Musings and Thoughts from My Meeting with Members of the Ex-Mormon Community

[california boy]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

False, fundamentalist, authoritarian garbage

See above

Your reasoning is ridiculous.  You give two alternatives in the first and second sentence including the possibility that all will have an opportunity to embrace the gospel in the next life, then you remove that possibility with no reason for doing so in the rest of the post

It is hateful nonsense.

I agree.  If the plan of happiness is designed to make one completely unhappy.  Then it really is not a plan of happiness at all is it.

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well then my fate was sealed the day I realized I was gay.  I trusted church leaders more than the whisperings of the Spirit when they told  me that if I would only marry a woman, then I would loose my desire to be with a man.  It brought nothing but heartache and emptiness.  The contrast between that time of my life and the peace within my soul now tells me a different story.

I sometimes envision walking up to the gates of heaven.  There in front are Mormons with their neon signs just like during the Prop 8 days.  Written in big leaders are "NO GAYS IN HEAVEN".  Only to find out that God's love is bigger than dogma.  Who knows.  Maybe there will be a city in heaven with a big wall around it and only Mormons and those that would have been Mormon if only given the chance in mortality are allowed in.  But for me, the gay ghetto will be much more fabulous no matter where I find it.  I believe we can all create our own little bit of heaven no matter where we are.  So if this Mormon Celestial Kingdom is walled off from the rest of us, then what does it really matter.  I have found happiness outside the Mormon church in this life.  I will find happiness outside the walled kingdom of Mormonism in the next life as well.

Great!

Then why are you still here if any of that is true?  Was that your way of saying you are leaving the board?

 

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

I agree.  If the plan of happiness is designed to make one completely unhappy.  Then it really is not a plan of happiness at all is it.

So you agree that your post is contradictory?

You are a very confusing person.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Great!

Then why are you still here if any of that is true?  Was that your way of saying you are leaving the board?

 

Why would I leave the board?  Do you think I am on the board so that I can find a place in the celestial kingdom?  The source of my happiness is not from this board.  I enjoy hearing other peoples views on various subjects.  Why are you on the board?  

Edited March 9, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So you agree that your post is contradictory?

You are a very confusing person.

Whether I was born into the Mormon church or another church, I would still be gay.  And in either case, I would not have joined the Mormon church.  So according to Carbon, I was never really expected to return to God since he stated that only members of the church or those of other religions that would have joined the church will have a place in his special kingdom.

Over the years, the one thing that I have come to understand is that Mormons firmly believe there will be no gays in the celestial kingdom.  The only way for a gay person to sneak in is to become straight and want to marry someone of the opposite sex for eternity.  I already tried that route.  Nope.  Didn't work.  I am still gay.

[notHagoth7]

On 3/6/2017 at 10:17 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

...So should [*I*] go after the 1 or stay with the 99? 

Yes. And at times yes.

Edited March 9, 2017 by notHagoth7

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I believe we can all create our own little bit of heaven no matter where we are.

Why call it a little bit of heaven? Why not just call it heaven?

I believe everyone who lives or will live in heaven has or will have their own version or understanding of what true "happiness" is.  And that not everybody in heaven will be in agreement about that while everyone will still be happy that they are still happy, as they understand happiness.

I truly believe that.

Which is why I'll be okay if your understanding or version of happiness is and will always be different than mine.

I could say that to me your understanding of happiness is not what I understand true happiness to be, but I don't think that would matter much to you if it was still your understanding of happiness anyway.  I would just hope that there never would come a point where you thought that you were really not happy with there being nothing you could do to be happy.

[california boy]

44 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Why call it a little bit of heaven? Why not just call it heaven?

I believe everyone who lives or will live in heaven has or will have their own version or understanding of what true "happiness" is.  And that not everybody in heaven will be in agreement about that while everyone will still be happy that they are still happy, as they understand happiness.

I truly believe that.

Which is why I'll be okay if your understanding or version of happiness is and will always be different than mine.

