Exit Or Not

[blueadept]

I think many people leave because they are upset with various hard subjects. Even if you presented them with a solid answer they might not like the area of church history, doctrine, or practice, scripture any better. Lot's of times you can find no good answers, or answers you don't like for whatever reason.

In visiting the RFM site as a non-member, I'm amused at how many people there after leaving the LDS faith become atheists in their religious thoughts. It seems like they apply critical thinking to Mormonism, it fails the test, and then they apply that same critical thinking to if God exists at all and for them the answer is usually no.

For myself, I believe in the virtues of faith, hope, and charity as gifts of God. The faith to believe there is a God. The hope to believe there is life after this particular life. And charity to believe that God loves us so much that we share that love with others.

I'm just amused how exmo's have a tendency to be atheists once they leave the LDS church.

I liked the Book of Mormon fine, so kept my belief in the book and became Community of Christ/ RLDS.

Dale, I find your spiritual journey interesting and thanks for your contributions here at fairboards.

[Thinking]

...my comments were directed at anyone who apostatizes from previously held beliefs without replacing them with a new belief system.

I found your comment very interesting because some members of my family have asked me if I am going to attend another church. My answer: I don't know.

Before I met my wife, I was dating another girl. We had talked about the possibility of marriage, and our relationship was progressing. However, it didn't last, and when I knew that I could not marry her, we broke up. A couple of my friends told me that I should have stayed with her until I had found another girlfriend. I replied that I shouldn't pretend to be in a committed relationship until I find another girl.

Neither should I pretend to believe in a church just because I have not found a replacement church.

When you used the phrase "belief system," were you refering to organized religion, or were you possibly refering to a core set of values?

[Argos]

Ah, the irony of this post. It's wonderful to talk about how we should all have respect for each other's beliefs, but it's too bad that such a statement comes in a thread where those who no longer believe in Mormonism were told that their "reasons" were just excuses for a decision they'd already made. That's showing a lot of respect, don't you think?

Ah, the irony of your post. What is it called when you've asked for two other of your user names to be banned from FAIR so that you could control your urge to lurk and post and then you come back under yet another user name? What is it when you demand a certain level of respectful discussions here while denigrating LDS and their beliefs on another board?

What would you have us do? Would you like this user name banned also or would you like to join in discussions here and be accountable for the things you post on the net?

[Dale]

blueadept-A lot of people can't just become critical of Mormonism. They also start becoming critical of all religion. When I started looking into Evangelicalism it was basically over exposure to Evangelical Anti-Mormon material. Instead of making me think that religion was a better option I started to become offended by the material. I decided they had flaws & history in their religion as much as the problems in Mormonism. I decided they wern't truer to me.

Though I am satisfied the problems with Mormonism are far from the many critics think. Everything can be resolved to a certain degree. And to me I have a solution for problems in religion it's to admit the flaws exists. Then you have to decide the flaw just because it exists doesn't mean you have to abandon your beliefs.

Maybe with RFM persons are getting exposed to more atheist thinkers than people who believe in something. I had a lot more exposure to believing LDS people, LDS apologetics, scholarship and that is a positive religious influence. I had exposure to some good Evangelical scholarship. So while my disagreements developed with the church I still had a desire to believe in something.

Message boards can be a negative, or positive influence depending on where you love to post. If you are drawn towards places where people are negative towards the church all the time that effects your personality. So I see a lot of people exiting that get caught up in the being negative on Mormonism craze. The atheist leaners push out spiritual things they think is phony, so become aheists.

If one thinks of themselves as a victim of Mormonism that will cause a person to exit on top of other issues. To be a Mormon to some people is like being addicted to Alchohol, drugsand you need a support group to recover. I never needed that victim status to sort out my own ideas about religion.

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

Not Quite Me- Believe in nothing religious is a belief system. Atheists believe in something. They disbelieve in things they don't think are true. But they do have a testimony of what they believe is true.

