Interesting Article About Mormonism.

[why me]

Reading the below link I find it rather sad that exmembers seem to have been taken in by the internet. Reading the article I felt as if the exmembers bought the critic interpretations of lds history on the internet hook, line and sinker.

 

I have often wondered how such former mormons just throw out their spiritual experiences when they were members so quickly. How can this be explained?

 

http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/01/31/when-saints-go-marching-out.html

[bluebell]

I don't really know how to explain it, but i think a lot of times, people just continue with the momentum that they have going.

 

If someone is generally faithful in regards to the doctrinal claims of the church, then that momentum seems to be a powerful thing.  They are 'believing' and their faith is more powerful than their doubt.

 

The opposite also seems to be true.  If someone is doubting or doubtful of the doctrinal claims of the church, then that momentum also seems to greatly impact how they read or hear anything about the church.  Their doubt rules.

[mormonnewb]

I have often wondered how such former mormons just throw out their spiritual experiences when they were members so quickly. How can this be explained?

http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/01/31/when-saints-go-marching-out.html

I totally understand why that happens, particularly when those spiritual experiences consist of a burning in the bosom that something is "true." Once they discover that something is not what they thought it was, how can they ever trust their bosom detector again? It's completely logical.

So let's suppose that someone prays for guidance about getting married, and sure enough, they get that familiar confirmation. They get married and then learn that their spouse is a deviant who enjoys arguing about arcane points of Mormon theology and history. Unlike our spouses, this is not something that they can put up with and the marriage fails.

"But wait a minute? Didn't I get a burning in the bosom before making this decision? Apparently, I read the signals incorrectly. But that's the same feeling I had when I prayed if the BoM was true! Maybe I'm wrong about that too. Let me look in Wikipedia ..."

From there, it's just a point-click-and-refresh to a SIX part interview on John Dehlin's Mormon Stories. It seems we might build stronger testimonies if we encouraged young people to build them on a more solid foundation. Whenever I read something that makes me question the "truthiness" of the Church, I judge by the fruit we bear and recount all the ways in which we are "fruity." I then KNOW the truth.

Matthew 7:15-20

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Edited January 31, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Buckeye]

This is quite weak.  So weak that I doubt any newsroom response will issue.

[Ahab]

Reading the below link I find it rather sad that exmembers seem to have been taken in by the internet. Reading the article I felt as if the exmembers bought the critic interpretations of lds history on the internet hook, line and sinker.

I have often wondered how such former mormons just throw out their spiritual experiences when they were members so quickly. How can this be explained?

http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/01/31/when-saints-go-marching-out.html

It's all about who we choose to listen to and our understanding of what that person meant when that person said what was said.

When God tells me something and I know what God means by what he tells me there is no good reason to believe anyone else when they say something that contradicts what God has told me.

[Coreyb]

so is this article saying that only the most naive and dense Mormons are led out of the Church by these groups? I can order drinks at a bar and buy "gentile underwear" better than most

[mormonnewb]

It's all about who we choose to listen to and our understanding of what that person meant when that person said what was said.

When God tells me something and I know what God means by what he tells me there is no good reason to believe anyone else when they say something that contradicts what God has told me.

Makes sense but how do you know that it's God speaking to you (and not your own wants and desires)? Haven't you ever prayed for guidance on some decision (eg, a job, a marriage, an investment, etc.) and received a "confirmation" that turned out to be dead WRONG?

For example, I was watching the Mitt Romney documentary last night and I couldn't help but to wonder how he was able to keep his faith after losing the election. I find it incomprehensible that he didn't pray about the decision to run or about the ultimate result. And I guess the answers were positive because he was SURE that he would win the election. He hadn't even written a concession speech or considered the possibility thereof. After a 6 YEAR ordeal, I'd be a little cautious about MY ability to accurately discern the voice of The Lord.

[Ahab]

Makes sense but how do you know that it's God speaking to you (and not your own wants and desires)? Haven't you ever prayed for guidance on some decision (eg, a job, a marriage, an investment, etc.) and received a "confirmation" that turned out to be dead WRONG?

