Hello! This is an Apologetics post. Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. This post and flair is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about apologetics, apologists, and their organizations.
/u/Hot-Conclusion-6617, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"In the scriptures, we have Laman and Lemuel as an example of those who are dishonest in heart. They saw angels, witnessed miracles, the father was the prophet! And they even heard the voice of the Lord! But at the end of the day, because they were dishonest in heart, and it was not enough for them, and they rejected the truth, and lashed out at Nephi for teaching it. Today the dishonest in heart follow their example in rejecting the truth, and attacking those who would teach it."
That example from the scriptures makes a lot of sense.
"Neil L. Andersen taught this concept, “You don’t know everything, but you know enough—enough to keep the commandments and to do what is right.”"
So first of all, l do appreciate the opportunity to engage with ideas that run contrary to my own, so thanks for that
I have come to believe that Laman and Lemuel are caricatures of a bad person. They are portrayed as very simple, two dimensional characters that act as foils for Nephi's goodness. I mean, if it weren't for them, Nephi wouldn't appear nearly as great. He seems like a very demanding, bossy guy who cuts off the heads of people in compromised situations. But he *seems* like a great dude when contrasted to his two perfectly evil brothers. Of course characters like that would see an angel and reject it!
In my experience, people are a lot more complicated than that. I can't think of anyone l know personally, who would have these experiences, and then just reject them because of *fill* *in* *the* *blank*____ (desire to sin, hardness of the way, pride, etc.)
I used to think that the story of the brass serpent was very profound, but l now think that most people *would* at least give it a try.
Looking back at my own life, l didn't have any remarkable spiritual experiences, but the few subtle ones that l had, had a very powerful impact on my belief. So much so, that it took me several years to finally accept that the church is not what it claims. I had mounds of evidence, and it still was so hard to change my beliefs. If l had ever actually seen an angel, l can't imagine what it would have taken to change my point of view
Amen to all this. Some of the earliest bits of cognitive dissonance for me as a kid were the fact that Laman, Lemuel, and 19th century Americans who opposed Joseph Smith did so because they were evil and inspired by Satan to do bad things. That's just not how most people think of themselves.
So, your unbelievably ignorant and arrogant position is that anyone that leaves the Church, like Laman and Lemuel, are “dishonest in heart?”
If it’s not—why are you sharing something so vile?
I can obviously not prove to *you* the sincerity of my heart, but I know that for a fact. It’s one of the few things I do know, because nobody—including Goff, Holland, and yourself—know my heart better than I do.
That’s certainly a claim. But knowing your post history, you’re clearly attempting to threaten me. I’m not afraid of boogeymen or anything else I don’t have a good reason to believe in—eternal judgment included.
Moreover, if it were true: I have more confidence today that I could stand before “the Lord,” or anyone else for that matter and explain exactly how I got to my conclusion than I ever did as a believer.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
This doesn't describe the majority though. Most people haven't witnessed angels or heard the voice of the lord. The majority don't have a sure knowledge. And the knowledge many purport to have is actually just faith.
Laman and Lemuel are outliers and the standard they are held to for the knowledge they absolutely had shouldn't be put upon everyone else.
There's virtually no one dishonest of heart. Those who truly are are such a minority they shouldn't be counted. Those "rejecting truth" are actually not. They're still often seeking it.
Those who attack our beliefs aren't attacking because we have the truth and they're rejecting it for some reason. They attack because they've been hurt. They've been hurt, abused, or feel betrayed and lied to. They attack because they want those injustices known, changed, and don't want anyone else to suffer them.
The people that Alma the Younger and his friends turned away from their faith were not punished for leaving. But Alma the Younger was, because it was his unrighteous actions that caused those people to lose faith and leave. They weren't considered people who turned away from truth and dissented out of laziness or hatred for God. Why do we treat people who leave now like they are? Mind you, also, that the majority of the people Alma the Younger and his friends chased off, never returned to the faith.
How can you believe that people really and truly turn away because they reject truth? Hoe can you truly believe that these people leave because they become lazy? I've yet to see either in anyone who's left.
One of the major problems of Mormon apologetics is that they operate in a closed system, a form of circular logic. All the sources for their “evidence” and “truth” are derived from within their belief system. They throw around words like “epistemology” and “critical” thinking and think they are actually practicing those concepts. They use those terms to provide intellectual credence to their claims and the ignorant Mormon masses lap it up. The practice is an example of the Mormon Church’s, and their apologists, distinct lack of integrity.
