Most Compelling Story of Mormons Leaving the LDS Church I Have Ever Seen

[manualman]

Yeah this forum is kind of weird about that. The catholic thing is somewhat understandable since its a catholic forum but Mormons, muslims and evangelicals are open season for bashing but other groups like anglicans and jews are to be treaded lightly about and given the up most respect.

Not really. CAF mods will tolerate criticisms about the teachings of other religions, but not specific put-downs of individuals within that religion, even the founders of said religion. I’ve got the infraction history on my record to prove it too (Muhammed criticisms, not Mormon/Smith).

 

[Chris-WA]

False. We know reason and faith work together and that ultimately truth discovered by any means will prevail. However, there are different ways to uncover truth and some truths are based on a spiritual witness while others are based on scientific evidence. It is the same in the Catholic faith.

No, in Mormonism feelings always trump reason in matters of religion. Mormonism heavily emphasizes feelings over reason. It is the end of every LDS argument. You can talk reason with Mormons until you are blue in the face but they will almost always fall back on, “Well no matter what you say, I KNOW the church is true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet.” It is an argument based on emotion, an argument they have been conditioned to fall back on all their lives at church.

The LDS who take the deep dive into Mormon history (a reason-based effort) are the ones who end up leaving. Current LDS leaders discourage this effort as evidenced by recent conference talks. They know the church has serious problems with its historical claims and they know the consequences of the membership finding out the truth.

 

[Chris-WA]

I’m going to have to disagree with this statement. I think the opposite is more likely true. As for intellectualism being the road to non-belief, that’s an old problem and not unique to Mormons. Some people believe that science and religion are incompatible. One emphasizes faith and feelings, the other fact and methodical inquiry.

The thing I don’t like about misapplying the scientific method to the very human religious experience is that it seems to leave the backslider with a smug sort of self-justification. I prefer the person who just shrugs and just drifts away until the light he once had is taken away from him and he is unable to hear or see.

Perhaps you should read and view testimonials of ex-mormons. It is very common for them to report the reactions of ward members or LDS family members to their leaving the way I described it.

That part is based on testimonies of ex-mormons. I will add my own speculation that as time goes on and this becomes a bigger and bigger problem in the LDS church as more and more Mormons come to learn these historical problems, eventually the reaction of church members to those who leave may shift from “there was something wrong with the member” to a realization that there may be more to the story worth considering.

 

[Theo520]

Anyone, try to be objective and explain how Catholics,
who claim to feel the Real Presence during the Holy Eucharist,
who believe Jesus is literally and wholly present,
are they not also describing their feelings of ‘the truth’?

If an Ex-Mormon has not learned that feelings do not teach us the truth, then he has not really left Mormonism behind.

Paul

 

[twopekinguys]

Anyone, try to be objective and explain how Catholics,
who claim to feel the Real Presence during the Holy Eucharist,
who believe Jesus is literally and wholly present,
are they not also describing their feelings of ‘the truth’?

No, it is not the same.

Catholics rely on faith and reason. Mormons rely on warm fuzzies.

A Catholic’s belief in the real presence is based upon scripture. “This is my body”… spoken by Christ himself. Mormon’s rely on the burning in the bosum to tell them something is “true”.

Big difference.

 

[Dorothy]

Anyone, try to be objective and explain how Catholics,
who claim to feel the Real Presence during the Holy Eucharist,
who believe Jesus is literally and wholly present,
are they not also describing their feelings of ‘the truth’?

Catholics are taught not to depend on feelings alone. Sometimes the Lord gives us consolations, (feelings), but He wants us to grow in faith without feelings so that we can mature spiritually.

Love is a commitment, sometimes accompanied with good feelings.

 

[Stephen168]

Anyone, try to be objective and explain how Catholics,
who claim to feel the Real Presence during the Holy Eucharist,
who believe Jesus is literally and wholly present,
are they not also describing their feelings of ‘the truth’?

Christ said it was so, and I believe him. Feelings have nothing to do with it.
I assume it is the same for most Christians.

 

[Chris-WA]

Anyone, try to be objective and explain how Catholics,
who claim to feel the Real Presence during the Holy Eucharist,
who believe Jesus is literally and wholly present,
are they not also describing their feelings of ‘the truth’?