For example, I was watching the Mitt Romney documentary last night and I couldn't help but to wonder how he was able to keep his faith after losing the election. I find it incomprehensible that he didn't pray about the decision to run or about the ultimate result. And I guess the answers were positive because he was SURE that he would win the election. He hadn't even written a concession speech or considered the possibility thereof. After a 6 YEAR ordeal, I'd be a little cautious about MY ability to accurately discern the voice of The Lord.

It takes time and experience to get to know anyone, including our Father and Satan, and as long as you realize there is a difference between good and evil, and that our Father and those like him are good, you'll eventually get better at getting to know each one and each kind of person, generally, by learning the difference between good and evil.

[cinepro]

That's an interesting article, but it is definitely very specific to a particular community.  Most post-LDS I've known (in person or online) don't sound anything like the people in that article.  

 

And the young women in my ward just did yoga for their mutual activity last Wednesday, so I chuckled at "yoga, like alcohol, is not generally part of the mix."

 

 

Reading the below link I find it rather sad that exmembers seem to have been taken in by the internet. Reading the article I felt as if the exmembers bought the critic interpretations of lds history on the internet hook, line and sinker.

 

Really?  "Taken in"?  "Bought the critic interpretations"?  Loaded language much?

Edited January 31, 2014 by cinepro

[bluebell]

Makes sense but how do you know that it's God speaking to you (and not your own wants and desires)? Haven't you ever prayed for guidance on some decision (eg, a job, a marriage, an investment, etc.) and received a "confirmation" that turned out to be dead WRONG?

For example, I was watching the Mitt Romney documentary last night and I couldn't help but to wonder how he was able to keep his faith after losing the election. I find it incomprehensible that he didn't pray about the decision to run or about the ultimate result. And I guess the answers were positive because he was SURE that he would win the election. He hadn't even written a concession speech or considered the possibility thereof. After a 6 YEAR ordeal, I'd be a little cautious about MY ability to accurately discern the voice of The Lord.

I think most LDS who are mature in their faith and have had experienced with how God works in our lives understand that just because the Lord might say it would be right to do something, doesn't mean it will turn out exactly as we want it to.

While I agree that Mitt most likely prayed about his choice, I really doubt he felt that God had at all guaranteed he would be the next president when he decided to run.

[ALarson]

I found the comments to be much more interesting than the article.  I felt the article was trying sensationalize and was totally unrealistic.  But, what do I know?  

[Bikeemikey]

I have often wondered how such former mormons just throw out their spiritual experiences when they were members so quickly. How can this be explained?

Many don't have spiritual experiences to start with.

Many have spiritual experiences in the past then have a slew of very negative experiences in the present.

Some find more fulfilling experiences in other places.

Others very clearly remember their spiritual experiences and have then frequently but become overwhelmed by other more dominating institutional experiences.

Lots and lots and lots of reasons.

[ChristKnight]

I have often wondered how such former mormons just throw out their spiritual experiences when they were members so quickly. How can this be explained?

http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/01/31/when-saints-go-marching-out.html

Perhaps in the same way that ex-[insert religion] "throw out" (your words) the spiritual experiences they had in their previous religion prior to joining the LDS Church?

[rodheadlee]

Perhaps in the same way that ex-[insert religion] "throw out" (your words) the spiritual experiences they had in their previous religion prior to joining the LDS Church?

For me the spiritual experiences in my previous religion were a lead in to the LDS Church, not to be cast aside wholly but incorporated where led by the Spirit. I suspect it is like this for many converts.

[Storm Rider]

Receiving a confirmation from the Holy Spirit that it is acceptable to marry an individual does not equate to that individual or even equate to you yourself losing their agency. Marriage is a commitment that takes work, patience, and forgiveness. Because we fail as a couple does not mean God was wrong it means we failed to live in a way that allowed us to be "one".  