[why me]

So? Neither has Catholicism been proven false. Nor has Islam. Nor Jehovah's Witnesses, Nor Eckankar. Even Scientologists believe that Scientology has not been proven false. Evangelical Christians "know" that Mormonism is false. It's all subjective to the perspective.

Noggin

And this is why my friend that you will not hear me say that all the above are false. All have the pieces of truth inside of them. However, in the mormon case, there is a book which is claimed to be of devine origin. And this claim has not been proven false. And that is my point. Those who leave do not leave because of falseness but rather because of a perceived falseness. And it is this perceived falseness of feeling that many attempt to use to destroy someone's faith in the lds church.

And that is dishonest and a problem.

[why me]

You are not alone. Our stories are very similar. God does not talk to me, no matter how hard I try.

Mabe you should not try so hard. Relax and live righteously and maybe the words will come through the senses or through words. But why try so hard? And if god answered would you listen to that still small voice? God is in whispers. And not always loud.

[Dale]

God does not talk to me either. I sometimes experience the warm fuzzies of relious experience, but not always. I sometimes get answers I choose the best one I can after pondering the merits of my options. If I feel good about what I have decided upon to some degree I go with that. If my feeling good is God talking to me then that's all I need.

Two good book's are For Those Who Wonder by Jeff Burton which is online to read. It's for an LDS audience that struggles with doubts & questions. And If I Really Believe Why Do I Have These Doubts by Lynn Anderson is also good.

[Noggin]

QUOTE(Noggin @ Nov 13 2006, 12:51 AM)

So? Neither has Catholicism been proven false. Nor has Islam. Nor Jehovah's Witnesses, Nor Eckankar. Even Scientologists believe that Scientology has not been proven false. Evangelical Christians "know" that Mormonism is false. It's all subjective to the perspective.

Noggin

And this is why my friend that you will not hear me say that all the above are false. All have the pieces of truth inside of them. However, in the mormon case, there is a book which is claimed to be of devine origin. And this claim has not been proven false. And that is my point. Those who leave do not leave because of falseness but rather because of a perceived falseness. And it is this perceived falseness of feeling that many attempt to use to destroy someone's faith in the lds church.

And that is dishonest and a problem.

Hi Why me. Just a question. I will leave your claim that the Book of Mormon has not been proven false on the table for now. You claim that Mormonism is true because the Book of Mormon has not been proven false. You claim that the other religions I listed are not false but you extend a qualifier in that the other religions have only pieces of the truth inside of them, suggesting that they are found lacking. If they are found lacking, then they, by default, do not have all of the truth, and thus are incapable of saving a man's soul. Else what would it matter that Mormonism claims to have all of the truth pertaining to god's outlined organization on earth today?

Do you claim that Mormonism has all of the pieces of truth inside of it?

I guess that you do.

Do you say that the Qur'an's divine origin has been proven false? Can you prove that? There are many who believe that they can prove it. But then we see 2 billion Muslim souls who vigorously refute that they have succeeded. Yet I do not see you running out to face Mecca 5 times a day on your knees. You are the Mormon version of the 2 billion Muslim stalwarts. You are no different. You believe that your book has not been proven false while many believe that it is... else we would be along side you, linked arms, singing the anthems of Joseph Smith.

In the end, there is no proof against religion except logic or probability for the case that it is all invented to assuage our human fears against scary unknown existential death conundrums.

In this very thread we have painfully read the words of a few who admit that they cannot get any gods to talk or respond to them. Why Me, this is a pervasive problem. The more I talk to people around me about how god interacts with them, the more I see how selective the gods are. And it raises a legitimate red flag. One person has private 2-way conversations with her god on a daily basis while the rest of us are, what? shunned? If god exists, it would not be so selectively capriciously hit and miss with it's creation.

Yours in the spirit of Korihor,

Noggin

[Jaybear]

OK, so we now have two self-provided examples of those who have rejected the LDS faith placing themselves on a higher intellectual plane than those who remain faithful to it.

