Exit Or Not

[Not quite me]

You can find impefection in anybody's church history, doctrine, or practice. It's real dissapointing some times to believe something was perfect, and then to find out it wasn't.

Does any member of the church believe that the church is perfect? I never believed that.

[juliann]

Not quite, remember that this board is inundated with anti-Mormons whose purpose is to hurt. You are in the minority so comments are always going to be directed towards the virulent anti-Mormons because that is what we deal with day in and day out on these boards. Don't insert yourself in places you don't belong and don't assume that we (speaking for the majority of LDS here) do.

Yeah, maybe I don't belong here. But even if I were a virulent anti-Mormon, what charity said was wrong and offensive. Maybe I'll see y'all around somewhere else.

That is not what I meant! I guess "situation" would have been more clear than place. Don't insert yourself in comments that don't describe you. If the shoe doesn't fit....

[William Schryver]

nqm:

I can agree with that. But what do you do when your intellect and your "gut feel" tell you to exit Mormonism?

In my case, that has never happened.

In your case, I guess you've answered the question.

[Avatar4321]

I think the reactions on this thread is a perfect example of how the scriptures are true and scorners will make a man an offender for a word.

Obviously no one intended to offend another, but you take it as offensive. Why? To prove what? That you are some victim? Because people dont believe you are sincere?

The truth is harsh sometimes. And the truth is you are in absolutely no position to be upset when someone thinks you are insincere. I mean hello people!? You come to a message board daily and attack the Integrity and sincerity of people everyday.

I can without any doubt testify to you that I know the Church is true, that God is real and Jesus is the Christ. And will go out of your way trying to explain how I dont really know as if I would be insincere with something like that. And you have the audacity to get all offended if someone doesnt treat you as sincere? Heck the very fact that you are accusing someone of anything shows that you dont believe they are sincere and you expect them to believe you?

Im sorry but I cant just sit here and put up with such utter nonsense without saying something. The Church is true. Its a fact. Im sorry if you dont like it. You don't have to believe it. But it doesnt change the fact that is indeed true. It would be true whether I knew it or not. Its true despite the fact that you dont believe it and want to deny it. Most importantly, Its true because God has said so.

Look you may not believe me. But I am not your enemy. Im not anyones enemy. I try to speak the truth. and the truth is this thread has been sidetracked because certain individuals want to be victims for some reason. Maybe it helps justify their unbelief. I dont know. What I do know, is when no one intends offense, then the only one to blame when you get offended is yourself. So stop blaming others and exercise faith on Jesus Christ and repent of your sins. We cant give you faith, we cant force you to repent. we can only testify of the truth and the standards the Lord has set and invite you to live them. You are the one who has to live them.

[Not quite me]

I think the reactions on this thread is a perfect example of how the scriptures are true and scorners will make a man an offender for a word.

Obviously no one intended to offend another, but you take it as offensive. Why? To prove what? That you are some victim? Because people dont believe you are sincere?

The truth is harsh sometimes. And the truth is you are in absolutely no position to be upset when someone thinks you are insincere. I mean hello people!? You come to a message board daily and attack the Integrity and sincerity of people everyday.

I have never questioned anyone's integrity and sincerity here.

I can without any doubt testify to you that I know the Church is true, that God is real and Jesus is the Christ. And will go out of your way trying to explain how I dont really know as if I would be insincere with something like that. And you have the audacity to get all offended if someone doesnt treat you as sincere? Heck the very fact that you are accusing someone of anything shows that you dont believe they are sincere and you expect them to believe you?

Im sorry but I cant just sit here and put up with such utter nonsense without saying something. The Church is true. Its a fact. Im sorry if you dont like it. You don't have to believe it. But it doesnt change the fact that is indeed true. It would be true whether I knew it or not. Its true despite the fact that you dont believe it and want to deny it. Most importantly, Its true because God has said so.

Look you may not believe me. But I am not your enemy. Im not anyones enemy. I try to speak the truth. and the truth is this thread has been sidetracked because certain individuals want to be victims for some reason. Maybe it helps justify their unbelief. I dont know. What I do know, is when no one intends offense, then the only one to blame when you get offended is yourself. So stop blaming others and exercise faith on Jesus Christ and repent of your sins. We cant give you faith, we cant force you to repent. we can only testify of the truth and the standards the Lord has set and invite you to live them. You are the one who has to live them.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I found one person's post to be offensive and still do. It's fine with me that you believe the church is true. I'm not your enemy, either.

