What if you want the church to be true,

[Guest TJane]

Oh, and one other thing that I think is ludicrous...to the persons who honestly believe that its better to die than lose your virtue obviously have never been faced with that proposition. Neither have I. But when I have children, I would NEVER teach them that. Do any of you seriously believe that?

I don't know if I said I would teach my children that I'd prefer they come home in body bags than in a state of sin that needed repenting of. I did mention that I had heard the phrase when I was being taught. I think the phrase was used to emphasis the importance of keeping oneself morally clean at all times, not that if you made a mistake, you might as well be dead. Because repentence is always possible (even if sometimes the consequences of losing that virtue are long lasting and emotionally painful forever).

But I do teach my children that their virture (and integrity) are as important as their lives, as when they lose it (or willfully toss it aside), it will take many long hours/days/years to repent from sins they know from an early age *are* sins. And that there will be those who will never trust them again no matter how much our Heavenly Father will forgive them when they repent, people being who they are.

I'm related to a number of LDS children who have been (and may be again) shuddering in their boots because of immoral activities of their own choosing - and personally, I think they should shudder in their boots - not because their parents would rather see them dead (which I agree is not very likely) but because of the seriousness of their sins and the hard work it is to repent and get away from such sins - especially when society doesn't hold these activities to be wrong. It's hard enough to repent when you have support from those around you. It's even harder (according to some of those children I've mentioned) when all around you, you are being told that it's not something that you need to repent of.

Jane

I now return you all to the main topic of this thread which is how LDS-believing members might look at (see: judge) someone who is no longer believing.

[Abulafia]

Charity said:

We should all love Jesus and our Heavenly Father above anyone else. When

[kolobian]

Its a really puzzling sort of thing to me, this 'whom can you love?' business

[charity]

Abulafia wrote: "Charity, I thought the whole point was that we showed our love for heavenly father by how we loved others."

I was talking about the romantic love for a partner, not the brotherly love for others. I think we do show our love for Heavenly Father by brotherly love. But this is not the love that we have for a marriage partner. There are a lot of people I can love as my brother, but certainly not want to marry!

The Abulafia quoted me again. Charity said: "The idea that love of an individual exceeds everything else is romantic nonsense. We love God, and we hold to principles which may dictate who we can or cannot love." Abulafia responded, "I am uncomfortable with what you state here Charity. I don't know a God that says you love this person but you can't love that person. In fact He seemed to go the whole Kit and Caboodle and say we even had to love our enemies."

Again, I was speaking of the love for a marriage partner. Abulafia then wrote: "I can only speak from personal experience, that I married my partner because of their qualities of character. Lovingness, gentleness, honesty, even-tempered, family orientated, intellectual and so forth."

Exactly what I was trying to say, and evidently not doing a good job of it. You said, "I married my partner because of their qualities of character." Exactly what I was trying to say. They had certain qualities of character. Your character demanded of you that you look for a person of similar character. Would you have seriously considered as a marriage partner a person who did not have those qualities you named? Who was mean spirited, refused to be educated, hated family responsibilties, was dishonest? That was what I was trying to say about who you would or would not love.

[charity]

Kolobian wrote: "Its a really puzzling sort of thing to me, this 'whom can you love?' business "

I hope what I said to Abulafia helps with this confusion. We can "fall in love with" people we would never "love" as a marriage partner. Some psychologists have suggested a different term, limerence (pitty pat heart, "isn't he the most wonderful person" swoon, swoon), so we don't confuse it with love.

True love, the love that sustains a marriage, depends on much more than the surface qualities that cause limerence. You may develop limerance for almost anyone, but you only love because of qualities of character. That is what I meant by whom we can love. A person who is honest, caring, hard working, fun loving, reverent toward God, may have a pitty pat heart for someone who has none of those qualities. But they will not love, as a lifelong partner, someone who is dishonest, who disrespects God, is lazy, etc. But they may feel brotherly love for that dishonest person.

[pezp]

why cant it be the other way around?? or aswell....if his wife truly loves him she should also support him the same way he should support her....she`ll feel more bad because she feels betrayed and her husband is leaving the church or she`ll feel worse making her husband live a fake life???

