Question for former mormons

[Wrigley]

Time to time, well, more often than not, current mormons accuse former mormons of all kinds of less than honest behavior. From purposely misrepresenting mormon doctrine, to not being honest about experiences they have experienced to even not ever truly understanding what they were taught or told during their time in mormonism.

So, what are your reasons for posting what you post about mormonism? Are you just trying to "get back" at the religion for any number of reason? Are you being honest?

 

[Moodshadow]

I've never made any secret of my reason for being here (and yes, I absolutely believe in being honest, without equivocation). After forty years of 100% activity in the church, you can imagine how devastating it was for me to learn that I had been deceived for my entire adult life into believing in a religion founded by a...well, to put it nicely, deceiver. To say that my whole world fell apart just doesn't even come close - my whole belief system, certainly. It was agony. It was hell on earth. And if I can say even one thing here that makes one person stop and question, and possibly spare that person the same agony I experienced, somewhere down the road, then I feel my time is well spent.

 

[angelmom01]

At the time I left the church, I left for one reason and one reason only. I realized that what I had been taught to believe about the nature of God was wrong; that LDS doctrine concerning the Godhead does not align with the Biblical teachings of God.

I was not suddenly overcome with grief or anger at the church for having taught me that or at myself for having believe it. It was just an incredibly eye-opening experience. It was like seeing God and feeling His presence for the very first time in my life and it was an experience that I had never had up until that point in my life and one that I had been praying for my entire life (in an attempt to gain a stronger testimony of the LDS church and Joseph Smith). And yet it was in that moment that I finally "knew" that I had gotten an answer about the LDS church and it was that the LDS church is not what it claims to be, as even its doctrine on the nature of God is not true.

I never even really gave it much of a second thought, to tell you the truth. It wasn't even until much later when I started to participate in online forums that I began to find out about all of the information there is out there about the church and it's history, JS and his history, and some of the other teachings and statements made in the past that I had no clue even existed while I was a member.

It was also then that I came across discussions in which things that I had been taught to believe as a member were called lies by other members when they came up for discussion and members were claiming that those things were never taught by the church or believed by it members and they were only lies made up by those who have some sort of an agenda or an ax to grind with the church. That was a bit of an eye-opener as well.

But as troublesome as some of the history of the church can be, it was really the differences in doctrine that began to stand out to me the most - the more time I spent studying the bible and comparing what it says to what I had been taught to believe about what it says by the LDS church.

The more I studied the bible the more there was that stood out in contraction to LDS doctrine. And it went far beyond just the nature of God and whether or not the Father has a body and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate beings or not.

Not ever having been anything but LDS I never knew or understood or even investigated the doctrine of the trinity and so would always ask that same question that we hear so often from the LDS: "Then who was Jesus praying to? Himself?" That was answered for me, but not through another church and not through the doctrine of the trinity (as, at that point, I was still completely oblivious to it), but just through reading the bible with fresh/unbiased/uninfluenced eyes.

Anyway, that was the beginning of my journey out of the church; it started with only one thing. But the more I have studied and the more I understand the purpose of the law of the Moses and the purpose of the temples and the earthly priesthood, etc, and their fulfillment in Christ the more of a divide I see between LDS theology and biblical truth.

The more I understand about the law of tithing (also ordained under the Old Covenant / law and done away with in Christ) the greater divide there is between LDS theology and biblical truth.

And time to time other things come up, especially when the missionaries show up and ask me to re-read the BoM. I don't know why I don't just say no and be done with it, but when I agree I follow through (even when they don't) and that is what resulted in my most recent visit to this forum as there were many other things that stood out to me in my most recent study of the BoM (and the D&C, this time) that enlarges even further that divide between LDS theology and biblical truth.

So perhaps part of my purpose in coming here from time to time is to bring those things to light to those who either are LDS and have never investigated or even noticed these things before (as was the case with me for so many years) or to those who might be investigating the church but are not aware of the vast differences between LDS doctrine and the bible.

Is it to "expose" the church? Yes, I guess it is, in a sense. But not in the purely negative sense that the LDS here seem to want to attribute to anyone who would dare speak out against the LDS church, especially those who were once members who left it.