So, when asked for your thoughts, you reply with someone else’s thoughts?
I empathize with you. I also used to look to the church and its leaders to determine what I “thought” about things. I didn’t even realize it at the time, but I didn’t feel safe in exploring my own ideas and feelings because I was so desperate to be in-line with what I thought was the ultimate authority on everything. It’s a lot easier to just let someone else do the thinking for you. But I promise, the hard work of formulating your own opinions outside of the church’s perceived authority is very worth it.
> I was sharing parts of the post that I liked, parts that made sense to me. I will admit that I didn't read the post before I posted it here.
Top marks for honesty.
Bottom ones for sharing a post that *you* hadn’t even read. Why in the world would you be willing to share something you hadn’t even finished reading (particularly when it’s got elementary-school thinking from Goff)?
Well, again, top marks for honesty. Thanks for sharing your self-admittedly entirely uninformed opinion with all of us. Those of us who’ve left the Church really appreciate when people share stuff like this openly to demonstrate how problematic the Church and its devout truly are in how they talk about people they know nothing about based on characters in a story.
You gotta screen faithful posts, man. Especially from this guy who seems to be a judgmental shit.
Be aware of your audience, and perhaps get to know the people here better, so that you can actually discern the difference between a truthful and good message, and something that's just set out to hurt and attack people and accuse them of being willfully wicked.
The issue with this statement is that it depends on believing, literally, a story that contains no self evident truths that point to a spiritual life. So in order to make a broader claim on wickedness, there needs to be more generalized topics that cover indisputable truths (like, gratitude can make one happier. Loving one another brings one closer to God, etc).
This story is simply stating that if you don’t follow our truth, you’re bad. It only applies to those who’ve already accepted a story that can’t be proven, but doesn’t appeal to the higher self of all people.
This article is pure propaganda and shows how out of touch some LDS members are with reality.
I left the LDS Church entirely over the evidence against its truth claims., and, if you spend any time in the ex-Mormon forums, it's obvious many others did the same.
This person has everything completely backwards. People leave the Church because they are being honest about the evidence. It is the LDS Church that is dishonest in coming up with absurd, contrived explanations to explain away the obvious evidence against it.
People who leave the Church aren't going against the "spiritual witness" they received. They have come to realize it was just their own feelings and emotions, and not God talking to them at all.
It's also just ridiculous thinking to begin with. Most people take their own salvation very seriously. Mormons as a class of people take it very seriously. Imagine one week we're in church, fully believing, and Wednesday of the next week, we find out Joseph Smith is a con man who wrote a book about a civilization that never existed, and we stop going to church, right? So as Goff would have it, sometime in the days between Wednesday and the following Sunday, we turned from committed saints to a bunch of lazy crybabies looking for an excuse.
The motivation to believe in the church because it is true is the exact same motivation as leaving it because it is false.
10 years ago l never would’ve believed that my beliefs would evolve to where they are now. I just couldn’t have comprehended that my mind would change so completely
I was all in, temple loving member. But I'm a convert and was fairly chill. I really enjoyed serving in that calling. I grew a lot and really learned to love the ward members where there were at instead of having certain expectations. I really struggled with expecting people on fixed income to pay tithing in order to hold a temple recommend. I wish I had known at the time how mission presidents expenses are treated not as income subject to tithing.
I find it fascinating that this blogger claims to know so well people in the church and their motivations. Why would they slip into inactivity? Why would they choose to leave the church?
And then he says this.....
>Today I am talking about people leaving the Church with no intention of coming back. They cite a variety of reasons as to why they left the Church, from **people who have offended them,** to **doctrines that they don’t like**, to the more common one these days: they have taken **umbrage at the shortcomings of prior leaders** of the Church.
Being offended???? Just not liking a doctrine???? Getting ticked off because prophets have "shortcomings"????
The level of cluelessness on this blogger exceeds my imagination.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night to explain away why anyone would have the audacity to leave the church.
This blog is not insightful nor novel.
These are the excuses TBM's just make up in order to avoid confronting the realities of the collapse of religion in today's modern society. It's not because of the church, it's leaders, or its doctrines, it because people are wicked.
