Category errors in the language of Mormonism's defenders.

[_Euthyphro]

No doubt many of us know the injustice of being told we are an unworthy soul because of how we feel about something. Even more often than that, Mormon disaffected are often sanctioned for their beliefs, or lack thereof. I have been told that I chose not to believe much of Mormonism's truth claims, or that its my choice to feel the way I do about its doctrines.

But feelings and beliefs are states of being, not choices.

You could say that it was my choices that led me to this state, but what of that? Several members of this forum, for example, began their exit from the church by starting a good faith effort to defend it from critics and what they collected along their education was too much for the shelf.

Where was their sin in this?

I say sin because I notice Mormonism's defenders casually drop that suggestion into the middle of any speech about questioning or doubting their gospel. We left because we were offended, or because we are weak and desired to be sinful. We were proud, arrogant even. Our questions were not sincere. Sometimes this is how we are smeared when we leave, usually by people who have never met us.

[_honorentheos]

My Dad always talks about me and my brothers leaving as being a result of our choices. To be fair, he's told me on more than one occasion that he feels it's important to not let any of their kids position towards the Church affect how we feel about coming home; that he wants to make sure we know he and Mom don't let that get in the way of more important things. But we usually end up talking about it, he and I. Perhaps because he has made an effort to not let it affect our family relationship, I don't feel like I ought to argue about essentially the same point you make above, Euthyphro. I didn't choose this. I chose to act based on the best information available and my sense of personal integrity. It also wasn't my first choice at the time.

[_malkie]

My Dad always talks about me and my brothers leaving as being a result of our choices. To be fair, he's told me on more than one occasion that he feels it's important to not let any of their kids position towards the Church affect how we feel about coming home; that he wants to make sure we know he and Mom don't let that get in the way of more important things. But we usually end up talking about it, he and I. Perhaps because he has made an effort to not let it affect our family relationship, I don't feel like I ought to argue about essentially the same point you make above, Euthyphro. I didn't choose this. I chose to act based on the best information available and my sense of personal integrity. It also wasn't my first choice at the time.

When my son got married in the temple, and I could not attend the ceremony, I was told that this was my choice, and that I knew what I needed to do to attend - effectively just to choose to believe again, and then do the things that followed from that: pay tithing, go to church, hold a calling, etc.

I found and still find it hard to understand how my family members could be so ignorant, but there we are.

My temple-worth family includes someone who lies, cheats, and steals, but that's OK - he also believes.

[_EAllusion]

The belief is that desire to sin corrupted your noetic faculties. Or, alternatively, that beliefs are in fact volitional. Both are wrong, but there you go.

[_Gorman]

Correct. There is no inherent sin in making an honest choice based on our current state of knowledge.

I think the only time you might say we can 'sin' in a choice is if we are disingenuous as we make the choice. This can be true of anyone regardless of their LDS membership status.

I wonder if the whole problem of people accusing each other of sin comes from the fact that it is often difficult to tell if someone is sincere or not. The individual making the choice is really the only one who knows whether their choice was honest or not. But we as humans like to categorize stuff, so we categorize an individual based on their actions, with the assumption that a person's actions directly correlate to a person's sincerity. This is usually not the case.

It is unfortunate that people say someone else is sinning when in fact what they should say is that they disagree with or don't understand a choice the individual has made. This attitude allows for far more understanding and education.

As far as trying to run an organization where categorization must take place, well . . . that is another problem entirely.

[_ldsfaqs]

As someone who's a convert to the church, after being in many religion and no religion, and who in late teens/early 20's left the church and was anti-religion and anti-mormon, I know for a FACT that "sin" is involved in Apostasy.

This is why Mormons often say it, because it's simply true.
And it's not just the obvious sins, you want to have sex, you want to drink alcohol, etc. (as many here have entirely admited to), it's sins related to the spirit and intellect.

Is pre-judgment a sin? Yes.
For example, you see something seemingly terrible, you then believe it, instead of patiently studying out the full truth of the issue.
You also do the same to many other subjects, and thus you end up anti-mormon and leaving the church.
Take Kate Kelly..... she's so consumed with her ideology as being the "actual truth and right", that it doesn't matter what the church say's and why, how it came upon it's views and the practices thereby.

Only one of the ideology's are true and right, and it's simply not hers. Her's as all anti-mormon views, are a perversion of the truth. They are a little truth used to tell great lies of the church. No matter the issue, the anti-mormon GRASPS for dear life to what seems the most negative, and then completely not knowing or entirely ignoring the full facts and truth of that thing, person, etc. which for us Mormons, completely changes what seemed "bad" or negative at first, to actually something good, or completely different, or much ado about nothing.

