SteveO Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 I talked with my roommate last night for almost four hours over the topic of his exit from the church. He was born and raised in the church, served a mission, and then almost three years from getting home, became a self-described agnostic. He did a pretty good job explaining early on, but his argument fell apart towards the end. I found it fascinating, and I'd like to get people's perspective on it. Paraphrasing what he said:After I got home, I started partying, drinking and experimenting with drugs, being unchaste etc...and then I wanted to get back into the church. I worked hard to repent, got my temple reccommend back, did everything I was supposed to do...in fact I was the poster boy for the Mormon church (sounds familiar??). I was that way for an entire year. And I wasn't happy because I didn't feel anything. I would go to the temple many times a week, read every book written about the church, and I felt nothing. I wanted so badley to believe, and I just couldn't. I woke up one day...You all know the rest. Just an observation--I was shocked how similar it sounded to every exit story I've ever heard.My roommate said that his problem with the church is that if you want to believe something, you WILL look for ways to justify that belief. You'll convince yourself (he said partly with brain chemistry and human emotion) that something is true even if there is no basis for it. Here's my problem with that...the whole time he wanted so desperatly to believe--why couldn't he convince himself using the same process?? What changed? If his desire was to believe, why couldn't he overlook the same problems I see? Why couldn't or wouldn't his emotions and brain chemistry convince him and make him happy? What's the difference between me and him? He didn't have a response for it, only saying that he was able to view church history objectivley. So my question for those who have left the church, is how/when did you know you were viewing the church objectively, while at the same time desperatly wanting to believe???
Saints Alive Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 This is a very interesting topic. I have heard many compelling arguments against the church and have considered leaving it… I have never been able to. I have studied just about every other religion and when it comes to what I believe I always come back to the church. Sometimes I even think it would be easier if I wasn’t a member but I can’t change what I KNOW to be true. Sure, there are doctrines and paradoxes within the church I struggle with but there are many more that are ONLY in this church that I cannot deny. Sorry if my response is a bit off topic. 2
peacefulleeman Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 Indeed, the classic "line" of only the ex-mormon looks at the Church "objectively" and doesn't have "cognitive dissonance". It's a nice feel good phrase, one I know having been there myself, but that's all it actually is, just a feel good phrase to make you feel ABOVE and better than those dumb "religious" folks or mormons.Me, when I came back, I didn't want to believe, I was simply seeking the actual truth. I made sure though I was objective and balanced in that activity, and I was perfectly happy if the Church turned out not to be true. That's when the answers came, the actual truth, which actually supports the Churches version.I would also like to note that who has had his "taste" of the world, the freedoms, lack of caring and lusts of the flesh, it's hard to actually shake that off. His lack of belief has more to do with the world that is still in him, and simply not getting the right information or just not seeing it. It's true and see and believe what we want, but what is also true is that some actually do see more, while others like the ex-mormon only thinks he does. In truth it is he who only sees "part" of the picture, the negative part, and none of the positive connecting details which shows the actual truth.
Darth_Bill Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 I would think that it is all subjective. Each person has his own reason and level of tolerance. My wife knows nothing about the history or more controvercial parts of the LDS church and views the church as what it teaches. She's content there. She would never leave the church standing in that position, because the church teaches good things.For those of us who delve into the more thorny issues, I still think it comes back to tolerance, education, brain chemistry, etc. I was happy as a clam as a member here taking on all the issues until I had something very personal happen and then I questioned the nature of forgiveness, sin, etc. That was me. Other people leave for various reasons. And I do not have any lifestyle issues with the church at all. My issues are more fundimental to Christianity. Yes, I question my past experiences. I feel that is my choice to do so. 1
cdowis Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 I see nothing where he went into service for his fellowman. His focus was on himself, trying to deal with his personal issues and unbelief.Basically pride, impatience and focus on self.
Tepui Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) If you're in college stick with your studies. Have him talk to his Bishop. He may just be trying to drag you down to his level of miserableness to (incorrectly) justify himself.Your roommates will be long gone from now. Sounds calloused, but life is short. He knows what he should be doing. He knows right from wrong. Kick him in the pants and hit your books. Edited February 24, 2012 by Tepui
Darth_Bill Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 This isn't simple. It isn't forgetting yourself in your fellow man (that is service, but service isn't a testimony of the resurrected Christ, it is service). Also, do not equate happiness with church attendance. Billions of people are happy without the church. They might not be as happy, but they are happy.