I have never heard a Catholic say they believe in the real presence because of a feeling they get when they take the Eucharist. I suppose it’s possible, but I have never been taught, nor have I read, nor have I ever heard that “feeling” the presence of Christ is a reason to believe in the real presence in the Eucharist. I believe in it because Christ taught this doctrine himself. It was also taught by the apostles and by the universal church from the very beginning. I take Christ’s word for it. I don’t need a feeling to confirm it.

This is entirely different from Mormons, who are taught all their lives to rely on feelings to confirm their beliefs. It is a very unreliable method to find truth, especially when trying to confirm specific things. Our feelings are subject to so many influences that they cannot be relied upon as a sole reason for belief in a particular doctrine. From LDS historian Grant Palmer’s book An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins about this subject:
Most of us have have felt this spiritual feeling when reading the Book of Mormon…What we interpret this to mean is that we have therefore encountered the truth, and then we base subsequent religious commitments on these feelings. The question I will pose is whether this is an unfailing guide to truth. Is something true because I and others find it edifying? Hundreds of thousands of people believe in the truthfulness of their own religion because of similar confirming experiences. As one example, many people, including myself, felt this confirming spirit when we heard the World War II stories of Utah Congressman Douglas R. Stringfellow. Stringfellow’s experiences were later revealed to be a complete hoax. I was about fourteen years old when I heard him speak, and it was a truly inspiring experience. After Stringfellow concluded, I remember that the leader conducting the meeting said, “If you have never felt the Spirit before, it was here today in abundance.” He was right. I felt it strongly, as did many others. More recently, I felt the same spirit, along with many others, when hearing Paul H. Dung, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, relate his religious experiences during World War II and as a professional baseball player. Today his stories are known to be contrived.
Certain religious experiences can stir up strong feelings within our hearts, but they clearly should not be used as the primary method of discerning whether or not something is true. Allowing yourself to be convinced in this way sets you up for deception, as shown in the examples above.

 

[iepuras]

I have never heard a Catholic say they believe in the real presence because of a feeling they get when they take the Eucharist. I suppose it’s possible, but I have never been taught, nor have I read, nor have I ever heard that “feeling” the presence of Christ is a reason to believe in the real presence in the Eucharist. I believe in it because Christ taught this doctrine himself. It was also taught by the apostles and by the universal church from the very beginning. I take Christ’s word for it. I don’t need a feeling to confirm it.

This is entirely different from Mormons, who are taught all their lives to rely on feelings to confirm their beliefs. It is a very unreliable method to find truth, especially when trying to confirm specific things. Our feelings are subject to so many influences that they cannot be relied upon as a sole reason for belief in a particular doctrine. From LDS historian Grant Palmer’s book An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins about this subject:
Most of us have have felt this spiritual feeling when reading the Book of Mormon…What we interpret this to mean is that we have therefore encountered the truth, and then we base subsequent religious commitments on these feelings. The question I will pose is whether this is an unfailing guide to truth. Is something true because I and others find it edifying? Hundreds of thousands of people believe in the truthfulness of their own religion because of similar confirming experiences. As one example, many people, including myself, felt this confirming spirit when we heard the World War II stories of Utah Congressman Douglas R. Stringfellow. Stringfellow’s experiences were later revealed to be a complete hoax. I was about fourteen years old when I heard him speak, and it was a truly inspiring experience. After Stringfellow concluded, I remember that the leader conducting the meeting said, “If you have never felt the Spirit before, it was here today in abundance.” He was right. I felt it strongly, as did many others. More recently, I felt the same spirit, along with many others, when hearing Paul H. Dung, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, relate his religious experiences during World War II and as a professional baseball player. Today his stories are known to be contrived.
Certain religious experiences can stir up strong feelings within our hearts, but they clearly should not be used as the primary method of discerning whether or not something is true. Allowing yourself to be convinced in this way sets you up for deception, as shown in the examples above.

Absolutely!

I do not believe in the Real Presence because of feelings. I believed it long before I ever received the Eucharist. I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because I believe what Jesus taught. Have I felt the presence of Christ when I received the Eucharist? Yes, but that feeling came long after belief.