[charity]

pezp, She could support him some ways, but remember who is changing the rules in the middle of the game. He is. Even if he has decided he now wants a different type of life than he contracted for, he has no right to demand that she follow him.

[Abulafia]

pezp, She could support him some ways, but remember who is changing the rules in the middle of the game.

[flameburns623]

Redman:

If it is of any help to you, I'm in a similar situation. There is so much to love about the CoJCoLDS that I would love to regain a testimony of the Church in a way that does NOT require me to supress my intelligence and common sense. I don't know if I can suggest to you any successful way to do this.

My personal situation is almost opposite of yours however. I am a convert, with no one in my family belonging to the Church. My wife's father is an Independent Baptist minister-- what is sometimes known as a 'hard-shell Baptist'. My wife would not leave me over the Church--she studied with the Missionaries for a brief time after we were married for a couple of years, while I struggled to regain a testimony. She found the whole thing ridiculous, though she also found the members of the LDS Church endearing. She says she can see why I would want to be a member.

BUT my wife is also a wash-and-wear sort of a woman who hates to dress up to go to church--she prefers non-denominational 'seeker-sensitive' churches where folks show up dressed in pretty much anything. She hates formality--the three-hour bloc of Ward services, in an obligatory long skirt or dress, was a killer for her, but even Sacrament meeting seemed to her more of an opportunity to take an uncomfortable nap. Fast & Testimony Sunday was a real drag a bunch of weepy people telling strangers how much they love God and the Church and their families, every testimony sounding like it was the same script modified only enough to suit individual situations. What really iced the cake was the Missionary Discussion on the coming forth of the Book of Mormon--she thinks it ludicrous that people believe in a book supposedly translated miraculously from gold plates which only a dozen or so people ever claim to have seen.

Once her dad and mom set into her with anti-Mormon literature, this pretty much closed the issue. My wife is NOT well-read nor fond of learning for it's own sake, but she can get the gist of an issue if she focuses on it. She was suspicious of the Joseph Smith story already, and what she heard from her Dad and Mom fueled those suspicions. She didn't buy into at least some of what her folks said against the Church either, but she isn't going to create a big schism in the family over which church we attend. I would be welcome to go to the LDS Church myself if I chose but she and our daughter (who found LDS Sunday School to be the epitome of boring) want little or nothing to do with it.

ADDENDUM: A big part of my reason for coming here was to try to address some of the intellectual issues which come up about Mormonism. I think there is a need to recognize that there is a portion of having a testimony which DOES require that one have a fundamental trust in the evidence for Mormonism, which DOES require that one see the teachings of the LDS Church as reasonable and credible.

To some extent environment may influence this: I was raised in an Evangelical/fundamentalist household, in the independent Christian Churches of Campbellite fame. Part of my affinity for Mormonism may well be that it has historical and even theological links to the same Campbellite/Seekerist/Restorationist movment in which I was raised.

That same upbringing may be part of the reason I find obstacles to sustaining belief in the LDS Church. I was raised to have a fundamental trust in the integrity and inspiration of the Holy Bible: most Mormons, TBM's or otherwise, have a fundamental distrust in the Bible. They adhere to an open canon, they embrace modern revelation largely BECAUSE they feel that the ancient Scriptures are not fully trustworthy unless continually supplemented and even abridged by modern-day prophets. Mormons tend to QUOTE the Bible as if they were Evangelicals but if one looks more deeply into how they perceive the Bible--they really buy into a lot of liberal ideas about how corrupt and untrustworthy it is. That sort of attitude, when it was articulated, was a jarring, dissonant sort of thing for me and probably was one of the first things which ultimately jaundiced me towards the Church.

