Call me biased or insensitive, but it’s my opinion that people generally leave the Mormon church for one of two reasons; 1) they’re offended, or 2) they’re lazy. I have a hard time accepting it when someone says “I found out the church wasn’t true” because the more I research what anti-Mormons say the more convinced I am that the church is true. I haven’t found anything yet that comes anywhere close to shaking my faith. And I have a hard time believing somebody else has found something that I haven’t run into yet that reveals the LDS Church to be false in a more convincing way than what I’ve already encountered.
So I’d like to put the task to you, should you be interested, to convince me that the reason you left the Mormon church isn’t because you were offended by someone or because you’re lazy, but for some other reason. And if you say “Because I wanted to drink beer and sleep around with women of easy morals” I’m going to put you in the “lazy” category.
Are you serious?
Are you?
I’ll give you the short story. While reading church history (for a church assignment) I found out that Joseph Smith had married 30 or so women (other than Emma). He lied about it (to Church members, to Emma, to Oliver, etc). He took other men’s wives (polyandry). He took young girls (one as young as 14). I read in journal accounts (from his wives) and from church histories how he lied and coerced people (my point of view from the data). The LDS Church teaches Satan is the Father of lies. Joseph supposedly continued to receive revelation throughout the decade he lied to everyone, and yet Lehi supposedly could not receive revelation for murmuring. Joseph could not be a prophet. So I looked at what Brigham Young taught (from Journal of Discourses, Times and Seasons, Millenial Star, journals of apostles and future prophets, along with church histories); he taught Adam came from another planet with one of his wives as a resurrected being and ate fruit to became mortal and fathered mortal children (then reorganized himself after he died … again). Brigham was not a prophet. I only looked at Church records (not anti-mormon material). Reading the Bible I realized LDS doctrine contradicts what Jesus and the apostles taught; furthermore, Jesus and Paul say to base your testimony on the Bible and to beware of false teachers, not just pray and see how you feel. Jesus said by their fruits ye shall know them; the teachings and behavior of Joseph are bad fruit.
Well, perhaps I spoke hastily, and after reading Jeff Lindsay’s post on cutting ex-mormons a little slack I almost feel like taking down this entire blog. Yet at the same time my purpose here is not to offend, but to learn, and I really am interested in finding out what puts the “ex” in ex-mormons. My post was not intended to say that all ex-mormons are either offended or lazy no matter what anyone else says–I was being sincere in my claim that that’s what I had seen from my exposure to ex-mormons up to that point. Admittedly, that exposure was minimal, and my whole purpose in creating this post was to try and collect other points of view. After reading your comment and Jeff’s post I suppose it’s perfectly reasonable that somebody might leave the LDS church simply because a lot of its history and teachings seem wacked-out crazy. I still believe that many ex-mormons use the “wacked-out crazy doctrine” as an excuse for laziness, but I’ll accept that others may be entirely sincere.
Regarding your points, I agree there are a lot of strange and seemingly contradictory teachings in the LDS Church and weird things in church history, but I find that on a purely logical level LDS doctrine makes more sense to me and jives more with the Bible than the doctrine of any other religion, plus there’s the spiritual confirmation I’ve received. I take it on faith that those things that seem wacked-out crazy will all make sense once I get the big picture.
But to try and respond briefly:
1. Other prophets have also lied or misled people. Abraham lied about his wife being his sister. In addition, we’ve been commanded to not kill, and yet prophets in the Bible have killed. The only 100% trustworthy maxim is “Whatever God commands is right.” Sometimes God commands not to kill, and in other places in the Bible he commands that men, women, children, and animals of a certain city all be killed. We don’t know what commands Joseph Smith received from God regarding taking multiple wives and then lying about it. My belief is that he was doing what God told him to do.
2. Not everything a prophet says is scripture, even if it’s from General Conference. In fact, where Brigham Young teaches that Adam was resurrected already, he says “I reckon that Father Adam was a resurrected being, with his wives and posterity…” which makes it obvious that he’s speculating. In other places, I agree, it sounds like less than speculation. But regardless, this was never accepted as the doctrine of the church, and was refuted by later prophets like Joseph Fielding Smith who said “Adam had not passed through a resurrection when he was in the Garden of Eden…”. Some Mormons mistakenly believe that every word that comes out of a prophet’s mouth is supposed to be 100% the truth, and that if anything is wrong that must mean that person isn’t a prophet, but this isn’t the doctrine of the church or the Bible or anything else. Prophets may be fallible, and they may speculate about what is true and end up being wrong, but that doesn’t mean they’re not prophets.
3. Paul and Jesus never said to base your testimony on the Bible, because the Bible didn’t exist in their day. It didn’t exist for quite a while after both of them died. They may have said to base your testimony on the scriptures, but what scriptures? The Bible references scriptures that aren’t contained in the Bible itself because they’ve been lost. And so can we say that the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants aren’t just as much scripture as the Bible, and that they weren’t being referred to by Paul and Jesus just as much as the Bible?
Thank you for backing off your original statements and extending some grace to members like my wife and myself (Elizabeth’s husband is obviously writing this). We were active members, with a son on a full-time mission, when we found this information, and it was a very emotionally wrenching ordeal. Our Stake President told us that these things were true, and to keep researching to research the things we had found, but he also told us that we were not allowed to talk to ward members about anything we found. Our Bishop believes some of the doctrines you believe are speculative and tried to teach his version of this doctrine to us. I know some members accept these teachings and Joseph’s behavior, but I don’t know why. I’m not free to discuss this with my ward members because of my Stake President’s orders, but since you gave me a response, let me follow up to your points. I’d appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with someone.
1. I agree that other prophets have lied, but it was always wrong and God never condoned lying. In fact, every place in the Bible where a prophet lies, or behaves contrary to God’s laws he is rebuked (often by the basest characters, such as a wicked Pharaoh, or a donkey). Joseph lied the entire time he was restoring the Church. Biblical prophets also did not lie for more than a decade, nor did they claim to receive revelation at the same time they were lying and misbehaving with other men’s wives and children. When I was in the bishopric, we would have considered Joseph’s behavior to be that of a sexual predator. The LDS Church says sexual sin is second only to murder, and (the LDS Church says) that the condemnation is greater when you have received more light and knowledge. According to LDS doctrine, Joseph should have been severely chastened or removed (and even though he was killed, he was allowed continue for more than a decade, he was never corrected – by God or other LDS leaders, and Joseph’s revelations during this period were canonized, (so) it isn’t fair to say God removed him). As I mentioned last time, Lehi couldn’t receive revelation because he murmured.
As for the Bible commanding us not to kill, and yet some prophets have killed; I don’t believe that argument is intellectually honest. The clear meaning of scripture is God commands us not to murder (kill), but He commanded or condoned killing in judgment (usually nations or people who have violated specific laws). The Hebrew words used for kill in these cases are different. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He does not change His laws or His punishments. At times, He delays judgment for His own purposes, but He does not change the rules. We may not know everything Joseph received, but we do know what Joseph and others wrote down, and we know God from scripture; the God of the Bible did not command Joseph to take other men’s wives.
2. Claiming that not everything a prophet says is scripture appears to be more of a way to avoid discussing the facts than a serious comment. Joseph Smith, in canonized scripture said “And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants.” D&C 68:4-5. Brigham and others repeatedly said they were teaching by inspiration. The fact is Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, along with other prophets and apostles, taught decidedly un-Christian doctrine from the pulpit for decades. The only question that remains is whether these were doctrines of men or doctrines of God; were they true or were they false. The LDS Church has never renounced any of these teachings; the fact that an apostle (Joseph Fielding Smith) later preached opposing doctrine does not resolve the issue. Joseph Fielding Smith also denied that these doctrines were even taught and that is clearly a lie. Perhaps the LDS Church thinks Joseph Fielding Smith was wrong; during a recent General Conference, Elder Wirthlin said, “To those who have strayed because of doctrinal concerns, we cannot apologize for the truth. We cannot deny doctrine given to us by the Lord Himself. On this principle we cannot compromise.” Elder Wirthlin, “Concern for the One”, General Conference Address, April 2008 (He didn’t elaborate on which doctrines he was referring to). LDS Scripture says a prophet cannot lead the church astray, and yet your answer is that, in fact several early prophets did lead the Church astray not just once, or twice, but for decades. I’m not talking about infallibility or speculation; I’m talking about new (non Christian) doctrines taught from the pulpit, in Church publications, from apostles and prophets, for decades. You know the early prophets believed what they were teaching because they acted upon those new doctrines.
I believe the real dilemma is that the temple ceremony and some of the most treasured doctrines of the Church today grew out of these “speculative” doctrines taught by the early Church. They are the foundation that the Church was built upon. Brigham Young taught that the endowment ceremony was endowing members with the power to resurrect; how do you keep the temple ordinance but throw away the doctrinal root?
3. In my first note, I wrote that Paul and Jesus said to base your testimony on the Bible not on your feelings. You correctly pointed out that the Bible did not exist in their day; neither did the Book of Mormon, or the Doctrine and Covenants. What did exist in their day was the Old Testament Known to Jesus and the apostles as theTaNaKh (an acronym that means literally, Torah = the Law, Nevi’im =the Prophets, and Ketuvim =the Writings). The Old Testament and the TaNaKh are essentially identical in content, but the order of the books are different. In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Jesus said “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Clearly Jesus thought that there was sufficient information in the Old Testament for salvation. Obviously Paul was referring to the same Jewish scriptures; he quoted from the TaNaKh extensively. When Paul says that all scripture is useful for doctrine, for reproof, and for correction, (2 Tim 3:16) he was specifically pointing to the TaNaKh or the Old Testament. Jesus warned of false teachers and false prophets; (Matt 7:15, 24:11, 24:24) He never said pray and see how you feel – He said by their fruits (their behavior and teachings) you shall know them. (Matt 7:20) Paul also warned of false teachers and false prophets, saying they would preach another gospel, another Jesus, and another spirit. (Gal 1:6-9, 2 Cor 11:4) Paul also said the Bereans were more noble because they compared what he taught to the scriptures (the TaNaKh). (Acts 17:10-11) The scriptures referred to in these verses are absolutely clear; it was the TaNaKh or Old Testament that Jesus and the Apostles were teaching from.
Both my wife (a Seminary Teacher) and I (a High Priest) are in the untenable position of finding out that the Church that we loved has been lying to us about how it was founded and what it’s real doctrines are. We were only taught this information when our Priesthood leaders believed that we were spiritually mature enough to accept the “fullness” of the gospel. It goes against everything we were taught in the Church to accept that a prophet of the Lord would break up marriages, or marry little girls. Joseph’s behavior moves him into the false prophet category, which leaves us with the Bible alone to guide us.
If you think you can explain how God would withhold the fullness of the gospel until the right time, and then let Joseph Smith restore it in the manner he did, we would love to here your perspective.
I too appreciate this kind of discussion. My own purpose is to learn more of the truth and I welcome any opportunity to discuss matters such as these with persons such as yourself. My intent with my arguments is not to change your mind nor that of anyone else, but rather to explore things for myself. Of course, I am coming from the standpoint that I know these things are true, and that there must be some explanation that makes sense. Which leads into the first point…
1. With regards to lying, polygamy, etc. if we follow this argument to its end, I think the point we end up at is for me to ask whether there is any possible explanation for Joseph’s behavior and that of succeeding leaders of the church that still allows him and them to be true prophets? I don’t have one, but I can imagine that there might be one. In fact, I assume there is one. My logic is that I have a witness of the Spirit that the church is true and that Joseph was a prophet, and if that’s the case, then there must be some explanation, even if I can’t imagine what it might be. It’s fun for me to try and figure it out, but if I can’t find an answer that doesn’t bother me…much. Yes, it creates a bit of an intellectual nag in the back of my mind, but all I have to do is compare the rather concrete evidences I’ve received that these things are true against the circumstantial and unsure evidences against it all, and the verdict come back overwhelmingly in favor of continuing to believe as I already do.
But to return to the “fun” part of trying to figure these things out, if we assume that God only commands people to be killed in judgment, what about Abraham being commanded to kill Isaac? True, he didn’t, but the command was still made, and Abraham didn’t know the command would be rescinded. What if Joseph was commanded to marry “underage” girls and other mens’ wives, but never consummated those marriages? What if the purpose and practice of those “marriages” was different than what we consider to be the purpose of a marriage today? And with regards to lying, what if God commanded Joseph not to speak of these things? If Joseph continued to be a prophet and receive revelation after these things took place, then I have to assume that his actions were either condoned of God, or that he received private chastisement.
2. I believe that the statement “And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture” is true and I accept that, but that’s the question–when were Joseph and Brigham teaching as moved upon by the Holy Ghost and when weren’t they? I think a lot of things they both said which have been written down and perhaps even passed down as “common knowledge” in the church were their opinions, and not inspired of God. I don’t expect the flow of information from the prophet to be perfect, I expect it to be perfect enough that between it and my own direct inspiration I can progress in the right direction.
I think with regards to the statement that God will never lead the church astray there are two ways to interpret it; 1) the prophet will never say anything that is not 100% true, or 2) the prophet will never lead the church into apostasy. Imagine that the prophet is the engineer on an old-fashioned steam engine train. If he puts a chunk of concrete in the furnace instead of coal or wood, then the train slows down and we might later say “Whoops, that was a mistake.” But it’s one thing to put concrete in the furnace, and quite another to derail the train. I think God’s statement means the prophet will never derail the train, but doesn’t imply that he may not do things to slow it down.
Some of the specific points you make, such as Brigham Young teaching that the endowment ceremony was endowing members with the power to resurrect, I can’t debate since I don’t know anything about him teaching such a thing, although I’d be happy to research it if you can point me to a source. But on the surface I don’t see any doctrinal problem with him teaching that.
3. I believe the Bible teaches a sufficient amount of doctrine for a man to be saved in the sense that someone who sincerely tries to do what’s taught in the Bible will be saved. But that’s not enough for me. The Bible is obviously a highly summarized version of events and doctrines, that is, there’s obviously a lot of gospel truths that are missing. Many doctrines are only mentioned in passing or referenced in only the most superficial terms. Just as Christ revealed new scripture to the Jews in order to better help them along the way, even though they had enough in the Old Testament for salvation, I believe the Book of Mormon has been revealed in order to better help a larger number of people. Perhaps an accurate analogy is to say that we’re all on the same road, but some of us are walking and some of us are in cars. I think the vast majority of us, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu, are going to be saved, but I think the LDS Church has the most truth of any religion and will get me there faster, and I can’t see why anyone would choose to go slower unless they thought the car wasn’t actually on the road…but enough with the analogy, I think you get my point of view on that.
And of course all those Bible scriptures are interpreted in their own way by Mormons and members of other faiths. Mormons believe other people are the false prophets and teachers Jesus spoke of and other people believe Mormons are the false prophets and teachers. Mormons think the fruits of the LDS Church show it’s true, and that the fruits of other religions show they aren’t as true, and members of other religions see things the opposite way. Mormons believe the Bible confirms the truth of the LDS Church, and others think the Bible confirms the truth of their own religions. Mormons believe other religions preach “another gospel, another Jesus” and that the LDS Church preaches the true gospel and true Jesus, while other religions believe the opposite. While the Bible may be sufficient to teach the basic doctrines of salvation, it obviously isn’t sufficient to point out which church is the true church. If it could make things that obvious, then there would only be one Christian church rather than hundreds or thousands of them arguing amongst each other as to what the Bible teaches. Of course that’s the purpose of the Book of Mormon, to end those arguments, at least for those who are humble seekers of truth. For me, everything I read in the Bible confirms the truth of the LDS Church, and the more I dig, the more convinced I am.
