Mystery Meat Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Ok. Sorry about the dig. Didn't mean to make it about your posts in particular. But generally I really do feel it best in dealing with others to not describe, allude to, mention what you think their motivations are. They could have described them, they could have suggested something that was not a full disclosure of their motivations at the time, or they also may have not come to realize their own motivations at the time. It's better to leave them to judge their motivations and leave it at that. But if you know then you know. Still probably best to treat them as though their current explanations accurately describe their motivations and leave it at that. I agree. I would never tell my sister what I told you. It would make things worse. To be clear, when I interact with the people I know and love who have left the church, I go out of my way to show them an increase of love. I don't judge or condescend. That doesn't stop me from making observations and forming opinions.
Mystery Meat Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Apparently, I left because I never had a testimony, wanted to sin, was too lazy to do my own research into church history, was proud, and tried to intellectualize the gospel. I hope this isn't in response to anything I have said. If so, I am not sure where it is coming from. I think the I just want to sin excuse is tired and frankly doesn't apply very often. I have one cousin who did leave the church for that reason. But he is the only person I know like that. Side note, I have another cousin who "likes to sin" (who doesn't?), believes in the Church, but would rather sin. I wish my sister, honestly, was more like him. He is more open to the spirit than she is.
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 I hope this isn't in response to anything I have said. If so, I am not sure where it is coming from. I think the I just want to sin excuse is tired and frankly doesn't apply very often. I have one cousin who did leave the church for that reason. But he is the only person I know like that. Side note, I have another cousin who "likes to sin" (who doesn't?), believes in the Church, but would rather sin. I wish my sister, honestly, was more like him. He is more open to the spirit than she is. I was just kidding. As you can guess, I find those assigned motivations funny rather than offensive. In my experience, people join the LDS church for many reasons, and people leave the LDS church for many reasons. In both cases, it's best to ask the person why they joined or left instead of assigning reasons. 1
escott3564 Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Yes. And similar experiences with the other 7 individuals also occurred. So....did your sister simply marry outside the Church and become inactive?
escott3564 Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Its not that simple, but yes. She should have talked to my daughter. She just converted hers.
name Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Well, I'll just say that, when it comes to productive and civil discourse, I find faithful Latter-day Saints as a group to be far more trustworthy than I do vitriolic ex-Mormons. Wow! (And I can't imagine that there is someone who walks amongst us that would actually give a "reputation point" for this contribution?!)
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 Well, I'll just say that, when it comes to productive and civil discourse, I find faithful Latter-day Saints as a group to be far more trustworthy than I do vitriolic ex-Mormons. Wow! (And I can't imagine that there is someone who walks amongst us that would actually give a "reputation point" for this contribution?!) My point is that we aren't all vitriolic.
Mystery Meat Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I want to add one more thing just to clarify. I think what I am trying to say is that I think a lot of people (based solely on my experience and the experiences of those close to me) who leave the Church after finding out all of these historical issues went looking for them after their life didn't go the way they wanted it. I listed some reasons above from people I know. It was not meant to be an exhaustive list. But, my sister, for example, got to the point where she didn't want the Church to be true. She was angry. That anger and heartbreak is the mindset she went with when she started her truth journey. The ground was already poisoned. And as most of us know, if you are looking for a reason for the Church not to be true, you will find one. Or two. Or a thousand. But those faith troubling issues (and some of them are troubling to faith, I know because I went through my own faith crises) came after. They may have compounded the problem. But they weren't the cause. Had she (and others I know) discovered the information and still had the desire to exercise faith they may have had no problem when they found that information. Then again maybe not. But there is no doubt in my mind that the attitude they went in with when reading about controversial issues polluted how they interpreted those events, and who they gave the benefit of the doubt to. I suppose that is no different from me, but on the other end of the spectrum.
