Love your conversation with Kolby. During my faith transition I did a course with John and he was so nice and helpful to me and helped me with resources of how to deal with my mixed faith marriage.
Kolby always has worthwhile points to make. In an attempt to understand everyone Steven understands no one sadly. Apologists like the Paul brothers are unfettered in their ignorance and no amount of mediation or mentoring can change that. Apologists need to do the work of deconstructing and reconstructing to engage in coherent argument. Apologists are attempting to turn a silk purse into a sows ear.
Here to support Steven after Dives disgusting mockery of him (which he later deleted). You can see part of it on Mormonism After Dark with Bill Reel and RFM. I also am happy to see Kolby again. He’s always been a great guest on many of the post LDS channels I watch.
I have no interest in watching debates, but this conversation has reminded me to have proper motives and respect in a conversation I am planning to have. Thank you!
I’ve been critical of Steven in other comments on other videos - but the more I hear of him the more I love his heart. You’re a good dude, Steven. As far as Kolby - I watch everything he’s on cause I love how much smarter he makes me. Great convo!
I have found that raising good faith objections to framing or misunderstandings have consistently exponentially strengthened people's faith... I wish he did more of that when he could have, But then again i had the same Joseph Smith chain of visions too, prior to the church, so there's that...
Kolby is absolutely spot on about the Paul brothers.. they were there to argue with John.. they weren’t interested in having an honest, open minded conversation. You could quite literally see the disdain and anger in their eyes.. I was very shocked at their behavior even as an ex Mormon.
Thank you for the conversation. I personally believe that every person needs to be honest, hard-working, caring, kind, and considerate with every other human being. We don’t have to believe the same but we have to get along with each other in order to make this earth a good place to live :-) I have had my own personal experiences, that have given me a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have also seen people who claimed to be good do bad things and who have hurt many people I do, however, believe that there is a God and there is truth. there are not as many shades of Gray as people would like to Believe. Eventually, all truth will be known, unfortunately, it won’t be as soon as we’d like :-)
I do like the Paul brothers. Their belief fervor is a bit much but I think they are decent humans. Their passion just gets the better of them at times.
Decent humans?? with zero empathy for those harmed, some to the point of ending their lives, due to LDS doctrines? Strange position. Their arrogance of their ignorance was the only thing I found impressive.
Aww man those stick of Joseph boys were woefully unprepared. Too John's credit he was super paitient and super kind he could of annihilated those boys but he didn't. He really let them testify.
They whitish have been better prepared if they hadn't come in with the intention of ambushing JD with their pro-Mormon agenda. John seemed surprised when they started their intentions right at the beginning.
This is a funny response. John is the one that got heated and was having problems. He was the one woefully unprepared. He was not super patient and not willing to accept a different view. This is why I like Steve and Jeff. They are at least willing to present both sides with a conversation, without the "you can't possibly be that misguided, unintelligent or brainwashed" mentality and can see the positive fruit from a life lived with a covenant mindset.
@simplesigns5144 its not a funny response. It's exactly what happened. John got upset because the mormonism they were espousing is not the mormonism he grew up in. He got heated because he got exxed for helping to create the softer more gentler mormonism they now enjoy. I'd be pissed too. John knows mormonism the type that "had the power to save the world" he don't know this shit they saying cause what they saying isn't what has been said. That's why he got heated. That's what he was pointing out in his series mormon stories the inconsistencies in the history in contrast to the church's narrative. You shouldn't get exxed for revealing the truth. He was mad because he was hard-core and all he saw was soft core boys trying to tell him that he didn't know or understand his religion. John should be able to come back if he wanted to and not have to renounce the truths we now enjoy. John's done way more for mormonism then these stick of Joseph boys. Facts
To be clear, California had started issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples in 2004. But it wasnt until 2008 that special interest groups got it on the ballet to overturn it statewide. Californians can overturn what their politicians do by getting a proposition on the ballet. In 2008 special interest groups ( like the mormons) got it on the ballet. I respect Kolby so much and I immediately eat up any content he participates in, i just wanted to make that timeline clear. Obviously the majority of Californians had no care to overturn same sex marriage because it never made it to a ballot initiative before major religions got involved. (Again, to be clear, there were other major religions involved.) Despite their efforts prop 8 was voted down. Californians are kind of egaltatian that way; as long as you arent actually hurting anyone... you do you boo. All good. I love that prop 8 was a stopping off point for people to question their religious leaders, but want to be clear that religious leaders weres trying to overturn 4 years of settled law that the people of California didnt want overturned. (Edited to correct the spelling of Kolby's name . I respect you Kolby sorry for the misspelling.)
Unfortunately, I agree with davidbrisco5620. Prop 8 was passed by the people, but was stayed by a judge against the vote of the people. Also, as a sign maker of signs for both sides, I saw much more violence coming from those against Prop 8, demanding that someone's opinion must conform to a view outside of "marriage is between a man and a woman", including doxing, vandalism, sign stealing, and material or physical violence then I did from those that wanted prop 8 passed. It seemed to be the testing ground for where we are today: if one isn't shamed by opinion, it is fine to use other, harsher means to get one to conform to the agenda. If it still passes, then it will just be called "unconstitutional."
@@simplesigns5144the meaning of the constitution doesn’t depend on a vote of majority of the people. As was recognized after Prop 8-it was an unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sex.
I applaud anyone who seeks accountability and elevation of moral behavior for the church and its members. The only accountability is to the highest leaders, and that is a morally bankrupt approach that it seems only God can change at this point, but it doesn't mean we should just sit back in defeat. I also realized that even if someone doesn't believe in Jesus, they inevitably believe in Christ if they have any stance upon a moral foundation. There is no morality without Christ, and whether someone wants to acknowledge the existence and reality of Christ, they are fulfilling the mission of Christ by taking a moral stance in any degree.
Interesting interview. Kolby, how would you respond to the idea that all epistemologies are ultimately socially constructed? I’m not opposed to existence of some objective reality, and perhaps we are “better” at understanding it than in times past, but it seems like any deconstruction of prior epistemologies and presuppositions demands a sort of epistemic humility that is often absent in the new atheist community. Thoughts?
I think a solid epistemology is grounded in the laws of logic. Presupposing those, and that we interact with reality, is all I’m aware that I presuppose. While the names we call certain concepts are certainly social constructs, I think there’s some fundamental levels of reality clothed in that language. The law of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle are essentially extensions of mathematics and set theory. Those relationships between things are as certain as we can know anything. The last part of your question is just an opinion. I don’t see a lack of epistemic humility in the atheist community that I interact with. I tend to see theistic claims to special knowledge as demonstrating a lack of humility much more. That said-as I told Steve in this interview, every worldview has advantages and disadvantages. I feel like I’m able to be pretty honest about the limits of mine.