I could say that to me your understanding of happiness is not what I understand true happiness to be, but I don't think that would matter much to you if it was still your understanding of happiness anyway.  I would just hope that there never would come a point where you thought that you were really not happy with there being nothing you could do to be happy.

I totally agree.  People define happiness in many ways here on earth.  Why would everyone be expected to conform to some definition of happiness in the next life.  We know so little about what the next life will be like, it seems futile to speculate who gets in and who doesn't when we can't even define what getting in means.  What does it even mean to be with God?  Will he be a neighbor? Someone we occasionally see at parties? Hear talk at big conferences?  Who knows.  It is hard to get all worked up about it when we know so little.

[Ahab]

I think we know a lot or that at least we have been told a lot that is true.  But yes there is still a lot more for us to learn.

[notHagoth7]

On 3/6/2017 at 10:17 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

...Should they even risk the attempt? Are these former believers even worth the effort it would take to attempt such a massive task?

Certainly. (And they repeatedly do.)

Of course.

[california boy]

21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think we know a lot or that at least we have been told a lot that is true.  But yes there is still a lot more for us to learn.

I am interested in hearing you think you know about the Celestial Kingdom.  

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am interested in hearing you think you know about the Celestial Kingdom.  

I know about it, yes, just not everything about it.

And I look forward to living in it, again, someday.

[Guest]

18 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

There are plenty of ex-Catholic support groups, nasty forums, protests, whining, lists of famous Catholics who have left the Faith, etc.  Just google "former catholic support groups"

 

Well Catholics are a very structured faith, as is our own. Maybe it is the structure that some miss, but to return to the OP, do these groups seek lawyers to have their names removed from the Church? If I left the Church, I would just leave, I would be welcoming to visitors, as in is not in my nature or upbringing to do otherwise. It is not uncommon for Baptist members who are out doing visiting and seeking to welcome people to Church. I am always polite, even when they are not after hearing that I am LDS, a trait I learned from my Baptist Minister father, and my mother who was the most charitable woman I (or the world) may have ever known. Not to mention how wife would make me pray for being rude...her grandfather was also a Baptist Minister. 

The last time two showed up at our door, I spent two hours speaking to them, even though one was trying be combative, the other had family who was LDS, his uncle was a Bishop and was very kind. They wanted to know if they could pray before leaving, so I asked one who was less charitable, after the prayer, he apologized. Time is just too short to go to meetings to lament having left a Church, doing so means that they (that Church) still have hold over their lives...it is freedom they seek, then be free. I certainly know of the many websites that viciously attack Mormonism and other Faiths...few are more vicious than some of the ex-mo's. Some cites who have anti-forums, have a lot of traffic, but if you check the number of posts, Mormonism Forums tops them all. But whatever drives the need to remain a constant victim escapes me. 

One person spoke of why some need help dealing with an a Church that they gave their whole lives to, I have been a member for 38 years. The organization I have given my life to is my family, the Church I have just attended and performed my callings. 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Whether I was born into the Mormon church or another church, I would still be gay.  And in either case, I would not have joined the Mormon church.  So according to Carbon, I was never really expected to return to God since he stated that only members of the church or those of other religions that would have joined the church will have a place in his special kingdom.

Over the years, the one thing that I have come to understand is that Mormons firmly believe there will be no gays in the celestial kingdom.  The only way for a gay person to sneak in is to become straight and want to marry someone of the opposite sex for eternity.  I already tried that route.  Nope.  Didn't work.  I am still gay.

Were I gay, I would not view it that way. That comment, as usual does not address the issue I raised.

Whatever.  Create your own doctrine and become your own prophet and stop worrying about what some Mormons think.  I am not a classic Mormon- but I would never leave the church- what matters to me is MY understanding of the doctrine.

You drive me nuts not because you are gay but because your posts do not seem to present a coherent world view to me.  I never know where you are coming from.  One minute you are highly critical of the church and the next you are saying how much you want your kids to be Mormon and how horrible it is that they could not be baptized.