 

I tend to avoid zealots regardless of their religion. In a religious/spiritual perspective they are just not very interesting to me. I find that life can be crushingly difficult at times. When I find a spiritual person I can rejoice in the choices they have made and the manner in which they live their life where the Holy Spirit is a daily companion. 

 

I tire of exmos, nomos, postmos, and newmos. I appreciate Catholics, Muslims, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Buddhists, Jains, etc. 

[ChristKnight]

For me the spiritual experiences in my previous religion were a lead in to the LDS Church, not to be cast aside wholly but incorporated where led by the Spirit. I suspect it is like this for many converts.

 

I can understand that.  I'm also sure that there are many converts to many other religions that interpret their prior religious experiences as such as well.

[volgadon]

Makes sense but how do you know that it's God speaking to you (and not your own wants and desires)? Haven't you ever prayed for guidance on some decision (eg, a job, a marriage, an investment, etc.) and received a "confirmation" that turned out to be dead WRONG?

 

Tell me what you could trust.

[Palerider]

Reading the below link I find it rather sad that exmembers seem to have been taken in by the internet. Reading the article I felt as if the exmembers bought the critic interpretations of lds history on the internet hook, line and sinker.

 

I have often wondered how such former mormons just throw out their spiritual experiences when they were members so quickly. How can this be explained?

 

http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/01/31/when-saints-go-marching-out.html

 

Sorry "Why Me", but you always seem just a little naive on these sorts of issues, even when they are explained to you. You seem to doubt the honesty and integrity of those who would or could explain these things to you and always "poo-poo" their responses as being insufficent and immature.

 

Too bad we can't all have had such deep, glorious, "only to be interpreted one way" and non-reversible experiences as what you have had and then all would be well in Zion.

 

But at the risk of being belittled again.......I'll try.

 

The church hasn't in the past taught it's foundational stories in an accurate way. They have whitewashed them because, according to them, they only want to be "faith promoting".  That's making a huge assumption for the truth seeker who, giving the church the benefit of the doubt, assumes that because they trumpet "truth" so much, the church has done a "full disclosure" in fully informing them.

 

Otherwise the church shouldn't mind at all if the member or potential member goes on a fishing expedition on the internet and reads everything (such as Joseph's polyandry) and then asks lots of questions. Obviously that would slow down the "conversion" process tremendously but, who cares! The church is interested in the fully informed member, right?

 

Onward and upward.

 

When an individual reads the BofM and it indeed testifies of Christ, one must ask oneself this question. "If the Lord had an opportunity to bring one of His children closer to Himself through the LDS faith, would he deny them a testimony of Him, just because the book they are reading is not historically true?"

 

In other words, would the Lord say, " I'm not going to give you a testimony of me because you are seeking me through a church that isn't completely true."

 

Well, we all know that is ridiculous because even Mormons admit that many faithful Catholics, protestants, etc. have received testimonies of Christ, even though they aren't in a completely correct church. 

 

So, having received witnesses that many of the things that they (Mormons and potential Mormons) are doing, are actually good things of which God approves, (chastity, word of wisdom, scripture reading, etc.) it is easy to see why one would or could believe that the church is the one and only true church, especially when you throw in the emphasis on family and the very hospitable church community. 

 

But here is where the catch comes.

 

When the truth begins to have a little light shown upon it and the member begins to experience the dissonance of the discrepancies between what they have been taught and what the realities were in the foundational stories, they begin to look for answers that feel right in their gut. And not only feel right but also add up logically and reasonably.

 

But the church is woefully ill-equipped to provide those answers that allow a questioning member to "relax". The reality is that for many of us (despite our "testimonies") the answers provided by the church are terribly inadequate and dissatisfying and only lead one on to more unanswered questions that result in even more unacceptable answers.

 

And of course it's always the questioning member's fault for being so faithless, gullible, weak, and inclined towards sin. It's never the church's fault for anything........

 

I know, I know.......there are many out there who will gallantly testify that the church doesn't "hide" it's history and that the answers provided were "good enough for me, cuz I'm Super-Mormon!"