@@guymcdude5634 lol definitely not Jacob. And to be clear, I agree with the majority of what Kolby says, just curious how he would respond to this line of argumentation.
@@wtswingleit’s all good-I’m happy to try and answer. The social construct part of the question is hard because on one level everything is a social construct. Take for example that we call certain sets of things certain numbers. The labels we’ve assigned to those things is basically arbitrary. The number we know as two could just have easily have been the word “fish.” But the relationship of two discreet items is an objective reality. As is the relationship between that reality and double that reality (2 and 4, for example). Math is how we describe those relationships and it allows us to do some pretty incredible things. Set theory is a foundation of math and in my mind heavily related to the three laws of logic. That said: epistemology is a difficult field. Studying it when I can for the last several years has given me more epistemological humility than I ever had as a theist. That said: It’s a pet peeve of mine when some theists use the reality of how hard it is to know anything with certainty to believe in absolutely ridiculous things to believe like that magic rocks can translate ancient books. Ultimately, though, as I told Steve, my biggest concern is the moral model people pull from their beliefs-theistic or not.
Objective truth is not difficult. All humans accept a large number of "truths". Example: Stop breathing and you won't be alive tomorrow. @@KolbyReddish
Then many Mormons know that the Church is NOT true continue in Church meetings and just keep up appearances in order not to lose long built up relationships and become an outcast. Within the family itself many will keep silent in order not to upset their parents or their Children as the threat of a family break up is too hard on top of an already painful decision to see the Church as NOT true.
Steven I think it’s laudable that you are a peacemaker and have friends on “ both sides “ but I wonder when project 2025 comes into effect which friends will have your back.
I would be curious what Kolby means when he said his last thoughts at his last time attending church were, "The people are so much better than the institutional church has taught them to be." Does this mean the church teaches them to live a certain lifestyle and they are living a lifestyle "better" than what is teaches?
I suppose I meant that when I look at the failures I see in the leaders of the institutional Church--those same failures are more or less largely absent from the regular rank and file members of the Church. I hadn't heard of her distinction when I had the thought yet, but this is what Jana Riess describes as the "little-c" church--the local members. So I meant that most of my criticisms are not reserved for that group of people--I largely am just overwhelmed with how much common cause I find with that segment.
It is likewise as difficult to believe it is historical as evidence comes forth after coming to the conclusion that it is fiction. As has been said, at the very least it is the most fabulous parable ever written. Fiction is quite different than parabolic.
@@prophetcentralnobody (or such a vanishingly small amount) has ever been convinced purely by historical evidence that the Book of Mormon is historical. What exact difference do you see between parables and fiction? I think all parables are fiction, by definition.
It is scriptural. Who gives a crap about what others despise? Most despise Jesus too but one seeks Jesus he or she will always seek more not less Jesus which is why the Book of Mormon is amazingly Jesus centric.
Great discussion guys! Active LDS here and I agree with so much of what was said. The Paul Brothers did not show well on Mormon Stories, but even worse was their appearance on ward radio, that was truly painful to watch.
@@KolbyReddish I appreciate the way you and Steve conduct these discussions. There has to be more room for nuance in the church and for respectful discussion between all the different spaces in faith transition.
Some people find it so hard to accept the realities that the book of Mormon is fiction. This goes to the heart of most who are having a faith crisis. Joseph smith sold a fantasy and it is surprising how many people bought into it an now have to deconstruct their faith. Its painful.
I admire faith and patience in younger people like Kolby John Steve Gerardo and you Summer. Just a grumpy 76 year old and I ❤ it😂😂😂Blessings to you guys.🎉🎉🎉🎉
The bom cant be midrash or a story it has to be based in reality. If joseph had said god gave me a record told me where to find it gave me means to translate it that would be one thing. Then the catalyst theory could work. But joseph claimed an angel delivered the plates to him. Instructed him at their location on at least 4 different occasions. And when he finished the record he delivered the plates back to him. I would love to say its a story but its claim is this in reality did happen. So i find problems with nevilles theorys on how it was produced. The claim is aincient peoples uttered these words and recorded them for posterity. Like verbatim isaiah and new testament verses verbatim and 19th century sermons should not be in the text. And yet they are..and when i read does my heart not burn within indeed it does. The bom is the most perplexing work ive ever encountered written by the hand of man. I dont understand how these things could be and yet They are. I get nearer to God by reading that book then any other book and I could never deny that..even tho i dont understand it...
False Video Title - - 30 minutes in and it is just the guy telling is side of his experiences. It is hard to be patient and sit through content I'm not interested in hearing. I was interested in what you posted in your short and what it is int he title.
I disagree that having not having read the book of Mormon lately was not a valid point. As a personal experience the Labyrinth was one of my favorite movies growing up. I must have seen it at least 50 times. And the penultimate time I watched it was 4 years ago. I just re watched it with my wife last month, and realized that the good feelings I had toward the film basically made me remember a completely different movie. And that was for a less than 2 hour movie that I had watched just 4 years back. Can't imagine what 10 years would do for a 500 page book.
I am always reminded of the term “those who have eyes to see.” I feel so lucky to be a convert. I had no interest in being a member of a church. But I came to know the Book of Mormon was true. That anchor has made all the difference.
See, the funny thing about finding meaning in words like that is that it’s an extremely normal human emotion to feel like you’ve unlocked some secret knowledge. I connect with those same words about leaving the Church. To me, this represents how most of the meaningful passages in religious text are loose enough to be open to a variety of interpretations. The only question then, is whether one believes that’s because there really is some deeper truth, or because those writing scripture clued into something all humans experience in a variety of faith traditions. Glad you’ve found your anchor-I honestly feel like the exact same.
