What They Talk About: Christians "Poaching" Ex-Mormons

[Pyreaux]

I've been trying to think of new Topics, but the news is too slow and shallow. So, I've chose to take a look at the Anti-Mormon forums just to see what 'they've been talking about'. It seems there’s been a recent wave of exasperation on Reddit (especially on r/exmormon) directed at evangelical Christians who show up in ex-Mormon spaces trying to "witness" or "save" them. Evangelical Christians have been trying to engage with ex‑Mormon communities but are often viewed as pandering or disrespectful. One such Eva Ant-Mo post drew strong reactions with observations like:

“Evangelicals … think they can come here to save us with anti Mormon info. They have no idea who they're talking to.” 

Critics cite a lack of understanding and tone-deaf messaging more than theological nuance. Christian-focused critiques are often seen as condescending. These Christian posters often assume that by helping someone deconstruct Mormonism, they’ve opened the door to true Christianity - usually Protestant, often Reformed or Evangelical. They may bring scripture-heavy arguments, testimonies about “finding Jesus,” and strong attacks on LDS theology. I guess they think they are doing a service by dragging Mormonism through the mud assuming it makes Christianity look better by contrast.

But here’s the catch: A large majority of ex-Mormons on Reddit and elsewhere didn’t just leave Mormonism - they left religion entirely. They didn’t swap temples for churches. They left the whole structure behind.

The Irony

Christian critics have been some of the loudest anti-Mormon voices for decades. From Chick tracts to the GodMakers to modern YouTube apologists, they’ve hammered the LDS Church as an evil cult and a devilish gospel. But now, that ex-Mormons deconvert and show up online, they're running to scientism, secularism, humanism, therapy, or just plain nihilism. They helped create the Ex-mo movement and now they want to claim them?

Shared Frustration - LDS and Ex-Mo Alike

Here’s what’s wild - the general vibe toward Christian anti-Mormons tends to be perceived the same no matter where you stand: They're still loud, repetitive, weirdly obsessed, often uninformed about what Mormons actually believe, and always try and assume they’re the first to tell you something shocking. They don’t understand Mormonism deeply and they assume their opinions are original.

For Ex-Mormons:

Why do you think evangelicals struggle to understand Mormon and ex-Mormon minds?

Has a Christian ever tried to “convert” you after you left Mormonism? How did it go?

Is there a respectful way for Christians to engage with you?

Do you think their critiques accidentally pushed you toward secularism instead?

What makes Christian anti-Mormonism so uniquely off-putting to a modern Ex-Mormon?

Questions for the rest of the Forum:

Why do you think evangelical Christians have been so focused on not 'converting' but 'deconverting' Mormons for so long?

Have your encounters with Christian "preaching" been so off putting, that even if it affected you, you'd never join them?

Do you think your perception of the Church today is shaped more by secular or Christian critics?

How should faithful members respond when Christian groups use LDS-specific issues to discredit your spiritual witness?

Do you think these outside attacks on the Church strengthens or weakens your testimony of God?

Is the Unholy Alliance of Anti-Mormon Christians and Atheists over?

Edited July 30, 2025 by Pyreaux

[ttribe]

I don't have the time answer all of your questions as an exmo, but I will tell you this - I served my mission in TN and KY from 91-93. Even before my faith collapse, I knew evangelical Christianity would never be a viable option for me. I saw how these people lived their lives in large concentrations, I familiarized myself with their interpretations of the Bible and other doctrine, and I interacted with them daily and felt their disdain (not concern...disdain). When they march into exmo spaces and attempt to "help" us TRULY understand the Bible, it's a non-starter. More often that not, we know way more than they do. One side effect of teaching us what was wrong with other Christian faiths when we were LDS is that when we lost our faith and trust in the LDS Church, it thrust the majority of us straight into secularism. It's extremely difficult to unsee the criticisms of most of Christianity we grew up with throughout our lives.

[MrShorty]

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Why do you think evangelical Christians have been so focused on not 'converting' but 'deconverting' Mormons for so long?

