Another question to Former Mormons (and others).

[TexanKnight]

I too left long before the internet existed, long before I read anything that Mormons would call “anti-Mormon”. .

My exit was prior to the internet as well.

 

[Marie5890]

After a good long decade of trying to figure that one out, I finally just chalked up to, “Mormons believe”. Period. No other explanation exists but that. There is no reasoning, lots of going by emotion, and plenty of rationalizations. But no reasoning.

So the root “problem” with Mormonism is, it is irrational. What is taught, what is believed, what is practiced. All, irrational.

Agreed. And I am not even talking about it’s history, it’s beginnings.

It’s very doctrines, if one takes the time to meditate on them, are irrational.

 

[lynnettejane]

Hello Tom, it is an interesting question that I am sure the answer is illusive. For me the whole of the LDS faith rested on acceptance of JS as a prophet. I was never totally convinced, the BoM did nothing to further convince me. I became sick of hearing testimonies that ‘I know that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God and the church is the true restored church’. It occurred to me that this was in fact the church of Joseph Smith. This was also pre internet, I began to investigate the doctrines in light of scripture, it just all fell apart from there. I realised that those doctrines that had appealed to my intellect, had no scriptural basis, the book of mormon was a dreadfully boring story, with large parts taken from the bible. I realised that mormonism totally appeals to the pride of man, making God a creature rather than creator, and man a god in the making. So I could not remain in a church whose founder was not what he claimed and whose church is totally false, I had no choice but to leave, I could not remain in a lie. If this seems harsh, I apologise, but that is exactly what I felt and why I left, I joined the church believing it to be true, in fact the only true church, to find that this is not so, for me was irreconcilable.

 

[andrewstx]

My exit was prior to the internet as well.

As was mine back in the 1980s. It happened quickly as I learned Mormon ideas not brought up by the missionaries. Things like Mrs. God, humans becoming godS, multiple godS. I had already been dunked by the Mormons even though I was already baptized.

Ever notice how they never bring up the really unusual things until you are already dunked, and it is very hard to get out?

Rebecca, unless you are excommunicated, or have your name removed they consider you a Mormon and the visiting teachers will continue to visit.

 

[Marie5890]

As was mine back in the 1980s. ** It happened quickly as I learned Mormon ideas not brought up by the missionaries. Things like Mrs. God, humans becoming godS, multiple godS. I had already been dunked by the Mormons even though I was already baptized.**

Ever notice how they never bring up the really unusual things until you are already dunked, and it is very hard to get out?

.

I didnt have a hard time getting out, but I too was not told about the bold and underlined until well after my baptism…

 

[andrewstx]

I didnt have a hard time getting out, but I too was not told about the bold and underlined until well after my baptism…

It was very hard back in then1980s. The choices were a humiliating excommication trial or name removal, which was difficult automatically denied at first and time consuming.

I did not bother since I consider the LDS church illegitimate and I don’t recognize any claimed authority over me.

So technically I am still a Mormon.

 

[Marie5890]

It was very hard back in then1980s. The choices were a humiliating excommication trial or name removal, which was difficult automatically denied at first and time consuming.

(

I can believe that. With the advent of the internet and resignations common now, it’s easier (at least depending on the bishop and SP involved).

I left early 90’s and formly resigned late 90’s. By then there was a great deal of advice on how to go about it and get quick results, and a template of a resignation letter to help things move along.

When I resigned, Gred Dogde at SL Membership records was the only person at the upper level dealing with it. My understanding that there is now several more people in his department to help him deal with the numbers.

If you ever want to officiall resign, I can point you in the direction of what your letter should contain. Once they receive your letter, you are out, even if they say they have to meet wiht you. They dont.

 

[TOmNossor]

Marie, thanks for your response:

For me Tom, it wasnt so much problems (my leaving was pre-internet) as it was sitting in sacrament meeting that was on temples and temple ordinances.

