Do People Who Can'T Overcome Doubt And Issues . . .

[CV75]

(Thinking / writing out-loud for myself) Now that I come to think of it, isn't it impossible for someone to really know if somebody else's intellectual process is honest or not? I mean, honesty here is a deep personnal / internal matter impossible to objectively measure from the outside.

I have typically found that an intellectually honest person doesn’t invite people he knows he disagrees with to challenge his intellectual honesty, since the truth isn't centered on his honesty but on the object of his intellectual process, which an intellectually honest person seeks.

[Ahab]

It's not a matter of whether they want something or not, but whether they can cut their losses or stick it out to the end.

Actually, it does have at least a little bit to do with whether or not they want something, and what they want. If you don't want your investment to be a waste of your time and energy, then you'll likely stick with it, but if you don't really want that old car anymore then you would likely just choose to trade it in or just let it go and get another car, instead. It's all about what you want, along with what your options are.

You don't have to get rid of a car just because it's old or needs new parts, ya know. Some people actually want to keep their cars no matter how old they get while trying to keep them in tip top condition. I had an old Jaguar for a long time that kept breaking down, and I kept it for a long time just because I really liked and really wanted that old car.

And then there came a time when I didn't really want it anymore and I traded it in for a truck.

[Tacenda]

I don't know what you mean here. Adam and Eve are typical of all men and women, both before and after the Fall.

Why is it portrayed as one man and one woman in the temple if we are to have polygamy in heaven?

[Walden]

I for one have never expressed this. I know people who believe that they got a "no" answer when applying "Moroni's promise," and I believe that God did tell them "no" (similar to me believing that God told David Whitmer to separate himself from the Mormons at Far West).

What a caricature. Even the bluest of TBMs "can fathom" people "coming to different answers." If nothing else, those who served missions, or those who have family and extended family.

Another caricature. I don't think the struggles of disbelief of people who don't want the Church to be true (deep down) are "rubbish." They are very real, but my thesis was that they stem ultimately from not wanting it to be true.

And I can fathom that some might disagree with that, hence my opening sentence.

Why then would a person who was raised in the LDS faith, who holds admiration for their TBM parents and family and other close TBM friends, who holds fondness for the social appeals of mormonism (sense of community, camaraderie, the "one for all, all for one" attitude, the sense of brotherly charity, etc.), who does not have a desire to sin (even as an atheist, I don't consume alcohol or tobacco, I am devoutly faithful to my wife, and besides not believing in the truthfulness of the LDS faith, my lifestyle is barely different from the one I led while in the church, except for the occassional cup of coffee), who is fully aware of the heartache and misery that their disbelief causes to their family and close friends....how does that align with your thesis that a person such as myself "just doesn't want it to be true?"

I can assure you that my life would be much simpler, my path much less doubtful, my TBM family and friends much more accepting and happy if only I would abandon my disbelief and embrace the Mormon faith. Why would I not want it (LDS theology) to be true, when I know that if I were to embrace LDS theology, it would lead to greater cohesion, acceptance and a greater sense of love with my TBM family and friends (whom I still adore), provide an "out-of-the-box" roadmap for life and happiness versus my current struggle in determining the meaning of life, provide a greater sense of community and a sense of purpose, etc., etc.?

In essence, I think that your thesis is incorrect and faulty. For years, I wanted more than anything else for the church to be true. I never did receive any sort of confirmation that it was true, and so I moved on to seek truth elsewhere, a journey that I am still undertaking.

It really can be that simple.

[Ahab]

Why is it portrayed as one man and one woman in the temple if we are to have polygamy in heaven?

I'm not sure. Maybe God knew enough about Adam, in his pre-mortal life, to know he wanted to have only one wife. Or maybe he was given another wife later even though there's nothing in scripture to show that.

I do know that some righteous men have had more than one wife, though, and I also know that at least some of them will have all of their wives in heaven.

[pmccombs1]

I'm just saying that to say you wish for more faith....that you wish to trust and love, while maintaining a sense that you cannot trust without Him meeting your expectations and insisting God meet on your terms, it's most likely going to fail. That's not really faith in the first place.

Yes, but what what merits trust? When should one walk by faith and not by sight? There are times when it appears there is no choice, and whatever is available--whatever is at hand--that is what we trust in because it is expedient. But when one feels a certain clarity of vision, then one is not liable to simply walk blindly, trusting. There are voices clamoring for trust. God is here, He wants this particular thing from you, and you must trust him. Well, why this and not that?