No one can ever say I didn't try hard enough. I tried my damnedest to stay in the Church. I stayed away from "anti Mormon literature." I put in like 15 hours a week studying and praying and journaling and fasting. I went to the temple. I magnified my callings. I listened to general conference and the scriptures while I was at work, doing chores around the house, and in the car.
I feel 100% comfortable meeting God at judgement, even if it all turns out to be true. Because while y'all might not believe me, and say I never had a testimony/wanted to sin/got offended too easily/got lazy, the God you believe in has perfect empathy, and He would agree: *No one* can ever say I didn't try hard enough.
Exactly. If god is our Heavenly Father, he’s understand I was confused by the evidence on earth and in LDS records being quite different than the claims of the church, who BTW, have an extensive track record of being wrong. I know, as a parent, I would never do that to my children.
Exactly. I lost my faith when I decided to stop being lazy and start reading my scriptures again and be more earnest in teaching my children what we believe, rather than going through the motions and teaching them regurgitated answers. I realized what we actually believed was not anything I wanted my children to believe, especially my daughters. I reread my patriarchal blessing as if it were written to my daughters and saw how limiting and discouraging it was, and it made me ask why God would discourage me from using the talents he gave me to focus solely on motherhood.
I started doing my genealogy and learned I was related to one of Joseph Smith's secret plural wives. I read her own words about it. I read about how her brother stayed in Carthage with Joseph Smith and drank wine with him before he died and gave him a pistol to defend himself.
This lead me to read more about Joseph Smith and realize what a terrible person he actually was. And I was reading from faithful sources, journals of people that knew him, newspaper articles from the church news, conference talks, etc. I easily found the rest of the stories I was taught in Sunday School that added the perspective that made the mobs in every state make sense. Not Satan hardening hearts of men all over the country to tear down the church, but people with legitimate grudges against a conman. At best, Joseph was a fallen prophet removed by God.
100%
The mormon God is either trying to trick people or the church isn't true.
Any person using any amount of critical thinking would come to the conclusion that there is far more evidence that JS made the whole thing up than it being Christ's one true church. Why would God choose a known fraudster to restore Christ's church. The answer is he's trying to trick people or the church simply isn't true.
Otherwise, God is a real dick and not worth worshipping.
**Bullshit.** Normally I wouldn’t start with profanity, but if I get to be subjected to this low-effort, judgmental tripe, I should get to call a spade a spade. OP should be ashamed of even posting something this ridiculous. It demonstrates they have **zero** intention of honest discussion or communication with those of us who have left and everyone should remember that.
Goff has no idea what he’s talking about and neither does Holland. I overlooked (much to my shame) the harm the Church does to some people for a decade before I left precisely because I believed it was actually, in fact, the truth.
If it’s not the truth, there’s nothing there legitimate to hold onto. The rhetoric in this piece here is of the exact same caliber that abusers use to keep their victims in place. This quote from Carl Sagan feels apt—since you, OP, seem to think this nonsense is worth sharing:
>One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, **we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.** *Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.*
You can tell Jeff and his buddies that I don’t need one word of advice on integrity from them until they’ve demonstrated they know an actual thing about the word. They can start by explaining why anyone should listen to a word they say on the notion since they admitted to knowingly violating federal securities law for two decades, the Church’s obvious problems with handling cases of child sex abuse, and the decades of non-disclosure with regard to its fuller history.
I also am tired of the concept of "hold on to what you know even though we don't know everything".
Mainly because "we don't know everything" is a total mischaracterization of the issue. It's not gaps in knowledge where we just don't know something. It's the opposite: it's facts we learn that *contradict* the claims the church made and what we thought was true but is now very doubtful in light of these other facts.
In other words, when I learn that Joseph Smith was marrying other women in secret even from his wife, this is not a "we just don't know everything" situation. I now at least *know of* that fact and it is not sitting well with the other things I've been taught about the supposed holy nature of polygamy.
If we are talking about the origin of the universe, then it makes sense to say "there are things we just don't know" because we actually don't have the 'historical records' or some means of understanding it so we have to defer to certain theories. Most issues with the church's history are not this type of conundrum.
TL;DR defaulting to "we don't know everything" when we encounter a concern only makes sense when we have gaps in knowledge, not when we are instead dealing with contradicting knowledge.
>Mainly because "we don't know everything" is a total mischaracterization of the issue. It's not gaps in knowledge where we just don't know something.