I sat there and said to myself, “Marie you dont believe this. You dont believe that sealings are necessary in order for a family to be a family forever. What binds a family is love, not an ordinance”

(Truth be told, only Mormons believe that families have the potential of not being eternal. That is unique to Mormonism as far as I can tell)

So since I no longer believed in a basic and foundational doctrine of Mormonism, I realized I was no longer a Mormon in thought or belief. So I left.
I am familiar with the issue and have been exposed to things you say you haven’t (that may be a piece of data, but only tangentially related to this question).

The summary of your post as it relates to my question is that your personal experience is that folks who leave come to realize they do not believe the doctrines of Mormonism and those who stay presumably do not come to realize this?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

LivingWaters7, thank you for your response too.

This of course isn’t unique to Mormonism. Insert the name of any other religion, and you will have people saying the same things as you did above. There are many ex-Catholics that claim a list of “problems” with the Church, and many believing Catholics that are well aware of the “problems” and are still Catholic. Why is that? Because people have different ways of rationalizing things, some valid, some invalid. It’s really that simple, at least to me.

First, I agree that the phenomena is not unique to Mormonism this is an important point that could help us in finding a reason for the different responses.
It seems that you suggest that Catholics and LDS “rationalize” things to deal with problems and maintain or lose faith. That this “rationalization” is sometimes valid and sometimes invalid. How do we measure the quality of “rationalization?” What leads some to “rationalize” validly and others to “rationalize” invalidly? I am not sure if you have not just pushed the problem down one level of vocalization rather than providing a real answer. At least I cannot see an answer.
And as I am sure you know I have seen all the issues you point to and I integrate (rationalize validly or invalidly) them into my believing.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

NT, Thanks for your response.

I’m sort of the opposite of Marie here. My journey was to discover what I believed, and why I believed it. As I discovered that there was no good foundation or reason to believe some things, I changed and grew.

For example, it’s pretty clear that baptism is a required earthly ordinance. “Love binds families” is a nice and comforting thought, but the precedent of baptism sort of deflated my belief of “it should just be possible with love”.

I can totally understand Marie’s position. Doubt is a part of life. Resolving doubt is critical to spiritual growth. Unresolved doubt festers, halts spiritual growth, and causes problems.

I don’t know the answer to your question, Tom. I’ve watched people like Marie grow away from something and into something else, and pass people growing in the opposite direction. One could say that I questioned and grew my way back into the LDS church.
You searched for a reason to believe things and discovered that there was an absence of reason to believe in your previous faith tradition and this lead you to the CoJCoLDS. Aside from this personal journey you do not have an answer. I think Alma 32 might be read as allowing for doubt to prod spiritual growth, but that is probably what you mean.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Hi Tom,

A midst all of this reconciling how have you or HAVE you reconciled your belies with Gods as taught in HIS Bible?

One God

Who can and DOES have just One set of Faith beliefs

Through just One Church/

ALL of which is both historically and Biblical.

I’m not trying to be difficult here, but am intrigue by your efforts to find God’s truth [singular]

God Bless you,
Patrick
Hello Patrick,
I do not think I will be able to participate in this question at this time, beyond this quick response.
I have personal views about the Biblical witness for the CoJCoLDS and much of those can be discovered through reading LDS apologetic arguments.
Two of the below (at least) will not be there, but you can explore the rest there.
I think on the whole the CoJCoLDS is more congruent with the Bible than is either Catholicism or Protestantism, but I will also acknowledge that the CoJCoLDS (like Catholicism) is not based on the Bible. The CoJCoLDS is based on the same thing the Bible is based on God’s teaching/gospel.