To me it is a mass of confusion to coin a phrase.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

Yes. And at times yes.

What is nice is the reality that the 99 are to be shepherds once they are gathered in, so it is not leaving the 99, but the 99 going after the 1.  You need have to leave the 99 behind.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Were I gay, I would not view it that way. That comment, as usual does not address the issue I raised.

Whatever.  Create your own doctrine and become your own prophet and stop worrying about what some Mormons think.  I am not a classic Mormon- but I would never leave the church- what matters to me is MY understanding of the doctrine.

You drive me nuts not because you are gay but because your posts do not seem to present a coherent world view to me.  I never know where you are coming from.  One minute you are highly critical of the church and the next you are saying how much you want your kids to be Mormon and how horrible it is that they could not be baptized.

To me it is a mass of confusion to coin a phrase.

We do have very different world views.  I think Mormons have a core of truth when they are teaching the same principles that Christ taught.  It is that core that I find enriching for my children and for many others that find a strong supportive community with the church.  I loved serving a mission.  I think it is an outstanding program for young people to have.  I loved teaching seminary every morning and the knowledge of the scriptures that gave me.  I loved the opportunity to give service to others though various callings.  I loved being a teachers quorum advisor and helping young men cross that bridge from youth to adulthood.  Didn't like bishopric and high counsel callings as much.  They are mostly about how many meetings you can attend in a week.  Don't you see how enriching all of those activities can be, even to someone who is gay?  

I just don't believe in a lot of the policies and dogma that church leaders seem to have made up on their own. In particular I find the policies towards gays to be decisive, against the  kind of inclusiveness that I feel Christ taught, and quite harmful for gay members specifically and gays in general. My children aren't gay.  So those policies against gays don't effect their lives any more than they do yours.  

I have found ways to serve others outside the structure of the church.  Me and my boyfriend spend a significant part of each week working with the elderly.  They are grateful for our talents and willingness to share.  We are grateful for all the lessons these senior citizens give back to us.  I also do programs for the city in other areas.  You don't need the structure of the church to minister to others.  

I am not worried about Mormon doctrine.  That is not why I am on this board.  I have always enjoyed the views on life that are different than mine.  This form gives me that opportunity.  Maybe you will never be able to understand how I can still have much to admire about the church without wanting to be a part of it.  I guess not everything is as black and white as you seem to think I need it to be.

[carbon dioxide]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Well then my fate was sealed the day I realized I was gay.

No,  As long as you still have choices, your fate is not sealed.  Being gay may not be a choice but what one does with that is a choice.  Just as being a heterosexual may not be a choice for me but what I choose to do with it is a choice.  A person only seals their fate when the decide they will not repent but even then that is not completely true as they may repent of their attitude of not wanting to repent and then actually repent.  I don't know what will happen to you and can not know because I don't know your future or the decisions you will make.  We can not judge individuals but only actions or speak in general terms.  I can say unrepentant adulterers will be damned but I can't say person X who is an adulterer will be damned because they may repent and change. 

[carbon dioxide]

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Here you seem to reverse your previous position.   If I have judged your position incorrectly, I apologize, but this post seems to contradict your previous post.  I am confused

No worries.  In one post I was speaking in relation to apostates.  The other was in relation to a different situation not related to apostates.

[BlueDreams]

On 3/8/2017 at 8:45 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

I really enjoyed reading your post.  thanks for taking the time to post it.  I think you made some very important and valid points...and although it doesn't do what you wrote justice to distill it down to a summation in my words I'm going to do that anyway, so please forgive me...but what I hear after all is said and done is that you choose to have faith  and also that you feel a need to maintain belief .  This that a fair assessment?