@@KolbyReddish You have trivialized the point a bit and there is a huge distinction between how we arrived at our conclusion I’ll address below. Sure, I get it though. Humans love to feel they have found something. I’ve seen Goonies. And more than one BYU coed has come home declaring after a first date “he’s the one.” And sure, if all I had done was picked up a Book of Mormon and read a few things and ran out of my house yelling "eureka" you would have a point. But we both know that wasn't the case. Very few are that foolish. No, a person investigating an issue digs down further. They follow the teaching of both John 7:16-17 and Alma 32:21, 26-43. In fact, what these two citations teach comes intuitively to most. If I bite into something and get the sensation it is good, I usually bite into it again to be sure. And with regard to religious texts being loose enough to be open to a variety of interpretations, I think you would agree, so are historical and scientific findings. How many of our settled scientific questions have later been disproven? And with regard to history, there are just as many who praise Joseph Smith as denounce him, for example. Just as many who can say he did this thing and others who would say he did that thing. And thus the blessing it was to realize the Book of Mormon is true by a manner other than mere human investigation. Our experiences are distinct precisely because of the idea "those who have eyes to see” (not actually in scripture). Your exploration is purely empirical. I am capable of understanding the empirical as I am a man just like you. You do not see anything I can’t see empirically. Faith is not required see things as you see them. I am not ignorant to the exmo/antimo positions. I may not accept it, I may seek to do more research, but there is no mystery there. But as Paul taught, the things of God are not learned as the things of man. I suspect you likely find that idea foolish as Paul suggests. 1 Cor 2:9-16. Matters of faith are for the individual to work out on their own. They cannot be proven through traditional means alone or primarily. And NO, the only question is: has a person tested the idea that there is a Holy Spirit by which all truth can be confirmed. Barring this, there is no foolproof way to be certain of most anything. If there is no God, then we are the deities that remain. And who among us can be trusted with ultimate truth? Kolby Reddish? I do commend you for not making the mistake of claiming the logically flawed label of atheist for agnostic. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” after all. In closing, I submit “Observation, Reason, Faith, and Revelation” | Dale G. Renlund | 2023 as a faithful way to seek out truth.
@@cabarete2003 You say that you are not ignorant of the exmo positions. Then you immediately quote from the New Testament that "the things of God are not learned as the things of man." I find this juxtaposition a little hard to accept. If you're not ignorant of the exmo position (as if there's only one) what do you think an exmo would say in response to you going right to this scripture?
@@reddish22 THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!! You just proved my point. The ExMo does not have eyes to see and thus would reject the idea that what we are saying could possibly be from God. And as in Paul's day, we are left at an impasse. Roman 8:7 And thus, the reason why I am grateful for my testimony in the Book of Mormon and my wish, hope, and sadness is that it is difficult for others (especially for those that had it from birth) to see what I, a guy who haphazardly stumbled upon this, knows. Have I convinced you? Of course not, nor did I intend to or could I. I was simply commenting on how lucky I feel to know the Book of Mormon is true and a bit of the frustration it is that I can only share that witness and cannot have pp just see what I saw. Philippians 2:12 And let's be honest, we've both been members long enough. A person does not just walk out on the church, the only true & living church of God on earth. That would be foolish. But if a person gets tired of going every Sunday, having a calling, having to go in and clean, going to the temple, weekday activities, etc; if a person wants to live a slightly or entirely different lifestyle, they can't just leave. They have to prove the church is a fraud. Trust me, I KNOW! I had some years there where I was having a hard time in life. I had the temptation to leave. But I could not leave what I knew any more than I could say the Sun did not exist.
@@cabarete2003you’re projecting so much onto me, it’s clear you don’t understand my perspective. I’m glad you’ve found something that makes you happy, but no, people don’t just leave because of the reasons you seem to believe. In fact, I explicitly talk about why I left in this video and it had nothing to do with any of those-so now I’m doubting whether you watched it at all.
As a believer, a major aspect of the apologetics I don't think he brought up is that his epistomological core seems to be rooted in positivism, empiricism, and/or scientism. If that's what your empistomology is based in positivism, empiricism, and/or scientism than any kind of theism is going to fall apart. Consequently, apologetics won't work well for you. However, apologetics aren't geared towards someone with those epistomological worldviews. If that's your worldview, atheism/agnosticism is going to win every time. So when he says faithful apologetics are 'brittle' or frail, that's ultiamtely rooted in his presupposed epistomological framework of positivism, empiricism, and/or scientism. However, there are other epistomological worldviews where apologetics can work really well. They just don't work well in positivism, empiricism, or scientism
I didn't use those words, sure, but I was pretty clear about the fact that I have accepted certain presuppositions like every person ultimately has to do. The criticism of the scientific worldview is always an odd one to me. Every one agrees that what comes out of those things have vastly changed our world for the better. You're writing this comment on a platform that would have been completely impossible without the advances that rational thinking and the enlightenment caused. When you get sick, I'm betting you go to a doctor. So it should be unsurprising that I apply the same criterion and standards on other questions as well. I'm not attempting to hide the ball here. What epistemology do you use that you think is better than the rational and scientific worldview?
@@reddish22 Scientism and a belief in the Scientific worldview are not the same things. Scientism is the belief that science is the ultimate or only legitimate source of knowledge and that scientific methods can and should be applied to every domain of life, including areas traditionally outside its scope, such as ethics, philosophy, and religion. Positivism asserts that knowledge should be derived from observable, empirical facts and that metaphysical or speculative statements are meaningless. It emphasizes the use of the scientific method and rejects knowledge claims that cannot be verified through direct observation or experiment. Empiricism asserts that all knowledge comes primarily from sensory experience. It holds that humans are born without innate knowledge, and everything we know is gained through observation, experimentation, and the senses. You can believe in the Scientific Method without having your core foundational epistomology being defined by any of those three epistomologies (as stated above). Moreover, religious apologetics are built on empistomolgical beliefs more akin to rationalism than empiricism, positivism, and/or scientism. That's because if your epistomology is founded upon empiricism, positivism, and/or scientism then any relligious belief (or apologetics) will fall flat. However, if it's based on an epistomology much more akin to rationalism then religious apologetics can become much more viable.
@@danielstark8356well, worth noting I never claimed to hold even a single one of those positions-you just put those onto me. I’d largely agree with them, but from a much more humble methodological rather than philosophical absolute framework. As for your claim that rationalism better supports theistic/religious apologetics-I wouldn’t agree. At best that would get you to Deism, not Theism.
@@KolbyReddish You didn't explicitly say that you held those positions. However, the way you explained things did very much reflect them (particularly empiricism, as empiricism is central to David Hume's philosophy)
@@KolbyReddish And, just to be clear, I don't mean it as an insult when I say that you hold positivism or empiricism as an epistomological worldview. I just mean that it makes sense that you'd arrive at agnosticism and think that apologetics is all just super brittle However, those of us who don't hold positivism or empiricism as central (or at least as central) to our epistomology are going to find many religious apologetic arguements much more convincing and much less frail/brittle.
@1:03:08 --Major strawman coming from here The typical explanation apologists give for racial issues Mormonism has had in the past is that we've got to understand that they were products of their time, and we can't just use today's understanding to judge the past (AKA presentism) I'm sorry, but this guy is acting as if Mormon apologists wouldn't use that arguement on anyone else who isn't Mormon, but that simply is not true. A whole lot of Mormon apologists would judge past non Mormon figures much less harshly for racial ideas/beliefs/actions under the understanding that it was a different time period. If you're going to argue against that then your issue isn't with Mormon apologists making special cases for their leaders. Your issue is with anyone who judges past racial actions differently with the understanding that we shouldn't judge the past based on modern standards. To say otherwise is a strawman.