So we talk to God and get some additional clarity and direction. Is that our formula? What greater witness can we have? Well, does that clear things up? Does God set us straight? Yes, of course. He visits the Mormon and confirms his faith. He visits the Catholic and confirms his faith. He visits the agnostic and cements him in his path. Likewise, He visits another Mormon and sends him to the Catholic faith. And He visits another Catholic and sends him to the Mormon faith. And He visits another agnostic and sends him whither He will. I have no doubt that each of these sincere seekers experiences something which is interpreted as genuine. It is more than real; more forceful than any other certainty. God answers prayers, He assists the seeker, and order comes to the individual. But chaos reigns over all, and there is no agreement. What can it possibly mean?

You want to understand the leaver in terms of "sin, doubt, fear, pressures, exhaustion, outside problems, family pressures, apathy, feeling different." You want to say that it is weakness that drives the faithful to some other path. But what if it is strength? What if it is growth? What if it is seeing and finding, or catching just enough of a glimpse to make a leap? It is not only the Mormon convert who leaves his former faith out of a new strength found in Mormonism. There are many who leave Mormonism because of a new strength found elsewhere, a greater truth and enlightenment.

I'm all in favor of a leap of faith, as Kirkegaard once put it. We can't really be justified in our knowledge it seems, in spite of all the divine guidance we may feel (with certainty, even), but we can leap. At what?

[Ahab]

At what?

At what we find attractive. At what we think is better than this, or that. At what seems like something better than we currently have, when what we have seems like it's not quite good enough for what we really want in our lives.

The fact that someone likes something better than something else doesn't mean the latter is better for them, or better generally, though. It just means they like the new direction better, or they just don't like what they had so they want something else to replace it, or maybe in addition to it.

Not all the voices we hear or the promptings we feel are coming from our Father in heaven. There are many muses. Who do you think you are following?

[pmccombs1]

At what we find attractive. At what we think is better than this, or that. At what seems like something better than we currently have, when what we have seems like it's not quite good enough for what we really want in our lives.

That's what I think.

The fact that someone likes something better than something else doesn't mean the latter is better for them, or better generally, though. It just means they like the new direction better, or they just don't like what they had so they want something else to replace it, or maybe in addition to it.

How do you know that? What is the measure of "better"?

Not all the voices we hear or the promptings we feel are coming from our Father in heaven. There are many muses. Who do you think you are following?

I, like many, am looking around for whom, or what, to follow. Maybe they are all muses. Maybe they are all God. How will I know? For what may I hope? It is one thing to say, "follow God," and another thing entirely to do it. We follow something we think might be God, find that we like or dislike it, and settle on what we like (or even dislike!). Or we settle on what is comfortable, traditional, trendy, or comes to us via some authority which we respect. What "works" for us becomes our God. And this is not, by the way, what works for everybody. There are many influences that inform belief. Many like a challenge and could not live without difficulty; others are for ease and quiet. There are many paths to appeal to any preference, ideal, or expectation. Indeed, some find themselves tugged by exactly the opposite of what they would wish for themselves.

What is a reliable test to know if a prompting, vision, voice, miracle, or experience is from God, in spite of one's desires, inclinations, or expectations? The quality of the prompting that assured me of one truth also assured me of its opposite. Perhaps the key is not in the experience itself, but in its result. Yet, how do we know our criteria for judging are correct? Metaphorically speaking, If we are to know a thing by its fruits, how is it that an identical "fruit" can taste sweet to one and bitter (or not at all) to another; or how is one to measure, impartially, the goodness of the fruit? Are we all poor tasters? And how do we know that "fruits" is the real test of authenticity? Is there not something less subjective than this? And what of those whose promptings are in contention with those of another, yet both promptings produce what is generally though to be "good" fruit?

Having an experience--having subjective evidence isn't enough. Enough for what? For a declaration of universal truth. For a justified knowledge. Such things are simply good enough for faith and for making a leap; "knowing" something doesn't make it so. Feeling certain is not a sign of having truth, at least not the kind of truth we think we have. We look for an objective truth, but we can't have it. In the end, it is all an expression of the self, our choice to believe or not. We might all believe in the same thing, and yet on one it reflects foolishness, another wisdom, another cowardice, another courage. It seems to me the content of belief does not matter one bit, but its quality is all that matters.

[Ahab]

How do you know that?

People leaving the Church for something they think is better. That provides evidence of that.

What is the measure of "better"?

Whatever they think is better. It's a subjective assessment for each person.

I, like many, am looking around for whom, or what, to follow. Maybe they are all muses. Maybe they are all God. How will I know? For what may I hope? It is one thing to say, "follow God," and another thing entirely to do it. We follow something we think might be God, find that we like or dislike it, and settle on what we like (or even dislike!). Or we settle on what is comfortable, traditional, trendy, or comes to us via some authority which we respect. What "works" for us becomes our God. And this is not, by the way, what works for everybody. There are many influences that inform belief. Many like a challenge and could not live without difficulty; others are for ease and quiet. There are many paths to appeal to any preference, ideal, or expectation. Indeed, some find themselves tugged by exactly the opposite of what they would wish for themselves.

