Exit Or Not

[Troubled]

If I have misjudged you, I apologize.

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

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.

Apology accepted.

To be honest, I am not sure why you thought that I eagerly sided with BlueAdept. I was following up on a comment that you made, and said that I couldn't speak for BlueAdept. Nor do I understand why you would think that I believe that we are enjoined from seeking intellectual knowledge. I happen to agree with you in that regard.

My only point is that faith is not considered to be an intellectual pursuit or the fruit of an intellectual exercise. Few members see it as such. They do not believe that faith comes through an intellectual process and for that reason they do not view it intellectually. That does not mean they are stupid, or intellectually inferior. They are embarked on a spiritual, and not an intellectual journey. You may take issue with that statement if you want to, but it is certainly not meant to be demeaning in the least, and does not imply any sense of intellectual superiority. Please don't read anything more into my comments than that. I am quite convinced that a number of the apologists on this board are my clear intellectual superiors. I am also quite convinced that that has nothing to do with the real issue here, for differences in intellectual acumen is not an adequate explanation for the differences between believers and unbelievers. But neither is relative sincerity, personal worthiness or spiritual searching.

[Hammer]

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.

I guess I have been accused of worse than being a snob. Hey btw, I don't believe that America is the greatest country. It might have been once. But no more.

[Abulafia]

>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.

But that's the whole point cdowis, the lds faith comes as a package that is tied up tightly. All the eggs are in one basket. I don't disagree with living a clean life, serving the community, raising families, reading uplifting works, and a belief in the divine, but the LDS church isn't JUST about that. If that's ALL it was about I would probably still be there, with the proviso that service to the community is AS important as service in the church. (sometimes I think there is a tendency to get so wrapped up in church that the outside world is all but forgotten)

BECAUSE, the system is packaged so tightly, once you disbelieve one part (aspects of the history for instance, or the need for authority) then the whole house of cards comes falling down, and then it is a process of rebuilding for the leaver.

(Edited because wrote initial post very early in morning and obviously brain wasn't in gear when it comes to spellings etc....)

[why me]

But that's the whole point cdowis, the lds faith comes as a package that is tied up tightly. All the eggs are in one basket. I don't disagree with leaving a clean life, serving the community, raising families, reading uplifting works, and a belief in the divine, but the LDS church isn't JUST about that. If that's ALL it was about I would probably still be there, with the proviso that service to the community is AS important as service in the church. (sometimes I think there is a tendency to get so wrapped up in church that the outside world is all but forgotten)

Actually, I have been to some catholic events recently and I can tell you that active catholics are very wrapped up in their religion. Most devote people are wrapped up in their religion. The lds are no exception. Remember, the lds church has no vocational clergy. Rather, it only has lay individuals to keep the church afloat and because of this, it needs active volunteers in the church to do church service. And yes, this can take time away from the community unfortunately. What to do?

The solution would be to implement a vocational clergy with people actively choosing church service as a vocation. Outside of that possiblity, the situation will stay the same. The lds church is not responsible for the hurried life that now exists for people in the world.

But the devil is.

And he is doing a great job in making things difficult for the lds. The outside is forgotten might not be totally true but church life is a busy life that is for sure but then again, it is a busy life for nuns, priests, pastors and vicars too. It is just that they have a vocation to serve but the lds don't.

[GRW]

Fascinating, and for me, very timely discussion.

It seems to me that those who stay and those who leave do so for essentially the same reason. They look at the evidence (spiritual, physical and otherwise), and weigh it in the balance of their life experience, personality and current set of needs, and make a choice. Whether the choice is primarily intellectual, spiritual, social or emotional really depends on the individual.

For me, I have chosen to stay, though I do not believe any more.

As an aside, I find it mildly amusing and really sad that for many people on both sides of the belief line, the argument so often boils down to the existence of a fundamental flaw in the 'opponent.' Ex-Mos are called intellectually arrogant, or weak, or lacking in faith. Faithful Mormons are called spiritual snobs, sheep, or intellectually lazy.

I am very, very grateful to all of you who manage to have this discussion without falling into these traps.

[why me]

For me, I have chosen to stay, though I do not believe any more.

Now that is rather difficult. The lds church is a difficult church to stay in if one no longer believes and is so definite about it. How to manage the callings, the talks, the people. As for me, I am inactive and attend. I say no to callings, to prayers in sacrement, to talks etc. But I manage because I do not think that the church is not true.

But how do you manage?

