Another question to Former Mormons (and others).

[iepuras]

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

It wasn’t just the LDS church and LDS men who perpetuate the inherent inequality of women in the LDS church. The LDS women do too. I’m sorry if I didn’t really answer your question clearly. I relayed my experiences because it was part of how the LDS church lied to me and tried to get me to rationalize things that are irrational. Please reread the last two sentences of my first post. My leaving the LDS church boils down to the following:

1. There were too many doctrines that I found irrational and I could no longer rationalize them. The biggest ones for me were related to women, but there were others (e.g., infinite regression of gods).
2. The LDS church lied to me.

 

[TOmNossor]

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
I can offer an interesting difference between you and me.
I spent about 1 year with the missionaries before I joined the church. I did not believe I should embrace the BOM prophet’s “way of knowing” if it was not a Biblical “way of knowing.” I concluded it was, and I decided to join even though I had little if any of what I would come to know as a testimony (the zone leaders told me I had to pray more and could not be baptized the first time they interviewed me). I learned a little here and there. I read the BOM. I am quite sure I like you didn’t know much of the doctrine of deification when I joined, though other things like polygamy I can never remember not knowing. I picked up Todd Compton’s book in our LDS book store. I never expected the missionaries to teach me what you call “actual doctrine” that was something I would learn, and I did. So I can never remember thinking that the missionaries were negligent and responsible for my encountering things I didn’t know. Every field I have ever studied has brought me to things I didn’t know (fields I teach, I am not a teacher, occasionally do too).

Do you think that in 1940 RCIA things that sound totally foreign to you as a Catholic were taught?
Owing to the interaction I have with my Sedavacantist friend and my two SSPX devotee friends, I am quite confident you would be shocked. Would you be a non-believer or a Sedavacantis/SSPX devotee? That is the choice these RATIONAL, non-rationalizing folks chose. They are wrong IMO BTW.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

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

I looked it up Dean Jesse is retired and 85+ yo. He still goes and does church history work 2 days a week. Does that strike you as someone who stayed because “a good salary … is helpful?”
And my question is:

All the “problems” I see discussed on this board (and in other places I read and/or participate in) are problems I became aware of before I read of them here and usually years ago. I have interacted with numerous folks who like me have sought out the biggest issues and integrated them into their believing framework. In contrast to this group of folks, numerous folks here and elsewhere didn’t integrate these problems into their believing framework, but instead left the CoJCoLDS.
Why the different responses?

And … are you sure you listen well now or at 29?

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

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.
You realize of course that now per Godwin’s Law (actually Godwin’s first and approved corollary), you must concede that Mormonism is true.
Charity, TOm

 

[in_servitude]

A previous poster pointed to issues of pride.

A man converting to LDS gets certain benefits (as one of my LDS co-workers put it). The convert to the LDS Churdch gets on the God track.

From my experience, the LDS men have remarkable control in their relationships. It might be argued they have total control. They have the say if the wife goes to the Celestial Kingdom or not. Complete control.

The Catholic side of this coin is remarkably different. Here, we die to ourselves. We give ourselves up completely, in servitude. Pride has no place here.

Some people are more attached to the LDS benefits than others.

To answer your question, “Why do some people react differently when they learn about certain facts?” I think it could be that there is an issue of attachment. Perhaps some people are less attached to those things than others. Perhaps men like their total control over their wives. Maybe I’m in a very strange place, and the norm might be that LDS men typically have no control over their wives.

Another issue is culture. The LDS folks around here are immersed in a culture. There is an older LDS co-worker that told me that if this other LDS guy that just graduated from college looked like he’d be a good hire, he could “make it happen.” What is that all about?? We had interviewed him, and he looked like a good choice, and this LDS elder said that he could somehow make certain that this kid accepted our offer. How could one LDS elder make another LDS young adult do anything? I basically reacted in a way that allowed him to see that I was a little taken aback by that kind of statement. I decided to believe that he was just talking bigger than reality - but I wonder about it from time to time.

