Ex-Mormons

[inquiringmind]

I'm still investigating the Mormon faith, and whatever promptings I may have had, I still doubt.

I guess one of my fears is jumping in with both feet, and later becoming an ex-mormon.

I understand ex-mormons can return to the Church, but I have some questions.

I've noticed that a lot of ex-mormons seem to be atheists.

Don't all atheists, by definition, deny The Holy Spirit (I mean, if they deny the existence of God)?

If an ex-mormon ever really had a testimony, a burning in the bosom, or any contact with The Spirit, (and if he knew about the atonement, and was a member of the true Church) wouldn't he be an sop?

This is why I'm interested in questions like whether Jonah really understood the Gospel when he disobeyed God's voice, and whether Martin Harris was warned to repent after he became one of the three witnesses, but no one seems able to answer those questions.

W.W. Phelps caused a lot of trouble for Joseph, and said some horrible things about the Church--things which seem to me must have been lies, because if half of what he said was true he would have been afraid of having his throat cut if he ever came back--but Joseph forgave him and welcomed him back to the fold.

If he had had any real testimony of the Holy Spirit to begin with, would he have been unable to repent?

If he had had promptings that he later attributed to coincidence, would he have denied The Holy Spirit?

What about ex-mormons today, who once had "a testimony, and now describe themselves as atheists or agnostics?

Are they all irretrievably lost?

[KevinG]

No one is irretrievably lost. That is the beauty of Christ's atonement.

Having said that the Mormon (LDS) Church is a very dogmatic faith, meaning it is a way of life and a comprehensive lifestyle. Once you have a witness of something and live it fully it is not easy to walk away. Some find they cannot leave it alone even if they have left it.

However it has been a great blessing to me, and even in those moments when I was tested severely I could not deny the Holy Spirit.

Just be sure you are not only convinced on your own but that the Holy Spirit verifies your decision. Then you cannot go wrong.

my .02 and worth everything you paid for it.

[ERayR]

What about ex-mormons today, who once had "a testimony, and now describe themselves as atheists or agnostics?

Are they all irretrievably lost?

Many who leave the church find that after hearing the gospel as taught by the LDS Church everything else fails to satisfy. I believe that as for myself, if I were to lose may faith in the LDS doctrine I would not be able to believe in any other denomination.

No they are not all irretrievably lost. There is always repentence.

[ldsfaqs]

I'm still investigating the Mormon faith, and whatever promptings I may have had, I still doubt.

Understandable.... However, until one is an expert and truly ingrained and understanding of everything, there will always be some kind of doubt. When I originally joined the Church, I had been in many religions, and then I was active in the Church for 2 years and studied it before I was baptized. When I finally decided to join, I didn't know 100% if it was true, but the preponderance of the evidence made me believe it likely was, but more importantly, was true and valuable enough to go ahead and join it, because I would benefit from it.

I guess one of my fears is jumping in with both feet, and later becoming an ex-mormon.

Don't worry about it.... I also eventually became an anti-mormon. I didn't understand the blacks and the priesthood issue, women and the priesthood, and Polygamy. I naivly applied my modern social standards without really knowing the subjects well enough, and judged the Church for it. I became anti-mormon and anti-religion. But, what separates me from most anti-mormons, I knew I didn't know it all, so eventually when I was ready, I started studying again, with only an interest in the truth, and trusting that God or whatever would give it, as long as I objectively and thoroughly did my part. I started with the D&C, was spiritually converted, but I needed actual anwsers, not simply good feelings. Spent hours in the library, reading Christian history, eliminating all other religions again as being potentially valid, compared anti-mormon books with LDS scholarship, saw clearly that the anti's used a little truth to lie, in almost every claim against the Church. I then studied in depth those 3 issues I had, in scripture, all books related, etc., and discovered that I was misinformed on the issues, that the Church wasn't at all evil in those things. The spirit then came again, and in my intellect and heart, I knew for sure it was true and not another man-made religion.

Basically, you need to go forward in Faith and do what is GOOD for YOU and YOURS..... As long as a person is continually seeking to be and know good and right, it doesn't matter if you loose faith at some point. If you keep your principles, you will likely come back. If you don't, then hopefully you will have gained and retained some good and wisdom from your experience as a mormon.

