For those who felt deceived

[Tarski]

Hmmmm. Okay. While I personally often find Sunday School discussions a bit simplistic and uninformed, I guess I'm too stupid to have been offended by them or to have perceived them as "infantilizing."

Sunday school was for me utterly boring and bland. The manual was a pretty uninspiring recitation of safe simple core Mormon dogma and exhortations to attend church, pay tithing, hold family home evening.

Occasionally, I used to come up with various "insights" to spice it up and it ironically won me praise as a spiritually insightful person. Inside, I was on the verge of apostacy. Ironic?

[spinner]

Sigh. Please don't attempt to work me into your stereotype.

Did you or did you not find the Church's treatment of history offensive to your sensibilities about how adults ought to be treated?

More boring and unsatisfying than offensive--offensive was the word you chose, and it doesn't adequately reflect my feelings.

I said nothing, and intended to say nothing, about any petty personal grievances you may have suffered.

Good since I don't really feel I suffered any.

[saemo]

This is a sincere question for those who left the church because you felt that the church hid something from you, or who advocate the church be more forthcoming about what you consider the negatives. Assuming you were able to learn these things sooner, what difference would it have made on whether you left the church or not. I don't see how it makes any difference if some of the things that turn you away from the church are learned earlier or later. Perhaps you can explain it.

For me, what the LDS church teaches is the deception.

[Mighty Curelom]

My experience exactly.

I have less patience than perhaps I ought to have with complaints about how the Church failed to tell Apostate X about variant accounts of the First Vision, or the Mountain Meadows Massacre, or the existence of nineteenth-century plural marriage. I knew about all of these things by my mid-teens, living in a marginally-Mormon family in California.

I share that impatience, but for a different reason. Many ex-Mormons cite things like the first vision accounts, MMM, etc. as red flags instigating their enlightenment. But what about the red flags that the church teaches openly, every Sunday? You had no problem with a global flood; with Noah gathering two of every animal and putting them on a boat for forty days? You didn't find it odd when your third grade teacher tells you that fossils are millions of years old, even though your Sunday School teacher tells you that death only came into the world 6000 years ago? You didn't have a problem with an endless regression of primate gods, each inexplicably bearing the tell-tale signs of mortal evolution? You didn't balk at the notion that a man rose from the dead after three days? Yet plural marriage is where you draw the line? Come on. Religion is absurd enough without its dirty laundry.

[Daniel Peterson]

For me, what the LDS church teaches is the deception.

So we're lying even when we're not.

Got it.

I don't feel that way about any religious faith that I can think of. Maybe I lack the right gene.

[a5m5a5d]

The problem I have is not just with mormonism though, it's all of Christianity. It's not polygamy or JoD that discouraged me, it's the concept of God, the attributes of God, the issue of faith, the atrocities that the Lord allows, receiving revelation, the evil God of the OT and reconciling him with the God of the NT, Jesus's ethics, the study of metaphysics, the study of epistimology, theology and philosophy in general, and the rationality of it all. I am not so much interested in some of the finer aspects of The LDS church, since I have a problem with chrisitianity as a whole. But things like the BoM inaccuracy and evolution add to the pot.

Didn't you say you were 18? I'm 18 as well. And I understand what it's like going through high-school, into college, and questioning life. I play college athletics, and I know what it's like to be tempted to follow the "IN-crowd." But talking to others about other religions and such, the LDS church is the only one that makes sense, and that can answer questions that I have in a manner that makes sense. All other religions don't seem to have the answers the LDS church does, or else they lead to conclusions that contradict themselves.

I don't know where you find BoM inaccuracy? There is nothing inaccurate in the book. Have you read it? It seems to me that you believe in no religion at all, and it seems sad. How do you say you find peace, when you believe in nothing? What peace is there in nothing?

There have been times in my life where after transgression i've fallen slightly away from the church. I bet if you ask most anti-mormon people, they'll tell you that they transgressed before they left the church. I could see it in a small portion in my own life, but luckily I didn't let it get out of control. I think most who leave the church bash against it so hard, because in their hearts a part of them still knows it's true and cannot deny it. It's because of their pride that they refuse to come to their senses. I've realized that wickedness is never happiness, and that true joy and peace can only be found through our savior Jesus Christ. No other way.

[Daniel Peterson]

You had no problem with a global flood; with Noah gathering two of every animal and putting them on a boat for forty days? You didn't find it odd when your third grade teacher tells you that fossils are millions of years old, even though your Sunday School teacher tells you that death only came into the world 6000 years ago? You didn't have a problem with an endless regression of primate gods, each inexplicably bearing the tell-tale signs of mortal evolution? You didn't balk at the notion that a man rose from the dead after three days?

It's not only Sunday School that is often simplistic.

Religion is absurd enough without its dirty laundry.

If M. LeCurelom didn't exist, we'd have to invent him.