1. LDS Social Trinity (one God three persons, but not metaphysically one God) is more Biblical than the Metaphysical Trinity of non-LDS Christianity.
2. Baptism for the Dead is more Biblical than “Baptism of Desire,” “Baptism of Blood,” or the theological novem of “hope for the unbaptized infant.”
3. LDS and liberal Protestantism’s God being passible rather than impassible is more Biblical than the impassibility of God present in Catholic scholastic tradition AND integral to the Trinity development in the early church.
4. Catholics reading of John 6 is more Biblical to the readings offered by rejecters of the real presence (though I think the term Transubstantiation is a problem).
5. LDS and Protestants who reject Mary’s perpetual virginity are more Biblical than Catholics who embrace it.
6. Catholics and Protestants who (contra Marie) reject sacramental marriage being part of the heavenly order are more Biblical than LDS.
7. Catholics and LDS who see authority passed from Apostles to “coworkers” and bishops are more Biblical than some protestants who reject authority (though the idea that bishops are equal to apostles in the MUTED way Catholics suggest is not Biblical).

Off the top of my head I think I could double the numbers of entries in this list.
You can post here (though I rather you wouldn’t) reasons why I am wrong about all but #4 and #7. If you can refrain from posting here and want to start a new thread about them that is fine too. I may not be able to participate in that discussion.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

What matters to you in this discussion? Your question is, “Why the different responses?” What does that mean? Are you suggesting that everyone arrives at their understanding of Truth the same way?

It is as if someone could print a flyer, and if it’s done the right way with the right format, the right words - then they’ll reprogram their belief framework to be whatever was desired by the author of the flyer. And, this would somehow be printed by the millions and everyone would think the same thing.

Maybe it is just a cultural thing, but I can’t pick up your concern for finding the True God or Finding the True Truth.
I am not sure I understand your question.
My question presupposes that truth is the goal. I am asserting that I know the data that folks claim PROVES to all but “idiots” (what a poster here recently asserted must be true of folks who knew the data and believed in the CoJCoLDS) the CoJCoLDS is false, and asking why I believe while others see the obvious falcity. I presume this poster would answer confidently that “TOm is an idiot” (but perhaps Christian charity restrains him). I am not really concerned about niceties. I want to know what folks think. And I want to know what in reality determines the difference reactions too.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TexanKnight, thank you for your post. I didn’t see anything that looked like an answer to my question, but I found this very interesting:

Then, to help, I called my cousin, Dean Jessee, the LDS Historian. THE LDS Historian. The head cheese. I told him my issues. I then asked for ANY evidence the Book of Mormon was true. He said there is none. There never will be. I had to pray and ask for spiritual evidence.

I am somewhat surprised that he said, “there is none.” Are you sure he didn’t tell you to pray and you heard that means there is no evidence?
Either way, do you believe you know more about LDS church history and problems than Dean Jessee? If you do not then why is he a faithful member still doing church history work (for free I think since he is retired now at 80 something) and you are asserting that IF LDS leaders know the problems then they are either disbelievers or “idiots?” Do you think Dean Jessee knows the problems? Is he a secret disbeliever that told you to remain in the faith? Or is he an “idiot?”

You might have a privileged position to help answer my question?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I was born and raised in the LDS church. In my soul, I always knew that men and women are equal before God. When I learned about the doctrine of polygamy, I struggled with reconciling the inherent equality of the sexes before God with polygamy which always seemed inherently unequal and unfair to me. I struggled for a very long time with the doctrine of polygamy and the actual treatment of women in the LDS church.

I hated the Young Women’s program. I found it uninteresting and boring. I found the scouting program that the boys did far more interesting. I really wanted to do a scouting program instead of YW but was not able to because I am female. It bothered me that the entire focus of teaching in YW was marriage and family. I was never interested in marriage and family. I always wanted to go to college and have a career and see the world. I struggled with the fact that who I am never fit into the LDS god’s plan. If I were to follow that plan, I would have to pretend to be someone I am not.

