Just thought I'd throw this one out there...
Have you noticed an increase in apostasy amongst your peers?
I have now seen three couples leave the church for doctrine related issues (polygamy and DNA to name a few) over the last little while. It's interesting sociologically...and perhaps to me has something to do with the number of historical arguments that are now emerging.
- Nicko
About this Blog
Websites and Blogs of Interest
Blog Archive
-
►
2008
(55)
-
►
May
(11)
- Flight of the Conchords
- Arts and Anomie
- Poker machine taxes and the demise of the local fo...
- Sabbath Observance
- The Missing Masses.
- Porn - deadening the appetites
- The 1978 change in the Priesthood.
- Burma
- Doctor Who and the Vicars conference
- The Federal Budget
- Parents and the sexualisation of children
-
►
March
(20)
- Celebs and Media.
- 'Great Contradictions' or 'Inflamed Provocations'
- Happiness and Work....
- Education - disadvantage across class lines.
- Greed - The Death of Society...eventually...??
- Losing the Title of Bishop..
- Just don't speak Grant...
- Child Care - Private or Public?
- How it Should have Ended...
- The A.R.T of our PM
- Elder Bednar and Brisbane Australia Stake.
- Australia's Rich...not rich in heart?
- Tolerance - Passed the Threshold?
- JC and Mormon Celebs!
-
►
May
(11)
Labels
- abortion (1)
- ACT Election 2008 (1)
- ANZAC day (1)
- art (1)
- Asia (1)
- Britain (1)
- budget (1)
- Burma (2)
- Canberra (1)
- Canberra Raiders (1)
- childcare (1)
- conscience vote (1)
- culture (14)
- Doctor Who (1)
- family (2)
- Fielding (1)
- Food storage (1)
- Gallipoli (1)
- gambling (1)
- global issues (1)
- humour (3)
- Labor (1)
- LDS (1)
- Madelaine Albright (1)
- maternity leave (1)
- Miranda Devine (2)
- mormons (10)
- Music (1)
- New Zealand (1)
- NRL (1)
- Poker machines (1)
- policy (5)
- politics (14)
- postmormons (1)
- priesthood (1)
- religion (2)
- Rudd (1)
- Sabbath (1)
- senate (1)
- South Sydney (1)
- Steve Amosa (1)
- tax (1)
- teaching (1)
- welfare (1)
Current News
75 comments:
I've seen most of my friends disappear from church more because of laziness/indifference/apathy than doctrinal reasons or historically challenging incidents.
In recent months though, I've known of two previously "rock-solid" couples who left the church because of polygamy issues surrounding Joseph Smith's life.
The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) - http://www.fairlds.org/ - often has excellent articles that speak to such topics. In my experience though, people who determine to leave the church over such issues are surprisingly closed to evidence that balances the anti-mormon perspective.
Another general comment: I believe that the blame for apostatising is placed upon polygamy or whatever, but this is used to mask a deeper question of commitment and conversion.
I agree 100% with justin.
I know this seems a little back to basics but, If you have a testimony of the BoM then any other issue is merely something that you can work out.
I know personally that if I ever have issues arise that cause me concern I read the BoM and have the spirit testify that this is true. And using the good old BoM link, therefore this is God's Church on the Earth.
It seems to good to be true, but that is why I love the gospel. It is simple and easy for everyone to follow.
I am deeply saddened when I meet those that once had a testimony to find out that they have fallen away and try to rationalize it with some academic argument (that is without merit) yet will not simply turn to the Lord for guidance.
I agree with Andrew and Justin on this issue.
To open a can of worms though...
I have never known anyone that has been excommunicated for apostacy, but known plenty of former members that have had their names removed from church records for various reasons (including my father).
How would you prove a charge of apostacy against member???
Typically a charge of apostasy that results in excommunication from the church will be a result of not just "falling away from truth" but also attempting to lead others away too.
I did a quick search and found the following authors who are just a couple of examples of where such has happened.
Maxine Hanks (Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism)
Paul Toscano (Strangers in Paradox: Explorations in Mormon Theology)
D. Michael Quinn (The New Mormon History: Revisionist Essays on the Past), and
Lavina Fielding Anderson (Religion, Feminism and Freedom of Conscience)
These writers were excommunicated as "the direct result of these writers' publications and of the papers and articles preliminary to them.
Typically then, they'll be intellectuals who create something of a following and attempt to tear the church down because of a real or imagined offence against them.
I'll follow the established trend, and agree with everything that's been said!
I certainly have noticed an increase in people falling away, and as Nick suggested, I think it's directly related, on a surface level, to the dissemenation of more information on Mormon history, through both books and the internet. But, as a few of you have noted, I think there's more to it. In each case I'm aware of, there are other reasons that the people fell away also (eg, bad experiences, not getting the callings they wanted). I think being that people cite problems with church history because they think it gives their decision to leave, which at a deeper level stems from some other problem, a veneer of respectability.
And I've also found, like a few of you, an unwillingness amongst these people to look at pro-LDS counter arguments to what they discover (such as those found on FAIRS, which I thank Justin again for recommending to me some years ago).
I prefer to go to FARMS over FAIR but like what it stands for. I'd like to be contrary and suggest that it isn't always about commitment issues or anything, sometimes people get genuinely concerned about stuff they hear. Polygamy for some is a real touche subject and there has been some real mormon myths perpetuated about it to try and 'ease' the tension I suppose. The whole, 'it was instituted to look after single women' really does go around doesn't it? When members find out that perhaps this wasn't the case at all, they tend to get slightly scared and take time out. Once the seeds of doubt are placed, rationalisation takes over and some lose their way.
I like Andrew, always find myself referring to the BoM..Plus I've had I guess some quite stark spiritual experiences that can't be rationalised away nor rationally explained.
I can't say that I have noticed an increase in apostasy. Of the people I know who have left the church only one claims "further enlightenment" as her reason, and she became a born again Christian.
I tend to agree with the idea that there is a deeper reason behind - such as a lack of testimony, conviction or conviction. Blaming something historical provides useful cover.
In a previous post the subject of bishops being released and subsequently struggling was brought up. Among my peers there were several who fell away from the church on return home from their mission. And they were all missionaries who had been spiritual powerhouses, who had amazing experiences serving in the field.
The LDS church provides so much scriptural insight and doctrine that it really is the complete gospel. Something I have always found hard to understand is how after being a member in this church, and understanding the scriptures to there full extent as well as the plan of salvation and the purpose of the atonement, could somebody ever be spiritually satisfied as a member of another religion.
I mean I could not even imagine siting in another church on Sunday listening to a minister/priest putting his spin on a scripture and just taking what he says on its face. Or belonging to a church (like many I have met) that only believe most of the teachings of their church.
I can only think of two plausible reasons for this.
1. They never really understood the teachings of the church - My problem here is that some of these people were members for so long it is hard to fathom; or
2. There testimony has laxed to the point were it is easier to find a religion that fits your lifestyle, then try and conform to something they are not sure is true anymore.
I would be interested in anybody else's comments.
(Ah, just believe and be saved, wouldn't that be nice) :)
Yeah, I'm exactly the same Andrew. It's truly puzzling when I hear an ex-LDS is a faithful member of another religion. I don't have any better reasons than those you've proposed. I do know one guy who firmly fits into the 2nd category - he said he likes his Christian church because he doesn't get a hard time, or feel as guilty, about smoking. But he told me one Sunday his minister criticised the LDS church, and he got up and set the minister straight, which I found amusing.
Yeah I tend to agree..people who leave and join other religions seem so fleeting. Most I find end up in the born again trend...perhaps because of the ease it accommodates the consciousness. One Postmormon I spoke to once said that the problem with the church is that its too anxiety provoking....I'd prefer to be like that that living in sublime sin.
I still believe that in some way, some people learning the 'truth' about certain aspects of our history find it difficult to deal with. Let's be honest here, Polygamy as it was instituted is hard to swallow unless you can truly appreciate the gospel for what it is. I agree however, it does stink of a lack of testimony...or perhaps a lack of spiritual experiences to lean back on.
Whenever I feel like the gospel doubts are coming, I'm lucky to remember some very stark experiences which signify to me that the church is true.
Well, Let me, a real live apostate...aire my thoughts on this topic.
I was an off the chart active temple going, former bishopric, high council, mission AP member of the church. I was NOT fleeting or seeking some excuse to leave the church. We were not offended, we do not seek excuses to go inactive.
Do you really think those who have left the church are that shallow? Do you really think we would give up our eternal salvation over such petty things as the church claims?
I absolutely loved the LDS Church. I loved the culture, I loved the people, I loved and looked up to the GA’s as examples to base my life on and I loved the comfort that I had the TRUTH. I could with an aire of confident pride look at my fellow man and feel sadness and compassion for their lack of belief in accepting Mormonism’s truth. I took comfort in knowing that I was not just another human being walking blindly on the face of the earth... I knew who I was; I was a Child of God... a God in embryo. Yeah, I bought the “Snake Oil” and all its promises of families being together forever.... eternal marriage.... Godhood...eternal progress...That’s what makes it hurt so much even today. To discover the lies, the whitewashing, and the glorification of history to make it more spiritually uplifting, to have been taught the foundational stories as the church wanted its history to have played out rather than how it actually did play out.... I feel lied to and deceived by the very people I had placed such total confidence in. They lied to me and continue to lie to promote their agenda of belief. But belief in lies is just a false hope.
Coming to the realization that the LDS Church is not what it calms to be…has been the most painful experience of my life…Discovering that the church of my birth, has lied about its foundational claims…is more than I care to bare. Yet the facts that lead me to this conclusion seem beyond reproach. I just could not fake belief any longer;
I couldn't hold the pieces of the puzzle together in my head any longer. Much like the Dutch boy with his fingers in the dike holding back the flood. I had been plugging the many conflicts in my faith in Mormonism since my mission and the dam finally broke.
I couldn't hold all the conflicting so called truths…one must be true while the other false. They can’t both be true. I have to be real!
Mormonism is amazing to me in that regard...its ability to get its "knowledgeable" members to ignore credible yet conflicting information and maintain these conflicting bits of information in their head while still being able to maintain faith in the church. God bless em I say ...I just couldn't lie to myself any longer. I no longer had the ability to maintain the cognitive dissonance.
Gordon B. Hinckley and many others have said that the church is either the truth or it’s a fraud...its either what it claims to be or it isn't. The fact that the church needs to lie, cover-up, whitewash,doctor and change its history and foundational stories in order to make them more faith promoting, finally collapsed what faith I still had remaining. I asked myself.... Would Jesus need to lie to support belief in Him? I answered that by saying NO, He wouldn't need to lie...which begs the question...then why would HIS church need to lie?
But most active Mormon’s won't expose themselves to the conflicting information.....it’s just too painful. My dear wife, , whom I love to death...barely listens to anything I have to say on the subject. I have no credibility with her. I have broken her heart...in so many ways, but I couldn't live a lie any longer. I refuse to live a lie for anyone.
The church may be the greatest thing ever invented…but if it was invented…and its not what it claims to be, then I want nothing to do with it
The average run of the mill active believing member of the church won't listen to reason....they have been so conditioned by the church that they won’t listen to alternative ideas when they come in conflict with the church’s version of foundational claims.
Questioning is not encouraged…if in so doing it questions faith in official stories. Even when confronted with factual documented proof...active members discard it as anti-Mormon falsehoods. How do I know this...that description used to be me.
My ah hah moment was when I finally decided that I had to know the truth no matter what the consequences...When I allowed myself to search for the truth even at the cost of my faith...it was over. The truth won out. I didn't like the truth...the truth was extremely painful, but I couldn't deny it either…the evidence is overwhelming.
I have no agenda against the church...you won't find me at conference holding up signs promoting what I’ve discovered... I just want to live an honest life and be the best person, husband, father I can be….
One thing I’ve learned through this process of discovery is that it is not possible to accept reality unless you are willing to accept the remote possibility that the church may not be what it claims to be. If you can't accept that possibility...then you will never accept reality when it comes to the church claims.
Hello Cr@ig (interesting name),
Thankyou for your comments. I think that many here would disagree with what you and the postmormon group claim when it comes to truth and why people leave the church, but I think we can be pleasant about our disagreements.
Personally I come from the other end of the spectrum. I joined the church in 1997 after years of questioning life and what it was designed for. I often claimed that Mormonism was entirely obnoxious and self-indulging with the claim to being the 'only true and living church'. BUT...
After investigating the BoM as many here have, I came to realise both intellectually and spiritually that the blue book is of God. Not only is it entirely irrational to suggest that JS could have written it as I once did, it also caused a change in my heart which is above and beyond anything that I can creatively articulate into words here.
My point isn't to disenchant anything you've experienced in your leaving the church, but to suggest that the corner stone of our faith is the BoM...and I find and have continually found reasons to keep believing it is true.
As for the other historical things which you refer to, these things are secondary to the claim of the BoM. IS it true or not? What is your claim on this book?