You of course haven't had this problem: as I understand it, you were raised in and remain part of an active and believing family of Mormons. So you got to where you are along a somewhat different trail than I have gotten to where I am. It may well be that you are simply going through a 'dark night of the soul' a period of life in which you question everything you once were taught only so that you can emerge on the other side with a stronger and deeper faith. It well behooves you to remain as faithful as possible for as long as possible to all that you can: continue to read the Scriptures and to pray, read good and uplifting books as often as possible, continue to live life as much like a faithful Mormon as possible. DO NOT betray your personal integrity by giving testimony to things you cannot and do not believe, but recognize what you like and respect about the LDS faith. Look for opportunities to serve that don't require you to give testimony to things you don't believe--volunteer at the Bishop's Storehouse, work in the ward library, or just clean the chapel every week. Read apologetic works and/or simply faith-affirming books on topics which trouble you and see if your doubts and questions subside over time. I am NOT suggesting that you systematically avoid anything which might cause you to question your faith, but simply that you may find that your current state of mind will pass over time unless you willfully walk away from those things which will allow you to recover your faith.

Because, in addition to the 'felt' aspect of a testimony, the subjective part where you feel 'good' about what you believe and do as a Mormon ( a lot of which might be influenced by cultural factors and upbringing); in addition to the intellectual part of a testimony, where few things loom large in your mind as obstacles to belief and those which remain are matters which do not upset your fundamental trust in the teachings of the Church; in addition to these aspects of a testimony, there is also the aspect of 'will'. At some point YOU and YOU ALONE have to decide that YOU WANT TO BELIEVE. Or, conversely, that you DON'T. I don't know how you get to the place where you can sort those aspects out and then live out your life as either believing or as unbelieving. But I do know that great Saints in history have been where you are and have found at least part of the answer in slogging on with gritted teeth until one day the doubts vanished and faith came rushing in again like a tide.

Hope this helps.

[redman]

I feel sad.  I wish with all my heart they had stuck it out because these people do move on with their lives, most of them don't do any great evil, but they don't seem to be involved in doing much good either.  They just exist.  It's almost like they lose their purpose in life.

Ouch!! Do really believe that most non-Mormons and ex-Mormons simply exist without meaning?

My testimony has been in trouble for years (the doubts piling up on the shelf i mentioned earlier). During those years, i've nearly completed medical school, been involved in community service, cultivated a great marriage, became a father, enjoyed hobbies, traveled, and been a supportive son and sibling to my family in some tough times.

Give me a break man. That kind of generalization is outrageous. I think what happens is that active members don't see the ex-mormons at church and meetings for dozens of hours a week anymore and just assume they are doing nothing useful with their lives.

Do you really think that raising a family and having a career are not good things? It seems that your definition of good means going to church, doing home teaching, and doing member missionary work.

IMHO, there are lots of ways to do good in this world, and you don't have to be Mormon to do it.

[Abulafia]

I feel sad.

[asbestosman]

Redman, I think I can understand the problem of wanting to believe. I think I have a hard time recognizing and discerning the Spirit. Maybe some of us were given a bigger challenge than others in this regard. If that's the case, I think God will take that into account on judgment day. Obviously some people end up with various emotional and mental challenges on Earth. Is it too crazy to suggest that we can be born with spiritual challenges?

Maybe those of us with this curse have a blessing in disguise. I think it makes it easier for me to have sympathy/empathy for those facing such challenges. I would never presume to judge somone in your situation. But for the grace of God go I there.

Be very careful about what choices you make. Mighty Curelom pointed out how it is possible to brainwash yourself. I don't recommend that. I think he makes a salient point, but I'd like to use it in a way he probably didn't intend. Be careful not to brainwash yourself (or artificially reinforce the idea) that there is no true church, even if you come to that conclusion. Be careful not to artificially reinforce the idea that you finally found the Truth (as much as possible) to the point that it becomes even more difficult to accept the church in case it is true. Belief may be involuntary, but we can influence it by what environment we choose to place ourselves in.

It is tempting to want your spouse to see things from your perspective. She will probably wish to distance herself from that. This can be a great source of conflict. How you be close to someone with whom you can't share the details of an important struggle? Yet it is best not to force her to understand all the details. Answer her questions sincerely, but don't pull punches on the church. See if you can explain frustration without demonizing the leaders (a great temptation). I know it's not "fair," but please still try to see things from her perspective.

Maybe at the heart of your search for truth is a desire for an unbiased, flawless method of determining truth. Science has served us well in many fields including medicine. Using science different people will arrive at the same answer. Shouldn't the same thing hold true for something as important as religion? Maybe there are too many hidden variables for everyone to always get the same answer. Even in science, sometime results are discarded as experimental error.