I've noticed that a lot of ex-mormons seem to be atheists.

That is correct, or likely more often or just as often Agnostic.

Don't all atheists, by definition, deny The Holy Spirit (I mean, if they deny the existence of God)?

Not necessarily.... Atheists and/or Agnostics often still believe in some sort of "spirituality", doing good etc. While they may reject organized religion etc. they sometimes, depending on their own moral standards still believe in doing good etc. So, while they might reject an ideological construct such as the Holy Ghost, depending on the person, they may still believe in some sort of personal "spirituality". Some for example become more new age.

If an ex-mormon ever really had a testimony, a burning in the bosom, or any contact with The Spirit, (and if he knew about the atonement, and was a member of the true Church) wouldn't he be an sop?

Not necessarily.... Take me for an example. I left the Church because I didn't understand a few things in it, I falsely judged it. Thus, did I ever actually "understand it"? No, not at all.... I understand it now however to such a degree, that if I were to ever deny it, I would be a son of perdition. My testimony now is certain and absolute, without any doubt in it. Before, I had some doubt and lack of knowledge, but I know it to be good, and much of it true. What I am now is nothing like I was before. Thus, even if I never had rejoined the Church, I would not be a Son of Perdition. Ignorance or basic faith and belief, is not the same as sure knowledge.

This is why I'm interested in questions like whether Jonah really understood the Gospel when he disobeyed God's voice, and whether Martin Harris was warned to repent after he became one of the three witnesses, but no one seems able to answer those questions.

I hope I just did..... I'll be happy to clarify for you however.

W.W. Phelps caused a lot of trouble for Joseph, and said some horrible things about the Church--things which seem to me must have been lies, because if half of what he said was true he would have been afraid of having his throat cut if he ever came back--but Joseph forgave him and welcomed him back to the fold.

Yep, clearly forgiveness is real, and ignorance and hate, etc. doesn't make ones knowledge and understanding previously as "sure" so as to become a Son of Perdition. The sure knowledge is something much more profound and deeper. Remember also one other important aspect of being a Son of Perdition. A son of perdition must deny the Faith while actually knowing it's true. In other words, someone like Satan Himself, someone who lived with God, knew what was true and right, yet still chose to rebel and try and take glory etc. for himself.

Thus, by definition, someone who simply leaves the faith and doesn't believe in it nor think it's true, is not a Son of Perdition. A son of perdition is someone who does know it's true, a "sure" knowledge.

If he had had any real testimony of the Holy Spirit to begin with, would he have been unable to repent?

Remember, a testimony can be on many things and have many levels. Further, people can be decieved if their testimony is not strong enough.

Take me for example. Had I been "patient" and humble enough, i.e. continued in Faith, I would instead of leaving the Church, had stayed and continued to study the issues I had problems with. However, I had other interests, i.e. in Eastern philosophy's, new age, etc., so it was easy for me to loose interest in religion. Further, if my foundation had been stronger in the Faith itself, i.e. read the scriptures every day, prayed every day, etc. I wouldn't have lost faith so easy. I got lazy and interested in other things, and thus it was easy for me to fall when I didn't know everything yet.

If he had had promptings that he later attributed to coincidence, would he have denied The Holy Spirit?

Yep, still possible. Many have seen angels etc., and yet still went astray. Everyone, no matter their level, must still be tempted, must still overcome evil with good, etc.

What about ex-mormons today, who once had "a testimony, and now describe themselves as atheists or agnostics?

Are they all irretrievably lost?

Nope.... Everyone will have a chance to know the truth, to then except or deny. Most will accept however since it will be in certainty in your face, and THEN all will be judged according to their works when the book of life is opened. God will forgive ignorance, but one thing we cannot escape is the consequences of our actions. It's one reason anti-mormonism is so evil. What if you were wrong? It's a question that allowed me to put away my own judgments of the Church and religion. And that choice is what allowed me when I was ready to come back to it again, and to seek after the actual truth.

[Avatar4321]

No one is irretrievably lost if they repent.

I don't know why you think WW Phelps would have to fear getting his throat slit. No offense, but that's just odd.

[inquiringmind]

No one is irretrievably lost if they repent.

