Feelings And History

[Deborah]

Can you acknowledge that some people, upon hearing a rumour that the BoA is not what it claims to be, start digging and uncover other facts? And, further, can you acknowledge that upon discovery of these new facts, that some people can make an informed and balanced decision, in either direction, concerning the church?

Words are amazing things. They can convey such different meanings depending on the context. For example the word "digging" implies they are looking for something hidden or secret, and by doing so they have to assume there was something that was hidden or kept from them. That assumption alone colors anything they find from here on out. The interesting thing is that when we talk about the BOA for example, there is nothing hidden; there is simply that which isn't known. Even LDS scholars don't always agree on the details of how we got the book, only on the fact that it's true based on the contents.

[Ariarates]

A reason should not involve calling people liars or trying to destroy that which they once believed or their family or friends still believe.

True, unless you believe you were lied to, or that you now believe that what you once believed, is harmful to your family and friends who still believe. That would be proselyting, though.

[LDSToronto]

Words are amazing things. They can convey such different meanings depending on the context. For example the word "digging" implies they are looking for something hidden or secret, and by doing so they have to assume there was something that was hidden or kept from them. That assumption alone colors anything they find from here on out. The interesting thing is that when we talk about the BOA for example, there is nothing hidden; there is simply that which isn't known. Even LDS scholars don't always agree on the details of how we got the book, only on the fact that it's true based on the contents.

I was just using the OP's wording... Substitute for 'searching' or 'googling' if you wish. When I began my own search, I went in as a faithful skeptic who was biased towards the church's position. If anything, I was searching for a reason to believe.

I would also like to point out that there may be much we don't know, and there is much we do know. Scholars of all ilk, not just LDS faithful scholars, have looked at mormonism, and have added to the body of knowledge.

The problem with the origin story of the BoA, BoM, or other doctrines, is that they differ from what is commonly taught by the Church. And, while one may conclude what they will regarding the truthfulness of the content of the BoA, it's origin story is not on solid ground, which raises questions about Joseph's prophetic ability.

But, my main contention with the OP is that we are not all motivated by offense. Offense has never once motivated my search for answers.

H.

[Pahoran]

In my earlier post, I only addressed the second part of this sentence. Afterwards, something occurred to me about the first part: what's so bad about leaving an organization (any organization) that hurts your feelings?

Nothing, if your only reason for being in the organisation was to have your ego stroked.

Regards,

Pahoran

[jskains]

The problem with the origin story of the BoA, BoM, or other doctrines, is that they differ from what is commonly taught by the Church. And, while one may conclude what they will regarding the truthfulness of the content of the BoA, it's origin story is not on solid ground, which raises questions about Joseph's prophetic ability.

That is an absolutely false statement...

JMS

[robuchan]

I'll be very judgmental and arrogant here in this post. I apologize in advance.

It's true you hear a lot of exmo stories about how they got offended first and then discovered untruths later. It does seem very convenient.

I would say at least 50% (and maybe a lot more) of people who start attending a church (LDS or other) and those who decide to stay in a church and those have decided to stop attending a church are not intelligent or analytical enough to put together a rational, intellectual explanation for their religious decisions. These people are easily influenced and will believe anything they want to. If it feels right to believe missionaries they will. If it feels right to trash the church and agree with everything on an anti-Mormon website they will. You're seeing a lot of those types in the exmo story write-ups. You might get away with saying this group is justifying their behavior with the complaints about historical issues.

That's not to say no exmo's base their decision to leave the church on intellectual reasons. Many do, just probably less so than the group leaving for behavioral reasons. What's strange is that even these more intellectual, more analytical exmo's also seem to have similar stories, as far as having life experiences or behavioral issues related to getting offended, knowing a jerk LDS authority figure, bad experience on a mission, brother or friend they sympathize with that's gay, whatever. For them, Mormonism isn't working perfectly, so the brain will naturally be more willing to entertain questions that the person where Mormonism works perfectly won't entertain. I'm in this category, though I'm not an exmo. I'm a non-believing, active, recommend-holding LDS.

[Pahoran]

I don’t care for the term “justification” because it is unfairly judgmental.

In contrast to what, exactly? The rest of your post?

It’s true. If you’re praying and reading and working to believe, there’s no room left for doubts or new views to enter in. If you are fully immersed in the lifestyle of reinforcing your current beliefs then you will not see your church as false (whether it is or not). Whatever group you belong to strengthens your beliefs. The same could be said for political views. It’s a phenomenon not necessarily unique to religion. It’s just human behavior.

And that’s the key point. This is just an aspect of human behavior.

But once you allow yourself to entertain a different opinion then there is a chance of growth.

And "growth" is not at all judgemental, is it? It doesn't carry strong connotations of positive progress, does it?

And so it doesn't at all imply that believing Latter-day Saints are somehow stagnating, does it?

Indeed, they pretty much have to be, don't they? Since, after all, everything they do is all about "reinforcing [their] current beliefs," right?

It's just a little ironic for you to cluck your tongue about someone else using a word you find "unfairly judgmental" when your own views are loaded with judgemental and/or prejudicial terms.