 

But you know there are a bunch of us out here and we're just not buying it.......

 

It hasn't been our experience! It is incumbent upon the church to make sure that all of the information is READILY available. A single article in the Ensign every 15 years or so isn't going to cut it! And even then those few articles that have been published, leave much to be desired. It creates the question, "Is the church really AFRAID of this information?"

 

I have yet to hear a decent, logical explanation of the translation of the Book of Abraham. By the time the apologists here finish with it, it ends up sounding like a bunch of hocus pokus! 

 

So as Bro. Covey used to say, "The trust account" between the member and the church becomes bankrupt.

 

You (the church) haven't been forthcoming and I've had to discover these discrepancies on my own and now the explanations you give sound like you're back-peddling and tap dancing and Yeah.........I don't trust you anymore.

 

There's more but I feel like I've gone on enough.

 

I loved the church. I didn't want to leave. But one also has to deal in truth and reality and the reality is, it isn't what it says it is.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Palerider

[Coreyb]

I guess its hard for me to understand this problem. I don't deny that it is a huge problem, as I have personally witnessed so many disenchanted young people leave the Church. Many of them suffer from spiritual and intellectual malnutrition when it comes to the gospel and church history. I admit it is easy for me to simply blame the member for being casual in their membership, but our Church has not fed them as it/we should have. I was listening earlier today to Gregory Prince on a Mormon stories podcast. He said we talk about milk before meat, and we do a good job at feeding our members milk, but eventually they must eat meat. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of meat in many of our correlated manuals, or in many of the popular books sold at Deseret. Of course meat is tough, and many members may not be interested in it, but there comes a time where you either eat and digest it, or you leave the dinner table still hungry. Like I said, I have a hard time understanding. My Father told me the hard issues at a young age. He showed me the warts in our history, and told me that there were controversies. When I was nine and ten years old I was having a "faith crisis" about the Book of Mormon. I was interested in pre-columbian history and it was hard for me to square what I read in my history book with what the Book of Mormon said. I knew about polygamy, polyandry, masonry, seer stones and hats, magic, treasure digging, DNA, mountain meadows, racism, blood atonement, Book of Mormon authorship theories, changed revelations, post manifesto polygamy etc. all before I was seventeen. I do not say this to make myself out to be a Super-Mormon, because I'm not. I stopped believing in the Church for several years. I say this because i suppose I could be considered an "inoculated" child.  It did lead me out of the Church in spirit for a while, but now that I am back, not much of anything I have learned that is "critical" has had much effect on my testimony (except Adam-God and Book of Abraham, they did for a while). To me it didn't seem like things were hidden from me, so I don't have that distrust Palerider talks about. Now that I have served a mission, and teach young single men, I do see a lack of knowledge about these subjects by a lot of members. Only one other member of my Elders Quorum has read a biography of Joseph Smith! I believe inoculation with knowledge is the answer. It wont be easy, but it will set us Mormons on a firmer foundation of whole truths. This Christmas I gave my sixteen year old brother ( who loves to read) a copy of Rough Stone Rolling because I dont want him to be

blindsided by Joseph Smiths life in a few years. I pray it goes well for him, and hope my descision was right. This is just my story

Edited February 1, 2014 by Coreyb

[Tacenda]

Oh my gosh, Palerider and Coreyb, both such true statements! Bravo, for lack of better words. So much is needed to combat the situation in the church with members feeling lied to and mistrustful. And as far as milk, it's almost like the leaders themselves don't believe or else why do they keep the correlating, to just milk, but I'm pretty sure they believe. They surely understand, "the meat", is a lot of the reason people join the church, don't they?

[mormonnewb]

Oh my gosh, Palerider and Coreyb, both such true statements! Bravo, for lack of better words. So much is needed to combat the situation in the church with members feeling lied to and mistrustful. And as far as milk, it's almost like the leaders themselves don't believe or else why do they keep the correlating, to just milk, but I'm pretty sure they believe. They surely understand, "the meat", is a lot of the reason people join the church, don't they?

