Can Mormons leave for legitimate reasons?

[1dc]

Just that comment demonstrates that more was involved in your decision than intellectual reasons.

I respectfully disagree. Emotions were involved with my desire to stay. Intellect was involved when I made the choice to leave.

If faith existed previously and was part of your emotional desires, then the loss of faith was an emotional change that also was part of the decision to leave . . whether it came before, during, or after the intellectual decisions.

Aside from this, we come to questions of whether such decisions are equal amounts of change in intellectual opinon and faith . . it certainly seems that some (not you specifically) hold some positions of faith in the validity of the Bible which are held inconsistently with their lack of faith in latter-day scripture.

[Dr. Shades]

Ray A writes:

I think the idea that anyone makes purely intellectual decisions has been thoroughly debunked by all brain research. . . Shades, I think your emotions were far more involved than you imagine. I bet you didn't have a ruler to measure it?

I can respect both of the above points of view. Read on:

You had latent desires to leave Mormonism.

That is the part I disagree with. Sure, perhaps emotions had more of an effect on my reasoning process than I currently recognize. But be that as it may, the fact remains that I:

• did not leave Mormonism as a post-hoc justification for some sin in which I had begun engaging,
  
• did not leave Mormonism in order to "head off at the pass" future guilt feelings for some sin in which I wanted to begin engaging, and
  
• did not leave Mormonism because the Bishop forgot to say "Hi" to me in the foyer.
  

I left purely because I became convinced that it isn't quite what it claims to be, something that Beowulf (and apparently others) believe is wholly impossible. Just as Kevin has argued, I left precisely for the reasons I say I left; there were/are no "real reasons."

Okay, I know I'm speculating, but can you explain then why people like Dan Peterson, Nibley, and Bill Hamblin don't leave too, though they know the same information you do?

Easy. They evaluate certain items of evidence differently than I do. Polyandry, for example, may be inconsequential to member A, but a complete "deal-breaker" to member B (sort of like how some people choose to leave Catholicism while other Catholics choose stay in, even though both groups know the same information).

But because someone makes a decision based on spiritual or emotional feelings does not mean they are "dupes". It does not mean they are wrong.

I agree, but I believe we've veered a little off-topic. Perhaps I could've worded it differently, but the message I wanted to get across is this: I am the real-world disconfirmation of Beowulf's (and apparently Wade's and Dr. Peterson's) assumptions, since all of their "real reasons" didn't/don't apply to me.

One other thing, Shades, your signature. There's a lot of emotional content there. I wouldn't call that very intellectual or logical at all. I think there's a lot of unconscious emotion involved in your thinking.

Perhaps, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I left Mormonism for precisely the reasons I say I did (i.e., it has nothing to do with the fact that there were/are no "real reasons" for my departure).

Beowulf writes:

But she is certainly a bitter woman. And blames her misfortunes on God, or rather on her certainty that there must not be one.

I don't see the connection (I'm faulting her, not you). Keep in mind that just because one person is wishy-washy doesn't mean they all are.

Nevertheless, while I sympathize with your position, I will go out on a limb and state that, at bottom, I do not believe you. That your leaving the LDS faith was intellectually based, or at least based only on that.

That's fine; I can respect that position. Like I said, I probably misspoke. The point I was trying to convey is that there were no "real reasons" behind my departure. In other words, my departure had nothing to do with either desire to sin or having become offended.

Dear Kevin:

I'm surprised to see you sticking up for apostates like this. Thanks! Did an ex-Mormon change your tire by the side of the road last week? ;-)

[Kevin W. Graham]

Hi Dan,

== Impurely Intellectual is still Intellectual

Thank you! Exactly! This is exactly what I've been trying to pound home. Therefore, when an ex-Mormon claims to have left the faith due to an "intellectual" experience, whether it is purely or partially intellectual has no bearing on whether or not it is in fact "intellectual." How can this be understood as anything other than a direct refutation of Beowulf, who maintained that ex-Mormon's who make these decisions are not making intellectual decisions, nor are they relying on "knowledge"? His gripe is that ex-Mormons claim to be making intellectual choices.

What you just wrote above implies very specifically that the ex-Mormon claims are properly called "intellectual." I agree.

== just as Furry Rabbit is still Rabbit. Just as Dirty Water is still Water. Just as Partly Eaten Cake is still Cake. Just as Mind-Numbingly Obvious is still Obvious.

