Leave It, But Can't Leave It Alone

[Robert F. Smith]

And what if the staying member doesn't find a particular truth uncomfortable but rather understands it in the context of history or understands that the history is incomplete. I find a lot of stuff apostates are uncomfortable with are misunderstandings or misinterpretations on their part.

I wholeheartedly agree, but I will go even further and say what I have said before on this Board:

 

I have yet to hear a valid intellectual reason for leaving Mormonism.  That is not to say that there are none, just that I haven't heard one expressed (and I have been around the block a few times).

Likewise, I don't meet people who convert to Mormonism for intellectual reasons.  Which is not to say that there are not valid intellectual reasons for Mormon belief.  I think that there are.

[omni]

I think this quote from President Hinckley can give some insight into why some apostates react so strongly when leaving the church.

"Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true."

[savedbygrace]

I think this quote from President Hinckley can give some insight into why some apostates react so strongly when leaving the church.

"Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true."

 

For me and I am sure many who have left the church, this is the crux of the matter, this is what I accepted from the missionaries and subsequently the membership, it was my belief. So when you start to find history and doctrines that do not fit with what you have been fed, you then start to examine that statement, in the light of new information. It doesn't help either when you are in this situation, when you take the said worrying information to someone who you think can reassure you and give an explanation, they throw it down un-read and denounce it as rubbish. Is that cognitive dissonance or fear that the said information could somehow contaminate and spoil what they too believe to be true? Many apostates truly wish to be convinced, so that they don't leave, because for many of us the leaving is dreadfully painful and takes place over a long period of time. I also think that the idea that people want to leave so that they can have a life of sin is nonsense, and in the main not true. If you believe that LDS do not sin, like everyone else, then you have to be deluded. Living the WoW does not show what is going on inside heart and mind for example. Mormonism will always be interesting to me, because it had an impact on my life for a number of years, and I do not consider myself in any way as having been a good Mormon, never the less, I totally believed the above statement. I find this forum interesting, more so now than previously when I was a more vociferous apostate, because it is far more interesting to read opinions when you are not trying to make a point, and you really hear what people are saying, and because when you move away from your argumentative position, you are able to realise that the people you may have argued with and possibly upset, are good people. So I roam around these boards in the delicious freedom afforded me by not trying to tear down, but by listening to why and how LDS continue to believe.

Edited September 15, 2013 by savedbygrace

[Palerider]

 

And what if the staying member doesn't find a particular truth uncomfortable but rather understands it in the context of history or understands that the history is incomplete. I find a lot of stuff apostates are uncomfortable with are misunderstandings or misinterpretations on their part.

Yep, that's exactly the type of psychological construct we're talking about. Find a way to mentally re-arrange the "truth" to make it palatable.

I once read a nurses' documentary of some of the extreme cases she had dealt with in San Francisco's hospitals. She had a well-to-do lady come in that had an "odor" eminating from her chest area that she needed help with and upon examination the nurse was shocked to see that the cancer (which was by this time easily observable) had eaten through her skin tissues and was an open wound.

When questioned about the more than obvious problem, she still insisted that there was no cancer and that she just needed help eliminating the odor......she died soon after.

In her documentary the nurse called this one of the most classic cases she had ever seen of the ability the human mind has of refusing to recognize a problem because of the cognitive dissonance it would create. Better, on some level that we sometimes don't understand, to just pretend the problem doesn't exist.

Battered women do this all the time. They make themselves believe that it's really their fault for making the offending spouse angry, because they don't want to face the alternatives of having to fend for themselves, etc. etc......

[Palerider]

 

Most of my friends who have left the church describe divorce like symptoms.  There is hurt, disillusionment, anxiety, social loss, confusion, but they also describe a sense of liberation and freedom, much like one would feel after divorcing from a troubled relationship.  

 

The varied responses to leaving the church are probably very similar to the varied responses to divorce.  Some remain friendly while others become vehement enemies. 

 

Being a member of this church really is just like living in a committed relationship.  I can completely understand why people would feel angry after becoming disillusioned.  They feel like they gave their heart and got hot air in return.

 

Well put.

[Palerider]

 

I wholeheartedly agree, but I will go even further and say what I have said before on this Board:

 

I have yet to hear a valid intellectual reason for leaving Mormonism.  That is not to say that there are none, just that I haven't heard one expressed (and I have been around the block a few times).

