Leaving Mormonism

[RebeccaJ]

I am not implying that all who leave the LDS church are angry. I never said such.
But I am saying that to understand truth we must have the right spirit.

I appreciate that the D&C has meaning for you but it doesn’t for me.

Come to me all who labor.Anger is quite a labor, in my experience anyway. What the Catholic church taught me is that I can seek truth, even while laboring, even when that labor is emotional. The truth we seek is not a lofty idea or an innovative ideology, but a Person, in whom all Truth resides, as He is Truth.

He, is not a subjective truth, that waxes or wanes based on the latest opinion of any man or book. Whether any man calls himself a prophet or not, does not matter to the object of our Truth, Jesus Christ.

 

[XuDan]

Welcome to CAF & welcome home!
If you haven’t already shared, what brought you into the LDS & what was it that led you out & into the Catholic faith?

I agree that the LDS do encourage up to a certain level of questioning provided that you only stick to LDS friendly materials, accept the wishy washy explanations & leave it at that. Anything other than your standard ‘pre-approved’ Q&A’s is therefore frowned upon.
In my own experience (Cradle Mormon here) outside influences had nothing to do with my questioning & growing doubt of the LDS doctrine & history. Even as a child & teenager, It didn’t stack up right.

Hi Debbie! I briefly shared in my intro in the greetings thread my history but I didn’t go into specifics. I was born and raised Seventh-day Adventist, but as a child I always had issues with the dispensationalism - it just never sat right with me as a kid. But my parents were very strict so if I wanted to avoid the belt I learned quickly to to express my questions.

My fear ended in high school after my father, disenfranchised with the people at his church became an “inactive” member. He still believed, but going to the church and associating with the people there was out of the question for him. I seized this opportunity and started investigating a few churches. At the time, I only had four options in my area: Evangelical Protestant, SDA (which my father would have seen as intentional betrayal and undermining - but that was okay since I wanted to get away from that church anyways), Catholic (which I subconsciously never considered, likely due to the anti catholic beliefs I was raised around.),and the LDS church. I spent a few months bouncing around the evangelical churches, and nothing really lit my fire. Frustrated, I started talking to my friends about it. As it turned out, I had several teammates that were Mormon. They invited me over to take the discussions. It appealed to me, I was so used to anti catholic teachings, that the explanation of the apostasy didn’t bother me and actually made sense (as then I could rationalize why the protestants I knew really disliked the Catholics). But because of the glass table analogy it seemed less harsh of an approach to it. I started going to church and eventually joined, to the out rage of my parents. As a result I was kicked out of the home - but because I was being persecuted for my beliefs I had a wonderful LDS family take me in.

Fast forward a few years, I had graduated, joined the Army, was returning to civilian life, and now married in the church. Doubts in doctrine had been growing and I had been dutifully researching while toeing the line and telling everyone that “I knew the church was true.” But I was not receiving answers from people other than very shallow “standard Mormon answers” that with a few minutes of follow up research fell apart. I had written authorities in the church, to include the first presidency and was either ignored (received no reply) or was told that the question I was asking was inappropriate, that such things were either to sacred to talk about or that it was the wrong time in the church to reveal such things.

Granted that frustrated me and validated my doubts but that wasn’t the straw that broke the camel’s back. for me it was how both my wife and I were treated because I couldn’t just accept the shallow answers and non-answers I was given. We were now treated as second-class members. Like we were dirty.I was even encouraged to not take the sacrament, to which I would ask them why? What sin had I committed that made me unworthy to partake - the response was a smug smile and walking away.This kind of action raised questions not just about doctrines in the church but red flagged the organization for me. For the first time, at that time, I took a long, hard, prayerful and objective look at the Church itself, it’s history, it’s operations and discovered that the the product I was sold, the church that I was indoctrinated into was not reflective of reality. I became disillusioned. No more was I able to be blind to it’s failings. The reason I had been ignored was because they would have to either commit to a lie in writing, or tell me the truth, neither of which suited their agenda. So the third option is to ignore or to say that it is inappropriate to ask.