Nope--it isn't a strawman, you're just going to a complete non sequitur (maybe unintentionally). My point is entirely that when you recognize past prophets are a product of their time, the same applies to current prophets and what they're asking you to dogmatically defend today. In other words, the dogmatic and fundamentalist apologists in 1977 would have been justifying the Church's racism that it has since (thankfully) disavowed today. I think the Church's racist leaders also have the added complication of ignoring the Book of Mormon's clear admonition that "all are alike unto God," as well as a multitude of New Testament scriptures that should have clearly told them that God isn't a racist. To put it simply: I have no use for "prophets" that can be so very wrong about something so simple, and I would not trust their successors to be any more accurate in speaking for God than the past leaders were.
@@reddish22 I'll agree that if you're going to be consistant you've got to recognize that current prophets could make major mistakes on that level. So it does mean that, to some extent, you do have to pick and choose what modern prophets say (on a certain significant level). However, that doesn't mean that there's no value in what they have to say or nothing worth listening to. For instance, David Hume was also a pretty huge racist. That doesn't mean nothing he said was worth listening to. And it's not like Brigham Young didn't have anything valuable to say or worth listening to. I know that the popular discourse surrounding Brigham Young (including in a lot of believing Mormon circles) likes to zoom in on his faults/flaws and minimize (and/or ignore) his positive attributes/accomplishments (which were also huge). However, when you seriously research/learn about Brigham Young on a much more serious level than just what the popular discourse surrounding him on the internet is you quickly find out that he was a much more sympathetic historic figure than the 'cowboy Hitler of the west' image that he's often painted as by popular discourse
@@danielstark8356 I didn’t say what they say has no value. But when some apologists (exactly as I was discussing in context) demand loyalty to what “the Brethren say,” they’re standing on the shaky foundation based upon the past track record. I never said that means everything they say should be discounted. But it does mean nothing they say can be held as absolute simply because they say it. Because the reality is past prophets said things with the same justification and turned out to be wrong, even according to the Church today.
Stephen I love you man, but Just because someone asks how you are doing doesn’t mean they aren’t actively trying to destroy others faith. If John was truly intellectually honest he would have just as many believing members on his channel, but he doesn’t. You can be a nice person and still actively seeking to destroy others faith.
I actually said the opposite. South Park was just the first time I heard about the rock in the hat. I reconciled those doubts and served a mission, attended BYU, got sealed on the Temple, worked at the MTC, and ended my time in the Church as the adult gospel doctrine teacher.
@user-id9hn8ol7t I'm praying for you brother along with all the members who lose there faith. "We heeded them not" is very CRUCIAL! I have a cousin who has a similar story to your's except the ces letter got to him , he indeed heeded the voices. The dangerous part about him and you and other members who lose their faith is that you guys have those GOOD core values and morals , this can be dangerous because it won't let you see the world for what it really is, and not seeing the wolrd for what it truly is will make it hard for one to see the truth of the restored gospel of jesus christ. I left the church at 15 not in doubt of the church but just wanted to experience all the "cool" stuff parties, drugs, gambling, drinking ect. The core values and morals i had but I still followed the world's view of happiness, I believe this is how I was able to see the TRUTHS of the restored gospel . Little by little I started to mature on my own and one new years resolution brought a revelation to me. This is the lords kingdom here on earth, I was given the gift of a testimony and witness. I say again it's hard to see the truths of the church if you don't see the world for what it truly is and what it truly offers. I returned back to the gospel last year in January 15 years later , I'm 32 now . Nothing that I ever did has brought me more peace and true joy like the restored gospel of jesus chirst .
@@VICTOR7oh2I am sincerely happy that you found something that brings your life meaning and purpose. But for me-I’ve seen firsthand that the Church as an institution is willing to engage in conduct I believe is abhorrent. I wouldn’t tolerate it from a terrible for-profit company, let alone the true Church of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, my morals led me out of the Church. I didn’t leave because it was cool or because I wanted it not to be true. Leaving the Church collapsed my entire world. Even if you don’t agree with my ultimate conclusion, this is not a decision someone would make lightly or trivially. It would have been far easier and more comfortable for my life to stay-but someone taught me too well, I suppose, to “do what is right let the consequence follow.” I couldn’t stay quiet about policies that cause harm to children that could be changed to prevent some additional abuse. That reality is what really caused me to study and evaluate the Church’s truth claims. I’m glad the Church is working for you. Stay informed about it and choose to be there if you want-but it’s never going to work for me again.
@user-id9hn8ol7t it wasn't just "something" it is THE thing , that is jesus christ. Nothing on earth has the power to bring you "meaning and purpose" than truth . There is multiple ways to happiness here on earth but only 1 to true and everlasting happiness , anything outside of truth always comes to an end. "I am THE way" , only 1 way. You left the church actually means you left the gospel of jesus christ . You are claiming it isn't the gospel of christ yet now where is christ for you? Just in you're head? You left so now where will you go? Leave christ all together? . Doesn't add up because of truth , going againts truth never adds up.
Love your conversation with Kolby. During my faith transition I did a course with John and he was so nice and helpful to me and helped me with resources of how to deal with my mixed faith marriage.
Kolby always has worthwhile points to make.
In an attempt to understand everyone Steven understands no one sadly.
Apologists like the Paul brothers are unfettered in their ignorance and no amount of mediation or mentoring can change that.
Apologists need to do the work of deconstructing and reconstructing to engage in coherent argument.
Apologists are attempting to turn a silk purse into a sows ear.
Here to support Steven after Dives disgusting mockery of him (which he later deleted). You can see part of it on Mormonism After Dark with Bill Reel and RFM. I also am happy to see Kolby again. He’s always been a great guest on many of the post LDS channels I watch.
Kolby, it is nice to see you on this show! Looking forward to seeing more of a presence from you!
Awesome, good to see Kolby on more podcasts. How many will it take before Jacob agrees to a debate!?
Kolby and Steven, great episode! Loved getting to know Kolby's background and POV. And as always, enjoyed listening to your insight Steven!
I have no interest in watching debates, but this conversation has reminded me to have proper motives and respect in a conversation I am planning to have. Thank you!
We ❤ Kolby!!!! Hope you're getting stronger and healthier each day Steve..take care y'all
I’ve been critical of Steven in other comments on other videos - but the more I hear of him the more I love his heart. You’re a good dude, Steven.
As far as Kolby - I watch everything he’s on cause I love how much smarter he makes me.
Great convo!
Thanks!
Wow, Kolby really touched me with his story. What a great man.