Deborah: However, there is a limit to their testimony because there is a limit to their knowledge. No one here is questioning the sincerity of another's faith. We just believe that we have more knowledge and the correct knowledge

Seems like a fair tradeoff.

Exmos trading in spritual snobbery for intellectual snobbery.

[Dale]

I do not know everybody that claim's God is talking to them on a regular basis is always experiencing a conversation. People can get carried away by feelings, and get worked up into thinking God talks to them.

Who say's God is shunning the person because he does not visible talk to them? I have had the presence of the Holy Spirit in a mild way manifest. That to me is God talking to me. So I don't have to have others mighty experiences in order to believe in God. I can have the best experience with God I can, and thats ok. Even if my experience is from my own subjective feelings to a degree that's ok with me.

I think that you have to make sure before you approach trying to experience God that you don't suffer from depression. Depression can make you feel very apathetic towards spiritual things. I have suffered a chronic illness the last three years. I have been depressed. I don't have as many warm fuzzy experience as I used to.

Read faith promoting literature. Listen to spiritual music. Nuture what faith you have. If yu don't do that you are more likely to exit than those who stay. Church attendance takes discipline. I have been to ill lately to be that disciplined. But I try & set apart some time for spiritual things. I am horrible at prayer, but I try & read spiritual things.

[Abulafia]

Scott, you said:

But it seems that those who stay use the narrative that people are people

.

Many people that leave, use the narrative that people are people...

The church is a hospital for the sinners, not a museum for the saints.

Many people that leave , use the narrative that the church is a hospital for the sinners, not a museum for the saints, and often with much affection, and a little bit of wit and wry humour!!!

The church is true but the people aren't.

Ah...There's where it gets more tricky. I think people that leave might say that the church is (enough) untrue (in the balance.. to not warrant continued attendance), but the people (who still attend) are truly following what they believe deeply to be correct and God's will for them in their life.

On the other side of the coin,

Why does it have to be the other side of the coin?

I hear stories of ecclesiastical abuse

Active members hear and deal with stories of ecclesiastical abuse

allegations of lack of inspiration

Active members are aware of this

and questions of why the church leadership wasn't given a revelation to protect.

Active members deal with this

I also hear allegations of deception and lies.

They no doubt go on in any organisation that hasn't been translated on chariots of Gold up to the heavens (and thus imperfect) Active members deal with this

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.

Strong members might also experience mental challenges in resolving those issues. You imply that those who question are weak?

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.

Perhaps because the evidence isn't compelling at this present time for an intellectual conversion

[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.)

Disagree...I really don't know how many people really think this at any point on the spectrum?

We are all just doing the best we can to be authentic individuals, true to ourselves and our beliefs. That journey may take us on different paths, but equally valid, and hopefully equally good.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes. you need to say quite a bit more. You could start by justifying your astonishing misstatement of what I actually said. I have not rejected the LDS faith and I said nothing to suggest I consider myself to be on a higher intellectual plane than others. I did say that the Church teaches that faith is not, and is not intended to be acquired through an intellectual process. I know very few members who claim that they have acquired their faith intellectually and who make any attempt to justify it intellectually. That is hardly surprising, since we teach (quite rightly, in my opinion), that faith is a spiritual and not an intellectual matter. This assertion is not even remotely close to your characterization of my remarks.

Why do you insist that those who see things differently, or whose spiritual experiences differ from your own, believe that they are intellectually superior?

Maybe it was this line from your post:

I think that it is true that most LDS lack the will to view the faith intellectually.

It seemed to fit a pattern I have observed again and again: disaffected Mormons depicting Church members as being intellectually shrouded with regard to their own beliefs. I see it as characteristic of human nature, a rationalization of one's own loss of faith by attributing it to intellectual enlightenment. It's the disaffected member's application of the line from "Amazing Grace": "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind, but now I see."

[Dale]

In many cases LDS people are not confronted with the full brunt of intellectual issues that critics are into. So members that run into some of these topics are surprised by information. It's one thing to know an issue in summary form, but another to get exposed to in-depth information about it. People run into stuff they had never heard before.