Then I graduated from BYU with bachelor’s and master’s degrees unmarried. I went through the temple so I could attend the temple wedding of my younger sister (4 years my junior). It bothered me that I was washed and anointed to become a queen and a priestess to my nonexistent husband but not to God. It bothered me that I covenanted to obey my nonexistent husband and not God. It bothered me that I covenanted to give everything to the LDS church and not God. It bothered me that in the sealing covenant a woman gives herself to her husband but he never gives himself to her. I found it highly insulting that as a woman, I needed a husband to get to God. It went against the inherent equality I knew men and women have before God.

I spent many years in Young Single Adult ward hell. I was treated like an ugly old maid by the LDS men in my YSA ward. I could not get positive male attention to save my life. My male friends at work were shocked that I was active in my church’s YSA program but never had a boyfriend in my 20’s. Random men at the store would tell me how beautiful I am. I got plenty of positive male attention everywhere except for at church where I was attending with supposed men of God who were supposed to know of my worth as a daughter of God.

I ached and suffered immensely because I firmly believed that I would end up being someone’s plural wife in the celestial kingdom. I was starting to “understand” polygamy better. How else was I supposed to get married and be exalted if it wasn’t for polygamy? It hurt and I felt sick just thinking about it. Finally when I was 29, I met my husband. My husband still has a hard time believing that the men in my YSA ward never found me attractive.

I read Rough Stone Rolling and learned some things about Joseph Smith that I had never heard in my 30+ years in the LDS church, including seminary and BYU religion classes. What bothered me the most was the peep stone and the polyandry. I finally got to the point where I had to know how polygamy was really practiced. I learned the ugly truth about polygamy and polyandry. I found the stories of Helen Mar Kimball and Zina Jacobs to be the most compelling and sad.

The LDS church claims to be a restoration of the ancient church of God and all things had to be restored including polygamy. However, never in the Bible is polygamy a good thing and polyandry / wife stealing was always wrong. Also there are no examples in the Bible of a prophet exchanging eternal salvation for marriage to a very young girl.

I left the LDS church because its teachings of polygamy, the practice of polyandry and the general treatment of women go against the inherent dignity of women. I also realized the LDS church lied to me about these and many other issues. Sorry, but I don’t trust anyone who lies to me.
Iepuras, I am sorry for the negative impact the church and so many LDS men had upon you as you grew up. It must have been very difficult. Again I am sorry.

I do not know how to form that into an answer to my question other than to view it as the LDS church is no place for woman, but men can tolerate it (especially if they are not committed to the equality of the sexes). I expect that you were really just relaying the difficulties you experienced. Again I am sorry.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I don’t see how a person can know about all the problematic elements of Mormonism’s founding and still believe without doing some serious mental gymnastics.

Thank you for your comments.
I presume you have answered my question thusly:
Those who know the issues and leave are unwilling to do “mental gymnastics.”
Those who know the issues and stay are doing “mental gymnastics.”
I have theorized in the past that those who know the issues and leave are unwilling or unable to do “mental gymnastics” (not the word I used) and those who stay are willing and able to do “mental gymnastics.”

However I think we using different definitions of the term.
Here is Wiktionary:
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mental_gymnastics

You seem to mean definition #2 and I have in the past suggested that definition #1 was appropriate.

Assuming you mean “mental gymnastics” in sense #2 and it is your intention to say this is inappropriate. What leads some to unconsciously do inappropriate “mental gymnastics” and others to not do inappropriate “mental gymnastics?” And if I called a recent document out of the Vatican blatant “mental gymnastics” of the #2 sort, and you called my faith in light of knowledge of all these issues blatant “mental gymnastics” of the #2 sort; is there any objective criteria to determine who is right? Or is one’s personal mental gymnastics always #1 in one’s mind and the mental gymnastics of the other person #2? Similar to LivingWaters appropriate rationalization and inappropriate rationalization.

Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

Marie, thanks for your response:

I am familiar with the issue and have been exposed to things you say you haven’t (that may be a piece of data, but only tangentially related to this question).

