Why why why

[pam]

I want to know why.

It seems lately we spend so much time on this website having to defend the beliefs that we hold.

Why do some come here to ask questions but have stipulations as to what our answers can be?

Why even ask them then?

Why do we have to "prove" our testimony?

Why are we not allowed to have faith that things are true without tangible evidence?

Why when asked what we think we are being saved from; every response has to be debated?

Why do people come to an LDS website to ask questions but don't want an LDS perspective?

Why do people say "I don't mean to bash your religion" when really that's all they come here to do?

Okay so I guess my point is: You are at an LDS website. While we love and respect those of other faiths...this is still a website based on LDS beliefs. If you don't want an LDS perspective...perhaps this isn't the site for you.

[miztrniceguy]

because

[jolee65]

I'm not sure,.... I dont see myself going to any of the Baptist or Catholic sites and going head to head with them about there beliefs. I dont want to put my time into it.

[cullenh]

Don't think for a second Pam that you are the only one that questions those things that is for sure!!!!! I stopped asking myself cause I realized a while ago that I will never find out the answer......

[Laureltree]

Ive been asking myself that question for 10 years here hmmm:) Somethings never change......

[Truegrits]

It can be frustrating.

What I decided years ago, is that I do not have to "prove" nor "defend" my beliefs. I am happy to share with those who genuinely are seeking to know more; otherwise I choose to not engage in debate/arguments/contention. That makes for a happier "me."

Those that come here expressly for contention would not linger long, if they did not get the response/reaction they seek.

[captmoroniRM]

Having debated with anti-mormons, pantheists, agnostics, atheists, etc, I understand your frustrations. There was one time I got so stressed because I couldn't find the answers to a question that was posed. I got caught up in trying to prove our point of view to this group of pantheists who decided to take on the veracity of the Book of Abraham as well as some others who made some hard claims about Joseph Smith.

I was reading one day "Seeking the Spirit," By Joseph Fielding McConkie and in the first chapter he says we have no obligation to prove our testimony to others. He uses the example of one offering money to pay a debt. He says if any question of the validity of the money being used is made, it is up to the one receiving the money to prove\disprove its authenticity. The same, as we bear testimony to others, the burden of proof is on them, because you already know. Once I read this, my stress went away.

God has not explained everything, and neither should we have to.

We Latter-Day Saints, for the most part, are not great theologians or debaters. We are witnesses of the restored gospel in these latter days. In any debate, there comes a time where we simply say "I know by the power of the Holy Ghost." Once we bear testimony, it is up them to prove we didn't experience what we did to earn that testimony. That, is impossible to do.

But, in my experience, if someone criticizes the Church and demands proof of something, the last thing they want is proof.

[hordak]

I want to know why.

It seems lately we spend so much time on this website having to defend the beliefs that we hold.

Why do some come here to ask questions but have stipulations as to what our answers can be?

I think it depends on the stipulation. For example If one asks "how do you know the church is true"? but doesn't want you to say "because God told me"

It is because people hold other religions to be true for this very same reason and want to see if there is another reason. (But ultimately the only proof one could have that their religion is true would be confirmation from God IMO)

Why even ask them then?

See above

Why do we have to "prove" our testimony?

Humans like proof,Tangible evidence. In all honesty a Testimony of a LDS member is no more unique then that of any religion. This is why people seek proof.

Why are we not allowed to have faith that things are true without tangible evidence?

Depends who is asking. From an atheist or agnostic questioning this makes sense. From a person of another denomination of Christianity it is "the pot calling the kettle black"

Why when asked what we think we are being saved from; every response has to be debated?

Human nature. We all want to be right. That thread had 2 different views of salvation. Being the key aspect to religion makes it much like the nature of the Godhead/Trinty debate. we (all sides) should just agree to disagree. Some like to disagree more then others.

Why do people come to an LDS website to ask questions but don't want an LDS perspective?

Good question. I imagine it is as different as the people who come here.

Some may wish to bash the church

Some may want to save the members

Some may wish to show another perspective for either of the above reasons.

Why do people say "I don't mean to bash your religion" when really that's all they come here to do?

I think that is a matter of perspective. I have meet quite a few members, some here and some in the real world who assume anything negative said about the church (whether a genuine question or not) is "bashing the church". I am sure there are those who come here for that reason just as i am sure there are others who come here seeking answers and use the disclaimer in an honest way.