I can't say why, but, back on my mission in my first encounters with these kinds of Evangelicals, I immediately felt like their main interest was that they would be happier to see me be atheist than Mormon. It was a few years ago that I ran across an essay by Mormonism Research Ministry (MRM) that said essentially the same thing. They were concerned that Christians were putting too much effort into deconverting Mormons without given them good reasons to convert into Biblical Christianity. Based on that one essay, I think the reason is something unintentional. I expect that most Christians assume that, if they can convince someone to deconvert from the LDS church, it will be automatic for that person to drift into broader Christianity. Statistically speaking, I don't think the assumption is born out. Many LDS when the deconvert, prefer to join the "nones" or move into agnosticism/atheism.

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Have your encounters with Christian "preaching" been so off putting, that even if it affected you, you'd never join them?

"Never" is a pretty strong word. I doubt I could say "never." However, so much of the root of my "faith crisis" is rooted in prophetic fallibility and scriptural errancy that I doubt I could join any that insist on believing some kind of Biblical inerrancy. I can see branches of Christianity that have a better handle on Biblical errancy than others, and those would be the ones I would be attracted to.

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Do you think your perception of the Church today is shaped more by secular or Christian critics?

I would say secular critics.

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

How should faithful members respond when Christian groups use LDS-specific issues to discredit your spiritual witness?

I might need an example of what you have in mind here. Personally, I think my response will depend on the specific issue. Some issues, I would probably agree with the critic, while I would disagree on other issues. A lot of my response would probably depend on whether my counterpart seems interested in exploring truth and right and goodness, or they might seem solely interested in contradicted whatever I might believe.

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Do you think these outside attacks on the Church strengthens or weakens your testimony of God?

I would say no effect.

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Is the Unholy Alliance of Anti-Mormon Christians and Atheists over?

Unknown.

[Pyreaux]

25 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I might need an example of what you have in mind here. Personally, I think my response will depend on the specific issue. Some issues, I would probably agree with the critic, while I would disagree on other issues. A lot of my response would probably depend on whether my counterpart seems interested in exploring truth and right and goodness, or they might seem solely interested in contradicted whatever I might believe.

I see the game as Testimony Targeting by Proxy: Targeting unrelated doctrinal/historical “gotchas”, then using the fallout to undermine the converted’s trust in their own spiritual experience.

Let’s say a Latter-day Saint convert or teen bears a simple, heartfelt testimony:

“I know the Church is true. I felt the Spirit so strongly when I prayed about the Book of Mormon.”

An evangelical critic doesn’t even attack the Book of Mormon directly - instead, they go:

“What about the Book of Abraham? That’s been totally debunked - it doesn’t match the papyri at all.”

“If Joseph Smith couldn’t get that right, why trust him on anything he said?”

“Maybe that ‘spiritual confirmation’ you had was just emotion. People feel the same thing when praying in Islam too. The heart is deceptive. You can't trust feelings.”

What just happened?

The Book of Abraham issue, which the person likely hadn’t even studied, is used to retroactively cast doubt on their Book of Mormon testimony.

Then the validity of their spiritual experience itself is attacked.

However, once the witness of the Holy Ghost is dismissed, so is theism in general - often the Spirit that told them the Book of Mormon was true also told them there is a God who answers prayers. The domino effect which often leads them straight out of all religion, not toward evangelical Christianity, after all, if they're spiritual witness cannot be trusted, what will draw them there?

[MrShorty]

Even though I don't think that was an example they used, that's the kind of thing MRM was bemoaning in the essay I mentioned. They were clearly bothered by the many examples of "1 -- Christian witnesses to Mormon (using whatever 'gotcha' or prooftext or gimmick or even well reasoned issue). 2 -- Mormon deconstructs not only Mormonism but Christianity and maybe theism altogether."

It's hard for me to understand the "naive LDS" example like you shared here, because I am currently so far removed my naive days as a member of the church. If I were faced with that situation, I would probably agree that there are problems with the Book of Abraham, and different ways LDS might reconcile it (lost manuscripts or catalyst theory or whatever).