It took me another year after this to finally leave. To say I won’t accept or pretend to accept the lies and poor treatment.

I hope that answers your question and thank you for the welcome to the forums

 

[XuDan]

As Neil A. Maxwell once said, "Some insist upon studying the Church only through the eyes of its defectors—like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus. Defectors always tell us more about themselves than about that from which they have departed” (BYU Speaches, “All Hell is Moved”, Nov 8, 1977).

Didn’t take long to compare Mormons who leave with Judas Iscariot. Typical.

Rebecca, that’s exactly how I took this. I mean it clearly implies that to talk to ex-LDS about the church is like talking to Judas about Jesus.

Of course questions are not evil. Particularly when approached in the right manner.

I am not implying that all who leave the LDS church are angry. I never said such.
But I am saying that to understand truth we must have the right spirit.

By your definition doubt that leads to questions is not evil so as it is sought in the right light/manner. But what is the right light/manner Janderich?

1. Seek in the right light: A person filled with hatred, doubt, fear, or anger will be blinded in their search, they will misinterpret and misunderstand.
2. Study both sides of an issue: The person who discovers a new fact and looks at anti-mormon material only is looking at only half an issue.
3. Search deeply: Religious truth is much more than skin deep. Mere outward facts are not enough. The gospel deals with why and how. A person must understand motivations to understand truth.

So… By your definition doubt that leads to questions is not evil so as there is no doubt… Okay. Kind of difficult to have questions without doubt…

 

[LivingWaters7]

random: doing some spring cleaning, organizing my closet, and found my bag with my temple clothing.

 

[Janderich]

Rebecca, that’s exactly how I took this. I mean it clearly implies that to talk to ex-LDS about the church is like talking to Judas about Jesus.

By your definition doubt that leads to questions is not evil so as it is sought in the right light/manner. But what is the right light/manner Janderich?

So… By your definition doubt that leads to questions is not evil so as there is no doubt… Okay. Kind of difficult to have questions without doubt…

I said questions are not evil. Questions are useful and good. However, questions do not need to spring from doubt. Questions imply unknowns, not doubt. Doubt is a frame of mind and where doubt is there faith is not. As Christ said, “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” (Matt 14:31). When we use doubt as the starting point we seek in darkness and confusion.

What is then is the right way to search? Exert confidence in God and ask knowing that he will reveal the truth of it to you. That is how one asks in faith. That is how one gains light and understanding.

What then should one do if they think another is in the wrong? Show them the better way of course! Joseph said this:

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. (History of the Church 5:498-499)

 

[XuDan]

Doubt has many meanings, simply applying your interpretation or one aspect universally to all usage and context is inadviseable. As you can see,by definition, having doubt can be as simple as lacking certainty in a thing. If you are certain about a thing, there is no room for questions about it. Without doubt discernment is not possible. Without doubt the entire premise/challenge of Moroni 10:4 is a mute point.

It would be nice if we could ignore the many contexts of doubt, but the reality is that some doubt as you have prescribed, in order to prove something that they have already pre-decided as true or false. Then again, someone may doubt something because they are uncertain to it’s cogency, accuracy, context, interpretation, etc. Without critical thought, which requires a form of doubt, one would believe anything anyone every said. Surely we can agree that that is not a desirable thing.

 

[TexanKnight]

Doubt has many meanings, simply applying your interpretation or one aspect universally to all usage and context is inadviseable. As you can see,by definition, having doubt can be as simple as lacking certainty in a thing. If you are certain about a thing, there is no room for questions about it. Without doubt discernment is not possible. Without doubt the entire premise/challenge of Moroni 10:4 is a mute point.

It would be nice if we could ignore the many contexts of doubt, but the reality is that some doubt as you have prescribed, in order to prove something that they have already pre-decided as true or false. Then again, someone may doubt something because they are uncertain to it’s cogency, accuracy, context, interpretation, etc. Without critical thought, which requires a form of doubt, one would believe anything anyone every said. Surely we can agree that that is not a desirable thing.

Don’t is the other side of the coin. The coin has two sides…faith and doubt. They exist together. The only way to have ZERO doubt is to have perfect knowledge…which would take away the need for faith.