I know with my wife, who remains a believer, she has told me on many occasions when we discuss the disparity in our belief paradigms...that despite it all...she chooses to believe and in choosing she has found happiness in the gospel, she serves in an important stake calling, she attends her meeting religiously, she keeps the commandments etc...so I get that...she's a true saint by any definition.   And for me its not that I don't choose to believe...my mind is much more analytical and logical than how I perceive my wives mind to work...for me its not that I wouldn't want to believe...its that for me to believe it has to add up and make sense...the various puzzle pieces need to fit...and for me they don't.  So were I to choose to believe I would be ignoring reality to do so...it would be a false belief and I would be living a lie...so its not really a choice I can honestly make.

Somewhat. I'm a natural skeptic and things often have to make sense before I'm willing to do it (that includes church). And then there's my intense curiosity and my tendency to look for exceptions to every rule. So I don't know if my brain works necessarily like your wife on this. In some ways it's these same traits that feed my skepticism on relying too heavily on things like logic, analyzing, and our general sense of understanding and knowledge based on what we can see in front of us. I've watched enough people before me to know that what they see isn't necessarily truth but perception....that it's impossible to escape our humanity. Need and choice are definitely major themes....but it's also something more. Let me try to explain a little further. I feel that I resonate a lot with a part in Lehi's dream:  "And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not." I've heard several people and concerns critical to faith dynamics in one way or another. For example: When I've heard things like "No one can know there is a God" or the kid who overheard me tell someone how I changed so much in a couple years and snorted when I said "God." It doesn't exactly bother me. It's more like I shrug and say, whatever I know what I know. And I know God. You can debate over what knowing an unseen being means. I've moved past that.

I also think of another assumption that entails something about religion as somewhat as a crutch. Which, I know is not what you've said here, but want to clarify anyways. Need is not as much crutch as conduit to experiences and being that can't be reached another way. So it's like asking me, as a painter, to give up my favorite color (blue, surprise! ). Why in the world would I do it? It feels like a deficit and just in the room I'm currently sitting in I would have to repaint or give up 5 out of 8 paintings....it wouldn't look the same. So I make sure I keep blue paint in the house and invest in blue things. Likewise it is with God/my religion. It's not simply choosing, It's like giving up the part of me that has given a value and depth to my being that has no exact equivalent. I've gone to 4 therapists in my lifetime, I love nature, I have multiple passions, I have several wonderful friendships, and I have a rewarding job that I'm passionate about. None of them reach the intrinsic touch of God though several of them I have felt God in. These are the equivalents that I somewhat see when people who aren't really into God or can't believe point to as their fulfillment or spiritual-equivalents. For me, it's like pointing to green and saying, hey I have blue in my life mixed in this yellow stuff. Sure, there's blue and it's good, but it's not the full experience. It's not the totality of what can be. Some of my most profound experiences are wrapped up in a religious, God-oriented context. It changes how I've interacted with others and how I interact with myself, human emotions/experience, and the world around me. Yes, I choose faith and need God....but it's more. 

Quote

With respect to the black and white thinking...again I believe this is true for many but not everyone.  Some people do have the capacity to form a nuanced belief system...and I believe that others find this difficult to do.  Again as to myself, I'm capable of adding nuance into a belief paradigm...for example I could easily brush off teachings of a universal flood or even a literal earth timeline.  I do however find it difficult to blend the reality of our human evolution into an Adam and Even garden narrative, or to view the BoM as anything but an 19th century work of fiction...so I guess I personally fall somewhere in the middle with the B&W thinking.

Funny thing, the genesis account and evolution was probably the easiest thing for me to work with. To each our own. B&W thinking doesn't just have to go with facts but with interactions with church and people. A common one I see with this specific topic is black and white thinking about the character of people/leaders. Both currently living and long dead. More rigid expectations lead to more disappointment or assumptions about their character and can also lead to generalization about the overall church. Of course this has a lot to do with my focus, which is how people related with each other. So obviously, I'd probably notice it more in people contexts than doctrinal ones. But that happens here as well, which is why I think you can see disaffection from both ends: ones who are more secular leaning or less certain of god/religious constructs and ones who become rigid as to how religion/god/doctrine should be. With how religions should be you can get those either more conservative and fundamentalist oriented or more liberal and progressive. Neither is necessarily bad, but how rigid and absolutist they are about how things should be is the problem. When things don't go the way they see it should it can again shake them more so than it might have. 