I might suggest that this is where we could all (LDS-Christian and non-LDS-Christian) talk a little bit more about "resilient" faith. In a world where faith deconstruction is a real thing as people disaffiliate from Christianity and religion, perhaps we all need to talk more about how to talk about our differences of belief in ways that both encourages critical thinking and encourages staying true to faith in some way.

Which is why I would much prefer to have a conversation like this with someone who not only wants to understand how I retain faith in spite of issues like the Book of Abraham, but also would want to share how they retain faith in spite of issues with their chosen religion/denomination. While we're talking about how I wrestle with LDS specific cognitive dissonances, how does the Evangelical deal with cognitive dissonance around Biblical inerrancy? How does the Catholic deal with issues like Papal decrees that don't reflect modern sensibilities? How do any of us deal with universal issues like the problem of evil? I find that these are the types I want to engage with. Someone who is clearly just out to present a "gotcha" issue in hopes of destabilizing my faith, who has no interest in talking about the ways that their own faith is unstable, is not interesting to me.

[ZealouslyStriving]

21 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I see the game as Testimony Targeting by Proxy: Targeting unrelated doctrinal/historical “gotchas”, then using the fallout to undermine the converted’s trust in their own spiritual experience.

Let’s say a Latter-day Saint convert or teen bears a simple, heartfelt testimony:

“I know the Church is true. I felt the Spirit so strongly when I prayed about the Book of Mormon.”

An evangelical critic doesn’t even attack the Book of Mormon directly - instead, they go:

“What about the Book of Abraham? That’s been totally debunked - it doesn’t match the papyri at all.”

“If Joseph Smith couldn’t get that right, why trust him on anything he said?”

“Maybe that ‘spiritual confirmation’ you had was just emotion. People feel the same thing when praying in Islam too. The heart is deceptive. You can't trust feelings.”

What just happened?

The Book of Abraham issue, which the person likely hadn’t even studied, is used to retroactively cast doubt on their Book of Mormon testimony.

Then the validity of their spiritual experience itself is attacked.

However, once the witness of the Holy Ghost is dismissed, so is theism in general - often the Spirit that told them the Book of Mormon was true also told them there is a God who answers prayers. The domino effect which often leads them straight out of all religion, not toward evangelical Christianity, after all, if they're spiritual witness cannot be trusted, what will draw them there?

The Church in a way contributed to this issue by teaching that "if you gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon, you'll know the rest is true." Then, when people find issues that bothers them, they throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

In my personal experience, my testimony of the Book of Mormon was a stand alone issue- so during my "faith crisis" I was free to explore the claims of the Restoration/Book of Mormon believing Churches.

We should be encouraging people to gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon and then an additional testimony of the Church itself.

Edited July 31, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Tony uk]

As an outsider looking in, I think the evangelicals, and also atheists. These people seem the LdS as a tough nut to crack, so to speak. They take the old saying, if you can't bem the join them, and twist it to, if you can't beat them try and find alternative means of breaking them.

As someone who has grown up in the Catholic faith. It seems to me when a Church is deep in history, doctrine and membership. Certain grouping of people, to compensate for their own lack of background. Go out of their way to try and subvert, directly or indirectly, the more grounded Church.

When younger I, through Church attendance (Catholic), I became familiar with a saying, Meat on the Bones. This can also be applied to LdS. Doctrine, history, following and leadership.

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, Tony uk said:

As an outsider looking in, I think the evangelicals, and also atheists. These people seem the LdS as a tough nut to crack, so to speak. They take the old saying, if you can't bem the join them, and twist it to, if you can't beat them try and find alternative means of breaking them.

As someone who has grown up in the Catholic faith. It seems to me when a Church is deep in history, doctrine and membership. Certain grouping of people, to compensate for their own lack of background. Go out of their way to try and subvert, directly or indirectly, the more grounded Church.

When younger I, through Church attendance (Catholic), I became familiar with a saying, Meat on the Bones. This can also be applied to LdS. Doctrine, history, following and leadership.