I think it could benefit some people to think of life, in general, without associating anything with "heaven" or "hell" or "God" or "Satan" or any of the "religious" terms we associate with certain things. Forget about naming it and just go with what you like. God will sort it all out in the end, regardless of the label on it, or what it is actually called. If you're calling evil good, because that's what you like, would it have made any real difference to you if someone had told you it was evil, according to God?

What is a reliable test to know if a prompting, vision, voice, miracle, or experience is from God, in spite of one's desires, inclinations, or expectations? The quality of the prompting that assured me of one truth also assured me of its opposite. Perhaps the key is not in the experience itself, but in its result. Yet, how do we know our criteria for judging are correct? Metaphorically speaking, If we are to know a thing by its fruits, how is it that an identical "fruit" can taste sweet to one and bitter (or not at all) to another; or how is one to measure, impartially, the goodness of the fruit? Are we all poor tasters? And how do we know that "fruits" is the real test of authenticity? Is there not something less subjective than this? And what of those whose promptings are in contention with those of another, yet both promptings produce what is generally though to be "good" fruit?

In the end God will be the one judging us, and he'll be judging us by our works. Not wheher or not we thought it was "good", but whether or not it was actually good. In the end we will get the desires of our hearts, even if then we won't like what it is called or what the name of the place is where we will be.

Having an experience--having subjective evidence isn't enough. Enough for what? For a declaration of universal truth. For a justified knowledge. Such things are simply good enough for faith and for making a leap; "knowing" something doesn't make it so. Feeling certain is not a sign of having truth, at least not the kind of truth we think we have. We look for an objective truth, but we can't have it. In the end, it is all an expression of the self, our choice to believe or not. We might all believe in the same thing, and yet on one it reflects foolishness, another wisdom, another cowardice, another courage. It seems to me the content of belief does not matter one bit, but its quality is all that matters.

Yep. It is what it is, and it leads to whatever it leads to. If you didn't like it, you wouldn't be doing it, so why worry about it.

We're all going to end up where we feel most comfortable, as evident by the things we did.

What is "Hell" to some is what is "Heaven" to others, and our God is whoever we follow.

[Kenngo1969]

Among the central questions for me are, “Do the Church and the Gospel of Jesus Christ bear good fruit in your life now?”; and “Have they ever done so?” If the answer to the first question is “No,” but the answer to the second question is, “Yes,” then, if I were those who doubt, I would wonder, “What has changed in the interim?” As Alma put it, “If ye have felt of his goodness, and have tasted of his love, and have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, I would ask, can ye feel so now?” Too often, people tend to want—wittingly or not—to try to gauge the state of their testimony, contra Alma 32, by pulling it up out of the ground and examining its roots.

Many people, in my humble opinion, confuse cause and effect because of hindsight bias: “I stopped reading my scriptures, praying, going to church, paying tithing, et cetera,” they say, “because of my doubts,” rather than, “My doubts came to dominate my thoughts [often despite the good fruit the Church and the Gospel of Jesus Christ previously have borne in the person’s life] because I stopped doing these things.” If I want good fruit, I will plant and nurture good seeds. If I attempt to nurture a seed and it does not bear the kind of fruit I want, I discard it and find another one.

If a person is a [Lutheran/Roman Catholic/Baptist/[Fill-in-the-blank-here]] and their exercise of religious devotion bears good fruit in their life (even if, from my perspective, perhaps thirty- or sixtyfold as compared to my hundredfold), who am I to question that? I believe God gives bread, fruit, and fish to those who ask him, period. I don’t believe God gives me bread, fruit, and fish while giving the religiously devout of other stripes stones, thorns and thistles, and serpents. If you’re sure you’ve made the best possible efforts to nurture the seeds you’ve been given and they haven’t borne the kind of fruit you want, the solution is to find other seeds; you can mourn the failure of the seeds you attempted to cultivate to grow, and that’s a natural part of the process, but it’ll only get you so far. Grieve as much as you must, but then move on; find new seeds.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[GingerRed]

From the Gospel Principles Manual:

"When a man has the manifestation from the Holy Ghost, it leaves an indelible impression on his soul, one that is not easily erased. It is Spirit speaking to spirit, and it comes with convincing force. A manifestation of an angel, or even the Son of God himself, would impress the eye and mind, and eventually become dimmed, but the impressions of the Holy Ghost sink deeper into the soul and are more difficult to erase" (Answers to Gospel Questions, 2:151).

"President Smith also said, "Through the Holy Ghost the truth is woven into the very fibre and sinews of the body so that it cannot be forgotten" (Doctrines of

Salvation, 1:48). As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we should make ourselves worthy to receive this special messenger and witness of our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ."