I also despise guilt trips. I can only imagine how many you must have received. The people who give them may just be upset, or they may mean well. Some of it may even be deserved. Try not to let an overdose of these cause you to harden your heart.

If you leave the church, it is not my place to judge you. Maybe you will end up in a better place than I will. Knowing me, I can only hope so.

[redman]

thanks asbestos man. that's excellent advice.

[Fatherof4]

Redman and Flamburns,

I know that my message got a little "buried" with some of the other responses. The discussion seemed to get off topic. There is some good advice in there if you just think through it. Reading broader literature helps nonmembers and members alike to appreciate the breadth of beliefs that have been included in Christianity. I especially liked "Church History in Plain Language" by Bruce L. Shelley and "The Story of Christian Theology" by Roger E. Olson. Any of the newer writings by Bart Ehrman or Elaine Pagels give some perspective about the diversity of early Christianity. These readings have helped me immensely in my beliefs about Mormonism. Robert Millets "A Different Jesus" has also been helpful. I hope this information is useful and may you find peace in your search.

Fatherof4

[redman]

Redman,

I too am new to the board.  I am a physician so I empathize with the whole being on call on a holiday situation.  My kids and others in my ward have come to me with some of these same kinds of questions.  I remember being a returned missionary and thinking that my "shelf of doubts" was going to break.  I can tell you over the years that almost every item has slowly been removed from the shelf.  It has not always been in the way that I would have imagined and has involved me looking at the gospel in new ways.  Let me explain.

As a soon to be physician you are schooled in the scientific method.  You have used that same method to find "objective" information about the church.  This method has failed me at times.  Information that I was taught as "dogma" in medical school has changed.  Sometimes the answers are not in the books or the patient has a situation that is not quite in the textbooks.  I search my books, but don't find the answer.  Then I go to God and ask him what I can do.  I have had flashes of inspiration and thoughts brought back to my memory which have enabled me to help someone.  I believe there is information available outside of the standard scientific inquiry that I have had the opportunity to have been channeled into by my affiliation with the church.

Don't get me wrong, I am a skeptical hard-hitting, fact-finding person.  I believe that the scientific method has done much good for mankind, but also possibly some wrong.  I am especially humbled as we enter a new age of capability in genetic engineering.  Many techniques and procedures will be able to be performed.  Science can only answer that the technology is there, not whether it should be used or not.  Science then looks back to the theologian, philosophers and lawmakers for guidance into these tricky issues.  Science can only say something can be done, not whether it is right or wrong.  Science by its very nature cannot tell us the morality of an issue, only the so called facts.

Next point.  The more I have read about the world at large, the more I see that there is a place for the LDS within the world.  I wanted to know about Christian theology so I read "The Story of Christian Theology" by Roger E. Olson.  Bart Ehrman's books have also been interesting.  Others such as Elaine Pagels, John Sanders, Clark Pinnock and Karen Armstrong have helped me to see many of the issues of the have evolved within Christianity over time.  When I traveled to Europe there was so much fascinating history and new ways of looking at things.  An introductory text about world history made me see myself and the church in entirely different ways.  When I was troubled by polygamy I read a book called "Religion and Sexuality" by Lawrence Foster.  It was a helpful book, but more helpful when I read the chapters about the Oneida Perfectionists and the Shakers in addition to the parts about polygamy. 

Next.  As your understanding broadens you may need to look at issues within Mormonism differently.  I would caution you to not draw conclusions to rapidly.  I thought I knew alot of about polygamy and still do.  I am just reading the book about "Joseph Smith and the annointed quorums."  My impression from reading about half of the book is that Joseph was much more concerned about training others and setting up the temple endowment than he was about polygamy.  I think polygamy was part of a much bigger picture.  I had read extensively about Smith's polygamy and tried to withhold judgement and to be sympathetic.  As I am reading this books I am amazed at how much energy he was putting into training others about the ordinances at building the temple.  To focus on polygamy causes you to lose sight of the bigger issues. 

