Good people, leaving the church

[Hamba Tuhan]

When confronted with troublesome information, they tell themselves: (A) it's an anti-Mormon lie, (B) there's no way to know what really happened, and/or

[Hamba Tuhan]

Fair enough, again i'm talking more of the quality of members leaving and their reasons for leaving, not just grand totals.

Right, but i'm sure the reasons for the strong members leaving has changed throughout time.

You seem, maupayman, to have some kind of need to distinguish your personal apostacy from that of earlier apostates who just weren't as 'quality' or as 'strong' as you or whose 'reasons' weren't as valid as yours are.

[Bill Hamblin]

Ah yes, if only we were all as intellectually 'curious' as you, then we'd join you in your apostacy?

To me, this is the ex-Mormon counterpart to the 'you just left cos you wanted to drink' claim.

In other words, 'the only reason you stayed is because you're not as smart/curious/committed to truth/brave as I am.'

Let's face it. Nobody Mormon is as smart or intellectually honest as any ex-Mormon. It is IMPOSSIBLE for two equally sincere, honest and intelligent people to examine the same historical evidence and come up with different conclusions. If you disagree with this ex-Mormons the only explanation is you are dumb or dishonest.

[Hannah Rebekah]

If I'm not mistaken, in talking about the parable of the tares and the wheat, isn't impossible to recongnize the tares from the wheat? IMO, this is exactly what we are talking about here. The sifting is taking place right now and the fact is, the tares are sifting themselves right out of the Church. Had they been wheat then they would survive the sifting. Sorry if that offends someone but the choice and free agency is there to decide what one is, a tare or a wheat. I choose to be the wheat. Those good members who now choose to be tares sift themselves right our of the Church for an endless number of reasons. The ones who have made themselves into tares need to quit belly aching about their choice and take responsibility for their decision and live with it. From the way I see it's just "blame shifting" of the worst kind. Time to own it, for better or for worst.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Let's face it. Nobody Mormon is as smart or intellectually honest as any ex-Mormon. It is IMPOSSIBLE for two equally sincere, honest and intelligent people to examine the same historical evidence and come up with different conclusions. If you disagree with this ex-Mormons the only explanation is you are dumb or dishonest.

I have been told the same by LDS folks (on THIS board) for NOT accepting the LDS viewpoint on doctrinal and historical issue.

Mr. Pot , meet Mr. Kettle.

[todd520]

A friend of mine recently started a website devoted to the stories of those who have left Mormonism:

http://www.iamanexmormon.com/

I watched a few of these videos, the other night, and was impressed by the sincerity and the quality of people that appear to be leaving the church over historical issues. I do admit, however, that some of them are cheesy, like the guy who got booted for making the missionary calendars. I and others are often accused of leaving the church for reasons of weakness or sin. The usual, "you wanted to drink and have sex" accusations. I also know that many people do leave the church for these reasons, though I was not one of them. I left over historical reasons and evidence that the church is not what it claims to be. It appears, from this site, that I am in good company. Would you agree with this? Is this a concern for believers?

Thanks all in advance.

To answer your question, all religions have good people rejecting their faith because they no longer believe it to be true.

Typically these people are rejecting the dogmatic teachings they were taught as a child.

Since this topic is of interest to you, I urge you to read further on Stages of Faith by James Fowler. His work is not LDS centric. It is an interesting but complicated subject.

What I understand is that all faiths encounter this same problem.

As one's faith matures, one sees faults in prior beliefs that may cause one to reject everything, or throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Often, these same people will further mature their faith and return to organized religion at some point.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

If I'm not mistaken, in talking about the parable of the tares and the wheat, isn't impossible to recongnize the tares from the wheat? IMO, this is exactly what we are talking about here. The sifting is taking place right now and the fact is, the tares are sifting themselves right out of the Church. Had they been wheat then they would survive the sifting. Sorry if that offends someone but the choice and free agency is there to decide what one is, a tare or a wheat. I choose to be the wheat. Those good members who now choose to be tares sift themselves right our of the Church for an endless number of reasons. The ones who have made themselves into tares need to quit belly aching about their choice and take responsibility for their decision and live with it. From the way I see it's just "blame shifting" of the worst kind. Time to own it, for better or for worst.

Who's "belly-aching"? When I share my perspectives on why I went from being LDS to being an RLDS Restorationist, there is "belly-aching" but it is not on my part. It seems it is OK to share your questions as long as you eventually agree with the apologetics given, if you don't eventually fall in line, well "persona-non-grata" is a step above the level your assigned to.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Every time I read about how ex-members are supposed to be- want to have illicit sex, drink, want "less dogmatic" doctrine, etc... I start to believe I must be a real wierdo as I have become more conservative in my beliefs, doctrines, dogmas (what have you).

