that part of the site? Is it your live chat room you talking about? Unfortunately my tablet doesn't render the box correctly.

Yeah, my computer at work daoen't do the shout box either. The Poop Deck, more formally know as Sparko and CP's Poop Deck Mental Asylum is found in the Campus Clinic. If you go to the forum and drop down to the last department you'll find it. Not sure if the link wil work but try this.

ETA: Obviously my work computer is a lousy speller too.

[humbled4444]

Your link worked thank you :-)

[moreta]

[OtherCheek]

That's a sentiment distinct from the one you made in the post to which I'd been referring, where you said that, if it were not for your belief in Joseph Smith's message, you would typically read the text in the same way that we tend to.

Because w/o Joseph, I would likely believe the way that is most often taught and most popular today.

That suggests that, if we were to factor out Joseph Smith's life and teachings, you would - absent that additional data - find our readings of the text to be most natural and plausible, simply by reading it, whether or not you had so been taught by others from youth.

Or perhaps because your way is simply the way most often taught by scholars and theologians of today. I'm not much of a supporter of the idea that whatever is most popular is what is right.

There is no such thing as a 'blank slate'. As soon as a mind is mature enough to read the Bible, that person already has biases that will affect his understanding of what is being taught. It is unavoidable in the human condition.

In light of the ancient Near Eastern background of that phrase, I would say that the most natural way to read the statement is that, whereas other cultures believed that only the king was created as a symbol of the god's authority and dominion and so could represent it on the earth, the Israelites believed by revelation that God created all humanity so that all of us are representatives of God's authority over the earth, which entails both that we're equipped with whatever affinities with God that would be suitable for such representation and also that we each deserve to be regarded as sacred things (hence the prohibition against murder in Genesis 9:6). Now, as for those affinities, that could include a physical resemblance to a physical God, or it could not. The phrase itself does not determine that on its own. That is the most natural reading, at least for someone familiar with ancient Near Eastern cultures and their literature.

Sorry, but that seems very unnatural to me. And even if it is the case, what makes you think that all other ways of looking at that verse must therefore be excluded, including the most natural reading for a plough boy to see?

If understanding the Bible properly requires the person to have a doctorate in ancient Eastern Studies (or rely on someone who does in order to comprehend the Bible), then the Christian world is in big trouble.

[JB]

OC, I have never argued that someone must have a blank slate. But I find it interesting that your latest version of your story (one that I do not agree is the meaning of the words constituting your original statement) is that, if it were not for Joseph Smith, you would simply read the text however you were told to read it, essentially. And, of course, never have I suggested that what is most popular is therefore right, so your mention of the slogan is yet another curious strawman to erect.

It may seem 'unnatural' to you - but the question is, would it have seemed 'unnatural' or 'natural' to its original audience? Relying on an awareness of what the culture of that original audience was like, I say 'natural'. This reading is 'natural' because it coheres with what the actual historical and cultural setting indicates would be the natural reading, but because it agrees with this or that set of theologians. (After all, this is not quite the way that Early Church Fathers read the text, either.) I have not said that one must have a doctorate to understand the text, so that of course is another strawman. But certainly there is much in the text that requires an awareness of the background to fully appreciate, and we should hardly expect otherwise. I would be quite surprised if you honestly believed that whatever a "plough boy" in a radically different culture would be instinctively inclined to believe the text to mean, is actually a more likely reading of the text than a reading supported by evidence drawn from the cultural setting of the text at hand.

[OtherCheek]

OC, I have never argued that someone must have a blank slate. But I find it interesting that your latest version of your story (one that I do not agree is the meaning of the words constituting your original statement) is that, if it were not for Joseph Smith, you would simply read the text however you were told to read it, essentially.

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.". So says the Lord to Isaiah.

So, IMO, the chances of scholars and theologians and students of the Bible, coming up with the correct understanding of the teachings of the prophets is it pertains to the real spiritual "meat and potatoes" of the Bible, is remote at best--even if they are well degreed in scholarship. In fact, I don't think it can be achieved, and there is little certainty even if they DO think they have achieved a correct understanding of the teachings taught. Not unless they rely first and foremost on the Spirit of the Lord for understanding, and have been given the mantle of "The Lord's Prophet."

I am pretty sure I would believe that even if it weren't for Joseph Smith, because it is my nature to put my trust in God, more than in the learning of men.

