Ex-Mormons: Why Did You Leave the Mormon Church?

[truthseeker32]

It may benefit you to go back and read my post you quoted. No where do I use the word proof, indeed, I said something along the lines of “there was likely no transatlantic voyage of any Jews.”

Nevertheless, I certainly would feel very confident betting all of my assets against there being Israelite expats in Mesoamerica as contemporary mitochondrial haplotypes indicative of a Middle East ancestry are nowhere to be found among Native Americans, except for in cases where there has been recent admixture with Western Europeans. The really cool thing about mitochondrial DNA is that unlike chromosomal DNA, it is highly conserved, does not undergo crossover effects (i.e. doesn’t get “mixed together” with other sources of DNA) and very rarely mutates. When it does mutate, it does so predictably and at a constant rate. It’s these qualities of mtDNA which makes it such a powerful tool in mapping human populations over time. We can know with relatively great precision how long ago a haplotype arose (i.e. when it mutated into existence), and based on relative frequencies within a population we can determine how closely related they are to other populations. We know that this is a sound assumption because when we map out haplotypes geographically (such as here) we see a gradual cline in the frequencies which correlate with distance from where the haplotype arose.

We’ll take the J haplogroup as an example. We know this haplotype mutated somewhere near the Caucasus mountains about 40k years ago. The age we can determine using that constant mutation rate I mentioned and then working backwards to accounts for the total number of DNA nucleotide bases within the haplotype. We can be fairly certain of the location of mutation due to its incidence in over 70% of people in that part of the world. As we start to move away from the Caucasus, particularly toward Palestine and the Arabian peninsula the incidence remains high but slowly declines. The same holds true as we move eastward toward India, until the incidence of the haplotype seemingly disappears. This is of course just looking at one single haplotype. In reality populations consist of many and when we speak of “Jewish haplogroups” or “Chinese haplogroups” what we’re really talking about is the total repertoir of haplogroups which together in their proper concentrations indicate common ancestry.

Your non-sequiturs about your Scandinavian ancestry are just that: irrelevant to this topic. mtDNA analysis cannot tell a single individual what their ancestry is because: (1) haplotypes mutate very slowly meaning that at best it can only tell you that you descend from some unnamed individual from some part of the world 40,000 years ago, and (2) individuals only have one mitochondrial haplotype. I’ve tested my own mtDNA and found that I have the T3 haplotype which evolved in modern day Iraq some 25k years ago. T3 is most prevalent among Palestinians, Syrians, Turks, the Balkans, and (yes) Jews. T3 is also present in some Northern Europeans, but the rate of incidence is so low that we don’t think of it as indicative of European ancestry. So what can I conclude from my mtDNA sequencing? Absolutely nothing! It was just a fun thing I did to waste time while I was messing around with a NextGen sequencer our lab got

What can it tell us about populations though? Lots! T3 and J haplotypes are very common among Jews and people of Semitic origin. We know this for the reason I mentioned earlier concerning mtDNA geographic maps. What’s more interesting is that we also know this due to the small enclaves of Jews throughout Europe. While T3 and J are very very rare among most Western and Northern Europeans, the rate of incidence is almost the same among Sephardim and Ashkenazi Jews. But wait a minute! Jeff Lindsay and FAIR told me that such “Jewish DNA” would have “diluted out by now”! Granted, the haplotyping of European Jews isn’t identical to that of Palestinian Jews (or Arabs for that matter), but we nevertheless see a micro-sample of the relative ratios among the Diaspora. We should then expect to see the same among the American Diaspora of Israelites too, yes? The problem is that we don’t observe this… at all. In fact, what we do observe is almost complete homogeneity among Native American haplogroups without a T3 or J in sight. This homogeneity implies to me that Native Americans were reproductively isolated from the rest of the world for a couple dozen thousand years, which of course is irreconcilable with a Book of Mormon history that informs us that Israelites migrated to the New World, interbred, and moreover were the progenitors of huge civilizations. So what are our options in explaining these data?

1. Heavenly Father is tricking us by altering Native American haplotypes,
2. There was a very very severe genetic bottleneck in which after the Jaredite and Nephite voyages they did very little breeding and remained entirely isolated from the rest of the Native Americans,
3. The Book of Mormon chronology is off by a couple dozen thousand years (in order to fit the Jaredite and Nephite expeditions in before these haplotypes evolved), or
4. There was no translatlantic expedition of Israelites to the New World.