If there were one thing I'd impart to you. I believe in what I call a “Steppingstone Gospel.” That means I trust that God leads His children along a path of progression. While, as a Latter-day Saint I do believe there is one straight and narrow path - the gospel - and that it leads to eternal life. I also know that God speaks to His children in their own language, in their own time, and according to their capacity to receive. And I don't put the Holy Ghost in a box.

I don't find it inconsistent with LDS doctrine to say someone could have a real spiritual experience in another religion. If a seeker in Islam, Buddhism, or Evangelical Christianity prays sincerely and receives an answer, who am I to say God didn't answer them? Truth is truth wherever it’s found, and the Holy Ghost testifies of all truth (Moroni 10:5).

No Latter-day Saint I know would dictate what the Spirit told you, they should merely hope you try to obey the Spirit. If it told you to join Islam, I may not understand, but I'd insist you always try to follow the Spirit. I would never tell you that can't have been the Spirit. I believe others can be drawn to other faiths and find enlightenment because there is a true principle to find there, each can be a steppingstone. Today the Spirit said go here but later said go there. It's not 'wrong' to try to obey no matter where it leads, it's a steppingstone across the murky river.

Edited July 31, 2025 by Pyreaux

[manol]

17 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

This Church in a way contributed to this issue by teaching that "if you gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon, you'll know the rest is true."

I was never comfortable with the idea that a spiritual witness of something in the Book of Mormon equated proof that the entirety of the Book of Mormon is true, thereby proving that Joseph Smith was an inerrant prophet, which in turn proves that the modern LDS Church is the authentic continuation of Joseph Smith's work, and therefore is the one and only true church.  This sort of reasoning seems to me like over-reliance on extrapolation. 

 

17 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

We should be encouraging people to gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon and then an additional testimony of the Church itself.

I am much more comfortable with this sort of approach.

Regarding the topic of this thread, I have never been on an "Ex Mo" website or forum, and have zero experience with Christians trying to convert me.  Hopefully I would not take offense. 

Edited July 31, 2025 by manol

[Calm]

1 hour ago, manol said:

I was never comfortable with the idea that a spiritual witness of something in the Book of Mormon equated proof that the entirety of the Book of Mormon is true, thereby proving that Joseph Smith was an inerrant prophet, which in turn proves that the modern LDS Church is the authentic continuation of Joseph Smith's work, and therefore is the one and only true church.  This sort of reasoning seems to me like over-reliance on extrapolation. 

And rather odd for anything that involves humans of the nonexalted variety.   

[Tacenda]

On 7/30/2025 at 3:40 PM, ttribe said:

I don't have the time answer all of your questions as an exmo, but I will tell you this - I served my mission in TN and KY from 91-93. Even before my faith collapse, I knew evangelical Christianity would never be a viable option for me. I saw how these people lived their lives in large concentrations, I familiarized myself with their interpretations of the Bible and other doctrine, and I interacted with them daily and felt their disdain (not concern...disdain). When they march into exmo spaces and attempt to "help" us TRULY understand the Bible, it's a non-starter. More often that not, we know way more than they do. One side effect of teaching us what was wrong with other Christian faiths when we were LDS is that when we lost our faith and trust in the LDS Church, it thrust the majority of us straight into secularism. It's extremely difficult to unsee the criticisms of most of Christianity we grew up with throughout our lives.

⬆️ Count me in, if I want to get religion or go back to church, I'd have to go to the LDS church. 

[Rain]

22 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

If there were one thing I'd impart to you. I believe in what I call a “Steppingstone Gospel.” That means I trust that God leads His children along a path of progression. While, as a Latter-day Saint I do believe there is one straight and narrow path - the gospel - and that it leads to eternal life. I also know that God speaks to His children in their own language, in their own time, and according to their capacity to receive. And I don't put the Holy Ghost in a box.