As for your last point about challenging me to explain how God would “withhold the fullness of the gospel until the right time, and then let Joseph Smith restore it in the manner he did”, I think the better question is “why” as opposed to “how”. Obviously God can do whatever he wants in whatever way he thinks is best, but the question is why he would choose to do it the way he does.
Of course I can only speculate as to God’s reasons for doing things the way he does them. I don’t know, although I think we can make some educated guesses. I think the first thing we have to understand is that God doesn’t force anyone to do anything. If Joseph Smith had had his vision in Rome in 736 AD and went and told people about it, how long would he have lived? He probably would have been executed before sundown. I think the only way God could have prevented Joseph Smith being killed in that day and age would have been to interfere with the free choice he grants his children. I think it took all the events of history leading to the founding of the United States in order for there to be a location where God could restore the fullness of his gospel without having it wiped out before it could take root. Even as it was, Joseph was killed, but he lived long enough to establish the church that has survived and become what it is today. I think it’s interesting that there weren’t 20 years that passed between the founding of the country and the birth of Joseph Smith.
And of course God has provided a way for those who lived or live in places or times when the fullness of the gospel wasn’t available to receive it after this life, so you can’t say he’s being mean or favoring some over others. In the end he gives all his children equal access to the gospel.
Well I appreciate that fact that you engaged and talked some with me; however, I have serious questions that you seem to be content not to look at too closely (because of your spiritual witness). I cannot believe God would allow Joseph to behave as he did and still use him to lead the Church. I cannot believe Brigham could preach such false doctrine for so long if he were really inspired. If I had known these things before I joined the Church, I would have never joined. I think Church leaders are cruel to deliberately hide this information and then separate members (like me) from their closest friends and associates when they desperately need to discuss the truthfulness of these events and their implications. I’ll leave you with these parting thoughts on your latest comments.
1. The fact remains that Joseph broke up marriages (such as Zina Huntington Jacobs Smith Young), and he lied to his wife and many others. If Joseph was commanded not to speak as you speculated, he could have simply remained silent; that is what the Priesthood does today (at least that is what I did). We do not lie; we just remain silent. But Joseph lied. Some members today speculate he did not consummate the marriages, but the women he married tell a different story. In fact, the histories and journal accounts from the 1800s indicate he did have sex with all the women (including those who were already married); however, whether or not he did, he still broke up marriages and behaved very badly.
2. Brigham said repeatedly his teachings were inspired. Wilford Woodruff concurred and also taught some crazy doctrine by inspiration. Men are not perfect; I know that. But the LDS Church is supposed to be led by inspiration, and these false doctrines were taught from the pulpit for decades; Church members acted upon them. In the 1800s, the members received these teachings as revelation from God. If they are false; the Church should own up to it and take the consequences. You may feel comfortable simply ignoring teachings you don’t agree with, but I am not.
3. When I decided Joseph and Brigham were not prophets, I had to re-examine everything I thought I believed (and examine why I believed it). I realized that God answered my prayers, and that I had received revelation. I re-examined the Bible and I still believe that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the only God, and that Jesus is the Savior and Redeemer of the World. I realized my faith was truly in God, not the LDS Church; simply feeling good about something can be deceiving, but the Bible has proven itself true by countless prophecies and promises that have come to pass. If you read the Bible as the word of God, not ignoring hard verses by assuming they were mysteriously corrupted by someone, but as the absolute truth, some doctrines are plain. There is only one God, YHWH, and this mortal life is the only opportunity we will ever have to confess our faith in God. The LDS Church contradicts these plain Biblical truths.
Darn it, I just spent all this time typing up a big long response and then I went to submit it and the blog lost it. Argh.
So, to summarize, you refer to many “facts” I don’t have any knowledge about, but I’d be glad to research any you can refer me to. But I can’t argue about what I’ve never heard before unless I can research it somewhere.
As for ignoring teachings I don’t agree with, isn’t that what faith is? Aren’t there things in the Bible that are confusing, that you don’t understand, or that perhaps you don’t agree with on the surface, but you assume there are details you don’t have, or that if you could see things from God’s perspective then perhaps it would make sense? I understand that you could term this as being “ignoring” things but it’s not that I don’t want to know about them, but that I’m confident the answers will be revealed in due time.
Regarding the Bible, the main issue between all Christian faiths–not just Mormons and everyone else–is that the same words mean different things to different people. You read the Bible and think the words mean one thing, and I read the Bible and think the same words mean something else. I think the Bible proves Mormonism is true, while you think it proves Mormonism is false. Without some source of proof outside of the Bible itself (i.e. revelation from God), who’s to say whose interpretation is correct?
I think this link addresses your question quite well. While I don’t agree with John Delins beliefs about Mormonism I feel like this is a pretty fair representation of why most of my friends and fellow return missionarys left the church. I’m neither lazy nor was I offended. I can’t think of a single friend of mine that has totally withdrawn (not talking Less Actives) from the church because of the two reasons you listed. I still go to church every week with my wife and kids. I left the church (spititually) because of experiences that helped me to learn the true meaning of “the spirit”, because of false doctrines, and the true church history not the white washed version I was brought up with in the church.
I feel that a lot of people stay in the church for the same 2 reasons you listed. Fear of disappointing family, friends, and others in the church, and because they are to lazy to truly confront their beliefs. It is much easier to just keep your head in the sand then it is to go through what I have gone through over the last 8 years. I went through an identity crisis after I lost my faith in the church, I had to deal with the disappointment of my loving spouse, social issues at the church because now according to my bishopric I am unworthy of my wife and kids. The lazy thing to do would have been to bury my head back in the sand and just continue to fake it. I guess I have to much integrity to do that though.
Check it out though. Hopefully you can develop a less judgemental and self righteous view of those who are no longer a member of your church at some point in your life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZQJc5SxnVs
I guess the simple fact of the matter is, it’s seldom as simple as your “two-pronged” reasons for leaving the church. Of course, being offended and being lazy CAN be reasons for leaving, but as with most things, it’s seldom really that simple.
Unfortunately, this isn’t really a conversation that’s worth having. I don’t mean that in a dismissive way–I mean simply that when you threw down the gauntlet and challenged someone to convince you that they left for “other reaons”, you were already convinced that no matter WHAT anyone said, it didn’t hold water.
See, you may very well have studied all the same things I have. If you have, my hat’s off to you–that’s a lot of study. But the simple fact that you came to different conclusions about what you found does not verify the correctness of your position, nor invalidate mine. It is simply two people looking at the same thing, but for different reasons, with different experiences in your past, different ways of reasoning our ways through, and frankly willing to come to different conclusions.
In many ways, it’s not unlike two people looking at a Van Gogh painting. They are both bright, educated people who have an appreciation for artwork. But one looks at the painting and sees something wonderful, and another sees something ugly. Neither is right, and neither is wrong. It’s simply two people coming to different conclusions. (Even if art critics determine the painting to be worthy, that means nothing to someone who can’t stand to look at it.)
Of course, you are convinced that you are correct because “the spirit has borne witness to you,” but that not only means nothing to me, it CAN’T mean anything to me. Likewise, my “beliefs” will mean nothing to you. They can’t. I can accept that without labeling you lazy. I challenge you to do the same.
My appologies for using a screen name. Unfortunately, I have friends and family members who would label me as either lazy (sinful) or wonder who offended me if they knew how I felt.
The simple reason for me is that without a spiritual witness from Jesus, God, or the “Spirit” I am left to determine the extraordinary claims of the church by those witnessing for it. Without even holding up the character and behavior of the leaders and founders above that I would have for a common person, I find no creditbility in their witness. I also find the leaders disingenuous. In fact, I find the authoritive assertions, protective groupthink, and inane doublethink incredibly insulting and in opposition to the principles I was raised to aspire.
My family (myself, my husband and my 3 kids) all recently left the church after being very active (married in temple, husband is an RM) for our entire lives. Why?
1. Church was making us crazy…way too much work and money with no pay-off. So, yes, I guess according to you, we are lazy. But, after 35 years of giving hours of service and $1000’s of dollars we were just plain tired of feeling like it was never enough. And, the fear and guilt trip the church uses to keep members in line was taking a tole on our sanity. It just wasn’t working for us. We were doing everything “right” and yet we were not “happy”. So, according to you, it is probably because we are really sinners and we just can’t get humble enough to enjoy 3 hours of boring church, boring scripture study, cleaning the chapel on Saturdays, getting up early to drive our son to seminary every morning, working in the cannery, preparing lessons, leading cub scouts, baking bread and visitng teaching. You’re right; these things really are fun and I am a bad person because I literally loathe doing them.
2. OK, you can see that I am a cynical person. You know where that comes from? It comes from believing all of your life that Joseph Smith was next to God himself and that the Mormon church had ALL the answers to life. It comes from realizing that JS was a creative, charismatic leader, but certainly NOT a prophet. I can not believe ANY prophet would practice polygamy, lie about it to his first wife, and spiritually coerce 14 year old girls to marry him. I cannot believe that anyone with a brain can still believe that JS had the power to translate scripture when it is a proveable fact that the Book of Abraham is a total farce. I cannot believe that I once thought the temple was a sacred place, only to learn that it was in invention of JS to keep polygamy a secret. Likewise garments were used as a secret sign of those who were living “the principle”. It burns me up that I spent 16 years wearing those god-awful things thinking I was being righteous.
So, I guess you are right, I am both a sinner and lazy. But, guess what? I am finally happy. And I will take happiness over blind obedience any day.
The church had never made me happy, quite the contrary in fact. i was utterly miserable in it but i “knew” it was true. i just knew it. Looking back i don’t know how i couldn’t know that given all those primary, sunday school, and young womens lessons not to mention seminary, EFY, stake dances, youth conferences and then BYU all while never once looking at anything which contradicted the testimony i had as an 8 year old when i “decided” to get baptized. i hated being mormon. i wished i wasn’t. i thought the problem was with me. i thought there must be something wrong with me that i wasn’t happy in the “one true church.”
Well…
After marrying the first RM to ask me at BYU (i was a junior after all and i wasn’t sure anyone else was going to ask), getting married in the temple (i must say the temple ceremony freaked the hell out of me) i panicked and straight away started on the next step. Babies. That didn’t work out so well at first but after 3 years of invasive infertility treatments i was able to conceive a son. Two years later i had a daughter. Meanwhile Prozac has become my best friend. my husband and i were very active. He was exec secretary to the bishop and i held a number of positions in the YW. We went to the temple every month, it never got any less creepy and always put me in a terrible mood. i cried most Saturday’s preparing my lesson for YW the following Sunday. i hated what i was teaching those girls. i didn’t believe there was only one path for them. i didn’t believe they did have to grow up to be baby factories to be happy, i mean i knew i was miserable as a baby factory (i also knew that must be MY fault).
When my daughter was 2 i was teaching a class in YW one day. i felt her there on the floor next to me the whole lesson. i imagined i was teaching the lesson to her. i felt sick to my stomach. On Monday after my husband went to work i finally got up the courage to google my own religion. What i found was absolutely horrifying. Never in my wildest imagination did i ever suspect my entire belief system was built around the subjugation of women. Polygamy IS the cornerstone of the temple ordinances. After researching all the available material i could come to no other conclusion. The only way to come to another conclusion for me was to NOT expose myself to information. i do not believe in suppressing information in order to gain truth. Who would? Its absurd.
Long story short i left and my husband followed 6 months later. Its been 4 years and our marriage has never been stronger and we have never been happier. As a side note i no longer need those little green and white capsules either
i wish you good luck in your journey.
A great place to start researching things is http://mormonthink.com
The site is run by active mormons who acknowledge there are issues with church history, doctorine, etc. I’m pretty sure they address most of the issues that Elizabeth Gay brought up that you didn’t know where to research. If you truly want to learn about these things, that site would be a great start.
After studying some psychology and cognitive biases I had to admit that at least *some* of my previously believed “spiritual” experiences were at least partly based on normal human emotions and neurochemistry. I also had to admit that many of my “witnesses” did not turn out to be too positive. Of course I explained those always away as a test or a growth experience.
But it’s another thing all together to take a step back and evaluate with new eyes the faith of one’s upbringing.
It took me quite a few months of pondering this, and struggling with what I had learned about things like cult mind-control techniques, cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, etc. before I finally asked myself: “Am I willing to re-think everything I thought I once knew? Am I willing to take the step of ‘what if’ that I asked people to take when on a mission?”
That’s not an easy question. And it was not easy to find the courage to follow that question into the evidence it led to.
At age 36, for the first time in my life, I began looking at the Mormon church, the only faith I had ever known, and the one I had been active and faithful in for the vast majority of my life, . . . with new eyes. I tried to be “objective” and really look at it as if it were brand new to me. What questions would I have asked the missionaries? What evidence would I consider? What arguments pro and con would I entertain? How would I weight these evidences against my own experiences?
Truthfully, I expected a deeper investigation of Mormonism to help bolster my fading belief in a personal god. I expected there to be reasons why my spiritual experiences were virtually identical to those of other faiths and why they often yielded poor results when relied on for decision making.
I *expected* Mormonism to hold up to scrutiny.
But it falls flat. Fatally flat.
It broke my heart. It scared me at first; worried my wife; concerned my children. It took months and months of study, averaging 20 hours a week, before I was absolutely sure “beyond reasonable doubt” that I had not been misled by Satan, that I did not “miss something” in my study, and that I was indeed taking the more judicious logical route through the evidence at every turn.
And at every turn, the church proves to be a fraud.
Sorry, Joshua.
Still a part of me wishes it weren’t so. I wish it’s claims could be trusted. I wish the future possibilities it promised were part of a probable reality.
But it isn’t. They can’t. They aren’t.
My advice to you would be: if you like your life as a Mormon, DO NOT go down this rabbit hole. Do not research this topic further. Keep to the church-fostered belief that apostates are evil sinners misled by the adversary. Keep that belief close and hold to it. If you’re spouse, kids, and close family are all in the church, do not go lightly into the deeper doctrines and historical issues. Trust me. I’ve read hundreds of pages of the apologists trying to explain away these issues. They can’t. Their “explanations”, if offered in support of any religion that isn’t our own, would be laughed out of the room immediately. They are full of logical fallacy and exaggeration and omissions. Do not go down this road if you like your world the way it is.
What has been learned cannot be unlearned.
(nuts, sorry for the rampant typos)
I was one who studied anti-Mormon material and then responded with researched and reasoned responses. I had a huge library of FARMS and other material, and I knew it front and back. And then the Brigham Young Priesthood Manual was published. I saw that the plain things Young taught, for decades, as doctrine, were no longer doctrine according to modern leaders. This was not a case of speculation or a one-time-event. The doctrines were accepted and repeated and taken as truth – Young’s racism, for example, was treated as doctrine for 150 years. And, if Young’s clear words are believed, then Kimball caused the priesthood to be withdrawn from the church in 1978, and this is all moot anyway.
From Young I went to Smith – he did things that, today, would put him in the category of a predator – Mormons across the country railed against Bill Clinton for doing exactly the same kinds of sexual acting out as Smith, yet they defend and excuse Smith.