Exactly, I was just about to offer the "gold" example. We often refer to gold as gold, but if our jewelry were truly 100% gold, we'd have a hard time keeping it on because it is so weak.

== Whether anything is purely anything may be beside your point but it is not beside my point.

It is the point from which all other discussion came about. Your point, while interesting and true, doesn't answer the original question.

== I respond to questions as if they were assertions when they contradict what I've already written and appear to be challenging me to defend or explain a position that I absolutely do not hold, have never held, have never uttered, have never thought, and have repeatedly denied.

This is good to know, as I'll try to modify my manner of posting to avoid further misunderstandings. Though, to be honest, I haven't the faintest clue how to do that yet. I always thought asking basic questions was one of the least aggressive approaches to dialogue. Everyone is different I guess.

== Rubbish. "Good and sufficient reasons," in the context of an explicit discussion of "knowledge," pertain to the intellect and to reasoning or they pertain to nothing at all.

I'm saying the question was never whether ex-Mormons may have "good and sufficient" reasons. The question was whether or not they may have an intellectual reason. "Good and sufficient" begs the question: good and sufficient according to whom?

Kevin: "Does this mean it is improper to refer to a decision as intellectual unless it is absolutely 100% intellectual? I'm guessing this is where we disagree."

== Have I ever said anything to that effect? Have I ever supplied any reason that could justify someone in concluding that I believe that something isn't intellectual unless it is 100% intellectual?. Ever? Ever?

Well, with all the exaggerated hoopla about how you agree with Beowulf and and disagree with me, I assumed this would be where our disagreement was. And yes, your first response led, at least me to believe this may be your position. After all, this is how it all happened:

1) Beowulf unambiguously says ex-Mormons do not make intellectual decisions when leaving the Church. Nor do they base decisions on "knowledge."

2) I challenged that claim - Wade chastized me for doing so.

3) You came in and spoke of the concept of pure intellectualism, which is a point of your own making; which is also beside the point. It did not directly answer the original argument. As subtle as it may have been, you essentially refuted Beowulf's claim.

First I assumed, "You do not believe decisions to join the Church are rational or intellectual." You responded that this "flatly contradicts" your position. In order for this to flatly contradict your position, then this means your position is quite probably the exact opposite. Meaning, you believe a decision to join the Church, at the very least, could be rational or intellectual. You imply the same thing goes for decisions to leave the Church. If so, then I agree.

== Does ordinary language suggest that that would be my view? Is it improper to refer to a person as angry unless she is 100% angry? (What on earth would that mean?)

Exactly! Thank you for proving my point. Ex-Mormon decisions to leave the faith can rightly be called "intellectual."

You're right. Enough....

This may very well be my last post for some weeks...(background cheers)... depending on what kind of internet access is available in Brazil.

[Daniel Peterson]

== Rubbish. "Good and sufficient reasons," in the context of an explicit discussion of "knowledge," pertain to the intellect and to reasoning or they pertain to nothing at all.

I'm saying the question was never whether ex-Mormons may have "good and sufficient" reasons. The question was whether or not they may have an intellectual reason. "Good and sufficient" begs the question: good and sufficient according to whom?

"Good and sufficient" in the context of a discussion of "knowledge" and of "reasons to leave" can only refer to intellectual reasons.

If you know of a cosmic standard for determining whether a reason is "good and sufficient" that is plainly and easily accessible to all mortal humans, that will be mutually acceptable to all parties, and to which all need submit, feel free to share it. I know of none, and am not inclined to believe that one exists. The matter strikes me as irrelevant to this discussion.

It's a subjective, personal judgment -- my whole point, once again -- and must be made by the individual person. However, I would suggest that if that person does not herself believe her knowledge-related "reasons to leave [or to stay]" to be sufficient to justify her decision, then we're dealing with a decision that can only very charitably be described as "intellectual." That's why I specified "good and sufficient reasons."

[sidewinder]

I don't know of any important decision I've ever made in my life that hasn't involved my emotions. And even the most mundane decisions often involve my emotions. For instance, today at work I made an adjustment to an application I've been working on that resulted in a great improvement in it's functionality and feel. For the past couple days, I've just had this nagging feeling that something just isn't right with it. So one might say, I was driven to make these revisions because of this disturbing feeling. But of course, that would be overlooking the fact that something logically was wrong that I couldn't quite articulate, that played a key role in generating those feelings. And then, after making the changes, I ended up stayed an hour and a half late at work because I felt so relieved and emotionally charged.