[Scott Lloyd]

In many cases LDS people are not confronted with the full brunt of intellectual issues that critics are into. So members that run into some of these topics are surprised by information. It's one thing to know an issue in summary form, but another to get exposed to in-depth information about it. People run into stuff they had never heard before.

I don't doubt that's the case. But while some lose their faith, I dare say many others are motivated to further thought and to avail themselves of knowledge and information which, ultimately, solidifies their faith.

[Troubled]

Maybe it was this line from your post:

It seemed to fit a pattern I have observed again and again: disaffected Mormons depicting Church members as being intellectually shrouded with regard to their own beliefs. I see it as characteristic of human nature, a rationalization of one's own loss of faith by attributing it to intellectual enlightenment. It's the disaffected member's application of the line from "Amazing Grace": "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind, but now I see."

Then let me try to clarify. I was responding to the following statement made by you: "So are you saying, then, that believing Latter-day Saints lack the capacity and/or will to view the faith intellectually?"

I don't believe that Latter-day Saints lack the capacity to view the faith intellectually. I do think that the majority of them lack the will to do so. They view their faith spiritually, not intellectually. They did not acquire their faith intellectually, and they do not attempt to justify it intellectually. Faith is not, for the majority of them, an intellectual exercise. (I happen to agree with them that this is as it should be.) That is why I said they they do not view the faith intellectually. I am not critical of them for doing that. I am simply making the observation that, for the large majority, faith is not arrived at, justified by, or viewed through the lense of the intellect. Most are blissfully unengaged in the intellectual debate that occurs in the academy.

I don't see how that observation would lead any fair minded person to conclude that I consider myself to be on a higher intellectual plane that somebody else.

Sure, I understand that many attribute their loss of faith to intellectual enlightenment. I am not one of those people. I attributed my (partial) loss of faith to the failure to experience the spiritual enlightenment that others experience. However, I don't understand why those who attribute their loss of faith to intellectual enlightenment should be accused of "rationalizing" or of intellectual arrogance. It happens all the time that people encounter new information that makes them change their opinions on some matters. Reasonable people do not normally accuse those people of rationalizing or of arrogance, just because they have reached different conclusions. It is just as easy to rationalize maintaining one's faith as it is to rationalize losing it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Then let me try to clarify. I was responding to the following statement made by you: "So are you saying, then, that believing Latter-day Saints lack the capacity and/or will to view the faith intellectually?"

I don't believe that Latter-day Saints lack the capacity to view the faith intellectually. I do think that the majority of them lack the will to do so. They view their faith spiritually, not intellectually. They did not acquire their faith intellectually, and they do not attempt to justify it intellectually. Faith is not, for the majority of them, an intellectual exercise. (I happen to agree with them that this is as it should be.) That is why I said they they do not view the faith intellectually. I am not critical of them for doing that. I am simply making the observation that, for the large majority, faith is not arrived at, justified by, or viewed through the lense of the intellect. Most are blissfully unengaged in the intellectual debate that occurs in the academy.

I don't see how that observation would lead any fair minded person to conclude that I consider myself to be on a higher intellectual plane that somebody else.

Sure, I understand that many attribute their loss of faith to intellectual enlightenment. I am not one of those people. I attributed my (partial) loss of faith to the failure to experience the spiritual enlightenment that others experience. However, I don't understand why those who attribute their loss of faith to intellectual enlightenment should be accused of "rationalizing" or of intellectual arrogance. It happens all the time that people encounter new information that makes them change their opinions on some matters. Reasonable people do not normally accuse those people of rationalizing or of arrogance, just because they have reached different conclusions. It is just as easy to rationalize maintaining one's faith as it is to rationalize losing it.

I know of nothing in the revelations of God that precludes Latter-day Saints from seeking and gaining intellectual support for their faith. On the other hand, a scriptural passage comes readily to mind that would seem to do just the opposite:

And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith.