This was not a case of human failings, it was a case of men doing bad things, especially Smith. IF I would not excuse it in a President or congressman or Priest or Teacher, why would I bend my brain to come up with reasons to make it acceptable in him…
From there the rest unraveled, and the more I studied the more holes I saw.
It took a lot of work to dig through the cover up and find the actual un-correlated and un-edited teachings. It wasn’t lazy at all.
Hope this helps.
Stormie.
Joshua. I think you are scared. Scared that people like me are leaving your church. If dedicated returned missionaries can see the light and walk away, maybe there isn’t that much to the church. You admit you haven’t met many ex mos and then you make broad generalizations about why they leave. It is good that you have backed off a bit but you really haven’t provided examples of anybody that left the church due to laziness or being offended. I haven’t met anyone that fits those descriptions.
You said, “As for ignoring teachings I don’t agree with, isn’t that what faith is?” I don’t think it is that even by Mormon standards. Faith is the knowledge of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen. I was taught that faith was needed to believe in things we don’t have empirical evidence for like God. People can’t see Him but they have faith in Him. Faith is believing even though you lack facts. Faith is NOT turning your back on facts just because it feels good inside to do so. The facts is Joseph Smith repeatedly lied and that he married other men’s wives. The fact is the Church taught that Native Americans were the Lamanites for over century and they are not. The fact is the Book of Mormon says battles were fought in the Americas with hundreds of thousands of soldiers carrying metal swords and armor and we can’t find one sword that predates European conquest. The list of fact denouncing the church is much longer and it quite easy to locate. Denying facts is not faith.
I am happier outside of the church. My family is happier outside of the church. We were not offended and we aren’t lazy. Leaving the church was hard work and sacrifice. It was worth it for me.
As a believing Latter-day Saint, I too have been intrigued by why people leave the church, and have been quite educated by talking with most of these people directly. Sadly, many LDS tend to avoid contact with those whose beliefs no longer coincide with their own.
For these, I recommend John P. Dehlin’s excellent YouTube video, “Why People Leave the LDS Church”. Dehlin is a believing member who gets inside the real reasons.
But a warning: If you don’t really want to know, don’t ask.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZQJc5SxnVs
-Rock
I left after a great deal of study, which convinced me that Mormon beliefs, doctrine and teachings, on the whole, are a mass of contradictions, internal inconsistencies and patently ridiculous unsupportable assertions, eclipsed on the US religious scene only by those of Scientology. As a professional scientist, the doublethink, lies and cognitive dissonance associated with Mormonism became too great a price to pay for the dubious “priviledge” belonging to a largely delusional tribe.
My decision was a simple matter of integrity.
Josh,
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you really have no concept of the cost of leaving Mormonism, particularly for someone like me.
I was raised in Mormonism and my family history extends clear back to the early days of the church. I was raised in a small Mormon community where all my my friends, my family, my cousins, my wife, my children, my customers and my business associates were Mormon. I lived in a place where not being Mormon meant that if you didn’t accept Mormonism you were shunned, looked down on, rejected and thrown on the garbage heap. Leaving the church literally meant that you had to leave the area because you couldn’t get a job or run a business if you weren’t Mormon. My graduating high school class had about 55 young men in it and probably 50 of them went on missions.
I served a mission, married in the temple, had 5 children that I raised in the church, I have a son that recently returned from a mission. I have been an Elders Quorum President, Gospel Doctrine teacher and a teacher in numerous Sunday School and Primary organizations. I was a faithful tithepaying member.
About two years ago I came across a video on youtube called “The Lost Book of Abraham.” In a period of 1 hour, my faith and belief in the church was utterly shattered and I could no longer believe. It cost me my marriage, my relationship with my children, my relationship with my brother and my sisters. It cost me the relationships with my parents and my friends.
I can’t go back to the church. The moment I saw that I’d been lied to about Joseph Smith, my integrity demanded that I leave the church. For the next year I researched everything I could find about the LDS Church and its real history, hunting for documented facts and outright rejecting anything that wasn’t clearly documented from trustworthy sources. Sadly, the “untaught” history (utilizing only church records) condemns the church and its leaders, from Joseph Smith to Gordon B. Hinckley.
If it comforts you to think we are lazy, feel free to do so. At one time I would have been deeply offended by that, but today I can see that you make these generalizations in utter ignorance. Years ago, I too would, and did, make equally ignorant statements.
Good luck to you and I sincerely wish you the best. Stepping outside of your box and examining your belief system takes courage. Acting on knowledge in defiance of social and family pressures takes integrity. I wish you an abundance of both.
Max
Man, what happened to start all these comments? This post goes for six months without a single new comment and then 13 new comments in one evening? Did this get linked from another site or something? Maybe I’ll find out once I read through everyone’s comments…and I’ll respond as I read:
MQ_2 – I’m afraid I don’t have 57 minutes to watch that video at the moment (I don’t have two hours to respond to all these posts either…yet here I am doing it, ugh, I really do have a day job), but if you’d like to summarize the main points that’d be great.
As for me being self-righteous, maybe I am, but isn’t the definition of self-righteous thinking that you’re more righteous than those you criticize, or more righteous than other people in general? I don’t make either claim, and if I come across as making such a claim then my bad, but that’s not my intent.
As for being judgmental, there are at least two types of judgment; temporary and permanent. For example, to say “So and so is a jerk” is a temporary judgment. They’re a jerk today, but they may not be tomorrow. To say “So and so is going to hell” is quite another type of judgment. In my post I am making the first type of judgment, based on my observations, which are, of course, limited to my own experience and anecdotal. My observation is that everyone I know who has left the church is lazy or was offended, or both. I should add two more; ignorant or mentally disturbed. That is, someone might be ignorant of the teachings of the church, or not understand them, for example, someone who was converted from another religion (which was their fifth in two years), attends church for two weeks, and then leaves and goes on to another. They weren’t lazy or offended, but they never “got” what the LDS Church is about and perhaps never saw any difference between the LDS Church and any other they attended. I don’t think “mentally disturbed” requires explanation, and I don’t just put that in here as an insult, I mean it’s a legitimate reason.
By saying such things I am not saying anyone is going to hell, or is on God’s bad side, or anything like that. I’m just stating what I have observed. If that’s being judgmental, then so be it, but we all make the same types of judgments every day in order to survive, such as “That car is moving quickly towards me,” and “This milk smells bad.”
You say you don’t have any friends who have withdrawn because they were lazy or offended, but how do you know those aren’t the real reasons? Of course people generally don’t state those reasons as why they left, but how do you know their stated reasons aren’t just cover for being lazy or offended?
Peter_Mary – I’d invite you to be a bit more open-minded and less prejudiced about my intentions. I certainly have not made up my mind, I really want to know if there are other reasons why people who are fully active in the church leave it. Maybe I could have written the post in such a way as to do a better job of communicating my own open-mindedness on the topic, but for future reference you can take me at my word on this blog. I didn’t create this post just to offend people or justify myself, I wrote it because I really want people to try and convince me that there are other reasons why people leave the church, and if they can convince me then great, I’ve learned something new. I have no vested interest in the two reasons I stated being the only two real and true reasons. What I’ve done is to engage in the scientific method by putting forth a hypothesis, and doing it in the way which I felt would generate the most data from which to test my idea. If you engage in the discussion, then you give me and the general public more data from which to draw conclusions. If you say the discussion isn’t worth having, then nobody gains anything.
James Horne – I think James brings up a good point when he brings up that he has had no spiritual witness, and this is a problem I now see with my original post. When I wrote the post, I was thinking about people whose membership in the LDS Church goes beyond social convenience. I was thinking about people who have been convinced the Church is true, who say they know it is, and perhaps who have had spiritual experiences, who then leave. Perhaps what I was really saying was that laziness or being offended (pride, really) are the only two reasons I myself would leave the Church.
Pandora – Just for the record, I never called you a sinner, nor do I necessarily regard it a sin to leave the Church. I suppose it could be in certain circumstances, but that’s the type of judgment I don’t think anyone but God is capable of making, since nobody else knows an individual’s heart.
Now, before anyone jumps on me and says “Well how can you say anyone is lazy or offended then?!” let me say that I’m making no such claim that I KNOW someone is lazy or offended, that’s just how things appear to me. I could be wrong, and I’m asking you, gentle reader of this post, to help me see other possibilities.
Your comment also inspired me to create a new post “How much can Mormons take?”.
StepfordWife – I’m truly sorry about your experience. But I find it radically different than what I’ve seen and experienced in the church, having attended in multiple states and countries over a period of 30 years. My wife grew up as an Air Force brat and therefore attended church in even more countries and states than I have. And yet I’ve never seen or heard of anything taught in the church that would lead anyone to believe that the subjugation of women is justified, although I’ve heard and seen plenty taught to the contrary. I have seen what I would deem “light traces” of it in one or two men, but nowhere close to the level you seem to feel it exists at. I also have seen it in ingrained in the cultures of other countries, and I have seen the church working to eradicate it in those countries.
My wife and I didn’t have kids for 10 years, and never once during that time have I ever felt looked down on, criticized, or relegated to second-class status for not having kids by any member of the church. I don’t think my wife has ever felt that way either, although I’ll decline to state her opinion even though I’m 99.99% sure of it.
I’m also not sure how you came to the conclusion that polygamy is the “cornerstone” of LDS temple ordinances. If you could expound on that I’d be curious to hear your perspective.
While my experiences are certainly not comprehensive, I can’t reach any other conclusion that your own were quite exceptional and certainly not the rule.
LessMon – two questions/requests:
1. You make it sound as though it’s a simple matter to prove the LDS Church isn’t true. I’ve read extensively in anti-Mormon materials with an open mind, and yet the more I read and study, the more convinced I am that there is no silver bullet, no one thing or collection of things that comes close to outweighing the evidence in favor of the LDS Church being true. You say Mormonism “fall flat. Fatally flat.” Great…how? You say the Church’s claims can’t be trusted. What claims, and why can’t they be trusted? You haven’t given me any reason to think you know something I haven’t already studied and found lacking when it comes to providing evidence against the truthfulness of the Church’s doctrine. If you can provide me with links, text, or anything else I can research, please send it. I’ve been trying to go down that rabbit-hole, but so far it seems pretty shallow.
2. Where did you learn that apostates are “evil sinners”? I have no experience with any such thing being taught or fostered as a belief in the LDS Church.
StormWalker – a few questions:
1. “I saw that the plain things Young taught, for decades, as doctrine, were no longer doctrine according to modern leaders.” Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that Young’s racist comments, even if he said they were doctrine, were flat out wrong, and that Young was wrong about them being doctrine. Is there any way Young could teach an incorrect doctrine, and yet still be a prophet of God?
2. “Mormons across the country railed against Bill Clinton for doing exactly the same kinds of sexual acting out as Smith, yet they defend and excuse Smith.” Do you believe Clinton did what he did because he was commanded by God to do it? If Smith was commanded by God, and Clinton wasn’t, then how can their behavior be called the exact same thing? By the same logic wouldn’t we say there is no difference between Moses wiping out a city, including killing women and children, and the same being done by a mob of drugged thugs in Rwanda?
Hiker:
1. “The facts is Joseph Smith repeatedly lied and that he married other men’s wives.” Why does this mean he couldn’t be a prophet of God? Abraham also lied, repeatedly. I’ll give you there’s no precedent I know of for marrying the wives of other men, but how do you know God would never command such a thing?
2. “The fact is the Church taught that Native Americans were the Lamanites for over century and they are not.” This was never taught as a doctrine, it was merely a widely held belief, which has changed over time as new information has come forth, without fanfare, because it’s not a big deal to most people and most people didn’t base their belief in the Book of Mormon on whether or not all or most Native Americans were descendants of the Lamanites.
3. “The fact is the Book of Mormon says battles were fought in the Americas with hundreds of thousands of soldiers carrying metal swords and armor and we can’t find one sword that predates European conquest.” A lack of evidence is not proof that no evidence exists. There are literally tens of thousands of known archeological sites in Central America that haven’t been touched because there aren’t enough researchers. There are still hundreds of thousands if not millions of discoveries to be made. Plus I’m not sure how well iron and steel would last over a 1,600 year period in the mostly tropical climates around where the Book of Mormon events appear to have taken place. But perhaps this topic would be better suited for further discussion on my archaeology post.
I’ve read lists of “facts” denouncing the church, but I find them to be either completely incorrect, illogical, or based on circumstantial evidence. If you can find me a single conclusive piece of evidence I’d love to see it.
Dr.W – I’d love it if you could provide a few examples, not necessarily to argue them here, but I’d like to get some details to your reasons for leaving.
NoLongeraSheeple – I’ll look up that video. I assume this is the video you’re talking about? Not having heard of it before I can’t make any comment. I assume you’ve already read this response to the video by FAIR? If so, do you feel like they didn’t adequately respond in any way to the content of the video? If you feel inclined to response, maybe you could do so on the post I just created “The Lost Book of Abraham YouTube Video“.
If you can add any details to your statement of “Sadly, the ‘untaught’ history (utilizing only church records) condemns the church and its leaders, from Joseph Smith to Gordon B. Hinckley.” I’d love to hear it.
Whew, ok, that took a while to get through. You people are making me do some real work here. Too bad I don’t get paid for this.
Josh. Things took off on this site because you were linked to postmormon.org.
I don’t expect you to come to the same conclusion that I came to regarding the fact that Joseph Smith was a habitual liar. Abraham lied too and that has led to me not to trust the bible. Your mileage may vary.
The reason for my posting was not to talk you out of your beliefs but to illustrate that there are good reasons to leave the church. It is my hope that you and other believing Mormons will cease with ugly labels for exMormons like lazy or immoral. There are thousands of reasons people leave and most of those reasons aren’t to pursue immorality. I left the church years ago. I have been married happily for 23 years. I don’t cheat on my wife and I don’t want to. I am honest in all my dealings, even with strangers on the internet. I work hard and strive to live a life of integrity.
It is my hope that next time somebody starts railing on those darned apostates and their weak moral character that you will think twice about that statement. I have found that sometimes people make those statements because they simply don’t understand exMormons. Other times they make those statements as a defense mechanism on their own doubts. I don’t know everyone’s motives but I can say that many hard working, honest people do leave the church. It is not my hope that you will leave the church as long as you are happy with it.
I am lazy and offended. I’m too lazy because I know what it would take to leave. These people are right. It would take the loss of friends, family and relationships. It would cause many to feel sorry for you and even look down upon you. That is why I’m offended.
I have read most of the materials everyone else has read. It isn’t difficult to come to the same conclusion. Of course, I’m also your testimony of being lazy, offended, and what you didn’t mention, “stupid”. Because of course as long as you have that witness that makes you feel so good and superior to everyone it is very easy to look upon everyone else as stupid because they don’t believe the same as you. They just don’t seem to have the same “truth” you have. I can testify that I have never received that witness. I know, probably reading the Book of Mormon and praying about just one more time would do it wouldn’t it? Sorry, been there, done that.
I pray to God everyday to not be lazy and offended. Its hard being semi active though. Some of the teachings and people are just so damned offensive. Perhaps one day I won’t be lazy anymore and have the courage to leave. Until then, I can feel superior to everyone else just like you.
The real question is, why is it so hard for a true believing Mormon to not just agree that others may not have the same beliefs without treating them as though they are lazy and stupid. Can’t we just agree to disagree?