I don't know why you think WW Phelps would have to fear getting his throat slit. No offense, but that's just odd.

I read some of the things he said about the Church, and I won't reproduce them here.

I'll just say that if he hadn't been lying, I don't think he would have felt safe coming back.

[inquiringmind]

.

Yep, still possible. Many have seen angels etc., and yet still went astray. Everyone, no matter their level, must still be tempted, must still overcome evil with good, etc.

Are you saying that if someone has seen unusual circumstances that should have pointed them to the Mormon Church, these were actual promptings of The Holy Spirit, and they then interpreted them as "coincedences," they've denied The Holy Spirit?

[ldsfaqs]

Are you saying that if someone has seen unusual circumstances that should have pointed them to the Mormon Church, these were actual promptings of The Holy Spirit, and they then interpreted them as "coincedences," they've denied The Holy Spirit?

No.... You can't deny something you don't actually know.

Denying the Holy Ghost is "conscious" denial, not denial by ignorance and blindness.

Of course, in a simplistic sense, of course there is a denial, because you are choosing one thing over another, but we are talking here about what makes one a Son of Perdition. The requirements of that classification are more strict, than simple ignorance, stupidity, or loving of sin, all of which is a form of denying the Holy Ghost, but not the form that makes one a Son of Perdition.

Edited October 27, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[inquiringmind]

Thank you ldsfaqs.

[jo1952]

I don't want to add any confusion here; but I believe that in order to become an sop, it is not a denial of the LDS Faith (or beliefs per se); it is a denial of Christ Himself AFTER you have received "sure knowledge".....and it takes a LOT to obtain "sure knowledge". Joseph Smith has commented that he is not sure if Judas qualifies as an sop. This is because the sure knowledge that Jesus is the Christ comes from the Holy Ghost (it is not dependent upon which religious institution you hang your hat on); and it is not apparent from scripture that Judas had received that "sure knowledge" from the Holy Ghost.

Even excommunication from the LDS Church does not "un-save" you. Repentance is repentance no matter where you are.

I believe that Orthodoxy's concept of the denial of the Holy Ghost (which is extremely easy to do according to Orthodoxy) is doing a dis-service to both potential believers and believers, as well. It incorporates great fear in them, as well as giving them incorrect information. Many Orthodox Christians believe that if a person has had someone preach the Gospel message to them, and that person does not accept Christ, that they have become an sop. Yet merely listening to someone preach the Gospel message does not mean that the recipient had the ears to hear it. The person needs to desire that Jesus is the Christ, and exercise faith at which time the Holy Ghost will witness to them. Even THIS is not a witness of "sure knowledge".....it is merely the beginning baby step which opens the wide gate. At that point the journey is one between the individual and God, as they continue to be led by the Holy Ghost--learning line upon line and precept upon precept. This focuses their journey from the starting place of the wide gate to the narrow path.

Another way to become an sop is to have received "sure knowledge" that Jesus is the Christ, through the process of having received a tremendous amount of personal revelation from the Holy Ghost, and then kill an innocent person (spill innocent blood). Thus, there are actually two ways; i.e., deny Christ after having received "sure knowledge", or to spill innocent blood after having received "sure knowledge".

Personally, I have a feeling that there will not be many people who are deemed by Christ to be sops merely due to the fact that it would take a great deal of effort on their part to turn their backs on Christ and deny Him after having received so much knowledge. It is difficult for me to comprehend this because the more knowledge and Truth I receive, the more love I have for Father and my Savior. My incentive is irresistable to love them and increases in indescribable terms as I am given moments of what becoming "one" must be like. I just don't want to miss out on being able to experience that level of joy continually through-out the eternities.

Keep praying; God is not going to lead you astray. It would only be your own choices or perceptions that can hamper you on your journey. I believe the joy you will receive far outweighs the chances you would become an sop. Since you can become an sop whether or not you are in the LDS Church, I would hope that your fear that joining the Church could somehow increase your chances would be set aside. For a person who is already in-tuned with the Holy Ghost and is being led to the depths of understanding which you already manifest as evidenced by the types of questions you ask, at this point I would just boldly pray to Father and let Him know you are putting your faith and trust in Him to lead you where He wants you to go. He will not let you down.