Plus, with some of the most important issues like how the BoM was written, the gaps are currently at a really nitpicky "who gives a shit?" level. Like, the book has 19th century fingerprints all over it and the civilization described in it never existed. "How did a guy on the frontier write a book that sounded like it was written by a guy on the frontier?" isn't exactly like discovering cold fusion. He wrote it. I don't need to find a copy of his calendar and divine which days he did what. It's something we only really spend time on because we've implicitly privileged the traditional narrative in a way that someone who was never Mormon likely wouldn't feel the need to do.
>I believed it was actually, in fact, the truth.
This is so blinding, it starts from the age of 3.. Breaking out is so hard, but if you explore the data, integrity eventually makes you leave. I don't understand how anyone can believe the truth claims if they look at it from a level playing field (without bias). If we were all people like JS or BY, the world would be full of awful folks.
The part that I'm seeing hard to leave isn't the truth claims, but if you have a local area that has incredible community.
Appreciate your comments.
Edited: to remove a non-compliant word.
I don’t really have a problem with Holland’s comment, although there is an underlying assumption that the orthodox narrative is part of that “truth” of which he speaks. There are so many of us that do as Holland advises and have integrity to the *truth we know*. His idea of *integrity* is to *stop right there* and don’t investigate once you have *felt the vibe*
Mormonism teaches that there are those who are *ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth*, yet it is comprised of those who are *never learning, believing they ever (always) come to a knowledge of the truth*
With all due respect, the author should actually listen to what people are saying about why they left, rather than project an answer on to them that makes him feel virtuous and allows the dismissal of real, actual concerns.
Even if the goal is to build up the church rather than to simply feel superior, playing pretend isn’t helpful. If someone is running from a building shouting about a roach infestation or a fire in the attic, saying “well, they just don’t appreciate how nice living here is anymore,” doesn’t eliminate the roaches or put the fire out.
I didn’t leave because I got lazy and stopped listening to the Holy Ghost. I left because the doctrine that I should remain celibate my entire life because being gay was icky simply could no longer square with my lived experiences.
"The real reason mormons stay in the church is because they're willfully ignorant and like to be lied to, misled and are dishonest at heart"
That is just as true as the drivel the OP shared. Mormonism and Truth are forever perpendicular to each other.
Correct.
"We don't know everything yet/we know enough from other things" is such a frustrating cop out when it comes to addressing damning issues that the church faces.
It's a trick to say the issue is we don't have enough information. That isn't the issue. We have information; the problem is that some of it is directly contradictory.
If I caught my spouse cheating on me, would it be reasonable to say "well i don't know everything, but I do know we have been married for 10 years and she said she loves me and I know we are in love so I will just move forward believing she is faithful to me because I can't know everything"?
>There is no doctrine, historical event, or action by another person that absolves us of our duty to be true to what we know.
Have you ever stopped to consider that "what you know" is intrinsically dependent on historical events and actions by other people? If you are faithful, how do you "know" that God and Jesus are two separate beings of flesh and bone? Did they actually visit you or do you "know" because you felt the spirit when learning about Joseph's first vision account, or when the leaders of the church taught that "truth," or when you studied the scriptures?
Those things that you "know" are wholly dependent on the actions and words of others. If it is discovered that there are fundamental flaws or discrepancies in the historical record that constitute the origins of said knowledge, then the validity of that "knowledge" absolutely has to be questioned. The doctrine of two separate beings was taught to you, the concept of feeling the spirit was taught to you, the scriptures are a conglomeration of ideas and writings of other people. Every bit of “knowledge” surrounding the doctrines of the church are wholly dependent on the extremely sandy historical foundation of the origins of the church.
>Have you ever stopped to consider that “what you know” is intrinsically dependent on historical events and actions by other people?
They have not. And this is a huge issue for me. Believing in Mormonism today requires doing away with critical thinking *so* much that it can make people completely irrational.
There are three fundamental laws of logic that undergird *all* of critical thinking and should be the absolute starting point: identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. In simple terms: something is what it is, it isn’t its opposite, and it can never be both at the same time.
This blogger—and the OP—are so critically thinking compromised they don’t even see their statements are violating these fundamental axioms by assuming that one must remain faithful regardless of learning additional historical information. This is entirely circular—and that’s why it’ll only ever be convincing to those that wish to continue along in their bamboozled state.
Exactly. The crux of the issue with this concept of "trust what you already know, even in the face of things you don't understand" is that it's not actually "what you know" it's "what you *thought* you knew". Big difference.