Hiker – Yes, I just took a look at Google Analytics, found the postmormon.org link, and took at look at some of the comments. Looks like I’m a popular guy over there
Although it’s interesting that many people over there prefer to be insulting rather than engage in a logical discussion. There seems to be an idea that I’m trying to “rally others to my belief” rather than trying to get some intelligent debate going. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything other than to have an open mind.
As for ugly labels, it appears you are assuming that I’m trying to insult people. I’m not, I’m making an observation about what I’ve seen. If you have suggestions for other terms I could use that are less offensive but mean the same thing, please let me know. I don’t really care which words I use as long as I get my point across.
I’m perfectly open to the idea of hard working, honest people leaving the church. I also think people can be hard working in one area, and lazy in another, or that they can work extremely hard at one thing to avoid having to do another thing. But hey, if you’ve got examples of people who aren’t lazy or proud (offended) then I’m all up to hear it. I just don’t buy these intellectual reasons, because I haven’t found any that hold water.
By the way, the reason comments are taking time to get approved sometimes is because the blog is holding them for moderation, and I’m not here to approve them 24 hours a day. The thing is, I have the blog set to not hold comments for moderation at all, so I’m not sure why this is happening. But I assure everyone it’s a technical issue and has nothing to do with me screening things.
Rmyth, geez, who said I thought I was superior to anyone or thought anyone else was stupid? You’re really reading a lot into my post that I certainly haven’t written, nor have I intended to be communicated, nor do I think I really feel that others are stupid or that I’m superior. I’m not trying to put anyone down, or build myself up. All I’m saying is “Here are the reasons I see for people leaving the LDS Church, based on my own limited experience. I don’t buy this intellectual stuff that people spout online, because whenever I research the stuff the arguments turn out to be quite weak. Maybe there is a good argument against the church out there, and if there is, I’d appreciate you bringing it to my attention.”
Josh. Do you think that lazy and easily offended are not insults? Jes sayin.
I should thank you for putting this subject on your blog. You got bombarded because you had to balls to state what millions of bigoted Mormons aren’t willing to state in public. You touched a nerve by bringing up one of the biggest issues that exMormons face. Bigotry from Mormons, particularly family members. There is a price paid for moving from one religion to another or one religion to none. On my mission I watched people pay that price to join the church. People lost families, friends and the respect of their community. I never once heard of an Elder tell someone the price of pursuing their beliefs was too high. I preached that personal integrity should be more important than family respect. I still believe that.
I understand that none of the arguments we present hold water FOR YOU. They hold water well for me. I am OK with that difference in opinion. I am even beginning to feel comfortable that faithful members call apostates lazy. I am comfortable with that because I do so myself in reverse. I think that being a member of the church is the lazy way out. All life’s most important questions like ‘where did I come from,” Why am I here,” and What is my purpose in this life,” are answered for you by the brethren and the scriptures. All you have to do is have faith and follow without reasonable questioning. Endure to the end. It can be a difficult path but it is intellectually lazy in my opinion. It was vastly more work to ask questions about the church without having a preconceived notion that is must be true than it was to ask knowing in advance that it was true. That is likely offensive but you asked for apostate opinions when you started this subject. Lazy is a negative label no matter who is dishing it out.
By the way, I think your dialog here with us has been quite courageous. I hope it leads
You may regret opening the subject after being overwhelmed by all of us but you asked for apostate opinions.
In response to some of the comments over at postmormong.org:
“I realize that this feeling stems from their own insecurity in the faith. It is so much easier to demonize anyone who leaves then to admit that there might be something wrong and that any normal person can see the damning evidence.”
If you’ve got some “damning evidence” please send it to me or comment on another post that’s relevant. So far I’ve found that some peoples’ definition of “damning” is quite different than that of others.
Also, if felt insecure about my faith, why would I start this blog and invite people to debate with me and send me their best arguments? Wouldn’t I try to insulate myself from threatening debate?
“I am SO weary of the self-righteous zealots who think they “got it all goin’ on” and that the rest of us are left to wallow in the mud at their nearly divine feet.”
Again, you’re totally making assumptions that have no basis in reality. That’s not at all how I feel, although it does seem to be how most of you people feel about me. Maybe you’re just exposing your own feelings about people who disagree with you?
“M Q2—great responses. You presented your info in such a way that the writer of the blog had to respond back with intelligence and thought. His original post was meant to inflame and/or rally others to agree with his opinion. Your thoughtful response required him to back down and think!!!”
Well, first of all, my original post was not meant to inflame or rally others, although I will admit it was intended to elicit a response. Yes, MQ_2’s responses have required me to think, but that’s half the purpose of this blog, the other half being to get other people to think. There was nothing to back down from.
“I’m still baffled that even though he can’t conjure up a possible explanation or contingency for JS to steal other mens’ wives and bed children, he still assumes there is one. End of thought process. Literally.”
Do you have any proof, beyond your own prejudiced conceptions, that there couldn’t be a possible explanation or contingency? If there is a God, who are you to question his motives or purposes, or to pretend that they should be easily understandable to the human mind? Just because it appears ridiculous (hey, it does to me too), does that mean it is, or might it make sense if we had more information?
“Your point about those who stay for the same reasons of laziness or fear of offending was an excellent rebuttal.”
Excellent rebuttal? It’s not even a response to my post. It’s the same tactic people used in 4th grade when in arguments. I totally agree there are who people stay in the church for the wrong reasons, but what does that have to do with my post?
“I’m really not sure what he was talking about with the matrix. ”
It’s a popular movie from about 10 years ago wherein all humans are hooked into a supercomputer that makes them believe they’re living in 1997. In other words, they’re living in a fake world, but they think they’re in the real world. The question I used to ask myself when younger, which is the same question used by some rather famous philosophers is “How do we know what is real?” If you think someone who asks that question is susceptible to cults and such, then fine, I happen to think someone who doesn’t ask such questions is more susceptible, because it means they take superficiality as fact.
“Since he repeatedly asked for reference to information on what Elizabeth Gay was saying, and that he wanted to research it if he knew where to find it, I gave him the mormonthink.com website.”
I’ve actually perused the mormonthink.com website a bit, a few months ago. So far, it’s the best source of intelligent anti-Mormon thought I’ve found, although I still haven’t found any silver bullet for Mormonism, God, etc. So far all the arguments I’ve found include fundamental assumptions which are based on subjective perspectives and/or limited information. But I’m willing to read more…given the time.
“So I’d like to put the task to you, should you be interested, to convince me that the reason you stayed in or joined the Mormon church isn’t because you are weak or because you’re lazy, but for some other reason. And if you say “Because I wanted to sing hymns and sleep in funky underwear” I’m going to put you in the “lazy” category. P.S. No, I didn’t leave this in a comment. He’s not worth the effort. ”
I guess you’re worth it to me to give you a comment, even if you don’t feel the same about me.
But here’s the thing, I don’t think I can convince you I’ve stayed in the Mormon church for any reason other than I’m weak/lazy/etc. Heck, maybe I am. I’m pretty sure I’m not, but who knows, I’m open-minded enough to consider it. But the reason I can’t convince you of it is because it’s a subjective question. I can give you all sorts of reasons why I stay in the church, one of which is that even if it were false, I might still stay in it, just because I want everything about the church (as I understand it) to be true, but you might not believe me, despite my stated reasons. So if the question is “Why do you stay in the church?” that’s one thing, but to ask me to convince you that my reasons are the real reasons is quite another which I think is impossible. But I guarantee you it’s not the hymns or underwear
Also, the purpose of this blog and my posts, which I’ve stated in a number of other places, aren’t to convince anyone that Mormonism is true, only to convince them it isn’t false. My goal is to keep people open-minded and searching for the truth until they find it.
Well, it would seem to me that as long as you have your “witness” any strong argument could be labeled as weak. I suppose there is nothing more. You can certainly lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
However, I don’t have a “witness”, so I find many doctrines of the church are simply not “true” doctrines. Except for you witness, there is really no evidence that the Book of Mormon is true or that it was even translated from golden plates. You stating that there is no evidence to the contrary would seem a much weaker argument. Because Joseph lied I think that would be a very strong argument that he wasn’t a prophet. Because Brigham Young was a bigot I would think that is a strong argument he wasn’t exactly prophetic either. In fact, I think if you look at apostles and prophets in these latter days you would be hard pressed to find anything prophetic coming from their lips. I haven’t heard anything unless, of course, not having tattoos and piercings is some big revelation that God really wants us to hear. Or maybe it is the undoing of Brigham Young’s ban on the priesthood for male members? Lets see, who is the prophet, Spencer W. Kimball or Brigham Young? They both can’t be right. If Spencer W. Kimball is right, then why doesn’t the church remove Abraham 1:26 from the scriptures? If Brigham Young was right then they wouldn’t be getting the priesthood until after Abel resurected. You see, to me, things just aren’t tidy and organized like I think God really would like.
For me, every argument that Mormonism is true is weak for me. I’m not enamored with our church leadership. I simply don’t think they are Prophets, Seers and Revelators. Therefore, I think we are just in a standoff which is ok by me. I just simply see no strong evidence of Apostles and Prophets in these latter days. Therefore, I’m a participating non believer.
You only have your “witness” that says so. All scientific, logical arguments would tell you that the church isn’t true. I guess all those arguments are weak because you have your “witness”.
I can agree that we disagree. I am actually fine with that.
It sounds like you’re not up for the debate on logical terms. I’m open to any debate or argument, as long as it’s based in logic and reason. Just bear in mind I’m not trying to prove anything is true (not on this blog, as least), I’m only going so far as to prove that these things are not false, and I’m challenging anyone to prove they are using logical points. I don’t say there isn’t evidence against the Book of Mormon, I only say I haven’t seen any evidence that logically proves it to be false. I don’t take Joseph Smith lying as proof that he wasn’t a prophet unless you can show me where God has stated that a prophet will never tell a lie, no matter what, and I will never command, justify, or forgive a prophet who tells a lie. That’s logic proof, nothing else is, because it leaves open the door that God could have told Joseph to lie, or maybe Joseph lied and God didn’t command him, but God didn’t care, or maybe God cared, but not enough to remove him from being a prophet, etc. The same logic can be applied to Brigham Young issuing bigoted statements.
Abraham 1:26 says “Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.”
1. It doesn’t say that Pharaoh was the ancestor of blacks, and if someone else says they are, I don’t necessarily agree.
2. This scripture doesn’t say when the curse would be removed, or that the curse was permanent, or even exactly what the curse was. I’m sure you can provide more details, so I’ll wait for those and respond individually.
But anyway, let’s just assume, for the sake of argument, that Brigham Young was wrong about the priesthood thing–totally off his rocker and in left field. How does that prove he wasn’t a prophet? I don’t think it’s obvious or common sense that if a prophet is wrong about something, even something as major as that, that he can’t still be the prophet. If it’s obvious he can’t be, then it should be pretty easy to prove it with logical statements.
I also don’t subscribe to the “tidy and organized” notion. Well, I do and I don’t. I think things are tidy and organized from God’s perspective, but I think what is tidy and organized for God can appear terribly confusing to us, the same way algebra is confusing to a 3-year old but not to a mathematician, only I think the difference in understanding between us and God is quite a bit larger, and once we get on the other side we’ll realize how terribly limited our understanding and comprehension currently are.
Its clear you haven’t spent much time perusing YW manuals if you do not really even know what your own church teaches YW. All good mormon girls know the *best* thing to be, the thing that Heavenly Father will be proudest of, is a stay at home mom. Everyone knows that.
i wonder if you and me even went to the same church LOL.
There’s a reason Utah tops the nation for Prozac use my friend. Keep your head in the sand if you need to but know you are standing on the shoulders of countless women who have paid the price… who continue to pay the price, even after leaving.
i’m not a mormon but i’m still a mother and i love my children more than anything else, more than your fake God in fact.
Mormons… Scientologists… Jehovah’s Witnesses… we’re all warped. You think you are special but you aren’t. You’re just one more victim.
i’m sorry.
If you have one shred of compassion for me you will read this article and remember that i am a thinking being just like you.
http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=115
This website is by and for faithful *thinking* mormon women. i am tied to them in a way you will never know. Our prozac, zoloft, wellbutrin, effexor smiles greet each other in knowing compassion in the halls each week.
We know. We know something is amiss but we take pills to make it go away rather than engage with “it”.
Hi Joshua,
I love such discussions and am happy you are continuing it. As I said in my previous post, however, I’m not entirely sure where *I* stand on wanting others to find out the “truth” (as I see it now) about the church. With some people I know really well, whose personalities I know, I definitely would love to see them exit the church. But I also know plenty of people who I think are better off with the belief system in tact.
I don’t know you well enough, so I hesitate really getting into this.
Also, I’ve found forums and e-mail are great for connecting with like-minded individuals, but can degenerate far too quickly into snide remarks when people disagree. That’s not my preference.
Would you be interested in an actual live phone call or more personal e-mail correspondence? I’m happy to share what I have learned, but don’t want it to become negative. I’ve had much better success with that when people really connect.
I assume you can e-mail me from my logging into this blog. Or, feel free and sign up over at PostMormon.org or NewOrderMormon.org and send me a private message (‘LessMon’ in both sites.)
To your questions, though:
1. You make it sound as though it’s a simple matter to prove the LDS Church isn’t true. I’ve read extensively in anti-Mormon materials with an open mind, and yet the more I read and study, the more convinced I am that there is no silver bullet, no one thing or collection of things that comes close to outweighing the evidence in favor of the LDS Church being true. You say Mormonism “fall flat. Fatally flat.” Great…how? You say the Church’s claims can’t be trusted. What claims, and why can’t they be trusted? You haven’t given me any reason to think you know something I haven’t already studied and found lacking when it comes to providing evidence against the truthfulness of the Church’s doctrine. If you can provide me with links, text, or anything else I can research, please send it. I’ve been trying to go down that rabbit-hole, but so far it seems pretty shallow.
>> LessMon: I have a theory that open-minded people who are smart (which you seem on both counts) either study themselves out of the church, or into being an apologist. Those two roads aren’t too far apart, in my opinion. The latter road seems to attract people who are okay “believing as long as it’s not absolutely certainly false” whereas the former seems more “where does the balance of evidence lead.” It seems you’re headed toward the latter camp, but it might be interesting to discuss further.
2. Where did you learn that apostates are “evil sinners”? I have no experience with any such thing being taught or fostered as a belief in the LDS Church.
>> LessMon: I think if you surveyed mention of apostates (lessons, Ensign articles, conference talks, etc.), and plotted out the stated judgment of church leaders, it would be on balance highly negative. The most recent thing I noticed was the lesson “The Bitter Fruits of Apostasy” from this year. But I haven’t done such a ‘literature survey’ so cannot state scientifically this is the church’s view. It certainly seems that way in the laity, however, to most people I’ve talked to who have left the church.
If you want to talk or e-mail, let me know. If you want links/references, there are plenty out there. It sounds like you have already surveyed the major church issues and not found them compelling. So be it. But I’m happy to discuss further.
Cheers, and best of luck in whatever direction your search takes you.
-LM
Man, it’s hard to keep up with multiple people, so this is in response to Hiker, a few comments back.