God speed,

jo

Edited October 27, 2011 by jo1952

[Calm]

No one is irretrievably lost. That is the beauty of Christ's atonement.

Having said that the Mormon (LDS) Church is a very dogmatic faith, meaning it is a way of life and a comprehensive lifestyle. Once you have a witness of something and live it fully it is not easy to walk away.

I don't think you mean dogmatic....perhaps pragmatic?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Dogmatic

[Log]

If an ex-mormon ever really had a testimony, a burning in the bosom, or any contact with The Spirit, (and if he knew about the atonement, and was a member of the true Church) wouldn't he be an sop?

Perhaps not. If you wonder whether or not you can become an SOP, then you cannot become one.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Log

[Calm]

Joseph Smith stated something along the lines that committing oneself to perdition is like looking at the noonday sun and denying its existence. It's not about doubts or believing lies about God instead of the truth. It's knowing the truth, believing the truth and then not only rejecting God and all his goodness, but essentially spitting in his face and then trying to destroy his works all while continuing in the knowledge of his truth, glory and goodness. It's Cain making a mockery of God in his sacrifice because he had obeyed Satan and not God in his preparations.

It's not only the attitude of it's better to reign in he-ll than serve in heaven, it's then trying to bring heaven down even while knowing of God's love and goodness.

Don't see all too many people being having that level of knowledge and experience with the Lord to qualify and far fewer having reached that level being willing not to just throw it all away, but try to destroy it.

Edited October 27, 2011 by calmoriah

[jo1952]

name='inquiringmind' timestamp='1319679802' post='1209059893']

I'm still investigating the Mormon faith, and whatever promptings I may have had, I still doubt.

I think that all believers are anxious about doing the right thing.

I guess one of my fears is jumping in with both feet, and later becoming an ex-mormon.

Is this due to your fears about the sop issue? If so, then I believe your fears are unfounded. ANY believer can become an sop; but as I have already explained it takes a LOT to become one.

I understand ex-mormons can return to the Church, but I have some questions.

What are your questions so that we can address them?

I've noticed that a lot of ex-mormons seem to be atheists.

Don't all atheists, by definition, deny The Holy Spirit (I mean, if they deny the existence of God)?

They cannot deny something that they did not know for a certainty.

If an ex-mormon ever really had a testimony, a burning in the bosom, or any contact with The Spirit, (and if he knew about the atonement, and was a member of the true Church) wouldn't he be an sop?

Not likely, as explained in my previous post to you.

This is why I'm interested in questions like whether Jonah really understood the Gospel when he disobeyed God's voice, and whether Martin Harris was warned to repent after he became one of the three witnesses, but no one seems able to answer those questions.

I always smile when I think about Jonas, whom I call the reluctant prophet. I think he had a very healthy relationship with God. However, his personality was such that he was not anxious to do the particular task which God wanted him to do. I enjoy how God intervened with Jonah. It's a great story which I always enjoy reading. God would have known ahead of time that Jonas was going to try to run away from his responsibility. God used this opportunity for His own purposes; however, inasmuch as all of the men on the ship wound up being converted, which never would have happened if Jonas had not been on board their ship. I really doubt his disobedience was seen by God as placing Jonas in the position of becoming an sop. He never denied Christ....he was merely reluctant to do what God asked him to do....though eventually he did do God's will.

W.W. Phelps caused a lot of trouble for Joseph, and said some horrible things about the Church--things which seem to me must have been lies, because if half of what he said was true he would have been afraid of having his throat cut if he ever came back--but Joseph forgave him and welcomed him back to the fold.

If he did actually have that fear, we can see that it was unfounded.

If he had had any real testimony of the Holy Spirit to begin with, would he have been unable to repent?

Of course. Leaving the Church did not equate to his denying Christ. It is an indication that he became temporarily disillusioned with the Church....but not necessarily disillusioned with Christ. Even if he was disillusioned with Christ and denied him, we don't know that he had received "sure knowledge". I would also like to point out, BTW, that Jesus taught that those who deny the Holy Ghost are only in danger of becoming a sop. IOW, Jesus is telling us that it is not a guaranty. I find this very interesting because denying the Holy Ghost is an unforgivable sin. So, how is it a person can still be saved in they have an unforgiven sin? I believe it is because Mercy could not forgive such a sin; thus justice must be paid to the last farthing by spending time in hell until the debt has been paid. I suppose that if a person DOES actually pay the price and willingly then accepts Christ, he can pay the debt and still be saved.