It comes from a purely positive place; a place of enlightenment, if you will; from a desire to share "the truth". It is no different from the LDS church sending out thousand upon thousand of missionaries into the world in an attempt to bring the non-LDS to "the truth" that the LDS church claims that it has... that is so far greater (they believe) then anything that anyone else has to offer.

So to attribute the purest of motives to themselves in their pursuit of "truth" and their pursuit of "preaching the gospel" and then to turn around and attribute the worst of all motives to others who do the same because they are not LDS is, IMO, the very worst kind of hypocrisy there is.

For the LDS to "stand fast" in what they believe and yet condemn others for their "steadfastness" in what they believe is to hold to a double standard, IMO.

Nine times out of ten (maybe even less) one side is not going to convince the other side that they are wrong; but neither side is going to give up on defending "the truth" as they understand it. But that doesn't mean that these things cannot be discussed rationally and respectfully. At least it shouldn't mean that, IMO.

It's not "personal" but there are some who will always make it "personal" and attach the messenger rather than the message.

 

[angelmom01]

As usual, I give the long-winded response.

I certainly understand (or think I can, anyway) the anger that some do feel when they leave the church. I think that everyone's experience with leaving the church is very different and I think the longer you are a member, the more family/friends you have in the church and the stronger your testimony was while you were a member, the harder it is when you realize that much of what you believed you no longer hold to be true and you have to leave it all behind - not just the church but, in many cases everything, including jobs, family, friends, etc. My heart breaks when I hear those types of stories. It's simply an awful position to be put in and I can certainly understand what a devastating experience that must be for those who are put in it and their strong desire to spare others from the same.

<--- (for you, moodshadow)

 

[Rescued One]

I post because as a Latter-day Saint I was taught what Robert Millet said: "We never provide meat when milk will do." This saying was known among church members before Mr. Millet said it. This meant, "Don't share so much that you scare away potential converts." I think people deserve to know the teachings of Mormonism and I believe that God wants me to be totally honest, to not put a spin on it, and to correct those who might come barging in here with assumptions about Mormonism that are not true. I also believe that all our posts should be about teachings, not about individual forum members.

Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt...


Getting back at a religion or its people is not only ridiculous; I believe that it is a sign of immaturity and lack of love. The time to grow up is now!

 

[A New Dawn]

Time to time, well, more often than not, current mormons accuse former mormons of all kinds of less than honest behavior. From purposely misrepresenting mormon doctrine, to not being honest about experiences they have experienced to even not ever truly understanding what they were taught or told during their time in mormonism.

So, what are your reasons for posting what you post about mormonism? Are you just trying to "get back" at the religion for any number of reason? Are you being honest?

I, of course, did not leave the LDS church, but I did leave it's sister church, the RLDS, which, at the time I was growing up and being taught, stil believed in restoration beliefs. I would say that the reason I speak out is that I can't believe that the things I was taught, those common beliefs shared between the LDS and the RLDS, were so completely contradictory to scripture. It is clear that JS did not interpret the Bible correctly, taking many things out of context and making up contexts for other things, and I think a clear understanding of scripture, read and discussed in context, will help expose some errors that the LDS church teaches.

I think that having one's eyes opened by God allows one to see the full implication of a belief, and while they might have had a good grasp of it as a member, when someone "sees the light", they understand the full implications of the teaching, and recognize it's errors, and so, when they speak about it after they no longer believe, they are coming from a different POV, trying to show how those beliefs are truly unBiblical. That different POV may be seen by those who continue to believe as not in keeping with how the belief is believed, but they cannot make the leap from point A to point B because they cannot see the scriptures from the new POV.

(I hope that made sense to everyone.)

 

[pwsoldier]

I know I haven't posted here in a looong time, but I figured I'd throw in my two cents. Basically, I'm one of the live-and-let-live types (which is why I don't post here much). I'm not shy about expressing my feelings towards mormonism and religion in general, neither of which are exclusively negative. I know that every apostate has a different story and varying degrees of recovery. Personally, I've never felt the need to lash out at the LDS church in order to right some wrong that was done against me. I'd much prefer to put the Church behind me and keep looking forward rather than backward.