It's very easy to sit in my "comfy chair" and make comments. I am one who does not take my testimony of the restoration for granted. I read my scriptures (almost) daily, pray several times a day, pore over General Conference, and serve.
Those I know who have left the church did none of those things with full purpose of heart. When we do those things, we feel the Spirit more. And perhaps most important, we feel His departure when we stumble across anything unaligned with Gospel & Church prinicples.
There are deep, dark, unhappy, unimaginable incidents that have occurred in the history of the LDS church. Some have occurred with the sanction of leaders, some have involved said leaders. Some I understand at least superficially, some I may never understand in any way.
But deep in my heart I have felt the Spirit tell me the Church is true, prophets are on the earth, and scripture is still being revealed. All this in addition to the knowledge God lives and His Son is my Saviour.
When I hear people deny any, or all, of the above and they have been strong members of the church I think to myself a couple of things - closely aligned with what Andrew (above) stated.
First, they never really felt the Spirit and gained a testimony. This is typically not true, which means:
Second, they felt the Spirit but did not "continue in the right way". They were not continually nourishing and feeding themselves the good word of God. They did not hold to the rod of iron. I believe that many fall into this trap. They feel that all is well in Zion, forgetting that, as President Eyring said some years ago, "Faith has a short shelf life" and we need to constantly replenish it. But still others fall into a third category.
Third, they practice the art of self-deception. The modern psychological literature speaks often on the topic of the way we justify our actions, who we are, and what we do. If I come across something that tells me that Joseph Smith was immorally polygamous and it offends me to the point that I want to leave the church, then I have to make some weighty decisions to justify my actions. I have to negate the deep spiritual feelings I've had previously, and put them down to being "emotional" and "caught up in the moment". Then I can say that my testimony was built on a false foundation and walk away easier.
I am sure that those who have chosen to leave the church will argue that they have done the right thing. That is precisely my point. We, as humans, rationalise our actions when they do not meet the standards that we have been taught. To rationalise means we tell "rational lies", and they are so rational that we actually believe them.
To the charge that the church covers things up - i disagree. All the information is there for those who look. But milk comes before meat. We teach people what they need to know. Then as they become more spiritually mature they obtain greater knowledge. I would never have done university level statistics, or studied for a PhD if I knew at the start what I would have to do. It would overwhelm me, even if I had felt that it was good and right. But as I grew into it, I knew the answers would come. So too with church history and doctrine. Too much too soon is overwhelming.
Nicko sugggested that it is "irrational to suggest that JS could have written it" REALLY?
I guess it is "rational" to believe that Joseph took a rock he found while digging a well for his neighbor, Willard Chase, placed it in his hat and translated golden plates that were hidden outside in a tree stump that had been given to him by a dead WHITE Indian that had lived somewhere (no one can really say where) on the American Continent describing a civilzation that left not one single piece of evidence of its existance...not a coin, not a garbage heap, foundation, nor a sword from its many battles...nothing nadda siltch. Belief in Mormonism requires irrationality...it require the suspention of disbelief...In fact the only RATIONAL thing to conclude is that Joseph DID write the Book of Mormon.
May I suggest you read Mormon General Authority, BH Robert's book "Studies of the Book of Mormon" He makes this same conclusion...
Mormonism may be the greatest thing ever invented in all the world...but if it was invented...it is not deserving of our time, talents or participation.
And now my comments for "Justin"
You said: But deep in my heart I have felt the Spirit tell me the Church is true, prophets are on the earth, and scripture is still being revealed. All this in addition to the knowledge God lives and His Son is my Saviour.
Justin...SO DID I. I knew with every fiber of my being that the church wa sll it claimed to be. that jsut goes to show you that our "feelings" can be manipulated. Let me ask you something. How do you explain away the testimonoes of those NOT of your church? Why are your feelings any more valid than those of say the Muslim who straps a bomb to his belt and blows himself up. He also KNOWS that his church is true. What about the evangelical who KNOWS with every fiber of his being that you are wrong and he is right...or the JW'b who also KNOWS. I know I know...they are wrong and you are right because the spirit has confirmed YOUR truth to you and Satan has deceived all of them with a false witness.
The bottom line is that human feelings can and are manipulated...the LDS church even has a department in one of its companies that creates "Emotional Fellings" in its commercials... did you know... “‘That that special feeling that you have about Joseph Smith being a true prophet? Well that’s been trademarked by Bonneville Communications; it’s called HeartSell®.’” check it out....
http://www.bonneville.com/?nid=32
Yes even the church KNOWS that human feelings can be manipulated for its purposes....
cr@ig...
Do us the favour of treating us here with some respect, we expect it from all our posters...we are not manipulated despite what you think. All contributors here are deeper thinkers than what you give us credit for. All are scholars in our chosen disciplines and all have a very rational background.
IT IS irrational to suggest JS wrote the BoM when you analyse it indepth. You probably are more than aware of his historical background AND his educative history. HOW you can claim that he wrote the BoM is beyond me...I prefer to hear the guys down at the local Apostolic Community who declare the devil wrote it.
Second, you claim that the same feeling we feel is that of the Muslim (or Terrorist). I can lay some claim to this being from outside the church. I know that at times in my life I felt the influence of the light of christ whilst out and about doing my thing in other religions. That much I can testify of. The feeling is very much associated in my opinion with that great call 'come follow me'. I don't think that good feelings are reserved solely for the church. I think that when you keep elements of the faith in GOD you will feel his influence. I cannot suggest that the Church Lays claim to spiritual insights and spiritual feelings period. Otherwise, why would people do anything good at all? Morals?
What I can suggest to you is that the feeling inside the Church with the Spirit is one of constant light...when you are keeping the commandments and progressing. You may not agree, and frankly, I don't care. I would've left the Church a long time ago taking it on face value. But the spiritual experiences I have had (of which I won't share for personal reasons) far surpass anything that you are going to say about manipulation of feelings....
I'm smiling sadly at the request that cr@ig 'show more respect'. Until his comment all I saw was a lot of active members making a long list of all the reasons why ex-members were to blame for their own apostacy: laziness, lack of faith, an unwillingness to believe counter arguments (with no acknowledgment that they may have done so and found them wanting), not enough prayer or scripture study, etc. There was a lot of disrespect shown to people like cr@ig, who have served faithfully and yet been unable to deny or ignore facts that do not correlate with their sense of logic or right.
The one reason no-one will ever dare to contemplate is that maybe these people just found out it isn't true. I understand why that possibility is denied, but the ones you put in its place are insulting, and yes, disrespectful.
I am right in the middle of this dilemma, and it looks to me like it IS going to mean I leave the church, and it has nothing to do with wanting to do things the church doesn't allow (I've pondered on each of these issues and I expect my lifestyle to change very little in this regard) and it is not a matter of lack of faith. Like Cr@ig described his former feelings, I love church. I love the people there and I can't imagine myself attending any other church. But the church also taught me to seek and value truth. If JS is not a prophet, then the BoM is not scripture (nor the D&C or the PoGP) and the restoration of the Gospel did not happen. I can't be at church pretending I believe something I no longer believe and the culture of church is that you need to be certain, to both know and to say that you know. Just think about all the times and places you are required to testify.
The only reason that I haven't yet made it official is because it's the most grievous decision I've ever made and I'm still reeling from the collapse of 'truths' I thought were unbreakable. It really hurts, and to have people talk like I must just be some lazy git who doesn't read her scriptures enough is adding insult to injury.
Whether or not you ever come to agree with me or cr@ig or anyone else who leaves the church is not important, but it would sure be nice if, instead of sitting here typing out your judgment on people who leave, you could just acknowledge that when it comes to the reasons for them doing so, you may just not have any idea what you're talking about.
I appreciate all the comments being made but I would just like to clear up one thing that Chosha said.
I think most people posting have a very good idea of "what we are talking about" when it concerns the reasons for people leaving the church. That is the whole point of this post. We have heard all the 'excuses', 'reasons', 'intellectual arguments', 'scriptural debates', 'doctrinal issues, and myths and it has not caused the response in us that these people claim it did to them.
I am not making light of any devastating decision that some may have made in there lives to leave the church. The problem is all these decisions never seem to have any aspect of "holy ghost", or prayer, or revelation involved. It is always something like, I read this thing about JS or BY and the church must be false.
What I cannot understand is how someone can read a questionable 'story' about the church and come to the conclusion that all other accounts that people have testified to be true must be false. There are only two accounts of history in the church, those that belonged to the church, and those that hated the church. It is one mans word against another. That is why there are ways by God provided to know which are right and which are wrong. It just seems like far to many people have no spiritual or faith based reason on deciding which one they though was right.
Lastly I have to comment on cr@ig's "rational" argument.
'Belief in Mormonism requires irrationality...it require the suspention of disbelief...'.
I really don't mean to single this out but I need to know:
Is it 'rational' that God created the heavens and the Earth? Or that 2 people named Adam and Eve started the entire population? Or that A man named Moses spoke to a burning bush, parted the read sea, and came up with ten ways that most people 1000's of years later try to live their life by? Is it ration to believe in a 'virgin pregnancy'? A son of God in a mortal body? An atonement? Or is it even rational to believe in a God?
No. So why then do we do it? Because FAITH requires more than rational thought!
Chosha,
My line 'show some respect' was to the overly directed comments made by Cr@ig towards certain members of the site. We don't mind people telling us that we are wrong in here or debating things with us, what I (as a moderator) won't appreciate is when people begin to attempt to belittle or attack with words attempting to make us out to be quite naive or typical mormons with no brains or something. That is why I posted that line, nothing to do with his arguments.
As for your comments I agree and if you read up at some of the words I said, you will see that I have put forward that 'SOME' people leave the church because they are confronted with information that they cannot reconcile spiritually. Call it what you want, I don't mind, but the way I see it is that like Andrew suggested, people hear differing accounts and get a little doubtful, then later leave.
Your decision is yours alone. What I do not appreciate is when people such as Cr@ig start telling us that what we are feeling and the spiritual experiences that we have had are contrived or somehow manipulated through a conspiracy within the church. That is a very blanket statement. Some of the most stark experiences I have had which I will not share here have been alone, in prayer and away from church or anyone do to with church. To suggest that these are not valid is not only frustrating, its also hurtful.
Putting this aside, we do not advocate judgements here and are sorry that you feel we are judging you in an improper light. The descriptions from the other members above are directed towards individual experiences that they have had themselves with apostate individuals. You are forgetting that we live (most of us) in Australia where the church is relatively obscure and in the darkness...meaning that we don't usually get the doctrinal apostates. Most here leave for commitment issues because its very much harder for us to live the gospel here than in say UTAH. We are confronted with the WORLD in a much more bold way.
Sorry you have been offended. Remember that we are only human, and our experiences with apostasy are very much different from those living in the US.
Chosha,
I just realised that you are from Australia too and that you may have taken further offense from my statement. Apologies for that. I am merely trying to suggest that the posts about are about experiences that members here have had with people leaving.
As I also suggested, I've noticed in my own life people leaving more for doctrinal concerns lately too.
As you are from Australia, I'm sure you have opinions on the politics of this nation. I encourage you to share with us on the other and forthcoming posts these and others on the politics of this country. This is what the blog was designed for to begin with...
OMG (gosh) I JUST experienced the spirit reading Nicko's post disclosing that you are all Aussies, a fact that I did not know when I stumbbled on this sight. (No disrespect intended)... I'm being serious!!
I served my mission in Sydney Australia...I absolutley LOVE Australia.
My sincere apologies if I in any way came off disrespectful to anyone, I was merely sharing my perspective from the so-called apostate's (a word I do not use to describe myself) view point.
Discovering that the church was not what it claimed to be has been very very painful. (my perspective and I understand that you do not agree with my viewpoint)
So where in OZ is everyone...if in Sydney area, I'm sure we have common friends.
I can't help but chuckle to myself as I read the many "postmormon" comments. It seems that an analogy may be apt.
If a person were considering divorce after finding out something horrible about their husband or wife, would they do well to speak to other divorcees? Or would they do well to speak to the source of their problems, and obtain assistance from professionals in the area?
It seems that the direction one turns determines the outcome.
As I have reviewed the commentary from the disenfranchised and estranged LDS, it appears that they have sought solace with one another - like minded individuals who will support and empathise. Perhaps turning towards those who could offer spiritual help and support (bishops, teachers, stake presidents, scriptures, words of prophets and so on) may have impacted on the final decisions many have made.
- ldsthingker
Cr@ig...
Interesting stuff. We are mostly from Queensland...but we are scattered across the nation now. One in Canberra, another in the greater Sydney area, whilst another is in the greater NSW area and myself in Brisbane...yeah I haven't moved yet....
ldsthinker...
your comments are interesting, but in my opinion, postmormons would consider that the 'search for truth' can't be resolved inside the church and would see us as being blind through what we are doing. We obviously don't agree with them, but we shouldn't judge them for their decisions. They exercised their choice (not agency - as Elder Bednar taught us) to leave, and as such we should respect that choice. I think that in places like UTAH, social cohesion and help to repair the gaping hole left by leaving the church in sociality is what Postmormons seek to overcome.
