Question for former mormons

[angelmom01]

What difference does it make whether it's called a debate forum or a discussion forum? Why should that prohibit someone from starting a thread to ask a certain group of participants, whether that be LDS, never-LDS or ex-LDS, specific questions that relate to them as a group - relative to the LDS discussion that take place here? How is that a point of "fellowship" as opposed to a point of "discussion"?

Had someone come in and made a similar observation relative to treatment of the LDS here and asked you guys "why do you all post here?" (in light of a similar observation), would you have reacted the same way?

What if that was the question that was asked and one of us had barged in and started making claims about things that were not even mentioned in the OP (like "authority") and then went for pages and pages arguing about it just to claim that "the OP was poorly thought out", etc, etc, etc.

Who cares? It was an observation, followed by a simple question asked to a specific group of posters here that NO LDS person "can" answer, as you cannot answer from the perspective of being a "former member of the church" who is posting in this forum.

You could certainly object to the particular observation that was made, but have so far simply done nothing but proven that the observation was correct. IMO

If you see "bias" in this forum (something that OmahaLDS has been claiming since his first post here) it is simply because you are seeing it only from YOUR PERSPECTIVE, just as we see it from ours. And trust me, as far as we are concerned, the way in which the LDS flock together on subjects and treat the non and ex-LDS here is at least as "horrible" as you see it from the other side of the fence. A non-LDS cannot even start a thread to "praise" the LDS church on some point without some of the LDS here jumping in to criticize and question motive and take the topic off on tangents that were never even intended to be a part of the discussion.

 

[A New Dawn]

I am going to try to find out what is going on here. One place says one thing and in another it says something else. There IS a difference between discuss and debate, IMO.

Rufus

As I said earlier, this forum used to be under the Discussion & Debate section of the board, so it was set up for both. The "debate" portion is only included to distinguish it from a fellowship forum, since there already exists an LDS fellowship forum. This forum is for discussing (and debating, if desired) topics related to LDS theology, history and culture.

 

[angelmom01]

Alas, Christie, this is NOT a debate forum. It is a discussion forum. Please see my new tread.

Rufus

Yep, that is what it says.

 

[angelmom01]

As I said earlier, this forum used to be under the Discussion & Debate section of the board, so it was set up for both. The "debate" portion is only included to distinguish it from a fellowship forum, since there already exists an LDS fellowship forum. This forum is for discussing (and debating, if desired) topics related to LDS theology, history and culture.

Perhaps I was wrong, but I sort of assumed that the "LDS fellowship" forum was a place for the LDS here to meet and fellowship. Not that others could not participate, but it certainly wouldn't be a place where someone could start a thread with the particular observation made in the OP to this one, could they?

 

[RufustheRed]

As I said earlier, this forum used to be under the Discussion & Debate section of the board, so it was set up for both. The "debate" portion is only included to distinguish it from a fellowship forum, since there already exists an LDS fellowship forum. This forum is for discussing (and debating, if desired) topics related to LDS theology, history and culture.

It appears, to me at least, that there needs to be further fine tuning. If one person wants a debate and another wants to discuss there's going to be a problem. If I am discussing a topic, I don't need someone telling me that I am not following the rules of engagement as stated in some logical fallacy place. In fact, I refuse to do that. I am not qualified to "debate" anyone. Perhaps my daughter could. She has her JD, but I do not.

Can you take care of that or should I address another Administrator?

Thanks,
Rufus

 

[A New Dawn]

It appears, to me at least, that there needs to be further fine tuning. If one person wants a debate and another wants to discuss there's going to be a problem. If I am discussing a topic, I don't need someone telling me that I am not following the rules of engagement as stated in some logical fallacy place. In fact, I refuse to do that. I am not qualified to "debate" anyone. Perhaps my daughter could. She has her JD, but I do not.

Can you take care of that or should I address another Administrator?

Thanks,
Rufus

You can try to bring it up to the admins (MarkRohfrietsch ; Hoankan), but that would affect the whole of Theology, since Theology is considered a debate section. There seems to be only two distinctions right now. Fellowship or Debate, and while what we have in all the forums is informal debate (strong discussion), there is a forum set up for formal debate. Should someone wish to do formal debate as opposed to informal debate, they can go there. So, the status quo for all of Theology is that it is an informal debate section. But, as I said, if you think that that is too much of a misnomer, you can bring it up with the admins, who will, in turn, bring it up with the advisors.