Jeff K. Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 If you do not wish to believe, then all you do outwardly will not necessarily change you. Why the person chose not to believe is something only they can answer, and they may not answer you regarding that question. At least not accurately. It is difficult to convey feelings and sometimes the difficulty in explaining them comes out with an "I don't know why".
Verum Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) So my question for those who have left the church, is how/when did you know you were viewing the church objectively, while at the same time desperatly wanting to believe???I haven't left the church, but intellectually I have been drifting away so I think I can still answer your question from my perspective.I feel I am viewing the church objectively because I have little to gain by leaving and much more to lose. My whole life has been centered in the church. I have an unbroken line of faithful church members going all the way back to Nauvoo. I loved my mormon upbringing, loved my mission, taught at the MTC, worked in the temple, etc. and I still love attending church. I love the people and I love the feeling I have when I attend. The doctrines are beautiful and I enjoy helping others find hope and faith in them. Staying in the church would make these core experiences more meaningful and would preserve the very close relationships I have with my family and friends. Leaving would alienate me from my dear friends and family, create a lot uncertainty about life and its purpose, put my job at risk (my bosses are all LDS), etc. Knowing that the church is true again would make my life a lot easier and acknowledging that the church may not be what it claims to me gains me nothing. For the sake of authentic belief and personal integrity, when I examine and weigh the evidences surrounding the church's truth claims, the puzzle pieces just do not fit for me intellectually, and the probability of them being true in the sense the church claims they are true is very low from my perspective. That's just my honest perception at this point. I still attend, but I can't just pretend to see the truth if I really don't. If I had something motivating me out of the church , such as social, cultural, or political incompatibility, then I would be much more motivated to disprove the church. If anything, I have much more motivation to prove that it is true...but I have to be honest with myself. Many would probably say that I am not being truly objective though because Satan is influencing my perception, and I think that is fair; however, I can only do what I know best to do. If Satan is blinding me from seeing the truth, how can anyone know that? What if any of you true believers died tomorrow, and God said the church was not true, would any of have lived your life any differently then you did? Probably not, because most of you are in the church because of the genuine spiritual and intellectual experiences that you had throughout your life that influenced you to remain members of the church and wouldn't have acted any differently given the knowledge and experience you've had. Similarly, some (not everyone) who leave the church experience those same type of experiences that lead them out of the church and probably wouldn't have done any different given the knowledge and experiences they have had that influenced that decision. Edited February 24, 2012 by Verum 1
mfbukowski Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 I talked with my roommate last night for almost four hours over the topic of his exit from the church. He was born and raised in the church, served a mission, and then almost three years from getting home, became a self-described agnostic. He did a pretty good job explaining early on, but his argument fell apart towards the end. I found it fascinating, and I'd like to get people's perspective on it. Paraphrasing what he said:After I got home, I started partying, drinking and experimenting with drugs, being unchaste etc...and then I wanted to get back into the church. I worked hard to repent, got my temple reccommend back, did everything I was supposed to do...in fact I was the poster boy for the Mormon church (sounds familiar??). I was that way for an entire year. And I wasn't happy because I didn't feel anything. I would go to the temple many times a week, read every book written about the church, and I felt nothing. I wanted so badley to believe, and I just couldn't. I woke up one day...You all know the rest. Just an observation--I was shocked how similar it sounded to every exit story I've ever heard.My roommate said that his problem with the church is that if you want to believe something, you WILL look for ways to justify that belief. You'll convince yourself (he said partly with brain chemistry and human emotion) that something is true even if there is no basis for it. Here's my problem with that...the whole time he wanted so desperatly to believe--why couldn't he convince himself using the same process?? What changed? If his desire was to believe, why couldn't he overlook the same problems I see? Why couldn't or wouldn't his emotions and brain chemistry convince him and make him happy? What's the difference between me and him? He didn't have a response for it, only saying that he was able to view church history objectivley. So my question for those who have left the church, is how/when did you know you were viewing the church objectively, while at the same time desperatly wanting to believe???The problem here is that there is no such thing as viewing "objectively". To do so you have to discount the subjective, and instead use other people's perspectives.What the "objective" IS is a collection of other people's perspectives. That's what science is- what many "other people" have observed, and which yes, I could also observe myself if I chose to.Believing other people is fine for what it does.But you cannot live your life ignoring your own desires and emotions and decisions and relying on other people's perspectives. You live inside your own skin, and you decide what is important to you.He is trying to convince himself just as much to IGNORE his own feelings and emotions, as he alleges others try to convince themselves to follow them.Instead of looking at both sides, he is now prejudiced in favor of what he thinks is "rational" and ignoring what he thinks is "emotional", and has gone from one extreme to the other.If he ignores his emotions, of course he will "feel" nothing- because he intentionally ignores what he feels! 1