I KNOW it is hard for true believing active members of the church to believe that a former true believing active member of the church could come to a decision that the church is NOT what it claims to be and actually leave the church, resign or just walk away. Surly there must have been some sin, surly their faith and belief could NOT have been as deep as yours, or they weren’t as committed to the church or they secretly held desires to sin…because it HAD to be something, SOMETHING OTHER than the simple reality that the church is NOT what it claims to be.
I was a sixth generation Mormon…have held church callings from the simplest to the most responsible…I was NOT supposed to be the person to leave the church. I am/was immersed in the Utah Mormon culture. I paid my full tithes, I attended the Temple multiple times a month, I read my scriptures daily, I held family home evenings regularly…I STILL want the church to be true.
It was during my research that I encountered information that was not consistent with what I had been taught throughout my life as a 4 year seminary graduate and college institute graduate as well as being a full and active participant in the church since my birth. This is what caused me to start the questioning of my beliefs…conflicting information to the official stories. I admit that once the questioning began…once the crack in my testimony started, once I started to ask tough questions rather than placing them on the back burner of my mind, the wheels began to fall off. But can’t real truth stand up to questions and scrutiny?
I was no shallow enough to just leave….I fought to maintain my testimony…I DID have long and multiple visits with Bishops, Stake Presidents and YES even General Authorities. I spent time with official church apologist at F.A.R.M.S. as well…I have read volumes of church sponsored explanations for church anomalies…but in the end…not one person, no bishop, SP or GA could answer my questions….in the end the pieces of the puzzle would not fit together the church could not stand up to tough scrutiny. In the end my faith could not be sustained… “For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope."
The church is either what it claims to be or it is not…there is no middle ground…Joseph either saw God or he did not, the Book of Mormon is either a factual history of a band of Israelites that were the forefathers of the American Indians or it is not…Joseph either translated Abrahams writings from Egyptian Hieroglyphics into the Book of Abraham or he did not. Thomas Monson either talks with God or he does not. As I’ve said before the church may be the greatest thing ever invented by man, but if it was invented…it does not deserve our involvement…for then, it is nothing more than a damnable false hope.
We can certainly appreciate the lengths you went to Cr@ig, but I dare say that most would still consider that your spiritual conversion was somewhat limited. Personally however, I think that you did what you thought was right but couldn't find answers to those raging questions. There are some unanswerable ones for me and I'm sure many in here too, but I guess sometimes faith needs to step in and belief in essentially, past spiritual experiences which confirm to us that the truth is still in the LDS Faith.
Of course you'd have to conclude that my conversion was "somewhat limited" because the alternative is unacceptable to you Nicko...
But can you help me with these two questions?
If the church were NOT what it claimed to be...would you even want to know?
AND
If I had just arrived on earth...looking at all the religions of the world...how would you suggest I discover which churches were "false"...since all religions claim to be the true church...how would I know which churches were false?
BTW I already know how the LDS church tells us to know if it is true...but how whould I even know if it or any other church is false?
Endulge me...
cr@ig, you've done exactly what alot of people tend to do when reading these posts, got past the first line and then responded in a defensive manner. IF you read the rest of my post you would see that I totally acknowledged your search for the truth through study, etc. But what I suggested is that all of us have unanswerable questions which we turn back to our spiritual experiences to alleviate. I for one do not understand all that happens in the temple, but I know that the first time I entered the Celestial Room as a young man, I felt something beyond this world which cannot be reconciled by Psychology or Biology.
However I will endeavour to engage with you on this (and its indulge BTW). Your two questions are flawed and let me explain to you why. The first one presumes that I've never entertained the thought that the Church isn't true. Of course I have. As a convert, my whole attitude into entering the discussions was one of 'this church is Arrogant (my friend TB can back me up here)' and false. What I experienced however (mainly through reading the BoM) was a spiritual experience beyond words. I was also questioned in the very first week of my mission by an anti-mormon on this church being true or not. I couldn't answer and almost went home. However what ensued was an experience again beyond this world.
So yes I've entertained the notion that the LDS faith is false, but beyond the five senses and definitely from GOD, I've had these fears alleviated.
Your second question assumes two things. Firstly that all churches claim to hold the truth. This is incorrect. Many Christian religions don't claim to have the 'only truth' over others. Many Eastern Religions including Bahai don't claim to be the only truth. Granted the biggest, Islam, does claim some authority over the truth, but not entirely. So I think if you were an alien here on Earth, you'd find a limited number claiming the 'right path' to God.
Second, what sort of a question is this anyway? I've always disliked the whole 'if I were an alien coming here to Earth' question because it takes a great deal of the human process out of it and suggests that the search for the truth is an entirely rational and calculative process. Meaning that you'd sift through all the choices and the rationally decide who is right and who is wrong. If you were to do this, would it result in any decision at all? Speaking from experience as one who sought for the truth, its entirely impossible to decide without some doubt that you've chosen incorrectly. I've studied with JW's and other religions before, and only one declared to me to go to GOD and ask him if it was right or not. Granted this is my own anecdotal evidence and certainly not a blanket statement, but its my own. I don't know why I managed to find the LDS faith, I suppose God granted me the desires of my heart. All I know is that as opposed to all other religions I encountered, the LDS faith gave me a spiritual insight (not just doctrine) which was stark enough to convince me of the truth.
Cr@ig I'm not judging you for leaving the Church. You obviously had some serious questions that didn't get answered for you. But let me ask you now, how do you reconcile those spiritual experiences you had whilst in the church? Was it just some psychological phenomena? Self-fulfilling prophecies?
Hi Cr@ig,
I've found your thoughts quite interesting, and thank you for them. Earlier, I think I posted something to the effect that all of the ex-Mormons I know (which admittedly is not a huge, or representative, sample) that take issue with church history/doctrine had some other problem with the church also (eg bad experiences with people, calling stuff). Reading what you've had to say on this thread, I got the impression that you were quite different, that you simply came across historical/doctrinal problems that caused you to question your belief system.
But today I clicked on your name to get to your blogger profile, and there you write: "Following a personal indiscretion, for which I took full responsibility, I turned to the church for help, the help I received was excommunication. This reality forced me to reexamine my basis for belief in Mormonism and research my many doubts."
So, at the very least, by your own admission, your ex-communication was a catalyst for you to re-examine your faith. And it appears you took some issue with that Church decision. Frankly, to be so outspoken on this thread about how you were, like us, a fully active member, but to neglect this information, seems a bit disingenuous to me. After all, to the best of my knowledge the active LDS participants here are in full fellowship. Surely you'd agree that, according to LDS theology, being in a state of ex-communication is not exactly a spiritual peak? Now, it's all entirely your business what parts of your life you divulge, but I think it’s a problem if you get selective about what parts you divulge if they, intentionally or not, serve to bolster your argument. You’ve emphasised that you were ‘just like us’ (ie, active, believing members), but that doesn't seem to have been entirely the case?
You even said in your first post that you ‘were not offended’ prior to leaving the church, but that doesn’t seem to gel with your feelings about the ex-communication decision, unless I’m misunderstanding what you’ve written.
In any case, it’s actually my personal view is that church members could do more to understand those members who take issue with historical or doctrinal matters (even if, in my view, there are generally other contributing factors). I think it’s fair to say that the average postmormon.org participant DOES know more church history than the average active member, and simply saying that people are spiritually lacking or reading anti-Mormon material is a bit shallow. The fact is that some parts of Church history ARE hard to understand, and I think we’re best to engage with those who find problems, rather than dismiss them. I do sympathise with those grappling for real answers but feel that they are rebuffed.
Keen to hear your thoughts, Cr@ig.
Apostate...Excommunication…Sinner… and other emotionally charged terms or words used within the LDS context are designed to solicit an emotional response within the Mormon community with the intended purpose of causing active members to distance themselves from the likes of myself. Remember your last temple recommend interview?
General Conference, Sunday School and yes even seminary is full of sad stories of the consequences befalling those who fail to live up to the church’s dictates. Who among us can’t recall the stories of Thomas B. Marsh and his pride over milk strippings or Oliver Cowdary’s excommunication for what? Pride? It’s never so simple in reality. The historical record suggests a much more complicated reality to both of these excommunications. As it does with my story.
I was a sitting member of my stake’s high council at the time of my excommunication. I was an active believing member of the church, held a temple recommend, paid my full tithes etc etc. I did have a lapse in judgment for which I took full responsibility. I NEVER broke my temple covenants. As a good member of the church having faith in the principle of repentance and believing in the process, I confessed my (sins) lapse in judgment because I did have faith in Christ. I entered the process fully aware of the consequences taking full responsibility for my lapse. I have always been a sensitive sort, and felt great guilt for not living up to the high standard I had set for myself. I fully expected the process to be both difficult and painful. I knew it would take me to the very depths of my ability to survive. I submitted myself having faith that the church WAS what it claimed to be.
I had sat in on many so called courts of love, but nothing in my previous experience had prepared me for what I encountered. The process and realization of excommunication to me, a true believer, was without question the most humanly painful experience of my life.
As I was engaged in working to regaining membership in the church I felt a need to resolve some doubts and questions that had sat on my mental self since my days in Australia while serving my mission. Things that just didn’t add up. I knew that I had to get past the many questions I had accumulated over the years. I fully expected that they would easily be resolved and I could quickly regain the prize.
As I immersed myself in my research, I was to be sadly disappointed…for as I entered the rabbit hole…I soon discovered that my life was to be changed forever…and not in the way I had expected. I soon discovered the churches explanations for these issues were based on very weak arguments. All my life I had been taught that those who fought the church used lies and distortions to support their claims….my studies showed something quite different…it was the church that had been whitewashing, distorting and lying.
So yes I was excommunicated…isn’t that convenient. I fit the exact profile the church uses to have you reject my message (not that I have a message mind you) Shoot the messenger! BECAUSE I was excommunicated you can NOW take solace knowing that anything I may have to offer can be rejected whole cloth….for you can’t trust an evil excommunicated sinful apostate can you? Wow…don’t those emotionally charged words in and of themselves qualify my comments for rejection?
Discount if you must…reject if you will…but don’t use my excommunication as an excuse. As I’ve stated, I WANTED the church to be everything that it claims to be. The pain I feel is in discovering that I laid my life in front of neighbors and friends to have them sift through my life only to later discover that they were in fact only men functioning in a man-made religion. I was sold a lie.
I am NOT bitter over being excommunicated….although I did not feel going in that it was within the realm of possibilities based on my experience with church courts…but I am pained for being duped by a religion that claims to be God’s only true church on the face of the earth…yet is SO FLAWED as to not have any entitlement to being what it claims to be.
So yes you can dismiss my assertions…. After all that is what the church hopes you would do. They don’t want you to ask hard questions that lead to difficult answers, to do balanced personal research involving both sides or read the REAL history. After all the church is true, right? What else matters?
Cr@ig,
I'm not sure you get TB's point. You've gone ahead and attempted to defend yourself wholeheartedly without looking to see that TB wasn't actually attacking you wholeheartedly. He was in fact critiquing your story on a literal level. What happened to you in the Ex-Communication process must have been quite awful I feel especially because you seemed to love the church so much. However, the premises that TB brought up were more than a little concerning. Your story was in my mind one of a full serving member of the Church with a huge amount of spirituality but couldn't get resolve on some matters so decided to do so serious investigation. What TB is suggesting is that you weren't a full standing member at the time of your questioning which does throw some doubt (even you can admit this) on your story.
I'm not suggesting for a second that your concerns are not real, but had you divulged the truth up front about your status leading up to your questioning, it would not have looked like you were trying to 'up the ante' on your story..so to speak.
Again Cr@ig, I don't want you to think for a second that I don't believe you have real concerns, nor do I not believe you when you say that you want the church to be true. However, you must admit the mind of the Mormon soul is such that when we hear of your standing, we start thinking...
Again however I think I've stepped away from the major concern that I have. How do you reconcile those spiritual experiences that you've had in the past? Assuming of course that you have (and this isn't an attack because I know some church members never have) had some spiritual insights/experiences/feelings?
Cr@aig, I'd suggest you're the one getting a bit emotive here, particularly with words like this: "BECAUSE I was excommunicated you can NOW take solace knowing that anything I may have to offer can be rejected whole cloth….for you can’t trust an evil excommunicated sinful apostate can you? Wow…don’t those emotionally charged words in and of themselves qualify my comments for rejection?Discount if you must…reject if you will…but don’t use my excommunication as an excuse."
I never suggested you were 'evil' or 'sinful', and never referred to you as an 'apostate' (personally, I don't much care for the term). I simply pointed out that, by your own admission elsewhere, your ex-communication was a catalyst in you losing your faith, but that you had given a different impression on this thread.