Okay so I guess my point is: You are at an LDS website. While we love and respect those of other faiths...this is still a website based on LDS beliefs. If you don't want an LDS perspective...perhaps this isn't the site for you.

Good point.

[beefche]

I want to know why.

It seems lately we spend so much time on this website having to defend the beliefs that we hold.

Why do some come here to ask questions but have stipulations as to what our answers can be?

Why even ask them then?

Why do we have to "prove" our testimony?

Why are we not allowed to have faith that things are true without tangible evidence?

Why when asked what we think we are being saved from; every response has to be debated?

Why do people come to an LDS website to ask questions but don't want an LDS perspective?

Why do people say "I don't mean to bash your religion" when really that's all they come here to do?

Okay so I guess my point is: You are at an LDS website. While we love and respect those of other faiths...this is still a website based on LDS beliefs. If you don't want an LDS perspective...perhaps this isn't the site for you.

Why do fools fall in love?

Why do birds sing so gay

And lovers await the break of the day

Why do they fall in love?

Why does the rain fall from up above?

Why do fools fall in love?

Isn't this the thread to ask all "why" questions?

[Traveler]

The reason is simple and you may have experienced my theory concerning this.

It is an internet thing that reflects a common human trait. If a poster posts a very intelligent thoughtful post most will read the post and say, “That’s nice – I think I agree with that.” Then they read another post. There is not much to say about a good well written post.

On the other hand if someone were to write a rather foolish post without any intelligence and with lots of faulty logic and ridiculous accusations – almost everyone in the entire forum is going to post on every point of disagreement – again and again.

Anyone can post on the internet. It is the corrosive and silly posts that will garner the most attention. If someone is more concerned with attention than an intelligent discussion their posts will be designed to generate controversy. It kind of reminds me of the plant in “The Little Shop of Horrors” that keeps saying “Feed me Seymour” and many LDS posters will bleed for them and become frustrated. Which is exactly what a silly poster intends.

A poster of honest Christian faith can easily be spotted by a desire to express their own faith over criticizing another and a willingness to treat those of a different faith in a manner that they would be treated by them. There are on this forum several non-LDS posters that contribute to my faith and I am grateful for their presents here. The solution to those that are frustrated is right in front of them with their very own keyboards. (This coming from a poster that has been frustrated on many occasions in the past {emphasis on past}).

The Traveler

[KeithLBrown]

I hear you loud and clear Pam. Sometimes I feel like saying "If you don't want to hear the answer(s) that I will give, then don't bother to ask the question." It does become a bit frustrating sometimes when people only ask questions to try and get a rise out of you or start some type of stupid debate. Some already know my (our) perspective(s) on things and feel a need to always taunt us just so they can have another proverbial feather to stick in their cap as if they have accomplished some great thing by possibly getting us all stirred up. But, in all fairness, sometimes some of the things that we allow ourselves to get upset over are really not worth getting upset over. As my dear mother used to say, we have to choose which battles to fight and which ones to walk away from.

[Michael_Newman]

Why?

It is because the Holy Ghost does not communicate on the internet. The Spirit is only present in person. And it is the Spirit that needs to bear testimony to a visitor and not rhetoric, debate, or factual texts.

Last night I was home teaching one of my families (the brother is also my priesthood leader). When I mentioned the wonderful service offered by this site, he was cautiously grateful to hear of it. But he also said the presiding priesthood is not present on a web site - only in person.

He did encourage me to encourage others to actively seek out and take part in the local activities and church resources where the Spirit and the Priesthood is present. I agreed.

If this forum can lead visitors to attend a local activity which can lead to Missionary discussions, and to have the Holy Ghost present - then this forum will serve a greater purpose.

(Perhaps your moderators and administrators can discuss this further in your Moderators Clubhouse).

Thank you so much for bringing up this subject,

Michael,

http://www.lds.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=9&pictureid=79

Encyclopedia of Mormonism Link

[hordak]

Why?

The Spirit is only present in person.

http://www.lds.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=9&pictureid=79

Encyclopedia of Mormonism Link

I know what your saying but i think the Millions of members who spend "all" weekend at church for General conference might disagree.

[pam]

because

Thank you miztrniceguy. I can always count on you.