Similar issues have come up with the Book of Mormon.  The Book of Mormon makes me a better and person and brings me closer to Christ.  Is there extensive proof about its historicity.  There is some evidence in the Arabian penninsula and some interesting tidbits from the new world.  The DNA evidence is interesting, but doesn't seem to exclude the possibility of Book of Mormon people.  It has made us look at the Book of Mormon in the new ways.  Is it literal history, a modern expansion of an ancient text, a tribal history, symbolic history or inspired fiction.  I have read about these issues and lean towards the modern expansion of an ancient history.  In the end the books feeds my soul and comforts me.  As I get older this seems to be more important than having to know every detail about its historicity.

My advice.  Put down some of the more "objective" or possibly negative history about the church.  Concentrate on the scriptures and history of the world at large.  After you finish your residency there will be a time where you can start to read some more about the church and be able to clear out that shelf of doubt some more.  You'll be able to read with some more life experience and also some more grounding in the world at large.  I don't think you are evil for questioning.  As a physician you are constantly questioning and probing.  I do think that reading objectively is as important and reading only faith promoting church literature has its own problems.  It is a complex topic and needs to be digested slowly and within the largest context possible.  Finally, I know that if you will hang in there and also work to make the spirit part of your life, that you will be blessed immensely.  I don't know if this helpful or even off the mark, but it is basically what I have been through in answering similar questions.

fatherof4,

thanks for your post. i did see it earlier and i just didn't have time to respond yet. i appreciate you taking the time to share your insights with. and i'm glad that you've read so much and still found a place for the LDS church in your life.

i guess where i run into trouble with your advice is when you reccomend just plugging away through residency (3-5 more years) and then reexamining everything again then. my situation now has been years in the making and i don't want to fester like this for several more years.

from what i gather from your comments (and correct me if i'm wrong) you feel comfortable that the LDS church provides goodness to your life and that it has a place in the world, and that is good enough for you, whether it's true or not. i just don't share that philosophy unfortunately.

i really do appreciate your insight as a physician. i used to look at people like yourself (scientist + well-versed in world history, etc) and think "if that person can believe, then so can I."

as for your advice to be careful in drawing conclusions, i feel like i've been pretty careful up to this point. in fact, i only started reading outside sources about the church after many years of being uncomfortable and confused by the internal contradictions and problems with mormonism. the things i have read didn't cause me to lose my testimony, they basically just confirmed conclusions i was drawing and feelings i was having.

as for viewing things in a larger context, it seems to have the opposite effect on me as it does on you. the more acquainted i become with the world and it's history the more i see the lds church in a very different and not-so-good way.

but anyway, thanks for your response. and i will read some of those books on early christianity. that sounds interesting.

[Pahoran]

Another interesting thought that goes to the control of information and how the explosion of information that is just mouse clicks away will change the church as we know it, meaning, there will be more and more who will have legitimate doubts and feel trapped and will either live a life of quiet desperation and fake it, go inactive, or leave altogether:

[ur1drfl2]

=redman,Sep 6 2005, 09:36 AM][quote

Ouch!! Do really believe that most non-Mormons and ex-Mormons simply exist without meaning?

My testimony has been in trouble for years (the doubts piling up on the shelf i mentioned earlier). During those years, i've nearly completed medical school, been involved in community service, cultivated a great marriage, became a father, enjoyed hobbies, traveled, and been a supportive son and sibling to my family in some tough times.

Give me a break man. That kind of generalization is outrageous. I think what happens is that active members don't see the ex-mormons at church and meetings for dozens of hours a week anymore and just assume they are doing nothing useful with their lives.

Do you really think that raising a family and having a career are not good things? It seems that your definition of good means going to church, doing home teaching, and doing member missionary work.

IMHO, there are lots of ways to do good in this world, and you don't have to be Mormon to do it.

--------------------

No you don't have to be Mormon to do good in the world, and I feel your suggestion that members simply lose contact with ex-Mormons and thus have a skewed notion of the turns their lives take is likewise outrageous. That is a generalization if I ever heard one.