Now, I don't hold dogmatically to the view that church leaders always make the right decision, and it does sound, based on what you've said, that the ex-communication was a bit over the top. But in that scenario, surely you'd be pretty upset, right? I know I would be. So surely that serves as some kind of catalyst to re-examine faith??
So my view is that you had a closer look at what at problematic areas of church history during a period in which you felt a bit jaded. I'm not suggesting you were just a wayward sinner who lost his way. I know you disagree with my assessment, but I'd equally disagree with your assessment of me that, as an active member, I'm unwilling to contemplate the church not being true, and thus disregard the church's 'lies'. Now, I understand and respect your view, I just don't agree with it. But I'd hope we can disagree in an agreeable manner.
For what it's worth, I do know a fair bit of church history (Fawn Brodie sits in my bookshelf), and I'd agree with you that things like polygamy, polyandry and BOM translation are difficult to reconcile with the simpler message we got growing up. It's just been my experience that it IS possible to reconcile. I know you think I'm probably fooling myself, and I can't prove that I'm not, but it's what I believe.
It sounds like it's be an awfully tough journey for you, and best of luck with finding peace, wherever you find it.
This thread should NOT be about me… I am too flawed in the Mormon view to have any credibility. Was I being disingenuous by NOT disclosing my entire life and confirming all of your preconceived notions of the stereotypical apostate? Probably, but not intentionally…I have no agenda. I had so much belief in the church that I was willing to lay my membership on the sacrificial alter. On my own blog (easily reached through my postings here) I am quite forthcoming in my views…and history…it was NOT my intent to misinform or hide anything…my history is easily available. Had I wanted to do that I would have posted anonymously. However having said that, I fear that in trying to dispel the pigeonholing I found here, I have only confirmed them. Drat! Foiled again!
I stumbled upon this blog (I don’t even remember how now) I felt that the thread was presuming and stereotypical in its portrayal of “so called apostates”. So I posted a clarification to help dispel the typecasting.
Having found this blog, I wanted to correct notions that I felt were not giving an actuate portrayal of the real “active members” that are leaving the church in droves. I personally know of Stake Presidents, Bishops, former Mission Presidents (one who left the church while serving his mission) and even a Temple President…all who have left the church for the same exact reasons that I have (well I was exed and then couldn’t return based on my discoveries). These irreconcilable problems are REAL and they go to the core of Mormonism’s claims to having God’s authority on earth.
It is my belief that the church uses stereotypes to diminish the message of so called apostates. When was the last time you ever heard a general authority state that apostates leave the church over doctrinal issues? Ummm…NEVER! According to the church, we all left over the stereotypical reasons of sin, desire to sin, being offended, or just plain laziness. (Although I’m sure there are those who do qualify for these labels)
I view myself as a former believing member who discovered troubling information about the church that could not be reconciled. This information broke my heart and still pains me. This alone caused me to lose belief in Mormonism and it claims to truth. I believe that any honest person who made a similar investigation would come to the same conclusion…irrespective of past activity…because these things CAN NOT be reconciled.
Nicko...you asked how I reconcile my spiritual experiences (Yes I had them) I will return and report.
I freely admit that the primary basis for my loss of believe in Mormonism is that I took it so blindly.
I accepted every pronouncement from church authorities spoken at conference, written in the Ensign, or published in their many books…Hook, Line and Sinker.
When the church and church scriptures taught me that Adam left the garden 6,000 ago I literally believed it. When I was taught by the general authorities that there was no death on earth prior to Adams exit from Eden, I accepted it as an essential doctrine for the justification of the need for an atonement.
When Spencer Kimble, declared in conference that every native American from Alaska to the tip of South America and the Islands of the Pacific were descendants of Father Lehi…I never questioned. The Prophet had spoken; the thinking had already been done.
When the Book of Mormon established Noah’s universal flood and the Tower of Babel as real historical events I accepted this whole cloth. I now find each of these claims unbelievable and unsubstantiatable.
While serving my mission in Australia, I had many so called spiritual experiences. One that stands out in my mind involved a book that shook me to the core. An investigator had given me a copy of Gerald and Sandra Tanners”Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?” This was considered Hard Core anti Mormon stuff at the time and probably still is. Of course having a firm testimony of the gospel and knowing that real truth can stand up to any scrutiny, I accepted the challenge to read the book and get back with these people. Unfortunately, the book had an opposite effect on me than I had hoped for; it exposed the ugly underbelly of Mormonism in a manner of which I had never been informed. The book showed photo copies of changes to revelations from God in the D&C, additions inserted to God’s so called words made to enhance Joseph Smiths claims to authority, eye witness accounts of Joseph’s drinking and tobacco use long after the Word of Wisdom had been revealed. You see I was of that generation when Joseph had been made into a man-god (seemingly without fault) something I now know not be true…he was very much a man with all the complicated personality traits and flaws all humans have.
There were lists prophecies made by Joseph that NEVER came true, even one involving his prophecy regarding church members teaching the inhabitants of the Moon (yeah I know its bizarre, but he actually did prophecy such things) he even went on to describe their dress (like Quakers) so arrogantly typical of Joseph now when I look back. All the information was documented from church records and accounts…and it blew me out of the water.
In a matter of minutes, I was rocked to the core of my being. I literally crumbled to the floor in a fetal position and shivered…during that HOT Australian summer day.
I KNEW the church was true…I had felt the spirit so many times in my life…but this information was so detrimental to the truth claims of the church that if found true could lead to only one logical conclusion…the church could not be what it claims to be and these things also be true… at the same time.
I retreated to another room…and fell to my knee’s… Dear God, my Father I pleaded…if ever there was a need for you in my life it is now. I have lovingly served you tirelessly and I have asked for nothing in return…but dear Father…I need you now. These things cannot be true AND the church be what it claims to be. So I am pleading with you, this is what I need from you. If this book is true…you need do nothing…leave it where I let it fall. BUT if it is NOT true…then I plead dear Father, knowing that You have all power to do all things…I ask You to Move that book off my bed and place it across the room to the opposite side of my room and place it on my companions bed. I know it is a sin to ask for a sign…but I NEED this…
I then concluded the most earnest prayer of my life and returned to my room. (I might add that my comp had been in another room studying during this entire incident, he was oblivious to what I had been going through). I fully expected to return to my room and find the book laying exactly where I had left it (my faith had been so devastated…where upon I would have packed my suitcase and gone home from my mission a broken man) But as I walked into the room…the book was NOT where I had left it… God in His wisdom had performed my own personal miracle. As I entered the room…the book was on the other side of the room sitting on my companion’s bed. (I know, gives you goose bumps doesn’t it) I again fell to my knees thanking God for answering my most fervent prayer…all doubts left…I was filled with the most wonderful spirit I had ever experienced in my life…I knelt there in my room crying, thanking God for His love and knew that the contents of that book was filled with NOTHING but lies and distortions. I went on to serve a wonderful mission serving as District leader, Zone Leader and as Assistant to the President. I returned from my mission with honor.
So why hasn’t this most powerful of spiritual experiences sustained me? Because in the end the claims made by the Tanners had in fact been true all along…but what about that book…didn’t it move across the room? Well yes it did. It turns out that while I had been praying my companion had come into our room , picked up the book, looked at it, then sat it back where he had been sitting…on his own bed.
But couldn't the argument could be made that GOD prompted my companion to do that… Yes of course...that is what magical thinking does to a person...at least that’s what I believed at the time…but IF the Tanner material IS factual (and it is) can the church be true and the Tanners be telling the truth as well? Personally, it would be equivalent to having the Sun rise both in the East and the West at the same time.
So Nicko, based on my personal experience I’ve concluded that human emotions are a bad device to base truth claim on…Why? Because human emotions can be manipulated, we can deceive ourselves when using the so called prompting of the spirit…it just is not a valid standard upon which to measure truth claims on. And the magical thinking used in the church also distorts reality.
Hi Cr@ig,
Just to clarify, I didn't have any 'pre-conceived notions' about church members who leave, despite what you suggest. I've just merely made the observation that amongst the ex-LDS I know who have had problems with history/doctrine, there has always been another catalyst. Now, it's not a big sample (only around 9-10 people), so it may not be representative of the broader post-mormon community, but it is a piece of evidence, as opposed to a notion that someone fed me.
If your frustration is directed towards me, I don't quite understand it. I don't consider post-mormons 'sinners' or 'apostates', I just view them as members who couldn't reconcile what they learnt about the church, which in my view stems from a lack of spiritual understanding. And I'm sure that all those post-mormons, like yourself, think I'm not willing to contemplate that the church isn't true, so I'm not being totally honest with myself. That's fine - we all disagree, but I'm not looking to upset anyone over it. But we both have to accept that while we know the same things about history/doctrine, it leads us to different paths.
As I've mentioned previously, I'm actually more on your side when it comes to correcting simplified, false notion amongst active members that all that leave are merely sinners. I agree that it's far more complicated than that, and it's something I think about a lot, given some very close friends are in a similar position to you.
But while you appear to believe that the church as an institution has these shortcomings when dealing with people such as yourself, I'd see it as the shortcomings of individuals within the church, who are generally well-meaning but nonetheless make (often significant) mistakes. But I'm not trying to convince you of this, just pointing out why I believe as I do.
Cr@ig,
Can I just point out clearly that this is not a personal attack on you so please refrain from making it so. We are merely pointing out that your story takes on a different connotation when you throw in that you were in fact not a standing member. We never assumed to tar you with the same brush at all as those who apostate through sin or lack of commitment.
Your experience is interesting, but dare I say, not the sort of spiritual experience I was really looking for when I came to you on that.
Let me share with you a similar story, and I do so anxiously knowing that such spiritual experiences are not best given over the internet, nor for public consumption.
When I was a missionary, in my first area, I met a woman (remember I was probably 2.5years into my church membership at this time) who questioned me about all sorts of historical and doctrinal issues. She said basically I was going to hell. It scared the heck out of me.
I returned home and like you got on my knees to pray. I had received various spiritual experiences before which confirmed me to the truth, but never had I been confronted with things I'd not heard/ nor had I be told because of my belief, I'd be going to hell.
So I prayed...for so long I believe my companion went to sleep before I got up. I prayed to know if the Church was true. Simple question, requiring a simple answer. I received nothing. I snuggled into bed (it was Timaru...very cold Winter in NZ) and began to question whether I should be there. Because of my no answer, I began to think that it was time to call the Mission Pres in the morning and tell him I wanted to go home. That is how scared I was. I really didn't want to be there anymore. If what that woman suggested was true, even in the slightest, I didn't want any part of the mission anymore. I wanted to be home, and sharing time with family/friends and my girlfriend of 3 years who I'd left behind.
Not long after I made this decision, I rolled myself over to the wall and began to feel like an idiot. My confusion was so frustrating. It was about this time that I felt something overcome me. Its not a feeling I can adequetly describe. It was like at one stage I was floating with a extreme peace that was held deep inside and flowed through my whole body. My conscience was alleviated, and I knew the Church was true.
This is only part of the experience I had that night. The rest I feel like I shouldn't share for some reason. I don't know why. But I do want you to know, that at that moment, any doubts or fears or anxieties were taken from me and I was filled with a love and peace that only comes from God.
This is the sort of experience I was discussing earlier Cr@ig. The spirit filling your soul with joy unspeakable. I guess my colleagues who are disaffected will begin to quote all manners of Psychological evidence to suggest it was 'self-inflicted' or 'constructed' within me or worse yet, 'invented' by me to justify my position in the church, but I can tell you Cr@ig, it wasn't.
Now I'm not saying I'm overly special or anything, but these are the types of experiences which keep me going. I read and have read alot of damning things, most are emotively motivated on hatred against the church, but in the end, I trust my relationship with God more than I do with man.
Anyway, we are not judging you Cr@ig in here. This post was to discuss what I've seen as a slight increase in my anecdotal evidence towards people leaving on doctrinal reasons rather than commitment or sin.
Well , I initially posted to this blog because of Justin's comments wherein he said "...I've seen most of my friends disappear from church more because of laziness/indifference/apathy than doctrinal reasons or historically challenging incidents." and in all honesty...his observations are probably true.
However there is a growing problem within the church due to the increase in availability of information on the internet.
The church is losing the kind of member it NEVER has lost in the past. It's losing the multi-generational, tithing paying, upper leadership trained, formerly dedicated, salt of the earth, pioneer stock families..and they are leaving and resigning in droves...at least in Utah and in the USA.
The church is experiencing a tsunami of defections...it is hemorrhaging leaders and church leaders are not addressing it at all. I think they feel that if they ignore it, no one will notice the massive exodus.
My inside contacts in the church office building estimate this exodus at well over 100,000 a year and increasing and this is just those that actually send in a resignation letter. There are tens of thousands that just don’t give a flip any more…and walk away.