If he had had promptings that he later attributed to coincidence, would he have denied The Holy Spirit?

I think if he attributed his promptings to coincidence, then he never really had a sure knowledge.

What about ex-mormons today, who once had "a testimony, and now describe themselves as atheists or agnostics?

Again, having a testimony does not necessarily equate to having received a sure knowledge. Receiving a testimony becomes an evolutionary process as we grow line-upon-line and precept-upon-precent. Also, I have seen where Orthodox Christians have lost their faith - some of them Pastors - who later are disillusioned and become either agnostics or atheists. Again it all depends upon how much knowledge they had received from the Holy Ghost which would determine if they will be considered an sop or not.

Are they all irretrievably lost?

I think not. I believe that even an sop can be saved once they have done time in hell, or even in the lake of fire and brimstone. If they allow this experience to humble them and accept Christ, I believe they have the opportunity to pay their debt. I believe that even those who stubbornly refuse to then accept Christ, may have an opportunity given them. This is not Church doctrine, but is rather my own contemplation on the subject. If you care to hear it (if I have not already shared it with you...as I can't remember for sure), I will share it again.

Regards,

jo

[elguanteloko]

I've noticed that a lot of ex-mormons seem to be atheists.

There is no denying that Mormonism has many practical advantages from Protestantism (and in few respects to Catholic-type of Christianities). Then, for people who get disillusioned with Mormonism it makes sense that most other religions aren't much better. I think Orthodox Christianity is better, btw, than Mormonism in many respects but, still, the feeling of great distrust is there promoting atheism instead of another type of Christianity.

Don't all atheists, by definition, deny The Holy Spirit (I mean, if they deny the existence of God)?

"a-theist" means that we don't believe in a god. If anyone takes the Holy Spirit to be a god then they can't be atheists but if they don't think the HS is a god then they can be atheists and still believe the HS exists. "Atheism" believes much less than you appear to think it does.

If an ex-mormon ever really had a testimony, a burning in the bosom, or any contact with The Spirit, (and if he knew about the atonement, and was a member of the true Church) wouldn't he be an sop?

I'll assume "an sop" means "a Son of Perdition". That depends on whether or not the now-unbeliever did really had no doubt in his mind that God existed and while having that knowledge consciously rejected God on purpose (and God exists).

This is why I'm interested in questions like whether Jonah really understood the Gospel when he disobeyed God's voice, and whether Martin Harris was warned to repent after he became one of the three witnesses, but no one seems able to answer those questions.

Jonah was simply afraid but he didn't reject God at all and Martin Harris never stopped being a Christian.

What about ex-mormons today, who once had "a testimony, and now describe themselves as atheists or agnostics?

More important than asking this doctrinal question should be for you to ask a moral question about God. If an agnostic or atheist (ex-mormons) left the faith sincerely believing it to be wrong, should she be punished at all for having done what she really saw as the best option?

Edited October 28, 2011 by elguanteloko

[CV75]

More important than asking this doctrinal question should be for you to ask a moral question about God. If an agnostic or atheist (ex-mormons) left the faith sincerely believing it to be wrong, should she be punished at all for having done what she really saw as the best option?

I won't comment on its importance, but I would replace “should be punished” with “will experience the consequences.” To a believer the consequence is a “punishment.” To an atheist it can be called whatever best describes whatever he might find that he dislikes about the consequences, if any.

[elguanteloko]

I won't comment on its importance, but I would replace “should be punished” with “will experience the consequences.” To a believer the consequence is a “punishment.” To an atheist it can be called whatever best describes whatever he might find that he dislikes about the consequences, if any.

You are missing the point.