I have found that raising good faith objections to framing or misunderstandings have consistently exponentially strengthened people's faith...
I wish he did more of that when he could have,
But then again i had the same Joseph Smith chain of visions too, prior to the church, so there's that...
Glad I subscribed because I keep learning new information each episode.
Thanks!
Kolby is absolutely spot on about the Paul brothers.. they were there to argue with John.. they weren’t interested in having an honest, open minded conversation. You could quite literally see the disdain and anger in their eyes.. I was very shocked at their behavior even as an ex Mormon.
Just say you didn’t watch the debate
Steve would make the perfect moderator for the discussion between Kolby and Jacob, when does it aire?
Thank you for the conversation. I personally believe that every person needs to be honest, hard-working, caring, kind, and considerate with every other human being. We don’t have to believe the same but we have to get along with each other in order to make this earth a good place to live :-)
I have had my own personal experiences, that have given me a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have also seen people who claimed to be good do bad things and who have hurt many people
I do, however, believe that there is a God and there is truth. there are not as many shades of Gray as people would like to Believe. Eventually, all truth will be known, unfortunately, it won’t be as soon as we’d like :-)
I do like the Paul brothers. Their belief fervor is a bit much but I think they are decent humans. Their passion just gets the better of them at times.
Decent humans?? with zero empathy for those harmed, some to the point of ending their lives, due to LDS doctrines? Strange position. Their arrogance of their ignorance was the only thing I found impressive.
Passion paired with lack of education can be dangerous. But I'm sure they're doing the best with the knowledge and experience they have.
1:14:11 John Dehlin and RFM are Kolby's Exmo home teachers!
Thank you for pointing out that sad state of affairs.😢
Aww man those stick of Joseph boys were woefully unprepared. Too John's credit he was super paitient and super kind he could of annihilated those boys but he didn't. He really let them testify.
They whitish have been better prepared if they hadn't come in with the intention of ambushing JD with their pro-Mormon agenda. John seemed surprised when they started their intentions right at the beginning.
This is a funny response. John is the one that got heated and was having problems. He was the one woefully unprepared. He was not super patient and not willing to accept a different view. This is why I like Steve and Jeff. They are at least willing to present both sides with a conversation, without the "you can't possibly be that misguided, unintelligent or brainwashed" mentality and can see the positive fruit from a life lived with a covenant mindset.
@simplesigns5144 its not a funny response. It's exactly what happened. John got upset because the mormonism they were espousing is not the mormonism he grew up in. He got heated because he got exxed for helping to create the softer more gentler mormonism they now enjoy. I'd be pissed too. John knows mormonism the type that "had the power to save the world" he don't know this shit they saying cause what they saying isn't what has been said. That's why he got heated. That's what he was pointing out in his series mormon stories the inconsistencies in the history in contrast to the church's narrative. You shouldn't get exxed for revealing the truth. He was mad because he was hard-core and all he saw was soft core boys trying to tell him that he didn't know or understand his religion. John should be able to come back if he wanted to and not have to renounce the truths we now enjoy. John's done way more for mormonism then these stick of Joseph boys. Facts
To be clear, California had started issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples in 2004. But it wasnt until 2008 that special interest groups got it on the ballet to overturn it statewide.
Californians can overturn what their politicians do by getting a proposition on the ballet. In 2008
special interest groups ( like the mormons) got it on the ballet.
I respect Kolby so much and I immediately eat up any content he participates in, i just wanted to make that timeline clear.
Obviously the majority of Californians had no care to overturn same sex marriage because it never made it to a ballot initiative before major religions got involved. (Again, to be clear, there were other major religions involved.) Despite their efforts prop 8 was voted down.
Californians are kind of egaltatian that way; as long as you arent actually hurting anyone... you do you boo. All good.
I love that prop 8 was a stopping off point for people to question their religious leaders, but want to be clear that religious leaders weres trying to overturn 4 years of settled law that the people of California didnt want overturned.
(Edited to correct the spelling of Kolby's name . I respect you Kolby sorry for the misspelling.)
Thank you for adding that important context!
Prop 8 passed in California, but was stayed by Judge Walker, who was homosexual and should have recused himself.
Unfortunately, I agree with davidbrisco5620. Prop 8 was passed by the people, but was stayed by a judge against the vote of the people. Also, as a sign maker of signs for both sides, I saw much more violence coming from those against Prop 8, demanding that someone's opinion must conform to a view outside of "marriage is between a man and a woman", including doxing, vandalism, sign stealing, and material or physical violence then I did from those that wanted prop 8 passed. It seemed to be the testing ground for where we are today: if one isn't shamed by opinion, it is fine to use other, harsher means to get one to conform to the agenda. If it still passes, then it will just be called "unconstitutional."
@@simplesigns5144the meaning of the constitution doesn’t depend on a vote of majority of the people. As was recognized after Prop 8-it was an unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sex.
I applaud anyone who seeks accountability and elevation of moral behavior for the church and its members. The only accountability is to the highest leaders, and that is a morally bankrupt approach that it seems only God can change at this point, but it doesn't mean we should just sit back in defeat.
I also realized that even if someone doesn't believe in Jesus, they inevitably believe in Christ if they have any stance upon a moral foundation. There is no morality without Christ, and whether someone wants to acknowledge the existence and reality of Christ, they are fulfilling the mission of Christ by taking a moral stance in any degree.
Interesting interview. Kolby, how would you respond to the idea that all epistemologies are ultimately socially constructed? I’m not opposed to existence of some objective reality, and perhaps we are “better” at understanding it than in times past, but it seems like any deconstruction of prior epistemologies and presuppositions demands a sort of epistemic humility that is often absent in the new atheist community. Thoughts?
Jacob, is that you? Just accept to have a discussion with Kolby already!
I think a solid epistemology is grounded in the laws of logic. Presupposing those, and that we interact with reality, is all I’m aware that I presuppose. While the names we call certain concepts are certainly social constructs, I think there’s some fundamental levels of reality clothed in that language. The law of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle are essentially extensions of mathematics and set theory. Those relationships between things are as certain as we can know anything.
The last part of your question is just an opinion. I don’t see a lack of epistemic humility in the atheist community that I interact with. I tend to see theistic claims to special knowledge as demonstrating a lack of humility much more.
That said-as I told Steve in this interview, every worldview has advantages and disadvantages. I feel like I’m able to be pretty honest about the limits of mine.
@@guymcdude5634 lol definitely not Jacob. And to be clear, I agree with the majority of what Kolby says, just curious how he would respond to this line of argumentation.
@@wtswingleit’s all good-I’m happy to try and answer. The social construct part of the question is hard because on one level everything is a social construct. Take for example that we call certain sets of things certain numbers. The labels we’ve assigned to those things is basically arbitrary. The number we know as two could just have easily have been the word “fish.”