The way I see it, religion is a set of doctrines set forth by a defined deity (for the sake of simplicity, I'll leave out my personal feelings on that matter), which are in turn interpreted and enforced by man. As such, there is room for varying levels of understanding matters of doctrine. No two Mormons view the LDS gospel exactly the same way, and the same is likely true of many other denominations, Christian and otherwise. And I'm just talking about the faithful. Those who fall away do so because of the way they come to understand the doctrine. And who's to say which interpretation is correct when so many of the faithful have differing views amongst themselves?

So yes, I have had my prior understanding brought into question, and wrongly so, but no one has ever questioned my honesty because I never give people a reason to. I always try to be honest and fair when discussing both mormonism and religion in general, and most people I encounter have the good sense to recognize that.

 

[Moodshadow]

Time to time, well, more often than not, current mormons accuse former mormons of all kinds of less than honest behavior. From purposely misrepresenting mormon doctrine, to not being honest about experiences they have experienced to even not ever truly understanding what they were taught or told during their time in mormonism.

So, what are your reasons for posting what you post about mormonism? Are you just trying to "get back" at the religion for any number of reason? Are you being honest?

What about you, Wrig? What's been your experience?

 

[OmahaLDS]

Time to time, well, more often than not, current mormons accuse former mormons of all kinds of less than honest behavior. From purposely misrepresenting mormon doctrine, to not being honest about experiences they have experienced to even not ever truly understanding what they were taught or told during their time in mormonism.

You are, in essence, trying to defend a logical fallacy, namely an appeal to authority. As such this entire line of reasoning is faulty and underdeveloped. You cannot defend a logical fallacy.

The authority one gains by being a former member of the LDS Church is ultimately non-existent, unless you are seeking to make a false and misleading authoritative stance. This attempt at false authority is dishonest in the sense that it is fictional, though the actual intention behind the act is ultimately unclear.

The fact that you must address, and have not, is that membership in a group does not instantly grant authority. In fact the appeal to instant authority is a terrible premise to rely on. If this is the stance that is being taken, it can only be because more legitimate stances are unavailable. This is why logical fallacies are used and defended, because legitimate argumentation is not available.

Historian Jan Shipps likely knows more about the LDS Church history than the vast majority of members, and non-members for that matter, and she is not, nor has she ever been, LDS. Fortunately for the LDS Church, and unfortunately for antagonistic LDS critics, she is very positive, overall, about the LDS Church.

So simply because someone is Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Zoroastrian, etc... does not convey understanding of the nuances of that faith. In fact in many cases a claimed knowledge through simple membership becomes a hinderance and a stumbling block. When someone claims particular status, they are an ex-(insert position here) they are setting themselves up for a significant fall.

The recent case where a claimed Gospel Doctrine Teacher failed to understand a simple theological premise that would have been taught in Gospel Doctrine, only exemplifies the unstable nature of the claim to have taught the claimed class.

Your entire OP is based on the erroneous assumption that there is some basis for authority based on past membership. There is not.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You are, in essence, trying to defend a logical fallacy, namely an appeal to authority. As such this entire line of reasoning is faulty and underdeveloped. You cannot defend a logical fallacy.

The authority one gains by being a former member of the LDS Church is ultimately non-existent, unless you are seeking to make a false and misleading authoritative stance. This attempt at false authority is dishonest in the sense that it is fictional, though the actual intention behind the act is ultimately unclear.

The fact that you must address, and have not, is that membership in a group does not instantly grant authority. In fact the appeal to instant authority is a terrible premise to rely on. If this is the stance that is being taken, it can only be because more legitimate stances are unavailable. This is why logical fallacies are used and defended, because legitimate argumentation is not available.

Historian Jan Shipps likely knows more about the LDS Church history than the vast majority of members, and non-members for that matter, and she is not, nor has she ever been, LDS. Fortunately for the LDS Church, and unfortunately for antagonistic LDS critics, she is very positive, overall, about the LDS Church.