The summary of your post as it relates to my question is that your personal experience is that folks who leave come to realize they do not believe the doctrines of Mormonism and those who stay presumably do not come to realize this?
Charity, TOm

It is not so much we realize we do not believe the doctrines. If the doctrines and teachings I was taught as an investigator were the actual doctrines, teachings and history, I would still believe…

but the things I was not were not truly the actual doctrine. The things I was taught were not the actual and true history.

What I realized is I did not leave the LDS Church, I never truly belonged because what I was taught was not the truth

 

[TOmNossor]

After a good long decade of trying to figure that one out, I finally just chalked up to, “Mormons believe”. Period. No other explanation exists but that. There is no reasoning, lots of going by emotion, and plenty of rationalizations. But no reasoning.

RebeccaJ, thank you for your comments.
As best I can tell your answer is that there is some “believe” thing that Mormons have and you didn’t. You would seem to reinforce a stereotype that while certainly true in some cases is seldom helpful. It is lack of faith that leads to disaffection. Strong faithful folks will stay and others will leave.
I have two problems with this actually. The first is that it comes across as derogatory to most non-believers. For the purpose of this thread I do not care, I want the truth.
The second problem is that your answer if true means that all the attempts I have made at weighing these issues as if I had no testimony (including the attempts I made before I had a testimony or so I thought) have failed. It was my testimony (both the one I have and the one that I either would have -through anti-temporal causation- or the one I really had and didn’t know) that prevented me from intellectually weighing these issues despite my efforts.

So the root “problem” with Mormonism is, it is irrational. What is taught, what is believed, what is practiced. All, irrational.

The “irrational” should violate the law of non-contradiction at some point. To me that is the most fundamental law of rationality. I have removed almost all of this from my thought, but I regularly see in in the thought of critics of the CoJCoLDS. I doubt you and I have in mind the same irrational things in mind when we use the term irrational.

I would be interested in exploring this “irrational” argument. An example I have no desire to probe other than as an example:
I think some might say it is irrational to believe, “that the hill Cumorah from the BOM is a real place not in Palmyra, NY; AND that Joseph Smith and his successors are prophets.”
This is only irrational if you define “prophet” in a way that I would not. So ultimately the statement betrays that the person making it requires a definition of a prophet I do not AND it probably points to a lack of flexibility on the part of the person making the statement.
I think I will stop here.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Agreed. And I am not even talking about it’s history, it’s beginnings.

It’s very doctrines, if one takes the time to meditate on them, are irrational.

I see Marie offers another vote for irrational. Even irrational at multiple points.
What leads me to embrace the irrational and claim I do not?
Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

I am somewhat surprised that he said, “there is none.” Are you sure he didn’t tell you to pray and you heard that means there is no evidence?

I was just as surprised. Looking back, I am not surprised. I can find no evidence to the B of M that non-lds scientists accept. And yes, I am sure. I was 29 and in my last 2 months of law school. I was very accustomed to listening.

Either way, do you believe you know more about LDS church history and problems than Dean Jessee?

Do I think I know more history than a historian? Nope. At least I hope not. But, He WAS fooled by Mark Hoffman…apparently, neither God or his history experience was much help…so who knows?

If you do not then why is he a faithful member still doing church history work (for free I think since he is retired now at 80 something) and you are asserting that IF LDS leaders know the problems then they are either disbelievers or “idiots?” Do you think Dean Jessee knows the problems? Is he a secret disbeliever that told you to remain in the faith? Or is he an “idiot?”

I think he has his reasons for staying in. A good salary all those years is helpful. The fact he is retired changes nothing. To come out and say anything now would be disastrous to his legacy and his family

You might have a privileged position to help answer my question?

what question?

Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

I see Marie offers another vote for irrational. Even irrational at multiple points.
What leads me to embrace the irrational and claim I do not?
Charity, TOm

good question. What led folks to drink grape koolaide? what led folks to follow Hitler?

people follow wrongly all the time, but do not believe they are.