 

[Ran77]

I am going to try to find out what is going on here. One place says one thing and in another it says something else. There IS a difference between discuss and debate, IMO.

Rufus

I agree. There is a difference. And it is frustrating to try and post a thread where participants are asked not to turn it into a debate and have it thrown in your face that this is a debate forum. I wish you the best in trying to find out what is going on here. I'm not fighting you on this, I'm just pointing out how it is.

Keep in mind, the LDS do not make the rules around here.

 

[BarryK]

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.

.

What has logic to do with God?

everything that Father does is beyond mans logic.

Where is the logic in lovin us sinners, be it we are redeemed or not/
where is the logic in sending Gideion with only 300 men, armed with flashlights and flowerpots whre they are outnumbered by 400 to one/
where is the logic in sending a shepard by armed with only a strap of leather and 5 smoth stones against the greates warriour (at the time) on earth?
where is the logid in heardening pharohs heart when letting pharoah simply see what God was doing would have sufficed?
whre is the logic is leaving the throne of heaven, manifesting in an earthyly body, being born in a cold stinky barn, beng harrassed by religious leaders, and then torutred to death, despite the fact you had done nothing wrong, in order to gain salvation for those who reject you entirely?

and the list goes on

Isaiah 55:8-9 (KJV)
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Romans 11:33-36 (KJV)
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? 35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? 36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen

you guys really need to stop appealing to the pagan greek system of logic, after all, God dont use it

 

[BarryK]

I don't have to make a rebuttal. Don't you see that you are doing exactly what the OP stated? You are "accus[ing] former mormons of all kinds of less than honest behavior" merely by posting this type of response in this thread.

hmmm, am I having an "anti francis of assissi" moment?

 

[superwimp]

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?

hello wrigley,

Before I answer I was raised in the Catholic faith, converted to LDS while in the army in my 20's. I was active for about a year. Joseph fielding smith was president at the time and I didn't think he was qualified to provide spiritual guidance. This all happened during the 70's when there was a Jesus movement going on. I was saved soon after joining the church. After several years I left the church and joined the temple lot group because I still believed in the book of mormon. It was n't until the last couiple years that I learned that the "3 and 8 witnesses" never signed anything and I therefore now reject the b of m.

Now to get to your questions. I enjoy debate. I like reading books where two sides publish differing viewpoints. If I can add something to the discussion thats great. All the LDS who come here know that this is a debate section so they have no room to complain when views don't conform to LDS theology. Over the years I have accepted a vesion of reincarnation as my afterlife belief system, so I don't belief there is any inherent benefit from having one belief over another.

 

[BarryK]

hmmm, is this a discussion or a debate about discussion and/or debate?

 

[Moodshadow]

hmmm, is this a discussion or a debate about discussion and/or debate?

Something tells me that since he asked about people's experiences, rather than about doctrines and/or opinions, an ordinary discussion is what Wrigley had in mind when he started the thread. But he can speak for himself.

 

[BarryK]

hmmm, is this a discussion or a debate about discussion and/or debate?

ooops, right post, wrong thread, sorry

 

[JasonV]

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.

What you are failing to grasp, is that nobody apostatizes with the understanding that they are leaving the "truth". Consider the following:

"But like all converts, he (Emperor Julian) did so with the conviction that he was moving forward toward truth, not falling away from it.... The abandonment of one religion for another is a step that few people can manage without severe psychic damage. Most converts are overstrained by the effort. To mask their state of exhaustion, they develop the so-called convert mentality, usually an unpleasant one. Since religions cannot be changed like a piece of clothing, unresolved remnants of the old remain attached to the psyche. The renegade seldom frees himself completely of his old beliefs, although he tries to make it seem that he has done so. Often he feels the need to revenge himself for all the years in which, as he now believes, he was being cheated of the truth. He thinks he has a score to settle with his former coreligionists who now revile him as an apostate. Resentments build up.... Every apostasy, in the final analysis, addresses a question to Christianity: Did the apostate fail to find what he sought in the fellowship he abandoned? Was his apostasy a sign that an unsatisfactory situation had developed within the camp of the Church? For men do not, as a rule, abandon a vital community." (Nigg, The Heretics, 93-100.)

To answer the OP:

My reason for leaving seems to be unique in the ex-Mormon camp.