In Utah, where the church is both cultural and status based, people are standing up to the so called power of the church and saying enough is enough. The church is being inundated with letters from members asking for clarification in doctrinal issues…so much so that the 1st Presidency actually had to issue yet another formal announcement asking the members NOT to write them on doctrinal issues. (Recently read over the pulpit) Yet they still fail to address any of the difficult issues. But in all honesty…they’ve created their own mess by being so dishonest for so long.
And to make matters worse, GA’s such as Boyd Packer have instructed church religion instructors NOT to teach a truthful history of the church…stating that “something’s that are true are not very useful”
I have a dear and good friend who is affiliated with BYU’s F.A.R.M.S.; I asked this person why the church isn’t more honest in its portrayal of church foundational history …particularly when teaching new converts. He said matter of factly, “Don’t be silly Craig, If we told people the truth NO body would join the church” (that is a direct quote) my jaw nearly fell off. You see the leadership of the church KNOWS the real history of the church’s founding…yet knowingly sells a more “faith promoting version”. To me this is dishonest.
If the church must distort, whitewash and yes even enhance its foundational stories to make the stories more attractive in order to maintain members faith and attract new members…then it is being dishonest, duplicitous and is not worthy of my participation.
They tell the history as they wish it had occured rather than how it occured. Anywhere else this would be called fiction.
So I ask: Assuming that you ARE all aware of everything that I am aware of…how do you dismiss it… how do you put it on your mental shelf and dismiss it to maintain belief? I tried for years….but I finally reached a point where I just couldn’t lie to myself any longer … In my mind, there is no spiritual experience that could overcome the difficulties I am aware of….nothing can make the sun rise in the west….
I can’t think of much I could add to the things Cr@ig has posted on this thread. His story of discovery and search for truth is almost identical to my own. So I will not rehash the details. If however you have decided to dismiss the validity of his comments because of his “Excommunication” and subsequent handicapped ability for spiritual guidance or in the words used by TB “being in a state of ex-communication is not exactly a spiritual peak” regardless of why someone felt the need to search is completely irrelevant and the information uncovered is just as valid and relevant. I took off on the same journey while fully active and excited to gain as much knowledge as I could, I wanted to be the guy in the know, wanted to be able to answer the tough questions. I had NO doubt that the Church was true at the time. In fact it was while attending a memorial for my Brother In Law that sparked my interest to take my faith and knowledge to a whole new level., Paul Toscano one of the excommunicated intellectuals mentioned above, spoke as he and his wife were good friends with my Sister and Brother In Law. He could not speak at the actual funeral because of his excommunication. As I listened to this group talk about what I felt were some very odd and strange ideas my first impression was sadness and one of concern over the fact that they had lost their way. I also realized that they had studied and researched more than I, at that time I received an incredible spiritual witness that I was to study and learn and I had neglected to follow my PB that admonished me to study the lives of our modern day prophets and specifically Joseph Smith.
My conclusion as I have read and engaged in conversations in these blogs is that most that have left the LDS faith have done so very thoughtfully and painfully, but just could no longer live what they found to be a lie.
Justin makes the statement
“I am sure that those who have chosen to leave the church will argue that they have done the right thing. That is precisely my point. We, as humans, rationalize our actions when they do not meet the standards that we have been taught. To rationalize means we tell "rational lies", and they are so rational that we actually believe them.”
I certainly did a lot more rationalizing to defend Mormonism than the other way around. That is what I find so wonderful, at times I look back and think wow how did I convince myself of THAT.
Finally I will quote myself from another blog an observation regarding how LDS that actually study and read the history of the church reconcile the things they find. Andrew gave a perfect example of one of the main rationalizations I hear by LDS faithful.
“Is it 'rational' that God created the heavens and the Earth? Or that 2 people named Adam and Eve started the entire population? Or that A man named Moses spoke to a burning bush, parted the read sea, and came up with ten ways that most people 1000's of years later try to live their life by? Is it ration to believe in a 'virgin pregnancy'? A son of God in a mortal body? An atonement? Or is it even rational to believe in a God?”
Coventryrm
“many that leave Mormonism do not join another Christian Church or do but then slowly turn agnostic or Atheist. Once they learn to question and search and think with logic and common sense they will then apply that to ALL religious dogma and history.
I know many LDS that have questioned and then looked at the whole picture and stay with the Church because they come to the conclusion that to believe in Christianity they have to accept and have faith in unsubstantiated claims as a Christian anyway, if you can believe that Christ was resurrected and rose from the dead, then you can certainly believe that God visited Joseph Smith. The majority however starts applying the same criteria used to debunk their LDS faith in their new search to redefine themselves and their options for a religious community and or a belief and value system and that path seems to take them away from Christian dogma and move them to other forms of enlightenment.”
Well Cr@ig, you've done it! You've convinced me to leave the church. It's all lies... damn lies (and statistics). I have a rational mind, and knowing all I do about church history - from the murders committed by church members on locals in townships they lived near, to polygamy, to the stealing, gold-digging etc etc - I can't possibly live the lie any longer. Well done. You've convinced me! Feel better now? LOL.
- ldsthingker
I did read the Book of Mormon. I did have a testimony of it. I had a testimony of the prophet. I followed his counsel. I lived all the standards - the law of chastity, word of wisdom, the list goes on. I magnified each and every calling I held. I prayed morning and night, and frequently in between. I attended the temple.
Even when I started to wonder if the source of my unhappiness was that perhaps the church was not the right thing for me, I continued to pay the full tithe I had paid my entire life. I continued to read my scriptures. I continued to pray regularly. I continued to serve in and magnify my church callings in a spirit of love. I continued to attend the temple.
Even after 2 1/2 years of wondering why I was not gaining spiritual uplift or enlightenment, I did not look at any literature that could be construed as "anti-mormon." (In fact, I didn't even know about all the historical or doctrinal issues such as Joseph Smith practicing polygamy, the Book of Abraham, DNA, etc.)
Is that a lack of conviction? Is that apathy? Is that laziness? Is that indifference? Is that rationalization behind an academic argument?
Living in Australia or not, these are still common rationales used to explain someone's apostasy or disaffection with the church.
The church works for you. It makes you happy. I'm glad it does those things for people, including members of my family and friends that I love dearly.
It ultimately did not do those things for me. I have spent 35 years of my life living the gospel, not breaking the commandments, standing for truth and righteousness, and constantly feeling like I didn't and couldn't ever fully measure up. I came to recognize that perhaps it wasn't about me at all. Perhaps it was just that the church wasn't the best, healthiest thing for me.
I read and re-read from the church manuals about apostasy, wondering how I could be labeled and written off so unfairly, because what was described in those manuals did not describe me, nor did it describe my heart. It saddened me to know if I expressed my sorrow and realization that the church was not the best option for me, that I would be shunned, labeled, and attempted to be boxed into a tidy category because obviously NO ONE would want to leave the church unless they were lazy, indifferent, critical, transgressive, apathetic, lacking conviction, or never had a real testimony.
How do you know? Does it make you feel better to have a ready made answer for why someone would choose to leave the church? Does it strengthen your testimony of the church and make you feel like you have a REAL testimony, whereas someone like me must never have had one? Does it make you feel more righteous? My desire is not to express anti-mormon sentiments, nor is it to lead anyone away from what they hold sacred. I believe each person must find his/her own way and what is true.
I finally and fully acknowledged the church was not the option for me several months ago. The month before that acknowledgment I paid a full tithe, was still reading my scriptures, and was trying to live the gospel because I wanted to be sure I wasn't making a mistake. My intent was to refrain from speaking out against the church or its members, because while it's not the best choice for me, it's the best choice for others.
Yet it makes it difficult not to say anything when assumptions and accusations are made about me, and those assumptions and accusations don't align with who I am or with what my experience has been or is.
The church makes you happy. I am happy, too, and I am leaving the church. I don't think it's an either/or situation. Perhaps it's a both/and situation, and recognizing that on both sides would be a much kinder, humane way to approach the issue, and would not leave someone like me that you label to feel at a low point like my only options were either to continue unhappily as a member of the church or to end my life. And it would not leave you, as members of the LDS church, feeling attacked or as if you were errant in your beliefs. Perhaps it would benefit us more if we directed our energies less on believers and apostates and more on compassion, serving our fellow human beings, and making the world a better place. It seems like a lot more good would come of that than of a who is right and who is wrong and who is this and who is that debate.
ldsthingker, with repsect, that type of antagonistic comment doesn't really belong here.
I think that this thread has highlighted the key issue behind the entire "falling away" topic.
There may be some indifference, laziness, offense etc. But the main thing, as acknowledged by almost all post-mormons, either overtly or between the lines, is faith.
Those who have left the church, most often appear to have left BELIEF behind as stated by coventryrm: "many that leave Mormonism do not join another Christian Church or do but then slowly turn agnostic or Atheist. Once they learn to question and search and think with logic and common sense they will then apply that to ALL religious dogma and history."
Faith is why, despite the awful, and seemingly irreconcilable troubles in LDS History, I remain true to the eternal covenants I have made. My spiritual experiences tell me that Jospeh Smith was undeniably God's prophet. So was Brigham Young and so on until today's President. I know it in my core through experiences too sacred to discuss in a forum such as this.
I also know that despite these men being prophets of God, they are also fallible, flawed, natural men. They do and say things they wish they hadn't. And they don't know everything - not even almost - when it comes to all things spiritual.
Cr@ig says BKPacker has instructed church teachers or officials not to teach the truth because "something's [sic] that are true are not very useful".
I see that as sound advice. In my personal relationships there are many things I could tell those I love to help them improve. Those things I could tell them are undeniably true, but not very useful. The greater good will be accomplished through my loving them and looking for the good as opposed to telling them all their foibles.
Likewise, discussing the challenges the church has faced and the mistakes of leaders does little to strengthen people's faith. There is no conspiracy here. I know many of the things you post-mormons are aware of, as do TB, Nicko and beeare. We are all well versed in looking critically at both sides of a story. It is faith in, and a testimony of, prophets of God that allow us to reconcile these issues.
Anonymous wants us to spend more time on compassion and service. Fair point. And while establishing who is right and who is wrong cannot be done empirically, the question matters. Because if we LDS are wrong, well, this life probably is without meaning and purpose and no one is the worse for having believed anyway. But if we LDS are right, those who kick against the pricks will be a sorry sight indeed.
With respect to anyone and everyone who has posted here I have a few comments to make.
(1) I did not post this suggesting for a second that we box apostates into a bunch of categories and then place them into our psyches as such in order to alleviate our minds to your leaving the church. I abhor categorisation (being someone who loves and appreciates Foucault).
(2) We are not attacking you (why is it that you are trying to defend yourselves). All we are doing is critiquing your leaving the church which believe it or not, rational humans do. Most of us have academic backgrounds and as such, its ingrained in us to discuss these things and to critical analyse them accordingly. ITS not an attack on your personality or you. IT is a blog devoted to debating various things including why people leave the church.
(3) Having said this, I appreciate that there are certain commentators here who are categorising. These people are incorrect in their summations (in my honest opinion) but reacting at a personal level is also incorrect.
(4) I think this has been exhausted long enough. The more we (mormons) try to reconcile why you've left the church, the more you (ex-mormons) tend to get annoyed and cannot reconcile why we stay in the church with knowledge about certain negatives about our church's history and dogma. In the end...whats the point.
(5) In respect to the author who suggests the we go and do more compassionate work, etc; you'll notice this blog is usually devoted to discussion of political and social issues that we believe require debate/discussion. Our aim here is to foster an environment which will allow us to in some way influence what we believe is the 'apathetic attitude' of LDS here in Australia by getting them to think about some of these important political issues that effect our times. If that is not important enough for you, then I'm not sure what is.
(6) Lastly and not least, I have investigated the church and I have come to the conclusion through various spiritual experiences that THIS church is true. I don't care for this attitude that I've not investigated it enough or that I'm some how blind to the Church's REAL TRUTH. Fact is, I don't trust nor will I ever someone like the Tanners nor will I trust a Church historian to lead me to the truth. IN THE END, the manner in which God speaks to my spirit (see above) is proof enough for me. I cannot speak for the others. As I've suggested, how you reconcile my spiritual experiences and your own is up to you. But as for me and my house, I know what I know....
Here, here Nicko.
We seem to be agreeing on more and more over time:)
Well it’s been fun. Thank you for allowing me to play in your sand box. If nothing else, our discussion has helped increase visits to your blog…I see the site visit numbers have really spiked…
So If I might make a summation:
Using broad generalities to describe any group of people usually ends in a false image of reality.
Apostasy, specifically the Mormon kind, is motivated by the entire spectrum of human emotions, thoughts and rationale. To point to over- simplistic causes leads to false assumptions.
Although I know it somehow undermines your own testimonies to acknowledge this…(because it makes you vulnerable to the same fate I have experienced) many apostates really did have the same strong vibrant testimonies, just as valid, strong and real as the ones you claim to hold.