Also, if a person rejects the LDS Church around here, they lose just about everything. Their friends. Their activities. Their family relations. Plus, their kids lose their playmates.

I think that, from an external and secular point of view, it is easier to join the LDS Church, and difficult to leave it. That is an answer to your question.

 

[PaulDupre1]

My exit was prior to the internet as well.

Mine too - 1986. All the sources that convinced me the LDS org is a scam were LDS sources. They are their own worst enemies.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[iepuras]

Also, if a person rejects the LDS Church around here, they lose just about everything. Their friends. Their activities. Their family relations. Plus, their kids lose their playmates.

I think that, from an external and secular point of view, it is easier to join the LDS Church, and difficult to leave it. That is an answer to your question.

This is especially true of BIC Mormons. There is a lot to lose by leaving. It is especially difficult if one spouse no longer believes but the other spouse believes. Many marriages don’t survive.

 

[in_servitude]

This is especially true of BIC Mormons. There is a lot to lose by leaving. It is especially difficult if one spouse no longer believes but the other spouse believes. Many marriages don’t survive.

Most of the LDS people I know are BIC Mormons.

 

[garyo49]

Another question to Former Mormons (and others).

There are numerous folks here who identify themselves explicitly as former Mormons or ex-LDS. The bulk of the narratives offered by these folks is that they left the CoJCoLDS because they learned it was not God’s church as they became exposed to information they didn’t know before they left.

All the “problems” I see discussed on this board (and in other places I read and/or participate in) are problems I became aware of before I read of them here and usually years ago. I have interacted with numerous folks who like me have sought out the biggest issues and integrated them into their believing framework. In contrast to this group of folks, numerous folks here and elsewhere didn’t integrate these problems into their believing framework, but instead left the CoJCoLDS.
Why the different responses?

For this discussion, I would like to ask that everyone be as respectful as possible, but I do not want to leave things out. I will not get offended and storm off with what you offer (though I may suggest that what you offer is not correct).

If you must (though I think it will be pointless) you can produce a laundry list of problems, but I am really only interested in exploring why you think this list of problems created disbelief for you and does not create disbelief for me. What is different about us leading to different results?

Charity, TOm

You are right TOm. I think all of this is pointless and I think you are just trying to draw us Catholics into a #%$&@ng match. I personally think it is a big waste of time because Mormonism is the religion of Joseph Smith, not the religion of our Lord and Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

 

[Marie5890]

Some are ok with letting others do the thinking for them ; others would rather use their intellect, reason and critical thinking skills.

Some like how Mormon theology makes them feel. Others see where where it just doesn’t make sense.

Some just aren’t interested at looking deeper into its history and background (and considering how a greater portion of our electorate votes based on sound bites, that is hardly surprising.

Some start from the premise "I know it’s true " and then make any info fit that already accepted conclusion.

Others start also with the same "I know it’s true " but the cog dis bothers them enough that they are open to being challenged and proved wrong (that takes a humble courage for many)

If I recall right someone posted a comment from a recent general conference made by a GA. Something along the lines of “doubt your doubts”

Bad bad advice. Doubt has a valid place in the human experience. It can be a legitamate form of intuitive protection. I cant believe it was said but I know the TBM mindset enough that since a GA said it (and in General Conference no less!) many will take it as gospel (little g)

One thing I have always known is that my intellect is a gift. And God has never asked me not to use it. Never. Nor is God afraid of what I may discover. I don’t need others to tell me what to think or to doubt my doubts. God can and does handle my doubts. He is not scared off by my doubts and He doesn’t ask me to ignore them. He asks me to bring them to Him and He will help me to discover the spiritual realities.

He also has never ever asked me to ignore history. Ever

 

[TexanKnight]

Mine too - 1986. All the sources that convinced me the LDS org is a scam were LDS sources. They are their own worst enemies.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

I was just finishing my mission in 1986…I left in 1989

 

[TOmNossor]

A previous poster pointed to issues of pride.