mfbukowski Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Many would probably say that I am not being truly objective though because Satan is influencing my perception, and I think that is fair; however, I can only do what I know best to do. If Satan is blinding me from seeing the truth, how can anyone know that? What if any of you true believers died tomorrow, and God said the church was not true, would any of have lived your life any differently then you did? Probably not, because most of you are in the church because of the genuine spiritual and intellectual experiences that you had throughout your life that influenced you to remain members of the church and wouldn't have acted any differently given the knowledge and experience you've had. Similarly, some (not everyone) who leave the church experience those same type of experiences that lead them out of the church and probably wouldn't have done any different given the knowledge and experiences they have had that influenced that decision.This is a pretty profound post in my opinion, but I think you are seeing it upside down. It's like you see it for what it is, but to me, have the wrong perspective on what you see.I was not raised in the church and am a convert, and was an athiest until I studied some philosophy and understood that there is no such thing as objective certainty about anything, and that the "truth" is largely what you decide it is.The paradox of that is that you can decide to believe only in scientific observation- with no more basis than believing that science (as we know it today) needs to be balanced with faith, or in other words, that the objective needs to be balanced with the subjective. That means that acting on a religious experience can be just as "reasonable" as ignoring it. The question becomes what are the limits of what we call "reason" itself, and is it reasonable to have a religious faith.I have had profound religious experiences, and I accept those and act on them, and find acting on those experiences to be totally "reasonable" and well based in philosophical theory, and they have nothing to do with being raised in the church.Am I misunderstanding you? Edited February 24, 2012 by mfbukowski
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 So my question for those who have left the church, is how/when did you know you were viewing the church objectively, while at the same time desperatly wanting to believe???Can't answer your question. But it sounds like all this guy wants to do is sin.
KevinG Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 Share this. Better yet print it out and paste it to the wall of your room...“When obedience ceases to be an irritant and becomes our quest, in that moment God will endow us. with power.” —President Ezra Taft Benson 2
CV75 Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 viewing the church objectively, while at the same time desperatly wanting to believeI've never left the Cgurch, but I'm happy to speak for those who have: This is the definition of spiritual captivity.
mfbukowski Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 Share this. Better yet print it out and paste it to the wall of your room...“When obedience ceases to be an irritant and becomes our quest, in that moment God will endow us. with power.” —President Ezra Taft BensonWow!
KevinG Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 Wow! Thanks - I've mercilessly indoctrinated my children with that quote and used it to cause great amounts of cognitive dissonance in their innocent minds. 1
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Thanks - I've mercilessly indoctrinated my children with that quote and used it to cause great amounts of cognitive dissonance in their innocent minds.Ha! Ain't that FUN?
robuchan Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) I talked with my roommate last night for almost four hours over the topic of his exit from the church. He was born and raised in the church, served a mission, and then almost three years from getting home, became a self-described agnostic. He did a pretty good job explaining early on, but his argument fell apart towards the end. I found it fascinating, and I'd like to get people's perspective on it. Paraphrasing what he said:After I got home, I started partying, drinking and experimenting with drugs, being unchaste etc...and then I wanted to get back into the church. I worked hard to repent, got my temple reccommend back, did everything I was supposed to do...in fact I was the poster boy for the Mormon church (sounds familiar??). I was that way for an entire year. And I wasn't happy because I didn't feel anything. I would go to the temple many times a week, read every book written about the church, and I felt nothing. I wanted so badley to believe, and I just couldn't. I woke up one day...You all know the rest. Just an observation--I was shocked how similar it sounded to every exit story I've ever heard.My roommate said that his problem with the church is that if you want to believe something, you WILL look for ways to justify that belief. You'll convince yourself (he said partly with brain chemistry and human emotion) that something is true even if there is no basis for it. Here's my problem with that...the whole time he wanted so desperatly to believe--why couldn't he convince himself using the same process?? What changed? If his desire was to believe, why couldn't he overlook the same problems I see? Why couldn't or wouldn't his emotions and brain chemistry convince him and make him happy? What's the difference between me and him? He didn't have a response for it, only saying that he was able to view church history objectivley. So my question for those who have left the church, is how/when did you know you were viewing the church objectively, while at the same time desperatly wanting to believe???I have a few thoughts reading this.1. That's strange you think this is shockingly similar to every other exit story you've heard. I've heard a lot of them, and none of them are that similar to this story.2. It seems odd a young person who just spent a few years partying, doing drugs, having sex would have the commitment to go a full year attending the temple many times per week and being the poster child Mormon without a very strong faith. 