(Doctrine and Covenants 109:7, bold emphasis added)

At the very least you seem to be depicting yourself as being, if not more intellectually enlightened, more intellectually diligent than a typical believing Latter-day Saint. I'm not convinced that is the case.

[Troubled]

I know of nothing in the revelations of God that precludes Latter-day Saints from seeking and gaining intellectual support for their faith. On the other hand, a scriptural passage comes readily to mind that would seem to do just the opposite:

(Doctrine and Covenants 109:7, bold emphasis added)

At the very least you seem to be depicting yourself as being, if not more intellectually enlightened, more intellectually diligent than a typical believing Latter-day Saint. I'm not convinced that is the case.

I am genuinely mystified that you would level this accusation about me given my earlier comments. I made a few comments about my spiritual impoverishment, but I have said nothing whatsoever about my own perceived intellectual enlightenment or my intellectual diligence. I am not the least bit interested in the relative intellectual abilities or insights of believers and non-believers. I think I will just leave this tangent alone. I can only assume that you have had enough bad experiences in the past with people who actually do possess the obnoxious qualities you attribute to me, that it is difficult not to apply those labels to people like me.

[Mighty Curelom]

It seemed to fit a pattern I have observed again and again: disaffected Mormons depicting Church members as being intellectually shrouded with regard to their own beliefs. I see it as characteristic of human nature, a rationalization of one's own loss of faith by attributing it to intellectual enlightenment. It's the disaffected member's application of the line from "Amazing Grace": "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind, but now I see."

Do you think most Mormons are as familiar with the so-called "controversial" aspects of Mormonism that are discussed ad infinitum on this board as you are?

I don't know about you, but if I even attempt to discuss anything remotely controversial with my LDS family or aquaintances, the response is typically something like this: "I can't hear you...la la la...I can't hear you..."

The fact is, Mormons are abysmally undereducated about their own religion. Not that they're at all unique; the average Christian off the street doesn't even know that the gospels weren't written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. I heard a poll recently that said most Christians think the phrase "God helps those who help themselves" comes from the Bible. Talking to an average Christian about the historical aspects of the very philosphy they claim to base their entire life on is like watching Jay Leno do his "jaywalking" bit. But while most people in most religions are hopelessly ignorant about their own professed belief system, Mormons seem to possess a particularly willful, intentional ignorance. I've even heard Mormons admit that they don't study Mormon history because their "testimony isn't strong enough."

If ex-Mormons seem condescending, maybe it's because they really do know more about Mormonism than Joe Shmoe molly Mormon.

(Any by the way, look at the make-up of the posters on this board. It's more or less equally divided between Mormons and ex-Mormons. While in no way rigorously scientific, one can draw the conclusion that of those who are the most aware of controversial aspects of Mormonism, half of them stop believing. That's a horrible track record for a belief system drilled into a person's head from infancy, and reinforced through cultural and social ties. You might find it comforting that "many" LDS are just as aware of the controversies as the critics are and continue to believe, but you shouldn't find it that comforting.)

[MorningStar]

(Any by the way, look at the make-up of the posters on this board. It's more or less equally divided between Mormons and ex-Mormons. While in no way rigorously scientific, one can draw the conclusion that of those who are the most aware of controversial aspects of Mormonism, half of them stop believing. That's a horrible track record for a belief system drilled into a person's head from infancy, and reinforced through cultural and social ties. You might find it comforting that "many" LDS are just as aware of the controversies as the critics are and continue to believe, but you shouldn't find it that comforting.)

Wow. What a very scientific conclusion that was. Do you have any proof to back that up? How many ex-Mormons here are actual ex-Mormons and not pretending to be ex-Mormons? How many started studying church history after they had already left the church? I have known a lot of people who left the church in person and not one of them studied their way out. They were either angry/upset about something or they felt like they couldn't live church standards, so they gave up, then they started searching for more things to disprove the truthfulness of the Gospel to themselves.