A man converting to LDS gets certain benefits (as one of my LDS co-workers put it). The convert to the LDS Churdch gets on the God track.

From my experience, the LDS men have remarkable control in their relationships. It might be argued they have total control. They have the say if the wife goes to the Celestial Kingdom or not. Complete control.
Thank you for your answer.
I think your answer boils down to the doctrine of deification present within LDS teachings lures those who are prideful especially men. Then to see the obvious falsity of the church would result in loss of this “God track.” And of course pride is not just one of the 7 deadly sins, but one of the most ubiquitous and insidious.

Now briefly some of my thoughts:

• If I faithful LDS said they “get on the God track,” I think some repentance might be in order.
• I have long not known what to do with the accusation of “pride.” Personally, I know PRIDE is a problem for me. The double-predestination-alist said that my baulking at this doctrine was a product of my pride (and of course the fact that at that point -and this point- in time it sure seems I am eternally destined to hell because I am non-elect). I can only respond to you as I did to them.

The rejection of double-predestination and acceptance of deification as best as my fallen prideful self can ascertain are the product of ascribing positives to God and not for the purpose of exalting myself .

The bulk of my co-religionist (and especially the local leaders I know) are very humble.

• I really think Catholicism within the group of Catholics who reject Mormonism have missed the Catholic view of deification. Most LDS point to EO Theosis, but Catholic thought is closer to LDS thought than are the EOs.
• And personally, while LDS thought on deification exists within a large spectrum, my personal thoughts are closer to Catholic thoughts than any of the thoughts LDS critics (rightly and wrongly) say are LDS doctrine.
• But, let me say again. The truly prideful can seldom see their pride as the sin it is, so I can object strenuously but …

in_servitude:
The Catholic side of this coin is remarkably different. Here, we die to ourselves. We give ourselves up completely, in servitude. Pride has no place here.
.
From I think my very favorite talk by my favorite church leader:
“The submission of one’s will is really the only uniquely personal thing we have to place on God’s altar. The many other things we ‘give,’ brothers and sisters, are actually the things He has already given or loaned to us. However, when you and I finally submit ourselves, by letting our individual wills be swallowed up in God’s will, then we are really giving something to Him! It is the only possession which is truly ours to give!”

The idea that giving ourselves completely is not an integral part of the CoJCoLDS reminds me of another thing I have frequently offered in answer to a different but similar question. You left a church I have never been a part of. I do not say this to imply you are lying, but it is often a conclusion I draw as I see my walk with Christ described in ways I TOTALLY do not recognize.

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Some people are more attached to the LDS benefits than others.

The benefits being future deification? Or future heaven? Or current dominion over woman? Or cultural benefits (presumably in Utah).

To answer your question

, “Why do some people react differently when they learn about certain facts?” I think it could be that there is an issue of attachment. Perhaps some people are less attached to those things than others.
“Being less attached” comes dangerously close to the simple answer insecure LDS offer. XYZ left the church because they didn’t have much of a testimony to begin with. I suspect you would clarify, “less attached to the cultural and false things, not less committed in general.”

Perhaps men like their total control over their wives. Maybe I’m in a very strange place, and the norm might be that LDS men typically have no control over their wives.

My wife is quite clear that we should not move to Utah. Perhaps if we did I would then have more of a say in what goes on. That being said, I am quite sure unless she changes her mind, we will NEVER live in Utah, because … (oh you get the picture).

Another issue is culture. The LDS folks around here are immersed in a culture. There is an older LDS co-worker that told me that if this other LDS guy that just graduated from college looked like he’d be a good hire, he could “make it happen.” What is that all about?? We had interviewed him, and he looked like a good choice, and this LDS elder said that he could somehow make certain that this kid accepted our offer. How could one LDS elder make another LDS young adult do anything? I basically reacted in a way that allowed him to see that I was a little taken aback by that kind of statement. I decided to believe that he was just talking bigger than reality - but I wonder about it from time to time.