3. Without knowing him very well and knowing a lot more to the story, there's no way I could judge his heart or intent in this thing. Even then, I couldn't. I have been on both sides of the fence, and if there's anything we can't do it's judge others for their belief or lack of belief.My story is a lot like Verum's above, but I am further down the road of apostasy. I had every incentive to preserve my faith. I live in the heart of Mormonism. All my family, friends, co-workers, neighbors are Mormon. And when I say all, it's barely an exaggeration. I don't have issues with any of the rules or morality or politics or culture. My wife is uber Mormon, and I've raised my kids that way. Even though I have lost my testimony, I still attend and likely will the rest of my life.What caused me to lose my belief? Many will judge me, and many here have judged me in the past, and I have been in your shoes in the past judging apostates. But I have no idea what motivation has led me other than a pure motive to seek truth. I understand the idea that belief is a choice. And I think to a degree and for many people it is. But try this one. Try believing the moon is made of Swiss Cheese. Think of a situation where you have every incentive to believe. Someone will give you $10M if you can pass a lie detector test and truthfully say you believe the moon is made of Swiss Cheese. Could you do it? Is belief a choice? Edited February 25, 2012 by robuchan
zerinus Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 I have a few thoughts reading this.1. That's strange you think this is shockingly similar to every other exit story you've heard. I've heard a lot of them, and none of them are that similar to this story.2. It seems odd a young person who just spent a few years partying, doing drugs, having sex would have the commitment to go a full year attending the temple many times per week and being the poster child Mormon without a very strong faith. 3. Without knowing him very well and knowing a lot more to the story, there's no way I could judge his heart or intent in this thing. Even then, I couldn't. I have been on both sides of the fence, and if there's anything we can't do it's judge others for their belief or lack of belief.My story is a lot like Verum's above, but I am further down the road of apostasy. I had every incentive to preserve my faith. I live in the heart of Mormonism. All my family, friends, co-workers, neighbors are Mormon. And when I say all, it's barely an exaggeration. I don't have issues with any of the rules or morality or politics or culture. My wife is uber Mormon, and I've raised my kids that way. Even though I have lost my testimony, I still attend and likely will the rest of my life.What caused me to lose my belief? Many will judge me, and many here have judged me in the past, and I have been in your shoes in the past judging apostates. But I have no idea what motivation has led me other than a pure motive to seek truth. I understand the idea that belief is a choice. And I think to a degree and for many people it is. But try this one. Try believing the moon is made of Swiss Cheese. Think of a situation where you have every incentive to believe. Someone will give you $10M if you can pass a lie detector test and truthfully say you believe the moon is made of Swiss Cheese. Could you do it? Is belief a choice?Belief isn't a choice; the desire to believe is a choice.
robuchan Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Belief isn't a choice; the desire to believe is a choice.Wouldn't $10M give you the desire to believe the moon is made of Swiss cheese?
zerinus Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) Wouldn't $10M give you the desire to believe the moon is made of Swiss cheese?No. Edited February 25, 2012 by zerinus 1
robuchan Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 No.OK, whatever. You have super high morality with your beliefs or whatever. But what about your average Joe on the street. Could you entice very many people to believe the moon is made of Swiss Cheese with $10M? $100M?
zerinus Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) OK, whatever. You have super high morality with your beliefs or whatever. But what about your average Joe on the street. Could you entice very many people to believe the moon is made of Swiss Cheese with $10M? $100M?I meant the desire to believe the truth, not just anything. Edited February 25, 2012 by zerinus
blackstrap Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Actually the moon is made of cheeze,not Swiss mind you,but gray,dusty,hard cheeze.Also,you should know that the wind is caused by the leaves on the trees moving.Need proof?.On the moon there is no wind.Why?You guessed it ,no trees. I am always amazed when,in the TV law shows the witness in court must swear to tell the Truth,the Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. Impossible task in my opinion.Truth is many layered and depends alot on the point of view of the observer.
blackstrap Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 One can claim to have lost testimony because of a search for truth. Another will claim that a testimony was gained because of a search for truth. How can both be truthful statments?
Recommended Posts