I don't find it inconsistent with LDS doctrine to say someone could have a real spiritual experience in another religion. If a seeker in Islam, Buddhism, or Evangelical Christianity prays sincerely and receives an answer, who am I to say God didn't answer them? Truth is truth wherever it’s found, and the Holy Ghost testifies of all truth (Moroni 10:5).

No Latter-day Saint I know would dictate what the Spirit told you, they should merely hope you try to obey the Spirit.

Unless you leave this church and then all sorts of people will say that wasn't the Spirit, even if you spent years sincerely praying about it.  Not all, but many will. Luckily, I have not experienced, but I've heard people say it about others enough to know that is most likely believed or being said about me by some people.  

22 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

If it told you to join Islam, I may not understand, but I'd insist you always try to follow the Spirit. I would never tell you that can't have been the Spirit. I believe others can be drawn to other faiths and find enlightenment because there is a true principle to find there, each can be a steppingstone. Today the Spirit said go here but later said go there. It's not 'wrong' to try to obey no matter where it leads, it's a steppingstone across the murky river.

 

[Pyreaux]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

Unless you leave this church and then all sorts of people will say that wasn't the Spirit, even if you spent years sincerely praying about it.  Not all, but many will. Luckily, I have not experienced, but I've heard people say it about others enough to know that is most likely believed or being said about me by some people.  

I tried to narrow it down to those 'I know'. Those who've thought about it and not just a knee jerk reaction. I'm sure the first reaction is usually surprise by a freak occurrence that someone claims the Spirit told them something inconsistent with what the Spirit told them. But for we Online LDS it's a scenario proposed to us all the time by clever critics, with some version of a perfectly crafted question. What if I read the Book of Mormon and pray and the Spirit tells me it's not true? Though most usually are really trying to dismiss your witness or all spiritual witnesses. The only real answer that won't be turned against you, is to just accept the possibility.

Sure, I might ask you to try again, but I won't insist you leave your faith and to get baptized anyway, because I say so, or because I can show you the NHM altar. I'd just want you to make sure, it seems to be an LDS exclusive to accept your answer even if we doubt it. It's a stalemate. In LDS belief, we often honor personal revelation even when it leads someone to an unexpected or even contradictory place. Even if we disagree with someone else's witness, we often feel bound to respect that they even asked.

Edited August 1, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The only real answer that won't be turned against you, is to just accept the possibility.

Sometimes even that will be turned against you.  I have never had a problem with God leading someone to another faith that provided them with what they needed at that time, though it took time for me to understand that God might lead someone out of the Gospel in that process.  I first accepted the idea with the condition of their relationship with the Church was toxic for them, such as someone had been abused by a church member or had a family that misused gospel principles and messed up their kids.  Quite some time ago, having heard many more stories of good people leaving the Church and seeing it happen in my own family, that belief morphed into something more universal I suppose, I believe God both leads people to and allows people to choose opportunities to learn different lessons in life outside of the Restored Gospel without it being seen as a rejection of him (I just don’t see in many circumstances that people have been given enough information or experiences of the kind that can be said should leave little doubt and I don’t believe God would condemn someone for misinterpreting incomplete information about him).  Not all need or are best served by being part of the Restored Gospel at certain times in their lives, imo.  For many, it is likely that the best time to experience the Gospel is in the next stage of our existence in its purer, less confusing and messed up by mortal human involvement form.  If we simply judge by what opportunities most humans have been given in life, post death seems to be when God has arranged for most to receive the Gospel and if he is okay with that for most people, why not even those who have encountered the Restored Gospel while living?

The first time I ever shared a form of that belief online due to a critic demanding I answer if I thought it possible for God to tell someone to leave the Church, I was told I was lying because I wanted to look PC and got trashed by her for that.  It was a discussion on how members viewed other faiths iirc and the former member critic was apparently offended that I held a positive view, presenting this question thinking she had trapped me as far as I could tell from her rather over the top reaction.  She was from a family that had some association with LDS Fundamentalists (of the polygyny kind) and had a rather rigid, limited view of what faithful LDS believed.