But the relationship of two discreet items is an objective reality. As is the relationship between that reality and double that reality (2 and 4, for example). Math is how we describe those relationships and it allows us to do some pretty incredible things. Set theory is a foundation of math and in my mind heavily related to the three laws of logic.
That said: epistemology is a difficult field. Studying it when I can for the last several years has given me more epistemological humility than I ever had as a theist.
That said: It’s a pet peeve of mine when some theists use the reality of how hard it is to know anything with certainty to believe in absolutely ridiculous things to believe like that magic rocks can translate ancient books.
Ultimately, though, as I told Steve, my biggest concern is the moral model people pull from their beliefs-theistic or not.
Objective truth is not difficult. All humans accept a large number of "truths". Example: Stop breathing and you won't be alive tomorrow. @@KolbyReddish
Ooooooooh. I’m excited about this one!!!!!!!!!
Steven seems to believe that all these deznat types are his “friends “ -- they aren’t.
Can you explain the divine command idea?
Then many Mormons know that the Church is NOT true continue in Church meetings and just keep up appearances in order not to lose long built up relationships and become an outcast. Within the family itself many will keep silent in order not to upset their parents or their Children as the threat of a family break up is too hard on top of an already painful decision to see the Church as NOT true.
Steven I think it’s laudable that you are a peacemaker and have friends on “ both sides “ but I wonder when project 2025 comes into effect which friends will have your back.
I think the paul brothers just wanted to pearch
❤ lds history. Enthralling...
I would be curious what Kolby means when he said his last thoughts at his last time attending church were, "The people are so much better than the institutional church has taught them to be." Does this mean the church teaches them to live a certain lifestyle and they are living a lifestyle "better" than what is teaches?
I suppose I meant that when I look at the failures I see in the leaders of the institutional Church--those same failures are more or less largely absent from the regular rank and file members of the Church. I hadn't heard of her distinction when I had the thought yet, but this is what Jana Riess describes as the "little-c" church--the local members. So I meant that most of my criticisms are not reserved for that group of people--I largely am just overwhelmed with how much common cause I find with that segment.
Wonder what grade Kolby got in that class???😂😂😂😂😂
It is hard to accept that the Book of Mormon is fiction when you believed all your life it was historical.
It is likewise as difficult to believe it is historical as evidence comes forth after coming to the conclusion that it is fiction. As has been said, at the very least it is the most fabulous parable ever written. Fiction is quite different than parabolic.
@@prophetcentralnobody (or such a vanishingly small amount) has ever been convinced purely by historical evidence that the Book of Mormon is historical.
What exact difference do you see between parables and fiction? I think all parables are fiction, by definition.
It is scriptural. Who gives a crap about what others despise? Most despise Jesus too but one seeks Jesus he or she will always seek more not less Jesus which is why the Book of Mormon is amazingly Jesus centric.
@@suem6004if it isn’t historical then Joseph Smith made up the whole story of the gold plates and proves him a fraud and a conman.
It’s understandable when we don’t have a secular education about history. I get what you’re saying .
Great discussion guys! Active LDS here and I agree with so much of what was said. The Paul Brothers did not show well on Mormon Stories, but even worse was their appearance on ward radio, that was truly painful to watch.
Thanks so much for your comment!
@@KolbyReddish I appreciate the way you and Steve conduct these discussions. There has to be more room for nuance in the church and for respectful discussion between all the different spaces in faith transition.
@@Commenter2121 thank you-I completely agree. These are the conversations worth having.
@@KolbyReddish I’ve tried to tell the guys at Ward Radio and Thoughtful Faith that they would get a lot further if they understood this.
Kolby can provide a list of criticisms about Jabob and the Paul brothers, but cannot make a single criticism about John Dehlin. THIS TELLS ME A LOT.
What, are you saying John Dehlin makes mistakes, fudge around with data, and makes wild assertions out of thin air? Impossible
Some people find it so hard to accept the realities that the book of Mormon is fiction. This goes to the heart of most who are having a faith crisis. Joseph smith sold a fantasy and it is surprising how many people bought into it an now have to deconstruct their faith. Its painful.
The Bible is fiction too right?
Mormonism started out as a sex cult and evolved into a huge Corporation.
Kolby brings the smack down in a “Christ-like” way 😁
Thanks Summur!
I admire faith and patience in younger people like Kolby John Steve Gerardo and you Summer. Just a grumpy 76 year old and I ❤ it😂😂😂Blessings to you guys.🎉🎉🎉🎉
Sorry Summur?
@@marquitaarmstrong399 😂 We are grumpy, too. Just really good at hiding it 😉
The bom cant be midrash or a story it has to be based in reality. If joseph had said god gave me a record told me where to find it gave me means to translate it that would be one thing. Then the catalyst theory could work. But joseph claimed an angel delivered the plates to him. Instructed him at their location on at least 4 different occasions. And when he finished the record he delivered the plates back to him. I would love to say its a story but its claim is this in reality did happen. So i find problems with nevilles theorys on how it was produced. The claim is aincient peoples uttered these words and recorded them for posterity. Like verbatim isaiah and new testament verses verbatim and 19th century sermons should not be in the text.
And yet they are..and when i read does my heart not burn within indeed it does. The bom is the most perplexing work ive ever encountered written by the hand of man. I dont understand how these things could be and yet
They are. I get nearer to God by reading that book then any other book and I could never deny that..even tho i dont understand it...
🇨🇭🇨🇭🇨🇭🇨🇭
I’m out! Super sad.
False Video Title - - 30 minutes in and it is just the guy telling is side of his experiences. It is hard to be patient and sit through content I'm not interested in hearing. I was interested in what you posted in your short and what it is int he title.
Ok.
I wanted my audience to be aware of Kolby's background to give context to his critiques
Have your mom or an adult you trust show you how to use RUclips features. You can skip ahead...
I disagree that having not having read the book of Mormon lately was not a valid point.
As a personal experience the Labyrinth was one of my favorite movies growing up. I must have seen it at least 50 times. And the penultimate time I watched it was 4 years ago. I just re watched it with my wife last month, and realized that the good feelings I had toward the film basically made me remember a completely different movie. And that was for a less than 2 hour movie that I had watched just 4 years back. Can't imagine what 10 years would do for a 500 page book.
I am always reminded of the term “those who have eyes to see.” I feel so lucky to be a convert. I had no interest in being a member of a church. But I came to know the Book of Mormon was true. That anchor has made all the difference.
