Answer an ".. and I'm an EX-mormon" video.

[Cherubbish]

The only problem I have with your observation is that it comes across as which came first, the chicken or the egg?

It seems odd to me that someone that admits they were struggling with their testimony and was sincerely trying to regain that testimony, as this young portrayed himself to be, and that while he is had this inner turmoil that would decide to commit serious sexual transgressions knowing it would just make it that more difficult to return had he regained that testimony. It's much more plausible that he committed his sexual transgressions first and then had his testimony "dilemma". But again, my opinion here.

[semlogo]

I never said "most" people. All I said in my previous posts that "more often than not" it's been my "personal observations" that there is usually an underlying transgression that is not reconciled. I'm not trying to stereotype anyone or anything.

That's the problem. Your personal observation is statistically meaningless.

[blueadept]

It's much more plausible that he committed his sexual transgressions first and then had his testimony "dilemma". But again, my opinion here.

but I believe you do represent the typical LDS thought about how members fall away that has some merit. IMO, most ex-LDS would disagree and their argument that says otherwise(as this thread has shown) isn't given much credence. The best way ex-LDS have to explain their viewpoint is to give a testimony. That's something that I've noted that seems to irritate members for some reason.

I've been asked a few times by non-members what's the best way to talk to their LDS family and friends that would make the best impact on them.

My answer is for them to simply testify to them of how Christ is part of their daily lives. Catholics seem to be terrible at that IMHO.

[krose]

I never said "most" people. All I said in my previous posts that "more often than not" it's been my "personal observations" that there is usually an underlying transgression that is not reconciled. I'm not trying to stereotype anyone or anything.

You said "the root of the problem always comes to sin and transgression when people leave the Church." That sounds pretty universal.

I understand your desire to brush aside the idea that anyone could lose a testimony over intellectual issues, and that you prefer to believe that it's always because of sin. That way you don't have to address the difficult issues with which members legitimately struggle.

It's nonsense, of course, but let's assume you are correct for a moment, and that apostates always abandon their [often lifelong] belief systems because they have sinned and now want to continue to sin without consequence. But everyone 'sins,' and many members commit serious transgressions. Yet they usually continue to believe, either going through the process of reconciling with the body of believers, or becoming an inactive believer who just accepts that he is not currently able to live up to the expectations (I know many of these, who can't give up smoking or alcohol, for example). Why bother to create disbelief when these two paths are just as viable?

Yes, the conflict that arises from the prospect of official discipline may serve as the catalyst to seriously examine doubts that were already there, and finally act on it, one way or another. Many of us avoid making big, life-altering choices until something forces us to confront them. Doubts about long-held beliefs would definitely qualify.

But I can tell you that I, myself, came to the same conclusion as this fellow (regarding the problem of whose version of surety is more reliable) while living the religion more strongly than any other time in my life... as a missionary. That's because I had not experienced others with strongly held 'testimonies' of very different beliefs until then. The fact that others knew they were right with just as much passion and surety as we did was very upsetting, but I brushed it aside for a few years, until the doubts grew too big to ignore.

He does prove a principle that Joseph Smith taught, that one can leave the Church, but they can never leave it alone. I think it's sad.

The fact that a small percentage of people who lose their beliefs continue to discuss their former religion proves nothing. You will find the same thing among apostates of all faiths. Actually, it's surprising to me that more do not.

But he claims he's happy now, so he can do all those things without feeling guilty I guess. But I suspect, deep down, that he truly isn't.

This is particularly offensive. Now you don't even take people at their word when expressing their own feelings? Nice. Let's see, I suspect that deep down you are not really happy in your religion, and you come up with these rationalizations because you resent others being able to engage in activities you wish you could. Okay?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Exclusive fullness of truth has been claimed. You also claim exclusive access to the Gift of the Holy Ghost, which includes many spiritual gifts. My fear, however, is that, if someone were to compile a list of prophets' statements on this issue, you still wouldn't accept them.

I have no quibble whatsoever with the Lord's statement that the Church of Jesus Christ is the 'only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually....' Nor do I have issue with the claim to exclusive priesthood authority, including the right to confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost. What those claims mean, however, is not what you've suggested they do in replying to Kevin. If you disagree, by all means feel free to compile a list of prophets' statements indicating that individuals outside the Church are completely incapable of authentic spiritual experiences, including divine inspiration; that other churches and religions are incapable of teaching truth; that men called of God will always engage in perfect thinking and behaviour; and that all truth has been revealed in its fullness, thereby negating the need for any continuing revelation.