But let’s examine the rational you listed as motivations for active Mormon’s becoming apostates:
01. An unwillingness amongst these people to look at pro-LDS counter arguments to what they discover (such as those found on FAIRS)
02. Rationalization takes over and some lose their way.
03. A lack of testimony, conviction. Blaming something historical provides useful cover.
04. They never really understood the teachings of the church.
05. Their [sic] testimony has laxed to the point where [sic] it is easier to find a religion that fits your Lifestyle, then try and conform to something they are not sure is true anymore.
06. They never really felt the Spirit and gained a testimony.
07. They felt the Spirit but did not "continue in the right way".
08. They did not hold to the rod of iron.
What is glaringly missing from this list of motivations is the obvious reason…a growing number of formerly active, believing Mormon’s are leaving the church in such large numbers…plain and simple
” The church is NOT what it claims to be”.
If the church were what it claimed I personally would rush to be rebaptized and join my believing family members in church. In fact NOTHING would stand in my way. I would make any sacrifice asked of God IF the church were true. But at least for me….the church I grew up believing in…does not exist…it was always just a myth in my mind.
I respect each of your rights to believe what you wish. Mormonism is a wonderful religion but if is not REAL, if it was man-made, if it won’t win me my own Kolob…then it does not deserve my nor your participation.
Thanks again for allowing my participation in your apostasy discussion…and If I might offer some advice…it would be not to think to hard about the difficult issues surrounding Mormonism's claims…Don’t try to make the many fractured pieces of the Mormon puzzle fit together…it will only lead you to “Apostasy”.
Cheers,
Cr@ig P@xton
Thanks for participating Craig and check back in for further discussions of various issues. Like I suggested, most of our blog is devoted to looking at political and social issues, however, the debate of religious is not devoid of importance. The numbers we've attracted from the Postmormon population have been interesting, yes, but hopefully we are smart enough to appreciate the experiences of all people and respect them.
With respect to your surrounding/concluding commentary..
I suppose my counter argument would be that people don't leave the church because 'it's not true'. But perhaps they leave the church because 'Satan is real'. Basic I know, but we've never entertained that thought.
I leave you with my summation that through the spiritual experiences I've had via the book of mormon, I know the gospel of christ is found in the LDS faith. Sometimes, I think we Mormons tend to overcomplicate things...
For anyone who may still be listening,
Many of the comments here suffer from the No True Scotsman fallacy.
As one former member of the church, you'll just have to trust me that I left because I could no longer believe that the claims of Mormonism were true. I didn't leave because of sin or because I wasn't committed enough. I just found out some things that changed my mind.
It might make believers feel better to believe that all ex-Mormons are defective somehow. That doesn't make it true.
I would like to believe that all Mormons are ignorant dupes, but I know that's not true. A mature understanding of the world requires that we admit the possibility that good, honest, smart people will look at the same evidence and come to very different conclusions. That's life.
jonathan,
I don't think I could argue with you there, but I do think that it isn't so much an evidence thing. I suggest that science and scientific evidence can be construed in so many different ways, its hard to trust anyone (see Latour, 1987 for instance as a good discussion of 'Science in Action').
What I do believe is that there needs to be an appeal to a higher power when it comes to things spiritual. Evidence you may be discussing may be to do with past leaders talks, etc, I don't know, but essentially, all these things for me are better taking to deity instead of man.
Thanks for dropping by.
I suggest that science and scientific evidence can be construed in so many different ways, its hard to trust anyone.
Likewise with spiritual evidence and spiritual claims. Religious claims often stray into the realm where they become testable by science. Mormonism is no exception.
But that's all a diversion from the topic of this post (or at least its comments). In my case, I attempted to take my concerns to God, but my pleas for peace were fruitless.
Some people pray to God with faith and real intent about Mormonism and don't receive the same confirmation as others. It's not accurate or helpful to assume that those people did something wrong to cause God to give them different answers (or no answer at all). In fact, it's hurtful.
Your second question assumes two things. Firstly that all churches claim to hold the truth. This is incorrect. Many Christian religions don't claim to have the 'only truth' over others. Many Eastern Religions including Bahai don't claim to be the only truth. Granted the biggest, Islam, does claim some authority over the truth, but not entirely. So I think if you were an alien here on Earth, you'd find a limited number claiming the 'right path' to God.
Are you not aware that just within the MORMON sect (I use this term in the technical sense) that there are over 200 splinter groups, each claiming to be the one true church?
No John, for you see I have been living under a rock in Mars, with my fingers in my ears (sorry quote from the Simpsons...couldn't resist).
Whilst you are correct, there is really only one with a large membership...that being the foundational Mormon 'Sect' to use a technical term.
Whilst you are correct, there is really only one with a large membership...that being the foundational Mormon 'Sect' to use a technical term.
Of course the claim to be the authoritative heirs of Joseph Smith is disputable. The SLC sect, while the largest, doesn't have an iron-clad claim. Depending on how you look at it, Joseph either left behind no anointed successors or many successors. And people have splintered from the Brighamite sect over changes in doctrine which were declare to be eternal (which seems like a fair reason to claim apostasy).
Aside from pointing to the large membership numbers, the Salt Lake LDS sect has no objective reason to declare that they are the true Mormons.
Some may cite personal spiritual witnesses, but those kinds of claims can be found in all the Mormon sects.
- ldsthingker-You make the comment that perhaps people should go to their leaders. I did just that when I started to have concerns about my belief. He talked me into a blessings, no showed and then wouldn't return my calls. I know you are probably asking what offensive thing I did to warrant that response, but I didn't do anything except say that I didn't know if I could be a member of the church any longer.
My point is that when you try the "proper" way and it doesn't work, then you try to find people who to help you sort it out. Members of the church don't want to hear your concerns-whether it be about whether Joseph Smith received a revelation about polygamy, the treatment of homosexuals or the women's current role. They want you to smile and say you believe.
I know of at least 15 people who formerly had high callings who have left the church because of finding some of the factual but uncomfortable stuff about the church.
These guys were all A-team players - hard workers, I felt the spirit as they talked. I served as a zone leader on mission with one, on the high council with another, another was a councillor to my stake president.
They discovered that the church was not open in it's teachings and decided to leave.
I left the church when I was 16, and if it could be attributed to sin, it was definitely masturbation. I was masturbating many times per day. It became a life consuming obsession. My bishop first asked me about it during my deacon interview, and of course I lied. I should have told him then that I was a masturbator, perhaps he could have fixed me, but instead it dragged on for years, and eventually lead to pornography.
When I was 15 my dad found my stash of playboys hidden in my closet. He made me go with him for a car ride where he berated me non-stop. He told me it was vile and disgusting. I took that to mean that I was vile and disgusting. I said nothing. I was in a deep depression for weeks after that. I didn't want to talk to my parents and became completely alienated from them after a while.
They treated me much differently after that, they let me do whatever I wanted. I think they were in damage-control mode at that point, because I had become a completely different person. I think they just wanted me to be happy, and to make friends, and that if I was happy I might believe in the church again. But none of their efforts ever took. I became very hardened to the teachings of the church.
So to confirm the suspicions of many of you, yes I left the church for sinful reasons. I really loved to masturbate, and after losing my faith I no longer felt like god was watching, and it became more joyful to me, which pretty much sealed the deal.
Now I am a married man and I know that the best thing god ever gave us was marriage (monogamous).
Hey Anonymous,
Sorry to hear that you went through shaming like so many others. It's all the more regrettable because it appears that masturbation isn't a sin, even according to Mormon scripture. I know that many faithful Mormons will argue against this idea, but the fear of masturbation was absorbed from the culture, not from scriptural sources.
FWIW, I left the church briefly in part because of masturbation when I was 12. I returned to the church when I was 14 and internalized the shame that LDS culture put on me. I finally freed myself from the shame when I was 30 when I let go of the Mormon framework.
I hope you're not still secretly laboring under the misconception that masturbation is shameful.
Hello,
Thanks for dropping by. As you can see the blog has been on temporary hiatus for some time. Mainly because it was taking up too much time and we became (my colleagues and I) obsessed over it. Its a shame too because the Financial Crisis and everything else that has occurred demands public discourse, especially from those who proclaim themselves to be mormons. Needless to say, we've been very up to date with emailing each other, just not on here.
As for your experience Anonymous, that is very sad to hear. I don't think anyone should ever be berated if they are caught doing things against what the church teaches. We all do something that perhaps doesn't get caught or isn't so outward which is against Christ's teachings. One should have the arm of love and fellowship placed around them and given support rather than told he is evil and shunned. Sad but true, members can sometimes be the most non-compassionate people around. And that can work against people at times.
As for your comment Jonathan, I challenge that notion openly and quite up front. Even when I wasn't a member of this particular Christian religion it was apparent to me that Christ instituted a higher law that included the avoidance of masturbation. He did say after all, 'he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her, the same has committed adultery in his heart'. I fail to see how masturbation doesn't fit that bill at all. It's very apparent to most Christians that he suggested here that lusting is incorrect in any form. No-one could ever suggest that masturbation isn't divulged from lustful thoughts.
Furthermore, and using BoM scriptures, its clear that from King Benjamin's address that the natural man is an enemy to god and requires overcoming. Whilst Masturbation is a difficult thing to overcome (I'll admit this) for teenagers and adults perhaps, overcoming it is part of the process of becoming a spiritual man rather than allowing the natural person to dominate.
I fail to see how masturbation could be seen as anything but derived from the natural lusts of the flesh. Thus requiring overcoming. I agree with one notion though, it should be treated with less indignation and more sympathy, empathy and sincere compassion. For young youth male and female who live in a world dominated by lust, we should be very very very sensitive that their bodies are subjected to images, sensations and peer discussion on sexual encounters which will no doubt stir the emotions.
But that doesn't make an excuse to involve oneself in this practice.
Even my friend who is a Catholic who grew up being told that he should masturbate frequently to lessen the chances of him breaking his code of abstinence knows this.
Jon,
Very interesting article. I have a friend who'd like to see the church adopt an official position on the age of the earth, and stuff like that, but there is still the cloud of thought best left untouched because while masturbation may seem innocent to some, others will not take kindly to any perceived relief for the masturbators, and when it comes to controversial statements in the scriptures, it seems safer to be intentionally vague.
But Jon, honestly, when you open the door to masturbation, you're opening the floodgates, like Nicko says. I found it not only easier, but BETTER to embrace some things, like my human nature. The internet itself is perhaps the worst thing any of your children will ever experience and yet you subject them to it, because you want them to grow up with the same knowledge, skills and experience as others, with a well paying job. Your sexuality will lead you to the right woman.
Jon, I think you are spiraling down the dark and twisted path of anti-elitism.
Nicko,
The natural man is not the enemy to god. God created man, but man created the bible. What you feel for women was coded at the time of man's creation. How can you deny that? How do you rationalize it? Evolution?
Anon,
Agree with you there. The floodgates do open when we start to rationalise certain areas. I hate to sound like a dodgy psychologist, but one thing leads to another inevitably. I think that the church was more interested in the development of moral standards, and like drinking, its best to avoid anything that might lead to worse situations.
The other 'anon',
I'm failing to see what you are stating here to be honest. Although, I can agree with what you are saying about how we are coded to feel a certain way 'naturally' towards women, I 'being a sociologist' can't help but think that we are also shaped by cultural input as to what is desirable in a woman. But perhaps this is beyond your point.
I don't think that you understand what King Benjamin was saying in the Book Of Mormon here nor what our doctrines are. We believe natural affections to be perfectly fine, but there are some natural urges or lusts which came from the fall of Adam and Eve and are part of our 'weakness' as is stated in Ether, which require overcoming. The natural desire for a woman is natural. It becomes problematic when it turns into a sexual lusting for a woman, and is more so when one is married.
How I rationalise this? I'm not sure I really get your point at all I'm afraid.
This is all very existential too. If you don't believe in God, the bible or the doctrines of the religions, then we're in another ball game completely. My response was purely to directed to Jonathan's response when he argued that no Mormon doctrine suggested masturbation is wrong.
I wonder what was meant when Jesus told us that lusting after a woman is adultery. It's problematic when you try to apply it. Is it OK to lust after your wife? If so—and your primary problem with masturbation is that it involves lust for women other than your wife—is it OK to masturbate while thinking about your wife?
Using the natural man passage against masturbation is also problematic. Natural men eat food, eliminate waste, and make love to their wives, but those aren't sins. I never heard anyone proposing that we overcome our need drink water. How do we know from that scripture what part of the natural man is an enemy to God?
All of the scriptures that we hear cited against masturbation require a lot of interpretation in order to include masturbation. There is nothing with the specificity of the injunction against having sexual intercourse with your father's wife, for example. (Deut. 22:30)
Did you read the post that I linked to? I promise that it isn't some anti-Mormon screed but rather an examination of what has been taught regarding masturbation and where our attitudes come from historically. I would be interested in your response to that history.
I hate to sound like a dodgy psychologist, but one thing leads to another inevitably.