[Hammer]

You can find impefection in anybody's church history, doctrine, or practice. It's real dissapointing some times to believe something was perfect, and then to find out it wasn't.

Does any member of the church believe that the church is perfect? I never believed that.

The church is made up of men-- not perfect-- The Head of the church/ Christ is perfect. He gave us the church so that someday we could be like Him-- Perfect.

[gramps]

Avatard4321 wrote:

Im sorry but I cant just sit here and put up with such utter nonsense without saying something. The Church is true. Its a fact. Im sorry if you dont like it. You don't have to believe it. But it doesnt change the fact that is indeed true. It would be true whether I knew it or not. Its true despite the fact that you dont believe it and want to deny it. Most importantly, Its true because God has said so.

I don't think you were responding to anything I said in this thread, but, if you don't mind, I would still like to ask you a couple of questions. Hope that is OK.

What is your definition of "fact?" And for that matter, what is your definition of "truth?"

Are scientific "facts" the same in your mind as spiritual "facts?" or is there a difference for you? Because God said so, how does that make it a fact, in your way of thinking?

[Deborah]

What is your definition of "fact?" And for that matter, what is your definition of "truth?"

Are scientific "facts" the same in your mind as spiritual "facts?" or is there a difference for you? Because God said so, how does that make it a fact, in your way of thinking?

Here is the dictionary definition of fact:

â??noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.

My religious beliefs based on these definitions certainly fall into the category of fact. Take them one at a time:

1. God is reality and God is truth.

2. We have historical documents, ie the Bible and the Book of Mormon that attest to this reality.

3. I have had actual experiences and observations which have given me personal evidence of this truth.

4. Others have had these same experiences and attest to their truth.

5. God is a God of Law and he has given us the Law and when we obey it we see the effects of obedience and when we disobey we likewise feel the effects.

For me the religious facts are just as efficacious as scientific fact and in point of fact the religious facts are often more powerful as evidence.

[Thinking]

Does any member of the church believe that the church is perfect? I never believed that.

I remember being taught that the church is perfect but the members are not.

"Now, brethren, let us step back from the details of this demanding challenge and speak of overall realities and responsibilities for inactive and active men alikeâ??in a perfect Church filled with imperfect individuals." (Neal A. Maxwell, â??A Brother Offended,â? Ensign, May 1982, 37)

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=t...;fn=default.htm

[charity]

not quite me, you continue to maintain that what I said was offensive. I have based my idea on what Terryl Givens wrote, which I have quoted several times in posts. (""We are always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. What we choose to embrace, to be response to, is the purest reflection of who are and what we love." Terryl Givens, "Lightning Out Of Heaven, BYU Studies (45:1) byustudies.byu.edu )

Please read the whole article if you do not understand it. If you read it, you may disagree but you will cease to be offended at something which is not meant to be offensive. Then I would be interested to see you refute, logically, what Dr. Givens said.

[juliann]

Free download of Given's article.... http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInf...amp;ProdID=2067

[simply_disappear]

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!

I suspect that those people who desire to believe will latch onto whatever apologetics they can find to deflect obvious problems with church history, doctrine, or practice in order to feel comforted in the face of their own mortality and to continue with what they are used to. 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 the personal imperfection of thoughtful critics as an excuse for not considering the logic of what they say.

Maybe that's what apologetics is for. People decide they want to accept Mormonism, and then apologetics gives them a way to validate what they've accepted.

The Spirit validates what I've accepted each day. I don't need an apologetics forum or writer to validate anything that has to do with my salvation. I come here to study and find out different avenues to use for what I have questions about. That said, I don't rely on anything here to guide me spiritually as I do my faith, prayer and Scriptures.

[simply_disappear]

You can find impefection in anybody's church history, doctrine, or practice. It's real dissapointing some times to believe something was perfect, and then to find out it wasn't.

Does any member of the church believe that the church is perfect? I never believed that.

I believe the gospel of Jesus Christ is perfect. We must be careful where we place our trust. When people say the Church is perfect the people aren't----what they are saying is the gospel is perfect. I wonder if people mistakenly think the institution is perfect. It isn't. It is run by men and women who are imperfect. Try as they may----they are still only human. This is why God wants us to trust in Christ not in the arm of the flesh.

[gramps]

What is your definition of "fact?" And for that matter, what is your definition of "truth?"

