Exit Or Not

[Scott Gordon]

On another thread there are some interesting comments about church exit stories. One thing that interests me is why some people exit while others don't.

In any organization, there are bad decisions made. There are people who get offended. There are hurt feelings. I have witnessed all of these things at work (no I don't live in Utah) and in the LDS church. I have experiences some of them myself. I have been on both sides in that I have made bad decisions or statements, and I have been hurt by something someone else said or did.

But it seems that those who stay use the narrative that people are people. The church is a hospital for the sinners, not a museum for the saints. The church is true but the people aren't. I hear stories of honesty and integrity.

On the other side of the coin, I hear stories of ecclesiastical abuse. allegations of lack of inspiration, and questions of why the church leadership wasn't given a revelation to protect. I also hear allegations of deception and lies.

I hear ex mormons (and exiting Mormons) bring up multiple versions of the first vision, the face in the hat, polygamy, the book of Abraham, while I hear strong members bring up the same things with a "so what?" shrug of their shoulders.

I hear Members bring up Nahom, Mulek, Chiasmus, Witnesses, Hebraisms, Lehi's trail, Apocalypse of Abraham, with the Ex Mormons saying "so what?" with a shrug of their shoulders.

I see people reading the information at FAIR and FARMS proclaiming how it strengthens their testimony, while I read of ex Mormons stating it has no effect on their exit and may in fact speed it along. (although there is some discussion of whether or not the exiting members read that side at all.)

The two groups read the same anti Mormon book or article (Palmer, Southerton, etc.) and one group claims it is wonderful, while the other group claims it is poorly reasearched nonsense.

Both sides read Mormon Enigma or In Sacred Loniness and talk about how it strengthens their position. (How can the other side not see it!!!??)

Both sides seem to think the other side is woefully uneducated, or are missing a few digits from their IQ--yet they all seem to have read the same books (with some exceptions.)

Any thoughts?

[carbonation]

I suspect that those people who desire to "exit" will latch onto whatever perceived weakness they can find in church history, doctrine, or practice in order to feel a sense of justification for their actions. Some people do not really want to be convinced that their viewpoint is inaccurate or deficient (for lack of extensive research). Some people are probably even willing to use Dan Peterson's alleged excessive consumption of donuts as an excuse for apostasy!

[William Schryver]

You make a fascinating observation, Scott.

And, it seems to me, it leads to but one conclusion:

Whatever basis is used to either believe or disbelieve; whatever fundamental processes are at work in the decision to have faith or lose faith, it has very little or nothing to do with the thoughts of the mind and much more to do with the feelings of the heart.

Of course, those who give primacy to the rational naturally believe that their approach is the superior one, whereas those who give primacy to their intuition believe otherwise.

It is a fact that it is not a question of raw intellect, for there are equally intelligent and learned people on both sides of the aisle. Therefore, I can only conclude that, in the end, it all comes down to what sensor of truth each individual believes returns the most reliable response.

For myself, when it comes right down to it, Iâ??ve learned to trust my instincts over my intellect every time.

[charity]

I will get jumped on for this. But smarter people than I can see that people chose to believe or not believe. And we(meaning all humans) have to have reasons for why we have made a specific choice. So we look around and find what makes us look the best. As juliann has pointed out, those who are exiting have to also account for why they didn't exit before, and that usually puts them in to finding someone else to blame, thus the deception, brainwashed, etc stories.

But those of us who are choosing to stay aren't handicapped by having to find some scientific, or objective reason. I stay because I have a testimony. I know that isn't scientific, cannot be registered on any meter or graph, or measured by any human device. But "I know" just the same.

Those who are exiting and fasten on to some kind of supposed evidence are in danger of being found to be wrong. On another thread someone said DNA was one of the reasons why he left. It turns out that his "reason," if that is what is was, was incorrect. Now he is left to fasten on to some other reason. Which demonstrates that he made the choice to exit. Then he found a reason.

[Not quite me]

I suspect that those people who desire to "exit" will latch onto whatever perceived weakness they can find in church history, doctrine, or practice in order to feel a sense of justification for their actions. Some people do not really want to be convinced that their viewpoint is inaccurate or deficient (for lack of extensive research). Some people are probably even willing to use Dan Peterson's alleged excessive consumption of donuts as an excuse for apostasy!

This kind of statement I find really irritating. It's the idea that we who have left really wanted to leave and just found something to "latch onto" as to justify our desire.