And no, I don't think non-Mormons simply exist without meaning. Re-read my earlier post: I'm talking about ex-Mormons. There aren't many in my ward to begin with, but I haven't lost contact with them when they leave the Church. Some are my neighbors and we will always be friends. (Kinda like ShelleyJean's earlier post )

Sure these ex-Mormons' lives fill up with things that keep them busy, many of these things are good, but it seems to me that they lose their spiritual drive/focus. They simply exist and go through the routines of everyday life, not pressing forward any longer in that quest for oneness with God. And I've wondered if leaving the Church makes them want to erase God and their duty to Him entirely from their lives? Maybe you or some of the ex-Mormons on this board could answer this question for me.

You are to be commended for your good achievements and your devotion to family, but these alone do not open the door to the celestial kingdom. I guess in the end you must ask yourself what do you really want from this mortal experience, the greatest test of your eternal life?

[Bertram]

LIGHT BULB ON!

Copyright © 1997 Catholic Information Network (CIN)- December 20, 1997.

Father Mateo:

....Marriage has two purposes of equal standing which cannot be seperated:

1. The personal union and fulfillment of the partners;

2. The perpetuation of the human race through having children.

The scond purpose cannot be achieved after death.

THEREFORE, DEATH DISSOLVES THE MARRIAGE.

LIGHT BULB OFF!

[charity]

Abulafia wrote: "Okay, Charity, People grow and people change that's a risk in life for everyone.???? If Redman becomes more loving, and a more happy, authentic person, isn't that good for the marriage, rather than living a lie...."

I never suggested he live a lie. He doesn't have to believe. He doesn't have to serve in the Church. He doesn't have to read the Book of Mormon every day. But I did suggest that he support his wife in the life he promised her when they married

Abulafia wrote: "and why do you feel it neccessary to separate qualities of character and being active believing LDS???? Maybe Redman's qualities of character havn't changed one hoot, not in any important sense anyway."

I was referring to making a marriage commitment in the first place, not what happens when the commitment is already made. And certainly the desireable qualities of character are not limited to LDS. Redman is not doubt still a man of character, with many good character qualities. But he is lacking one important character asset that he used to have. His faith in God.

Is there something I didn't explain? Do you still not understand my attitude?

[Paul Osborne]

Book of Abraham issues

I don't agree with most LDS regarding the points of controversy. Please check out my website:

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id3.htm

Paul O

[backontrack]

hi redman. I've been where you are at. Your first post could have been mine awhile back. I've been active on a number of boards and have taken the apologetic stance simply to see if my faith can stand up under scrutiny. It has. The only advice I have to give after all of the other posts is to hang in there and give it more time. I've been on a similar path to yours for over ten years and have just recently been able to start functioning with a sense of integrity in having a hopeful faith in the truth claims of the LDS church. I've been up and down many challenging paths and have come nip and tuck a few times to bagging the whole church thing. I'm glad that I didn't.

I now have a son that has decided to go on a mission. I'm glad he's going, I think he'll be going about doing an important part of God's work here on the earth.

Tweaking my assumptions about how the world operates and how God may go about doing his work, in and out of the church, has been integral to fitting the church program/organization within the realms of playing an important part in God's purposes here on the earth.

good luck.

backontrack

[charity]

Glad to hear about your journey, backontrack. I sounds like it was a difficult time. But a happy ending to your story.

[Dill Pickles]

No you don't have to be Mormon to do good in the world, and I feel your suggestion that members simply lose contact with ex-Mormons and thus have a skewed notion of the turns their lives take is likewise outrageous. That is a generalization if I ever heard one.

from the Pickle jar: And yet, it's entirely possible that redman is right, however generally. In general, many Mormons associate with mostly other Mormons. In general, if ex-Mormons (or even many members) move, their former ward associations no longer keep track of them. We are a mobile society. It stands to reason that if the majority of individuals has more than 5 different jobs in their lifetime, then they'll probably live in more than one place in that lifetime, and when they move, they lose contact with their former neighbors, ward members, and work colleagues. My son, a Dill Pickle with ties to the home jar if there ever was one, told me just last weekend that he and his dear wife had moved 10 times in the first 5 yrs of their marriage. With that kind of mobility, normally, the only people individual try to maintain contact with after moving is family and friends of longstanding.