Are scientific "facts" the same in your mind as spiritual "facts?" or is there a difference for you? Because God said so, how does that make it a fact, in your way of thinking?

Here is the dictionary definition of fact:

â??noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.

My religious beliefs based on these definitions certainly fall into the category of fact. Take them one at a time:

1. God is reality and God is truth.

2. We have historical documents, ie the Bible and the Book of Mormon that attest to this reality.

3. I have had actual experiences and observations which have given me personal evidence of this truth.

4. Others have had these same experiences and attest to their truth.

5. God is a God of Law and he has given us the Law and when we obey it we see the effects of obedience and when we disobey we likewise feel the effects.

For me the religious facts are just as efficacious as scientific fact and in point of fact the religious facts are often more powerful as evidence.

Hi Deborah. Thanks for your response.

From your last sentence, I take it you still distinguish scientific fact from religious fact, though I can't seem to grasp what the difference may be for you. Would I be wrong in assuming that?

So, perhaps I am off-base here, but let's go through your five (5) points which you say fit with the definition of "fact" which you provided from the dictionary.

1. God is reality and God is truth. (This is a religious fact for you, right?)

Would this proposition be any different in your mind?

Santa Claus is reality and Santa Claus is truth. If different, how so?

2. We have historical documents, i.e. the Bible and the Book of Mormon that attest to this reality. (This is a religious fact for you, right?)

So, if I have two letters from my 22-year old son, which I pull out of storage and hold them in my hand and they read:

(The first letter, circa 16 years earlier): Dear Santa, I would love a new baseball mit for Christmas. I've been a very good boy. Signed, xxxxxx

(The second letter, circa 16 years earlier): Dear Santa: Thank you for the baseball mit. It is perfect and even better than my friend, Johnny's, mit. I want to thank you for bringing it to me. I know that you love me and will come again next year. I will write you a letter soon. All the best, xxxxxx

Are these letters historical facts proving the existence of Santa Claus? If not, why not?

3. I have had actual experiences and observations which have given me personal evidence of this truth. (This is a religious fact for you, right?)

So, if my son went to school after receiving his mit from Santa, and told his friends that he had personal experience and observation that Santa exists, would that be somehow as valid a claim as yours above? If not, why not?

4. Others have had these same experiences and attest to their truth. (This is a religious fact, right?)

So, if my son goes to school and someone older than he is tells him that there really is no Santa Claus, and my son says: "Yes there is. My sister also received a present from Santa and so did my friend Johnny. And I know a lot of other friends who got gifts from Santa. I know for a fact that there is a Santa.

Is that any different from your statement above? If so, how so?

5. God is a God of law and He has given us the law and when we obey it we see the effects of obedience and when we disobey we likewise feel the effects. (This is a religious fact, right?)

So, if my son says to his friends: "No, Santa always gives gifts to the kids who were good and I received my baseball mit because I was good. Johnny was good, too. That is why he received his mit, too. But, I was a little better this year, so I got a better mit than Johnny. The better I am each year, the better the gift. It works every time just like that."

Is Johnny's idea of Santa's law any different than what you state above? If so, how so?

I would like to know how Johnny's facts are different from your facts, if at all.

[why me]

Well, of course the strange thing about once believing and now disbelieving is that the church has not been proven false, not by a long shot. And so what do we have? We have people who chose to leave not because of falseness because nothing about the lds church has been proven false, but because of a feeling of disbelief. And that is fine with me.

What irks my nerves are the people that bear an upside down testimony about the church being false when no proof of falseness has been demonstrated. And so, we are left with a lack of desire or feeling that the church may be true. And yet, the book of mormon still stands tall without a reasonable explanation by a critic about how it came into being. And if a rational explanation is offered, it usually comes far short to proving the BofM false.

[Hammer]

Well, of course the strange thing about once believing and now disbelieving is that the church has not been proven false, not by a long shot. And so what do we have? We have people who chose to leave not because of falseness because nothing about the lds church has been proven false, but because of a feeling of disbelief. And that is fine with me.

What irks my nerves are the people that bear an upside testimony about the church being false when no proof of falseness has been demonstrated. And so, we are left with a lack of desire or feeling that the church may be true. And yet, the book of mormon still stands tall without a reasonable explanation by a critic about how it came into being. And if a rational explanation is offered, it usually comes far short to proving the BofM false.