[GRW]

The lds church is a difficult church to stay in if one no longer believes and is so definite about it ...

But how do you manage?

You are right that it is not easy. Sometimes it is rather maddening.

But I guess it boils down to two primary facts (short version):

1. I am a better person with the church than I would have been without it.

2. It is my family's church and culture.

That said, there were (are) serious matters of grief, pain, anger and pride to wade through before I could even begin to comfortably occupy this space. Speaking only personally, this has been a far greater test of my Christianity than being a believing member ever was.

[KevinG]

But that's the whole point cdowis, the lds faith comes as a package that is tied up tightly. All the eggs are in one basket. I don't disagree with living a clean life, serving the community, raising families, reading uplifting works, and a belief in the divine, but the LDS church isn't JUST about that. If that's ALL it was about I would probably still be there, with the proviso that service to the community is AS important as service in the church. (sometimes I think there is a tendency to get so wrapped up in church that the outside world is all but forgotten)

BECAUSE, the system is packaged so tightly, once you disbelieve one part (aspects of the history for instance, or the need for authority) then the whole house of cards comes falling down, and then it is a process of rebuilding for the leaver.

(Edited because wrote initial post very early in morning and obviously brain wasn't in gear when it comes to spellings etc....)

Let me get this straight? Our Salvation in Christ is packaged tightly with what exactly? Brighams 19th century view of race? Joseph struggling to comprehend and live the Principle?

I doubt its coincidence that you neglect to mention the core doctrines and beliefs that make on a Latter-day Saint in your message, then you presume to know that we must wrap all of our beliefs both core and speculative in a tight little bundle or the whole "house of cards" falls in, then you go on to say that this is the reason you aren't a member any more. The problem seems to be with your requirements for being a Saints more than the actual beliefs of the active Saints.

[Abulafia]

Let me get this straight? Our Salvation in Christ is packaged tightly with what exactly? Brighams 19th century view of race? Joseph struggling to comprehend and live the Principle?

I doubt its coincidence that you neglect to mention the core doctrines and beliefs that make on a Latter-day Saint in your message, then you presume to know that we must wrap all of our beliefs both core and speculative in a tight little bundle or the whole "house of cards" falls in, then you go on to say that this is the reason you aren't a member any more. The problem seems to be with your requirements for being a Saints more than the actual beliefs of the active Saints.

Dad, there is some flexibility built into the system. There's lots of flexibility with sin really isn't there. That's what disfellowshipment and excommunication is about, trying to ease a person having a hard time with some of the standards, back in. Courts of love and all that. (not that I have ever been through the process..!)

But there's not much flexibility on the beliefs. Despite the argument that the church is liberal, it really isn't that liberal when it comes to defining what you need to BELIEVE in order to stay in good standing.

I don't think the LDs church is one where you can cherry pick what you believe (understandably so) to any great degree. I hope this makes sense????

[KevinG]

Dad, there is some flexibility built into the system. There's lots of flexibility with sin really isn't there. That's what disfellowship and excommunication is about, trying to ease a person having a hard time with some of the standards, back in. Courts of love and all that. (not that I have ever been through the process..!)

But there's not much flexibility on the beliefs. Despite the argument that the church is liberal, it really isn't that liberal when it comes to defining what you need to BELIEVE in order to stay in good standing.

I don't think the LDs church is one where you can cherry pick what you believe (understandably so) to any great degree. I hope this makes sense????

You aren't being clear. You charged that: "the lds faith comes as a package that is tied up tightly. All the eggs are in one basket. I don't disagree with living a clean life, serving the community, raising families, reading uplifting works, and a belief in the divine, but the LDS church isn't JUST about that. "

What are the things that go into the "ins't JUST about that category that would prevent someone from being a Latter-Day Saint?

Can you give an example of a belief that one can hold that would disqualify them from being a Latter-day Saint that isn't part of the basics?

Can you give me an example of a belief that is speculative that being held would cause a person to no longer be a Latter-day Saint.

[Abulafia]

You aren't being clear. You charged that: "the lds faith comes as a package that is tied up tightly. All the eggs are in one basket. I don't disagree with living a clean life, serving the community, raising families, reading uplifting works, and a belief in the divine, but the LDS church isn't JUST about that. "

What are the things that go into the "ins't JUST about that category that would prevent someone from being a Latter-Day Saint?

Can you give an example of a belief that one can hold that would disqualify them from being a Latter-day Saint that isn't part of the basics?