Maybe you're not doing it consciously. Maybe you really do think of believing Latter-day Saints as mind-controlled robots.

But we're not.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Deborah]

That would be proselyting, though.

And proselyting should involve bearing positive testimony of what you have learned and how you interpret what you have learned, not making accusation that the church lied.

[LDSToronto]

That is an absolutely false statement...

JMS

Would you please show me how it is "absolutely false"?

H.

[Libs]

I'm in this category, though I'm not an exmo. I'm a non-believing, active, recommend-holding LDS.

Did you mean to say "believing", active, recommend-holder? Was wondering how you could be a non-believing Temple recommend holder? (Not to say they don't exist, but they're usually keeping it to themselves..)

[LDSToronto]

I'll be very judgmental and arrogant here in this post. I apologize in advance.

It's true you hear a lot of exmo stories about how they got offended first and then discovered untruths later. It does seem very convenient.

I would say at least 50% (and maybe a lot more) of people who start attending a church (LDS or other) and those who decide to stay in a church and those have decided to stop attending a church are not intelligent or analytical enough to put together a rational, intellectual explanation for their religious decisions. These people are easily influenced and will believe anything they want to. If it feels right to believe missionaries they will. If it feels right to trash the church and agree with everything on an anti-Mormon website they will. You're seeing a lot of those types in the exmo story write-ups. You might get away with saying this group is justifying their behavior with the complaints about historical issues.

That's not to say no exmo's base their decision to leave the church on intellectual reasons. Many do, just probably less so than the group leaving for behavioral reasons. What's strange is that even these more intellectual, more analytical exmo's also seem to have similar stories, as far as having life experiences or behavioral issues related to getting offended, knowing a jerk LDS authority figure, bad experience on a mission, brother or friend they sympathize with that's gay, whatever. For them, Mormonism isn't working perfectly, so the brain will naturally be more willing to entertain questions that the person where Mormonism works perfectly won't entertain. I'm in this category, though I'm not an exmo. I'm a non-believing, active, recommend-holding LDS.

One thing I haven't figured out from this thread, or other conversations on this topic, is whether faithful members of the LDS church believe there is ever a valid reason for leaving the church.

I asked JMS this question earlier, but it wasn't answered. It seems that the majority of faithful LDS, on this board, reject the notion that one should leave because of an offensive remark or action, or a hurt feeling, or a bad experience.

When this topic comes up, I often think of the great and spacious building, filled with people pointing and mocking. Only, when I imagine it, the people in the building are so-called faithful members, pointing at and mocking those who have left the church for what are perceived to be 'simple' reasons.

So, what would be an acceptable reason for leaving? Or, is silence expected?

H.

[Deborah]

So, what would be an acceptable reason for leaving? Or, is silence expected?

One will eventually have to reconcile his choices with God. I don't think I'd want to tell Him that I left the church because Sis. Foot-in-mouth offended me or that calling I had in primary several years ago was a nightmare and I just couldn't handle it. Everyone of us has had these things happen at one time or another. It's how we deal with it that matters, not that it was done. It is very immature to let such things change one's entire religious paradigm.

And I might just say when I've been with members of the church discussing someone leaving, the talk was always compassionate and wondering if there were more that they could have done and wondering what they can do to help. Even if possible reasons are discussed it's not with judgment or mocking but trying to understand the person and how they might help. I think it is the person who leaves who extrapolates his own bitter feelings to others.

[robuchan]

Did you mean to say "believing", active, recommend-holder? Was wondering how you could be a non-believing Temple recommend holder? (Not to say they don't exist, but they're usually keeping it to themselves..)

You read it right. Non-believing. The social cost is too great for me to leave the church right now, and I still think the church has a lot to offer.

[LDSToronto]

One will eventually have to reconcile his choices with God. I don't think I'd want to tell Him that I left the church because Sis. Foot-in-mouth offended me or that calling I had in primary several years ago was a nightmare and I just couldn't handle it. Everyone of us has had these things happen at one time or another. It's how we deal with it that matters, not that it was done. It is very immature to let such things change one's entire religious paradigm.

And I might just say when I've been with members of the church discussing someone leaving, the talk was always compassionate and wondering if there were more that they could have done and wondering what they can do to help. Even if possible reasons are discussed it's not with judgment or mocking but trying to understand the person and how they might help. I think it is the person who leaves who extrapolates his own bitter feelings to others.

Well, that doesn't really mesh with what I'm reading on this thread, but then again, you didn't really answer the question. Forget God's final judgment, let's focus on the frailties of men and women.

Is there a reason that can be viewed as acceptable, by faithful LDS, for leaving the church, or, is silence the only option that is acceptable when leaving?

H.

[Deborah]

Is there a reason that can be viewed as acceptable, by faithful LDS, for leaving the church, or, is silence the only option that is acceptable when leaving?

Why does it matter what other people think if you believe you are doing what is right?

[LDSToronto]

Why does it matter what other people think if you believe you are doing what is right?

Well, I suppose that question can be asked of everyone on MAD, can't it? Why does anyone care what a critic or ex-mo says if faithful LDS feel they are right?