[Elphaba]

He uses the example of one offering money to pay a debt. He says if any question of the validity of the money being used is made, it is up to the one receiving the money to prove\disprove its authenticity.

I completely disagree with this.

How in the world is the lender supposed to determine the authenticity of the money befpre the borrower repays the loan? She can't follow him around to make sure he isn't making counterfeit money, nor is it her responsibility to track down good money for the borrower to access to repay the loan. Why would she do his work?

If there is a question about the validity of the money, it is the borrower's responsibility to either verify the money is good, or find money that is.

If the lender discovers the money is bad, she can take the borrower to small claims court. If there is a signed contract between both parties, the lender would win, and the court would order the borrower to pay back the loan, which literally means he would have to pay it back with good money.

Once the court has so ruled, it is not its resposibility to go out and find good money for the borrower--it is the borrower's responsibility.

This is no different from the borrower's responsibility to repay the loan with good money in the first place.

Elphaba

[captmoroniRM]

Now adays, if you use any dollar bill over 20 dollars, store are required to test to see if it is a vaild bill. They hold it up to the light to see the watermarks. Some have the fancy pens that turn black if the bill is fake.

If I give a 50 dollar bill, it is up to the receiver of the bill to validate it. I can explain to the person how I came across the bill, how it was given to me, etc and assure the cashier that it is a good 50 dollar bill. I can know with complete certainty the bill is good. I could tell this to the cashier, and she could trust me that it is good and simply finish the transaction. If there were doubt, the user has tests she can do to determine if it is a valid bill or not. The cashier holds it to the light, marks it with the pen, and thus she learned for herself if the bill was true.

The burden of proof was on her. Even if I got the bill directly from the mint, knew 100% it was good, if the cashier wanted to know if it was conterfit, she had to prove it.

Maybe a better example:

Let's say one day I find a room full of gold and silver and all kinds of valuable objects that one could partake of freely. Having been there, I know 100% of it's existence. I cross paths with you in a different location and tell you of the room that I found, tell you where to find it, and even draw you a map of how to get there. You have the choice to believe or not what I say. You may think I'm crazy and no such room exists. If you wanted to prove, my testmiony of this room is true or not, the burden of proof is upon you, for I already have my proof and certainty that the knowledge I am giving you is true. I don't have to prove anything because I already know. It is up to you, to follow the map, and go to the place that I told you the room was at. Only then, would you know if I was honest or not.

The same goes with with our testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We have learned for ourselves of its truthfulness. We know it is true. We are under no obligation to prove to others that what we know is true. We can tell them that we know, and pass along the knowledge of how they can know....we can give them the map, or the true-money marker....and they can prove it for themselves if they want to or not.

[Jamie123]

Years ago, I used to argue a lot with Mormon missionaries in exactly the way you describe. In my case it was because a good part of me wanted Mormonism to be true, but couldn't quite bring myself to believe it ("too good to be true"), and wasn't prepared to trust whatever subjective feelings I was told to pray for. My approach was to try to knock holes in Mormon theology and see if it stood up. The missionaries (who are not really trained apologists) sometimes reacted rather badly to this, and things sometimes did turn ugly.

I don't do this any more, because it really gets you nowhere. (Plus I've learned something about the pressures the Sisters and Elders are under, and how they deserve rather more kindness from people in general.) At the same time though, I don't think people who criticize Mormon ideas are necessarily coming against the Church in anger. People often don't know what they really want, and can't bring themselves to accept it when they do find it. They sometimes react in ways that seem odd to people with a clearer world-picture.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Jamie123

[WillowTheWhisp]

I think sometimes people come to dispute Mormon beliefs in the hope of 'rescuing' us fom what they believe to be false doctrine.

[Guest Godless]

A hearty RAmen to Hordak's post on page 1. It's very hard to gauge peoples' intentions over the internet. What may seem like bashing could actually be genuine curiosity and/or confusion over a matter of doctrine. And I agree that some people can tend to get overly-sensitive about their beliefs. There's a difference between honest criticism and "bashing". Some people who have no hard feelings against the Church may still have very difficult questions and reservations about your doctrine. I think it's important to be patient and give the inquisitor the benefit of the doubt until he/she crosses the line.