The ex-Mormon stereotype is completely foreign to me.

[cinepro]

Frankly, I'm more concerned about the bad people that stay in the Church than I am with the good ones that leave.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Who's "belly-aching"? When I share my perspectives on why I went from being LDS to being an RLDS Restorationist, there is "belly-aching" but it is not on my part. It seems it is OK to share your questions as long as you eventually agree with the apologetics given, if you don't eventually fall in line, well "persona-non-grata" is a step above the level your assigned to.

The way I see it.....it is "belly aching." YOU REALLY HAVEN'T LEFT....YOU ARE STILL HERE POSTING AGAINST THE CHURCH. SO THEREFORE YOU ARE "BELLY ACHING." Move on, leave the Church and have/live your life and don't post against the Church in anyway shape or form. Leave it like you claim you have done. If not then you are "belly aching." Own it!!!!

I once heard these verse were the best commentary on Anti-Mormons and Apostates.

WARNING: The following contents may be offensive to the "blame shifter." If so, DO NOT READ. The Gospel is a two sided sword so there could be great harm if not handled correctly.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, that Satan has great hold upon their hearts; he stirreth them up to iniquity against that which is good; And their hearts are corrupt, and full of wickedness and abominations; and they love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil; therefore they will not ask of me. Satan stirreth them up, that he may lead their souls to destruction. And thus he has laid a cunning plan, thinking to destroy the work of God; but I will require this at their hands, and it shall turn to their shame and condemnation in the day of judgment. Yea, he stirreth up their hearts to anger against this work. Yea, he saith unto them: Deceive and lie in wait to catch, that ye may destroy; behold, this is no harm. And thus he flattereth them, and telleth them that it is no sin to lie that they may catch a man in a lie, that they may destroy him. And thus he flattereth them, and leadeth them along until he draggeth their souls down to hell; and thus he causeth them to catch themselves in their own snare. And thus he goeth up and down, to and fro in the earth, seeking to destroy the souls of men. Verily, verily, I say unto you, wo be unto him that lieth to deceive because he supposeth that another lieth to deceive, for such are not exempt from the justice of God."

(D&C 10:20-28)

[cinepro]

If I'm not mistaken, in talking about the parable of the tares and the wheat, isn't impossible to recongnize the tares from the wheat? IMO, this is exactly what we are talking about here. The sifting is taking place right now and the fact is, the tares are sifting themselves right out of the Church. Had they been wheat then they would survive the sifting. Sorry if that offends someone but the choice and free agency is there to decide what one is, a tare or a wheat. I choose to be the wheat. Those good members who now choose to be tares sift themselves right our of the Church for an endless number of reasons. The ones who have made themselves into tares need to quit belly aching about their choice and take responsibility for their decision and live with it. From the way I see it's just "blame shifting" of the worst kind. Time to own it, for better or for worst.

You seem to be saying that people can choose between being a wheat or a tare, but based on my understanding of biogenetics, I'm fairly certain Jesus was telling us that people are born that way.

[Deborah]

Frankly, I'm more concerned about the bad people that stay in the Church than I am with the good ones that leave.

I'll repeat Morning Star's question: What are the criteria for a "good person" that leaves?

[Deborah]

You seem to be saying that people can choose between being a wheat or a tare, but based on my understanding of biogenetics, I'm fairly certain Jesus was telling us that people are born that way.

I doubt that Jesus was referring to biogenetics.

[Palerider]

Let's face it. Nobody Mormon is as smart or intellectually honest as any ex-Mormon. It is IMPOSSIBLE for two equally sincere, honest and intelligent people to examine the same historical evidence and come up with different conclusions. If you disagree with this ex-Mormons the only explanation is you are dumb or dishonest.

I don't think intellectual acuity is the only measure. There are lots of people in and out of the church smarter than me. A number of them are here. The issue rests more on the emotional investment one has made. In the case of the church it is huge. No one wants to look at their "baby" and find out they were "switched at birth" and aren't really who you thought they were. All relationships whether with institutions or individuals are based on trust as the primary factor that binds together. When one learns that the story of church history is different than taught and quite arguable as well, then trust is diminished or destroyed.

If another Latterday Saint kindly disagrees with my assessment then that's fine with me, but don't expect me to sit idly by while they sell the pablum that is supposed to pass for true church history.

[blueadept]

I'll repeat Morning Star's question: What are the criteria for a "good person" that leaves?

I would think it would be easier to describe the obvious 'bad apples' than it would to figure out the criteria of a 'good person.'