[e=mc2]

The problem I have is not just with mormonism though, it's all of Christianity. It's not polygamy or JoD that discouraged me, it's the concept of God, the attributes of God, the issue of faith, the atrocities that the Lord allows, receiving revelation, the evil God of the OT and reconciling him with the God of the NT, Jesus's ethics, the study of metaphysics, the study of epistimology, theology and philosophy in general, and the rationality of it all. I am not so much interested in some of the finer aspects of The LDS church, since I have a problem with chrisitianity as a whole. But things like the BoM inaccuracy and evolution add to the pot.

The BofM inaccuracies....... now, I just happen to have read just a little bit in the BofM, and read just a little bit about it from a few angles. You are in your very early youth, and so...... realistically and truthfully (not to insult whatsoever here), you can hardly have become acquainted with anything about the BofM. I would be interested in learning what inaccuaracies you found that were so compelling to you. Thanks.

[spinner]

Considering the different level members are at, it's understandable lessons would be basic in nature. Furthermore many people really aren't interested in some of the historical stuff, and that doesn't even cover the short time we have in church to even discuss the basics. I call it an economy of presentation. That is why we have Institutes, Seminars such as the Sperry Symposium, Education Week and BYU channel with all kinds of detailed discussion on the scriptures as well as church history. That doesn't even take into account all the books that have been written. Yet even when all these things are available, very few members actually use them. Not a criticism, just that most people really are content with the basic principles and have their faith and testimony to carry them through because they are too busy living their lives to be overly concerned with some of the more controversial issues.

Even with members being at different levels, given three hours of Church every week it would seem that they could do something...

But instead it is always the same homogenized and sanitized presentation returning to the same talking points. The teaching of the prophets, for instance, would have been the perfect format to bring in something a little more interesting--showing the unique insight of the different prophets and maybe even showing (gasp!) that things were done differently back then and that LDS beliefs have evolved. Instead the quotations are carefully trimmed to make it appear as if the former LDS prophets stuck to the exact same talking points and emphasized the exact same ideas, with exactly equal weight, as are done today.

[MatthewG]

Hi MatthewG. :rolleyes:Bitter much?

Are you suggesting that I have an 18 year old sock puppet? I could only wish to be 18 again.

[MatthewG]

I don't know if I would go back and change things. I learned a lot in my experience in the LDS Church. I feel like I'm a stronger Christian now because if it. I study the Bible more now than I did when I was LDS. I want God to teach me what he wants me to know. Before I just accepted what I learned in Sunday School, and Relief Society. I never question what the missionaries who taught me the discussion said, I just accepted it. If anything my experience has made me a little more cynical, I don't automatically believe what people tell me about religion or Christianity.I search it out myself.

How's CRAM these days? Still wallowing in their own filth?

[Jeff K.]

Sunday school was for me utterly boring and bland. The manual was a pretty uninspiring recitation of safe simple core Mormon dogma and exhortations to attend church, pay tithing, hold family home evening.

Occasionally, I used to come up with various "insights" to spice it up and it ironically won me praise as a spiritually insightful person. Inside, I was on the verge of apostacy. Ironic?

Ironic? No, not really, the irony exists in the statement of judgement you place on Sunday School. People tend to get out of the doctrine the effort they put into understanding it. So if you found Sunday School boring and bland, well then, it reflects the general nature at which you attend such things.

I find it interesting that you have some sort of desire to self congratulate and show how superior you seem to be with your own words. I mean really, setting yourself up as some sort of Sunday School superhero coming up with "insight" and then letting us know how people though you were insightful, while you thought them so easily fooled. Speaks of a mountain of inadequacies when someone does that.

I am sure you think yourself the hero.

Which of course is more the pity.

Our Sunday School has one heck of a talented mix of people (several teachers share). One man lived in the Middle East for years, his daughter studies ancient Greek and she actually attends UCLA (guest speaker on the earliest versions of biblical writing), another Sunday School teacher is a retired Arabics study professor and has taught the Bible as literature (he disdains the use of the King James Version). Perhaps the best teacher is an accountant who focuses on spiritual aspects and gifts of the spirit. He provides examples as to how we can do things better in our lives and how he applied those teachings to his own. A really good humble man.

He doesn't congratulate himself for fooling people or some other imagined superiority, nor does he consider other teachers to be, well, bland. I suppose it comes down to who you are in your judgement and not so much what other people teach.

[a5m5a5d]

1 Nephi 16:2 "And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center."

I think this scripture explains the reason for most people who fall away from the church IMO. They see that they have transgressed and are too prideful to change or admit they have done wrong. So they simply say the church is false and fall away. It's like covering a fat zit with makeup. You might look good and feel good, but the zit is still there. That is why they are consistantly trying to disprove the church. They are assuring themselves it is false, because in reality they don't know what is true. Or they are simply not willing to change their lifestlye or give up their "favorite sin."