I think an even deeper problem is the need for inoculation in the first place. Our fellow Christians don't seem to have the need to inoculate their children about the physics of Jonah and the whale, the conflicting Christ genealogies and resurrection narratives, etc. I think this is because they don't tie their testimonies to such specific matters.

At my first few FTs, I was blown away by the specificity of the testimonies. "I know that in 18xx, JS was in that sacred grove and he knelt to pray. I know it was 78 degrees with a slight northerly breeze ..." Then when it turns out that it was 76 degrees, we have a faith crisis.

And I'm not blaming the member here because I don't blame them. I would feel the same way. If you made me get up at 6 am all throughout high school to teach me ALL about the JS and fail to mention polygamy even ONCE, I'd definitely think, "What else did they not tell me?"

In contrast, the chief "prophet" for Protestants is Paul. Yet, Protestants don't testify to the truth of his Demascus story. Nor do they study his life in great detail but forget to mention that he held the coats of the men who stoned Stephen on the grounds of "pebbles before boulders."

If we anchor our faith on Christ and the atonement, then there is no need to inoculate for polygamy, DNA, blacks and priesthood, etc.

[canard78]

Reading the below link I find it rather sad that exmembers seem to have been taken in by the internet. Reading the article I felt as if the exmembers bought the critic interpretations of lds history on the internet hook, line and sinker.

 

I have often wondered how such former mormons just throw out their spiritual experiences when they were members so quickly. How can this be explained?

 

http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/01/31/when-saints-go-marching-out.html

 

First: "...throw out their spiritual experiences when they were members so quickly..."

 

While some do appear to leave the church quickly, it's not always the case. One of the people in the article cited "researched historical inaccuracies in The Book of Mormon for three years, before sending a 16-page resignation letter to the church."

 

I've been studying all of this for nearly 2 years and am still 'in' the church. My wife no longer attends church but it took her 2-3 years of concerns before she made that decision. I know of several other people who hung on for months/years precisely because they didn't want to throw out their spiritual experiences. 

 

As Elder Uchtdorf so eloquently and generously stated last year:

 

 

However, there are some who leave the Church they once loved.

 

One might ask, “If the gospel is so wonderful, why would anyone leave?”

 

Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations.

 

Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question whether they should separate themselves from the Church.

 

In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves.

 

 

 

Second, you suggest people who leave are "...taken in by the internet." And that they "...bought the critic interpretations of lds history on the internet hook, line and sinker."

 

This isn't a question of being gullible or stupid. I suppose it's an issue of personal perspective and interpretation. You and I can read the very same sources online and reach different conclusions. It doesn't make me naive or the dupe.

 

I've done a lot of reading in the last couple of years. I've based it largely on sources like byu.edu, FAIR, FARMs etc as well as other sources. Many of the "issues" I have with the church come directly from the words of our own leaders, documented in our own publications.

 

Don't assume that everyone who leaves the church are "taken in by the internet"

[bluebell]

I think an even deeper problem is the need for inoculation in the first place. Our fellow Christians don't seem to have the need to inoculate their children about the physics of Jonah and the whale, the conflicting Christ genealogies and resurrection narratives, etc. I think this is because they don't tie their testimonies to such specific matters.

At my first few FTs, I was blown away by the specificity of the testimonies. "I know that in 18xx, JS was in that sacred grove and he knelt to pray. I know it was 78 degrees with a slight northerly breeze ..." Then when it turns out that it was 76 degrees, we have a faith crisis.

And I'm not blaming the member here because I don't blame them. I would feel the same way. If you made me get up at 6 am all throughout high school to teach me ALL about the JS and fail to mention polygamy even ONCE, I'd definitely think, "What else did they not tell me?"

In contrast, the chief "prophet" for Protestants is Paul. Yet, Protestants don't testify to the truth of his Demascus story. Nor do they study his life in great detail but forget to mention that he held the coats of the men who stoned Stephen on the grounds of "pebbles before boulders."