God can be disproven by the mind of some. Just because you feel the church has been disproven, when the Spirit and God stand behind it, doesn't mean anything to those who have received confirmation.

[Deborah]

Gramps, God is truth, Santa a myth or a story. You cannot begin to compare the two. I never by the way taught my children that Santa was real, just a fun, imaginary part of Christmas.

[Matt Andrews]

It is an interesting question, and I think there are a variety of factors.

I'll focus on one:

I think there are a number of members, particularly those raised in the church, who have never had an "answer" to the question of whether the Church is true. For such people, the intellectual angle is the only one available, and when they become aware of the available evidence for/against the truthfulness of the LDS Church, they are left to decide without the benefit of a testimony (or hindrance of a testimony, depending how you see it).

Are there any still-believers out there who haven't had what they consider a spiritual witness confirming that the Church (or BoM) is true?

Perhaps there are some, but I'm willing to bet that a smaller proportion of those with such an experience end up leaving. That isn't to say they don't have intellectual reasons for staying as well, but it is the "testimony" experience that makes the difference in the exit decision.

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

charity wrote:

"We are always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. What we choose to embrace, to be response to, is the purest reflection of who are and what we love." Terryl Givens, "Lightning Out Of Heaven, BYU Studies (45:1) byustudies.byu.edu

This Givens quote is simply a twist on the "believers=good, leavers=bad" paradigm.

Givens offers a false choice between "credible conviction or dismissive denial", then implies that this choice to believe (or not believe) shows how good (or evil) we really are.

This is great ego stroking for believers, as it allows them to frame their choice as both "credible" and good, while anyone who "chooses" not to believe is both "dismissive" and evil.

[charity]

matt, you are a textbook example of projection. Nowhere does Givens attach good or bad to belief or disbelief. He just says that there is evidence to go either way. And since the scale does not of itself force a choice, the individual must just leap to one side of the fence or the other.

The ugly fact is that people who are chosing not to believe don't want the responsibility for their choice. They are the ones who think it is "bad" not to believe, so they are trying to make it seem like it is out of their hands. God has made many mansions. We will be gloriously happy which even kingdom we want to be in. So why should that be "bad." Lighten up on yourself, be happy in your choice, and don't get angry with the world about it.

[Matt Andrews]

matt, you are a textbook example of projection. Nowhere does Givens attach good or bad to belief or disbelief. He just says that there is evidence to go either way. And since the scale does not of itself force a choice, the individual must just leap to one side of the fence or the other.

The ugly fact is that people who are chosing not to believe don't want the responsibility for their choice. They are the ones who think it is "bad" not to believe, so they are trying to make it seem like it is out of their hands. God has made many mansions. We will be gloriously happy which even kingdom we want to be in. So why should that be "bad." Lighten up on yourself, be happy in your choice, and don't get angry with the world about it.

I'm not angry (and I'm not sure what gave you that impression).

Givens is clearly assigning value to the two choices: "credible conviction" or "dismissive denial". I'm guessing you do too. You believe, as Givens does, that this choice reveals something about (or is "the purest reflection of") the person's true nature. What is that something?

Note: If it is not some measure of virtue, some way that distiguishes the chosen from the chaff, then I'll gladly retract my statement.

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

The ugly fact is that people who are chosing not to believe don't want the responsibility for their choice. They are the ones who think it is "bad" not to believe, so they are trying to make it seem like it is out of their hands. God has made many mansions. We will be gloriously happy which even kingdom we want to be in. So why should that be "bad." Lighten up on yourself, be happy in your choice, and don't get angry with the world about it.

This is pure silliness. I don't think it is "bad" to not believe in Mormonism, because I think Mormonism is false. In general, I don't think it is good to believe in things that are false. The key difference, though, is I don't believe that believing Mormons, THEMSELVES, are bad. I don't think their "decision to believe" is the "purest reflection" of who they really are. Givens does. I don't think all those who have come to a different conclusion than me are choosing "dismissive denial". Givens does. Do you?

[Noggin]

I have been busy culling this thread for the one Truly Believing Mormon that will define for me, without even knowing it, the "Big Why or HOW" that person believes in Mormonism, but paradoxically that person's reason for belief is the EXACT reason for my unbelief.

I found it.

HOWEVER...I cannot deny as much as I want to the fact that I have felt the Spirit many times when thinking about the BoM and asking God about it. I just cant deny this no matter how hard I have wanted to. So now I am left to act with more faith than I have ever had to before. And just trust that God knows what he is doing.