Likewise, I don't meet people who convert to Mormonism for intellectual reasons.  Which is not to say that there are not valid intellectual reasons for Mormon belief.  I think that there are.

I'm just wondering if we're using "intellectual reasons" as a catch phrase for leaving for reasons other than the desire to live a different moral standard or already being involved in sin?

How do you define "intellectual reasons"?

[Robert F. Smith]

For me and I am sure many who have left the church, this is the crux of the matter, this is what I accepted from the missionaries and subsequently the membership, it was my belief. So when you start to find history and doctrines that do not fit with what you have been fed, you then start to examine that statement, in the light of new information. It doesn't help either when you are in this situation, when you take the said worrying information to someone who you think can reassure you and give an explanation, they throw it down un-read and denounce it as rubbish. Is that cognitive dissonance or fear that the said information could somehow contaminate and spoil what they too believe to be true? 

.....................................................   

I have heard a variety of notions along these lines, with one  side claiming that the horrible apologists only made it worse, or that (as in your case) they react with fear and trembling in the face of cognitive dissonance.

 

The late Rev. Wesley P. Walters, perhaps the most effective and intellectually capable anti-Mormon I have ever met, was a friend of mine.  Whenever I would go to a Sunstone or Mormon History Association meeting, he would be there and we would have a good conversation about the latest historical discoveries or arguments.  He always had a lot of great jokes (as a Presbyterian minister must) and stories.  He was very gregarious and personable.  He considered himself a  missionary to the Mormons.  He was also very large and imposing.  Most Mormons at those meetings made a point of not talking to him, as though he were the carrier of some dreaded disease ("Typhoid Mary" comes to mind).

 

Of course, you have put your finger on it.  They were deathly afraid of what they might learn by talking to him.  Perhaps they thought that he might sow the seeds of apostasy in their vulnerable minds.  Not much faith evident in that sort of response, but understandable nonetheless.

 

Aside from that, you clearly had very poor instincts as to who to take your questions to.  If you had to do it over again, who would you ask the second time around?  Larry Porter, or John Dehlin?

[Robert F. Smith]

 

I'm just wondering if we're using "intellectual reasons" as a catch phrase for leaving for reasons other than the desire to live a different moral standard or already being involved in sin?

How do you define "intellectual reasons"?

I was thinking in terms of the "misunderstandings or misinterpretations" that Deborah had in mind.

 

Some people (if they listen at all), are very vulnerable to the huckstering that goes on in the various venues of anti-Mormonism.  Few are prepared to discuss the finer points of Mormon history, not to mention religious history in general.  They are even more vulnerable to any sort of claims about archeology, linguistics, the Bible, and many another area of specialization -- which they don't possess.  Maybe it's a good thing to be tried and tested by the "world," but it might not be much fun for the victim, especially if one comes from a fairly insular environment.

 

The ultra-orthodox Jewish community deals with that problem by isolating itself: marrying young, keeping their heads down, moving forward with Tora study, and eating kosher.  An avoidance response if you will.  Mormons can't do that, so there will be some inevitable losses along the way.  The Law of Opposition, you know.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Deborah]

 

Yep, that's exactly the type of psychological construct we're talking about. Find a way to mentally re-arrange the "truth" to make it palatable.

Battered women do this all the time. They make themselves believe that it's really their fault for making the offending spouse angry, because they don't want to face the alternatives of having to fend for themselves, etc. etc......

 

You are seriously comparing someone who chooses to stay with the church to battered women who stay in relationships? That would be laughable if it weren't so absurd a comparison.

 

It is not a matter of rearranging the truth. It is quite simply accepting the truth we already have received and realizing that people are human and historical facts by themselves don't tell the whole story.

[CV75]

Glenn L. Pace, then a member of the LDS Presiding Bishopric, said:

 

"You can leave the Church, but you can’t leave it alone. The basic reason for this is simple. Once someone has received a witness of the Spirit and accepted it, he leaves neutral ground. One loses his testimony only by listening to the promptings of the evil one, and Satan’s goal is not complete when a person leaves the Church, but when he comes out in open rebellion against it."  April 1989, LDS Conference Address, online at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/follow-the-prophet?lang=eng .