Edited August 1, 2025 by Calm

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

For many, it is likely the best time to experience the Gospel is in the next stage of our existence in its purer, less confusing and messed up by mortal human involvement form.  If we simply judge by what opportunities most humans have been given in life, post death seems to be when God has arranged most to receive the Gospel and if he is okay with that for most people, why not even those who have encountered the Restored Gospel while living?

I think this is where Pres. Nelson's skepticism regarding the post-mortal opportunities of a man of his acquaintance (see Apr. 2019 Sunday AM talk titled "Come Follow Me") has received a lot of flack over the years -- even being nicknamed the "sad heaven" talk. As much I'm inclined to agree with you, I find that there is some very real tensions bordering on "paradoxes" in the church from top to bottom about just how much leniency there is. Our "high demand" side is extremely uncomfortable with the idea that someone might "get away" with rejecting the LDS gospel in this life. Our more universalist side is uncomfortable with any rhetoric that might declare someone permanently unworthy of exaltation and redemption. Truth seems to be somewhere in the nebulous middle of those two extremes. Pres. Nelson tried to find that middle, but, because he seemed to lean too far towards the skeptical side, I think he missed the real truth, but it's admittedly very difficult to discern that middle.

Something about this D&C cycle as we studied The Vision a couple of weeks ago brought to my mind the importance of the hope that comes out of the more universalist side of this paradox. It seems to me that it is important to lean into the universalist side of this "contrary" if for no other reason than to preserve hope. Moroni (or was it Mormon) had some pointed things to say about having hope in Christ for salvation. It might be offensive to the "high demand" side of our culture, but I think that keeping hope alive is important. I don't see anything good that comes out of the kind of skepticism that our high demand side expresses about people's post-mortal opportunities.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

As much I'm inclined to agree with you, I find that there is some very real tensions bordering on "paradoxes" in the church from top to bottom about just how much leniency there is.

I agree.  I doubt my view is a majority one.  I do believe there is conflict between our doctrine and how at times we implement it being human and full of anxieties and fear and therefore desiring a predictable and controllable world for ourselves and our loved ones.

Members in my experience often view valiancy in faith as willing to be fully committed to our faith relationship with God on little evidence rather than being loyal once the relationship has been established.  I look on it more of a marriage relationship.  We often use that as an analogy for our relationship with the Church, but what seems often ignored is the courtship stage of marriage in the analogy.  No one would fault another I would hope for wanting to wait to commit fully until there is clear evidence of a reciprocal willingness to commit by a potential spouse, we would encourage people not to elope, to take time to get to know each other, develop trust in smaller ways before diving into the deep end, etc.  

That is not to say no commitment is desirable until one can be secure. No marriage will ever occur if no one commits at all until they are certain they will be safe because such a restriction on ourselves would prevent us from learning who the other is and if we can trust them to return our love and to care for us in ways that are good for us.

I believe the parables of the mustard seed shows what the first step should be, a desire to nurture a seed of faith no matter how small to see if it produces good fruit.  I see valiancy mostly applying once the fruit has grown and we have tasted the goodness of the gospel though I can also see valiancy as part of the process of nurturing, as in not only being willing to accept the gift of faith and plant the seed, but to actually care for it as it grows rather than assume if it is worthy of our love, no work is necessary to develop the trust that love needs to be anchored on.  We need to be valiant in our efforts to keep nurturing our faith until some sort of fruit is produced that can be tested.  How long this process is and what it looks like is internal to the person and therefore not something I can judge…or anyone else unless God gives them that knowledge (which is not automatically conferred imo on anyone with stewardship over another and definitely not for anyone without stewardship).

I think most of mortal life is in nurturing of seeds segment even for Saints.  We probably have several seeds with different kinds of earths in different stages of fertility, which can complicate the picture and our decisions.

Quote

It seems to me that it is important to lean into the universalist side of this "contrary" if for no other reason than to preserve hope.