If we anchor our faith on Christ and the atonement, then there is no need to inoculate for polygamy, DNA, blacks and priesthood, etc.

 

When other religious groups study the bible, for example, and actually learn it's history and the scholarship behind it, they do lose 'members', typically to atheism.

 

Bart Ehrman is probably the most famous example, but he isn't the only one.

[BlueDreams]

The article was terrible. They just come off sounding like a bitter drinker's party where their time is best spent mocking their former faith. And of course mormons do yoga! All sorts of people do yoga. My 60+ year old mormon professor does yoga with his wife, for pete's sake.

 

I was confused by the last quote in the article entirely. It made it seem living LDS was living a facade.

 

What Canard says make sense. I have a hard time following this because by the expectations set up I should have lost my faith when I was a young teen (14 yrs old). I googled everything and spent a ton of time on boards and such. I read plenty, dug up first/secondhand sources to get full quotes and make up my own mind. I came up with my own thoughts, I accepted others opinions at the time, and I changed them when they began to not fit or make sense. I went everywhere and at least knew the basic gist to just about every controversial or gray topic that was common at that time. And I started off with very little active faith at the beginning. I believed the church, believed in God, but I didn't have much of a dog in the fight beyond that. I was irreligious. I wasn't making the best choices. I wasn't in a good place (though I was steadily getting there). And my knowledge of the church was spotty, based heavily on whatever I learned in church and solely in church. If there was one way to see things and it was consistently damaging, then I should be pretty holey after that much.

 

So discussing things like truth and reality as if there was one way to make of it doesn't really work for me. I don't really think it's about truth, to be frank....and reality assumes we see clearly when considering all of us here have seen relatively the same thing and reached very different conclusions and have had vastly different experiences in and with the church.  

 

For me and my place, the spiritual experiences and the experiential truths I found heavily trumped everything else. I was a mess, my life was an uncontrollable mess, and the church and the Spirit gave me a peace and comfort beyond description. It transformed me, taught me things more clearly and with greater resonance than any other source, and continues to do just that. Other voices really just can't compete with what I've felt, seen, and become. One truth is more pertinent to the other for my life. 

 

But I can accept that another can lose trust where I have only gained it...even if I don't fully understand it. They're not me, I'm not them. And what facts, beliefs, and constructs we face will never be the same. Even when staring at the same words on the screen.

 

 

 

With luv,

Bd

Edited February 1, 2014 by BlueDreams

[mormonnewb]

When other religious groups study the bible, for example, and actually learn it's history and the scholarship behind it, they do lose 'members', typically to atheism.

Bart Ehrman is probably the most famous example, but he isn't the only one.

Good point. Protestant seminaries create their fair share of atheists, particular among students who come from "Bible believing" churches -- those that place supreme importance on the inerrancy of scripture. When some of these students learn about historical inaccuracies and translation issues with the Bible, they have faith crises.

My theory (for today, at least) is these students are just like some of our members. They've built their testimonies upon something more than the atonement of Christ -- in this case, the inerrancy of scripture.

Once again, I'm not assigning blame. They've been taught to do so just as we are often taught to base our testimonies on JS' prophetic mantle, the literal truth of the BOM, the "truthfulness" of the church, etc.

And don't get me wrong. These "truths" should INFORM our faith. So, for example, a biography of, say, Abraham Lincoln informs my understanding of the man. However, I do not base my belief in his actual existence on the basis of this one book. And I certainly don't lose all respect for the man because I find a factual error in the text. And most important, I don't lose the desire to master his admirable character traits because I've seen the fruits that forgiveness, steadfastness of purpose and humility can bring to my life.

I think faith in Christ should be similar. We believe in the man (and not his biographers). And we KNOW his truths because we've seen them work in our lives and the lives of others. For me, there's NOTHING on the Internet that can shake my testimony in the loving kindness that I've seen amongst my fellow saints.