[One Bad Pig]

Relying on an awareness of what the culture of that original audience was like, I say 'natural'. This reading is 'natural' because it coheres with what the actual historical and cultural setting indicates would be the natural reading, but because it agrees with this or that set of theologians.

These sentences appear to suffer from a scribal error or two. You're slipping, JB.

[JB]

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.". So says the Lord to Isaiah.

So, IMO, the chances of scholars and theologians and students of the Bible, coming up with the correct understanding of the teachings of the prophets is it pertains to the real spiritual "meat and potatoes" of the Bible, is remote at best--even if they are well degreed in scholarship. In fact, I don't think it can be achieved, and there is little certainty even if they DO think they have achieved a correct understanding of the teachings taught. Not unless they rely first and foremost on the Spirit of the Lord for understanding, and have been given the mantle of "The Lord's Prophet."

I am pretty sure I would believe that even if it weren't for Joseph Smith, because it is my nature to put my trust in God, more than in the learning of men.

I suppose it in part depends on what you mean by "spiritual 'meat and potatoes'". I believe that the Bible is not just divine revelation, but also a historical work (or, rather, set of works), the unfolding revelation of God within a specific cultural setting and meant to actually be communicative to the people of that culture. While there is much about the Bible that cannot be truly appreciated without being spiritually awakened and vivified by the Spirit of God, it is nevertheless true that the Bible is largely an exoteric set of documents in a known human language, set forth in a culture we do know much about - much that can help us hone in on the sense of a text. The only responsible thing to do when seeking to understand the meaning is to keep those facts in mind.

This, however, is far afield from the original topic of the thread. I propose we shift back to that topic (and hence will not reply here further on this topic), and if you'd like to have a more detailed discussion somewhere else with respect to the meaning of Genesis 1:26-27, we can do that.

These sentences appear to suffer from a scribal error or two. You're slipping, JB.

That's what I get for posting at 2:00 AM.

[moreta]

It's real easy to go off topic around here isn't it. Not just in this forum but others as well.

[OtherCheek]

It's real easy to go off topic around here isn't it. Not just in this forum but others as well.

It is very easy, and it happens a lot for all of us.

[Cow Poke]

It is very easy, and it happens a lot for all of us.

Not ME! Why, just the other day, I was grilling some chicken, and ....

[One Bad Pig]

Not ME! Why, just the other day, I was grilling some chicken, and ....

I see that reminded you to go check the grill. The chicken's just a little overdone, isn't it?

[OtherCheek]

Richard Dutcher, a film maker and former LDS member, left the church a few years ago, but still believes in God.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifesty...tml.csp?page=1

[One Bad Pig]

Richard Dutcher, a film maker and former LDS member, left the church a few years ago, but still believes in God.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifesty...tml.csp?page=1

I know two former Mormons who still believe in God. One was Protestant, but is now Orthodox; the other is Protestant, and his wife is converting to Orthodoxy (it remains to be seen whether or not he'll follow suit).

No one has alleged that ex-Mormons are always atheists; it's just that many end up that way, at least for a while.

[OtherCheek]

Josh Powell's father Steven is a puzzle to friends and family. He left the Church some 30 years ago. I think pornography opened the way for a bad spirit to lead him.

"Yet those who have known the 62-year-old father-in-law of missing West Valley City woman Susan Cox Powell best say they also have witnessed a darker spectrum of behavior in a snide antagonist who tells crude jokes in front of his children and relishes both pornography and the opportunity to preach anti-Mormon sentiment."
...
‘I have seen Steve change’ »An end to the couple’s happiness seems to have coincided with Steve’s decision to leave the Mormon Church in the mid-1980s.

It’s unclear what prompted the break, but hundreds of pages of court documents chronicle changes in Steve’s personality preceding a bitter divorce in the early 1990s.

"Over the past few years I have seen Steve change from a loving and kind person, to a person seemingly filled with darkness and hatred, whose respect for others and for basic and social moral values has been abandoned for a path of self-gratification that leads not only himself, but his children in a direction that is not only not healthy, but does not recognize basic social skills that are needed to function in society," Terri’s brother, Jim Martin, wrote in court documents.

Martin, who worked with Steve at Virco Manufacturing at the time, described Steve as increasingly "condescending, belligerent, intolerant and dogmatic."

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54...wrote.html.csp