That, dear fairboards friends, is probably the top tier reason for believing Mormonism for nearly all Mormons. "The Spirit Testified To Me That Mormonism Is True". Once I stepped outside my preconceived notions that Mormonism is The Only True Church, I examined many other faiths. I had no idea that so many religions also claim exclusivity to god's Only True Church. How do they know that THEY have the truth? Feelings. They also feel it is so.

Catholicism, Scientology, Eckankar, Jehovah's Witnesses, Evangelical Christianity and Islam to name a few.

I suggest, for an activity of enlightenment, that any believing Mormon who has not done so, go out and study with any or all of these religions to discover just how deeply the others "know" that their's is true and Mormonism is false. Get them to witness to you. They will after they meet with you a time or two. They will tell you how the world really is. I did it. It made my head swim. Before I did that, I was unable to walk away from Mormonism. But there was something about seeing the depth of conviction out there that opened my eyes.

By what measure do the Latter Day Saints feel that their faith is truer than the others? Not more not less than their religious exclusivity clones. The claim is the same, as is the justification for it. How do people not see it? Confirmation bias. That and the really well put emotion laden plea of

"Well, [insert the name of the religion] just works for me"

and how do you argue with that? (hint: you don't).

The quote I presented at the beginning is used by every single religion with an exclusivity claim. It is universal. It is interchangable as I demonstrate, here:

HOWEVER...I cannot deny as much as I want to the fact that I have felt the Spirit many times when thinking about the Bible, or the Eckists' Shabda Basni, or the L Ron Hubbardisms, or the Qu'ran and asking God, or The Living Eck Master, or L Ron Hubbard, or Allah about it. I just cant deny this no matter how hard I have wanted to. So now I am left to act with more faith than I have ever had to before. And just trust that God, or The Living Eck Master, or L Ron Hubbard, or Allah knows what he is doing.

Noggin

[juliann]

Givens is clearly assigning value to the two choices: "credible conviction" or "dismissive denial". I'm guessing you do too. You believe, as Givens does, that this choice reveals something about (or is "the purest reflection of") the person's true nature. What is that something?

It is always fascinating to see where one puts oneself....and the countermos always seem to be demanding that they be placed at the top by those they criticize. The problem isn't Givens. It is where you are placing yourself. Why would you see yourself as the "dismissive denial"? Don't you have faith in your choices? If you are going to sit here and say you know everything and faith is not required at all for your choices then there is no basis on which to have a rational conversation.

What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is

the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the

choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden

with moral significance.

You don't believe...anything? Nothing at all? Why are you even here? Mormons aren't going to validate your beliefs as you criticise ours. Why would we? More to the point why in the world do you demand that? You are in a Mormon forum and we are obviously going to present Mormon ideals as our goal. Did you really expect Givens to be validating your beliefs in an article about JS? Stop demanding we put our beliefs and ideals aside to make you feel better.

[juliann]

I suggest, for an activity of enlightenment, that any believing Mormon who has not done so, go out and study with any or all of these religions to discover just how deeply the others "know" that their's is true and Mormonism is false.

Uh...isn't that self-evident? Why would anyone have to discover the obvious? I would suggest you study other religion for what you can learn from the religion.

[Matt Andrews]

Sigh...I'm going to regret this...

Why would you see yourself as the "dismissive denial"?

I don't. Givens does. That is the point.

Mormons aren't going to validate your beliefs as you criticise ours.

I wasn't asking them to validate my beliefs, and I wasn't criticizing yours. I was pointing out that Givens quote implies that those whose beliefs are different than his are guilty of choosing "dismissive denial" and are revealing something less worthy about their true nature in doing so. Unless you believe that is an essential part of LDS belief, then I don't know what you can possibly think I was criticizing about LDS belief.

Stop demanding we put our beliefs and ideals aside to make you feel better.

I demanded no such thing. (?)

[juliann]

I don't. Givens does. That is the point.

So what? Is his premise correct? Do you expect everything to be about you personally? Could not the same thing be applied to any belief? I don't know about you but a good deal of what I read requires me to apply it to myself...myself. It isn't written about me. You can't see past the Mormon element to see the point and that is too bad. That is why I think seeing conversion/deconversion as a similar process is important. It does take the "bad" out of it. I find it odd that so many insist on wearing a negative label and then accuse everyone else of making them.