As to concern about others getting away with it…

Quote

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

 It seems to me we are instructed to focus these three virtues most often and most strongly and while God’s justice is spoken of frequently in scripture, it is usually for God to determine and judge.  If we as mortals judge without the direction of the Spirit, if we try to simply reason out what is just by what seems fair to us, we will miserably fail because of our limited view of the eternities, including the infiniteness that exists in each of us as eternal beings.  How can we balance out the innumerable variations of each individual’s life with the majority likely unknown to us with mortal reasoning?

Edited August 1, 2025 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 7/30/2025 at 1:31 PM, Pyreaux said:

For Ex-Mormons:

Why do you think evangelicals struggle to understand Mormon and ex-Mormon minds?

Has a Christian ever tried to “convert” you after you left Mormonism? How did it go?

Is there a respectful way for Christians to engage with you?

Do you think their critiques accidentally pushed you toward secularism instead?

What makes Christian anti-Mormonism so uniquely off-putting to a modern Ex-Mormon?

Well I am not Ex-Mormon since I am still a member but as you know I do not participate. So I will answer.

Why do you think evangelicals struggle to understand Mormon and ex-Mormon minds?

I would say in my experience they miss a number of issues. First, any active LDS person like myself, who becomes disaffected, is rather shell shocked. We put our trust in a religion with truth claims that when they fell apart, it makes us very cautious and distrusting. Next, for many of us, and I am one, we did explore other religious options. But for me, as I drilled into Christianity in general, and a variety of sects, when I used the same methodology that I applied to examine Mormonism, these tend to fall apart as well.  Also, for me, if I am going to spend time devoted to a Christian tradition, I think Mormonism beats the others hands down. Next to that, I think Catholicism is the next best.  I do meet with a Presbyterian Minister periodically. He is the minister of the church my step mother attended. My dad met with this man periodically because he loved arguing religion. As and adult he was not active in the LDS Church. But he knew  the doctrine and history better than most. The last five years of his life he did start attending church, paying tithing, had a calling coordinating church cleaning schedules and he wanted to be ordained an Elder. Somehow his bishop and SP approved and I ordained him a couple years before he died. I was sort of mentally out at the time but it was important for me to do that for him. I still had a temple recommend at the time so I did do it for him.  It was a special experience for both of us. I know I was a doubter at the time but if the Church is what it claims, I think Heavenly Father will honor the ordination.

Has a Christian ever tried to “convert” you after you left Mormonism? How did it go?

Yes. The minster I mentioned above. After my dad died I spent a lot of time in Denver where he and my step mom lived. I was helping her with a variety of issues. I got to know this man and I like him, So we do talk and he hopes to bring me to the real Jesus. Another was an evangelical friend and we have talked about a lot of religious things. Neither have persuaded me to their beliefs.

Is there a respectful way for Christians to engage with you?

 

Sure. Just tell me you want to talk and share your beliefs but don't be obnoxious or over bearing. The two people I mentioned above are very respectful and do not mind my challenges to what they believe. I enjoy my interaction  with both.

Do you think their critiques accidentally pushed you toward secularism instead?

No not at all.

What makes Christian anti-Mormonism so uniquely off-putting to a modern Ex-Mormon?

 

Mostly I find they have not examined their own beliefs with the same rigor with which they criticize Mormonism with.

[Teancum]

On 7/30/2025 at 5:40 PM, ttribe said:

I don't have the time answer all of your questions as an exmo, but I will tell you this - I served my mission in TN and KY from 91-93. Even before my faith collapse, I knew evangelical Christianity would never be a viable option for me. I saw how these people lived their lives in large concentrations, I familiarized myself with their interpretations of the Bible and other doctrine, and I interacted with them daily and felt their disdain (not concern...disdain). When they march into exmo spaces and attempt to "help" us TRULY understand the Bible, it's a non-starter. More often that not, we know way more than they do. One side effect of teaching us what was wrong with other Christian faiths when we were LDS is that when we lost our faith and trust in the LDS Church, it thrust the majority of us straight into secularism. It's extremely difficult to unsee the criticisms of most of Christianity we grew up with throughout our lives.

This is spot on.