One of my old bosses that died a few years back was a faithful LDS member whom everyone knew had a mistress. I periodically see the faithful wife at Wal-Mart and always give her a warm welcome. The ward has always been supportive of her and it shows. My wife's bf has a similar story in regards to her ex.

[Duncan]

Frankly, I'm more concerned about the bad people that stay in the Church than I am with the good ones that leave.

Yep! Isn't like 2/3 of the Church inactive or something?, I heard one of the brethren say it is easy to quantify activity but almost impossible to quantify faithfulness and what Christ said in the Sermon on the Mount "Ye shall know them by their fruits"-not necessarily by their roots though (borrowed that from William James)

[Hamba Tuhan]

There are lots of people in and out of the church smarter than me. A number of them are here. The issue rests more on the emotional investment one has made.

Gotcha. It's not exactly that I'm intellectually impaired as much as it is that I'm too blinded by my 'emotional investment' to want to see what the less emotional, more rational are seeing?

[Palerider]

I'll repeat Morning Star's question: What are the criteria for a "good person" that leaves?

I can only speak for myself. A good person is one who was in good standing, whose personal lifestyle actually changes very little on leaving the church. I'm still happily married, I don't drink, smoke, chase women, etc. I try to be honest with my fellowman. I believe that the Savior is exactly who He said he was and that the witnesses to His death and resurrection are true; that His atonement was efficacious and has meaning in my life. I believe in the scriptures and read and study them on a daily basis. What else do you want?

Ok, Ok, Ok, About once a month.........I drink a Dr.Pepper............but I don't like the way caffeine affects me, so.....I just love the taste.........

[SkepticTheist]

Well, people who are good don't stop being good just because they stop believing. If they have stopped believing, then they haven't fundamentally become a different person, though they may justify behavioral changes because they no longer have anything stopping them from indulging in natural man tendencies.

[CV75]

many people do leave the church for these reasons, though I was not one of them.

Whatever the stated reason (historical, scientific, philosophical, business, financial, social, etc.), the real underlying cause for separation from a spiritual system is spiritual--the spirituality of the individual operating within that system doesn

[Pahoran]

Silver Knight,

Thank you for a candid (and probably deeply unpopular on this board) observation.

Yes, the chorus of "me toos" shows how "deeply unpopular" it is.

OTOH, daring to suggest that exmos are not the Heroically Impartial Seekers After Absolute TRVTH they portray themselves as, has not been universally popular.

I know a lot of ex-Mormons. They are, as you state and without exception, much happier after leaving the Church.

You mean like Deborah Laake?

Am I suggesting that Deborah Laake is a representative exmo? Not necessarily.

Is Deborah Laake any less representative of exmos than "Christine Jonsen" was of LDS mothers? Absolutely not. I venture to suggest that she is considerably more so.

Were some damaged by the experience of leaving? Yes.

Do some wish that their spouses or loved ones had not remained behind in the Church? Absolutely.

Do some express that wish by harrassing their spouses or loved ones to leave the Church by plying them with anti-Mormon propaganda? Absolutely.

When their harrassment of their spouses or loved ones starts to strain the relationship, do they blame the Church? Invariably.

Are some of them grateful for their upbringing in the LDS Church? Yes (including me).

Would any of them ever think seriously about going back to the Church? Not for a microsecond.

And yet the established fact is that some do.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Senator]

What else do you want?

100% home teaching, dad-blastit!!

and

10% of your income

[Palerider]

Gotcha. It's not exactly that I'm intellectually impaired as much as it is that I'm too blinded by my 'emotional investment' to want to see what the less emotional, more rational are seeing?

No, Just unwilling or unable to bear the emotional cost . Plus do the work of making one's world paradigm make sense after the loss of the Mormon paradigm. Better to stay where things are "comfortable".

It's a tough job...... I certainly didn't ask for it. I just wanted to know why Hiram Page thought he could get revelation from a frigging rock...........

Now there's rationality.................

[Hamba Tuhan]

[D]on't expect me to sit idly by while they sell the pablum that is supposed to pass for true church history.

Which narrative do you think would be more recognisable to a Latter-day Saint who was baptised during the Kirtland era, followed the Prophet to Missouri and then to Nauvoo, and ended up travelling west to establish the Kingdom in the Rocky Mountains: the Church history Institute manual or Grant Palmer's book?

[Mark Beesley]

Fair enough, do you think more people are leaving now, over historical issues etc. than in earlier history of the church?

Thanks for the chuckle. (If you fail to see the humor in this, you are brain dead--speaking to everyone on the Board and not maupayman specifically.)