Can you give me an example of a belief that is speculative that being held would cause a person to no longer be a Latter-day Saint.

Dad, unless the church has changed drastically, then as a missionary I taught a core set of discussions that would prepare a person to become a member of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints.

That included the first vision experience, the conferring of the authority on Joseph by Peter James and John, and by John the Baptist, the belief in the leaders of the church as prophets and apostles, faith and repentance, the Book of Mormon, (as scripture along with the bible) with Moroni's promise, and then the commandments such as the word of wisdom, the law of chasity, and lastly paying tithing.

Of all those discussions, I can honestly say that other than the commandments, (and faith and repentance) I don't believe I can sign my name to them. I don't believe Joseph was a prophet, I don't believe in the need for a specific LDS authority, I don't believe Peter James and John visited him, or John the Baptist, I don't believe that the Book of Mormon is historical, and wonder what Moroni (or whoever wrote the passage) was really asking when he implored the reader to ask if....these things are not true....

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true;

What things? The book as historical, the book as inspiration, the whole book or just a section? And why ask in the negative?.

I also don't believe in tithing as the church teaches it.

How on earth can I be a member in good standing with those beliefs? I can't, no matter how much I try to follow the admonition of Jesus to love others and myself...it doesn't seem to matter unless I believe those specific things already mentioned.

I can't do it.

[GRW]

How on earth can I be a member in good standing with those beliefs? I can't, no matter how much I try to follow the admonition of Jesus to love others and myself...it doesn't seem to matter unless I believe those specific things already mentioned.

I can't do it.

As far as the things you have named, we share the same beliefs (or lack thereof). My question is, do you feel that you personally "can't do it," or that it really can't be done?

I ask because I am sincerely trying to do it, and they jury is still out on whether I can. But I hope I can.

[KevinG]

That was my issue with Abu's first statement. It seemed to indicate that the Church doctrines were so interdependent that finding fault with any minor speculative one would bring the whole "house of cards" down. I can certainly understand with that mindset how something would disturb her enough for her to lose her faith, but that fundamentalism is not required of anyone to be a Saint.

In fact that level of fundamentalism often causes people to self select out of being a member of the LDS Church. For example the expectation that Prophets should be perfect or nigh unto...

I challenged the assertion because I'm more than a little weary of people claiming that to be LDS someone has to throw away their personal differences or believe in something so inflexible as to make it unreachable.

Abu origianlly claimed that there isn't much flexibility in the beliefs and that the Saints were undereducated in their own religion... When pressed on what issues were included she listed some of the very basics that no Latter-day Saints should or would be baptised without knowing unless there were some serious error in their teaching.

In conclusion I'd have to agree with CDowis in saying that the Saints are pretty well educated in their own doctrines. The minutia we deal with here in apologetics notwithstanding. The Saints are aware of the Claims of Joseph as Prophet and the restoration however, so I'm still at a loss for what Abu is complaining about.

[Abulafia]

It seemed to indicate that the Church doctrines were so interdependent that finding fault with any minor speculative one would bring the whole "house of cards" down. I can certainly understand with that mindset how something would disturb her enough for her to lose her faith, but that fundamentalism is not required of anyone to be a Saint.

Whether the issues are minor and speculative is a matter of opinion dad.

In fact that level of fundamentalism often causes people to self select out of being a member of the LDS Church. For example the expectation that Prophets should be perfect or nigh unto...

Nothing to do with Prophets being perfect. I don't know why you mention that??

Abu origianlly claimed that there isn't much flexibility in the beliefs

There isn't, and I have outlined the specific beliefs as you asked

and that the Saints were undereducated in their own religion...

You are mixing me up with someone else. I am not aware of ever saying or implying such a thing..!!

When pressed on what issues were included she listed some of the very basics that no Latter-day Saints should or would be baptised without knowing unless there were some serious error in their teaching.

I gave a list of the discussions that I taught as a missionary that prepared a person, if they accepted, to be a member in good standing. That's all.

In conclusion I'd have to agree with CDowis in saying that the Saints are pretty well educated in their own doctrines.

I'm not arguing against that, though others are, like Mightly Curelom.

The minutia we deal with here in apologetics notwithstanding. The Saints are aware of the Claims of Joseph as Prophet and the restoration however, so I'm still at a loss for what Abu is complaining about.