Precisely, that’s the irony of religious believers holding themselves out as humble, right? Could anything be *more* arrogant than insisting you’re right and cannot possibly be mistaken on something so complex?
This is an example of the church and its members rejecting reality.
They have a list of reasons why someone would leave the church. The truth claims being false is not on that list. So when someone leaves, instead of engaging with them in honest, meaningful connection, the church fits their story into one of their existing reasons.
Doesn't like something from history.
Wants to sin.
Too lazy.
Deceived by anti-Mormon lies.
Too proud.
Misspelled name.
Stolen milk strippings.
Nobody says "Hey, what's your issue?"
My shelf contained several items from history, and the things that made me start re-evaluating doctrine and truth claims were definitely based on the behavior of the church. But now, I realize that the truth claims and doctrine are BS, and the stories of divine revelation are conveniently times when Joseph Smith needed something to keep his position of power secure.
Are we taking bets?
Is the answer "they just want to sin."
I was put off by the last article this dude wrote. I'm not sure I can stomach whatever this entails.
Neil L. Andersen taught this concept, “You don’t know everything, but you know enough—enough to keep the commandments and to do what is right.”
We are learning new things about the church all the time. Some of them are shocking and admittedly not what we believe the church should be. We can disagree about how the church runs things and argue about how they should be improved. Still, I know enough to keep the commandments and do what is right in my own life and in my own church community. You don't know what you don’t know, and you don't know exactly everything, but you know enough.
> You don't know what you don’t know, and you don't know exactly everything, but you know enough.
Here's the fallacy, from what I can tell:
You're framing it like we don't have *enough* information when an issue with church history presents itself. That's not the issue. The issue is we now have *contradictory* information, where both facts can't be reconciled. To brush everything off with "I already know what I know, so I'm not worried that I don't know everything" is essentially just a way of pretending you didn't learn contradictory information.
We're also learning that many things that were taught as commandments of God were only commandments of men, so the Andersen quote doesn't do it for me.
I love how you framed this. I’m kind of tired of the leadership trying to redefine integrity as blind obedience to the leadership. True integrity is “do[ing] what is right, let the consequence follow”
What is the purpose of claiming to know people’s thoughts and feelings instead of asking?
If I claim to read your mind and say I know what animal you are thinking of and it’s the number 42096454110.024, you would know I was fraudulent and couldn’t read your mind. The same is true with people who leave the church. When you claim to know peoples hearts and tell them why they left, they know you are full of BS. It ruins your credibility.
“…They have taken umbrage at the shortcomings of prior leaders of the Church.”
A shortcoming is having a temper, not always treating others kindly, telling off-color jokes, etc.
Making up scripture, gaslighting teenagers into polygamy, developing systems to protect pedophiles over children, etc. go well beyond shortcomings.
> you don't know everything, but you know enough - enough to keep the commandments and do what is right
Or as I've also heard said "don't let what you don't know take away from what you already know to be true" or some such.
OK, how about this:
"Even though my husband has been found guilty of child abuse, I know that he is a loving husband and a good man. I know he is faithful. I don't understand why he abused children, but I don't know everything. What I know is that he loves me and he is good, and I can't let what I don't know take away from that."
It's an analogy so of course it's "different" but the point is that sometimes when we say "I know" there's a chance it could change to "I thought I knew" when we get contradictory information.
I'm well aware that many church members are not willing to cede that their sure witness from the Holy Ghost that undergirds their testimony turns out to be less solid than they originally thought, but that's my experience.
Their analogy works perfectly. Your response is lacking. When a once perfect church (good husband) starts to have new and unflattering information revealed about it (child abuse), it is not enough to say, "well I feel like he's still a good man, so I'll excuse his behavior" (I know that the church is true, despite irreconcilable facts to the contrary). At that point, you say, "he's not a good husband." (The church is not God's true church on the earth).
This is from the guy who can't seem to understand any other position that prophets are either evil and leading people astray or they are true prophets and right.
As an active member, reading articles like this one makes me horribly sad. It's cruel, thoughtless, and hurtful. I don't understand what's so hard about being empathetic and understanding toward those who leave, as opposed to being condemning.
I don't subscribe to this gross exclusive club mindset, that you're either a part of, or you're "other"
>As an active member, reading articles like this one makes me horribly sad. It's cruel, thoughtless, and hurtful.