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 I want to add one more thing just to clarify. I think what I am trying to say is that I think a lot of people (based solely on my experience and the experiences of those close to me) who leave the Church after finding out all of these historical issues went looking for them after their life didn't go the way they wanted it. I listed some reasons above from people I know. It was not meant to be an exhaustive list. But, my sister, for example, got to the point where she didn't want the Church to be true. She was angry. That anger and heartbreak is the mindset she went with when she started her truth journey. The ground was already poisoned. And as most of us know, if you are looking for a reason for the Church not to be true, you will find one. Or two. Or a thousand. But those faith troubling issues (and some of them are troubling to faith, I know because I went through my own faith crises) came after. They may have compounded the problem. But they weren't the cause. Had she (and others I know) discovered the information and still had the desire to exercise faith they may have had no problem when they found that information. Then again maybe not. But there is no doubt in my mind that the attitude they went in with when reading about controversial issues polluted how they interpreted those events, and who they gave the benefit of the doubt to. I suppose that is no different from me, but on the other end of the spectrum. Again, I don't think it's fair to say that about ex-Mormons in general. I totally respect people who have struggled through these issues and emerged with their faith intact, but I don't believe those who reach different conclusions went in looking for reasons to leave. I know a few people who did, but I think it's unfair to say that about all or most of us evil apostates.
Mystery Meat Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Again, I don't think it's fair to say that about ex-Mormons in general. I totally respect people who have struggled through these issues and emerged with their faith intact, but I don't believe those who reach different conclusions went in looking for reasons to leave. I know a few people who did, but I think it's unfair to say that about all or most of us evil apostates. And you might be right (although I don't think you are evil, or at least not any more evil than me ), but it's tough for me to come to that same conclusion when literally 100% of the people I know did go looking for reasons. Edited June 2, 2014 by lvjd66
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 And you might be right (although I don't think you are evil, or at least not any more evil than me ), but it's tough for me to come to that same conclusion when literally 100% of the people I know did go looking for reasons. You know 8 people whom you have asked, which is not a very big sample. I didn't go in looking for reasons, so I suppose you can either say I don't fit your beliefs about ex-Mormons, or I'm lying.
Mystery Meat Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 You know 8 people whom you have asked, which is not a very big sample. I didn't go in looking for reasons, so I suppose you can either say I don't fit your beliefs about ex-Mormons, or I'm lying. I have no reason to believe you are lying. I will take you at your word. In fact, just observing how you discuss things here, I can already tell you are different from the people I know. I would say you are an exception to my rule. And you are right, my sample is far from scientific, and so maybe they are the exception, but I have nothing to base that on. 1
name Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Perhaps there are cases where simply and sincerely looking (and not "looking for reasons") is in play here? Likely? Of course!
cinepro Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) But what are you getting at? Are you saying that the content on the FairMormon site is so weak and inferior that nobody would be persuaded by it unless he/she already believed in Mormonism? I think there is a lot of good information from FAIR and other apologetic websites that can help correct misinformation, and to the degree that someone's concerns are based on misinformation, it can certainly help. But when it comes to issues that people have that are true, then yes, I would argue that almost nobody would be persuaded by apologetic arguments unless they already believed. And it's not just an LDS issue. The same holds true for JW apologetics, Scientologist apologetics, Catholic apologetics etc. I'll bet every LDS on this board could spend a year reading Scientologist apologetics and never come close to believing anything they wrote (let alone converting), while believing Scientologists would read the same material and find it logical, cohesive, and eminently convincing. Apologies if we were supposed to pretend otherwise. Edited June 2, 2014 by cinepro
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I want to add one more thing just to clarify. I think what I am trying to say is that I think a lot of people (based solely on my experience and the experiences of those close to me) who leave the Church after finding out all of these historical issues went looking for them after their life didn't go the way they wanted it. I listed some reasons above from people I know. It was not meant to be an exhaustive list. But, my sister, for example, got to the point where she didn't want the Church to be true. She was angry. That anger and heartbreak is the mindset she went with when she started her truth journey. The ground was already poisoned. And as most of us know, if you are looking for a reason for the Church not to be true, you will find one. Or two. Or a thousand. But those faith troubling issues (and some of them are troubling to faith, I know because I went through my own faith crises) came after. They may have compounded the problem. But they weren't the cause. Had she (and others I