I'm not really sure how it all happened for me. I read all the stuff that Scott mentioned, and for many years it didn't bother me. I rationalized this, shelved that, and kept on going in the church, strong in my testimony and sure I was on the right path. And then one day the rationalizations went, and the stuff I shelved couldn't be shelved anymore. No one can tell me I wanted that to happen. I went through a year of hell in my family because I couldn't make things work anymore.

When everything happened, I determined to do what I had always been taught. I fasted, I prayed, I read the Book of Mormon. I served in my callings. I had family prayer and scripture study. In the end, it didn't work. And not because I wanted to. Not because I didn't do extensive research. And not because of Dr. Peterson's dietary habits.

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that most people who leave agonize over it? The church was our life, but we just decided one day we didn't feel like doing that anymore? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

[Not quite me]

I will get jumped on for this. But smarter people than I can see that people chose to believe or not believe. And we(meaning all humans) have to have reasons for why we have made a specific choice. So we look around and find what makes us look the best. As juliann has pointed out, those who are exiting have to also account for why they didn't exit before, and that usually puts them in to finding someone else to blame, thus the deception, brainwashed, etc stories.

But those of us who are choosing to stay aren't handicapped by having to find some scientific, or objective reason. I stay because I have a testimony. I know that isn't scientific, cannot be registered on any meter or graph, or measured by any human device. But "I know" just the same.

Those who are exiting and fasten on to some kind of supposed evidence are in danger of being found to be wrong. On another thread someone said DNA was one of the reasons why he left. It turns out that his "reason," if that is what is was, was incorrect. Now he is left to fasten on to some other reason. Which demonstrates that he made the choice to exit. Then he found a reason.

The problem here is that you are questioning people's sincerity, as if we don't really mean what we say. We just make up excuses for leaving. Do you not understand how offensive this is?

[charity]

not quite me, I do not doubt your sincerity.. But have you addressed the issues that William brought up? Why do you think that thinking, searching, thoughtful, equally intelligent people as yourself, could follow the same process you did and they come out still believing? What is the difference between you and them?

[Dale]

I did leave the LDS Church. I am Community of Christ/RLDS now. I recated the same way as LDS do on many issues. I decided Anti-Mormon material, and some liberal scholarship regarding Mormon topics misleading. So it made it impossible for me to go Evangelical, or join in on the Recovering from Mormonism crowd. I decided such movements were corrupt.

I decided grace alone was not early Christian doctrine. So that made me doubt Evangelicals had God. I doubted Evangelical objections to restored priesthood. I feel the Book of Mormon, and Book of Abraham has valid intellectual support for it. Degrees of support for sacred texts might differ, but reasons for belief, and unbelief exist.

Some significant differences with the church developed, but I am pretty moderate in comparison to some Ex-Mormons I run into. I just read the testimonies, and think they left for the wrong reasons. They don't see it because they think the wrong reasons are right. In some cases some ex-Mormons are really twisted in thinking. But I hate to lump everyone in the same category as some people are more logical, and decent than fanatical others.

Some criticisms, or alternative conclusions can be arrived at persons can believe are the right reason for leaving.

[Not quite me]

not quite me, I do not doubt your sincerity.. But have you addressed the issues that William brought up? Why do you think that thinking, searching, thoughtful, equally intelligent people as yourself, could follow the same process you did and they come out still believing? What is the difference between you and them?

We are all individuals, charity. Of course it's a choice. That's not the issue. Equally intelligent people make different decisions every day: how to vote, what to eat, what car to buy, where to go to school.

What bothers me is your idea that you made the right choice, and we didn't, so obviously we have to rationalize why we made the choice. You act as if the cart came before the horse. We left, and then we found an excuse. I'm sorry, but that's a very hurtful thing for you to suggest.

[Scott Gordon]

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that most people who leave agonize over it? The church was our life, but we just decided one day we didn't feel like doing that anymore? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

I believe this. Some people really want to believe but can't seem to do it. (This is not meant to be negative in any way.)

Is it possible there are three exit stories?

One from people who simply don't go as often and then fade off into the sunset. They often maintain a testimony but simply don't go.

The second is from people like Not quite me who really do agonize over it. Church is their life and they become disillusioned or disbelieving.

The third is from people who don't like the lifestyle.

Am I off track or do people agree with this?

[Not quite me]

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that most people who leave agonize over it? The church was our life, but we just decided one day we didn't feel like doing that anymore? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

I believe this. Some people really want to believe but can't seem to do it. (This is not meant to be negative in any way.)

Is it possible there are three exit stories?

One from people who simply don't go as often and then fade off into the sunset. They often maintain a testimony but simply don't go.

The second is from people like Not quite me who really do agonize over it. Church is their life and they become disillusioned or disbelieving.