I just want to point out that this has not been the case in my experience. The floodgates didn't open when I accepted masturbation as non-sinful. I'm now less interested in porn. (It's actually rather boring.) I no longer feel like I'm going to spiral out of control at any moment of temptation. In my experience, being more accepting of masturbation has put me in less danger of going over some kind of precipice, not more.
In short, I'm a better husband and father having stopped worrying about masturbation.
I'm not going to sound like some dodgy psychologist as some who have posted before me may have. I am going to sound like a research psychologist because that's what I do.
I've done a scan of recent studies examining masturbation. Most of them are published in Freudian psychodynamic oriented journals, or journals populated by the writings of liberalised sex therapists and sex researchers who are happy to promote the normalisation of this behaviour. For example "Hands down: The Best Darn Book on Masturbation", or "In Praise of Masturbation".
Here's some interesting data though. Brody et al (2006) report data from three studies of men and women engaging in masturbation or penile-vaginal intercourse to orgasm in the laboratory. For both sexes (adjusted for prolactin changes in a non-sexual control condition), the magnitude of prolactin increase following intercourse is 400% greater than that following masturbation. The results are interpreted as an indication of intercourse being more physiologically satisfying than masturbation, and discussed in light of prior research reporting greater physiological and psychological benefits associated with coitus than with any other sexual activities.
So clearly we have empirical evidence that masturbation does not provide health benefits in the same way that heterosexual monogomous sex (or any sex actually - but we're keeping it LDS here) does.
While there is scant evidence of mental issues associated with masturbation, I like LDS family therapist Carlfred Broderick's statement, that "there is not the slightest evidence that there are any physically harmful consequences from masturbation. It does not lead to pimples or to mental illness or to impotency .... (I remember my own bishop bearing solemn witness that all these things were attendant to this practice .... ) The only reason that young people should not masturbate is that it is an indulgence which tends to undercut self-control in an area where self-control is much needed."
Laura Brotherson recently 'redefined' masturbation for LDS in her book "And They Were Not Ashamed". She stated "I have compiled a list of ways self-learning differs from the inappropriate self-stimulation of masturbation. - The intent of self-learning is to gain a healthy understanding of the body's functioning. The intent of masturbation is to selfishly gain pleasure and sexual gratification. Self-learning is for short-term purposes. Masturbation can become an ongoing habit or addiction. Self-learning is meant to further the expression of love .... Masturbation is meant as an act of lust .... Self-learning is a conscious choice to improve sexual intimacy in marriage. Masturbation occurs on impulse with the intent to self-medicate or self-satisfy. Self-learning seeks to improve the
couple's relationship. Masturbation weakens or replaces the marital relationship, causing individuals to seek sexual satisfaction alone. Self-learning
can have the wonderful result of mutual sexual fulfilment in marriage. Masturbation causes distortions regarding love and sexuality.... (Brotherson,
2004: 241-242)."
I get the sense the Brotherson has a "spirit of the law" approach here.
Interestingly the available statistical studies indicate that a majority of Mormon Church member's attitudes and behavior are at odds with the modem church policy of abstinence. (see Malan & Bullough, 2005). Yes - they've actually collected the data on this. So a little over 60% of LDS actually think it's ok.
McConkie (Mormon Doctrine) and Kimball (Miracle of Forgiveness) both speak plainly. But these are not official church publications. Therefore their rebuttal of masturbation cannot be taken as doctrine.
The most recent Strength of Youth/Duty to God booklet states "Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful
and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and the expression of love .... ". The previous booklet was much more conspicuous in its decrying of masturbation. Instead the youth are reminded of the overall seriousness of sexual expression outside of marriage: "In God's sight, sexual sins are extremely serious because they defile the power God has given us to create life.., sexual sins are more serious than any other sins except murder or denying the Holy Ghost .... "(p.26).
I don't believe that masturbation is necessary. I don't believe that it should occur. I do believe that it can become like any other addiction. I do not believe that this is good for anyone's health. Therefore it is safer to abstain. I also think that if youth are indulging in it, they should be kindly counselled to stop and have it explained to them as to why this is in their interest.
It's a pity that some leaders and parents over-react or use inappropriate 'discipline' to punish. Discipline should not be punitive nor should it induce excessive (or any guilt). Rather, it should teach and lift.
No one is suggesting that coitus be replaced by masturbation. :)
Actually, masturbation can be beneficial. Regular ejaculation reduces the risk of prostate cancer.
Leitzmann's findings were that men who ejaculate between 13 and 20 times a month had a 14% lower risk of prostate cancer that men who ejaculated on average, between 4 and 7 times a month for most of their adult life. Men who ejaculated upwards of 21 times a month had a 33% lower lifetime risk of prostate cancer than the baseline group. (Men's Health)
It would be great if a man and his wife would take it upon themselves to decrease his risk of prostate cancer, but let's be realistic. The only married couples having sex 21+ times per month are newlyweds. :)
Most married couples suffer from unequal libido. This can be devastating. One partner feels unfulfilled and undesirable. The other partner feels harassed and sex becomes a chore. This can threaten a marriage. Masturbation can help smooth out the relationship by decreasing the need of the more libidinous partner. The other partner doesn't need to suffer under the burden being the sole outlet for sexuality.
Regarding masturbation as a potential addiction, I always think about how eating can become an addiction. Anything can become an addiction, especially if we're ashamed of it. Shame is a major contributor to addiction, especially in addictions not accompanied by dependence to a drug.
Teenagers who have received abstinence-only education have been shown to make poorer decisions about expressing their sexuality. I wonder if going further and asking that they should also abstain from masturbation would make the situation worse. It would be interesting to see research about youth who express negative views about masturbation.
I see masturbation as a harmless outlet for their sexuality until they can be in a committed relationship. I put it in the same class as birth control and oral sex when it comes to the church's teaching about sexuality: an undoctrinal opinion expressed by church leadership.
Jon,
I did read your post and although it was thoughtful and quite well researched, I don't agree.
First of all you question what Christ meant in that Sermon on the Mount. If the precursor is 'you heard it written thou shalt not commit adultery' then I think its pretty safe to assume that the follow on about not looking upon a woman means lusting after other women. Now, you mention masturbation whilst thinking of your wife, and whilst I find this interesting as to why you would do it anyway, it hardly stacks up to real world experiencing.
Go and interview a few males or females on the street and see if any masturbate whilst thinking about their wives. Whilst you may experience this yourself, I dare say you are very much in the minority.
And I think you're starting to edge on shaky ground anyway. The thing I've always liked about the church is its clear cut ideas that keep us away from the edge period. Alcohol I think is a classic example of this. You maybe able to drink one glass of red wine a day (a scientific recommendation) but the temptation to abuse this is much greater if you are already consuming the one glass a day.
So I feel it is with your take on masturbation. Thinking of your wife? How easy is it to begin to think about other women? Is it not easier to just not do it at all?
Your argument about the natural man I feel is just arguing for the sake of arguing. First of all its quite obvious if you read the entire King Benjamin discourse that he is talking about sinful practices rather than just everyday events. As a result, when we consider the whole thematic of the chapter, we can then envisage that when he talks about the natural man, he is talking about the lusts of the flesh which is discussed in both the BoM and the bible (more specifically Paul and John).
As for the health stuff, I'm sure there is a bunch of things which go against the commandments which are healthy for us. Wine being one of them in moderation. But I won't discuss this too much as I don't have time and don't really have too much knowledge on the issue.
Apologies that was a very poorly written post, but I had my son right next to me crying his head off for some reason, he just wouldn't take anything off me.
Anyway, to further my argument, I think that whilst you may find scientific research to back your claim about Masturbation, it doesn't necessarily translate as being good for the soul..
I personally think our version of sexuality in the west is completely screwed. We lust after new adventures, wanting something 'out of the ordinary' leading us to try out cheating or even have 'open relationships'. The latter is a sad attempt I think to validate having sexual relations with a multitude whilst removing any association of guilt with the practice. Existentialists will argue, but morality doesn't exist...there is no such thing as sexual sin. But putting religion aside, there is something to be said about a society which has a moral code...Durkheim was one of the first modern social thinkers to acknowledge this.
Returning back to the debate though, I beg the question, do you think masturbation whilst thinking about other women is wrong? IF you do, then isn't the old adage, better to be safe than sorry then apply?
Nicko, you've taken the wind out of my sails. These posts have been agitating me for much of the afternoon.
Point one - scientific evidence is one thing. But ultimately I'll stick with the mainstream of the Church and the counsel of leaders on things of a moral nature. You simply run far FAR greater risks of immoral sin if you indulge in self-stimulation. I'm pleased to say I'm not experienced in this, but it stands to reason and intuition that one cannot be stimulated without cognitive involvement. This would involve thoughts that we are consistently reminded to guard ourselves against. It may also involve participation in viewing material that similarly is prescribed as dangerous. In fact it has been described as a pernicious evil, a plague, poison, and any number of other terms that make one wonder why it is so tantalising to so many.
So to self-stimulate, a person must continue to push other moral boundaries, and cross them, consistently in order to obtain a result in much the same way that a drug addict must increase the potency or quantity of a drug to obtain a high.
Without this, masturbation would almost immediately become boring and the person would cease self-stimulation.
Many of the psychological journals I scanned before my previous post described the way that self-stimulators build themselves up with more risque behaviours to get their "end result". Often this can lead to either injury or police charges of criminal conduct due to this activity occurring indecently in public places.
My point, and that of Nicko's, is that to self-stimulate may or may not "enhance" relationships or reduce risks of cancer (btw - Men's Health is hardly a convincing empirical source to turn to on this topic. Very shabby). The simple fact is that it is more likely to turn a person towards immoral behaviour than it is to turn him or her away from immoral behaviour. Not everyone who self-stimulates will injure themselves physically or become a public nuisance. But they certainly will run the risk of injuring themselves spiritually.
The sexual organs are given to us to be used a particular way. To use them contrary to their purpose is to misuse God's gift to His children. While the Church doesn't have any official current stance on the issue (I checked the handbook tonight and it's silent on the issue too), we can - I believe confidently - say that self-stimulation is likely to take a person down a dangerous path, too close to the edge, if not over the edge.
Point two - Nicko, the research you cite regarding the promising properties of wine when consumed in moderation has recently been brought into question. About 15 months ago a study was published which demonstrated significant methodological flaws in most of the previous studies that have promoted moderate drinking of red wines. While the study didn't get much airtime (for obvious cultural and political reasons), the conclusions of this extremely well designed, large sampled, study were that at very best drinking moderate amounts of what was previously considered healthy alcohol (like red wine with antioxidants etc) will not have a negative impact on you. That's the best case. So they've essentially said it won't be bad for you - and that's the best they can offer. They have stated that it will NOT do you ANY good at all. And hopefully it's not bad for you. They also noted that it MAY actually do some damage and to beware of anything more than minor consumption.
Just wanted to highlight that because better scientific research continues to provide empirical support to LDS theological truth.
Good morning,
In re Men's Health, I cited it rather than the study they discuss because the journal article is less accessible to the general public. Also, yes I realize that talking about masturbating while thinking about your wife is an academic discussion. I just wanted to provoke thought about whether masturbation itself is the issue. Thought I'd get that out of the way first. :)
Not every slope is slippery. Even though alcohol can be abused, not every drinker is an alcoholic. Most aren't in fact. Alcoholism is about more than just the alcohol. I don't drink, but I know plenty of people who do without being alcoholic. I see a tendency in the LDS culture to conflate any level of drinking with alcoholism. That's lazy black and white thinking.
Masturbation and pornography for me was progressive when I believed it was shameful. Now I have found my own comfort level. Things that bore me don't make me seek out things that revolt me or would risk my marriage. I've found a balance. It is possible to masturbate without slipping into addiction, especially in the absence of shame. The vast majority of us masturbate safely and without incident. Almost all of those healthy, happily married people we see every day masturbate occasionally.
I would be interested to read the journal articles that you cite that say masturbation is progressive. Do the studies factor in the subjects' attitudes about masturbation? Are they studies of pathological patients rather than healthy members of society at large?
Justin, I would be interested to hear how you think you would have counseled Kip Eliason. This young man tried very hard to meet the expectations of his bishop by abstaining from masturbation. When he found that he couldn't, the shame inculcated by the bishop grew. He went to an LDS counselor who advised him to follow his bishop. Eventually, Kip killed himself under the burden of shame. Kip is the most publicized incident but not the only young person to commit suicide due to the shame induced by the church's teachings on masturbation. Would you have counseled him differently than the LDS counselor in the case? What stance do professional associations have on masturbation? I ask because they should represent the well researched consensus of experts.
Sorry, I forgot to add: for those who've read the post, what do you think of the doctrinal status of teachings regarding masturbation in light of their changing (and often erroneous) nature?
I don't mean to dominate the conversation, but masturbation was on my mind so I decided to do a literature search over lunch. Pleasant lunchtime reading. :)
Justin, I couldn't find any studies that mentioned the progressive nature of masturbation, so citations would be helpful. In any case, the consensus of the medical and psychological professions seems to be summed up well by a WebMD guide to masturbation which states, "Masturbation is only considered a problem when it inhibits sexual activity with a partner, is done in public, or causes significant distress to the person. It may cause distress if it is done compulsively and/or interferes with daily life and activities."