There were certianly emotions at play in my decision to leave the church. A lot of emotions. There were social factors and lifestyle factors. But what it came down too, is I may have gone innactive absent my "intellectual issues," but I would never have left. And of course, those "intellectual issues" feed into the social and lifestyle factors. To give an example. If you're having doubts about Joseph Smith's prophetic role, sacrafices such as tithing become more difficult. It's emotionally trying to part with money if you arn't convinced there's a good reason for it. And that emotional drive, may play a significant part in making the decision to quit paying tithing. And so when I talk about "lifestyle factors," I'm talking about inconveniences, and sacrafices that just start wearing on your soul when you just can't "catch the vision" as Kimball says. And intellectual doubts, can play a very big role in whether or not one is able to "catch the vision." Mormons often like to think that the intellectual doubts etc., come as a result of sin or other problems. Well certainly, someone who just doesn't fit in, maybe he's gay or something, is likely going to have far less of those cultural forces keeping him from having serious intellectual doubts. I might add, that an abused child can grow up and have justified intellectual opinions about abuse, even though absent his experiences, he might have not ever come to those opinions.

I don't think for most of us apostates, the "demands" of the church were just too much for our weak, and self-centered persons to handle. Tithing, church, temple attendence, with the exception of missionary work, it's all relatively easy to do. The church for the most part fits in with a Babylonian lifestyle quite well. But these little oddities and sacrafices really start to seem insurmountable when you begin realizing that they are in fact, a waste of time and resources. When you start to have intellectual doubts, that these things serve a greater end, they become very difficult to do. It's that mental frustration, that begins to trigger the emotional responses. I think for most of us, the emotional reasons due to lack of character are far less important then emotional reasons due to lack of vision.

[Calm]

Emotions were involved with my desire to stay. Intellect was involved when I made the choice to leave.

If this is truely so, then I suggest that you immediately see a psychologist as you most likely have a severe neurosis.

Oops. I may be wrong. Wish I could remember the name. It's probably a psychosis though now that I think about it.

[Dr. Shades]

If this is truely so, then I suggest that you immediately see a psychologist as you most likely have a severe neurosis.

Oops. I may be wrong. Wish I could remember the name. It's probably a psychosis though now that I think about it.

Cal, did you read my post stamped Feb 9 2005, 04:08 PM, five posts above this one? It updates and clarifies that to which you're responding. If you read it, you'll probably agree that no psychosis is involved.

[pseudogratix]

did you read my post stamped Feb 9 2005, 04:08 PM, five posts above this one?

Sorry, but in my browser it appears stamped as "Feb 10 2005, 08:08 AM." You have obviously set your settings to the wrong time zone. BTW, you can get the link to a specific post by clicking on the Posted link of the post in question.

[Samwise]

This was a very interesting thread to read. Thanks to everyone who contributed. I don't have anything earth shattering to add, but I'll go ahead and throw in my 2 cents anyway.

In my case, I lost my testimony and became a "closet doubter" after coming to the conclusion that some of the historical claims of the Church were likely not true. Prior to that, I was a pretty faithful, worthy (not perfect) member (nothing unique here, you've all heard this before). I've anaylized the before, during, and after timeframes of my loss of faith a number of times and reached some interesting conclusions (well, interesting to me at least).

Before losing my faith, I had had questions/doubts about some doctrine (fairly small stuff). I always took the stance that it wasn't important, and I would understand someday. Never once did those concerns cause me to think, "The Church must not be true."

Before losing my faith, I had been offended a couple of times by Church members/leaders (who hasn't been?). I always took the stance that the Church is perfect even if the members aren't. Never once did those experiences cause me to think, "The Church must not be true."

It wasn't until a non-member friend asked me some questions about polygamy, particularly about J. Smith marrying young girls and other men's wives that I began to look into the historical claims of the Church. I know I haven't done as much study as most of you here, but I've done enough to be satisfied in my mind that there are some flaws in the Church's foundational claims that I just can't reconcile. So, I would say that my reasons for becoming a "closet doubter" are primarily intellectual.

So to summarize:

-Didn't lose my testimony due to past sin or desire to committ future sin (you'll just have to trust me on this although from what some of you have written, I know you won't. Oh well).

-Didn't lose my testimony because I was already on the high road to apostasy due to not accepting Church doctrine.