I'm not complaining. I'm making observations. (Dad that reminds me of my husband. When I make an observation it's a complaint or in UK speak...I'm nagging!, when he makes an observation...It's just that...an observation!! lol

Abulafia

[Abulafia]

As far as the things you have named, we share the same beliefs (or lack thereof). My question is, do you feel that you personally "can't do it," or that it really can't be done?

I ask because I am sincerely trying to do it, and they jury is still out on whether I can. But I hope I can.

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

Just me, GRW. I personally can't do it. I can't speak for anyone else on that issue.

[KevinG]

>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.

But that's the whole point cdowis, the lds faith comes as a package that is tied up tightly. All the eggs are in one basket. I don't disagree with living a clean life, serving the community, raising families, reading uplifting works, and a belief in the divine, but the LDS church isn't JUST about that. If that's ALL it was about I would probably still be there, with the proviso that service to the community is AS important as service in the church. (sometimes I think there is a tendency to get so wrapped up in church that the outside world is all but forgotten)

BECAUSE, the system is packaged so tightly, once you disbelieve one part (aspects of the history for instance, or the need for authority) then the whole house of cards comes falling down, and then it is a process of rebuilding for the leaver.

(Edited because wrote initial post very early in morning and obviously brain wasn't in gear when it comes to spellings etc....)

This is the exchange I was referring too, and your claim that the whole package was so tight that once you rejected one aspect of the history the whole "house of cards comes falling down", was in response to his saying we are educated in our own doctrines.

If you are having personal issues with Joseph Smith being a prophet than yes I'd say you have issues with the basics of our religion. Your original comments left me with a much different impression.

...and in speaking of the "leavers" you were quite clearly speaking for others besides yourself.

[blueadept]

You aren't being clear. You charged that: "the lds faith comes as a package that is tied up tightly. All the eggs are in one basket. I don't disagree with living a clean life, serving the community, raising families, reading uplifting works, and a belief in the divine, but the LDS church isn't JUST about that. "

I would like to inject some personal thoughts here since I agree with all of the above and have no problems with any of this of my wife's faith

What are the things that go into the "ins't JUST about that category that would prevent someone from being a Latter-Day Saint?

Can you give an example of a belief that one can hold that would disqualify them from being a Latter-day Saint that isn't part of the basics?

For myself, since I have issues and question the plausibility with the JS story and the BoM story, I haven't seen any reason why I can't follow in Jesus's path without these two important attributes. I asked my wife, if my faith in Jesus Christ doesn't involve JS, should I be LDS?

[Abulafia]

I'll stand by everything I said Dad, hope that I clarified what I meant well enough.

[GRW]

When pressed on what issues were included she listed some of the very basics that no Latter-day Saints should or would be baptised without knowing unless there were some serious error in their teaching...

The Saints are aware of the Claims of Joseph as Prophet and the restoration however ...

Forgive me if I am inappropriately connecting two unrelated points here. Speaking from personal experience as a convert, there is a great difference between what one is taught about the restoration and what actually happened--a discrepancy that can harm both the convert and the church.

At the heart of the discussions (it was @20 years ago), were two propositions: 1) the Book of Mormon--if it's true, all the rest is true, too 2) Joseph Smith--if he was truly a prophet of God, then it's all true. That's how it was presented to me, and how I was taught to present it as a missionary.

Problem is, that if either of those postulates fails in the mind of that convert (me), then the instant reaction is to reverse the logic. It takes a lot of time and patience to withdraw oneself from the false dichotomy.

Now, I can regard the Book of Mormon as not historical while accepting that it has much to teach me. I do not believe Joseph actually saw God and Jesus Christ--though he may well have believed he did--but I can still find value in many of the things he did and taught.

[KevinG]

I'll stand by everything I said Dad, hope that I clarified what I meant well enough.

I am happy that you clarified your original comments were referring to your personal attitudes and not implying that if someone had a problem with any LDS belief (no matter how tangential) than the whole thing must be rejected.

I think CDowis remarks were spot on regarding the LDS being well versed in the basic doctrines of their religion and didn't understand why you would have countered that point.

Thanks for clarifying.

[KevinG]

Forgive me if I am inappropriately connecting two unrelated points here. Speaking from personal experience as a convert, there is a great difference between what one is taught about the restoration and what actually happened--a discrepancy that can harm both the convert and the church.

At the heart of the discussions (it was @20 years ago), were two propositions: a) the Book of Mormon--if it's true, all the rest is true, too; Joseph Smith--if he was truly a prophet of God, then it's all true. That's how it was presented to me, and how I was taught to present it as a missionary.