Ofcourse I don't believe this to be true for all people who fall away, but a majority.

[MatthewG]

My "stupid educated person" comment may have been harsh, true I could have just said what ttribe said "Bitter much" but I was trying to get the rise I did out of someone, like "a5m5a5d". An ironic chuckle. Your post came off terrible, I read the whole thing as one giant "whoo-as me!" If it weren't for that terrible, deceiving, big bad LDS Church who took my 10% and didn't tell me any dirty little secrets as they tried to uplift me spiritually and make me a better member of society. OH WOA AS ME! I could have been "educated" sooner, I could have gotten my degree sooner, oh woa as me, the big bad Church held me back from enjoying life!

Go cry a river at ex-mo's.com

[Tarski]

The BofM inaccuracies....... now, I just happen to have read just a little bit in the BofM, and read just a little bit about it from a few angles. You are in your very early youth, and so...... realistically and truthfully (not to insult whatsoever here), you can hardly have become acquainted with anything about the BofM. I would be interested in learning what inaccuaracies you found that were so compelling to you. Thanks.

We all know your inexhaustible ability to find patterns and interpretations of anything and everything that fit with your elastic new-age version of Mormonism. I can hardly imagine a fact, scenario or document, even an invented one (say like those invented by Hoffman) that you couldn't promptly turn into evidence for the church.

When a method proves everything, it proves nothing.

[spinner]

1 Nephi 16:2 "And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center."

I think this scripture explains the reason for most people who fall away from the church IMO. They see that they have transgressed and are too prideful to change or admit they have done wrong. So they simply say the church is false and fall away. It's like covering a fat zit with makeup. You might look good and feel good, but the zit is still there. That is why they are consistantly trying to disprove the church. They are assuring themselves it is false, because in reality they don't know what is true. Or they are simply not willing to change their lifestlye or give up their "favorite sin."

Ofcourse I don't believe this to be true for all people who fall away, but a majority.

I'm sure that this defense mechanism is very comforting to you, too.

[Tarski]

Are you suggesting that I have an 18 year old sock puppet? I could only wish to be 18 again.

That's what I suspected. As for you being 18, well; How old are you?

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm sure that this defense mechanism is very comforting to you, too.

In my experience, by far the majority of those who have fallen away from the Church have done so for non-doctrinal and quite non-intellectual reasons.

Call it a defense mechanism if you will, but that's been my experience and I'm far from alone in it.

Do some fall away for historical and other intellectual reasons, as they view them? Yes. But they're a pretty small minority, so far as I can tell.

[a5m5a5d]

I'm sure that this defense mechanism is very comforting to you, too.

why?

[MatthewG]

That's what I suspected. As for you being 18, well; How old are you?

Well you're good at math, I graduated high school in 1996.

[Tarski]

In my experience, by far the majority of those who have fallen away from the Church have done so for non-doctrinal and quite non-intellectual reasons.

Call it a defense mechanism if you will, but that's been my experience and I'm far from alone in it.

Do some fall away for historical and other intellectual reasons, as they view them? Yes. But they're a pretty small minority, so far as I can tell.

Have those who have fallen away sinned? Usually! But only because those who haven't are also sinning. It only becomes an issue of speculation instead of something to confer with the bishop about after the person leaves. Only then can the possible sins be explored, the same sins big and small being committed by the faithful even now.

Who here is innocent?

[spinner]

In my experience, by far the majority of those who have fallen away from the Church have done so for non-doctrinal and quite non-intellectual reasons.

Call it a defense mechanism if you will, but that's been my experience and I'm far from alone in it.

Do some fall away for historical and other intellectual reasons, as they view them? Yes. But they're a pretty small minority, so far as I can tell.

His assertion specifically was that most people who leave Mormonism do so because they "have transgressed and are too prideful to change or admit they have done wrong." So are you agreeing with that statement?

[spinner]

why?

Once you've categorized those who've left you can ignore why they may have really left, instead sticking a nice pejorative like "unrepentant sinner" on them.

[a5m5a5d]

Have those who have fallen away sinned? Usually! But only because those who haven't are also sinning. It only becomes an issue of speculation instead of something to confer with the bishop about after the person leaves. Only then can the possible sins be explored, the same sins big and small being committed by the faithful even now.

Who here is innocent?

The difference is the faithful sin and humble themselves and do something about it to change and endure rather than quiting and becoming bitter, like yourself.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm agreeing with my statement.

I said what I meant.

Have those who have fallen away sinned? Usually! But only because those who haven't are also sinning. It only becomes an issue of speculation instead of something to confer with the bishop about after the person leaves. Only then can the possible sins be explored, the same sins big and small being committed by the faithful even now.

Who here is innocent?

That's sophistical equivocation, Tarski. Nothing more.