Also, if a person rejects the LDS Church around here, they lose just about everything. Their friends. Their activities. Their family relations. Plus, their kids lose their playmates.

I think that, from an external and secular point of view, it is easier to join the LDS Church, and difficult to leave it. That is an answer to your question.
I have never lived in Utah. I do know my Father was told by the Catholics around him that he would lose me because I became a LDS. He told me he was happy that did not happen. In fact, it is clear to me and was clear to him that my wife was a large part of the glue that held and hold the family together.
I however am not qualified to talk about Utah LDS culture. My wife assures me there are differences (though she neglected to mention that I would rule the roost if we moved there…).

Thank you very much for your thoughtful post.
I can say as a LDS surrounded by non-LDS there are no external to the church cultural issues that keep me in the faith.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

This is especially true of BIC Mormons. There is a lot to lose by leaving. It is especially difficult if one spouse no longer believes but the other spouse believes. Many marriages don’t survive.

And I am also not a BIC LDS, so again I would not know as much about that.
But, there are clearly lures to LDS commitment present in the phenomena you describe.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

You are right TOm. I think all of this is pointless and I think you are just trying to draw us Catholics into a #%$&@ng match. I personally think it is a big waste of time because Mormonism is the religion of Joseph Smith, not the religion of our Lord and Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

Gary,
I am unsure if you misunderstood me or you just wanted to post the above.
My point is that listing the reasons Mormonism is false would help me as much as the Boetner List would help Karl Keating. There is nothing in either list that we have not seen multiple times.

I do not desire a shouting or some other type of match.

Intellectually I want to explore the answer.
I can say that my pride has a small desire that continued faith in my church not be explicitly or implicitly referred to as “idiocy.” At the same time my persecution complex celebrates such things.

Anyway, I hope that is clear enough.

Oh, and “my religion is not the religion of …,” oh never mind waste of time.
Charity, TOm

 

[in_servitude]

Thank you for your answer.
I think your answer boils down to the doctrine of deification present within LDS teachings lures those who are prideful especially men. Then to see the obvious falsity of the church would result in loss of this “God track.” And of course pride is not just one of the 7 deadly sins, but one of the most ubiquitous and insidious.

Now briefly some of my thoughts:

• If I faithful LDS said they “get on the God track,” I think some repentance might be in order.
• I have long not known what to do with the accusation of “pride.” Personally, I know PRIDE is a problem for me. The double-predestination-alist said that my baulking at this doctrine was a product of my pride (and of course the fact that at that point -and this point- in time it sure seems I am eternally destined to hell because I am non-elect). I can only respond to you as I did to them.

The rejection of double-predestination and acceptance of deification as best as my fallen prideful self can ascertain are the product of ascribing positives to God and not for the purpose of exalting myself .

The bulk of my co-religionist (and especially the local leaders I know) are very humble.

Humbleness is difficult and frustrating to obtain. Once one thinks they have it, they probably don’t. I’m not sure I would know if a person was humble in any regard.

• I really think Catholicism within the group of Catholics who reject Mormonism have missed the Catholic view of deification. Most LDS point to EO Theosis, but Catholic thought is closer to LDS thought than are the EOs.

• And personally, while LDS thought on deification exists within a large spectrum, my personal thoughts are closer to Catholic thoughts than any of the thoughts LDS critics (rightly and wrongly) say are LDS doctrine.

The infinite regression of LDS Gods makes the difference between LDS teaching and Catholic teaching as divergent as I can possibly imagine. My God created everything, including time. There is only one God. The LDS Gods are being created at a furious pace - an infinite number of LDS Gods are created in each instant - and these instants have been passing for an infinitely long period of time. The LDS God of “this earth”, is pretty insignificant against that backdrop.