As a convert, this sums it up for me. Plain and simple. You receive this witness or you don't. I have. Those that don't, I believe is the reason many people fall away. You CHOOSE to be worthy of this 'special witness' telling you the church is true. I'm sorry I don't buy that excuse that you are not responsible for your own reactions to your feelings. Those here that say its not the fault of the person who has doubts, is ridiculous. They gave into their doubts and fears. They CHOSE to do that. It doesn't matter if the reason is because of sin, or history they didn't know about, or doctrine they think is wrong, yadda yadda yadda. The point is, they chose to not take it to the Lord, first and foremost, and ASK Him about it and get their OWN confirmation on what is true or not. They instead sought the world's views, the ex mormon sites , their non Mormon friends, whatever else....to confirm what they wanted to hear.

It's not that I don't have sympathy for those who struggle. For Pete's sake we ALL struggle about something! I have had doubts here and there...but NOT that the church wasn't true! That has always been my rock! That's why all this silly stuff about polygamy, doctrine, priesthood ban, etc...doesn't bother me at all! It doesn't shake my faith. Why? Because I already got my witness that the church is true a long time ago...and it was too powerful and too right ( like it says above ... the truth is woven into the very fibre and sinews of the body so that it cannot be forgotten) to just cast away...before I even knew about any of this stuff! I learned it all down the road. I'm not sorry I learned about it, I'm glad to find out about things I didn't know about. It's kind of intriguing, actually. And its defiantly intriguing being on this board, and hearing all these different views and comments from all walks of life. I know it sounds silly to some of you, but it helps to strengthen my testimony. Its makes me sad that those who struggle or doubt can't see it like I can! If I could wave a wand and give it to others I would! But that has to come from God , directly to you. And to those would get some kind of different answer, that the church isn't for them, well so be it. You have to follow the path you think you should. But its YOUR choice.

Red

Edited February 8, 2013 by GingerRed

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Some have said those that leave often are expecting perfection, and we can't expect perfection in all things from a church run by mortal men... I agree. However, when the contradictions began piling high enough, I found it neccesary to find someplace where there weren't as many contradictions.

Also, some, like Ginger Red above, have implied that the main fault is people don't pray to find out from God if a thing is true. I can say, for myself, that I did and do- and came to a different conclusion then her/him.

I can tell you that I have received, what I believe, are experiences specific to the part of the Restoration that I am involved in leading me to be involved and accept God's hand in what is happening among us. I will not share those experiences only because I believe it is against board guidelines to share such things.

Edited February 9, 2013 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Tacenda]

From the Gospel Principles Manual:

"When a man has the manifestation from the Holy Ghost, it leaves an indelible impression on his soul, one that is not easily erased. It is Spirit speaking to spirit, and it comes with convincing force. A manifestation of an angel, or even the Son of God himself, would impress the eye and mind, and eventually become dimmed, but the impressions of the Holy Ghost sink deeper into the soul and are more difficult to erase" (Answers to Gospel Questions, 2:151).

"President Smith also said, "Through the Holy Ghost the truth is woven into the very fibre and sinews of the body so that it cannot be forgotten" (Doctrines of

Salvation, 1:48). As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we should make ourselves worthy to receive this special messenger and witness of our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ."

As a convert, this sums it up for me. Plain and simple. You receive this witness or you don't. I have. Those that don't, I believe is the reason many people fall away. You CHOOSE to be worthy of this 'special witness' telling you the church is true. I'm sorry I don't buy that excuse that you are not responsible for your own reactions to your feelings. Those here that say its not the fault of the person who has doubts, is ridiculous. They gave into their doubts and fears. They CHOSE to do that. It doesn't matter if the reason is because of sin, or history they didn't know about, or doctrine they think is wrong, yadda yadda yadda. The point is, they chose to not take it to the Lord, first and foremost, and ASK Him about it and get their OWN confirmation on what is true or not. They instead sought the world's views, the ex mormon sites , their non Mormon friends, whatever else....to confirm what they wanted to hear.

It's not that I don't have sympathy for those who struggle. For Pete's sake we ALL struggle about something! I have had doubts here and there...but NOT that the church wasn't true! That has always been my rock! That's why all this silly stuff about polygamy, doctrine, priesthood ban, etc...doesn't bother me at all! It doesn't shake my faith. Why? Because I already got my witness that the church is true a long time ago...and it was too powerful and too right ( like it says above ... the truth is woven into the very fibre and sinews of the body so that it cannot be forgotten) to just cast away...before I even knew about any of this stuff! I learned it all down the road. I'm not sorry I learned about it, I'm glad to find out about things I didn't know about. It's kind of intriguing, actually. And its defiantly intriguing being on this board, and hearing all these different views and comments from all walks of life. I know it sounds silly to some of you, but it helps to strengthen my testimony. Its makes me sad that those who struggle or doubt can't see it like I can! If I could wave a wand and give it to others I would! But that has to come from God , directly to you. And to those would get some kind of different answer, that the church isn't for them, well so be it. You have to follow the path you think you should. But its YOUR choice.