-Didn't lose my testimony because Bishop X looked at me cross-eyed one day in Church.

-Didn't lose my testimony because I felt being a member was "too hard', "too time-consuming", or "too expensive".

I truly do not consider my views superior to those of believing members. I freely admit that I could be wrong, but I highly doubt that I'll ever *know* whether I'm wrong or not. The only conclusion that I've come to so far that I've been comfortable with, is that I don't know ANYTHING about God. I am very interested in trying to understand how so many members, when presented with the exact same information, are able to retain their testimonies. Finally, I truly appreciate the fact that there are believing members, like Kevin, who seem to "get it" in regards to loss of faith (i.e. it is possible for someone to leave the Church for intellectual reasons).

[Ray Agostini]

So to summarize:

    -Didn't lose my testimony due to past sin or desire to committ future sin (you'll just have to trust me on this although from what some of you have written, I know you won't.  Oh well).

   

I'm not referring to anyone in particular, but it seems we have some pretty righteous exmos here, at least when they were Mormons. Or maybe they don't understand the definition of sin. So let me ask some questions, and you can each answer to yourselves. If you want to venture a written answer that's fine, but for that you take responsibility.

In your time as a member (even if you still are), have you ever:

1) Had feelings of hate?

2) Hurt someone?

3) Masturbated?

4) Looked at porn, especially on the net, even if momentarily?

5) Had feelings of lust?

So what do you mean that you had no desire to sin, or to leave the church because you wanted to sin? You were sinless?

If you're talking about "more obvious" sins, like the word of wisdom, well I'm right there with you, because I never opened my first bottle of alcohol until two or three months after I left the church. I paid tithing until the day I left. I went to church every Sunday. I qualified for a temple recommend about six months before I left. Go through every question in the temple worthiness interview and I passed. But I was not sinless. I candidly admit that I went through cycles of addition to porn. Now if you've never glanced at porn, and never masturbated, in all your time in the church, then you're a rare breed. I know such people do exist among males, but they are rare. By making the admissions you do, that you "had no desire to sin", just about puts you up there with Nephi, and even he admitted that he had weaknesses, probably more to do with anger with his brothers, though.

So exmos, particularly male exmos, you who have said that you "did not sin", nor leave because you "wanted to sin", can you clarify for me? You were so righteous, but when you learned...(add whatever bugbear caused you to lose your belief)...you suddenly decided that nope, I can't handle this anymore! 10, 20, 30 years of sinlessness now has to be done with. Okay, you STILL don't sin?

Did leaving the church change your desire to NOT sin? Do you sin now? Do you enjoy it?

Please exmos, I need some clarification. Thanks.

[King Folly]

So exmos, particularly male exmos, you who have said that you "did not sin", nor leave because you "wanted to sin", can you clarify for me? You were so righteous, but when you learned...(add whatever bugbear caused you to lose your belief)...you suddenly decided that nope, I can't handle this anymore! 10, 20, 30 years of sinlessness now has to be done with. Okay, you STILL don't sin?

Ray, you seem to feel that those who have concluded that the foundational claims of Mormonism are false have also claimed that they lived perfect lives. I don't think anyone is claiming that. I can only speak for myself, but what I'm saying is that my interpretation of the data was not driven by wanting an excuse to sin.

You also seem to imply that someone must continue to live Mormon-specific commandments (ie. the Word of Wisdom) even after concluding that Mormon-specific doctrine is uninspired. Once I concluded that the faithful version of Mormon History was fundamentally inaccurate, I no longer considered drinking coffee to be a sin. No, I haven't yet actually drunk coffee but I no longer consider it to be a sin. I believe that if there is a God, he or she really doesn't care about something so ridiculously trivial as that.

On issues of more importance, my views have not fundamentally changed. I still believe that it's important to be a good husband and father--but my definition of "good" no longer includes being gone two or three nights a week to participate in religious organizational meetings and programs.

--KY

[Ray Agostini]

Ray, you seem to feel that those who have concluded that the foundational claims of Mormonism are false have also claimed that they lived perfect lives. I don't think anyone is claiming that. I can only speak for myself, but what I'm saying is that my interpretation of the data was not driven by wanting an excuse to sin.

No KF, I don't think they have claimed to live perfect lives at all, but many of them are writing, as I said, as if they do not understand the definition of sin. So I want some more clarification from those people as to what they mean. You've given yours:

On issues of more importance, my views have not fundamentally changed. I still believe that it's important to be a good husband and father--but my definition of "good" no longer includes being gone two or three nights a week to participate in religious organizational meetings and programs.