No, I don’t think the words “lazy” and “offended” are insults. I think they’re words that can be used as insults, or taken as insults. But I wasn’t using them as insults, so if someone is insulted by their use, that’s their choice. They just happened to be the best words I could think of to describe my observations. I guess I could have said “inclined to not put forth the effort to continue their previous actions for the sake of not wanting to put forth the effort” but “lazy” seems to be more accurate and is quite a bit easier to say. Maybe I’m just lazy too
I agree with you that staying a Mormon can be a lazy way out, but I don’t think it follows that it necessarily is, unless you assume that reasonable questioning always leads to a person leaving the church. And a lack of digging into the sticky questions of Mormonism does not necessarily mean a person is lazy. It could just mean they don’t feel a need to address doubts they don’t have, and why should they? After all, it takes quite a bit of time and energy (which I can certainly attest to today). If someone knows the church is true, Joseph Smith was a prophet, Book of Mormon = true, etc., then why should they spend all sorts of time researching the claims of people who say it isn’t? Why should they research the statements Brigham Young made about blacks? I agree it’s good for certain people to research these things, but why should the average member? How does it improve their lives, if they already know the church is true? If the church isn’t true, then of course it makes all the sense in the world, but that’s not the perspective of many church members.
I know this analogy isn’t perfect, but it kind of seems to me like the difference between someone who is willing to drive a car based on someone telling them it works, and somebody who isn’t willing to drive a car unless they know exactly how every part of that car works. It’s enough for lot of people to know that if they get in and turn the key, it will go. But if you had to understand exactly how every piece fits and how it all works, then you’d spend years and years researching the car and never drive it, and if you lived your life that way with everything then you’d never get anything done.
In a way, we’re all lazy, because we all make decisions based on incomplete information. There is simply no other way to survive. The question is how much information do we require to make our decisions, and are those levels of information adequate to make decisions that lead to our long-term well-being? For many Mormons, they might think they know enough. If they think they know enough, is it laziness to ignore the sticky questions? I think it is laziness, if those questions bother someone. Someone who is bothered by a sticky question but ignores it and doesn’t try to understand it, has a problem, because they are truly insecure in their faith. But someone who isn’t bothered by a question isn’t, in my opinion, lazy, because they aren’t actively avoiding something, they’re just choosing to focus on something else they feel is a better use of their time.
This sort of ties in with what I meant in what seems to have become the preferred quote of mine by PostMormons wherein I said that part of faith is ignoring teachings I don’t agree with, except to only quote me incompletely, without context, is inaccurate. If there is a teaching that bothers me, and I don’t understand it, and I try to understand it but can’t, then at some point the value of the time it takes to understand the matter becomes greater in relation to some activity other than understanding that teaching. So I take the teaching on faith, and move on, hoping to understand it at a future date. If I didn’t move on, I might have to quit my job. Or maybe the teaching can’t really be understood given the information available. But it wouldn’t make sense for me to leave the church simply because I don’t understand a teaching. It only makes sense to leave if I understand a teaching and think it’s false to the point where it invalidates the church generally. But so far, I haven’t found anything I both understand and disagree with. Anything I don’t like, I don’t understand, and if I understand it, I like it. Did I say that right?…yeah, I think so.
I think the difference between you and me is the level of information we require to be convinced of certain things. The reason I haven’t found any anti-Mormon arguments that hold water for me is that I require conclusive, irrefutable, logical proof that the church isn’t true, Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet, the Book of Mormon isn’t true, etc. For me, the threshold is 100%. It would appear to me that for you and others the threshold is something lower than that. Granted, most people would take that as a subjective statement, but I think there’s an objective basis for saying it, which is that you can’t prove it’s false. If you can’t prove it false, then you must have made your decision based on proof that was less than a 100% threshold.
Whew, ok, I can already see in my email inbox that there are more responses, but I’m through for today, and if there are 20 more responses here when I check again I’m not sure I’ll be able to respond due to time constraints. But it has been fun today, and I would love for all of you to comment on my other posts or send me specific questions that I can use as fodder for new posts. This has been fun for me, not to mention productive. I feel like I understand your points of view better, and I feel like I’ve come to understand a lot of things about myself better too. And hopefully this is all helpful to other people out there too.
And yes, if you want to post more links to this blog from PostMormon or any other website please do, the more the better. I don’t think anything bad can come from more discussion of opposing viewpoints.
Ok, I said I wasn’t going to respond to anymore, but stepford and lessmon responded while I was composing the last comment. I’m still not going to do a long response, but here’s a short one:
stepford – I skimmed the article and think it’s worthy of it’s own post (someday, not today). So I’ll give a more detailed response. All I’m going to say right now is that from what I saw it’s based partially on an incorrect view of LDS doctrines by the author, and sadly, partially on an incorrect understanding of LDS doctrines by imperfect members of the church which is probably the major reason the author has her (I can only assume the author is a she) own misunderstandings about the doctrines.
lessmon – I am willing to engage via email as long as you’re ok with me publishing anything we correspond about on this blog.
Ok, just one more response to stepford, about her other comment.
It’s true, I haven’t read the YW manual, but my wife has been YW Pres twice, grew up in YW, and I know plenty of women in the church, so you would think if your portrayal of the church were accurate generally that I would at least have been exposed to it somewhere.
I agree that a woman’s most important role in eternity is as as a mother. I think a man’s most important role is as a father. If active members of the church who understand the doctrines choose not to have children in this life then I think that’s a problem. If they can’t have children, I don’t think that’s a problem and they should not be regarded any differently than a couple with children. I’m know there are cases where that’s not what happens. I know of couples who have felt pressure to have kids by their parents, people at church, etc. I recognize it’s possible that an insensitive leader or other person from church could say things that make a mother feel guilty. I’ve never heard of such a thing firsthand, nor secondhand (other than from people I don’t know on the internet, which I don’t consider to fall into either firsthand or secondhand categories).
I don’t have any doubt that the experiences you describe and allude to occur. I just don’t believe they’re anything but exceptional, that is, maybe 1 in 100 women in the church has a similar experience (and of course having the experience you do you would be more likely to meet women who have had similar experiences, which might shew your perception of how common it is–and admittedly, I could be way off for the same reason). That’s still one time too many, and maybe it means it’s happening to thousands of women right now around the world, which is sad, but if it is 1 in 100 that doesn’t mean the doctrines of the church or the culture of the church can necessarily be 100% at fault, vs. the specific people involved.
Either way, this is good stuff for me to know. Maybe I’ll be a bishop someday (hopefully not, but I feel bad purposely doing things to ensure it won’t happen) and it’s good for me to understand the risks involved in saying things that could be hurtful or cause unnecessary guilt.
Ok, seriously, that’s it. I’ve responded to every comment made before I started responding to this comment–NO MORE! Between work and this I haven’t eaten in seven hours.
Thanks Josh. No need to respond.
So, 100% certainty to admit that JS wasn’t a prophet or the church is not true? But you’ll let many incongruities or complexities within the faith with far from 100% certainty?
It sounds to me like you’re much further along the apologist’s trail than I imagined. If you have one standard of evidence for criticism (100%), and another, much lower standard for your own belief, then you are not open-minded, you are not taking a scientific approach, and you are not likely to be dissuaded.
I don’t mean that to sound harsh or as an insult. But it does make me re-consider whether any deeper conversation is even worth having.
Let me ask you this: how do you know you are already right?
God told me so.
Maybe I should define what I mean by the terms open-minded, scientific, etc.
Open-minded – Willing to openly and honestly consider all sides of a debate as best as possible. No, I don’t think I’m going to be dissuaded from some of my views, but I might be dissuaded from others (i.e. all ex-mormons are lazy or offended). And who knows, maybe I could be dissuaded from some of the other views too.
Scientific – Hypothesize and test.
Logical – For example: Joseph Smith claims to have been a prophet, but Joseph Smith married another man’s wife, and a man who marries another man’s wife cannot be a prophet, therefore Joseph Smith was not a prophet.
That’s a logical statement, except that it isn’t a true statement, since there’s no proof that a man who marries another man’s wife can’t be a prophet.
“God told me so.”
That’s fair, and – to be honest – basically what I expected. Some form of “spiritual” witness or experience. So *how* did God tell you so? I assume he didn’t come to your house in person, right? Is it safe to assume you had one or more experiences that remain personal an “internal” to yourself, which make you strongly feel you received direct knowledge? Is it safe to assume some of these experiences were strong while others were mild? Is it safe to assume you wanted these experiences, prayed for them, studied out scriptures & associated with people who had similar experiences?
Take all those experiences and put in one category, “Spiritual Witness.” Now, how *else* do you know you’re right?
(I’m just trying to confirm that your reasons are similar to what mine were.)
–
If you are just trying to see why people leave the church, I think you’ve already met your goal. You could also go read the “exit stories” on PostMormon.org, or exmormon.org, and other places. You might want to reject many stories (in whole or in part) as being untrustworthy . . . but I’d ask you to consider, if that happens, why anyone should believe anyone else’s story (including testimonies).
Scientific test
Hypothesis: Apostasy is an indication of laziness or being offended. (That is the original premise of this thread)
Logic: God told me that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is the one true church.
That is a true statement from a certain point of view but not a logical one. God very well did give you a special witness the church is true but God also told Mother Teresa the catholic church was true and God told Gandhi that the Hindu faith was true. At least a dozen Muslims believed their special witness from God with enough faith to fly planes into buildings.
Logic suggests that special witnesses from God aren’t reliable at all.
The facts stack up that many people leave the church for reasons not in the hypothesis above. Some may leave because they are lazy or offended but there are many rational reasons to leave including some who leave because God told them it was false. It is prejudice to make assumptions like laziness about a whole group of people. It is no less prejudiced than stating that Mexicans or Blacks are lazy. There are millions of exMormons and each of them has a different reason.
I have been clear from my first post that I am not trying to shake your faith. I only started posting here because I feel a desire to bridge gaps between exMormons and members. The notion that exMormons leave the church because they are lazy or offended drives wedges in literally millions of families, including my own.
//God told me so.
Did he ?
He must have also told all the believing Muslims, and Hindus, and Christians of other denominations too, cause I’ve heard that same statement made by members of those other faiths.
Has it ever crossed your mind, even once ?
Doubt I mean.
Doubt that an emotional feeling of divinity or the transcendent may not be unique to your chosen religion Mormonism ?
That this feeling might be a normal biological and/or neurological response that religion has piggy backed on top of (and very effectively I might add) ?
I won’t rehash all the evidence for why I left the church, most of the replies here contain evidence that I came across in my investigation into the religion I was born into.
I can’t say much to add to the conversation, but since leaving the church my mind has been more open to new possibilities and ideas (something I believe the church works against), and after spending 2 years reading any science or philosophy book I could get my hands on, I have come to the conclusion that we can’t really KNOW anything.
That being said, science has the best method for determining what is as close to truth as humans are able to produce.
At this point I’m actually far past arguing actual doctrine or dogma with members. I go straight to science. You have to disprove the theory of evolution if I’m going to believe there was a literal Adam and Eve, and the church doctrines and dogma are founded on that literal belief.
When you disprove evolution, please invite me to the Nobel Peace prize celebration party. Thank you.
And now I’ll sign off by saying, yes, I am offended by the “lazy” remark. I studied long and hard and learned about more of the reality of why were are here in the last two years reading science books then I ever learned my entire life growing up in the church. The irony is the reality of the Universe is much more awe inspiring then a morality story about the alleged origin of the American Indians.
I expected you to expect it
“I assume he didn’t come to your house in person, right?”
Nope.
“Is it safe to assume you had one or more experiences that remain personal and ‘internal’ to yourself, which make you strongly feel you received direct knowledge?”
If by personal you mean something I’d like to keep private, yes, I’ve had some of those, but the majority are the kind I’d feel comfortable sharing…I think. But I’d say “one or more” would be an understatement, although technically correct. I’d say hundreds or thousands.
“Is it safe to assume some of these experiences were strong while others were mild? Is it safe to assume you wanted these experiences, prayed for them, studied out scriptures & associated with people who had similar experiences?”
Yes…with the vast majority being mild.
Yes, I suppose I do want spiritual experiences in general, although I can’t say whether the experiences I had were experiences I specifically wanted beforehand. And many of the spiritual experiences, if not most of them, were combined with physical events (i.e. I prayed to be able to make peace with someone, and it happened, but in quite a different way than I would have expected).
The thousands of experiences I refer to are primarily answers to prayers. That is, I pray for something, and it happens. Sometimes in ways that you could say “Well, that would have happened anyway” or “Well, you made it happen,” but many times in ways that I think defy any explanation of it being a result of my own action, or of coincidence. I think it would take more faith to believe some of the things I’ve experienced are mere coincidences than to believe they were the result of God doing it.
Take all those experiences and put in one category, “Spiritual Witness.” Now, how *else* do you know you’re right?
Without a spiritual witness there is no way to know. Not conclusively, anyway. I can point to my many experiences and say “What about this?” but I know that if there are specific and detailed parts of my patriarchal blessing that have come true, or specific prayers that have been answered in ways that defy reason to call it coincidence, that they are only supporting pieces of evidence, and not proof.
Likewise with the Book of Mormon, there’s plenty of archeological evidence in existence and being discovered on a regular basis that supports it, and much of the archeological evidence against it (which isn’t actual evidence, but a lack of evidence) has been refuted over the past 30 years. But that’s not conclusive either way anyway, and probably never will be.
A spiritual witness is the only way someone can know for sure what is real and what is true. Every sense we have as humans can be tricked, except for spiritual communication. Not that we are infallible when it comes to sensing and understanding spiritual communication, but the communication itself is infallible.
Once again, I see this as the genius of God. The fact that a spiritual witness is the only way to tell what is true might seem like a weakness, but it’s the strength of God’s plan. It fits his plan to not give us tangible and physical evidence proving things one way or the other. If he did, it would frustrate his plan rather than support it. By not knowing what is real, we’re free to make our own choices about what we want, because we create the kind of world (in our minds) that we want. Every day we prove who we are and what we want through our choices, and we couldn’t do that if there were clear evidence one way or the other. If God sent an angel to fly around the world telling everyone the Book of Mormon is true, a lot of people might join the LDS Church, but would they really be converted? Hardly.
Thanks for replying.
And I am sincere in my questions. Yes, your way of “knowing” seems consistent with my own experiences (although I’m sure slightly different as each person is unique). I would have explained my testimony similarly and often did. I also would have pointed out the seeming evidence that I always thought supported my view.
So with that common understanding, my next question is simply this: What other “causes” have you considered as possible sources for your experiences? How much time have you spent researching those causes to be certain they do *not* adequately explain what you felt or experienced?
(By the way, I should say that starting in a couple hours I will be offline until Mon. night. But I’m enjoying this dialogue and will happily continue as long as it’s respectful and enjoyable for us both. But if I suddenly disappear, that’s why.)
Mr. Steimle,
I am sorry you have been bombarded with us folk from postmormon.org. I have read a lot of the thread but I dont have time to get through all of it. I appreciate you being open and responding to the people that have contacted you. I simply want to inform you that I have never been offended by anyone and I am not Lazy.
I love and respect and fear the loss of friendship from every person I have met in the church because of my decision. I served frequently in leadership positions when I was in the church. When I left the church, I did it quietly and kept it quiet for years, living in secret about my beliefs and changing no habits in that timeframe. There are MANY more doing that as we speak…going through the motions, seemingly to be every bit the mormon that they ever were. I submit to you that even some general authoritys have decided to follow that lifestyle of hiding their disbelief due to family or tradition or whatever….these types of mormons are all over the place.
My father is a stake patriarch and is my hero. I hated letting him down when making my decision to leave the church. My extended family is all mormon and they are truly some of the better ones out there. Becoming estranged from them is one of the greatest fears of my life.