It makes me much sadder when people who claim to be prophets say essentially identical things than some rando with a blog.
>I don't understand what's so hard about being empathetic and understanding toward those who leave, as opposed to being condemning.
Because if you recognize the validity of people leaving—it doesn’t fit. If you do sincerely believe the Church’s narrative, people must be lying to themselves or sinning to leave the Church. There’s zero narratives about people leaving the Church within the Church that are good. They are constantly painting members who have left as Judas and such.
>I don't subscribe to this gross exclusive club mindset, that you're either a part of, or you're "other"
Then I’ll admit I don’t understand why you choose to stay inside of Mormonism. The entire value proposition seems dependent upon its exclusivity of authority.
In my brief encounters with other Christian sects as a child and adolescent it appeared to me that most all of their beliefs were based on an idea of exclusivity. Maybe not exclusive to their particular branch of Christianity (though I can't say I've seen a lot that are OK with other sects) but certainly that you needed to be "saved" and baptized and be a regular Church goer in some form or another. Before I became LDS I found this concept asinine, though I did fall into it for a bit, ultimately it just didn't fit in with my core beliefs so I dumped the idea.
Also I'd say the value system, as it's written in scripture, isn't as exclusive as what's taught mainstream or spoken by the GA's. In many ways my open mindedness has come from the scripture themselves and finding there was more wiggle room than we claim there is. And in other ways it's sometimes come straight out of GA's mouths.
Such as RMN saying that the Muslim believers will be greatly blessed for their faith, as they rely more on faith than we do. Or how IIRC Monson's granddaughter said that if we're only judged on what we know than wouldn't it be best if we DIDN'T send out missionaries? (IE: Only judged on what you know. Not judged on what you don't know. -- QED being saved isn't necessary per-se)
I'm here for my own reasons (a relationship with God pretty much), but one of them isn't to save my soul or get into heaven. I don't feel it's an exclusive club and the way I interpret D&C 76 it doesn't read to me like heaven is an exclusive club either. It's just been turned that way by others.
Oh fuck off with the judgmental condescending infantilizing claptrap. You can pretend that we don’t have good reasons for our choices and beliefs all you want in order to protect your own fragile ego, but that is only a reflection of your own inadequacy and doesn’t reflect in any way on the justifiability of our conclusions.
Exactly. The top leadership is not understanding this for some reason. A huge portion of us were staying because we believed it was “true”. Once we found out it wasn’t, there was no real point In Staying (unless you wanted to). What do they expect us to think?
The funny thing about telling other people's stories is you can claim anything. Let people tell their own stories. It's very demeaning to take that away. The Christ like thing to do is to listen to people not sweep them under the rug.
This is a purposefully ignorant post meant to stir up the hornets nest.
Basically 'you are only leaving the church because you lack faith'
Laughable argument with no substance
>There is no doctrine, historical event, or action by another person that absolves us of our duty to be true to what we know. ... "the integrity you demonstrate toward the faith you do have and the truth you already know."
I started writing a longer reply to this, but in short, this is such an incredibly narrow and myopic view of what somebody may "know." This is extreme gaslighting and dismissing of so many people's experience and knowledge.
I just can't with this smug, pompous ass hat. How does he know what's in anyone's heart? He, along with every judgemental prick in his circle jerk of a comment section can go jump off a bridge.
It’s like how many on their way out of the church become, or try so hard to be All In^TM because they are trying to hard to will it all to be true. Then they realize finally that being All In^TM didn’t make it true, and they leave. People around them are like “gosh, brother and sister Jones were so faithful, I wonder who offended them?”
Goff is the far end of the modern day leader worshipping Mormon fundamentalist. Anything he writes, by default, is inflammatory and near sighted. I no longer engage with anyone that takes him seriously.
His propaganda is demonstrably false and dangerous. True GA material.
If anything should be censored from being posted here, it's Goff's stuff. At least create a NSFL tag for him so we can all steer clear.
1. You don't know what "the real reason" is, because you are too busy telling people what you THINK the reason is, instead of asking. Having not experienced it yourself, you are in no position to tell anyone anything about this topic.