 

Does this notion comport with the view of philosopher Max Scheler, that “an apostate is not a man who once in his life radically changes his deepest religious, political, legal, or philosophical convictions – even when this change is not continuous, but involves  sudden rupture.  Even after his conversion, the true ‘apostate’ is not primarily committed to the positive contents of his new belief and to the realization of its aims.  He is motivated by the struggle against the old belief and lives only for its negation.  The apostate does not affirm his new convictions for their own sake, he is engaged in a continuous chain of acts of revenge against his own spiritual past.  In reality, he remains captive of this past, and the new faith is merely a handy frame of reference for negating and rejecting the old.”  Scheler, Ressentiment, ed. L. Coser, trans. W. Holdheim (NY: Schocken Books, 1972), 66-67, cited in James Breech, Jesus and Postmodernism (Augsburg Fortress, 1989), 83 n. 40. 

 

Is this merely an affectation, or is it a more serious psychological disorder? Indeed, is it more characteristic of ex-Mormons than of ex-Christians of other sorts?  If so, why?

Considering the audience, I think Elder Pace is presenting a principle that applies to all, no matter the level of faithfulness: Satan’s goal is not complete until a person comes out in open rebellion against the Church. The adversary works on us all, but obviously some succumb to a greater degree than others. Yet he will never stop trying to get to all of us, in this life anyway.

 

Dr. Scheler seems to be describing an aspect of human nature and is not talking about our need to be cautious about keeping our testimonies. but as religious people, we can construe his ideas to say that this tendency in turn can affect our susceptibility to the adversary’s efforts, but also our susceptibility to the Light of Christ. With the latter, for example, the ex-smoker who doesn’t progress beyond hating and campaigning against tobacco may not advance into loving his fellow beings. The same with politics!

 

I'm wondering if there are studies anywhere about people leaving other faiths. I quick Google showed a "Testimonials of Ex-Christians" and similar support and anti-type sites. On this basis, where this behavior seems to cross sectarian cartegories, it could also be rooted in either the work of the devil or an aspect of human nature that can have its extremes. Whatever leads us to good is of God, and whatever leads us to do evil is of the devil. But I think that whatever we actually do with those enticements can only be judged by God as rooted in our moral responsibility or psychological deficits.

[savedbygrace]

I have heard a variety of notions along these lines, with one  side claiming that the horrible apologists only made it worse, or that (as in your case) they react with fear and trembling in the face of cognitive dissonance.

 

The late Rev. Wesley P. Walters, perhaps the most effective and intellectually capable anti-Mormon I have ever met, was a friend of mine.  Whenever I would go to a Sunstone or Mormon History Association meeting, he would be there and we would have a good conversation about the latest historical discoveries or arguments.  He always had a lot of great jokes (as a Presbyterian minister must) and stories.  He was very gregarious and personable.  He considered himself a  missionary to the Mormons.  He was also very large and imposing.  Most Mormons at those meetings made a point of not talking to him, as though he were the carrier of some dreaded disease ("Typhoid Mary" comes to mind).

 

Of course, you have put your finger on it.  They were deathly afraid of what they might learn by talking to him.  Perhaps they thought that he might sow the seeds of apostasy in their vulnerable minds.  Not much faith evident in that sort of response, but understandable nonetheless.

 

Aside from that, you clearly had very poor instincts as to who to take your questions to.  If you had to do it over again, who would you ask the second time around?  Larry Porter, or John Dehlin?

 Yes you are probably right about poor choice of adviser/counsellor  in these matters, but I thought these people, well versed in church doctrine, would know. I don't know the two men you mentioned, but I think I would still choose to confide in someone I knew face to face, and if I were not satisfied, well nowadays it's all out there, so I guess I would start searching online. But I am pretty sure I would have gone to LDS sites first, as I wished to be convinced in favour of the church not against it. 

[Tacenda]

Yes you are probably right about poor choice of adviser/counsellor in these matters, but I thought these people, well versed in church doctrine, would know. I don't know the two men you mentioned, but I think I would still choose to confide in someone I knew face to face, and if I were not satisfied, well nowadays it's all out there, so I guess I would start searching online. But I am pretty sure I would have gone to LDS sites first, as I wished to be convinced in favour of the church not against it.

LDS.org didn't have the answers when I looked and the questions, a lot them, were because I read FAIR. I at first thought it was more harmful for people like me who knew very little church history, only really read the 'Work and the Glory' series. Now looking back, I know how necessary FAIR was in combating the anti stuff online. Edited September 15, 2013 by Tacenda

[omni]

I wholeheartedly agree, but I will go even further and say what I have said before on this Board:

 

I have yet to hear a valid intellectual reason for leaving Mormonism.  That is not to say that there are none, just that I haven't heard one expressed (and I have been around the block a few times).