And no, I don't think non-Mormons simply exist without meaning.  Re-read my earlier post:  I'm talking about ex-Mormons.  There aren't many in my ward to begin with, but I haven't lost contact with them when they leave the Church.  Some are my neighbors and we will always be friends.  (Kinda like ShelleyJean's earlier post  )

from the Pickle jar: I'm wondering why you feel there is such a gap between non-Mormons and ex-Mormons. Non-Mormons may not be ex-Mormons, but ex-Mormons are definitely non-Mormons. What if your neighbors move away? Would you ever lose track of them?

Sure these ex-Mormons' lives fill up with things that keep them busy, many of these things are good, but it seems to me that they lose their spiritual drive/focus.  They simply exist and go through the routines of everyday life, not pressing forward any longer in that quest for oneness with God.  And I've wondered if leaving the Church makes them want to erase God and their duty to Him entirely from their lives?  Maybe you or some of the ex-Mormons on this board could answer this question for me.

And you base this observation on your own experience, right? My experience is different. Which is more valid? Both? Neither? As a matter of my own experience, I've seen relatively few active LDS pressing forward in any quest for oneness with God. Mostly what I see is people putting one foot in front of the other, making it through this life one day at a time, trying their best to raise their families the way they feel is most productive. That may include church, Little League, 4-H, babysitting class, hunter safety school, and family movie night. Their ex-Mormon neighbor probably has the same schedule. He just attends church at a different address.

Neither is making many strides in bulking up their spiritual muscles, from outward appearances. You would likely say the Mormon is no doubt having family prayer, family scripture study, and family home evening. I'm likely to assume they're watching the football game with lots of other people on Monday nights (just because that's my experience, you understand.) If the Mormons were doing what they were supposed to, there would be no conference addresses telling us to shape up. But since there are lots of conference addresses telling us to shape up, I'm pretty sure I'm at least in the ballpark with this one.

You are to be commended for your good achievements and your devotion to family, but these alone do not open the door to the celestial kingdom.  I guess in the end you must ask yourself what do you really want from this mortal experience, the greatest test of your eternal life?

You make three assumptions with this paragraph. You assume redman believes in the celestial kingdom, you assume he thinks there is an eternal life, and you assume he thinks this life is a test. All those assumptions as they relate to redman are without foundation. You have nothing to base them on. Any non-LDS person who is striving for the CK needs to get baptised right away. No one else believes that it exists, so how can they be striving for it? They're just trying to do the best they can with the hand that's been dealt to them. Should we fault them for that?

[Fatherof4]

Redman,

I think you generally get the gist of my response. The "get through your residency" and then take up your mormon studies has as more to do with just taking some time off from thinking about the issues. Try to withhold judgement for awhile and give it some thought. I think someone else pointed out that you'll find many of the same issues with other religions or organizations that you do with Mormonism. I want to say again that I don't think you are evil or doing anything inherently wrong. Make sure that you are giving ample time to both sides. I am sure that you are suffering and this is all weighing on your mind. Jeff Burton's book "For Those Who Doubt" is often advertised on Sunstone. Jeff lives in Bountiful and has talked to many people in your situation. He writes a column for Sunstone on a regular basis. There is a way through this without feeling like you have to dump your brains out onto the street. Best wishes and God bless.

Fatherof4

[redman]

No you don't have to be Mormon to do good in the world, and I feel your suggestion that members simply lose contact with ex-Mormons and thus have a skewed notion of the turns their lives take is likewise outrageous.  That is a generalization if I ever heard one.

from the Pickle jar: And yet, it's entirely possible that redman is right, however generally. In general, many Mormons associate with mostly other Mormons. In general, if ex-Mormons (or even many members) move, their former ward associations no longer keep track of them. We are a mobile society. It stands to reason that if the majority of individuals has more than 5 different jobs in their lifetime, then they'll probably live in more than one place in that lifetime, and when they move, they lose contact with their former neighbors, ward members, and work colleagues. My son, a Dill Pickle with ties to the home jar if there ever was one, told me just last weekend that he and his dear wife had moved 10 times in the first 5 yrs of their marriage. With that kind of mobility, normally, the only people individual try to maintain contact with after moving is family and friends of longstanding.

And no, I don't think non-Mormons simply exist without meaning.