[Hammer]

I know of nothing in the revelations of God that precludes Latter-day Saints from seeking and gaining intellectual support for their faith. On the other hand, a scriptural passage comes readily to mind that would seem to do just the opposite:

(Doctrine and Covenants 109:7, bold emphasis added)

At the very least you seem to be depicting yourself as being, if not more intellectually enlightened, more intellectually diligent than a typical believing Latter-day Saint. I'm not convinced that is the case.

I believe most who leave think that anyone staying is intellecutally inferior to themselves. In all actually it is just the opposite. Those who are enlightened by the Holy Ghost or Spirit of Christ surpass intellectual limits while still being totally filled with intellectual understanding which a normal intellectual lacks. Understanding beyond the human capasity.

[Deborah]

I believe most who leave think that anyone staying is intellecutally inferior to themselves. In all actually it is just the opposite. Those who are enlightened by the Holy Ghost or Spirit of Christ surpass intellectual limits while still being totally filled with intellectual understanding which a normal intellectual lacks. Understanding beyond the human capasity.

Watch it Hammer. You'll be accused of being a spiritual snob. Of course I don't understand the thinking that because you believe you have the truth that by presenting that you are somehow a snob. I guess it's a politically correct thing where no one dare say for example that America is the greatest country on earth, even though you really believe it.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am genuinely mystified that you would level this accusation about me given my earlier comments. I made a few comments about my spiritual impoverishment, but I have said nothing whatsoever about my own perceived intellectual enlightenment or my intellectual diligence. I am not the least bit interested in the relative intellectual abilities or insights of believers and non-believers. I think I will just leave this tangent alone. I can only assume that you have had enough bad experiences in the past with people who actually do possess the obnoxious qualities you attribute to me, that it is difficult not to apply those labels to people like me.

If I have misjudged you, I apologize.

My confusion may have stemmed from the apparent eagerness with which you sided with BlueAdept, who wrote:

As a non-member, I believe I have given up about trying to talk about Mormonism from an intellectual standpoint. My intellectual problems which start with JS and the BoM falls on deaf ears when discussing issues with members of the LDS church or my TBM wife.

It now appears you are placing yourself among what you perceive to be that rank-and-file of the Church who are enjoined from seeking intellectual knowledge as a partial basis for their faith. I don't accept that as being the case and have provided one scriptural passage (others could be cited) that indicates otherwise.

[Tom]

I like this way of looking at it:

Behavior following belief is being rejected as the dominent theory:

I agree with this statement. I tried to make the church doctrine make sense in my mind. I was trying to play the role of the believer, but was having a very difficult time with it. I guess it was because of circumstances in my life (living in a predominantly non-mormon community gave me another available social group), but I decided to see if the church made sense from an unbelieving view. I decided to play the role of the nonbeliever. It fit better than the believer for me.

[Scott Lloyd]

(Any by the way, look at the make-up of the posters on this board. It's more or less equally divided between Mormons and ex-Mormons. While in no way rigorously scientific, one can draw the conclusion that of those who are the most aware of controversial aspects of Mormonism, half of them stop believing. That's a horrible track record for a belief system drilled into a person's head from infancy, and reinforced through cultural and social ties. You might find it comforting that "many" LDS are just as aware of the controversies as the critics are and continue to believe, but you shouldn't find it that comforting.)

Well I'm definitely not discomfited by a conclusion that you understatedly acknowledge is "in no way rigorously scientific."

I could just as reasonably opine that the make-up of the board, if you have characterized it accurately, is due to the endemic propensity among ex-Mormons to tear down what they have left behind, in contrast to the relatively little interest among faithful Latter-day Saints in engaging antagonists on every little carping criticism that comes along.

[cdowis]

>The fact is, Mormons are abysmally undereducated about their own religion.

What an interesting comment.

By "religion", are you speaking of the location of the Hill Cumorah, the Book of the Dead scrolls vs Book of Abraham, polygamy, and various apologetic issues?

Or do you mean living a clean life, active in performing church duties, raising our families, reading scriptures, daily prayer.

I suspect that you have apologetics confused with living one's religion.