The issue is…do you give more credibility to your faith? or to your doubt?

 

[XuDan]

Don’t is the other side of the coin. The coin has two sides…faith and doubt. They exist together. The only way to have ZERO doubt is to have perfect knowledge…which would take away the need for faith.

The issue is…do you give more credibility to your faith? or to your doubt?

It is dependent upon the context.

For example, in faith I may come to believe something that is contradictory to practice or scripture. Doubt allows me to check and balance against such things. They are not mutually exclusive.

I hope you’re not suggesting that one either doubts or has faith - that would be a false dichotomy as many explore their faith through doubt. If I am uncertain of an aspect of my faith, yet truly believe it - should I stay ignorant or explore it and enrich myself? If the latter then I have used doubt to explore faith.

I don’t seek perfect knowledge, in religion I’m not convinced such a thing exists. But I do seek to further my knowledge by addressing my uncertainties not my convictions.

An analogy would look like this: I want to have good functional strength and find that my upperbody strength is great, but my leg strength is subpar. Do I build up one and not the other? Do I focus more on one than the other? Or do I focus on both equally? The same holds true for me in my faith. I try hard not to ignore my weaknesses, and try to build them up while still feeding the parts of my faith that are already strong.

 

[TexanKnight]

It is dependent upon the context.

For example, in faith I may come to believe something that is contradictory to practice or scripture. Doubt allows me to check and balance against such things. They are not mutually exclusive.

I hope you’re not suggesting that one either doubts or has faith - that would be a false dichotomy as many explore their faith through doubt. If I am uncertain of an aspect of my faith, yet truly believe it - should I stay ignorant or explore it and enrich myself? If the latter then I have used doubt to explore faith.

I don’t seek perfect knowledge, in religion I’m not convinced such a thing exists. But I do seek to further my knowledge by addressing my uncertainties not my convictions.

An analogy would look like this: I want to have good functional strength and find that my upperbody strength is great, but my leg strength is subpar. Do I build up one and not the other? Do I focus more on one than the other? Or do I focus on both equally? The same holds true for me in my faith. I try hard not to ignore my weaknesses, and try to build them up while still feeding the parts of my faith that are already strong.

Wrong analogy…because faith is discussing something you cannot prove. Your body strength does not apply.

I am saying this…you believe God exists. You cannot prove it. There will always be a tinge of doubt…sometimes a lot.

But…if God came down and had dinner with you…you would have perfect knowledge, and therefore it would no longer require faith.

 

[XuDan]

Wrong context.
In this context we’re are referring to faith in an organization such as the LDS Church and it’s doctrines, dogmas, and leadership. Not faith in God alone. Ergo my statement that it depends on the context. in the context of this conversation regarding those things I argue that doubt is essential to discernment as to weather one should place faith in it or not, or if one’s faith in it is justified or not.

Or are you of the position that members of organizations should operate in complete faith towards said organizations even if the positions and teachings cause uncertainty to arise?

 

[TexanKnight]

Wrong context.
In this context we’re are referring to faith in an organization such as the LDS Church and it’s doctrines, dogmas, and leadership. Not faith in God alone. Ergo my statement that it depends on the context. in the context of this conversation regarding those things I argue that doubt is essential to discernment as to weather one should place faith in it or not, or if one’s faith in it is justified or not.

Or are you of the position that members of organizations should operate in complete faith towards said organizations even if the positions and teachings cause uncertainty to arise?

I have been LDS and I have been Catholic. Both organizations fall into that category.

 

[XuDan]

I have been LDS and I have been Catholic. Both organizations fall into that category.

Exactly why I asked you the question.

 

[TexanKnight]

Exactly why I asked you the question.

ok

 

[Marie5890]

Wrong analogy…because faith is discussing something you cannot prove. Your body strength does not apply.

I am saying this…you believe God exists. You cannot prove it. There will always be a tinge of doubt…sometimes a lot.

But…if God came down and had dinner with you…you would have perfect knowledge, and therefore it would no longer require faith.