know) discovered the information and still had the desire to exercise faith they may have had no problem when they found that information. Then again maybe not. But there is no doubt in my mind that the attitude they went in with when reading about controversial issues polluted how they interpreted those events, and who they gave the benefit of the doubt to. I suppose that is no different from me, but on the other end of the spectrum. This doesn't make sense to me lvjd. On my mission I was instructed to look for those who recently had a significant life altering event, i.e. marriage, death, divorce, loss of job etc. Some of these people became dissatisfied with the faith traditions that they were in and eventually joined the church. Would it be fair to describe them as just joining the church because of these events? These types of events opened people up to look at their lives in a different way. Opened them up to a paradigm shift. They rejected their old faith and found a new faith. If you are just looking for a reason for the church to be true, you can find one or two or a thousand. Similarly, when our life does not work out the way that we were raised to believe it would, when we don't fit in the mold of the church, these things can allow people to view the church in a different way and make them more open to the possibility the church isn't true. People who fit in the mold of the church typically don't look. When they do look they are more likely to view the church in a more positive light and put forth effort to make things work. A cynical exmormon response would be to say that if the church was working for you, you are not willing to look at the church objectively, as it might cost you your friendships, your marriage, your job, and force uncomfortable conclusions. A cynical believing mormon would describe those leaving the church as people who had some life problems (born gay, unmarried, childless) and were just looking for a reason to leave. I prefer to allow people to describe their own faith transitions on their own terms both into and out of the church. 2
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 I have no reason to believe you are lying. I will take you at your word. In fact, just observing how you discuss things here, I can already tell you are different from the people I know. I would say you are an exception to my rule. And you are right, my sample is far from scientific, and so maybe they are the exception, but I have nothing to base that on. Don't be fooled. I'm told it's all just an act, and I'm the worst kind of anti-Mormon there is.
Mystery Meat Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 This doesn't make sense to me lvjd. On my mission I was instructed to look for those who recently had a significant life altering event, i.e. marriage, death, divorce, loss of job etc. Some of these people became dissatisfied with the faith traditions that they were in and eventually joined the church. Would it be fair to describe them as just joining the church because of these events? These types of events opened people up to look at their lives in a different way. Opened them up to a paradigm shift. They rejected their old faith and found a new faith. If you are just looking for a reason for the church to be true, you can find one or two or a thousand. Similarly, when our life does not work out the way that we were raised to believe it would, when we don't fit in the mold of the church, these things can allow people to view the church in a different way and make them more open to the possibility the church isn't true. People who fit in the mold of the church typically don't look. When they do look they are more likely to view the church in a more positive light and put forth effort to make things work. A cynical exmormon response would be to say that if the church was working for you, you are not willing to look at the church objectively, as it might cost you your friendships, your marriage, your job, and force uncomfortable conclusions. A cynical believing mormon would describe those leaving the church as people who had some life problems (born gay, unmarried, childless) and were just looking for a reason to leave. I prefer to allow people to describe their own faith transitions on their own terms both into and out of the church. I don't fit into the Church mold. In fact, the perfect Church mold is an illusion. Nobody fits it. We just think they do. Chances are you are either single, gay, childless, sick, addicted, poor, arrogant, not a perfect parent (ie, have kids that fit any of the above), and the list goes on and on. We all pretend like we are the ideal Mormon. But none of us are.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) I don't fit into the Church mold. In fact, the perfect Church mold is an illusion. Nobody fits it. We just think they do. Chances are you are either single, gay, childless, sick, addicted, poor, arrogant, not a perfect parent (ie, have kids that fit any of the above), and the list goes on and on. We all pretend like we are the ideal Mormon. But none of us are. You did not address my post, but I can see I worded it poorly. What I should have said: This doesn't make sense to me lvjd. On my mission I was instructed to look for those who recently had a significant life altering event, i.e. marriage, death, divorce, loss of job etc. Some of these people became dissatisfied with the faith traditions that they were in and eventually joined the church. Would it be fair to describe them as just joining the church because of these events? These types of events opened people up to look at their lives in a different way. Opened them up to a paradigm shift. They rejected their old faith and found a new faith. If you are just looking for a reason for the church to be true, you can find one or two or a thousand. Similarly, when our life does not work out the way that we were raised to believe it would, when we [feel like we don't fit in at church], these things can allow people to