[gopher]

10 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I tried to narrow it down to those 'I know'. Those who've thought about it and not just a knee jerk reaction. I'm sure the first reaction is usually surprise by a freak occurrence that someone claims the Spirit told them something inconsistent with what the Spirit told them. But for we Online LDS it's a scenario proposed to us all the time by clever critics, with some version of a perfectly crafted question. What if I read the Book of Mormon and pray and the Spirit tells me it's not true? Though most usually are really trying to dismiss your witness or all spiritual witnesses. The only real answer that won't be turned against you, is to just accept the possibility.

Have you ever known a sincere person who has had this experience?  I've heard many people testify over the years of receiving confirmation from the Holy Ghost that the BOM Is true.  But I've never heard from anyone who received a witness from the Spirit that it isn't true.  Now I'm not claiming they don't exist.  It would be even more interesting to meet someone who received a witness that it is true only to later have the same experience from the Spirit that it is false.  Most people I've met that believe the BOM is false base it on their scholarly research or because they trust in what their preacher told them.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, gopher said:

But I've never heard from anyone who received a witness from the Spirit that it isn't true.  Now I'm not claiming they don't exist. 

There have been a few posters on this board and another some of us old timers used to hang out on ZLMB who made the claim, iirc.

[MrShorty]

I'm aware of a handful of people who claim to have sincerely asked and been told that God didn't want them to believe in the BoM. I guess we can always second guess any claims to sincerity, but I choose to take their claims to sincerity at face value.

[gopher]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

There have been a few posters on this board and another some of us old timers used to hang out on ZLMB who made the claim, iirc.

I can find many examples of people who claim the Spirit testified to them that the BOM is true so it might be interesting to compare their experiences with those who claim the Spirit witnessed to them the BOM isn't true.  Has anyone compiled accounts of the latter?  I'm curious to see how similar as well as how different their experiences are.

[gopher]

10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I'm aware of a handful of people who claim to have sincerely asked and been told that God didn't want them to believe in the BoM. I guess we can always second guess any claims to sincerity, but I choose to take their claims to sincerity at face value.

I didn't suggest we should question anyone's sincerity.  I hope that isn't what you got from my comments.  I used that word because that's what it says in Moroni 10:4 "if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost".  For almost 200 years, missionaries, church leaders, parents, and friends have challenged other people to try out Moroni's promise by following the requirements listed in the verse.  Wouldn't it be useful to know how often the answer received from the Spirit is "yes, it's true" compared to "no, it's false"?   I think it would be an interesting data point to have.   I'm sure many others feel they received no answer.  But one reason the BOM has been a remarkable book is the large number of people who have claim they received an answer from the Spirit that it is from God and is true.  It seems to be one of the best conversion tools LDS missionaries still use today.  Is it only a very small minority that receive an answer that it isn't true?  If so, what does that mean?

[MrShorty]

I agree that it would be interesting to see a statistical analysis of Moroni's promise. I would hypothesize that it would be similar to the statistical analyses that have been done for "faith healings" rituals in hospitals, where the results seem mixed (suggesting, at best, weak correlations).

I agree that the BoM seems to be the strongest conversion tool we have, and we've been using it and Moroni's promise for almost 200 years. As strong as that conversion tool is, a very small percentage of those who have been contacted have joined the church, and a fraction of those drift into inactivity or even turn away from the church. Again, I'm not sure of the exact success rate of Moroni's promise, but I would hypothesize that the correlation is far from strong.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, gopher said:

I can find many examples of people who claim the Spirit testified to them that the BOM is true so it might be interesting to compare their experiences with those who claim the Spirit witnessed to them the BOM isn't true.  Has anyone compiled accounts of the latter?  I'm curious to see how similar as well as how different their experiences are.

I would assume there would be quite a bit of influence given those who had read the Book of Mormon that I mentioned were believing Christians who talked about their experience because of answering LDS claims, often they had even read the BoM because of wanting to challenge LDS claims.  It would make sense therefore for such nonLDS Christians to use similar language.

I would be more interested in comparing what the same people say to different audiences and look at the consistencies and differences.