But, again, black and white thinking isn't the only thing that can facilitate a faith crisis. Just a common trend I've noticed. There's others that happen. One that I find particularly sad are ones that have to do with partners, parents, siblings, etc who have done sinful/wrong things or abused them in one manner or another (in my line of work, that's often sexually). When it's a partner, distancing from church can sometimes be a way to try and make what's happening at home less bad....or to blame church teachings as a way to reduce tensions in their marriage. Needless to say it doesn't exactly work. Sometimes these people come to represent what the church expects or can be triggering to them because it reminds them in one way or another of their perceived deficits because of their toxic home life. I've had that happen most recently to someone who's partner was mentally sick, had perfectionist bends that often ran hypocritical, and used religion as a point of guilting the other into what they wanted or to punish/shame the other when they didn't (among other things). The person's faith about the church is in tatters, particularly since their experience with the church outside that marriage was brief. It's disgusting to me and luckily not super common. But enough for me to have seen it at least 3-5 times in the last 2 years. And again, I wish the church could do something for these, but the level of interaction that members/leaders could even have was often very dependent on the person. If I thought about it I could probably think of other trends, but my brain is mostly shutting down for the night. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited March 10, 2017 by BlueDreams

[california boy]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

No,  As long as you still have choices, your fate is not sealed.  Being gay may not be a choice but what one does with that is a choice.  Just as being a heterosexual may not be a choice for me but what I choose to do with it is a choice.  A person only seals their fate when the decide they will not repent but even then that is not completely true as they may repent of their attitude of not wanting to repent and then actually repent.  I don't know what will happen to you and can not know because I don't know your future or the decisions you will make.  We can not judge individuals but only actions or speak in general terms.  I can say unrepentant adulterers will be damned but I can't say person X who is an adulterer will be damned because they may repent and change. 

Well first you have to believe that you have something to repent of.  While I have much to repent of, loving my boyfriend is not one of those things.  I feel no guilt for loving him.  I feel no condemnation from God for loving him.  And I feel no power Mormon dogma has towards gays and upon me.  Sorry to disappoint you, but I only feel peace and love.  I could not love a God that would rip him from my arms.  So your judgement of what happens to gays  may be sure for you.  Loving someone and caring for them feels just as sure to me.  One day, we will see which God we worship.  

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Well Catholics are a very structured faith, as is our own. Maybe it is the structure that some miss, but to return to the OP, do these groups seek lawyers to have their names removed from the Church? If I left the Church, I would just leave, I would be welcoming to visitors, as in is not in my nature or upbringing to do otherwise. It is not uncommon for Baptist members who are out doing visiting and seeking to welcome people to Church. I am always polite, even when they are not after hearing that I am LDS, a trait I learned from my Baptist Minister father, and my mother who was the most charitable woman I (or the world) may have ever known. Not to mention how wife would make me pray for being rude...her grandfather was also a Baptist Minister. 

The last time two showed up at our door, I spent two hours speaking to them, even though one was trying be combative, the other had family who was LDS, his uncle was a Bishop and was very kind. They wanted to know if they could pray before leaving, so I asked one who was less charitable, after the prayer, he apologized. Time is just too short to go to meetings to lament having left a Church, doing so means that they (that Church) still have hold over their lives...it is freedom they seek, then be free. I certainly know of the many websites that viciously attack Mormonism and other Faiths...few are more vicious than some of the ex-mo's. Some cites who have anti-forums, have a lot of traffic, but if you check the number of posts, Mormonism Forums tops them all. But whatever drives the need to remain a constant victim escapes me. 

One person spoke of why some need help dealing with an a Church that they gave their whole lives to, I have been a member for 38 years. The organization I have given my life to is my family, the Church I have just attended and performed my callings. 