The Wikipedia article also gives a broad overview. (warning: there are images that you may find objectionable)
Nicko, regarding the natural man, I'm not simply being argumentative. Based solely on that scripture, we are left to determine which parts of human nature are inimical to God. Some natural appetites are clearly not contrary to God's will as seen by Mormonism. I wouldn't have married my wife if I hadn't lusted after her at some level, for example.
Anyway, I would leave this conversation happy if we could agree that past counsel from the church on masturbation is in the same class as that on birth control: that it is non-doctrinal and therefore ultimately a matter of individual conscience between each Latter-day Saint and God, and that one rule can't fit everyone's situation therefore a blanket suggestion of abstinence from masturbation can be harmful in individual cases.
Jonathon, brief responses to your questions - and then I'm going to have to let this topic go. Taking up far too much of my time and attention.
First, you asked about the journal articles I cited and whether there is reference to progression. In some there is and in some there isn't. It depends on the scope of the article, the research questions, and the specific hypotheses. I tend to believe that the reason there are no scientific data to support that self-stimulation is bad for the soul is that the question has not been asked in a measurable way. Like I mentioned earlier though, and as you have admitted, self-stimulation needs to be paired with either pornographic material or cognitive fantasising to reach the outcome sought out by the person. We are fully aware of the spiritual consequences of both of these activities and the scriptures DO speak plainly, as do modern prophets, as to the inherent spiritual danger of these activities. Therefore, coupling self-stimulation only adds to this.
Secondly, are the studies on pathological patients or healthy members of society? Both. Depends on the study. Either way, my previous point stands. As we've already drawn the alcohol comparison I won't labour it. Suffice it to say, I believe it's safer to stay away from the edge than to see how close I can get.
Third, the doctrinal status of teachings regarding this topic have NOT actually changed. This is because there have not been any truly doctrinal statements. Only guidance put forth by the leaders of the day. You are aware of this as you have read the Malam and Bullough article. Instead we see very occasional statements of principle by church leaders. And it is factual and undeniable that these have changed over time. The same can be said as we have begun to understand same gender attraction issues better. This does not mean that the church will condone such behaviour. It simply means we can be more compassionate and considerate as we guide others through it.
Fourth, you asked about Kip Eliason. I'm familiar with the story and find it tragic. I believe I've already answered it with a view to counselling those struggling with guilt and shame associated with sin in one of my responses earlier. To VERY briefly recap, I don't know (and few do) exactly what parents and leaders counselled Kip to do. We only know what his perception of what they said led to. Either way, a compassionate approach with appropriate teaching of moral principles to guide and help, rather than to punish and berate, is how this type of issue should be dealt with.
The ecclesiastical leader should deal with this issue according to church teachings on morality, in a compassionate and Christlike way. The parents probably shouldn't have known unless Kip told them. The psychologist, being LDS, is in a challenging position. Clearly the law has found against him for a violation of ethical standards. If the client expressed guilt and shame and a desire to desist, the psychologist should be facilitating improvement in the behavioural arena. He should also be sharing what we do know about the activity from a scientific perspective. But ultimately this goes much deeper. This is about the cognitions of a boy who may have had other deeper emotional issues. We simply don't know enough to do a post-mortem on the entire population of those involved and tell them how to do it better.
Lastly, Jonathan I have reviewed your blog. You have had LENGTHY discussion on this topic with many people - and lots of them agree with you. Some don't and you argue until they can't be bothered any more. Clearly this is an issue for you. You don't seem to be able to 'let it go' (if you'll pardon the pun). You've posted about it on your own blog and received a large number of replies. Now you've come here and had your say.
We have rebutted you with reason, s smattering of science (although there's not much there because nothing to date has asked the right questions), intuitive and reasonable logic surrounding corresponding activities, and more.
You have not changed my mind, but I'm glad for discussion. It has helped me work out how best to deal with the situation should it arise in the future for me as a leader or teacher.
But this is the final word from me on this subject. To be morally clean, self-stimulation is unhelpful at best, and dangerous in reality.
I've never actually considered the physiological effects, and I don't think laboratory studies of neurotransmitter levels could ever accurately convey any insight into feelings. The prostate health is interesting though, I had never thought of that, but honestly I'm not concerned about disease. You could treat your body like a temple and still become the victim of statistical anomaly.
In the church the dating is totally platonic. Maybe you see that as a good thing, but I'd hate for my children to feel like their sexual desires are satanic influence. In your point about society's influence you miss the point that I see; society is what it is for a reason, it's the natural man. Mormons isolating themselves from society further serves to preserve the faith, because when you peek outside the compound walls you see people enjoying themselves, and you get that satanic influence to leave. They could never survive if they dated other teenagers who wanted to have sex. Probably why it's so important that mormon girls don't date non-mormon boys.
Well, let it never be said that I overstay my welcome, so this will be my last word unless asked a direct question. On my own blog, I have an informal policy of responding to all comments, so it may appear that I must have the last word but that's not always the case. ;)
This is a personal issue for me because I want to spare others the needless pain I suffered. I wrote about the nadir of my experience with the values surrounding masturbation in part of the LDS community, if anyone is interested to see why I care so much.
Thank you for answering my questions and for visiting my blog. It's disappointing that there are no citations that you can share that support LDS attitudes, despite your protestation that the right questions haven't been asked. It sounds like an important research opportunity for an aspiring grad student somewhere. :)
Note that it is easily possible to masturbate without pornographic material. It's also possible to masturbate without sexual fantasy, though that's uncommon, but as far as I can see, research hasn't shown any psychological harm in normal sexual fantasy.
It's unfair to say, as a parting shot, that my views have been rebutted. I think our different viewpoints can both be supported by appeals to scripture, science, and reason. In other words, reasonable and faithful people can disagree on the subject. As you cite, a study found that 60% of Latter-day Saints think masturbation is OK.
Anything I can do to allow people to see that the issue isn't black and white, even within the LDS community.
Thank you for the honest discussion.
Jon,
I have limited time so I won't do too much writing but I'll try my best to discuss what you are throwing out there.
I'd like to agree and also disagree with what my colleague Justin said. I do think you've got an issue with this one area and that you don't let it go, but I think that this is a fairly well documented case in a lot of areas whether it be politics or religion.
It's particularly true of Post/Ex Mormon's who seem to take issue with one or two specific areas of doctrinal debate and then spend hours researching and coming to intellectual reasonings on the issue. This I understand, but at the same time don't understand at all.
I can't fathom the need to rationalise to the n'th degree every minute point of church doctrine to justify to members (a) why you left and (b) why they are wrong. Is it not suffice to suggest that it doesn't sit well with you subjectively and that is why you left? Perhaps being from a place other than America prevents us seeing how heavy the church culture is on people there. I'm not sure.
To reacquaint back to the doctrinal debate at hand, I can't say you've really answered my question. In fact, you danced around the notion of the whole oeuvre of King Benjamin's address to discuss one singular point which if not taken in the context of the text proceeding and preceeding it makes perhaps different sense. The whole discourse is on the atonement and the overcoming of sin. It seems quite logical to someone studying it that when he suggests that overcoming the natural man as the goal for christ's children he is referring to the overcoming of the 'lusts of the flesh' as Paul describes. You as far as I can tell do exactly what people in my discipline do so wrongly and that is take a single quote and theorise around it without understanding the underlying and over arching thematics and principles which guide that particular quote. Of this you have yet to really enlighten me.
You talk about this notion of the slippery slope, and I see no evidence to the suggestion that members automatically think alcoholism with drinking alcohol. That's simple not true and you've generalised quite heavily there. And that was not my point at all. My point is that alcohol leads to problems. Drinking one glass of red wine a day (which I know is a problematic research Justin but I've still seen some evidence to refute the rebuttal) is problematic because where does one draw the line? Ask my friend who is a police officer (not a member of the church) who quit alcohol because 95% (his words) of his call outs are alcohol related. And thats upper, middle and lower socioeconomic areas.
You cannot deny that alcohol is a plague on our societies. It causes massive amounts of disease and social problems. But back to an individual level, its a question of where you draw the line. If you've ever drunk alcohol, you know that after two glasses nice positive and relaxing feelings come over you and cause the sensation to want more. Some can say no, but more often than not, at least once or twice a year that no will be a yes.
Its not a matter of alcoholism and I never suggested it was. Its a matter of self-control and being able to make rational logical decisions that won't be regretted later on. Should you be on edge all the time between tipsy----> drunk, isn't that playing with fire?
This is the comparison I was making with your quest to legitimise masturbation. Without heading down the desire to scientifically prove its validity (I question science period - see Latour for more on that), morally or subjectively, I think that if one truly desires to maintain a relationship whereby you can say to your spouse, that you have no sexual feelings for others or rather, you don't act on sexual feelings for others means that you stay away from the fire. You may think differently, but my wife doesn't. She expects me to push those thoughts away when they come and not act or entertain them.
Furthermore, something that I think postmo's and exmo's do frequently is declare that the churches doctrines are making people commit suicide. The connection between the two is very flimsy at best. I would declare that many many many people in and out of the church commit suicide because of the pressures of economic and social (relationships) life. Yet, postmo's and exmo's who proclaim to be so worried about it publish no articles or blog entries critiquing consumer capitalism and the detrimental impacts it has on our culture and society.
that aside, the story is a nasty one and perhaps is more suggestive of the need to provide our bishops with more counseling in this area. The young man should have been directed to LDS Family Services rather than at the local level. But this was an organisational accident. Many men and women who have lost control have found help and peace in LDS FS.
Jon,
As you can see, most of our blog is designed for debating social and political issues rather than church ones. The problem is that whenever we post something up which is slightly controversial the postmormon group of whom have our blog listed on a number of their own blogs, jump right in and debate about it.
To be honest, I personally don't care if you want to post a debate with us about things of a doctrinal basis, but I don't think that you can expect us as members of the church, fully fledged to come away agreeing with you on a matter that we have shown you where and why we believe it to be wrong doctrinally. Your interpretation of the scriptures is not ours.
We welcome debate, but don't expect us to change our views on the religious aspects which are set in concrete for us. Perhaps the discussion of policies such as blacks in the priesthood is different, but for something which is blanketed by Christ himself, we would just be bouncing semantics to be honest.
I still fail to see how you could masturbate without fantasy or about other women all the time and safely subjectively. I think you just confessed it in your previous post. What's wrong with fantasy? I don't know that we need to requote Christ here.
Regardless, thankyou for dropping in. I'll be restarting the blog soon on my own, but perhaps will cover a range of issues that are not so much religious.
I'll take the following as a direct question :) and leave aside the discussion of masturbation. I don't want to belabor my points.
I can't fathom the need to rationalise to the n'th degree every minute point of church doctrine to justify to members (a) why you left and (b) why they are wrong.
I'll take a shot an answering this for myself. When I do this, whether on masturbation or some other topic, I do it for a number of reasons.
On the surface, it's in the hope to persuade either the person I'm discussing with or the lurkers who read the discussion. Leaving Mormonism has been a positive change for me, so I want to share. I think this may be a relic of the missionary part of me that says that I am obligated to share what I see as the truth with others.
Below the surface, I think these things through and test my views against the Mormon views I once held to make sure that my new worldview makes sense to me.
Sometimes, I am motivated by a need to refute a system of thought that I feel deceived me. I invested a lot in the church, and it's natural to feel hurt and betrayed when we decide that it isn't everything that it claimed to be.
Sometimes, as in the case masturbation, I am moved by compassion with those who suffer because of teachings and counsel they have received from their leaders. There is an altruistic element to my motivation.
In answer to the implied "Why can't people who leave the church not leave it alone?", I wish it were that simple. It's not easy to flip a switch and stop concerning myself about something that had such total mindshare. Further, I still have Mormon family and friends. By virtue of that, I can't leave the church alone because it doesn't leave me alone. It is still part of my life as much as I wish it wasn't.
I remember all of the things that are said about ex-Mormons. My arguments are partially motivated by the desire to prove those things wrong. I didn't leave in order to sin—no, I didn't :)—or because I couldn't hack it. I didn't leave because I didn't know enough about the gospel, nor because I was offended by someone. I left only when I became intellectually convinced that the claims of the church were in many cases false. I tried to reconcile myself to that, but ultimately I couldn't stay in an institution that claimed to be fully true but that I believe to be partly false. Maybe one day I won't care so much, but unconsciously I want LDS members to understand the real reason that I left instead of painting me to be morally or intellectually weak.
Also, when I see the church doing something that I find harmful, such as the church's pushing of Proposition 8 in California, I feel morally bound to speak out against it. My familiarity with the church and its actions compel me to act as critic.
I think I've exhausted the reasons that I can think of why I have rationalized to and debated with church members about their beliefs. Does that help to understand?
Post a Comment