Red

I was like you once. I hope what you have stays put. Thanks for sharin.

[omni]

Why then would a person who was raised in the LDS faith, who holds admiration for their TBM parents and family and other close TBM friends, who holds fondness for the social appeals of mormonism (sense of community, camaraderie, the "one for all, all for one" attitude, the sense of brotherly charity, etc.), who does not have a desire to sin (even as an atheist, I don't consume alcohol or tobacco, I am devoutly faithful to my wife, and besides not believing in the truthfulness of the LDS faith, my lifestyle is barely different from the one I led while in the church, except for the occassional cup of coffee), who is fully aware of the heartache and misery that their disbelief causes to their family and close friends....how does that align with your thesis that a person such as myself "just doesn't want it to be true?"

I can assure you that my life would be much simpler, my path much less doubtful, my TBM family and friends much more accepting and happy if only I would abandon my disbelief and embrace the Mormon faith. Why would I not want it (LDS theology) to be true, when I know that if I were to embrace LDS theology, it would lead to greater cohesion, acceptance and a greater sense of love with my TBM family and friends (whom I still adore), provide an "out-of-the-box" roadmap for life and happiness versus my current struggle in determining the meaning of life, provide a greater sense of community and a sense of purpose, etc., etc.?

In essence, I think that your thesis is incorrect and faulty. For years, I wanted more than anything else for the church to be true. I never did receive any sort of confirmation that it was true, and so I moved on to seek truth elsewhere, a journey that I am still undertaking.

It really can be that simple.

Rongo, I've always respected you and enjoyed your posts, you seem to be one of the more compassionate TBMs here in regards to those who have lost their faith...which makes your OP so surprising and disappointing.

I'd like to second what Walden has said, I did not lose my faith because I didn't want it to be true, I lost it after much study, prayer and heartbreak. I live in the heart of happy valley, both mine and my wife's family are all LDS, all in our immediate families are active and practically all of our friends are members. I was BIC, served a mission, married in the temple, served in numerous callings, in other words the church is an integral part of my life.

I mention all of this to emphasize that this was not an easy decision for me to make, my life would have been much easier if I still had a testimony. I'm not one of those who "never quite fit in the church", in fact there are many things I still love about the church and I continue to attend.

As far as wanting to sin, I still live basically the same lifestyle I did as a TBM, I've never broken the WoW, continue to live the law of chastity, and still get bored during priesthood . There are many more like myself, just take a look at the staylds and NOM boards, they're filled with individuals who want so badly to believe, but remain unable to do so.

Edited February 9, 2013 by omni

[cinepro]

As far as wanting to sin, I still live basically the same lifestyle I did as a TBM, I've never broken the WoW, continue to live the law of chastity, and still get bored during priesthood . There are many more like myself, just take a look at the staylds and NOM boards, they're filled with individuals who want so badly to believe, but remain unable to do so.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there might even be more than one different reason that people end up losing belief and/or leave the Church. The scenario in the OP might even describe one of those, but it's probably overreaching to suggest it is anything more than one of several possible reasons.

Based on the anecdotal evidence, I would guess it's not even in the top 5, but there are probably some people that fit that description.

Edited February 9, 2013 by cinepro

[BlueDreams]

A forewarning: This will be short and I’m not sure if I get everything you’re saying (I have a tension headache that I’m straining against). Generally, I don’t understand much of anything at the moment.

Yes, but what what merits trust? When should one walk by faith and not by sight? There are times when it appears there is no choice, and whatever is available--whatever is at hand--that is what we trust in because it is expedient. But when one feels a certain clarity of vision, then one is not liable to simply walk blindly, trusting. There are voices clamoring for trust. God is here, He wants this particular thing from you, and you must trust him. Well, why this and not that?

Like this right here….not following you. I’ve read the above like 3 times….once out loud to try and make sense of it, but I’m just not getting your point. Could you clarify? I don’t like responding until I feel like I understand.

So we talk to God and get some additional clarity and direction. Is that our formula? What greater witness can we have? Well, does that clear things up? Does God set us straight? Yes, of course. He visits the Mormon and confirms his faith. He visits the Catholic and confirms his faith. He visits the agnostic and cements him in his path. Likewise, He visits another Mormon and sends him to the Catholic faith. And He visits another Catholic and sends him to the Mormon faith. And He visits another agnostic and sends him whither He will. I have no doubt that each of these sincere seekers experiences something which is interpreted as genuine.