• But, let me say again. The truly prideful can seldom see their pride as the sin it is, so I can object strenuously but …

From I think my very favorite talk by my favorite church leader:
“The submission of one’s will is really the only uniquely personal thing we have to place on God’s altar. The many other things we ‘give,’ brothers and sisters, are actually the things He has already given or loaned to us. However, when you and I finally submit ourselves, by letting our individual wills be swallowed up in God’s will, then we are really giving something to Him! It is the only possession which is truly ours to give!”

The idea that giving ourselves completely is not an integral part of the CoJCoLDS reminds me of another thing I have frequently offered in answer to a different but similar question. You left a church I have never been a part of. I do not say this to imply you are lying, but it is often a conclusion I draw as I see my walk with Christ described in ways I TOTALLY do not recognize.

Around here, the LDS folks explain that they are really making a purchase. The notion of giving with no expectation of a return benefit is absent from the LDS thoughts I’ve seen around here.

 

[TexanKnight]

I can offer an interesting difference between you and me.
I spent about 1 year with the missionaries before I joined the church. I did not believe I should embrace the BOM prophet’s “way of knowing” if it was not a Biblical “way of knowing.” I concluded it was, and I decided to join even though I had little if any of what I would come to know as a testimony (the zone leaders told me I had to pray more and could not be baptized the first time they interviewed me). I learned a little here and there. I read the BOM. I am quite sure I like you didn’t know much of the doctrine of deification when I joined, though other things like polygamy I can never remember not knowing. I picked up Todd Compton’s book in our LDS book store. I never expected the missionaries to teach me what you call “actual doctrine” that was something I would learn, and I did. So I can never remember thinking that the missionaries were negligent and responsible for my encountering things I didn’t know. Every field I have ever studied has brought me to things I didn’t know (fields I teach, I am not a teacher, occasionally do too).

Well, here is the rub: when the missionaries…and then my MTC instructors, then my mission president TOLD me what the doctrine was…and what the history was…and when I read and studied current books to see what history and doctrine was…only to find out it was not true, it bothered me. I am glad the dishonesty did not bother you…losing my testimony was painful

Do you think that in 1940 RCIA things that sound totally foreign to you as a Catholic were taught?

Dunno. I did not attend RCIA in 1940. I DID study the LDS CHurch in current times and discovered I was lied to.

Owing to the interaction I have with my Sedavacantist friend and my two SSPX devotee friends, I am quite confident you would be shocked. Would you be a non-believer or a Sedavacantis/SSPX devotee? That is the choice these RATIONAL, non-rationalizing folks chose. They are wrong IMO BTW.

Again, I dunno. I have spoken to my grandfather before he died and who was raised Catholic., Nothing he told me about what he learned from 1911 to 2002 was any different that what I studied as a Catholic.

Charity, TOm

You realize of course that now per Godwin’s Law (actually Godwin’s first and approved corollary), you must concede that Mormonism is true.

I do not subscribe to laws borne of internet threads by pepo[le who sit around and make up laws due to too much time on internet threads…but if that is all I had to show my church is true, I guess I would be like you and accept it…
[/COLOR]
And … are you sure you listen well now or at 29?

Who knows? People adapt to their circumstances. At 29, I was a law student very used to listening, questioning and studying. So, in some ways, I was likely better adapted to listen and absorb what was told me back then than I am now. I only know what he said.

 

[PaulDupre1]

The idea that giving ourselves completely is not an integral part of the CoJCoLDS reminds me of another thing I have frequently offered in answer to a different but similar question. You left a church I have never been a part of. I do not say this to imply you are lying, but it is often a conclusion I draw as I see my walk with Christ described in ways I TOTALLY do not recognize.

And as I have said before to many of the LDS posters here, the LDS church that you describe does not exist and has never, so far as I can tell, existed.

Your reported experiences as an LDS and your views of LDS doctrines and common beliefs are so far outside the experiences that I had in the 5 different wards and branches in 4 different stakes in 3 different states over 11 years (not counting my mission), that I often think you are talking about some other religion. Or maybe you are doing your best to hide what the LDS really believe and teach so as to create a rosy picture of Mormonism to make it seem more attractive to potential converts lurking here. Mormons are well known for doing that.