That's fine. The next question in my mind would be, and you don't have to answer, is how much did those "two or three nights a week" contribute to your burnout, or your tiredness with the church, or your loss of testimony, or your just plain weariness with the "gospel lifestyle"? I reiterate, you don't have to answer, but I will for my part: Church burnout contributed significantly to my leaving. I was utterly burntout with the church lifestyle. I felt like I was in an army. I got burnt out about 1985, and how I hung on for two more years still mystifies me.

BUT, I will not use that to justify myself, nor will I use burnout as a reason to fault the doctrines of the church. I also understand we can keep the two subjects separate, but here is my admission (and for you and others it may not apply), that church burnout, compounded by the problems I saw in LDS history and doctrine, significantly aided my leaving. It pushed me over the edge. If I had, contrarily, loved the church lifestyle and felt emotionally satisfied, I would not have left, no matter how big the problems. That's the point I'm trying to get through, and that is why I'm asking these questions, and asking that if people do respond that they do so as honestly as they can. That's why when people say to me "I really didn't want to leave", I think in 99 percent of cases they're blowing sunshine up my rear.

Anyone remember Bob McCue? Well if you read Bob's writings carefully you'll see clearly, very clearly see that he was burnt out with the church, thanks for this information to all his posts on RFM and here. He was just tired of all the meetings and the Mormon lifestyle in general. He wanted a break, to be FREE! That's fine too, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is when people come on like they're some kind of objective doyens of truth who were suddenly jolted back to reality after seeing the "fraud" that Mormonism is. My contention is that this is just a paradigm change, and one brought about largely by unconscious motives and feelings, including weariness. Ever heard about "endure to the end"? If we really examine how much our emotions and feelings influence us I think we will ALL be very surprised.

Once again, this is not to say there are no problems, of course there are. And a large part of my posts are devoted to trying to understand and find solutions to those problems. But when I see an exmo or anti-Mormons coming on like an army of militants filled with hate for Mormonism, and making comparisons of Mormonism and Nazism, or Joseph Smith and Koresh and Jones, I see unbalanced people filled with irrational hatred. Their contribution to debate is unproductive, because they are like the "true believer" defined by Hoffer, whose cause is fuelled more by a need to "mould the world in his image" more than to seek truth.

[maxrep12]

My wife recently told her "semi" valiant sister that I no longer had faith in the church.

"Does he have a word of wisdom problem"? she asked.

The idea that sin is the driving force behind apostacy, has permeated the body of the church. It is the silver lining in seeing another leave the church.

Did not Joseph state that apostates were adulterers?

If I am going to carry the burden of these labels, give me a plug of tobacco. Find me a woman to adulterize with.

[Teancum]

I think many things can contribute to one leaving.

Burnout, Sin, offense, apathy, intellectual challneges, issues, disbelief.

It is different for each person.

It is wrong to assume that anyone who leaves does so becaues of some gross sin or because they want to sin, though some do leave because of this.

But really, if the Church is true is not disbelief of it and abandonment of it in and of itself a sin?

Teancum

[King Folly]

That's fine. The next question in my mind would be, and you don't have to answer, is how much did those "two or three nights a week" contribute to your burnout, or your tiredness with the church, or your loss of testimony, or your just plain weariness with the "gospel lifestyle"?

I can certainly understand how some people feel burned out. I personally did not feel burned out. I live in a ward where I was never asked to take on more than one calling at a time (i.e I was an early-morning seminary teacher during a different period of time than when I was EQP). I can honestly say that enjoyed both of those callings and my other "PEC" callings although I did feel a "spiritual weight of responsibility" at times (I'm only half kidding when I opine that any EQP who says he doesn't ever feel overwhelmed isn't magnifying his calling).

When I believed the foundational claims of the church, those sacrifices were worth it and I felt that family would be spiritually "compensated" for my absence. But obviously such compensation is inexorably linked to the historical claims of the church actually being true. BTW, I did NOT have a "burnout" calling at the time I learned that the 1832 edition of the Book of Commandments made no mention whatsoever of priesthood restoration via angelic ordination, so I did not (not consciously at least) become troubled by that realization due to a sense of burnout. That other, perhaps smarter, people are not similarly troubled by this does not make them any more or less rational, IMO.