See, the funny thing about finding meaning in words like that is that it’s an extremely normal human emotion to feel like you’ve unlocked some secret knowledge. I connect with those same words about leaving the Church. To me, this represents how most of the meaningful passages in religious text are loose enough to be open to a variety of interpretations. The only question then, is whether one believes that’s because there really is some deeper truth, or because those writing scripture clued into something all humans experience in a variety of faith traditions.
Glad you’ve found your anchor-I honestly feel like the exact same.
@@KolbyReddish You have trivialized the point a bit and there is a huge distinction between how we arrived at our conclusion I’ll address below. Sure, I get it though. Humans love to feel they have found something. I’ve seen Goonies. And more than one BYU coed has come home declaring after a first date “he’s the one.” And sure, if all I had done was picked up a Book of Mormon and read a few things and ran out of my house yelling "eureka" you would have a point. But we both know that wasn't the case. Very few are that foolish. No, a person investigating an issue digs down further. They follow the teaching of both John 7:16-17 and Alma 32:21, 26-43. In fact, what these two citations teach comes intuitively to most. If I bite into something and get the sensation it is good, I usually bite into it again to be sure.
And with regard to religious texts being loose enough to be open to a variety of interpretations, I think you would agree, so are historical and scientific findings. How many of our settled scientific questions have later been disproven? And with regard to history, there are just as many who praise Joseph Smith as denounce him, for example. Just as many who can say he did this thing and others who would say he did that thing. And thus the blessing it was to realize the Book of Mormon is true by a manner other than mere human investigation.
Our experiences are distinct precisely because of the idea "those who have eyes to see” (not actually in scripture). Your exploration is purely empirical. I am capable of understanding the empirical as I am a man just like you. You do not see anything I can’t see empirically. Faith is not required see things as you see them. I am not ignorant to the exmo/antimo positions. I may not accept it, I may seek to do more research, but there is no mystery there.
But as Paul taught, the things of God are not learned as the things of man. I suspect you likely find that idea foolish as Paul suggests. 1 Cor 2:9-16. Matters of faith are for the individual to work out on their own. They cannot be proven through traditional means alone or primarily.
And NO, the only question is: has a person tested the idea that there is a Holy Spirit by which all truth can be confirmed. Barring this, there is no foolproof way to be certain of most anything. If there is no God, then we are the deities that remain. And who among us can be trusted with ultimate truth? Kolby Reddish?
I do commend you for not making the mistake of claiming the logically flawed label of atheist for agnostic. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” after all.
In closing, I submit “Observation, Reason, Faith, and Revelation” | Dale G. Renlund | 2023 as a faithful way to seek out truth.
@@cabarete2003 You say that you are not ignorant of the exmo positions. Then you immediately quote from the New Testament that "the things of God are not learned as the things of man."
I find this juxtaposition a little hard to accept. If you're not ignorant of the exmo position (as if there's only one) what do you think an exmo would say in response to you going right to this scripture?
@@reddish22 THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!! You just proved my point. The ExMo does not have eyes to see and thus would reject the idea that what we are saying could possibly be from God. And as in Paul's day, we are left at an impasse. Roman 8:7 And thus, the reason why I am grateful for my testimony in the Book of Mormon and my wish, hope, and sadness is that it is difficult for others (especially for those that had it from birth) to see what I, a guy who haphazardly stumbled upon this, knows.
Have I convinced you? Of course not, nor did I intend to or could I. I was simply commenting on how lucky I feel to know the Book of Mormon is true and a bit of the frustration it is that I can only share that witness and cannot have pp just see what I saw. Philippians 2:12
And let's be honest, we've both been members long enough. A person does not just walk out on the church, the only true & living church of God on earth. That would be foolish. But if a person gets tired of going every Sunday, having a calling, having to go in and clean, going to the temple, weekday activities, etc; if a person wants to live a slightly or entirely different lifestyle, they can't just leave. They have to prove the church is a fraud. Trust me, I KNOW! I had some years there where I was having a hard time in life. I had the temptation to leave. But I could not leave what I knew any more than I could say the Sun did not exist.
@@cabarete2003you’re projecting so much onto me, it’s clear you don’t understand my perspective. I’m glad you’ve found something that makes you happy, but no, people don’t just leave because of the reasons you seem to believe.
In fact, I explicitly talk about why I left in this video and it had nothing to do with any of those-so now I’m doubting whether you watched it at all.
As a believer, a major aspect of the apologetics I don't think he brought up is that his epistomological core seems to be rooted in positivism, empiricism, and/or scientism.
If that's what your empistomology is based in positivism, empiricism, and/or scientism than any kind of theism is going to fall apart. Consequently, apologetics won't work well for you.
However, apologetics aren't geared towards someone with those epistomological worldviews. If that's your worldview, atheism/agnosticism is going to win every time. So when he says faithful apologetics are 'brittle' or frail, that's ultiamtely rooted in his presupposed epistomological framework of positivism, empiricism, and/or scientism.
However, there are other epistomological worldviews where apologetics can work really well. They just don't work well in positivism, empiricism, or scientism
I didn't use those words, sure, but I was pretty clear about the fact that I have accepted certain presuppositions like every person ultimately has to do.
The criticism of the scientific worldview is always an odd one to me. Every one agrees that what comes out of those things have vastly changed our world for the better. You're writing this comment on a platform that would have been completely impossible without the advances that rational thinking and the enlightenment caused. When you get sick, I'm betting you go to a doctor.
So it should be unsurprising that I apply the same criterion and standards on other questions as well. I'm not attempting to hide the ball here. What epistemology do you use that you think is better than the rational and scientific worldview?
@@reddish22 Scientism and a belief in the Scientific worldview are not the same things. Scientism is the belief that science is the ultimate or only legitimate source of knowledge and that scientific methods can and should be applied to every domain of life, including areas traditionally outside its scope, such as ethics, philosophy, and religion.
Positivism asserts that knowledge should be derived from observable, empirical facts and that metaphysical or speculative statements are meaningless. It emphasizes the use of the scientific method and rejects knowledge claims that cannot be verified through direct observation or experiment.
Empiricism asserts that all knowledge comes primarily from sensory experience. It holds that humans are born without innate knowledge, and everything we know is gained through observation, experimentation, and the senses.
You can believe in the Scientific Method without having your core foundational epistomology being defined by any of those three epistomologies (as stated above).
Moreover, religious apologetics are built on empistomolgical beliefs more akin to rationalism than empiricism, positivism, and/or scientism. That's because if your epistomology is founded upon empiricism, positivism, and/or scientism then any relligious belief (or apologetics) will fall flat. However, if it's based on an epistomology much more akin to rationalism then religious apologetics can become much more viable.
@@danielstark8356well, worth noting I never claimed to hold even a single one of those positions-you just put those onto me.