The so-called consequences depend on God since God chooses who to punish and who to forgive (by his own admission in the scriptures). "Punishment" as a consequence is not the sense of the word I'm speaking about, don't be misleading. The only way in which atheist can possibly be said to be "punished" is in the afterlife and what happens in the afterlife is God's responsibility. If God's "justice" is that atheist should receive less of a glory for having made the effort of thinking and acting on what they saw as the most moral and correct belief for them (i.e. atheism), then God's justice isn't justice. It isn't just a rock that happens to fall on atheist, it is God's approved methodology.

[jo1952]

You are missing the point.

The so-called consequences depend on God since God chooses who to punish and who to forgive (by his own admission in the scriptures). "Punishment" as a consequence is not the sense of the word I'm speaking about, don't be misleading. The only way in which atheist can possibly be said to be "punished" is in the afterlife and what happens in the afterlife is God's responsibility. If God's "justice" is that atheist should receive less of a glory for having made the effort of thinking and acting on what they saw as the most moral and correct belief for them (i.e. atheism), then God's justice isn't justice. It isn't just a rock that happens to fall on atheist, it is God's approved methodology.

I think you are missing the point of the lesson Jesus was giving when He told us we were to forgive everybody and He would forgive whom He would. We are incapable of seeing into another's heart, or know the circumstances of their personal experiences; however, Jesus IS able to see and know. Because He experienced all things which mankind will experience, Jesus also understands the reasons for the choices each of us make. He can also see inside each person's heart and understand the intent of their actions. He does not arbitrarily forgive one person and not another based on whimsy or an ill-directed god ego trip. He is the perfect sacrifice who suffered the sins of the world and this Atonement is being offered to all of mankind. He is the perfect mediator and the only perfect Judge. His Judgments, whatever they are, whether there is punishment included or not, WILL be perfectly fair and just. This was done out of love for Father and love for us. He suffered for the sins of even those who don't currently believe in Him. We will all reap what we sow regardless of whether we believed or not, whether we once believed and then no longer believed, which religion (if any) we held to, whether we did good or whether we did evil inside or outside of belief in God,etc. At the time we are resurrected, everyone will KNOW who He is, and will also KNOW that His Judgments are just, whatever they turn out to be.

Atheists, agnostics, and believers will have righteousness accounted to them in accordance with what they believed to be True (which beliefs are connected to how much knowledge they may or may not have received from the Holy Ghost), and encompasses such things as their actions which were for good or which were for evil, whether a believer has repented or not, etc.

Regards,

jo

Edited October 28, 2011 by jo1952

[elguanteloko]

jo

Even in Mormonism there is a distinction between justice and forgiveness. If God's judgments are always just then they can't be at any time merciful or forgiving. If you "forgive" but to do so is according to the demands of justice then you didn't forgive anything since you just did justice. We don't say we are being merciful when we say "we forgive you your debt" when you have already paid your debt in full, but when you have a debt and we have mercy enough to let it go.

If God was always just then the whole mercy-Atonement relation is broken. I hope you are willing to bite that bullet.

On the aggregate, however, you and I don't seem to disagree with the main issue here. If a believer was sincere in his belief and did much good, and an atheist was just as sincere in leaving the Church and did just as much good to others, then it doesn't seem just that the atheist should suffer ANY consequence for having been wrong (if he is wrong). If your father wanted you to be an engineer instead of a computer scientist, if you become a computer scientist and go on to make a great career out of it, what is there to repudiate you about?

Edited October 28, 2011 by elguanteloko

[KevinG]

I don't think you mean dogmatic....perhaps pragmatic?

http://dictionary.re...browse/Dogmatic

All of the above. It really isn't a Sunday only cafeteria kind of belief system.

[why me]

No one is irretrievably lost. That is the beauty of Christ's atonement.

Having said that the Mormon (LDS) Church is a very dogmatic faith, meaning it is a way of life and a comprehensive lifestyle. Once you have a witness of something and live it fully it is not easy to walk away. Some find they cannot leave it alone even if they have left it.

I wouldn't say that the mormon faith is dogmatic because the word has a negative connotation. But you are right about antimormons...some can not leave it alone when they leave the faith because they have experienced a witness, and they try as may to distance themselves away from the witness. But many also just leave and leave the faith alone.

[KevinG]

OK perhaps the word dogmatic is too...

...dogmatic.