I fully acknowledge that there is a possibility (however slight it might seem from my point of view) that am totally wrong in my conclusions about Mormon origins and I may be totally wrong about reasons for disbelieving. However, I also believe that if I adhere to the moral values I hold to be true and find out upon my death that I was wrong about church's historical claims, God will still put me in a place where I will be the happiest. But I might be wrong.

Incidentally, I now believe that the widely held inability to say "I might be wrong" when expressing religious beliefs within Mormonism is in fact a very compelling indicator that its faithful history might indeed be wrong.

--KY

[Truth]

There is no legitimate reason.

[King Folly]

But really, if the Church is true is not disbelief of it and abandonment of it in and of itself a sin?

Sure. In a perfect world where the evidence of the church's historical claims is obvious and compelling then yes. However, as Dr. Peterson said in an earlier thread (and it is to date the best one-liner I've read on this forum) "mortality is complicated."

--KY

[maxrep12]

Incidentally, I now believe that the widely held inability to say "I might be wrong" when expressing religious beliefs within Mormonism is in fact a very compelling indicator that its faithful history might indeed be wrong.

--KY

Thanks for your comments,KF.

Recently, I have been pondering how faith and sure knowledge are viewed in the church. The statement, " I know this church is true" seems to circumvent faith itself. I know what is meant by "a sure knowledge". Unless there have been an innordinate number of second annointings in recent history, members are not being accurate or honest with these statements of knowledge.

How did the body of the church move from "believing"or having "faith" in the precepts of the gospel to a level of knowledge reserved for prophets and sons of perdition?

I personally testified to "Know" things in the church.

[John Russell]

Incidentally, I now believe that the widely held inability to say "I might be wrong" when expressing religious beliefs within Mormonism is in fact a very compelling indicator that its faithful history might indeed be wrong.

--KY

Thanks for your comments,KF.

Recently, I have been pondering how faith and sure knowledge are viewed in the church. The statement, " I know this church is true" seems to circumvent faith itself. I know what is meant by "a sure knowledge". Unless there have been an innordinate number of second annointings in recent history, members are not being accurate or honest with these statements of knowledge.

How did the body of the church move from "believing"or having "faith" in the precepts of the gospel to a level of knowledge reserved for prophets and sons of perdition?

I personally testified to "Know" things in the church.

Can you have a sure knowledge that you love someone?

[King Folly]

Can you have a sure knowledge that you love someone?

I don't believe I can state with sure knowledge that any other person I come in contact is actually a sentient being (a la The Matrix). I'm pretty darn sure of it and I would, in fact, bet my life on it. But I could be wrong.

I'm pretty darn sure I love my wife in the sense that I believe that my actions toward her are conscious and have unselfish motives. But I can't say that I have a sure knowledge of it. That doesn't make it any less real to me, however.

--KY

[Tchild2]

There is no legitimate reason.

To believe in Mormonism? To follow religion? To believe that an old guy in Salt Lake speaks on God's behalf? Which is it?

[John Russell]

Can you have a sure knowledge that you love someone?

I don't believe I can state with sure knowledge that any other person I come in contact is actually a sentient being (a la The Matrix). I'm pretty darn sure of it and I would, in fact, bet my life on it. But I could be wrong.

I'm pretty darn sure I love my wife in the sense that I believe that my actions toward her are conscious and have unselfish motives. But I can't say that I have a sure knowledge of it. That doesn't make it any less real to me, however.

--KY

If you wish to push over fully into nihilism, none of us exist anyway. Ultimately we rely on our neurotransmission pathways to know anything of the physical world, and I have no guarantee that mine aren't flawed to the point that I have made all of you up.

Do you feel that the reality of those feelings you have for your wife are qualitatively less than those neurological impulses you experience from light or sound? I guess my question is -- What constitutes a sure knowledge? I don't necessarily have the answer, but it is an interesting question to me. The experience of love is not a perfect type for spiritual knowledge, but it provides a starting point, as an intangible drive that encourages us to accept and do certain things.

[Samwise]

I'm not referring to anyone in particular, but it seems we have some pretty righteous exmos here, at least when they were Mormons. Or maybe they don't understand the definition of sin. So let me ask some questions, and you can each answer to yourselves. If you want to venture a written answer that's fine, but for that you take responsibility.

In your time as a member (even if you still are), have you ever:

1) Had feelings of hate?

2) Hurt someone?

3) Masturbated?

4) Looked at porn, especially on the net, even if momentarily?