And I must echo the sentiment that there's a vast difference between atheists/agnostics and theists when it comes to religious discussions. The typical atheist is going to want tangible evidence, and your testimony isn't going to cut it. We call that the "argument from personal experience" and while I personally respect it, most non-believers won't. They want more than that. Your average Christian should be able to relate to it much better than atheists, but for some reason they still attack it. I have no clue why that is.

[Islander]

My theory is that in our effort to be more, tolerant and inclusive, we allow certain threads and posters to go on and on with no real intent other than to contend. In my sometimes not so humble opinion, we should be able to see these patterns and just close the thread and/or ban the poster. By engaging in this futile exercise of trying to honestly answer to less than honest questions, we erode the spirit and intent of the forum. We should be providing truthful and accurate information about the Church and our faith, support to those who seek it and sharing our testimony with others.

The rest; we should have a FAQ with answers to the top 100 questions and avoid the endless regurgitation. They are the same exhausted questions that some have been asking for almost 200 years.

[pam]

Now adays, if you use any dollar bill over 20 dollars, store are required to test to see if it is a vaild bill. They hold it up to the light to see the watermarks. Some have the fancy pens that turn black if the bill is fake.

If I give a 50 dollar bill, it is up to the receiver of the bill to validate it. I can explain to the person how I came across the bill, how it was given to me, etc and assure the cashier that it is a good 50 dollar bill. I can know with complete certainty the bill is good. I could tell this to the cashier, and she could trust me that it is good and simply finish the transaction. If there were doubt, the user has tests she can do to determine if it is a valid bill or not. The cashier holds it to the light, marks it with the pen, and thus she learned for herself if the bill was true.

With the advanced technology that counterfeiters have at their disposal, the fancy pen is rendered almost useless these days. Therefore we have to dig a little deeper to validate that the bill we are accepting is valid or not. I know, I manage a convenience store.

The same with our testimonies or with those questioning I suppose. We have to dig a little deeper to find truth and understanding. I still have my why questions but many insights have made some things clearer to me today.

[Jamie123]

Your average Christian should be able to relate to it much better than atheists, but for some reason they still attack it. I have no clue why that is.

Protestants are often taught not to trust their feelings, but to check everything against scripture (i.e. the Bible). Since they won't find any unambiguous references to a "restored gospel" (at least not in the sermons they've heard) they'll conclude that it must be false teaching and attack it.

Of course, it all rests on the assumption that the Bible itself is "true", and where are you going to get proof of that other than through prayer and subjective feeling?

[Wingnut]

Pam, to your original questions, I don't know. But I do suspect that it is why we have seen several of our finest members leave as of late. I also see it being the reason that many more may still leave. It just isn't fun or pleasant anymore.

[captmoroniRM]

Protestants are often taught not to trust their feelings, but to check everything against scripture (i.e. the Bible). Since they won't find any unambiguous references to a "restored gospel" (at least not in the sermons they've heard) they'll conclude that it must be false teaching and attack it.

Of course, it all rests on the assumption that the Bible itself is "true", and where are you going to get proof of that other than through prayer and subjective feeling?

Yeah, the principles of Sola Scriptura and documents like the Westminster confession...plus the scripture to "prove all things, hold to that which is true" (paraphrased again) keep people checking out the Bible above all things.

It does all rest on the assumption the Bible is true. That particular interpretation also rests on whether or not the Bible is inerrant.

That was one of the hardest things for my dad when he was a teen. He was not a member of the Church, but could see easily the contradictions and differences just between varying Christian denominations. Some would tell him that he had to believe in Jesus Christ. He would ask, "Why should I?" They would say "The Bible says so." "Who says the Bible is true?" "God does" What says "God is real?" "The Bible says so."

What intrigued my dad about Mormonism, was the possibility of having a witness directly from God by the Holy Ghost whether Mormonism is true. He had nothing to lose. If it were true, he'd found God's true church on the earth. If it were false, then he learned more about another interesting religion. He knows, because he learned for himself.

[Islander]

I think "religious training" becomes the true yoke on the neck of the disciples that keep them from the truth. For the uninitiated, the notion that the Godhead is made up three separate and distinct personages is readily evident. That there is more revelation after Jesus was crucified, that there are prophets and apostles is also very possible.

In other words, without the bias of theological theories one could reach certain conclusions that are closer to LDS theology than main stream Christianity.