view the church in a different way and make them more open to the possibility the church isn't true. People who [feel like they fit in at church - i.e. the church is meeting their spiritual and temporal need] typically don't look. When they do look they are more likely to view the church in a more positive light and put forth effort to make things work. A cynical exmormon response would be to say that if the church was working for you, you are not willing to look at the church objectively, as it might cost you your friendships, your marriage, your job, and force uncomfortable conclusions. A cynical believing mormon would describe those leaving the church as people who had some life problems (born gay, unmarried, childless) and were just looking for a reason to leave. I prefer to allow people to describe their own faith transitions on their own terms both into and out of the church. Obviously there is no perfect mold in the Church and everyone has problems. This just illustrates my point though. If everyone has problems: "single, gay, childless, sick, addicted, poor, arrogant, not a perfect parent (ie, have kids that fit any of the above)" aren't these problems something that will be a thorn in the flesh for them? Won't these things make people question their faith? For some, after study and thought and prayer, these things in the end give them greater faith. For others, after study and thought and prayer,people conclude that their faith was misplaced. Under your interpretation it seems like (correct me if I'm wrong), that you would say they left not because they studied and determined that their faith was misplaced, but because of the thing that caused them to question in the first place. Is that fair? I ask because I suspect that most of those that convert to the Church (especially from my experience), do so in a similar fashion (after dealing with a question that forced them to reexamine their old life view, they find their old faith inadequate and convert to a new faith). How would describe their faith transition into the Church? Is it a pursuit of truth? Edited June 2, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding
Daniel Peterson Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I thought members weren't supposed to "interact" with loved ones who reject the Church. Seriously? You actually thought that? I've never heard and never believed such a thing in my life. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) I think there is a lot of good information from FAIR and other apologetic websites that can help correct misinformation, and to the degree that someone's concerns are based on misinformation, it can certainly help. But when it comes to issues that people have that are true, then yes, I would argue that almost nobody would be persuaded by apologetic arguments unless they already believed.And it's not just an LDS issue. The same holds true for JW apologetics, Scientologist apologetics, Catholic apologetics etc. I'll bet every LDS on this board could spend a year reading Scientologist apologetics and never come close to believing anything they wrote (let alone converting), while believing Scientologists would read the same material and find it logical, cohesive, and eminently convincing.Apologies if we were supposed to pretend otherwise.There is a wide territory between finding apologetics arguments persuasive and having them be a motive for one's conversion. If there are apologetics websites for Catholicism, Scientology, etc., with content that is as well done, well documented, well reasoned, well articulated as what one finds on the FairMormon sites, then yes, I could easily conceive of myself reading such content and finding it "logical," "cohesive," persuasive, etc., to the point that I would reject attacks and distortions that had been made against the respective religious faiths, all of this while retaining my fervent belief in the Church of Jesus Christ. In short, you can disbelieve in something without embracing all of the garbage that its antagonists say against it. To put it another way, you can accept the defense (that's what apologetics means) of something as valid and persuasive without choosing to embrace that thing over something else that, to you personally, has a clearer ring of truth. I believe FairMormon potentially helpful in this respect where fair-minded (no pun intended) people are concerned, even in instances in which such people are not ultimately converted to Mormonism. Edited June 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 2
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 There is a wide territory between finding apologetics arguments persuasive and having them be a motive for one's conversion. If there are apologetics websites for Catholicism, Scientology, etc., with content that is as well done, well documented, well reasoned, well articulated as what one finds on the FairMormon sites, then yes, I could easily conceive of myself reading such content and finding it "logical," "cohesive," persuasive, etc., to the point that I would reject attacks and distortions that had been made against the respective religious faiths, all of this while retaining my fervent belief in the Church of Jesus Christ. In short, you can disbelieve in something without embracing all of the garbage that its antagonists say against it. To put it another way, you can accept the defense (that's what apologetics means) of something as valid and persuasive without choosing to embrace that thing over something else that, to you personally, has a clearer ring of truth. I believe FairMormon potentially helpful in this respect where fair-minded (no pun intended) people are concerned, even in instances in which such people are not ultimately converted to Mormonism. I know a few of the people at FAIR, and I like them and respect what they're doing. IMO, they're honestly making the best case they can for the church, but for me, it's still a very weak case. Obviously, most people here disagree.