There have been very few LDS posters here who were up-front with their beliefs. Zerinus comes to mind. His is the LDS church I experienced and remember.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[garyo49]

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

The main problem besides all of the strange doctrine and the silliness of your importance placed on temple rituals that were plagiarized from Free Masonry is the character of your founder J. Smith. All of your doctrine and beliefs come from a man that was a liar, a womanizer, greedy, a person that made up mormonism as he went a long which explains all of the many contradictions in mormon doctrine and Smiths teachings. He went from being Trinitarian or Sabellian in the early part of his church (BOM) to teaching that we can all become Gods and teaching that there are as many Gods as there are sand on the beach just before his death. The BOM teaches that that God is a spirit (Alma 18:26-28) and later on Smith taught that God had a body of flesh and bones, which Mormons still believe. The book of Moses is monotheistic and the Book of Abraham is polytheistic. His BOM condemns polygamy in the OT and the D and C says they were justified in having many wives and concubines. The BOM is monotheistic the D and C polytheistic: (Section 121:32; 132:18-20, 37). Death seals a mans fate, BOM. - Mosiah 2:36-39; Alma 34:32-35 But Smith taught the need for baptism for the dead, which by the way isn’t biblical either. Baptism for the dead isn’t taught in the bible, not in 1 Cor. 15:29 for sure. Smith practiced polygamy/polyandry for as many as 11-13 years before his death and lied about it until the day he died. But, every time he put his hands on a woman besides his 1st wife this scripture was in the D and C:

Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 247)

This scripture was in every edition of the D and C until 1876 when it was removed and replaced with a revelation allowing polygamy for obvious reasons because polygamy had been practiced by then for forty years.
Smith practiced polygamy/polyandry and also condemned it as shown below.

This appeared in the Times and Seasons (church publication) over the signatures of both Joseph and Hyrum Smith

As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, by the name of Hyram Brown,** has been preaching polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines,** in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan. This is to notify him and the Church in general, that he has been cut off from the church, for his iniquity.
Joseph Smith - Mormonism founder
Hyrum Smith
Times and Seasons 5:423, Feb 1844, four months before he died

Every doctrine in the Mormon church comes from Smiths writings and teachings that are so contradictory. Now does that sound like someone you would trust your salvation to.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

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

I think that if you had really thought through things rationally, about the idea that you can approach Mormonism as though you don’t have a testimony, you would find that you are not really able to do so. Mormons don’t stop thinking like Mormons. I tried for a good part of my life to “get the Mormon out”, and I still find, to this day, Mormonism affects my ability to understand plain reasoning related to religion. It is a very irritating thing, and it used to really get me riled up. But, it is what it is. I leave it to God, and when I find that “Mormon brain” is affecting how I think, I thank God for giving me the insight to see it for what it is, and move on.

I once thought faith was dependent on me, as you express, and as is taught in Mormonism. Then came a day where I had an amazing insight…I didn’t need to believe at all.

My experiment many years later, as an atheist, was to see if I could find faith. Faith does not mean, believe for the sake of believing. I held no belief, as an atheist, and didn’t come to believe by talking myself into believing, or pretending to believe what I don’t believe. My experiment included one prayer, God, if you exist, lead me to you. Any other expression outside of that I viewed as self fulfilling. I figured, I would find that faith cannot exist without a self generation of belief. See, there is that Mormon thinking, hanging around when I was an atheist. I call faith a miracle, a gift from God, that is not generated from me as I know from experience, I cannot generate faith from myself.

I’m saying, I doubt you are able to approach Mormonism as though you don’t believe. I have never met a Mormon who could break free from the grip of that “Mormon brain”, and remain Mormon. You’re still in the grip, just have built the most complex maze to keep it all intact, that I have ever seen.

Faith is much more simple than that.