The third is from people who don't like the lifestyle.

Am I off track or do people agree with this?

I think there are as many reasons for leaving as there are individual people. But having said that, most of the exmormons I know fit your second description.

[Daniel2]

Whatever basis is used to either believe or disbelieve; whatever fundamental processes are at work in the decision to have faith or lose faith, it has very little or nothing to do with the thoughts of the mind and much more to do with the feelings of the heart.

It seems to me it doesn't have to be an "either/or" when it comes to "intellect" and "feelings/heart." In my case, both my intellect AND my heart/feelings clearly led me out of the church. It is virtually impossible for me to assign which came first--the intellect or the emotion. Both were natural progressions that allowed me to grow beyond what Mormonism taught me.

Leaving Mormonism--or any religion, for that matter--is not as black and white as "intellectuals leave," while "instinctuals stay," IMO (as, I believe, Scott Gordon would agree, from what I read of his opening post).

For myself, when it comes right down to it, Iâ??ve learned to trust my instincts over my intellect every time.

Ultimately, if I HAD to make a choice... I'd probably agree with your statement, above--I've likewise learned to trust my instincts over my intellect, which is why I am no longer a member of the LDS church.

[Daniel2]

I think there are as many reasons for leaving as there are individual people. But having said that, most of the exmormons I know fit your second description.

I agree, Not quite me--in my experience, most of the ex-Mormons I know fit Scott's second description, as well--EVEN all of the gay ex-Mormons that I know agonize over leaving it behind. In real life beyond the internet, it is rare that I have come across someone who gleefully relished "the chance" to leave Mormonism behind, even in the cases that it was ultimately very liberating and was the right decision for said individuals.

[gramps]

Will/Provis said:

It is a fact that it is not a question of raw intellect, for there are equally intelligent and learned people on both sides of the aisle. Therefore, I can only conclude that, in the end, it all comes down to what sensor of truth each individual believes returns the most reliable response.

As one who left, I would agree with Will/Provis (who would have thunk it?) that it is not a question of intellect. That's quite certain.

I think a big factor is for some of those who leave, they come to realize that the Spirit is not a very good, reliable sensor of truth. Perhaps Will/Provis is right on this, too.

However, I would not agree with Will/Provis that the emotion, the spirit, and the intuition are at all the same thing, if indeed he was meaning to imply that. In fact, he didn't mention spirit, at all, so I wonder if he means spirit when he says emotion or intuition. Apparently, according to the scriptures, revelation from the spirit can come as pure strokes of intelligence. This doesn't sound like emotion or intuition to me. Though of course it can also be a burning in the bosom; something I never experienced. Not once. I did experience the "electric shock," however.

I still obviously have intuition after leaving the church, and use it. I wouldn't probably trust it on real big decisions. For example, if I meet a beautiful girl and my intuition or emotions tell me that she is the one, I would do a lot of "test driving" before I bought her a diamond and proposed. But, I would listen to that intuition and see how my experience meshed with it. I've had bad intuition, that was completely wrong, and good intuition, that was completely right. I always check it with reason and experience.

I do not obviously feel the "spirit" is a valid way to go. I personally believe that what I used to call the spirit can be answered for on psychological grounds. Trying to prove that the spirit exists is obviously a waste of time. You take it for what you have been taught it is by the scriptures, or the church, or the spirit itself, which all becomes a vicious circle to me, and thus quite useless as anything reliable. Or you give up the idea and redefine it.

If you give up the idea, sliding right out of the church is quite easy from that point. Not painless, mind you, but quite easy, meaning, the absurdities of what you once believed stand out in very stark contrast to what now, having slid out, seems so clear and reasonable. The "how could I have been so stupid?" thing.

So, I guess what I am trying to say is that when you do believe in the spirit, it is much easier to accept things on faith, even things that seem very unreasonable, otherwise. That is why believers have strong bookshelves. A lot of things have to be kept there until the millenium when hopefully all becomes clear, but until then, they must rely on the spirit and their testimonies and apologetics from FAIR or other sources, to try to make sense of it all until then.

Just my .02, if it can be of help, at all.

[charity]

not quite me, "hurt" indicates something is going on. You don't know me, my opinion of what you do or don't do should have no emotional impact on you.

Of course, I am going to think I am right and you are wrong. If I didn't, I would leave the church. But obviously I have chosen to stay. So I consider myself right and since you are on the opposite side of the fence, you are wrong.