I’d largely agree with them, but from a much more humble methodological rather than philosophical absolute framework.
As for your claim that rationalism better supports theistic/religious apologetics-I wouldn’t agree. At best that would get you to Deism, not Theism.
@@KolbyReddish You didn't explicitly say that you held those positions. However, the way you explained things did very much reflect them (particularly empiricism, as empiricism is central to David Hume's philosophy)
@@KolbyReddish And, just to be clear, I don't mean it as an insult when I say that you hold positivism or empiricism as an epistomological worldview. I just mean that it makes sense that you'd arrive at agnosticism and think that apologetics is all just super brittle
However, those of us who don't hold positivism or empiricism as central (or at least as central) to our epistomology are going to find many religious apologetic arguements much more convincing and much less frail/brittle.
@1:03:08 --Major strawman coming from here
The typical explanation apologists give for racial issues Mormonism has had in the past is that we've got to understand that they were products of their time, and we can't just use today's understanding to judge the past (AKA presentism)
I'm sorry, but this guy is acting as if Mormon apologists wouldn't use that arguement on anyone else who isn't Mormon, but that simply is not true. A whole lot of Mormon apologists would judge past non Mormon figures much less harshly for racial ideas/beliefs/actions under the understanding that it was a different time period.
If you're going to argue against that then your issue isn't with Mormon apologists making special cases for their leaders. Your issue is with anyone who judges past racial actions differently with the understanding that we shouldn't judge the past based on modern standards. To say otherwise is a strawman.
Nope--it isn't a strawman, you're just going to a complete non sequitur (maybe unintentionally).
My point is entirely that when you recognize past prophets are a product of their time, the same applies to current prophets and what they're asking you to dogmatically defend today. In other words, the dogmatic and fundamentalist apologists in 1977 would have been justifying the Church's racism that it has since (thankfully) disavowed today. I think the Church's racist leaders also have the added complication of ignoring the Book of Mormon's clear admonition that "all are alike unto God," as well as a multitude of New Testament scriptures that should have clearly told them that God isn't a racist. To put it simply: I have no use for "prophets" that can be so very wrong about something so simple, and I would not trust their successors to be any more accurate in speaking for God than the past leaders were.
@@reddish22 I'll agree that if you're going to be consistant you've got to recognize that current prophets could make major mistakes on that level. So it does mean that, to some extent, you do have to pick and choose what modern prophets say (on a certain significant level). However, that doesn't mean that there's no value in what they have to say or nothing worth listening to. For instance, David Hume was also a pretty huge racist. That doesn't mean nothing he said was worth listening to.
And it's not like Brigham Young didn't have anything valuable to say or worth listening to. I know that the popular discourse surrounding Brigham Young (including in a lot of believing Mormon circles) likes to zoom in on his faults/flaws and minimize (and/or ignore) his positive attributes/accomplishments (which were also huge). However, when you seriously research/learn about Brigham Young on a much more serious level than just what the popular discourse surrounding him on the internet is you quickly find out that he was a much more sympathetic historic figure than the 'cowboy Hitler of the west' image that he's often painted as by popular discourse
@@danielstark8356 I didn’t say what they say has no value. But when some apologists (exactly as I was discussing in context) demand loyalty to what “the Brethren say,” they’re standing on the shaky foundation based upon the past track record.
I never said that means everything they say should be discounted. But it does mean nothing they say can be held as absolute simply because they say it. Because the reality is past prophets said things with the same justification and turned out to be wrong, even according to the Church today.
Stephen I love you man, but Just because someone asks how you are doing doesn’t mean they aren’t actively trying to destroy others faith. If John was truly intellectually honest he would have just as many believing members on his channel, but he doesn’t. You can be a nice person and still actively seeking to destroy others faith.
Bro saw an episode of Southpark and lost his faith , thats craaaaazy
I actually said the opposite. South Park was just the first time I heard about the rock in the hat. I reconciled those doubts and served a mission, attended BYU, got sealed on the Temple, worked at the MTC, and ended my time in the Church as the adult gospel doctrine teacher.
@user-id9hn8ol7t I'm praying for you brother along with all the members who lose there faith. "We heeded them not" is very CRUCIAL! I have a cousin who has a similar story to your's except the ces letter got to him , he indeed heeded the voices. The dangerous part about him and you and other members who lose their faith is that you guys have those GOOD core values and morals , this can be dangerous because it won't let you see the world for what it really is, and not seeing the wolrd for what it truly is will make it hard for one to see the truth of the restored gospel of jesus christ. I left the church at 15 not in doubt of the church but just wanted to experience all the "cool" stuff parties, drugs, gambling, drinking ect. The core values and morals i had but I still followed the world's view of happiness, I believe this is how I was able to see the TRUTHS of the restored gospel . Little by little I started to mature on my own and one new years resolution brought a revelation to me. This is the lords kingdom here on earth, I was given the gift of a testimony and witness. I say again it's hard to see the truths of the church if you don't see the world for what it truly is and what it truly offers. I returned back to the gospel last year in January 15 years later , I'm 32 now . Nothing that I ever did has brought me more peace and true joy like the restored gospel of jesus chirst .
@@VICTOR7oh2I am sincerely happy that you found something that brings your life meaning and purpose.
But for me-I’ve seen firsthand that the Church as an institution is willing to engage in conduct I believe is abhorrent. I wouldn’t tolerate it from a terrible for-profit company, let alone the true Church of Jesus Christ.
Ultimately, my morals led me out of the Church. I didn’t leave because it was cool or because I wanted it not to be true. Leaving the Church collapsed my entire world. Even if you don’t agree with my ultimate conclusion, this is not a decision someone would make lightly or trivially. It would have been far easier and more comfortable for my life to stay-but someone taught me too well, I suppose, to “do what is right let the consequence follow.” I couldn’t stay quiet about policies that cause harm to children that could be changed to prevent some additional abuse.
That reality is what really caused me to study and evaluate the Church’s truth claims. I’m glad the Church is working for you. Stay informed about it and choose to be there if you want-but it’s never going to work for me again.
@user-id9hn8ol7t it wasn't just "something" it is THE thing , that is jesus christ. Nothing on earth has the power to bring you "meaning and purpose" than truth . There is multiple ways to happiness here on earth but only 1 to true and everlasting happiness , anything outside of truth always comes to an end. "I am THE way" , only 1 way. You left the church actually means you left the gospel of jesus christ . You are claiming it isn't the gospel of christ yet now where is christ for you? Just in you're head? You left so now where will you go? Leave christ all together? . Doesn't add up because of truth , going againts truth never adds up.
No simulation theory? Weird...all the big guys in scientism love their (imho wrong/ materialist) sim theory.