I just wanted to let you know, that I do not drink, smoke or participate in extramarital sex. I have a mormon girlfriend and she knows all about my non-mormonism, and she still stays with me and insists that despite that, I am the best “mormon” she knows….her words not mine. I work as an HR manager, I workout daily, I play in 2 bands, I have a Masters degree. I graduated Magna Cum Laude with a double major in my undergraduate while working full time. I study everything and anything that I get my hands on…I suffer insomnia and read long into the night every night.
I am simply stating that I do not fit your initial premise in any way, There is more to exmormonism then what you limited it to. My decision was purely intellectual and it has been the hardest trial of my life…you can accuse me of not following the spirit and not being emotional or spiritual enough to stay in the church..I accept that criticism…Becasue emotion and “spirit” was not factored in to my judgment on the actual unbiased history of the mormon church. When I looked at all the puzzle pieces together without all of the avoidance of the facts perpetuated by the church… I could not in good conscience remain a member.
Josh… It took so long to read and write the comments on this site, 57 minutes to watch a video is nothing. If you don’t want to watch it because you don’t want your faith challenged, then all you have to do is say so. Honestly, John Dellin is very pro-Mormon. If you were to watch the video, I think you would connect with him and his message.
Good luck with your faith. You’ve started down a path that will eventually open your eyes to the real truth, the historical truth of the Church and its leaders. Your eyes may not be open yet, but they will be one day. Best of luck.
When i was in the bubble popping my pills i thought i was happy. Never mind that my favorite fantasy was figuring out how to kill myself and make it look like an accident. If anyone asked me if i was happy i knew the right answer. i thought i was. i thought that warped thinking WAS happiness.
i didn’t know.
The thing is Josh there is this really nasty thing called indoctrination. The church absolutely uses it. Expose a person to one point of view through various mediums over and over and over and never expose them to any other point of view what conclusion do you think they are going to come to? It worked for Hitler. It works for the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Scientologists and it works for the mormons.
You’re scared out of your mind to watch a video on You Tube. You have been so indoctrinated that clicking on a link to anything that does not already support your point of view feels taboo.
Its called mind control and they have yours.
Josh I too appreciate the calm demeanor and courteous responses you have displayed.
I just want to point out two issues from your replies.
1. The mental and literary twisting you are displaying to show that calling someone “lazy” is not an insult kinda cuts to the heart of your situation. You display the inability to be honest in even the most simplest of issues. Furthermore, you blame the people you insult for taking the insult as an insult. Your arrogance bemoans the concept of being ammoral, which is a very disturbing character flaw.
2. You are absolutely right that just because Joseph lied, it doesn’t mean he is not a prophet. You are constructing an intentional logical fallacy to brush off his horrendous and scandalous behavior. By saying our position is the man had to be perfect in order to be a prophet. And then quickly retort that biblical prophets lied, so our position is untenable. You are being diliberately dishonest. I do not imagine anyone holds this notion that a man must be infalliable to be a prophet. However, from his most early history to the end of his life, he showed a frequent and unapologetic habit of lying. And lying about lying. And accusing others of lying to disfuse his lying. This constant habit erases any creditbility of any of his statements or witness. As the entire foundations of the church are built on JS’s statements and personal witness, with zero evidence, so it begs the question: Why should he or his church be trusted about anything?
Thanks for the discussions!
There’s a red pill and there’s a blue pill. Prozac is the blue one. The one that keeps you in the motrix smiling that tight smile we mormon women know how to wear so well. The red pill lets you out of the box but i guarantee you the path out is not for the lazy. The lazy keep taking the blue pill day after day after day after day. They know something isn’t quite right but they think if they are just a little more righteous, a little more dutiful, a little more something then all will be well. They blame themselves. They testify and testify and testify to buoy up their fragile testimonies, the monkey on their backs. i’m happy, i’m happy, i’m happy they say to themselves over and over and over but all is not well in Pleasantville. They sense something is up. The Village keeps protecting itself from those imaginary monsters the leaders plant in their heads. They become their own prison.
The truth is Josh its not the members who are imperfect, its the church and its more than just a little imperfect.
I composed a big post on what Joshua stated and on the responses he received. I ran out of time and did not get my information posted. This gave me time to sleep on it (I was lazy enough to not stay up past 1:00 a.m.). From reading the responses Joshua has received, I have come to the conclusion that his statement has great merit on how he feels why people leave the church.
I my opinion the vast majority of the people who leave the church are either lazy or they are offended, as Joshua has stated. (Yes, there are exceptions to this statement). The two categories, Lazy and/or Offended, have certain meanings to my interpretation. Laziness—in my opinion, takes a few different forms. One is when people don’t want to go to church or follow the laws of the gospel as taught. And when they are asked or held accountable for their actions, instead of just coming out and saying how they feel, like “I hate being a Mormon” or “I don’t believe this stuff”; “it’s just too much work”, or “I don’t want to do it”, they use excuses as to why they have left or want to leave. And these excuses are usually something used to condone their actions. They should just come out and say what they are feeling, or that they just don’t want to do something or other. The second type of laziness comes from those people who say they were doing everything they “were told to do”, or everything they thought they “should do”, but later on, like in their 30’s and 40’s, they end up finally studying something about the Church and its history, upon which they discover things that bother them immensely. They then decide that “The Church” lied about it. To me, this is the same as being lazy, by not studying their religion in the first place. And on and on…. Another form of laziness is fear. The fear of not owning up to the real reason you want to leave the Church, or fear of actually following through with what the gospel actually teaches us to do. Usually the fear comes from fear of pain of taking that kind of responsibility.
Being Offended – is when people TAKE offense at anything. I have read many of those psychology books and self-help books, and all of them say, the only way you can be offended by something or someone is if you give them permission to offend you, meaning, you allow the offense to take place in your mind and heart. I agree with that sentiment. We are all responsible for our own feelings and actions, but many of us do not take that responsibility, and many pass that responsibility onto someone else and make themselves out to be a victim. This “victimization” is often listed to be inflicted by the Church or by some other person or event, other than the person admitting that he/she is making him-/herself out to be a victim.
The responders to Joshua’s blog say they were not offended by anyone when they left the church. Their reasons for leaving were for historical discoveries that they made and/or doctrinal issues with which they did not agree. Some statements that were made by many ex-Mormons and post-Mormons included a statement such as, “I found out the Church lied to me”. In my opinion, if this type of statement is made, it infers that offense has taken place. Offense is a reactive emotion that brings up anger, fear, and resentment. When one or all people feel these emotions it indicates that an offense has taken place in their mind. It seems that many of the responders indicate such offense has occurred by what they say, but they are not willing to admit to anyone that they became offended and thus left the Church.
There also seems to be a “tit-for-tat” game going on in the ex-Mormon and post-Mormon websites. Much of their claim is that people in the Church rail on “those darned apostates and their weak moral character.” That seems true in most cases. Many family, friends, and leaders of those people that leave the Church do become a bit judgmental or angry, because most of the time it is like dropping a bomb on their lap, many times without any warning. Does that give the right for the ones who have left the church to return the favor in like manner? I have read the blogs from ex-Mormon and post-Mormon sites and have come across some rather distasteful conversation about the Mormons. If you cannot take what you believe to be negative comments, do NOT dish it out. In other words, hypocrisy can go both ways.
Hiker, I think you must be careful in using words like “never” and “always” in excessively high numbers. This indicates first-hand knowledge about every person and event that has or will take place regarding what you are talking about. I also have a problem with doing the exact same thing; it is very embarrassing when I am put on the spot and cannot back up my claims.
StepfordWife, my opinion from your post is that seriously, you need some professional help. This is not meant to be an insult; but it is impossible to find happiness outside of yourself, until you first find it within yourself. Because basically, happiness will elude you when you are only searching for it outside of yourself. I have read many books from professionals that state that you must find happiness within; otherwise, you become a leach upon other people (i.e. family, friends, churches, groups) draining their energy, because you are expecting them to make you happy and are never satisfied. And, sad to say, I know this because of personal experience. The Church could never MAKE you happy. You have to do that one all within yourself.
I have read a lot of exit stories from exmormon.com and postmormon.com, and from reading those stories I have come to somewhat of an understanding of the pain and suffering that people go through when they leave the Church. There are several heartfelt stories laid out on those sites. Some of the people list reasons such as, they were deeply offended because of something the leaders of the Church did or did not do, or because they found some teachings of the Church they felt were wrong. From my reading I feel that others left because they did not want to live the gospel principles but were too lazy or afraid to admit it. There are many other categories that could be listed, but many seem to boil down to being lazy and/or offended. In most of the cases, however, I continue to see a common thread in their posts. They want to blame the Church for their problems, including: family problems, stress, abuse, burnout, depression, etc… I read only one post where the person stated that he left the Church because he felt he “outgrew” it. That, I can respect. There may be others with decent reasons, but I have not found them yet.
I have also come to the conclusion from reading those posts, that even though the LDS Church exists for everyone, not everyone can live the doctrine of the LDS Church. I could expound even more, but then no one would read this post because it is already too long. If you would like deeper explanations or discussion on the matter, then just let me know.
i have a challenge for you Josh. i challenge you to read the letter linked below, and i mean really READ it, not skim it, and then tell me that man is either lazy or offended. There are 1000’s like him Josh, sitting in the pews next to you each week NOT drinking the Kool-Aid, pretending outwardly to believe the emperor is not naked but acknowledging to themselves inwardly he simply has no clothes, looking at the man behind the curtain late at night on their computers after everyone is asleep.
Open letter to Mormon Apostles and Seventies: http://rfmorg.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/open-letter-to-mormon-apostles-and-seventies/
There came a point for me when performing the mental gymnastics required to continue to believe in “the church” would be a decent into complete madness. i liken the mental binds of mormonism to the ancient and barbaric practice of chinese foot binding. When the British outlawed the practice they commanded that all foot bindings be removed. What was underneath those bandages was a broken, damaged, wounded foot that would never heal properly. Those women would never be able to walk properly. After 32 years of mormon indoctrination my mind is much the same. The cool air feels so good but i remain damaged.
Do you know what a double bind is Josh? Because you’re in one. i wish you all the best on getting out. i contributed here mainly for your wife and daughters if you have any. i still consider the female members of the morg my sisters and i wish to help and comfort them in any way i can even though i know those bandages have to come off and taking them off is going to hurt like hell.
i have one last article to link you and then i’ll go for good and leave you to your family and you life.
MORMON WOMEN, PROZAC® and THERAPY: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon197.htm
LOL @Kym and my need for professional help. Where do you think i got the prozac silly girl?
Talk about stating the obvious. Too funny.
I posted a link to a site that is FULL of the type of evidence you say you are willing to look at. But, you seem to have ignored it. You say in a post no evidence has been provided.
It’s a very well documented site and is referenced quite often in the ex-mormon community.
Since it’s run by active mormons it can hardly be considered anti-mormon. I do understand why you’re afraid to look at it though. It’s quite damning for the LDS church.
htt://mormonthink.com
If you don’t even look at this information with it being spoon fed to you, it would be quite easy to turn the tables and say that you’re the one being lazy.
Kym, your response is precisely the kind of position taken by those who cannot accept that the church “isn’t true,” so have to redefine the ex-mormon experiences to fit into your world.
Let me just point out the most blatant contradiction in your post. You claim some are lazy because they won’t or can’t follow everything the church teaches. Then you claim people who find out “problems” with the church later in life are lazy because they should have studied it more when younger.
The church itself teaches *not* to go digging around in some of that ancient history. They also did a lot of effort to edit and whitewash certain of their own publications. If a person, therefore, followed church teachings *with exactness* they specifically *would not* have found those issues. Can you honestly say this is a case of laziness? If so I’m afraid you are simply deluded by your own self-righteousness.
Aside from that problem your post is simply a bastion of pomposity. You seem to be exactly the kind of worst judgmental bigot that ex-mormons have the most problem with. In any case, yours is not the kind of input Joshua’s post seemed to solicit.
During my final 15 years within Mormonism I had questions about various aspects of the gospel. After taking social psychology and behavior modification some of the ways the church encouraged people to obtain and keep a testimony struck me as manipulation or brainwashing rather than a genuine way to find the truth.
A few years ago I went back to school to earn a graduate degree and the questions really began in earnest then. I had read some of the FARMS materials on the Book of Abraham and several other topics. As I reflected on all of these factors and material from a course that I had just taken covering the history of psychology the weight of evidence against the church became too much to ignore. I began staying away from church and spending my Sundays thinking and reading.
My searches turned to the internet and I ran into Zarahemla City Limits and particularly the post “Why I No Longer Believe.” It was encouraging to read that others were having many of the same questions that I was. It was through that site that I first heard of the DNA evidence against the Book of Mormon. While digging into that issue I became engrossed in the entire issue of the fraudulent claims of the church like never before. Every spare moment I had I was either reading materials from the library or searching on the internet. Within a few months I realized that the foundation of the church did not exist and that it was merely the work of a man.
The cognitive dissonance that was caused by trying to defend things that did not make sense but that I wanted to believe was soon gone. Initially it was a little frightening thinking of the prospects of a world without Mormonism and as I have drifted toward atheism, dealing with a world without god. However, I have largely come to terms with both issues and realize that life is wonderful without a god and without an afterlife. There are valid reasons to be moral and ethical without having the wrath of god hanging over our heads.
I feel I did learn things from the church. Above all from the church I learned how easy it is for humans to control other humans through false information and manipulation tactics. I keep thinking of the studies conducted by Milgram in the mid 1960’s at Yale on obedience. It is disconcerting to me that we as humans so readily obey and believe those who we perceive to be in authority over us.
Following is a partial list of the issues that caused me to leave Mormonism:
1. Changing accounts regarding the first vision.
2. Lack of reports in the local press about Joseph Smith prior to 1830 even though he claims that he was subjected to substantial pressure from the church communities around him. Religious news was readily reported in the local press meaning if there really had been a first vision it would have been reported prior to 1830.
3. Joseph Smith’s association with folk magic (i.e. divining rods).
4. Joseph Smith’s “money digging” and attempts to avoid legitimate employment.
5. Similarities between Joseph Smith’s accounts of uncovering the gold plates and the writings of Solomon Spaulding.
6. Similarities between the Book of Mormon and “View of the Hebrews” and several other books of the period.
7. Portions of the Book of Mormon that quote the New Testament prior to the writing of the KJV of the New Testament.
8. Changes to the KJV by Joseph Smith that have not been supported by documents that have been subsequently uncovered (i.e. The Dead Sea Scrolls and biblical texts that are older than the sources utilized by the KJV translators).
9. The Kinderhook plates and Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the fraudulent characters.
10. The changing locations of the supposed Hill Cumorah in spite of recorded statements from Joseph Smith and others to the contrary. (i.e. Zelph the white Lamanite and his participation in the last battle, and the ancient Manti supposedly being located in Randolph County, Missouri).
11. The Book of Abraham and the total lack of comparison to the papyrus.
12. Joseph Smith’s “Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar” and it’s proof of being bogus.
13. Joseph Smith’s prophecy concerning the Civil War was predated by discussion in the popular press stating the same thing.
14. Unfulfilled prophecy concerning building of temple in Independence (the date for that has long since passed).
15. Unfulfilled prophecy regarding Second Coming in reference to Joseph Smiths age (the time frame for that is long passed).