Genuine does not always mean correct. And before you assume I’m throwing some specific experience under the bus, I’m right on in there in the midst of people who have been genuine…but not correct. I didn’t know it in the moment. I have had a variety of assumptions that were out of balance, askew, or just plain wrong. And often I believed I was following God in them. Many of them were corrected. Many more will be.

It is more than real; more forceful than any other certainty. God answers prayers, He assists the seeker, and order comes to the individual. But chaos reigns over all, and there is no agreement. What can it possibly mean?

Really? It means we’re human. To me, it’s not all that deep. We come up with different ideas, because we’re different. Sometimes we’re right, sometimes we’re wrong, most the time we’re a mix of both. In the end it won’t matter as much because as long as we’ve established a pattern in our lives of following God and trusting in His ways (as much as we have the opportunity to know it in this life), we’ll be fine and all will be corrected as much as we are will to take correction.

And furthermore, I disagree that chaos reigns over all.

You want to understand the leaver in terms of "sin, doubt, fear, pressures, exhaustion, outside problems, family pressures, apathy, feeling different." You want to say that it is weakness that drives the faithful to some other path.

You’re inferring more than I ever wrote in there. I don’t want to understand the leaver in terms of weakness. Some of those things I don’t even consider weaknesses. And all of those have been personal problems for me as well.

But what if it is strength? What if it is growth? What if it is seeing and finding, or catching just enough of a glimpse to make a leap? It is not only the Mormon convert who leaves his former faith out of a new strength found in Mormonism. There are many who leave Mormonism because of a new strength found elsewhere, a greater truth and enlightenment.

….ok….

I'm all in favor of a leap of faith, as Kirkegaard once put it. We can't really be justified in our knowledge it seems, in spite of all the divine guidance we may feel (with certainty, even), but we can leap. At what?

Not following you again…

And “we” is a little too inclusive for that assumption.

With luv,

BD

[Alvino]

Among the central questions for me are, “Do the Church and the Gospel of Jesus Christ bear good fruit in your life now?”; and “Have they ever done so?” If the answer to the first question is “No,” but the answer to the second question is, “Yes,” then, if I were those who doubt, I would wonder, “What has changed in the interim?” As Alma put it, “If ye have felt of his goodness, and have tasted of his love, and have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, I would ask, can ye feel so now?” Too often, people tend to want—wittingly or not—to try to gauge the state of their testimony, contra Alma 32, by pulling it up out of the ground and examining its roots.

I hope what I'll say here won't offend you and you'll take it as a clarification.

The view you describe here is antithetical to any commitment to truth one can have. So what if I were to suffer because I didn't believe what was useful when I thought the useful was false? So what if truth were to consume my happiness and I were to be ignored by the charity of others, even of God? How weak does it seem to those who doubt and take their doubt seriously the character of those who counsel to leave the tree intact, to not examine the roots? Seekers want to leave no tree unturned and burn the trees of rotten roots.

Who knows? Maybe we will end up being the poor in spirit who saw it as a duty to destroy what seemed worthy of destruction in us, to the point of leaving little to ourselves of ourselves? We could end up being the meek who sacrificed useful pretty lives and thought it more important to be strong. Maybe we mourn that we were in illusions and we'll be comforted that they are finally gone.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

It isn't "scandalous" to suggest that people with such reactions secretly just don't want the Church to be true, since it's pretty much the standard go-to explanation. The problem is that this is still framed from within a believing paradigm, when the entire question at issue in the doubter's mind is whether or not that paradigm is true. That is, of course "sin" will be at the root of testimony issues from the believer's perspective -- the point is that the doubter is questioning whether that sin-paradigm truly exists in the first place.

Dismissing people's doubts with the accusation that they just wanted to sin all along is begging the question, since the fundamental problem is that the doubter is questioning whether homosexuality/eating shellfish/wearing linen and wool/not shaving really are evil things that produce negative consequences. If they don't, then regardless of how much a believer still characterizes such things as loathsome sins, the doubter has no reason to accept that judgement as anything but just another opinion.

Doesn't matter whether your knee-jerk reaction is to be positive and trusting, or negative and suspicious; why should someone sacrifice even a little, or remain "positive" or "patient", for what they believe is a pointless cause? Why should they "want" something to be true contrary to whatever evidence they've been able to examine if they're questioning whether it is good in the first place? If you've been told all your life that sex is an evil dirty sin and to be like God is to take part in an ascetic Virgin Priesthood, then if you start to doubt that paradigm, of course someone who still believes in it can say that you just "wanted to sin" all along and were simply unwilling to move Heaven and Earth to preserve your faith; the point is, what if it's not a sin? The whole thing is just a patronizingly simplistic "explanation" that doesn't help anything.