omni Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 This doesn't make sense to me lvjd. On my mission I was instructed to look for those who recently had a significant life altering event, i.e. marriage, death, divorce, loss of job etc. Some of these people became dissatisfied with the faith traditions that they were in and eventually joined the church. Would it be fair to describe them as just joining the church because of these events? These types of events opened people up to look at their lives in a different way. Opened them up to a paradigm shift. They rejected their old faith and found a new faith. If you are just looking for a reason for the church to be true, you can find one or two or a thousand. Similarly, when our life does not work out the way that we were raised to believe it would, when we don't fit in the mold of the church, these things can allow people to view the church in a different way and make them more open to the possibility the church isn't true. People who fit in the mold of the church typically don't look. When they do look they are more likely to view the church in a more positive light and put forth effort to make things work. A cynical exmormon response would be to say that if the church was working for you, you are not willing to look at the church objectively, as it might cost you your friendships, your marriage, your job, and force uncomfortable conclusions. A cynical believing mormon would describe those leaving the church as people who had some life problems (born gay, unmarried, childless) and were just looking for a reason to leave. I prefer to allow people to describe their own faith transitions on their own terms both into and out of the church. Excellent! This thread is moving too fast for me to comment, but I was going to write something similar (however you did it much better). It often takes a life changing event, or even being offended for someone to even consider that not everything they believed about the church is true. You can show some members reams of data proving death existed before 6,000 years ago, problems with the BoA, positive evidence for SSM, but they won't even consider it because they are happy where they are at - there is no reason or benefit to questions the status quo. However, once the chink in their armor is exposed, they are opened to new realities and are able to examine issues with a critical eye.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) I know a few of the people at FAIR, and I like them and respect what they're doing. IMO, they're honestly making the best case they can for the church, but for me, it's still a very weak case. Obviously, most people here disagree.With due respect, it is hardly surprising that one who has forsaken his faith in the Church of Jesus Christ would find arguments in defense of that faith unpersuasive; otherwise, why would he have forsaken his faith in the first place? But my response was to Cinepro, who draws a comparison to one such as I who, he opines, would automatically reject arguments in defense of other faiths merely because I have a fervent belief in the Church of Jesus Christ. I say that is hogwash. It does not detract in the least from my faith in the Church if I recognize and acknowledge the validity and persuasiveness of defenses of other religious belief systems such as Catholicism. Similarly, I expect that others, secure in their own religious faith, could at the same time recognize good arguments defending the Church of Jesus Christ against attacks leveled against it. Edited June 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 With due respect, it is hardly surprising that one who has forsaken his faith in the Church of Jesus Christ would find arguments in defense of that faith unpersuasive; otherwise, why would he have forsaken his faith in the first place? I left because I concluded that the evidence was overwhelming in the negative for the church. Obviously, if I believed the arguments in favor of the church were persuasive, I would have stayed. That does not mean that I wanted the evidence to go that way; I desperately wanted it to work, and it just didn't for me. As I said, I respect those who have reached the opposite conclusion. But my response was to Cinepro, who draws a comparison to one such as I who, he opines, would automatically reject arguments in defense of other faiths merely because I have a fervent belief in the Church of Jesus Christ. I say that is hogwash. It does not detract in the least from my faith in the Church if I recognize and acknowledge the validity and persuasiveness of defenses of other religious belief systems such as Catholicism. I don't think it's automatic, but from what I have seen, most people without a vested interest in accepting apologetic evidence for any religion don't find it particularly convincing. IMO, most apologetic arguments are aimed at people who want to believe.
Recommended Posts