16. Lack of DNA evidence concerning the Book of Mormon.
17. Book of Mormon denouncing polygamy and initially the Doctrine in Covenants. D & C changed to accommodate polygamy.
18. Joseph Smith concealing polygamous marriages from Emma. In some instances even performing a second ceremony so that Emma would not know that he had already been married to certain individuals.
19. Joseph Smith putting time pressure on women to marry him.
20. Joseph Smith through the vehicle of “revelation” threatening Emma with destruction if she did not accept polygamy.
21. Joseph Smith using the vehicle of “revelation” in the form of supposed blessings for accepting and cursing for rejecting proposals for polygamous marriages.
22. Joseph Smith marrying women that had husbands still living.
23. Joseph Smith sending individuals on missions that may have opposed plural marriages.
24. Brigham Young using manipulative tactics to obtain polygamous marriages.
25. Over 200 polygamous marriages being performed after 1890. One as late as 1907.
26. The churches denial of post manifesto polygamous marriages until it was revealed to the general public to a degree that they could not deny.
27. Joseph Smith denying that polygamy was being practiced until the 1840’s.
28. FARMS and the church “spinning” evidence and the Book of Mormon account to fit the current evidence.
29. Gordon Hinckley and Dallin Oaks concealing evidence in the Hoffman case.
30. Dallin Oaks stating that it is acceptable to not tell the truth when it casts the church or its leaders in a bad light.
31. Church history being presented in a one-sided fashion and many times in a totally dishonest fashion.
32. The church’s censure of BYU faculty and other individuals who produce works that are truthful, albeit casting the church in a bad light (i.e. concerning church history, research concerning the Book of Mormon, etc.).
33. Gordon Hinckley lying to the press about the church’s doctrinal stands on polygamy and the divine potential of human kind.
34. The temple endowments plagiarism from Masonic ceremonies, which by the way have been shown to have originated from other places and times than most members are led to believe (not the temple in Jerusalem).
35. The macabre penalties that were removed from the temple ceremony.
36. The changes to the Book of Mormon (i.e. “he was a going” hardly sounds like the work of an all knowing God).
37. Unfulfilled prophecy from Brigham Young concerning blacks and when they would receive the priesthood.
38. When blacks and Lamanites repent they are supposed to become a white (changed recently to “fair”) and delightsome people. I have lived around many, many church members who are either African-Americans or Lamanites and there skin color does not change even after many years in the faith. Their descendants skin does not change either. People living closer to the equator have darker skin than those closer to the poles, indicating an environmental cause for the pigmentation differences.
39. Reliance on circumstantial evidence in current members lives as “proof” the church is true.
40. When faced with the crushing evidence against the Book of Mormon, we are encouraged to read and pray about the Book of Mormon, both of which can and in billions of cases have caused faulty conclusions, i.e. Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam. If the answer is still in the negative then it is our fault and we need to pray again.
41. Treatment of members that is in line with the way that cults treat members. Building your own testimony by bearing your own testimony (this is brainwashing).
42. If you don’t believe you need to read more. Again brainwashing. For instance, we don’t need to keep rereading Boyle’s gas laws to re-convince ourselves that they are true.
43. Manipulating, trying to induce guilt, trying to induce fear of loss of blessings, and trying to induce fear of being cursed within those who no longer believe.
44. The church’s paranoia about the truth. The truth will stand for itself. If the truth is being suppressed and twisted then you are dealing with a fraudulent organization.
The Bible and the Judeo-Christian religions at large presented another set of very similar problems. The Old Testament presents a picture that does not hold together internally. It became apparant that the Old Testament contradicts itself so many times in so many ways that it could not be the work of anyone who was inspired by an omniscient being. At the same time it became evident that the Old Testament and all associated religions at their core are elitist, exclusionary, and parochial document. Some sects have advanced beyond that but that is in spite of, and in direct opposition to, the canonized texts.
Once that issue was opened then all of the other issues surfaced such DNA, the Kinderhook plates, the Book of Abraham, etc. The Bible suffers from very similar and just as blatant errors, lies, and distortions. A good starting place is, “The Bible Unearthed” or the related documentary.
The evidence is leaning in the direction of the first part of the Old Testament as myth. Everything up to the Battle of Jericho is devoid of archaeological support. It appears that the Israelites emerged from within the Canaanite society and perhaps from small groups from nearby regions. If King David existed he was a petty tribal chieftain as Jerusalem was merely a hamlet at the time of his supposed reign. By the time of King Josiah the Old Testament text aligns better with the archaeological record but there is a fair amount of exaggeration.
A few potentially useful comments:
“Archaeologists have discovered that a series of earthquakes swept through the Eastern Mediterranean, including where Jericho stood, in around 1250 BC, and certainly brought walls crumbling down. However, the dates don’t match with the time Joshua was supposedly conquering the land. Maybe the memory of the destruction of the towns inspired scribes to write about a great warrior who conquered cities with God’s will. Or perhaps the catastrophic collapse of the old world through the earthquakes gave way to opportunism and Israelite groups took advantage of the destruction of the existing Canaanite cities and began to settle in Israel.
There is a twist to the story. Recent DNA research shows that the Canaanites and Israelites were not just similar in their cultures, they were genetically identical. Perhaps the Israelites did not conquer the land at all – they were there all along.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/history/joshua.shtml
From “The Bible Unearthed…” by Finkelstein and Silberman
“the historical saga contained in the Bible . . . was not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of human imagination” (p. 1)
“As far as we can see on the basis of the archaeological surveys, Judah remained relatively empty of permanent population, quite isolated, and very marginal right up to and past the presumed time of David and Solomon, with no major urban centers and with no pronounced hierarchy of hamlets, villages, and towns.” — p. 132
“There is no trace of written documents or inscriptions, nor of the Temple or palace of Solomon, and buildings once identified with Solomon have been shown to date from other periods. Current evidence refutes the existence of a unified kingdom: “The glorious epic of united monarchy was — like the stories of the patriarchs and the sagas of the Exodus and conquest — a brilliant composition that wove together ancient heroic tales and legends into a coherent and persuasive prophecy for the people of Israel in the seventh century BCE” (p. 144).
“…most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan – they emerged from within it. There was no mass Exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan. Most of the people who formed early Israel were local people – the same people whom we see in the highlands throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. The early Israelites were – irony of ironies – themselves originally Canaanites!”—Finkelstein and Silberman
“For centuries…Jews, Christians, and Moslems have believed that events in their racial and religious history are recorded in the Old Testament. Even today many continue to believe that the biblical account is literally true, or at least basically accurate. Scholarly findings in archeology, textual analysis, history, and newly translated ancient documents all point to a reality which may be difficult for many traditional and fundamentalist believers to reconcile with a faith that depends on biblical events, promises, prophecies, and revelations being historical facts. Nonetheless, this knowledge represents a new dawning in our understanding of these religions and their ancient history.” Sarah Dougherty
The Old Testament postulates some of the most outlandish myths on the planet. The first of these occurs on page one. The 6000-year-old earth/creation myth has been refuted so soundly by geological, biological, and archaeological evidence as to make this an absolutely ludicrous position to hold. The list of absurdities in the Old Testament is very long including:
1. A god who killed almost all of his children in a physically impossible universal deluge.
2. Talking serpents
3. Magical fruit
4. People living for centuries
5. Rivers turning to blood
6. A god killing all of the first born in a nation
7. Pillars of fire
8. Parting seas
9. Stone tablets containing writing being hewn from a mountain by the finger of a deity
10. Manna from the sky
11. Clothes that lasted for 40 years
12. A god that commanded the annihilation of all men, women, and children on numerous occasions in many locations.
It will never be possible to prove that there is no god of any kind. However disproving the gods of Mormonism, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is not even close to being equivalent to proving a negative. The Book of Mormon, Bible, Torah, and Koran specify the nature and interactions of these gods in more than sufficient detail to provide a falsifiable description of said gods. In fact these books go into excruciating detail on the nature of these interactions. None of the texts provide a description that “hangs together” or presents a coherent case for their supposed gods. Furthermore the historical and archaeological records provide sufficient evidence that these “gods” did not do the things claimed. In fact it is evident that the people and events in the Book of Mormon, Bible, Torah, and Koran are largely fictional renderings with no basis in reality. The reality of antiquity is VERY, VERY different than that indicated in these texts.
Prayer studies also indicate that prayers have no effect indicating that if there is a god he or she does not answer prayers. The prayer studies that indicated an effect suffered from methodological deficiencies. See for example the summary here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/
Another factor that makes me question is the nature of ablation studies and studies with brain damaged patients. The resulting performance decrements when organic damage occurs in the brain are problematic if intellect supposedly resides in the spirit. This is by no means a definitive problem for a spirit as it can be argued that the human body requires an intact brain to fully utilize the capabilities enhanced, provided by, or supported by a spirit. However given Occam’s Razor it is an unnecessary complexity to require the brain to accomplish the same cognitive functions that the spirit supposedly achieves sans brain.
The evidence that indicates the universe formed as a result of the Big Bang 13.5 billion years ago, or earth 4.6 billion years ago, and that life on earth evolved from prokaryotic (cyanobacterial) beginnings 3.5 billion years ago does not require a god as an explanation. All of these concepts find support in scientific evidence and the related notions of self-organization, emergent properties, and complex dynamical systems.
See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
http://www.talkorigins.org/
In spite of my occasional wishes for the existence of a god I have found no compelling evidence to lead me to believe.
Yet another lazy, offended Post-Mormon weighing in.
I left because I had a spiritual experience that convinced me “the Church” could not be true.
A little about me: I was born and raised in the church, went inactive as a teenager, but became active in my twenties after I had one of those “can not deny it” spiritual experiences about the Book of Mormon that convinced me the Church was true. I KNEW it was true. Knew it. Always had some weirdness about Joseph Smith, but believed he was a prophet of God, because I KNEW the BoM was true, and if the BoM was true, then JS HAD to be a prophet of God, and if JS was a prophet of God, then the church HAD to be true, etc, etc, etc. I went on to have many spiritual experiences, and truly, truly believed. I was a full-tithe payer, did my visiting teaching, was dutiful in my callings (YW president, RS president, temple worker, ward missionary, to name a few).
I was one of those stalwart members with a firm testimony that would do anything I was asked.
Then, one F&T Sunday, I had an incredible spiritual experience after much fast and prayer, where I received a promise from God about something I had been fasting and praying about for a long time. It was so special and sacred to me, and was as awesome an experience (if not more so) than gaining my testimony of the BoM. I treasured the experience, and even though I was going through a lot of trials, and praying daily for help and strength, and sitting down with my Priesthood leader regularly asking for help in my calling (I was RS president and the organization was woefully understaffed), I was so excited about the promise I had received that I was walking on air.
Then the worst day of my life happened – and amid my loss and grief, it became clear that my spiritual experience COULD not have been true, because this was the exact opposite of what I had been promised. But the experience was SO CLEAR and SO STRONG, how could it possibly be wrong?
I struggled trying to make sense of it. And then my life started to fall apart. There I was, sometimes literally curled up in a ball sobbing, and sometimes just figuratively curled up in a ball, and the shit really started to hit the fan. Bad stuff just started piling on. I begged for help. I prayed and I reached out to my Priesthood leaders and I fasted, and things just kept getting worse. No end in sight. And when I finally had the courage to share my spiritual experience and the promise I had received, people would say things like “maybe you misinterpreted it” and “remember, not all blessing come in this life.” Or, “the devil can deceive us and give us counterfeit spiritual experiences.” Or when I said, I simple could not cope with more trials (aka crap being continually heaped on me when I was barely coping) they would offer “reassurances” such as “remember Job!” which did not encourage me in the slightest.
But the promise had very specifically referred to THIS life. No possible interpretation on this. And if I had misinterpreted it, who’s to say that ANY of the spiritual experiences I had ever had were interpreted correctly? And if it wasn’t from God, who’s to say that ANY of the spiritual experiences I’d had were from God?
I will spare you the blow-by-blow of the next two years of my life. Let’s just hit the highlights – grieving, pain, loss, anger, confusion, devastation, confusion, anger, grief, confusion, anger, grief. How could God have promised me something and then yanked it away from me in the cruelest way possible? My grief and loss would have been much less if I hadn’t also felt utterly lied to, betrayed and devastated by God.
I tried to make sense of it, I really did. Interestingly, every time I tried to meet with a Priesthood leader, they weren’t available or had to cancel, so no help was forth-coming there.
For TWO YEARS, I struggled. How could I know what was true and what was not? If I had somehow not been faithful enough to have this promise fulfilled, what more was required of me? What had I done wrong? Where did I fall short? I could not make sense of this at all. I was overcome with panic attacks and/or physical illness any time I even went NEAR church. If I made it inside the building, I would end up in the bathroom either throwing up, or fighting horrible stomach cramps for the duration of the meeting. I ran out of the building several times to stand in the parking lot, literally GASPING for air, because I could not breathe while inside the Church.
Then one day, a novel idea came to me. What if the problem wasn’t me, what if the problem was the church? And for the first time in two years, I felt peace. Real, honest to goodness, peace. All the anguish, and grief started to clear. I decided to take a real, perhaps permanent break from the Church. Stopped trying to make sense of it. After six months or so, I knew that I would most likely never go back to church again. It was another year before I started entertaining the idea that the church wasn’t true (“problems” is one thing, “not true” a whole different can of worms). Once I started looking at the Church from “maybe it isn’t true” point of view, it all fell apart quickly.
Five years ago, if you had asked me who in my circle of friends would leave the church, I would NEVER have thought it would be me. I suspect none of my friends would have either. I would have laughed if anyone would have even suggested it. How could I leave? I KNEW!!!
So, I’m not sure if that makes me one of the lazy or one of the offended. Put me in whatever category you need to put me in to keep your theory alive – you see this evil apostate isn’t trying to destroy anyone else’s belief system. I would not want anyone I love to have to go through what I’ve had to go through to get here. I know how hard it was for me to free myself from the church. I know how hard it is to maintain relationships with friends and family who still believe. I know how much pain I went through to get where I am today – finally happy, content, and at peace. And let’s throw in more forgiving, understanding, and tolerant of others.
And I used to be you (really!). So I know how easy it is to look at my story and see that all I needed to do was pray more or fast more or go to the temple more or read the scriptures more or… So I guess, lazy it is!
You may think you “know” what we are all about. But remember that while each of us has walked most of our lives in your shoes, you have never walked even a second in ours. So maybe try to give just a teeny weeny credence to the idea that we might actually be the experts on the subject. As we evil apostate post-Mormons like to say: “As Mormons are, we once were. As we are, Mormons may become.”
Shalom!
Josh,
A sweeping label, lumping folks into either “offended” or “lazy” is incredibly off-base.
If you truly are a disciple of Christ through being LDS, or are striving to be one…start acting like it. Remember that whole “Love your neighbor” bit?
I respect the fact that you are holding your position and your beliefs, that is a beautiful thing. But in directly insulting others…you’ll only come across as a total jerk. Please read your scriptures a bit more carefully kid.
Respectfully,
BS
My offended and lazy opinion is that Josh believes himself to be slightly more special and unique than any of the hundreds of other religions with exclusivity faith claims to defend. In coming out of the bonds of Mormonism, I took to task seven other authoritarianesque religions who also claimed they were God’s One And Only True Church On Earth.
I studied months and up to a year on each of these religions:
~Eckankar(for the new-age version)
~Scientology (for the bizarre cult-like experience)
~Islam
~Jehovah’s Witnesses
~Fundie Christianity
~Catholicism
~Mainstream Christianity
~Judaism
Most of these religions claimed all the others were dead wrong and that THEY were the only ones on the planet with God’s approved salvific machinery.