Likewise, I don't meet people who convert to Mormonism for intellectual reasons.  Which is not to say that there are not valid intellectual reasons for Mormon belief.  I think that there are.

I don't know if this counts as an intellectual reason, but how do you reconcile the fact that millions of people all over the world are receiving the same spiritual confirmations we are for a belief system that often times is in complete contradiction to ours?

[jwhitlock]

You don't get out much, ERayR.  You might try attending some mainstream Protestant churches.  If you get acquainted, you'll find that it is more like Protestant religion is the way, the truth, and the life.  Billy Graham and his successor evangelists have cared little which mainstream Protestant church you join, but only that you find one and join it.  They are not very competitive.  The fundamentalist evangelicals are a little different, and you may find them warring against this or that "wrong" theology, and it is they who inveigh so harshly against Mormonism.

You need some correction on the nature of Protestant church culture here, Robert. If you were familiar with it, you would understand that there are a surprising number of people who are deeply dedicated to a specific Protestant denomination and would never think of switching to another Protestant church. The difference is that their commitment seems to be primarily cultural / traditional followed by a belief in general Protestant doctrine, whereas LDS or fundamentalist / EV commitment generally is primarily doctrinal followed by cultural / traditional.

 

The end result, however, is the same. A commitment to a particular organization that can be interpreted as an adherence to "one true church". Of course, not all members of these groups adhere that tightly to the "one true church" concept, so there are always people switching churches, but in every case - including specific Protestant denominations - there are significant numbers of people who view their denomination as the only one a person should rightly be a member of.

 

As an example of the cultural emphasis in Protestant denominations, we have a small town close to us where the Presbyterian church is dominant. The cultural assumption there is that if you're anyone in that town, you need to be attending the Presbyterian church in that town. We as LDS often assume that one Protestant denomination is as good as another, and from a purely doctrinal standpoint, that is correct. However the real world of Protestant churches tells quite a different story, one in which there is indeed competition between them, and where their respective members are highly committed not to Protestantism in general, but to their specific denomination.

 

We haven't moved that far from Joseph Smith's observations about the nature of Protestantism in Palmyra when he started searching. 

[Calm]

LDS.org didn't have the answers when I looked and the questions, a lot them, were because I read FAIR. I at first thought it was more harmful for people like me who knew very little church history, only really read the 'Work and the Glory' series. Now looking back, I know how necessary FAIR was in combating the anti stuff online.

It would be wonderful if somehow we could avoid the cases of damage while still fulfilling the need for accurate and thorough information from a faithful perspective. We are constantly examining better ways in which to meet varied needs, including soon a message board for a more ongoing personal interaction for those who feel the need to talk with others as many do.

[Palerider]

 

You are seriously comparing someone who chooses to stay with the church to battered women who stay in relationships? That would be laughable if it weren't so absurd a comparison.

 

It is not a matter of rearranging the truth. It is quite simply accepting the truth we already have received and realizing that people are human and historical facts by themselves don't tell the whole story.

I'm sorry Deborah, but this response is so typical of what I find here. You haven't refuted the argument, you have only attempted to ridicule it and then repeated the tired and dull drum beat of:

"We can't make any judgements about the past (or Joseph Smith) because the history unfortunately (but lucky for us) just doesn't give us enough information to come to any conclusions. Therefore we must (as always) err on the side of the church..."

[Calm]

 

I'm sorry Deborah, but this response is so typical of what I find here. You haven't refuted the argument, you have only attempted to ridicule it and then repeated the tired and dull drum beat of:

"We can't make any judgements about the past (or Joseph Smith) because the history unfortunately (but lucky for us) just doesn't give us enough information to come to any conclusions. Therefore we must (as always) err on the side of the church..."

Talk about a straw man....

[Palerider]

 

I was thinking in terms of the "misunderstandings or misinterpretations" that Deborah had in mind.

 

 

O.K. But I'd still like to know what (or how) you would define as an "intellectual reason" for leaving the church, if you don't mind my asking.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Palerider

[Palerider]

 

Talk about a straw man....

 

Please expand?