“Fides et Ratio” By Pope St John Paul II

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html

 

[JaminB123]

As Neil A. Maxwell once said, "Some insist upon studying the [LDS] Church only through the eyes of its defectors—like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus.

This is such a ubiquitous myth in Mormon circles, that those who leave Mormonism are akin to Judas, those we are somehow sinful, weak, and immoral for leaving. It is probably faith-promoting for you to look at us that way, but it simply does not reflect reality.

No, my friend, most of us did not leave Mormonism for those reasons. On the contrary, many of us exhibited moral courage and integrity (and often great personal cost) in leaving Mormonism. It wasn’t because we were Judas-like. Most often we leave because we saw through the LDS curtain and recognized the false prophets who founded Mormonism. We saw in Mormonism a foundation laid by JS and BY of dishonesty, coerced polygamy/polyandry, racism, Masonry, false “scripture” translations, illegal behavior, ego run amuck, blasphemous theologies, anti-Christian rhetoric, etc. Jesus warned us about false prophets and these things enumerated in the previous sentance are the fruits of the false prophets by which we can know them.

I understand the point you were trying to make with your post, but to use this quote from Maxwell was probably not the best way to win friends and influence people. I thought you Mormons were better salesman than that!

 

[Marie5890]

This is such a ubiquitous myth in Mormon circles, that **those who leave Mormonism are akin to Judas, those we are somehow sinful, weak, and immoral for leaving. It is probably faith-promoting for you to look at us that way, but it simply does not reflect reality.

No, my friend, most of us did not leave Mormonism for those reasons. On the contrary, many of us exhibited moral courage and integrity (and often great personal cost) in leaving Mormonism. It wasn’t because we were Judas-like. Most often we leave because we saw through the LDS curtain and recognized the false prophets who founded Mormonism. We saw in Mormonism a foundation laid by JS and BY of dishonesty, coerced polygamy/polyandry, racism, Masonry, false “scripture” translations, illegal behavior, ego run amuck, blasphemous theologies, anti-Christian rhetoric, etc.** Jesus warned us about false prophets and these things enumerated in the previous sentance are the fruits of the false prophets by which we can know them.

I understand the point you were trying to make with your post, but to use this quote from Maxwell was probably not the best way to win friends and influence people. I thought you Mormons were better salesman than that!

I dont understand why such blatantly false accusation still exists against those of us who leave.

God never asked me to dismiss or ignore my intellect while I exercised faith in Him. Never.

Why do people think there is a need to separate faith from reason?

Pope St John Paul II 'Fides et Ratio"

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html

 

[eatpraylove11]

Techno2000, we have similar stories…I’ll message you!

 

[XuDan]

I dont understand why such blatantly false accusation still exists against those of us who leave.

God never asked me to dismiss or ignore my intellect while I exercised faith in Him. Never.

Why do people think there is a need to separate faith from reason?

Pope St John Paul II 'Fides et Ratio"

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html

Because if people like us aren’t strongly vilified then others won’t have a reason to fear leaving. Think about it, it’s a self preservation technique, I know many who stay simply because they fear the social repercussions more than they do staying in a religion they no longer believe in.

 

[Marie5890]

Because if people like us aren’t strongly vilified then others won’t have a reason to fear leaving. Think about it, it’s a self preservation technique, I know many who stay simply because they fear the social repercussions more than they do staying in a religion they no longer believe in.

Yes, just in the past few weeks I got a PM from a man who is in this position. Was wondering how to perserve his family despite his lack of belief. In the end, he has decided to pretend in order to keep his marriage.

That is a very burden to carry. To ignore one’s conscience in order to preserve his marriage. I get it, but I dont envy him.

 

[Janderich]

I dont understand why such blatantly false accusation still exists against those of us who leave.

God never asked me to dismiss or ignore my intellect while I exercised faith in Him. Never.

Why do people think there is a need to separate faith from reason?

Pope St John Paul II 'Fides et Ratio"

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html

Separate faith from reason? Of course not! I would never dream of it. Nor was what I shared with you an accusation against you. When you can recognize that perhaps you will be able to see the truth behind the statement.