[why me]

If an ex-mormon ever really had a testimony, a burning in the bosom, or any contact with The Spirit, (and if he knew about the atonement, and was a member of the true Church) wouldn't he be an sop?

No, they wouldn't be sops. They would just be human. Some of the witnesses to the book of mormon became exmormons. But they never denied their testimony. They just had problems with Joseph Smith. The point is: when one joins an organization, one can eventually become an ex. For example, one can join the boyscouts and quit. Then one is an exboyscout. This goes for anything one joins. The same is true for a religion. Some of the witnesses became exmormon but they didn't necessarily become an antimormon.

With the mormon faith, once one receives a witness, it is difficult to to drift away and become an exer with some feelings of doubt that one has made the right decision. But when one reads stories of exmormons, they certainly try to convince themselves that the church is false. But one would need to do that to keep one's stability. It has been like this since the founding of the lds church.

As you can see it is complicated. Now if one receives a witness and does not join, then one ican be doubting that decision not to join for awhile because the person remembers the witness that they received. The only way to escape such contradictions is to never have met mormons or missionaries and prayed about the book of mormon and the truthfulness of the lds faith.

And there are plenty of lucky ones out there. Or are they unlucky?

Edited October 28, 2011 by why me

[why me]

OK perhaps the word dogmatic is too...

...dogmatic.

Yea, maybe the word compelling is better.

[jo1952]

name='elguanteloko' timestamp='1319770557' post='1209060563']

jo

Even in Mormonism there is a distinction between justice and forgiveness. If God's judgments are always just then they can't be at any time merciful or forgiving. If you "forgive" but to do so is according to the demands of justice then you didn't forgive anything since you just did justice. We don't say we are being merciful when we say "we forgive you your debt" when you have already paid your debt in full, but when you have a debt and we have mercy enough to let it go.

If God was always just then the whole mercy-Atonement relation is broken. I hope you are willing to bite that bullet.

Perhaps we are talking past each other. Mercy satisfies the demands of justice when we seek forgiveness while in the flesh. However, Mercy cannot rob justice. Hence, if we have not repented and been forgiven for our sins (which accesses the Atonement through Mercy) before we die, we must pay the debt after our physical death (which accesses the Atonement by doing "time" in hell/spirit prison).

I don't think we should be confusing any of this with the point which Jesus was teaching and telling us to do in forgiving others. If we do not forgive others, we cannot receive forgiveness of our sins. When we do not forgive others, we put ourselves into the position of judging others, which we are not supposed to do; nor are we qualified to do. Judgment is reserved for Christ alone. He will know whether we received forgiveness via Mercy or via spirit prison. Hmmm, perhaps part of what He was teaching had to do with this principle. When saying that He would forgive whom He would, maybe He was taking into consideration both Mercy and Justice, and the fact that He alone would Judge if forgiveness had rightfully been achieved one way or the other by the time each individual has been resurrected. It is better to receive forgiveness through Mercy, than it is to receive forgiveness via spirit prison. He will know the status of each individual; we certainly will not. Surely it would much better for us to forgive others while we are in the flesh in order to avoid not being forgiven of our sins while we are still in the flesh. Now, inasmuch as it can be extremely difficult to actually successfully fully forgive others, I think that if we are seeking His help to do so, and that we are sincerely making an effort, that ultimately it will come down to the intent that is in our heart.

On the aggregate, however, you and I don't seem to disagree with the main issue here. If a believer was sincere in his belief and did much good, and an atheist was just as sincere in leaving the Church and did just as much good to others, then it doesn't seem just that the atheist should suffer ANY consequence for having been wrong (if he is wrong). If your father wanted you to be an engineer instead of a computer scientist, if you become a computer scientist and go on to make a great career out of it, what is there to repudiate you about?

I think we are in agreement here. I think much of mankind will be surprised where everybody ends up. I very much dislike hearing LDS speak about non-LDS or ex-LDS in a way that makes the LDS appear superior in his own relationship with God. There just is no way for us to know about another. It's best if we try to keep the two greatest commandments in mind---though this can be difficult to do because we are still so very attached to the physical world. Then again, that is the purpose of our being here in the flesh to begin with. So, we will continue to be tested and continue to deal with and learn from both our good and our evil choices.

Regards,

jo