Problem is, that if either of those postulates fails in the mind of that convert (me), then the instant reaction is to reverse the logic. It takes a lot of time and patience to withdraw oneself from the false dichotomy.

Now, I can regard the Book of Mormon as not historical while accepting that it has much to teach me. I do not believe Joseph actually saw God and Jesus Christ--though he may well have believed he did--but I can still find value in many of the things he did and taught.

There is no argument at all that if someone doesn't accept the basic doctrines of the LDS than they aren't LDS. What I do take issue with is the idea that someone who disagrees with some speculative or non-central doctrine cannot be LDS or the even more insulting argument that a faithful Saint must not be informed about their own beliefs.

Joseph as Prophet and witness of God the Father and Son, and the belief that the Book of Mormon as a Testament of Jesus Christ are well known and understood by the Saints. It is not as if these are ideas introduced to people after their baptism. MCs original claim that the LDS don't know their doctrine was a false one. CDowis contered that. Abu seemed to take issue with CDowis comments and I sought to clarify what the issue was.

[GRW]

There is no argument at all that if someone doesn't accept the basic doctrines of the LDS than they aren't LDS.

In your opinion then, should I remain a member of the church, since I do not believe in most of the basic doctrines of the church? I ask sincerely, and not sarcastically.

Is it more important to believe correctly (from your perspective), or to live correctly? Or are the two inseparable--i.e., by believing incorrectly (again, from your perspective), am I then living incorrectly?

I ask because I find that the line between "loyal heretic" and "hypocrite" can be very thin indeed, and I am interested in the perspective of others.

[emeliza]

Whether you should remain a member of the Church or not is a huge and very personal decision. From what you have stated you still believe in Christ as your Savior, but not in Joseph Smith as a prophet. You believe that the BoM is a good book to learn by, but not historical. My suggestion would be to pray on it. Pray on whether to stay in the Church or to leave.

I converted to the Church knowing all these problems. I converted after reading the anti material and much of the history (good, bad and ugly). When it came down to it though, it just didn't matter to me whether or not Joseph Smith married a 14 year old or a women who already had a husband. I didn't see either of those women complaining. The people complaining were generally not affected by the actions of the people involved. I do believe that JS was a prophet. Reading the Old Testament has really shown me that prophets screw up constantly or are preceived as screwing up. I would guess if we had more accurate records of the prophets of old there would be a ton of other things. I mean honestly if Moses was so great and flaw free, why did his people turn against him so often? I don't believe it was just because they were not following God, I would have to gather he did some things they didn't like. But again, often times as humans we don't like the things that we perceive God doing either. Tragedies happen. People get sick, lose family and loved ones, natural disasters, accidents....all these we believe that God had a hand in some way right. Some people turn away from God, but others sick to their faith. Some people blame God for these, others thank God for getting past it. Figure out where you stand I guess.

But no matter what, pray and ask for guidance. The gospel is awesome, but you will have to figure out if it is enough for you to endure the rest of the glitches or not.

[blueadept]

In your opinion then, should I remain a member of the church, since I do not believe in most of the basic doctrines of the church? I ask sincerely, and not sarcastically.

Is it more important to believe correctly (from your perspective), or to live correctly? Or are the two inseparable--i.e., by believing incorrectly (again, from your perspective), am I then living incorrectly?

I ask because I find that the line between "loyal heretic" and "hypocrite" can be very thin indeed, and I am interested in the perspective of others.

It sounds like you're trying to be a new order mormon because of the social issues of family and friends. It's not a very comfortable position to be in if you don't believe. I suggest you check out their website. There's lots of people in your situation.

Only you can be the judge of how your family and friends will react to your choice, so I'm not going suggest anything in either direction. But realize there are support groups for your situation until you can determine how to practice your faith in God.

Good luck.

[Jaybear]

When it came down to it though, it just didn't matter to me whether or not Joseph Smith married a 14 year old or a women who already had a husband. I didn't see either of those women complaining. The people complaining were generally not affected by the actions of the people involved.

What about Emma? Didnt she complain? Does she not count? What about their husbands? Did they know, does it not matter to you if they were not told, or had complained? You don't think putting pressure on a 14 year old girl to enter into a secret marriage with God's "prophet" is any way unethical or immoral, or troublesome?

When it comes to how an investigator would process the facts about JS marrying teenage girls and married women, do you think your experience is the exception or the rule?