Very impressive, Jeremy. There are some people who it seems are better being believers; you aren't one of them.

[rongo]

Rongo, I've always respected you and enjoyed your posts, you seem to be one of the more compassionate TBMs here in regards to those who have lost their faith...which makes your OP so surprising and disappointing.

Thank you, omni! My intent in the OP was certainly not to be harsh and incompassionate, but rather to make my observation and have this discussion. I appreciate everyone’s input, by the way!

As far as wanting to sin . . .

I am disappointed that so many posters have dwelled on this. I thought I made it clear in the OP that I was sidestepping sin as the lynchpin for loss of faith. Granted, I acknowledged it as a factor (that is also probably pooh-poohed too much by people seeking to justify), but my emphasis was that my “thesis” was a much more important factor, in my view.

I don’t regard having irreconcilable doubts as a sin, or caused by sin, in and of itself. It just is, although I attribute the eventual failure to adequately resolve them as a choice based on fundamental desire (whether or not one wants them resolved).

I did not lose my faith because I didn't want it to be true, I lost it after much study, prayer and heartbreak . . . this was not an easy decision for me to make, my life would have been much easier if I still had a testimony.

My central question is: then why haven’t you resolved your concerns? I think that once we remove the surface:

a) because my concerns can’t be resolved; the Church’s/the gospel’s truth claims don’t hold up

b) concerns resolved! I’m okay now!

c) I’m okay enough to function in a Church setting or culture, but still have lingering and ongoing concerns

we are left with the reason why the various paths were taken. I think it stems ultimately from what we want to believe at a fundamental level.

You can pass on this if it’s too personal, but I’m curious whether you still believe in God, the atonement, the resurrection, etc.? In my experience, people with irreconcilable doubts in the Church have bigger issues: they have irreconcilable doubts about the gospel (which is why I include them together with a slash between them ---- I don’t think they are usually separable). It is very rare, in my experience, for people to fully lose faith in the Church or restoration, but to be able to participate fully in Protestant, non-denomational, Catholic, Mormon offshoot, etc. without doubts or concerns.

Yes, BookofMormonLuvr, I see your hand there! J It happens, but it isn’t very common.

there are many things I still love about the church and I continue to attend.

Very commendable! For that very reason, I think you’ll be all right in the end. Your book is still being written, but your continuing to attend with your family says a lot about you. And what you want.

There are many more like myself, just take a look at the staylds and NOM boards, they're filled with individuals who want so badly to believe, but remain unable to do so.

I know many people in this boat. The problem I have with staylds and NOM forums is the tone. Most sound just like Scratch’s posters, except not that acidic and sneering. But approaching that. They seem to me to be running furiously at full speed on every possible fly ball, and then throwing their mitts down in disgust as each one goes far over their heads. I don’t see the atmosphere at those places as being any kind of helpful as far as working towards resolving concerns and doubts.

You may recall me talking about the brother in my ward who completely lost all belief in everything. Before he and his wife met with me, he had told her that this didn’t change anything in their family --- that they would continue to attend church, pray and read as a family, hold FHE, etc. In talking to him, I called him to teach one of our AP quorums, and he did a great job (he isn’t a threat to anybody’s faith, and I wouldn’t have known about his doubts if they hadn’t told me). He will end up being all right ---- his book isn’t written yet, either. But, the staylds/NOM climate would be completely unhelpful to him or his family ---- there is nothing critical or sneering in his nature or in his approach to the Church.

[rongo]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there might even be more than one different reason that people end up losing belief and/or leave the Church. The scenario in the OP might even describe one of those, but it's probably overreaching to suggest it is anything more than one of several possible reasons.

Based on the anecdotal evidence, I would guess it's not even in the top 5, but there are probably some people that fit that description.

It's definitely more complicated than I've made it, and yet, I think when you get down to the core, we are left with what our intelligences want.

[robuchan]

Imagine you had a friend who joined a small religion with relatively few members and some beliefs that seemed very odd to you. This friend was very observant to the practices and beliefs of this church. He seemed to be very genuine, he even bore his testimony to you, and tried to get you to join. This religion and belief was very important to him. Then you saw him later and he mentioned he no longer was part of this religion. This came as a surprise to you. You ask why. He says, "well you know I just started digging around more and more into what this religion claimed and the more I read and studied, the more the claims seemed to be unbelievable, and it was very difficult, but I stayed close to God during this, and I felt lead by him, and at some point along the journey, it came to me that I knew it was all false. It's not a bad religion, but I could clearly see the foundational claims were completely bogus. So I'm not sure where I'm headed next, but I'm no longer affiliated with that religion." He seemed pretty sincere.

Would you assume he had serious sin in his life that caused him to change his beliefs?