[Deborah]

 

I'm sorry Deborah, but this response is so typical of what I find here. You haven't refuted the argument, you have only attempted to ridicule it and then repeated the tired and dull drum beat of:

"We can't make any judgements about the past (or Joseph Smith) because the history unfortunately (but lucky for us) just doesn't give us enough information to come to any conclusions. Therefore we must (as always) err on the side of the church..."

 

Why on earth would anyone want to refute a strawman (as Cal points out) argument. You still don't get it. We have plenty of information to come to conclusions and because we seem to have a more complete picture we refut the anti arguments as they are present. That is the conclusion: they are full of hot air.

[canard78]

Considering the audience, I think Elder Pace is presenting a principle that applies to all, no matter the level of faithfulness: Satan’s goal is not complete until a person comes out in open rebellion against the Church. The adversary works on us all, but obviously some succumb to a greater degree than others. Yet he will never stop trying to get to all of us, in this life anyway.

Dr. Scheler seems to be describing an aspect of human nature and is not talking about our need to be cautious about keeping our testimonies. but as religious people, we can construe his ideas to say that this tendency in turn can affect our susceptibility to the adversary’s efforts, but also our susceptibility to the Light of Christ. With the latter, for example, the ex-smoker who doesn’t progress beyond hating and campaigning against tobacco may not advance into loving his fellow beings. The same with politics!

I'm wondering if there are studies anywhere about people leaving other faiths. I quick Google showed a "Testimonials of Ex-Christians" and similar support and anti-type sites. On this basis, where this behavior seems to cross sectarian cartegories, it could also be rooted in either the work of the devil or an aspect of human nature that can have its extremes. Whatever leads us to good is of God, and whatever leads us to do evil is of the devil. But I think that whatever we actually do with those enticements can only be judged by God as rooted in our moral responsibility or psychological deficits.

What would you consider the testimonial of an ex-Jehovah's Witness/Scientologists/Muslim/Amish etc? Evidence of the work of satan or the spirit?

[CV75]

What would you consider the testimonial of an ex-Jehovah's Witness/Scientologists/Muslim/Amish etc? Evidence of the work of satan or the spirit?

Me, personally? I wouldn't give it any consideration unless I knew the person pretty well and I felt we both had a good reason or a good enough relationship to "share" specifics.

 

As I mentioned, the more extreme "anti-" / "apostate" behaviors could be rooted in either the work of the devil or an untoward aspect of human nature. As a religious person, I believe God leads us to do good, and the devil leads us to do evil. Whatever we actually do can only be judged by God as being rooted in our moral responsibility (in which He will either teach or punish us) or in our psychological deficits (for which He will show us grace, either now or in the hereafter).

[Palerider]

 

Why on earth would anyone want to refute a strawman (as Cal points out) argument. You still don't get it. We have plenty of information to come to conclusions and because we seem to have a more complete picture we refut the anti arguments as they are present. That is the conclusion: they are full of hot air.

 

I don't believe this is a strawman arguement. To quote you:

"And what if the staying member doesn't find a particular truth uncomfortable but rather understands it in the context of history or understands that the history is incomplete."

I've seen this concept crop up repeatedly in your responses, that the history is not complete enough to reach any conclusions (especially those that might put the church or Joseph in a negative light).

I seems to be a place of refuge when the going gets tough. And that's o.k. I understand it. It's a common defense mechanism.

[Deborah]

I've seen this concept crop up repeatedly in your responses, that the history is not complete enough to reach any conclusions (especially those that might put the church or Joseph in a negative light).

I seems to be a place of refuge when the going gets tough.

 

Good grief. I apparently didn't make it clear it's because of what we already know and don't question that we can give the benefit of the doubt to things that aren't clear or appear contradictory. None of us who've been through this process are ignorant of the arguments but we find them insufficient to turn around all that we have already experienced and received confirmation of.

[Tacenda]

It would be wonderful if somehow we could avoid the cases of damage while still fulfilling the need for accurate and thorough information from a faithful perspective. We are constantly examining better ways in which to meet varied needs, including soon a message board for a more ongoing personal interaction for those who feel the need to talk with others as many do.

That would be so nice, and I can't say enough how being on this board helped me. Though there are some like me that are very frustrated here. They go on boards where there are more like minded people. I guess I need scolding/come backs, to help me see the errors of my ways/information. As long as they are truthful. I can almost live with all the stuff as long as it's fact, as well as can be.