I shook their hands, attended their meetings, prayed with them, did the HU chant, read the satsang… I counseled with them, cried with them… shared my story with them. I felt their convictions.
These were just as, if not more, assured that they were God’s approved church than Mormons are.
What was the basis that each of these employed to justify their convictions?
Nothing more nor less than what Mormons use to justify their Mormon convictions.
I was directed to books, pamphlets, websites, fireside chats, personal counsel with top local group leaders in the effort to convert me to their faith. Some faiths were more vigilant than others. Hats off to their efforts… as they all believed my immortal soul to be in GRAVE peril if I somehow did not conclude that their religion was the Only True Religion On Planet Earth.
It is now difficult for me to believe that a God exists that would create this level of chaos and confusion. I find a small amount of solace in the observation that religion does appear to provide solidarity and hope for otherwise wretchedly miserable human beings on this planet. However, this observation cannot blanket the gruesome fact that religion has been the source of so much mutilation, torture, murder and mayhem throughout the ages of recorded history… with the concept of God Almighty being the justification to commit such atrocity.
If the concept of God can be used to kill… how could I ever rely on such a concept to guide me to a satisfying conclusion as to which, if any, is the true religion.
By choosing one, I reject the rest. The “rest” are a field full of religions with rather bleak existential outcomes for my soul if I do not choose them.
Chaos. it’s just chaotic.
You asked, Josh, if it is possible to know what is real. I submit it is not actually possible to be 100% sure about most things… especially religion when the concept of God stands on such shaky ground (being used to justify murder and mayhem). I choose to follow what is appears to be the most accurate portrayal of stripped reality.
Josh, you are not more chosen, more special or more favored in knowing Truth than the Muslim, Eckist, Scientologist or fundie Christian is. You only think that you are. All I know is that their propositions are chaos and I prefer more structure to what I determine to be reality.
Hello, Josh!
I’m thrilled to see a dialog that has been going two ways. We might not agree, but I hope you’ll understand that not all apostates fall into the two categories you initially proposed.
I go to church on a regular basis with my active mormon husband and 3 children. There are some really uncharitable things said in reference to folks like myself, but I keep my mouth shut. Maybe you attend a more enlightened ward than I do. Am I offended? Not really. I consider the source and there I usually find the answer.
There are some great mormons and some are complete asshats. I don’t know if the proportion matches the outside world or not. I live in Utah county and many faulty beliefs go unquestioned in the meetings I attend. Unfortunately, there is no appropriate forum to discuss my concerns within the community I live. I can’t address the people that spout their opinions as if they were facts. I find that frustrating.
Do you think things will change in LDS culture to allow more free discourse, or do we need to continue go to places like your blog to be heard by active members, who could make changes?
LesMon–Wow! Talk about judgmental & bigoted, filled with self righteous pomposity, your response was full of that very thing. As I said, hypocrisy goes both ways.
And of course my comments are from someone who cannot believe that the Church is *not true*, because I believe with all my heart, soul, might, mind, & strength, my full intellectual & spiritual soul that it is true. I was & am not bigoted; I was just delineating my opinion about what Joshua had queried. I am truly sorry that you are unable to accept that I cannot believe the Church is not true. I CAN accept that YOU believe it is not true, & you have that right.
So I will remove the word “lazy” (because it is offensive to you), but leave the observations as they stand. I was not inferring that all the people who choose to leave the Church themselves are lazy as individuals. Obviously, there are many who spend countless hours searching for and studying all the damning evidence they can find, & that takes a lot of work. I do wonder, however, if they are searching for the wrong things. Are they things that will help the World be a better place? Are they things that will bring peace, love, & oneness to the World? I know some people find peace for themselves after they leave the Church, & some even say they finally found Christ outside the Church. I’m glad they found those things. I feel bad though, that they didn’t find those things within the Church, because they are there, for that is exactly where I did find peace, happiness, love, joy & especially Christ.
I will say that I see many exmos who have chosen to give up their faith & their testimonies for intellectualization of bits & pieces of ‘evidence’ & such, to make judgments about an organization that brings people to Christ, their Savior, if they but let it.
In our limited human minds, with a very small capacity to understand the things of God, how can we judge facts or stories to their full extent without really knowing the mind & heart of the people who wrote or said those things & of those who supposedly did all those *horrible* things– or most importantly, without knowing the mind & will of God, or having a full understanding of his plan–and might I add, without “the rest of the story”?
I am sorry that you chose to be offended at my comments, & made a judgment on what kind of comments Joshua was looking for. I thought this was an open blog, & I chose to respond with my opinions.
I do wish to add one thought. I see many ex- Mormons who have taken the Spirit and spiritual things out of the equation. They consider things on a purely intellectual basis, while still making judgments & conjecture with their human emotions, or as some would say “neurochemistry”. This in itself seems a contradiction, when they reduce all spiritual experiences as being just that, human emotion/neurochemistry. How do you think we have the capacity to make judgments at all, intellectual or otherwise?–those neurochemical processes within our body & brain. Plus, how do we have the capacity to think & feel emotions when we are spirits without our bodies? Will that be reduced to neurochemistry?
All I can truly say is that Christ lives and loves us all, and wants us to do the same. And I am trying, hard though that may be.
Kym&Carla
Freya ,
I’m glad you finally found peace. But don*t Pretend to know that I havent walked in your shoes, at least in part. I know I am not you, so our experiences & interpretations necessarily will be different. As far as being an expert, it seems that the only expertise post-Mormons can claim is in how to believe one minute and lose your faith the next.
I feel truly sorry that many post-Mormons can leave the church, but for some reason cannot leave it alone & just walk away. I am not inferring that you are one of those, it just sounded like it With your talk of being an expert & using that saying. I liked your saying, by the way, that was a parody on “what we are now…&…what we may become.” It was rather creative.
I feel bad that you think you are lazy and an evil sinner. I would not make that judgement from the story you told. I do see that you were offended by God, by those Priesthood leaders that would not help you, and by those well-meaning friends who told you that maybe you misinterpreted your experience, or that we dont always get the blessings in this life, or to just remember Job. I’m sure you were hurt because no one understood the pain you were going through. I do know that every person, even leaders, are human & fallible. My dad & mom used to say that leaders are put in our lives for 2 reasons. One is to help us, & the other it to test us. I have discovered 1 other reason leaders are called to their positions, & that is so God can judge them in that capacity. I am truly sorry that you lost so much & had to be stuck in those stages of grief for so long. It must have been truly heartbreaking. I can say that for that very reason am I ever greatful for Christ’s love and his atoning sacrifice for each one of us. God Bless You, all of you, with peace and love.
Kym&Carla
Well said Black Swan! I will take that into my account. I was going to withdraw myself from this blog continuation anyway because everyone keeps getting offended at what I say, even if no offense was intended. And I do agree that “lazy” does not apply to most of the people answering Joshua*s blog. Goodbye & Good Luck to you all. Joshua, thanx for creating a forum for adventure. I hope it has been enlightening for you all. God Bless you all …& keep the faith, as it were. May we all one day become of one mind and one heart. I truly mean that, so we may all gain a better understanding of each other, of ourselves, and of God and His Christ.
Kym&Carla
Kym, you completely missed any point I tried to make – which shouldn’t surprise me but does. I’m okay with being called judgmental as I admit I completely was to you. I never claimed otherwise. You are exactly the kind of person (from limited information here) that makes me THRILLED I am no longer a part of the Mormon mindset. Yes, that is judgmental.
Joshua, I appreciate people like you and love to have more open and respectful dialogue. I hope your kinds of questioning continues and that you find what it is you truly seek from this line of questioning. Wow, what a flurry of responses you have here to sift through! Sincerely, best of luck. (I’m happy to discuss more anytime.)
Response to LesMon Post
You know, LesMon, sorry to say, I am THRILLED that you are no longer of your so-called “mormon mindset” either. I would hate to see the Church full of your mindset. Maybe the world is a better place now that you are not part of that “mindset” as you call it. It allows the rest of us “bigots” as you call us, to try to make the World a better place via the conduit set up as the Church. You may choose to make the world a better place through your conduit of choice.
I’m not so sure why you think Joshua is not part of the “mormon mindset”, since he is a believing, participating Mormon from what I understand. But maybe he gave you more strokes than I did. I don’t know, you would have to answer that, and so would he.
I also believe that you completely missed my point as well. You responded in just the way I expected someone who claims to be an apostate with whom I am attempting to truly communicate, that of throwing insults out because I have dissimilar points of view. I do not feel that your response is a good way to come to an understanding of things. I see this type of blog as a way for people to hopefully come to a meeting of the minds, in a “non-threatening” atmosphere, so that these issues may be discussed openly. However, mud-slinging and throwing insults around as you have done, seems to defeat the whole purpose of the blog, and of what you claim to be requesting from others, that of understanding your perspective.
To quote you from one of your previous posts, “Also, I’ve found forums and e-mail are great for connecting with like-minded individuals, but can degenerate far too quickly into snide remarks when people disagree. That’s not my preference. I’m happy to share what I have learned, but don’t want it to become negative.”
So I come to you with a question, in order to clarify your negative responses toward me, while additionally, telling Joshua that you appreciate people like him and love to have more open and respectful dialogue? Your responses are very contradictory, and I feel that you believe I have personally attacked your ego, which is not the case. I also find that many of my comments are fairly close to Joshua’s in content. So what makes the difference in your mind?
If there is a statement I have made that you believe to be truly negative, or that you would like further explanation on, a respectful question or discussion would be welcomed on my part. The rest is left up to you.
This is actually a pretty silly conversation in my eyes.
For starters my family converted in 1846 so we’ve been in the Church for some time. Generation after generation.
However it wasn’t until recently that I set out to strengthen my testimony. Starting with GBH’s conference talk about how it all depends on the first vision – I started there. Boy was I shocked. Shocked to find out that it was all made up. The veracity of the claims of the Church went downhill from there.
I’m not going to convince you however. There is plenty of evidence to do that without me. It’s you, the individual who has got to decide to give both sides a FAIR shake. Not simply conclude it’s all good, it’s all true and then pick and chose what to look at, what to believe in order to fit your prejudice presumptions. Its a mater of fairness, it’s a mater of honesty, it’s a mater of integrity. You can’t say that god said “thou shall not bear false witness . . .” or whatever and then give Joseph Smith a pass for doing just that. At least in my eyes that is not fair at all.
So, why do I fell that this is a silly conversation – because you might as well be arguing that the earth is flat. You grew up believing that, you believe god would have no other way. So you believe the earth is flat. Trouble is – the same trouble there is with the claims of the LDS Church – and that is that there simply is overwhelming evidence that it just aint so. So how silly of it would it be for me to think I can come along and convince you otherwise.
Yet, someday, if you do decide to give all the evidence a fair shake. If you are able to put aside your preconceived prejudices and really open your eyes and look – should you be able to entertain the idea “what if it isn’t true” well then you will see for yourself what truth really is. I can’t do that for you.
In the mean time, all I see TBMs doing is to trying very hard to justify those prejudices. To the point of being passive aggressive, insulting, demeaning, ostracizing and worse to those who threaten their cherished preconceived beliefs. It’s the very definition of closed minded, but that is what they accuse us of being.
Until then, enjoy your flat earth.
DK
Kym, were it your blog and your initial questions, it might be worth continuing. Joshua seems a sincere person who really is curious. You – clearly – are not. My mistake for addressing your comments at all. Sorry.
I did some thinking and while I don’t agree with Josh I see his point of view.
Imagine two students looking at an animal swimming in a fish tank. The animal has gills, scales, fins, and fishy looking eyes. The teacher says, “That is a bird.” Both students believe the teacher because he is in authority. Both students ask many questions and figure ways to justify that the things that look like scales could be feathers and the fin like appendages could be wings. Eventually one of the students says, “I don’t know if the teacher is lying or simply repeating falsehoods that he believes but that animal is not a bird.” The other student continues to believe it’s a bird but realizes that it requires a huge amount of mental energy to believe it’s a bird. In addition, he has to sacrifice his own personal integrity to a degree to continue his beliefs. He must redefine certain parts of the English language. Words like logic must take on different meaning than they do in the dictionary. Lots of people make fun of him for still thinking that fish are birds but he is willing to make the sacrifice.
The first student is not worried about it. It’s a fish and the teacher was wrong.
This is where the word lazy comes in. It is easier to believe your own eyes and ears than it is to morph your senses to meet your expectations. All the facts point to the idea that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other church leaders were perverts. That is how it appears. I spent a lot of time trying to morph them into prophets like Abraham that made a mistake or two but no matter how much head strain I exerted, they still look like perverts.
I have stopped exerting the energy needed to morph perverts into prophets. Josh continues to make those mental back flips and figures anybody unwilling to do that work is lazy. I quit making mental back flips. I don’t see that as lazy but can see how Josh sees that way because he continues to do the work of making a fish into a bird.
Well, Kym, I was actually going for sarcasm. The point I was trying to make with my post is that I think it’s pretty safe to say I didn’t leave because I was lazy or offended. In fact, I’m quite amused by all the people you think offended me. It takes a lot for me to be offended, and if I was ever going to have left the church because of feeling offended it would have happened 15 years ago, when a Bishop took something I shared in confidence and blurted it out in the most hurtful way possible during a ward correlation meeting. I was hurt, but didn’t take offense. I know that people are just that – people. Everybody says stupid and hurtful things at times.
I wasn’t hurt or offended by the leaders and friends who didn’t or couldn’t help me at the time. I included that to show that I really did TRY to do everything I had been taught to do, and that I certainly didn’t leave because of lazy. As for offended, I think initially I felt betrayed by God. That He would raise my hopes and then dash them. It would have been one thing to be told “no” but it is quite another to think you have been told “yes” and then as you reach for what you’ve been promised, have God snatch it away. I could not make sense of that. That wasn’t the God I knew or believed in. Like I said, it was a two year struggle to try and make sense of it. For most of that time, I assigned the short-coming to ME, not God. I felt that I must have failed somehow, not had enough faith, not been diligent enough, etc. At one point, I actually entertained the idea that it was a giant trial – and that the reason no help was forth-coming was that God wanted me to find the strength to weather this in me and in my faith. But, like I said, I could not make sense of a God who could be so cruel. THAT is what kept me “stuck in my grief for so long.” I was grieving the loss of my faith, and the loss of the loving God I had believed in all my life.
I’m not going to bore you with the whole long story again. I eventually came to the conclusion that the LDS church isn’t true. Really, just that. It’s not true. And so I left. Not because I’m too lazy to live the commandments (which I continued to do for quite a while after leaving “just in case”) or because someone offended me (I have way more of a backbone than that). I left because I have come to the conclusion that the church isn’t true.
As for not leaving it alone, it’s hard to leave it alone when you regularly find remnants of the indoctrination making your life difficult. I NEVER speak against the church when I am among members, out of respect for them and their beliefs, but I ABSOLUTELY speak against the church when I am with like-minded people, who are going through or have gone through, what I am going through. I have not told a single one of my LDS friends that I left the church because I think it’s a big made up lie. Many think I’m just inactive, some know that I had trouble reconciling my experience with a loving God and think I’ll be back when I “figure things out,” and a few know I’m gone for good, but don’t know why.
Once again, Shalom!
No responses, Joshua? Did you at least get some of the kind of data you were looking for?