So simply because someone is Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Zoroastrian, etc... does not convey understanding of the nuances of that faith. In fact in many cases a claimed knowledge through simple membership becomes a hinderance and a stumbling block. When someone claims particular status, they are an ex-(insert position here) they are setting themselves up for a significant fall.

The recent case where a claimed Gospel Doctrine Teacher failed to understand a simple theological premise that would have been taught in Gospel Doctrine, only exemplifies the unstable nature of the claim to have taught the claimed class.

Your entire OP is based on the erroneous assumption that there is some basis for authority based on past membership. There is not.

Dear sir, the OP was not addressed to you (LDS) or myself (never LDS) so I suggest that both of us respect that OP and allow the former LDS address the question. If you wish, you can begin another thread to discuss the issues mentioned in your post.

 

[OmahaLDS]

Dear sir, the OP was not addressed to you (LDS) or myself (never LDS) so I suggest that both of us respect that OP and allow the former LDS address the question. If you wish, you can begin another thread to discuss the issues mentioned in your post.

Your suggestion is duly noted and disregarded. This is an open forum, and the errors in the OP do not need to be ignored because they are addressed to those who would commit the logical fallacy. If the OP does not want their argumentative flaws pointed out, they have a number of choices.

1. Not commit argumentative flaws. Easy solution there.
2. Post the comments in a fellowship forum, and not a debate forum.

The fact that former LDS would be addressing a question based on a false logical premise does not seem to bother you?

The question is defending a position that is intellectually dishonest, since it attempt to convey authority where none is logically present. You can choose to ignore this if you like, but I see no reason not to point out the problem.

 

[angelmom01]

You are, in essence, trying to defend a logical fallacy, namely an appeal to authority. As such this entire line of reasoning is faulty and underdeveloped. You cannot defend a logical fallacy.

The authority one gains by being a former member of the LDS Church is ultimately non-existent, unless you are seeking to make a false and misleading authoritative stance. This attempt at false authority is dishonest in the sense that it is fictional, though the actual intention behind the act is ultimately unclear.

The fact that you must address, and have not, is that membership in a group does not instantly grant authority. In fact the appeal to instant authority is a terrible premise to rely on. If this is the stance that is being taken, it can only be because more legitimate stances are unavailable. This is why logical fallacies are used and defended, because legitimate argumentation is not available.

Historian Jan Shipps likely knows more about the LDS Church history than the vast majority of members, and non-members for that matter, and she is not, nor has she ever been, LDS. Fortunately for the LDS Church, and unfortunately for antagonistic LDS critics, she is very positive, overall, about the LDS Church.

So simply because someone is Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Zoroastrian, etc... does not convey understanding of the nuances of that faith. In fact in many cases a claimed knowledge through simple membership becomes a hinderance and a stumbling block. When someone claims particular status, they are an ex-(insert position here) they are setting themselves up for a significant fall.

The recent case where a claimed Gospel Doctrine Teacher failed to understand a simple theological premise that would have been taught in Gospel Doctrine, only exemplifies the unstable nature of the claim to have taught the claimed class.

Your entire OP is based on the erroneous assumption that there is some basis for authority based on past membership. There is not.

You got all of that out of a question that, basically, amounts to "why do you (former-members) post here?"

What does that have to do with "authority"?

 

[MamaZ]

I post because of the pit falls and deceit of the theology of the LDS..

 

[pwsoldier]

The question is defending a position that is intellectually dishonest, since it attempt to convey authority where none is logically present. You can choose to ignore this if you like, but I see no reason not to point out the problem.

Like angelmom101, I'm failing to see where you're drawing this appeal to authority from. Our authority on gospel matters as ex-members, real or perceived, is not the topic here. Wrigley wants to know why we engage in discussions with Mormons. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[A New Dawn]

You are, in essence, trying to defend a logical fallacy, namely an appeal to authority. As such this entire line of reasoning is faulty and underdeveloped. You cannot defend a logical fallacy.

The authority one gains by being a former member of the LDS Church is ultimately non-existent, unless you are seeking to make a false and misleading authoritative stance. This attempt at false authority is dishonest in the sense that it is fictional, though the actual intention behind the act is ultimately unclear.