And do you really think that you went through all the evidences both ways, made one pile here and one pile there, and then looked at them and asked, "What should I do now?" It doesn't work that way. Because of the nature of the question, if there is any evidence that the Church is true, all the evidence to the contrary will not overweigh it. If Joseph Smith had a vision, whether or not he was paid to find a silver mine, or tried to sell a copyright, or supported a bank that failed, none of that matters.

[Dale]

Some people leave because the LDS was to strict on standards.

It takes discipline to be active for the long haul.

So if you have painful doubts & questions on top of that you are more tempted to exit.

On the internet I see many Ex-LDS gravitating towards the angrier disgruntled part of the Ex-Mormon crowd. So this effects some persons reactions on issues when leaving.

[Scott Gordon]

The third is from people who don't like the lifestyle.

I was thinking of some of the youth leaving for this reason. They either want to go drink with their friends, or they have a boyfriend/girlfriend that doesn't fit in with what their parent tell them they should be doing.

[Deborah]

There were many times when I could have chosen to leave and probably with what some would see as good rational reasons. The thing which made me hold on during those times when I didn't have a testimony or feel the spirit was the memory of the times I did and how powerful that was. In the end I made the decision that I was right the first time and stuck with it until my testimony returned and I felt the power of the spirit again.

[Abulafia]

Whatever basis is used to either believe or disbelieve; whatever fundamental processes are at work in the decision to have faith or lose faith, it has very little or nothing to do with the thoughts of the mind and much more to do with the feelings of the heart.

I disagree vehemenently!

I'd use the following as an example. When one chooses a marriage partner (another important and life changing/enhancing decision) one should and hopefully does, use all one's faculties to make a 'productive' decision. The intellect, the feelings, should all be involved in equal measure.

In a choice of religion there also needs to be balance for mental and social health. If your heart is in it, but your mind is not, then somehow you need to get around it, and vice versa. My mind left many years before my heart, believe me!!!

[AKS]

For myself, when it comes right down to it, Iâ??ve learned to trust my instincts over my intellect every time.

This seems backwards, imo.

[cacheman]

I find it interesting that some can't understand that sincere, good, and honest people exposed to the same information and experiences can come to different conclusions. It happens all the time in many areas of our lives, why would it be different in religion?

Surely there are people on all sides of the issue who make choices for the wrong reasons, but why not just assume the best in everyone unless they give reason not to. I assume that we are all just trying to do the right thing and follow the path that is best for us and our loved ones.

cacheman

[juliann]

I like this way of looking at it:

These several scholars have, in one way or another, recognized a more active subject â??working outâ? oneâ??s own conversion. They have noted that conversion to new religions often means a series of affiliative and disaffiliative acts that constitute a conversion career, and that individuals are often only deciding to behave as a convert, playing the convert role, as they experiment with or affirm their personhood. These researchers have found that conversion is a social phenomenon, with affection and emotional ties playing key roles in the affirmative decision to negotiate with a group about possible participation and commitment. This new emerging paradigm competes against modern versions of the traditional â??Pauline paradigmâ? that has been dominant for decades.

Armand Mauss, â??Research in Social Movements and in New Religious Movements: The Prospects for Convergence, â?? in Religion and the Social Order: The Handbook on Cults and Sects in America, eds. David G. Bromley and Jerffrey K. Hadden (Greenwich, CT:JAI Press Inc., 1993), 172.

Behavior following belief is being rejected as the dominent theory:

The Pauline experience is also often interpreted in cognitive terms. It was thought that what happened to Paul caused him to change his beliefs immediately, and that behaviors congruent with the new beliefs then were developed. Behaviors follow beliefs, then, in the traditional paradigm.

James T. Richardson, â??The Active vs. Passive Convert: Paradigm Conflict in Conversion/Recruitment Research,â? in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 24:2 (1985): 165.

[Dale]

Being married to the LDS is a demanding relationship. If you want to be in good standing you have to live up to some of the demands.

[Thinking]

I suspect that those people who desire to "exit" will latch onto whatever perceived weakness they can find in church history, doctrine, or practice in order to feel a sense of justification for their actions.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I never had a desire to exit. In fact, the first time I had any kind of doubt, I went to my bishop for help. He is a good man (non-judgemental), and we met several times. I accepted a calling in the ward and became fully involved. My doubts, however, were never fully resolved and later (in another ward) I asked to be released from my teaching calling because I didn't feel like it was right for me to bear a testimony that I did not have. "Going with the flow" (as my mom told me to do) would have been an easier choice because family weddings, blessings and ordinations would be less awkward. The decision to be honest about my beliefs has been difficult because I never desired to "exit."

(Thanks, awyatt, for pointing out the confusing end of my original post.)

[awyatt]

You never desired to be honest about your beliefs?

-Allen