You see, I did not leave because of Church doctrine or history or some really bad experiences or what have you.

Oh no.

I left because Mormonism was not spiritually fulfilling. I ask you all: What good is a religion that does not bring you closer to God?

Try as I did for so many years, I was starving spiritually. The "milk" Mormons offered was watered down, and the "meat" turned to dust in my mouth.

So the final analysis was that I needed to be closer to Christ, and I had to search elsewhere for the spiritual nourishment I needed to be filled.

 

[angelmom01]

My reason for leaving seems to be unique in the ex-Mormon camp.

You see, I did not leave because of Church doctrine or history or some really bad experiences or what have you.

Oh no.

I left because Mormonism was not spiritually fulfilling. I ask you all: What good is a religion that does not bring you closer to God?

Try as I did for so many years, I was starving spiritually. The "milk" Mormons offered was watered down, and the "meat" turned to dust in my mouth.

So the final analysis was that I needed to be closer to Christ, and I had to search elsewhere for the spiritual nourishment I needed to be filled.

Not sure how unique your "experience" was, even if it might be considered a unique "reason for leaving". Though I would not be surprised to find out that more than a few have left for the same reason.

I had the same experience but never attributed it to the LDS church itself; I simply assumed that I would probably experience the same isolation and distance from God no matter what church I went to. So, even though I kept saying that maybe I should leave and try to find a stronger faith IN GOD before I tried to claim faith in a prophet, I never actually took the steps necessary to seek God outside of the LDS church until it became clear to me that the LDS church teaches false doctrines concerning the very nature of God. Once I came to that realization and put the church behind me and began to study the scriptures apart from LDS doctrine I very quickly came to see that many other things I was taught by the church do not align with what the Bible actually says.

So while I might wish now that I had just left sooner, because of the lack spiritual fulfillment, I simply trust that God was not yet ready to show me the truth and had me remain where I was for purposes I might not know or be able to see right now.

I am who I am now because of the experiences that I have had and the things that I have been exposed to and I trust that I was always in the hands of God and it is by the grace of God that I am who I am... and part of that was growing up LDS.

 

[Detai]

What you are failing to grasp, is that nobody apostatizes with the understanding that they are leaving the "truth". Consider the following:

"But like all converts, he (Emperor Julian) did so with the conviction that he was moving forward toward truth, not falling away from it.... The abandonment of one religion for another is a step that few people can manage without severe psychic damage. Most converts are overstrained by the effort. To mask their state of exhaustion, they develop the so-called convert mentality, usually an unpleasant one. Since religions cannot be changed like a piece of clothing, unresolved remnants of the old remain attached to the psyche. The renegade seldom frees himself completely of his old beliefs, although he tries to make it seem that he has done so. Often he feels the need to revenge himself for all the years in which, as he now believes, he was being cheated of the truth. He thinks he has a score to settle with his former coreligionists who now revile him as an apostate. Resentments build up.... Every apostasy, in the final analysis, addresses a question to Christianity: Did the apostate fail to find what he sought in the fellowship he abandoned? Was his apostasy a sign that an unsatisfactory situation had developed within the camp of the Church? For men do not, as a rule, abandon a vital community." (Nigg, The Heretics, 93-100.)

To answer the OP:

My reason for leaving seems to be unique in the ex-Mormon camp.

You see, I did not leave because of Church doctrine or history or some really bad experiences or what have you.

Oh no.

I left because Mormonism was not spiritually fulfilling. I ask you all: What good is a religion that does not bring you closer to God?

Try as I did for so many years, I was starving spiritually. The "milk" Mormons offered was watered down, and the "meat" turned to dust in my mouth.

So the final analysis was that I needed to be closer to Christ, and I had to search elsewhere for the spiritual nourishment I needed to be filled.

I thought it wasn't about religion but relationship?

 

[A New Dawn]

I thought it wasn't about religion but relationship?

Theoretically, the purpose of religion is to feed the relationship.

 

[Moodshadow]

I thought it wasn't about religion but relationship?

That certainly isn't the LDS way of thinking, is it?

 

[Detai]

That certainly isn't the LDS way of thinking, is it?

You were supposed to be an active member for 40 years who supposedly hasn't forgotten so you tell me.

 

[Rescued One]

You were supposed to be an active member for 40 years who supposedly hasn't forgotten so you tell me.

What LDS teach their members is constantly changing. We can remember teachings that you may have never been taught.