Now seriously, leaving your LDS biases at the door for a minute, ask yourself: which of these explanations is the most parsimonious with the evidence? Yes, they’re all possible, but which is most likely?

I gotta say it… BOOM! Awesome post, my friend.

 

[pablope]

It may benefit you to go back and read my post you quoted. No where do I use the word proof, indeed, I said something along the lines of “there was likely no transatlantic voyage of any Jews.”

This homogeneity implies to me that Native Americans were reproductively isolated from the rest of the world for a couple dozen thousand years, which of course is irreconcilable with a Book of Mormon history that informs us that Israelites migrated to the New World, interbred, and moreover were the progenitors of huge civilizations. So what are our options in explaining these data?

1. Heavenly Father is tricking us by altering Native American haplotypes,
2. There was a very very severe genetic bottleneck in which after the Jaredite and Nephite voyages they did very little breeding and remained entirely isolated from the rest of the Native Americans,
3. The Book of Mormon chronology is off by a couple dozen thousand years (in order to fit the Jaredite and Nephite expeditions in before these haplotypes evolved), or
4. There was no translatlantic expedition of Israelites to the New World.

Now seriously, leaving your LDS biases at the door for a minute, ask yourself: which of these explanations is the most parsimonious with the evidence? Yes, they’re all possible, but which is most likely?

Awesome post…and you explained it so clear…

Well, any response from our Mormon apologists?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I science.

 

[donatist59]

I’m not sure what exactly you mean by “… social liberalism, which seems to exemplify in large measure the mission of Jesus in breaking down artificial social barriers.”

The trajectory of Christianity is toward inclusion. Ordaining women today is as outrageously offensive to some people as ordaining Gentiles was in the First Century; but the Church is finding a way to do both. Accepting LGBT people as full members of the Church today is as outrageously offensive to some people as accepting Samaritans was in the First Century; but the Church is finding a way to do both.

It’s easy to forget how wrenching the outreach to Gentiles was in the first century. It even provoked a schism in the Church (the so-called Nazarenes or Jewish Christians who, although they accepted Jesus as the Messiah, saw their Jewish identity threatened by the presence of “unclean” Gentiles and the relaxation of the Mosaic Law mandated in Acts 15). At that time, Gentiles and Samaritans were not just regarded as ‘people of a different faith’; they were regarded as ritually unclean, sexually immoral and physically contaminating. Even to eat with them was an unspeakable disgrace.

Christ teaches otherwise. There is a famous Jewish prayer, now found in the Talmud: “Thank God I was not made a Gentile! Thank God I was not made a slave! Thank God I was not made a woman!” Almost word for word, Paul answered: “There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28). No Christian today would argue that we should still keep slaves or that we should not allow people of certain ethnicities to be ordained. The trajectory is always toward inclusion. Today’s issue happens to be gender and sexual orientation, but the same principles always apply. From where I sit in the pews, I usually take communion from a woman when I go to the rail. It’s the most natural thing in the world.

 

[donatist59]

When I left the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

You and me both! My impression of the Remnant was that if you weren’t wealthy, you weren’t welcome. I quit the Remnant, went back to the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for a few years, then abandoned Mormonism entirely and joined the Episcopal Church.

 

[batman1973]

You and me both! My impression of the Remnant was that if you weren’t wealthy, you weren’t welcome.

Agreed. I got the same impression. That and they really wanted you to fill out your consecration forms.

 

[TexanKnight]

It may benefit you to go back and read my post you quoted. No where do I use the word proof, indeed, I said something along the lines of “there was likely no transatlantic voyage of any Jews.”

Nevertheless, I certainly would feel very confident betting all of my assets against there being Israelite expats in Mesoamerica as contemporary mitochondrial haplotypes indicative of a Middle East ancestry are nowhere to be found among Native Americans, except for in cases where there has been recent admixture with Western Europeans. The really cool thing about mitochondrial DNA is that unlike chromosomal DNA, it is highly conserved, does not undergo crossover effects (i.e. doesn’t get “mixed together” with other sources of DNA) and very rarely mutates. When it does mutate, it does so predictably and at a constant rate. It’s these qualities of mtDNA which makes it such a powerful tool in mapping human populations over time. We can know with relatively great precision how long ago a haplotype arose (i.e. when it mutated into existence), and based on relative frequencies within a population we can determine how closely related they are to other populations. We know that this is a sound assumption because when we map out haplotypes geographically (such as here) we see a gradual cline in the frequencies which correlate with distance from where the haplotype arose.

We’ll take the J haplogroup as an example. We know this haplotype mutated somewhere near the Caucasus mountains about 40k years ago. The age we can determine using that constant mutation rate I mentioned and then working backwards to accounts for the total number of DNA nucleotide bases within the haplotype. We can be fairly certain of the location of mutation due to its incidence in over 70% of people in that part of the world. As we start to move away from the Caucasus, particularly toward Palestine and the Arabian peninsula the incidence remains high but slowly declines. The same holds true as we move eastward toward India, until the incidence of the haplotype seemingly disappears. This is of course just looking at one single haplotype. In reality populations consist of many and when we speak of “Jewish haplogroups” or “Chinese haplogroups” what we’re really talking about is the total repertoir of haplogroups which together in their proper concentrations indicate common ancestry.

Your non-sequiturs about your Scandinavian ancestry are just that: irrelevant to this topic. mtDNA analysis cannot tell a single individual what their ancestry is because: (1) haplotypes mutate very slowly meaning that at best it can only tell you that you descend from some unnamed individual from some part of the world 40,000 years ago, and (2) individuals only have one mitochondrial haplotype. I’ve tested my own mtDNA and found that I have the T3 haplotype which evolved in modern day Iraq some 25k years ago. T3 is most prevalent among Palestinians, Syrians, Turks, the Balkans, and (yes) Jews. T3 is also present in some Northern Europeans, but the rate of incidence is so low that we don’t think of it as indicative of European ancestry. So what can I conclude from my mtDNA sequencing? Absolutely nothing! It was just a fun thing I did to waste time while I was messing around with a NextGen sequencer our lab got

What can it tell us about populations though? Lots! T3 and J haplotypes are very common among Jews and people of Semitic origin. We know this for the reason I mentioned earlier concerning mtDNA geographic maps. What’s more interesting is that we also know this due to the small enclaves of Jews throughout Europe. While T3 and J are very very rare among most Western and Northern Europeans, the rate of incidence is almost the same among Sephardim and Ashkenazi Jews. But wait a minute! Jeff Lindsay and FAIR told me that such “Jewish DNA” would have “diluted out by now”! Granted, the haplotyping of European Jews isn’t identical to that of Palestinian Jews (or Arabs for that matter), but we nevertheless see a micro-sample of the relative ratios among the Diaspora. We should then expect to see the same among the American Diaspora of Israelites too, yes? The problem is that we don’t observe this… at all. In fact, what we do observe is almost complete homogeneity among Native American haplogroups without a T3 or J in sight. This homogeneity implies to me that Native Americans were reproductively isolated from the rest of the world for a couple dozen thousand years, which of course is irreconcilable with a Book of Mormon history that informs us that Israelites migrated to the New World, interbred, and moreover were the progenitors of huge civilizations. So what are our options in explaining these data?

1. Heavenly Father is tricking us by altering Native American haplotypes,
2. There was a very very severe genetic bottleneck in which after the Jaredite and Nephite voyages they did very little breeding and remained entirely isolated from the rest of the Native Americans,
3. The Book of Mormon chronology is off by a couple dozen thousand years (in order to fit the Jaredite and Nephite expeditions in before these haplotypes evolved), or
4. There was no translatlantic expedition of Israelites to the New World.

Now seriously, leaving your LDS biases at the door for a minute, ask yourself: which of these explanations is the most parsimonious with the evidence? Yes, they’re all possible, but which is most likely?

and that was where you lost him…

 

[cajunhillbilly]

Please pray for my daughter-in-law and her daughter and son, my grand-kids. They live in upstate New York in Cortland. They are Mormons and I am praying for their conversion to historic Christianity. Yea, I know you guys are waiting on me to convert, being Anglican and all. But you and I share much more in common then we do differences. I would have no problems if they became Catholic, as I consider myself very close to Catholic myself. I am still on my journey and open to God’s leading.

 

[lynnettejane]

I left the church through good Christian friends who simply kept turning me back to the Bible, ne heated arguments, just their understanding of what the Bible actually says without the Mormon spin. Add this to doubts in my own mind and the lack of a real testimony, oh yes I could stand up and say the I believed that JS was a prophet and I knew the LDS church was the one true church, but it wasn’t from the heart. Long story short, I realised how untrue it is, how man made and lacking in Christ that I left, eventually was excommunicated, went to various churches which was useful until finally listening to God, and here I am.
In short I left the mormon church because it is all lies, led by the father of lies, that is why it is so successful.

 

[gazelam]

Three words… Einstein, Einstein, Einstein!!

 

[Stephen168]

Three words… Einstein, Einstein, Einstein!!

So Mormonism is as meaningful to you as having a favorite color.

Due to Mormonism’s lack of reason, I can understand that.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Three words… Einstein, Einstein, Einstein!!

You give far too much credit to Einstein and so little to Joseph Smith. I should think knowing that there have been giant Quakers on the Moon would’ve done more to entice you than anything Einstein could’ve said.

 

[TexanKnight]

You give far too much credit to Einstein and so little to Joseph Smith. I should think knowing that there have been giant Quakers on the Moon would’ve done more to entice you than anything Einstein could’ve said.

lol

 

[batman1973]

Let us not forget, that brother Brigham did not want to be outdone by Joseph: “Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?.. when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fathers. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized”.

 

[truthseeker32]

The trajectory of Christianity is toward inclusion. Ordaining women today is as outrageously offensive to some people as ordaining Gentiles was in the First Century; but the Church is finding a way to do both. Accepting LGBT people as full members of the Church today is as outrageously offensive to some people as accepting Samaritans was in the First Century; but the Church is finding a way to do both.

The Catholic Church is open to all people, regardless of race, sex, or sexual preference; She just don’t believe that one has to alter morality or get with the times in order to be inclusive.

It’s easy to forget how wrenching the outreach to Gentiles was in the first century. It even provoked a schism in the Church (the so-called Nazarenes or Jewish Christians who, although they accepted Jesus as the Messiah, saw their Jewish identity threatened by the presence of “unclean” Gentiles and the relaxation of the Mosaic Law mandated in Acts 15). At that time, Gentiles and Samaritans were not just regarded as ‘people of a different faith’; they were regarded as ritually unclean, sexually immoral and physically contaminating. Even to eat with them was an unspeakable disgrace.

Christ teaches otherwise. There is a famous Jewish prayer, now found in the Talmud: “Thank God I was not made a Gentile! Thank God I was not made a slave! Thank God I was not made a woman!” Almost word for word, Paul answered: “There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28). No Christian today would argue that we should still keep slaves or that we should not allow people of certain ethnicities to be ordained. The trajectory is always toward inclusion. Today’s issue happens to be gender and sexual orientation, but the same principles always apply. From where I sit in the pews, I usually take communion from a woman when I go to the rail. It’s the most natural thing in the world.

There is a difference between opposing a person’s race and opposing immoral acts. These two things are categorically different. I recommend checking out this fellow’s blog. He is a gay Catholic explaining why homosexual sex, masturbation, contraception, etc. is immoral:

beatushomo.blogspot.com/

Inclusion shouldn’t be extended to the point where people refuse to call what is immoral immoral.

As for the ordination of women, if you reject that there are important differences between men and women, both physical and metaphysical, then I can understand how you would see ordaining women to the priesthood as permissible. You might enjoy Dr. Peter Kreeft’s short essay on why only men are priests:

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/sexual-symbolism.htm

 

[ffg]

I think I still qualify to answer this question even though I have not left physically (it is a long story), but spiritually I have left. I know that leaves me open to the criticism that I must still be having doubts, but I don’t have any doubts, I am just trying to do what is right, in the right way.

Like most mormons i was taught not to read “anti-mormon” literature - since it is the tool of the adversary to make us doubt the pure religion. Like most mormons too I was taught to concentrate on reading the book of mormon since it is the “keystone to our religion”. So, I really did not know what the Bible actually said. I was enticed by promises of celestial marriage and mansions on high. I also - correctly - saw the goodness of the hearts of many mormons and their family values, oh and that pretty girl I was dating was also mormon.

Then I received a jolt - a terrible event in my life - not God’s doing, except He allowed it to happen. The pain was intense. I contemplated stupid courses of action, but my friends pulled me through. I spoke to my LDS bishop but only saw rules and not compassion (this is very, very forgivable). But there in my desolation I saw a vision in my mind. A green hill crowded by people who I realized were my friends, other LDS church members, my bishop, the leaders of the church. One by one they left because they could not cope with the pain that i was feeling. Everyone was gone except me and one other person. A beautiful person who I did not recognize, but who exuded so much love, I knew they were the answer. I labelled this person as Jesus Christ - because it had to be - but I was not sure. All I knew was this person was the answer. That was probably 10 years ago. Since that time i realized that the person was a Woman, not a Man. A Woman who was to lead me to Christ. This was the Blessed Virgin Mary.

So, knowing that the LDS church could not show me peace in my heart, I set about looking for that peace. I found it partially in a wonderful baptist congregation, but it was transitory. i started to read the Bible and realized that I was being duped my mormonism. Concepts and doctrines that I was being taught by my LDS teachers - and I taught to other (I had been an LDS missionary, High Priest, High Counsellor, bishop’s counceller, and a bishop all before I was 35 years old) were twisted. It was the doctrines that I could read for myself in the Bible that contradicted what i was taught: the great apostasy as taught by mormons - false; the priesthood as taught by mormons - false; marriage and polygamy as taught by mormons false. Weekly hypocrisy taught from the stand in an LDS chapel. The nature of God and the Trinity as taught by the mormons - false. Walk into a mormon sacrament meeting on a Sunday and tell me where the worship and adoration of God is? It is more like a business meeting. And yet the pull of the crowd is intense. The guilt of leaving the LDS religion is heaped upon you: what sin did you commit? must be one of a sexual nature. Well what do you expect, he doesn’t believe in the LDS church anymore, bound to be a sin lurking at the back. Yep, I got it all and still do.

Another major doctrinal problem was in the Creation story. According to LDS beliefs God presented Adam with two sins and he had to choose to commit one of them. Adam is praised for chooseing the “least of the two sins”. Odd, really odd sort of a Father who would do that. Oh and then there was Joseph Smith… well I could go on.

Simple answer: a major jolt in my life; the overwhelming waterfall of God’s love for me, drowning me without any desire on my part to struggle and save myself; the Bible leading me from erroneous doctrines to truth. That’s why I spiritually left the mormon church and why I spiritually entered the Catholic church. And where my heart now is, my weak and cowardly body will follow.

God bless you,

Hal.

Wow. What a journey. Thanks for sharing. It is a strong man to be that deep into anything and reverse, especially religion.

 

[gazelam]

You give far too much credit to Einstein and so little to Joseph Smith. I should think knowing that there have been giant Quakers on the Moon would’ve done more to entice you than anything Einstein could’ve said.

That is a most excellent response!! :tiphat:

 

[donatist59]

The Catholic Church is open to all people, regardless of race, sex, or sexual preference; She just don’t believe that one has to alter morality or get with the times in order to be inclusive.

But that horse already bolted out of the barn door. It used to be deeply, fundamentally immoral to accept Gentiles as equals with Jews. So why do you do it?

 

[TexanKnight]

But that horse already bolted out of the barn door. It used to be deeply, fundamentally immoral to accept Gentiles as equals with Jews. So why do you do it?

wow…You need to read the Chapters in the NT AFTER The Four Gospels

 

[donatist59]

As for the ordination of women, if you reject that there are important differences between men and women, both physical and metaphysical, then I can understand how you would see ordaining women to the priesthood as permissible. You might enjoy Dr. Peter Kreeft’s short essay on why only men are priests

Thanks for the link. But I find that line of reasoning bizarre. I’ve read a couple of Kreeft’s books, BTW, and generally like the way he writes but I’m not impressed by his logic on quite a few occasions – but I understand here he’s simply repeating the RC line. By his logic, all use of feminine imagery to describe God should be false and heretical. Yet Jesus himself used such imagery (e.g. Mt 23:37). Genesis shows the division between male and female as coming before the fall, and indeed acknowledges that God created them “in his own image, male and female.” There is absolutely nothing less godly about females than there is about males. And Paul does not say males and females can both be members of the Church; he says in Christ there is no such valid distinction.

In addition, there are many instances in the early Church of women being ordained, although it was always a localized and evidently somewhat eccentric process (c.f. Madigan and Osiek, “Ordained Women in the Early Church”). Imagining that local and eccentric processes are always heretical is to retroject a level of papal uniformity back into an ecclesial system that knew no such discipline.

Very complex and detailed, scripture-filled justifications have been written for centuries justifying mandatory priestly celibacy – and yet the Catholic Church turns right around and allows married priests in Uniate and ex-Anglican jurisdictions. Obviously not every issue of human sexuality rises to the same level.