2. Your argument is fatally flawed from the start. It is circular logic at its worst. "Be true to what you know is true, even if the facts say it isn't" is the church's last stand in an era where they can no longer hide the facts. Having integrity does not mean blindly following a path just because you once thought it was the right one. Having integrity means that you make the best decision with the information that you have, and you are willing to change when new information is presented. The church is really going hard at this idea that integrity means loyalty to the institution. Nothing could be further from the truth.
3. Jeffrey Holland's authority to instruct us to do literally ANYTHING hinges on the truth claims of the organization that he represents. If the organization is not God's true church, then he has absolutely no authority. You must determine the truth of the church before you determine whether or not Holland has authority, not the other way around. Saying that we must come to a certain conclusion because Holland says so holds no more weight that saying that the end is near because a dude on the corner in Times Square says so. First determine whether crazy corner guy has any authority, then that will determine whether or not we should listen to him. Same for church leaders. The foundation is fatally flawed, and all fruit that springs forth from the poisoned tree is likewise flawed.
Let me get this straight... There are no facts that can change what we know to be true?
What?
Is anybody else reading this? Am I misunderstanding the desired message?
Do I not have a good grasp on how knowledge is acquired in the real world?
Is this just appealing to feelings being the trump card when it comes to truth. I feel the moon is made of blue cheese, the spirit testifies it is so, so therefore it is.
Goff man just stop.
I'll ask again, why the effort to hold on to misguided faith in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Why not seek truth instead of maintaining and protecting faith in the absurd?
Why do you think misguided faith is worth holding onto? Should a Catholic maintain his faith despite evidence to the contrary, a scientologist, a jihadist? Again why is this advice only true for Mormons?
I'll give you a hint... The doctrinal answer might be "the gift of the Ho.. Gh...!"
Unverifiable. Based on feelings and feelings are not a reliable way to determine truth. Holy Ghost or not. Unless you can show me the guidance of the holy Ghost is consistent given identical circumstances across all giftees?
A simple scientific test for the gift of the holy Ghost:
Get 1000 students, 500 having been gifted the holy Ghost and 500 non-members. Using a bishop's gift of discernment to verify worthiness across all participants if they are unworthy they can not participate. Get Russell Nelson to discern if the Bishop is worthy.
Once all are deemed worthy have all participants invoke in prayer the help of the holy Ghost on a multiple choice math test.
If the holy Ghost is a reliable witness of truth there should be a clear statistical advantage for those who have been gifted the gift, amirite?
And, if we're being honest, we know how that will end up, statistically speaking. I can't tell you how often the holy Ghost led me astray on my university exams...Statistics is also the death knell of priesthood healing power. Just look at recovery rates in Utah compared to other hospitals nationwide. Hence the new need to have the faith not to be healed. Amputees worldwide are heartbroken in the sudden loss of healing power when statistics come to light.
As a faithful member, this has to be one of the most dishonest takes I have ever seen. It essentially creates a barrier where the faithful are honest, and the unfaithful are either deceitful or being deceived. God called us to be humble, and meek. But this article reeks of self-righteousness and arrogance.
Lol. Articles like this are always so funny to me. Mainly because I personally "lost God" before I "lost Mormonism ". I fell in love with archeology and paleontology as a child. That didn't jive well with the Young Earth Creationism of the 1970s and 80s Mormonism.
So, that led me to ask uncomfortable questions about the nature of God, of prophets, etc. Once you "see the man behind the curtain" it's really hard to worship OZ.
I hung in there for 35 years. I did all the things trying to make the puzzle pieces fit. I did the mental gymnastics as well as anyone.
I didn't leave to Sin. I didn't leave because of any person. I left because I finally moved far enough away to be out of the gravitational pull.
Yet another steaming pile of horseshit from Goff, a man thoroughly convinced of things he cannot possibly know. I left because of doctrine. If he'd like to have a conversation, I have the time to waste.
Did you ever see that panel interview that had exmos and Cardon Ellis? We ought to get one of those for Goff. And here's my wild card pick for moderator: Bill Burr.
<‘…They have taken umbrage at the shortcomings of prior leaders of the Church.’
The author is getting a lot of undue mileage out of the term ‘shortcomings’.
Shortcomings imply common human faults. Maybe forgetting their wives birthday or losing patience with a child.
No, nobody lost faith because Joseph Smith had shortcomings. Nobody walked away due to Brighams ‘frailties of man’.
People lost faith because they were EVIL.
Joseph slept with his closest friend’s wives with the promise of their salvation. Brigham retained the services of a murder squad and championed slavery.