The fact that you must address, and have not, is that membership in a group does not instantly grant authority. In fact the appeal to instant authority is a terrible premise to rely on. If this is the stance that is being taken, it can only be because more legitimate stances are unavailable. This is why logical fallacies are used and defended, because legitimate argumentation is not available.

Historian Jan Shipps likely knows more about the LDS Church history than the vast majority of members, and non-members for that matter, and she is not, nor has she ever been, LDS. Fortunately for the LDS Church, and unfortunately for antagonistic LDS critics, she is very positive, overall, about the LDS Church.

So simply because someone is Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Zoroastrian, etc... does not convey understanding of the nuances of that faith. In fact in many cases a claimed knowledge through simple membership becomes a hinderance and a stumbling block. When someone claims particular status, they are an ex-(insert position here) they are setting themselves up for a significant fall.

The recent case where a claimed Gospel Doctrine Teacher failed to understand a simple theological premise that would have been taught in Gospel Doctrine, only exemplifies the unstable nature of the claim to have taught the claimed class.

Your entire OP is based on the erroneous assumption that there is some basis for authority based on past membership. There is not.

And see! You demonstrated exactly what the OP was talking about. Thanks.

 

[Rescued One]

]

 

[OmahaLDS]

Like angelmom101, I'm failing to see where you're drawing this appeal to authority from. Our authority on gospel matters as ex-members, real or perceived, is not the topic here. Wrigley wants to know why we engage in discussions with Mormons. Nothing more, nothing less.

Because it is a direct response to Wrigley's comment...

"current mormons accuse former mormons of all kinds of less than honest behavior. From purposely misrepresenting mormon doctrine, to not being honest about experiences they have experienced to even not ever truly understanding what they were taught or told during their time in mormonism."

The criticism that Ex-LDS misrepresent doctrine, did not understand the doctrine, did not understand what they were taught or told during their time in the LDS Church is an entirely valid criticism. Simply being LDS does not convey understanding, theological comprehension, or even the most remote argumentative support.

Wrigley begins his OP with a series of accusations that are actually valid and legitimate. The rest of the OP is an invitation to appeal to emotion, which makes no difference in logical construction.

 

[OmahaLDS]

And see! You demonstrated exactly what the OP was talking about. Thanks.

And I am sure you can provide a logically sound argument to support your accusation. Very well, let's see it.

 

[A New Dawn]

And I am sure you can provide a logically sound argument to support your accusation. Very well, let's see it.

Sure. The OP stated

Time to time, well, more often than not, current mormons accuse former mormons of all kinds of less than honest behavior. From purposely misrepresenting mormon doctrine, to not being honest about experiences they have experienced to even not ever truly understanding what they were taught or told during their time in mormonism.

Your entire post/rant was that membership does not grant authority, implying that just because someone left the church, it doesn't mean that they understood the teachings (oh, and if they did, they wouldn't have left (is the logical next step of that argument)), as if that even came close to what the question asked. I'm glad to see you have altered your plan of attack to speak to the real issue that is bothering you, that this that thread is an appeal to emotionalism.

 

[OmahaLDS]

Your entire post/rant was that membership does not grant authority, implying that just because someone left the church, it doesn't mean that they understood the teachings

It is interesting that you have to resort to words like rant. I asked for logical argumentation. The fact that you are resorting to emotional rhetoric from the outset seems to indicate that this request will not be respected. I did not present a rant, I presented an argument. Please address this, and avoid use of inflammatory rhetoric.

(oh, and if they did, they wouldn't have left (is the logical next step of that argument))

More logical fallacies, in this case a Strawman. I never said the above, you're attempting to put words in my mouth to have a target to attack. I know of a few LDS members who left the Church over what they considered legitimate theological issues. Whether or not the former LDS members who post here are in that category remains to be seen.

as if that even came close to what the question asked.

The question was based on a false premise.

I'm glad to see you have altered your plan of attack to speak to the real issue that is bothering you, that this that thread is an appeal to emotionalism.

An odd accusation. Now, can you present a rational rebuttal without the logical fallacies and argumentative errors?