But, life doesn't work that way, Deb, so let's stick to the question. It's OK to say, "No, there is no acceptable reason".

H.

[Deborah]

It's OK to say, "No, there is no acceptable reason".

You don't get it. It's not up to me or anyone else to say what is acceptable. We can disagree with or dispute the reasoning given. It is between the person and God and if they don't care what God thinks or think He is fine with it, why should they care what anyone else thinks.

[LDSToronto]

You don't get it. It's not up to me or anyone else to say what is acceptable. We can disagree with or dispute the reasoning given. It is between the person and God and if they don't care what God thinks or think He is fine with it, why should they care what anyone else thinks.

I do get what you are saying. It seems the use of the word 'acceptable' is blocking our way forward. Let me reword the question using words that you used - Is there any exit story that would not encounter disputation or disagreement amongst faithful LDS?

Clearly, there are exit stories that are met with disputation and disagreement, as evidenced by this very thread, so I wonder if there is any imaginable exit story that would not be met with that reaction. If so, what would that story look like?

To be even more clear, I'm not interested in judging the claimant, or whether the claimant cares if they are being judged by the faithful community; and I'm not interested in God's judgment. I am interested only in the reaction of faithful LDS to exit stories.

H.

[Bob Crockett]

Well, there certainly is a pattern of condescension amongst the remaining faithful, when reacting to exit stories. One big circle.

H.

Maybe you should attend a Sunstone conference to see what condescension is.

[jskains]

If people who left just said "I didn't feel welcome", that would go further with me then making up a lot of bull in order to inflate their experience. Using buzz terms generally extracted from other "exit" stories, pushing the idea they had to "escape" or that they had been lied to.. I think some of it is a call for attention and a demand for sympathy. To get blunt, the mere act of posting a public exit story is attention whoring if you ask me.

"Oh look at me. I had to escape the evil clutches of Mormonism.. Don't you feel sorry for me?" is a common cry in a lot of these stories, filled with dramatic tails of how hard they had to work to get out of the brainwashing.

JMHO..

JMS

[jskains]

You read it right. Non-believing. The social cost is too great for me to leave the church right now, and I still think the church has a lot to offer.

Yes, I agree God's Church has a lot to offer...

JMS

[jskains]

Would you please show me how it is "absolutely false"?

H.

Really? Why? You know where I would go, disagreeing that what is taught in the Church is really any different. It might not be as detailed, but I don't demand the Church dig up every ugly claim and present it. Again, like the First Vision. I think the Church only is required to present the version that God has instructed is the complete version, and has no requirement to present incomplete or confusing versions just cause you demand it does.

As for the BoA, it is a translation, and a translation in the very style as the BoM, which was more prophetic than a scholarly word for word translation. Nothing I have been taught in Sunday School conflicts with that, rather doesn't get into gory details.

But then again, I am a proponant of the Missing Papyrus theory and I reject limited geography theories. FAIR doesn't rule my doctrine.

JMS

[Libs]

You read it right. Non-believing. The social cost is too great for me to leave the church right now, and I still think the church has a lot to offer.

Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification. I thought, maybe, it was a typo.

That's interesting (and kind of sad, IMO). I know you're not alone, though, as I said.

[LDSToronto]

Really? Why? You know where I would go, disagreeing that what is taught in the Church is really any different. It might not be as detailed, but I don't demand the Church dig up every ugly claim and present it. Again, like the First Vision. I think the Church only is required to present the version that God has instructed is the complete version, and has no requirement to present incomplete or confusing versions just cause you demand it does.

As for the BoA, it is a translation, and a translation in the very style as the BoM, which was more prophetic than a scholarly word for word translation. Nothing I have been taught in Sunday School conflicts with that, rather doesn't get into gory details.

But then again, I am a proponant of the Missing Papyrus theory and I reject limited geography theories. FAIR doesn't rule my doctrine.

JMS

Here's what I originally said:

"The problem with the origin story of the BoA, BoM, or other doctrines, is that they differ from what is commonly taught by the Church. And, while one may conclude what they will regarding the truthfulness of the content of the BoA, it's origin story is not on solid ground, which raises questions about Joseph's prophetic ability."

Some people are like you - they will create a narrative that ends with the same conclusion that the Church is making. Other people will create a narrative that differs from the church because they can't reconcile what the Church teaches against other discoveries, and will then make a choice about whether that affects their belief.

Thus, what I've stated here can not be "absolutely false". It is true that there are differing accounts of many of the origin stories, with respect to visions and scripture. It is true that there is strength and weakness in every claim. And is is true that these accounts can lead to questions regarding Joseph's ability. Thus, it is true that there is more than one possible outcome regarding a persons belief.

H.

[jskains]

One thing I haven't figured out from this thread, or other conversations on this topic, is whether faithful members of the LDS church believe there is ever a valid reason for leaving the church.

If I am an honest believer, then no, there is no valid reason for leaving the Church, and I would be forced to say in my belief, Satan has played a role in their departure.

But most don't bring that up because it doesn't bring the dialogue into any meaningful path.

JMS