[Cherubbish]

You said "the root of the problem always comes to sin and transgression when people leave the Church." That sounds pretty universal.

It's only universal in my observations, as I've already stated, which on the grand scheme of things, is probably pretty small. My intention again was not to categorize everyone into this group.

I understand your desire to brush aside the idea that anyone could lose a testimony over intellectual issues, and that you prefer to believe that it's always because of sin. That way you don't have to address the difficult issues with which members legitimately struggle.

How can you understand my desire to brush the idea aside when I have no intention to do so? I did not deny that someone could lose a testimony over intellectual issues, and I'm sure there are some. Again, I'm only stating my opinion based on my experiences with such matters.

It's nonsense, of course, but let's assume you are correct for a moment, and that apostates always abandon their [often lifelong] belief systems because they have sinned and now want to continue to sin without consequence. But everyone 'sins,' and many members commit serious transgressions. Yet they usually continue to believe, either going through the process of reconciling with the body of believers, or becoming an inactive believer who just accepts that he is not currently able to live up to the expectations (I know many of these, who can't give up smoking or alcohol, for example). Why bother to create disbelief when these two paths are just as viable?

I didn't say you had to create disbelief, just that one needs to repent or disassociate oneself, whether that be becoming inactive or excommunication.

But I can tell you that I, myself, came to the same conclusion as this fellow (regarding the problem of whose version of surety is more reliable) while living the religion more strongly than any other time in my life... as a missionary. That's because I had not experienced others with strongly held 'testimonies' of very different beliefs until then. The fact that others knew they were right with just as much passion and surety as we did was very upsetting, but I brushed it aside for a few years, until the doubts grew too big to ignore.

I believe that that those who lose a testimony because of "intellectual" issues, never had a true testimony in the first place. A testimony is not intellectual at all. It's revealed by our Heavenly Father through the Spirit. I've learned a lot of stuff from Church history that could be disturbing to some with weak foundations, but they don't bother me because I know a few things. I know that the Book of Mormon is in fact true, and therefore know that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God. The Book of Mormon is in fact the keystone of my religion. All these other "intellectual" issues are only secondary to me. So what if people from other faiths also have "testimonies"? The Mormons don't have a corner on the Spirit. All men can feel it's influence. If a sincere seeker was truly seeking to know if Jesus is his Savior and humbly asks God if that were so, then God would manifest the truth of that to them through the power of the Holy Ghost, just as the scriptures promise. Great for them! Does that mean the LDS Church is false? No, but I'm sure it's confusing to these people when confronted with the thought that they may not belong to right Church (such as when missionaries come a knocking). However, I wonder what these people that you experienced that "held testimonies of very different beliefs" had testimonies of? Did they actually claim to have prayed and received answers that their Church was true? Just wondering. As far as I know, I believe the LDS church is the only one that encourages people to pray for their own answers.

The fact that a small percentage of people who lose their beliefs continue to discuss their former religion proves nothing. You will find the same thing among apostates of all faiths. Actually, it's surprising to me that more do not.

Well, whatever the ratio is, why continue to discuss it at all and just leave it all behind? It seems to me that apostates need to have as much faith in their 'belief' as I do mine. Truth is neither of us can 'prove' to each other that the other is right/wrong.

This is particularly offensive. Now you don't even take people at their word when expressing their own feelings? Nice. Let's see, I suspect that deep down you are not really happy in your religion, and you come up with these rationalizations because you resent others being able to engage in activities you wish you could. Okay?

It was just my opinion. You're the one that actually doesn't sound so happy. This is how happy I am: . There is no activity that you could be doing that I wish I could. Sorry.

[Hughes]

No offence, mate, but I don't think you're very familiar with what the Church, beginning with Joseph Smith, has claimed to be. Kevin's description matches the teachings of the prophets from the Restoration to the present day. We claim exclusive authority; we've never claimed exclusive truth, exclusive access to God's blessings or inspiration, perfection or completeness in prophetic teachings, or any other facet of your mischaracterisation.

My fear, however, is that, if someone were to compile a list of prophets' statements on this issue, you still wouldn't accept them.

Is your claim true?