Let's give another example of the anti-mormon lie machine. Every anti-mormon will tell you that Church "Tithing" was used to pay for the Mall in Salt Lake. Even when you clearly tell them that the Church's "business entity's" help fund the mall, not the Church or tithing, most will continue to tell the lie, that church tithing paid for the mall. Some will admit it, but then they move the goal post, and state 'well tithing at some point in church history paid for stuff"..... and so then you further explain, nope, the church has always had donators, etc. Sure, maybe at the very beginning some "donations" were used for something very briefly, because things weren't as separate as late. Everything just went into the church to progress it. But even then things were separate, like the failed bank wasn't tithing, it was simply members who built it.

Anyway, the point is, there are all kinds of sins one who leaves the church engages in or ultimately engages in in their Apostacy.
There can be sins of commision or Ommission. Is lacking Faith a sin? Yep.
See the difference between those who are intellectuals and leave the church, and those who are the same but don't, is pure and simple sin, the sin of the lack of humility, the sin of pride, the sin of lacking faith and patience, the sin of not having wisdom, the sin of intolerance, the sin of unrighteous judgment, the sin of ignorant judgment, and on and on.....

Further, the sin isn't simply "you now think different"..... that isn't actually the sin as you all believe.
The sin is all or some of what I've mentioned, the sin is in the bearing false witness.
See..... I don't believe other religions, liberalism, etc., and I think they are false..... that is my "thinking different".
What makes most people who leave the church doing so "in sin", is that unlike anti-mormons, I don't LIE about my target of disbelief, hate, or otherwise in order to be critical of them, if I feel the need.

I don't say liberals hate baby's, that's why they like to abort them (though some may not like them, it's not their motivator or a thought of most).
That would be a misrepresentation, a lie......
I don't say Catholics are actually Cannibals because they believe they are literally partaking of Christ's flesh and blood, as some anti-Catholics do to be critical of them. If I have criticism of the Catholic sacrament, I take what they say they believe, and I critisize that. I don't create a straw-man like anti-mormons do and then criticize that.

FYI

[_Zub Zool oan]

Correct. There is no inherent sin in making an honest choice based on our current state of knowledge.

I think the only time you might say we can 'sin' in a choice is if we are disingenuous as we make the choice. This can be true of anyone regardless of their LDS membership status.

I wonder if the whole problem of people accusing each other of sin comes from the fact that it is often difficult to tell if someone is sincere or not. The individual making the choice is really the only one who knows whether their choice was honest or not. But we as humans like to categorize stuff, so we categorize an individual based on their actions, with the assumption that a person's actions directly correlate to a person's sincerity. This is usually not the case.

It is unfortunate that people say someone else is sinning when in fact what they should say is that they disagree with or don't understand a choice the individual has made. This attitude allows for far more understanding and education.

As far as trying to run an organization where categorization must take place, well . . . that is another problem entirely.

If memory serves, the church has been, very much lead by Joseph Smith Jr.'s viciousness in the extreme when dealing with men who fell out of his favor and especially to some of the women in it's past. Their position is so absolute that they are allowed any action of behavior to ruin someone. As Oaks says they never have to say they are sorry. They have been bitten in the ass so many times yet they keep pursuing infallibility because no one has a bigger ego than many of the current and past GA's of the LDS church. Those Christian qualities are for the little nobodies.

[_ldsfaqs]

If memory serves, the church has been, very much lead by Joseph Smith Jr.'s viciousness in the extreme when dealing with men who fell out of his favor and especially to some of the women in it's past. Their position is so absolute that they are allowed any action of behavior to ruin someone. As Oaks says they never have to say they are sorry. They have been bitten in the ass so many times yet they keep pursuing infallibility because no one has a bigger ego than many of the current and past GA's of the LDS church. Those Christian qualities are for the little nobodies.

And here we have a good example of anti-mormon selective cherry picking of history, in order to slander Joseph Smith.
It is indeed true that Joseph sometimes uttered a negative word against some who did wrong and/or left the church.
However, it's also true, that Joseph spoke much love for these men, desired them to come back, showed love for them.
For example, of the 11 Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, some half of them at some point left the church, but then most of them also came back.
That wouldn't have happened had Joseph been evil speaking of people so much... Note also how while a couple did remain away from the Church still, not a single one ever denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon, whether it was the 3 Witnesses or the 8.

Something false is never continued to be supported like that, when some leave that thing and are in some ways enemy's or critical of it or it's leaders.
This is just one of many testimony's to the truth of the Book of Mormon.