Just a note about what we give to the organisational Church:

When we raise children in the Church we are almost guaranteed to "give" them to the Church to some extent, by transmitting our own authority over them to Church leaders.

[rongo]

Summary of last night's meeting:

I met with the brother and his bishop last night for about three and a half hours. He and his wife have a five year-old daughter, and both come from active LDS families. He is part of a computer start-up company and does IT/computer science-type stuff. His sister and his best friend have left the Church (name removal) and are very bitter and angry at the Church. His best friend sent him a link to the CES letter four weeks ago, and he has read it (the 84 page one), FAIR's response to it, and he tried to read Runnel's 900 page response to FAIR, but he had enough of Runnels. He can't stand his tone, attitude, and manner. Notwithstanding his distaste for Runnels' manner, his exposure to the issues via Runnels is a major factor in his faith crisis. He has been doing a lot of reading and researching over the last four weeks, and although his faith currently is in crisis, he is not angry or bitter towards the Church at all. He describes himself as "95% out of the Church," but when I asked him what he meant by this, he does not mean name removal or trying to turn others against the Church. He describes himself as "98% agnostic/atheist" at this point, but acknowledges that this could change and that there is something that keeps him from going 100%. This is how he described himself at the beginning of the meeting.

He had a specific list of issues he wanted to talk about, broken into categories of relative "seriousness" for him. He struck "four or five" from the list based on FAIR's material (yay, FAIR! ) --- their explanations vis a vis Runnels were good enough to remove those issues from his shelf. His prepared list was helpful to me, because I always try to first take some soundings and see where people are at. A very analytical person, he had a list ready to go --- and already collated into degrees of difficulty for him. These are his characterizations:

Most serious: "Problems:" 1) First Vision accounts  2) Book of Abraham  3) Joseph Smith/Nauvoo polygamy (Utah/Brigham Young, et. al. polygamy is not an issue at all for him) 4) Feeling and discerning The Spirit (subjectivity, confirmation bias, auto-suggestion, etc.)

Mid-range seriousness: "Questions and concerns:" 1) Global Flood 2) Evolution 3) Cosmology (age of the earth, age of the universe, Big Bang, etc.)

Low-grade seriousness: "Misleading:" 1) Book of Mormon translation 2) Church membership 3) Moroni/Nephi  4) Church finances and transparency

I will post details about the discussion of the above later when I can (the quarter ends today, and grades are due. I need to get some final things graded and in the grade book). We were able to have an in-depth discussion to his satisfaction in the three and a half hours (not that all concerns were resolved, but he was satisfied and fulfilled by the discussion. It was a good experience, and good that it happened). Suffice it to say now that, when I asked him at the end, "So, where are you headed now?" he said that he was not going to be removing his name from the Church. At this point, he differentiates between the Church being "true" and being "good." The Church's fruit is good, according to him, and he will support his wife and daughter's Church attendance and participation, and his daughter's baptism when she turns eight. He, himself, plans on curtailing his Church attendance, attending much less regularly. He has had many in-depth discussions with his parents, his apostate sister, and his wife over the last four weeks, and his faithful family have tried their best to resolve his concerns, with varying degrees of success (mostly not). 

I'll give more details when I'm caught up!  

 

[Gray]

10 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

No,  As long as you still have choices, your fate is not sealed.  Being gay may not be a choice but what one does with that is a choice.  Just as being a heterosexual may not be a choice for me but what I choose to do with it is a choice.  A person only seals their fate when the decide they will not repent but even then that is not completely true as they may repent of their attitude of not wanting to repent and then actually repent.  I don't know what will happen to you and can not know because I don't know your future or the decisions you will make.  We can not judge individuals but only actions or speak in general terms.  I can say unrepentant adulterers will be damned but I can't say person X who is an adulterer will be damned because they may repent and change. 

The trouble is taking the church-prescribed route brings about very bad fruit for many gay people who try it. Conversely, many gay members who choose to leave and get married to a person of the same sex find they have a much higher quality of life, more peace and more joy. This is all the proof necessary to conclude that gay marriage is a godly choice, and the church's program for gay members, for the most part, is ungodly. By their fruits you will know them.