Would you discount his stated reason (digging around about the history, etc, and decided it wasn't true)?

Would you look deeper and theorize about alternative motives?

bump. I thought this was a good reply and it didn't get addressed.

It's a lot easier to look at this sort of thing when it's separated from emotion. The decision to believe or disbelieve in Mormonism is very personal and emotional for you. If you look at the exact same process outside of Mormonism, it's probably much easier for you to process and accept without looking for complex motives.

[BlueDreams]

Very impressive, Jeremy. There are some people who it seems are better being believers; you aren't one of them.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Jeremy is a believer, if not a theologically liberal one. But he can correct me if I'm wrong.

With luv,

BD

[danielwoods]

You may recall me talking about the brother in my ward who completely lost all belief in everything. Before he and his wife met with me, he had told her that this didn’t change anything in their family --- that they would continue to attend church, pray and read as a family, hold FHE, etc. In talking to him, I called him to teach one of our AP quorums, and he did a great job (he isn’t a threat to anybody’s faith, and I wouldn’t have known about his doubts if they hadn’t told me). He will end up being all right ---- his book isn’t written yet, either. But, the staylds/NOM climate would be completely unhelpful to him or his family ---- there is nothing critical or sneering in his nature or in his approach to the Church.

Question from a lurking reader... What about honesty? Honesty with oneself, with each other, about how we really feel, etc.? Isn't living like this just living a lie and encouraging others to do the same? Do we really not value honesty and how people really feel?

[Storm Rider]

Question from a lurking reader... What about honesty? Honesty with oneself, with each other, about how we really feel, etc.? Isn't living like this just living a lie and encouraging others to do the same? Do we really not value honesty and how people really feel?

This brother is not lying by teaching AP lessons or any other lesson. The lying would only become a problem if the brother would bear witness to something he does not know. I recall a companion who did not have a testimony of the Church, but he had a working knowledge of the scriptures. I bore every testimony and he did a great job using the scriptures to teach lessons; we were blest with seeing many individuals join the church. My companion was completely honest in his actions and only spoke about those things he believed. Where I was lacking he stepped in and whatever may have been his weakness, I was able to add what little I could. He was by far my favorite companion and he was a great man that was much better than I will ever be. Honesty is vitally important and there is not need that we should void any degree of personal integrity and remain a participating member of the Church.

[omni]

My central question is: then why haven’t you resolved your concerns? I think that once we remove the surface:

a) because my concerns can’t be resolved; the Church’s/the gospel’s truth claims don’t hold up

b) concerns resolved! I’m okay now!

c) I’m okay enough to function in a Church setting or culture, but still have lingering and ongoing concerns

Rongo, thank you for your thoughtful responses. I could list literally dozens of reason why I no longer believe, but don't think that would be appropriate. Let me just say that this didn't happen overnight, this was a slow and gradual process. I've participated on this board since its ZLMB days (mostly lurking with the occasional post) and my loss of faith is a relatively recent event.

You can pass on this if it’s too personal, but I’m curious whether you still believe in God, the atonement, the resurrection, etc.? In my experience, people with irreconcilable doubts in the Church have bigger issues: they have irreconcilable doubts about the gospel (which is why I include them together with a slash between them ---- I don’t think they are usually separable). It is very rare, in my experience, for people to fully lose faith in the Church or restoration, but to be able to participate fully in Protestant, non-denomational, Catholic, Mormon offshoot, etc. without doubts or concerns.

I still believe in God, but I'm open to the possibility that I could be wrong. I guess that makes me a believing agnostic:). I find no major historical or scientific discrepancies with the New Testament and love the overall message of love one another, forgiveness and the atonement. However, the New Testament and Christ are completely interconnected and dependent on the OT being true. This is where I have a problem (God condemning 42 children to death for mocking a prophet's baldness, God commanding genocide of large cities, you are part of God's chosen people solely based on your lineage,the numerous scientific contradictions, etc.)

I know many people in this boat. The problem I have with staylds and NOM forums is the tone. Most sound just like Scratch’s posters, except not that acidic and sneering. But approaching that. They seem to me to be running furiously at full speed on every possible fly ball, and then throwing their mitts down in disgust as each one goes far over their heads. I don’t see the atmosphere at those places as being any kind of helpful as far as working towards resolving concerns and doubts.

Those boards certainly aren't for everyone, especially NOM, but I do think that stayLDS has a generally positive tone and has helped many people understand they can still remain in the church with varying levels of belief. I think because of my gradual loss of faith I never went through an angry period as many do when they all the sudden discover the more....complicated aspects of church history. I hate the complete negativity towards the church that some turn to, and I can't even read the comment sections of any news article even remotely involving the church because it inevitably turns into a bash Mormons session.