5) Had feelings of lust?

So what do you mean that you had no desire to sin, or to leave the church because you wanted to sin? You were sinless?

I should have definitely been more clear in my original post. I apologize for coming across as having been "perfect" or "near perfect"--I didn't mean it that way.

By saying that I "didn't lose my testimony due to past sin or desire to commit future sin", I was referring to those sins that would keep me from obtaining a temple recommend (i.e. WoW, sexual, abuse, etc...). I'll even add to that masturbation and porn. To the former, I can unequivocally say that I never have done that. A brother-in-law of mine called me a liar when I told him that, I guess because he had such a problem with it as a teenager that he can't even comprehend how someone wouldn't. To me, it's kind of like drinking, if you've never tried it, you don't know what you're missing. As for porn, yes of course I've seen porn. In high school, I had a friend who got ahold of a Playboy on a couple of occasions. It was "exciting" to look at, but I felt horrible and told my Bishop and haven't ever looked at one since. Also, on occasion I've watched an R-rated movie that had a scene or two in it that could be considered porn. Whew, I feel so much better confessing all this .

So exmos, particularly male exmos, you who have said that you "did not sin", nor leave because you "wanted to sin", can you clarify for me? You were so righteous, but when you learned...(add whatever bugbear caused you to lose your belief)...you suddenly decided that nope, I can't handle this anymore! 10, 20, 30 years of sinlessness now has to be done with. Okay, you STILL don't sin?

Did leaving the church change your desire to NOT sin? Do you sin now? Do you enjoy it?

Please exmos, I need some clarification. Thanks.

The only questions I would have trouble answering with complete honesty in a TR interview would be those dealing with testimony. Also, once I decided the Church probably isn't all it claims, I adjusted my definition of tithing to be something less than 10% of gross income (that was my previous definition). This last year, my wife, who is still a believing member, was finally on board with the amount of tithing we paid because I didn't calculate it on our "gross" but rather on more of an "adjusted net". She always felt we overpaid, but went along with it to make me happy .

Other than that, I'm basically the same person:

--Do I have lustful feelings? Absolutely. But I have no desire to act on those by committing adultery.

--Do I have feelings of anger. Of course. I can do and say some mean things at times.

--Do I unfairly judge people. Guilty as charged. Although this is something I'm really trying to work on.

On the other hand:

--Do I want to pick up a nasty habit like smoking now that I no longer believe in the Church? Absolutely not. What about drinking? Again, I've gone 30-some-odd years without ever having even tasted alchohol, so why in the world would I start drinking now? Same goes with drugs.

--Do I feel that I can now treat people like dirt and lie and cheat because I'm not bound by the moral codes of the Church. Not at all. I'm still trying to be an honest, kind, decent person. Do I fall short? Of course I do.

The moral principles that the Church espouses work well for me and I'm comfortable living them, so why change?

I'll add something else, that I didn't include in my first post. One of the things I was "guilty" of for several years prior to my "falling away" was a somewhat lax attitude regarding scripture study and prayer. I was very on again/off again. Also, Church attendance was starting to become less and less spiritually uplifting. I attributed it to the fact that I needed to do a better job with the basics such as prayer, scriptures, and temple attendance. A believer might say that I was starting to lose the Spirit, because I wasn't seeking after it enough. Maybe at the time, I wasn't spiritually strong enough to read disturbing things about the Church and remain strong. Maybe if I had heard about these things on my mission or shortly afterward, I would have been able to keep my faith. Who knows, these are all questions that don't have any easy answers.

[Truth]

There is no legitimate reason.

To believe in Mormonism? To follow religion? To believe that an old guy in Salt Lake speaks on God's behalf? Which is it?

Simply an answer to the question in the thread title, there is no legitimate reason to leave. I have heard many, have not heard a legitimate one.

[King Folly]

I guess my question is -- What constitutes a sure knowledge?  I don't necessarily have the answer, but it is an interesting question to me.  The experience of love is not a perfect type for spiritual knowledge, but it provides a starting point, as an intangible drive that encourages us to accept and do certain things.

I agree, John. The concept of what constitutes sure knowledge is of interest to me, too. I believe I've had several experiences that seem to very closely match the experiences of other people have interpreted those experiences as confirmations from God that the church is true (and therefore they claim to have a sure knowledge of it). I interpret these experiences quite differently, perhaps in part because my definition of sure knowledge is different.