Eventually the church will have to catch on, probably a generation too late. 

Edited March 10, 2017 by Gray

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

The trouble is taking the church-prescribed route brings about very bad fruit for many gay people who try it. Conversely, many gay members who choose to leave and get married to a person of the same sex find they have a much higher quality of life, more peace and more joy. This is all the proof necessary to conclude that gay marriage is a godly choice, and the church's program for gay members, for the most part, is ungodly. By their fruits you will know them.

Eventually the church will have to catch on, probably a generation too late. 

There are many people that say the same thing about polygamy.   Does that mean we can conclude that polygamy is a godly choice right now and that the church's current teachings about living polygamy are ungodly?

[Johnnie Cake]

50 minutes ago, rongo said:

Summary of last night's meeting:

I met with the brother and his bishop last night for about three and a half hours. He and his wife have a five year-old daughter, and both come from active LDS families. He is part of a computer start-up company and does IT/computer science-type stuff. His sister and his best friend have left the Church (name removal) and are very bitter and angry at the Church. His best friend sent him a link to the CES letter four weeks ago, and he has read it (the 84 page one), FAIR's response to it, and he tried to read Runnel's 900 page response to FAIR, but he had enough of Runnels. He can't stand his tone, attitude, and manner. Notwithstanding his distaste for Runnels' manner, his exposure to the issues via Runnels is a major factor in his faith crisis. He has been doing a lot of reading and researching over the last four weeks, and although his faith currently is in crisis, he is not angry or bitter towards the Church at all. He describes himself as "95% out of the Church," but when I asked him what he meant by this, he does not mean name removal or trying to turn others against the Church. He describes himself as "98% agnostic/atheist" at this point, but acknowledges that this could change and that there is something that keeps him from going 100%. This is how he described himself at the beginning of the meeting.

He had a specific list of issues he wanted to talk about, broken into categories of relative "seriousness" for him. He struck "four or five" from the list based on FAIR's material (yay, FAIR! ) --- their explanations vis a vis Runnels were good enough to remove those issues from his shelf. His prepared list was helpful to me, because I always try to first take some soundings and see where people are at. A very analytical person, he had a list ready to go --- and already collated into degrees of difficulty for him. These are his characterizations:

Most serious: "Problems:" 1) First Vision accounts  2) Book of Abraham  3) Joseph Smith/Nauvoo polygamy (Utah/Brigham Young, et. al. polygamy is not an issue at all for him) 4) Feeling and discerning The Spirit (subjectivity, confirmation bias, auto-suggestion, etc.)

Mid-range seriousness: "Questions and concerns:" 1) Global Flood 2) Evolution 3) Cosmology (age of the earth, age of the universe, Big Bang, etc.)

Low-grade seriousness: "Misleading:" 1) Book of Mormon translation 2) Church membership 3) Moroni/Nephi  4) Church finances and transparency

I will post details about the discussion of the above later when I can (the quarter ends today, and grades are due. I need to get some final things graded and in the grade book). We were able to have an in-depth discussion to his satisfaction in the three and a half hours (not that all concerns were resolved, but he was satisfied and fulfilled by the discussion. It was a good experience, and good that it happened). Suffice it to say now that, when I asked him at the end, "So, where are you headed now?" he said that he was not going to be removing his name from the Church. At this point, he differentiates between the Church being "true" and being "good." The Church's fruit is good, according to him, and he will support his wife and daughter's Church attendance and participation, and his daughter's baptism when she turns eight. He, himself, plans on curtailing his Church attendance, attending much less regularly. He has had many in-depth discussions with his parents, his apostate sister, and his wife over the last four weeks, and his faithful family have tried their best to resolve his concerns, with varying degrees of success (mostly not). 

I'll give more details when I'm caught up!  

 

I would LOVE to be able to talk with him...not going to happen I know...but just saying