What I found interesting about the video was that he discovered that the principles taught by the LDS church was not a good system for determining what is true.

[CQUIRK]

The whole point is to mimic the LDS ads.

Doesn't help their cause any, its quite stupid and doesn't really change the status quo on their behalf.

[krose]

I believe that that those who lose a testimony because of "intellectual" issues, never had a true testimony in the first place.

There you go, the No True Scotsman fallacy. So which is it? Testimony lost because of sin, or never really had one to lose?

So what if people from other faiths also have "testimonies"? The Mormons don't have a corner on the Spirit. All men can feel [its] influence. If a sincere seeker was truly seeking to know if Jesus is his Savior and humbly asks God if that were so, then God would manifest the truth of that to them through the power of the Holy Ghost, just as the scriptures promise. Great for them!

I wonder why the 'spirit' would confirm the truth of a religion that has no Jesus or god beliefs, which is the case with most of the firm believers I was talking about. This confidence of being right (which is what a 'testimony' really is) that you have in common with holders of conflicting beliefs only makes sense if we conclude that the confirmation comes from within, rather than from an external source.

Did they actually claim to have prayed and received answers that their Church was true? Just wondering. As far as I know, I believe the LDS church is the only one that encourages people to pray for their own answers.

The differences in mechanics of how different believers arrive at the confidence that they are right are not important. It doesn't matter whether you kneel and recite prescribed words with the idea that you are speaking to a deity, or burn incense and chant until you feel a connection with deceased ancestors, previous lives, and the cycle of continual rebirth. The resulting positive confirmation is really the same. To diminish another's process because it doesn't match your own is foolish and narrow minded.

Well, whatever the ratio is, why continue to discuss it at all and just leave it all behind?

Has it occurred to you that it's an interesting hobby, like discussing sports or politics? I won't speak for others, but that's why I participate in a wide variety of discussion boards, including this one. Religion is an intriguing subject, and we are best equipped to discuss the one we know the best. We humans love to talk about what we do and don't believe; it shouldn't be a surprise when we do so. Also, a person's former beliefs are impossible to leave in the past as long as most loved ones still embrace the lifestyle and beliefs (unless you are willing to cut them off -- I'm not).

You're the one that actually doesn't sound so happy. This is how happy I am: .

I don't doubt that you are probably happy with your life (the previous comment about you was to illustrate a point, obviously). You should not make the mistaken assumption that others are not just as happy with theirs.

I believe people generally settle into a life that's a good fit for them. Those who feel more comfortable as part of a faith-based group find their way into one or stay in one. Those of us who were never really comfortable in one eventually work our way out. Those who don't really know what they want or feel trapped in a life that doesn't fit, are often depressed and tend to self medicate.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Is your claim true?

Just one example, from Joseph Smith himself:

Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. . . . We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true 'Mormons.'

[maupayman]

I have no quibble whatsoever with the Lord's statement that the Church of Jesus Christ is the 'only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually....' Nor do I have issue with the claim to exclusive priesthood authority, including the right to confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost. What those claims mean, however, is not what you've suggested they do in replying to Kevin. If you disagree, by all means feel free to compile a list of prophets' statements indicating that individuals outside the Church are completely incapable of authentic spiritual experiences, including divine inspiration; that other churches and religions are incapable of teaching truth; that men called of God will always engage in perfect thinking and behaviour; and that all truth has been revealed in its fullness, thereby negating the need for any continuing revelation.

Given that these were not my claims, I will not compile said list. Exclusive ownership of the full truth is, and has been claimed by the church since its beginnings. That is what I specifically was disputing in Kevin's post.

[maupayman]

Doesn't help their cause any, its quite stupid and doesn't really change the status quo on their behalf.

The "I'm a mormon" ad campaign is also quite stupid and doesn't really change the status quo on their behalf. Hence the need to make fun of their ads.

[maupayman]

Just one example, from Joseph Smith himself:

So, apparently God was far more harsh than Joseph, in regards to the Presbyterian creeds and professors. That, or Joseph simply changed his tone once he realized how arrogant his initial claim was.

[Hughes]

Just one example, from Joseph Smith himself:

Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. . . . We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true 'Mormons.'

And so your answer to my question is "yes"?

Your claim is true?

[Skylla]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: We had a thread about this recently that quickly went downhill. The board shouldn't be used to advertise exit stories.

Thank you,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff