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

[Stephen168]

,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).

Are you suggesting that because of Christ’s death and resurrection there are no more males and females, no action is sinful, there are no more Jews, and there are no more slaves?

 

[Stephen168]

By his logic, all use of feminine imagery to describe God should be false and heretical. Yet Jesus himself

was male and more than just an image.

 

[Marie5890]

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”.

And people get all bent out of shape with the dogma of papal infallibility for Catholics.

Mormon prophets, spokesmen of God on earth, dontcha know.

 

[truthseeker32]

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?

That is the beauty of the Catholic faith. They have a standard called natural law by which they can divide actual, objective moral truths from prejudice. When ancient Christians opposed gentiles what was their ground for doing so? Arbitrary tradition and prejudice. When the Church today says homosexual acts are wrong is this simply an arbitrary tradition and prejudice, or is it rooted in an unchanging moral law?

There is absolutely nothing less godly about females than there is about males.

No disagreement here.

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 the sense that as the body of Christ we are one. This doesn’t mean God doesn’t care about gender differences.

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.

I have heard this argument before, but I have yet to see good, solid academic evidence for the claim.

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.

The Catholic Church has never claimed that priestly celibacy is a dogma; rather the Church has explained why it is permissible and good to be celibate.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

Admittedely, when I first started looking at Christianity, I attended a local Episcopalian church for a few weeks. For various reasons, I switched to going to Catholic Mass, and studying Catholic teaching. I was reading “Catholic for Dummies” in a Barnes and Noble, and turned to the section on the male-only priesthood. The “reasoning” in that particular book really ticked me off. I literally threw the book down. But I didn’t stop reading there, and looked for what other’s had to say.

Coming from an atheist/nihilist/feminist view, at the time, you can believe that any old explanation wasn’t going to fly. Some things in your post here, that just are not the Catholic view. No one believes there is anything “less godly about females”. Honestly, that sounds like a Mormon left-over. No one believes that sexuality defines our spirituality. If anything, now, I read such ideas as saying that my sexuality should define my spirituality, so therefore I should be upset that the Catholic Church doesn’t acknowledge this definition. I don’t acknowledge it.

God became Man and dwelt among us. God didn’t become Woman. Should I be upset at this? Should I think God thinks anything less of me because God became Man? If so, why?

In the context of the Sacrifice at Mass, Jesus Christ fulfilling the office of the High Priest (always male), I can’t see a reason that makes sense that a priest would be female. Sure, in my nihilist pre-convert days, I’d say all of this was a social construct, which is what you are saying. But you have to understand, a nihilist sees everything as a construct. So when you are someone who believes there is nothing, wondering if there is something, and that something turns out to be a Person…well, who am I to say that Jesus taking on the vesture of a human male, and our continued Sacred Tradition to honor the Person of Jesus Christ in every way, is a human construct? For me, I believe in the REALITY of Jesus Christ. In the REALITY of the Church He established. If you want to start breaking down social constructs, a nihilist can tear down your belief to block on block of human constructs. If this is your orientation towards reality, I can make you an atheist in a week! I’d rather point you to the Reality of Jesus Christ, the event of the Incarnation, where God became Man. An Event that changed humanity. Your Salvation.

And all that being said. All the baptized share in the priesthood of our one High Priest, Jesus Christ. All of us, clergy and laity, male and female, are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.

God bless you.

 

[donatist59]

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

That was exactly my point. The Holy Spirit intervenes to “change Church doctrine” if the doctrine isn’t sufficiently in keeping with Christ’s message. That is precisely what happened in Acts 15. To be a Christian today, it isn’t good enough to sit back smugly and thank God there are no longer any Samaritans that we have to love in spite of some ancient historical prejudice against them that we learned about in books. There are people today who are the victims of our prejudice whom we have to embrace.

 

[donatist59]

When ancient Christians opposed gentiles what was their ground for doing so? Arbitrary tradition and prejudice. When the Church today says homosexual acts are wrong is this simply an arbitrary tradition and prejudice, or is it rooted in an unchanging moral law?

I don’t think you can distinguish that easily between arbitrary tradition and prejudice on the one hand, and an “unchanging moral law” on the other. The “arbitrary tradition” that led first generation Christians to regard gentiles as impure and unclean was rooted in Scripture; if you weren’t circumcised, you weren’t among God’s people. The OT is quite clear on that. But the Church began, slowly, to understand that this moral law needed to be changed. And it was changed. (And by James, not Peter… but that’s another story.

What “unchanging moral law” are Christians under? The unchanging moral law is this: Love your neighbor as yourself, and do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

In the context of early 21st century society, you have to really split hairs to maintain the anti-gay position. The argument that “we don’t condone violence or prejudice against gay people, but we do maintain that they are evil, wicked and far more sinful than we are,” is a dangerously precarious position. “Discriminate against them but don’t hate them” is an incoherent stand.

I live in Milwaukee. Our Catholic archbishop was gay. He wasted most of his time leading the diocese trying desperately to deal with scandals and financial burdens resulting from the fact that gay men, raised in a climate of prejudice and hate, try to “cure” themselves by joining the priesthood. These men – thousands upon thousands of them – find that desires that should be able to express themselves in open and loving relationships and even marriage, can only be expressed in secrecy or, far worse, in abusive situations. The experiment of trying to “solve the problem” by driving people underground has obviously failed. Isn’t it time to try the Bible’s solution instead: Love our neighbors as we love ourselves, don’t deny them any right we claim for ourselves, and above all, recognize that it is better to marry than to burn?

 

[Stephen168]

The argument that “we don’t condone violence or prejudice against gay people, but we do maintain that they are evil, wicked and far more sinful than we are,” is a dangerously precarious position. “Discriminate against them but don’t hate them” is an incoherent stand.

This seems like a strawman argument. What is the source of your quote?

 

[donatist59]

And people get all bent out of shape with the dogma of papal infallibility for Catholics.

Whether it’s prophet or pope, I don’t trust anyone who claims to be infallible except the Son of God. The doctrine of papal infallibility is absolutely, beyond any doubt, the biggest and most tragic obstacle to Christian unity.

 

[donatist59]

This seems like a strawman argument. What is the source of your quote?

In the interest of fairness, please rewrite the quote in a way that you can affirm, and then we can discuss it.

 

[Stephen168]

In the interest of fairness, please rewrite the quote in a way that you can affirm, and then we can discuss it.

In fairness to the teaching of the Catholic Church, where did you get your quoted “argument?”

 

[donatist59]

God didn’t become Woman.

We know from Genesis that both man and woman were created in the image of God. When God became incarnate, how was God supposed to become a man and a woman at the same time?

 

[RebeccaJ]

We know from Genesis that both man and woman were created in the image of God. When God became incarnate, how was God supposed to become a man and a woman at the same time?

Exactly! Jesus is a Person, not a social construct.

 

[donatist59]

In fairness to the teaching of the Catholic Church, where did you get your quoted “argument?”

You’re playing word games. If you think I mis-stated your position in my paraphrase, then I invite you (again) to tell me what your position actually is. If you can only respond by badgering, then I have to assume that my paraphrase was in fact accurate and that you’re trying to change the subject.

I’m not here to argue. If you won’t state your own position clearly, I won’t respond to you any further. If, on the other hand, you can clearly state your own position, then we can all see how close it is, or isn’t, to my paraphrase. The ball’s in your court.

 

[Stephen168]

You’re playing word games. If you think I mis-stated your position in my paraphrase, then I invite you (again) to tell me what your position actually is. If you can only respond by badgering, then I have to assume that my paraphrase was in fact accurate and that you’re trying to change the subject.

I’m not here to argue. If you won’t state your own position clearly, I won’t respond to you any further. If, on the other hand, you can clearly state your own position, then we can all see how close it is, or isn’t, to my paraphrase. The ball’s in your court.

So you used quotes as if quoting the position of the Catholic Church toward homosexuals; when in fact that is not the position of the Catholic Church, you made it up. You have made up a strawman to beat the Church with, you could have just as easily did some research.

Your exegesis of Gal 3:28 claims to include sinful behavior. If a person identified their very being as being a pedophile or a rapist; that behavior is OK in the Episcopalian Church.

 

[flameburns623]

My decision to join the Mormons came after being out of the Catholic Church for about 8 years, and after having been a sometimes vociferous unbeliever in college.

I came to believe in something I called “values”, something I had found easy to question during my college years. Mormons epitomised those, Catholics seemed to me to be adrift on this score. It filled a need, it helped me find faith in God. But I really didn’t have the sort of watertight “testimony” that I professed to have when I consented to be baptised.

Work started making regular LDS chapel attendance difficult. After a year or two, I just moved away, spiritually. Just became a run-of-the-mill Protestant. I made two serious efforts to regain my “testimony”, once after my divorce, and in the “year of discernment” when I tried to determine if I wanted to return to the RCC.

But I’d also exposed myself over the years to plenty of material which questioned LDS doctrine. I’d been exposed to plenty of anti-Catholic stuff too. But Catholic apologists seemed to address the challenges to faith in a straightforward and intellectually honest way. LDS apologists–didn’t impress me as behaving with the same level of integrity. I believed they personally believed the LDS Gospel is true . . . . But they seemed to based their faith on some much more subjective basis, and then argue from that a prior assumption on behalf of what they believed.

So: during the nine months or so that I went through RCIA classes while regularising my present marriage, I also formally resigned membership in the LDS Church.

 

[donatist59]

Exactly! Jesus is a Person, not a social construct.

Yes, but when you say “God became man in Jesus Christ,” do you mean God became incarnate as a human being, or God put on a beard, a deep voice, and a penis? The former is profound; the latter is silly. But seriously: Jesus was not simply a man; he was an Aramaic-speaking Jewish man. Should we conclude that all priests and bishops need to be Aramaic-speaking Jewish men?

Although it’s from an evangelical point of view (so we’ll both hold our noses here , I would encourage you to check out “Why not Women?” by Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton. It’s a breezy, popular look at the question of women’s ordination. For a more scholarly take, I recommend “Ordained Women in the Early Church” by Madigan and Osiek.

If someone has never been around ordained women, I can totally understand how it would freak them out. It’s new. It’s unusual. It’s awkward if you haven’t seen it before. It’s like watching a birth for the first time. You’ll see God can come crashing into our lives in ways that surprise us.

 

[donatist59]

So you used quotes as if quoting the position of the Catholic Church toward homosexuals; when in fact that is not the position of the Catholic Church, you made it up. You have made up a strawman to beat the Church with, you could have just as easily did some research.

Your exegesis of Gal 3:28 claims to include sinful behavior. If a person identified their very being as being a pedophile or a rapist; that behavior is OK in the Episcopalian Church.

If all you can do is call people names, you’re unworthy of the debate. Sorry that I won’t respond any further. I have to assume my original post hit too close to home. God bless you.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, but when you say “God became man in Jesus Christ,” do you mean God became incarnate as a human being, or God put on a beard, a deep voice, and a penis? The former is profound; the latter is silly. But seriously: Jesus was not simply a man; he was an Aramaic-speaking Jewish man. Should we conclude that all priests and bishops need to be Aramaic-speaking Jewish men?

So, your argument is, gender doesn’t matter? Then why does an all male priesthood matter?

As for your question, seems rather vulgar and unnecessary. Maybe you thought it cute and clever? I have no interest in discussing the private organs of Jesus. How am I supposed to take you seriously? I’m not interested in a locker room conversation.

Although it’s from an evangelical point of view (so we’ll both hold our noses here , I would encourage you to check out “Why not Women?” by Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton. It’s a breezy, popular look at the question of women’s ordination. For a more scholarly take, I recommend “Ordained Women in the Early Church” by Madigan and Osiek.

If someone has never been around ordained women, I can totally understand how it would freak them out. It’s new. It’s unusual. It’s awkward if you haven’t seen it before. It’s like watching a birth for the first time. You’ll see God can come crashing into our lives in ways that surprise us.

Not really, you don’t know me or my experiences. You seem to have retained the Mormon idea and habit that any old fired up church or idea can be glued into place and called “truth”, ala the 13th article of faith. I know that path, and left it for another. God bless you on your journey.

Are you still a Restorationist? Just one in a cloak of the King’s church?

 

[donatist59]

So, your argument is, sexuality doesn’t matter? Then why does an all male priesthood matter? As for your question, seems rather vulgar and unnecessary. Maybe you thought it cute and clever? I have no interest in discussing the private organs of Jesus. How am I supposed to take you seriously?

I’m not the one who’s obsessed with God having to have the right organs. I think the Incarnation is an astonishingly profound subject. God became a human being in order to save us. That is staggering! How tragic to miss the entire point by obsessing over Jesus’ gender, as if that matters the least little bit.

You ask “Why does an all male priesthood matter?” I don’t think it does. I think in modern society an all male priesthood is a harmful practice. Looking at the damage it has done to the reputation of the Catholic Church should be proof enough of that. Although I am not Roman Catholic, I certainly don’t wish the Church of Rome any harm. Nobody speaks for Christianity with a louder megaphone than the Pope, and, surprisingly often, that’s a good thing. But you’re destroying every Christian’s reputation. Claiming that Christ can only be respresented by a secretive all-boys club that looks out for its sinful members makes it really hard to present Christianity as a credibly virtuous institution in an increasingly anti-religious world.