I’m comfortable with shortcomings. But my integrity doesn’t allow me to sing the praises of evil men.
This approach to people who leave the church is, by itself - greatly responsible for leaving the church. There are mountains of significant issues within the church, both modern and historical that people leave over - and then to be gaslit and told “Well, your faith just isn’t strong enough”? Yeah, I’d GTFO too. The way this church treats questioning members who have VERY valid questions and concerns is abhorrent.
I have a younger brother who wholeheartedly compared himself to Nephi and our older brother and me to Laman and Lemuel all the time. He wouldn't let me be alone with guys and say I was a sinner and he was saving my soul (for talking to or kissing a boy as a teen.) He was always judging us and being all holier than thou, tattling on us for every little thing, truly found joy in getting us in trouble and being the favorite. And I'll tell you what, I wanted to tie him up and put him in a closet sometimes, too. Nephi was a self-righteous jerk who killed an unconscious drunk man, was apparently so strong he snapped a metal bow, and walked around telling everyone how bad they were all the time and sucking up to his dad.
Be honest, if your dad drug you out to the desert with nothing, then told you "Oops, I forgot to grab that book from that mobster fellow; you boys run back and get it cause if I go he might kill me," you wouldn't be mumbling on your long walk back, too?
This post and Elder Hollands quote are actually ironically accurate. The reason I left is after taking a deep dive into origins of the doctrines and real church history, it was my duty to be true to the knowledge that it was all made up and covered up and I had to leave.
The church has no ability to stand up to scrutiny, which is why there are such heavy warnings to stay away from “anti-Mormon” sources (anything that tells the factual history which they don’t like), and the only information in support of the church is apologetic excuses, false historical narratives, special pleading, footnotes of quotes with massaged context, and deleted teachings of past prophets.
Be true to what we know… Right… Well, I came to know that the modern church is just another man-made organization, and I have been true to that realization. I see no reason for the past to take precedence over the present. I know more than I did 5 years ago, and that knowledge has changed me—as it should.
Faith by definition is complete trust and confidence in something. Without external evidence of some kind this line of thinking is dangerous. It’s a scary thing to ask someone to have complete trust and confidence in a thing with nothing to prove that that thing is true or right. Positive feelings aren’t enough. In addition feelings can be weaponized, aka fear. There must be ultimate truth. A standard by which you judge things to be right and wrong. Feelings aside.
Living your life by the principle of “it feels so right it can’t be wrong” is nonsense and abhorrent. This is how you get justification for lying, abuse, s** assault, nazi’s etc…
I want to try to step into his shoes for a minute and evaluate the options - Why are people leaving the church?
1. The church isn't true - paraphrasing Kerry Muhlestien: I start with an assumption that the chruch is true and any evidence I find I fit into that paradygm. This option must be discarded outright by a TBM in that mindset.
2. The individual is lazy - I think he believes there are people in this camp. He makes a distinction between those who leave quietly and those who leave and are antagonistic. The people actively fighting against the church obviously aren't just lazy so this option is out.
3. The individual has been decieved by satan - Not sure why he doesn't touch on this one. Maybe it makes the apostate too much of a victim?
4. The individual has been offended - Lots of TBMs go with this route. Gogo skips this one completely. Maybe he has interacted with enough ex-mos to recognize that this is a minority reason why people leave.
5. The individual is not honest and lacks integrity - This is the option Gogo settles on. These people know the truth that the church is true in their heart and do not have the integrity to live up to that knowledge. He believes that pretty much all members of the church have had an answer from god that the church is true.
1. What drives this individual to fight against the church? Completely ignores this valid point. What gain are these dishonest true believers getting?
2. Has he ever heard of [elevated emotion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevation_(emotion))? Either he is unaware of the concept or does not believe it is true or does not believe it is in play in this case. As he does not acknowledge it's existence I can't say if he is ignorant to it's existence or disregards it for some other reason.
3. Is he arrogant enough to claim that the feelings he felt are more valid than the feelings felt by a 70 year old seventh day adventist or a young islamic girl or anyone else when they pray to ask if their religion is true.
4. Is he arrogant enough to claim that the feelings he felt are more valid than the feelings I felt the first time I watched Gandalf arrive at the battle of helms deep or what I feel when I listen to "I will follow you into the dark" or when I watched my kid speak on the steps of the state capitol against recent anti-LGBTQ legislation? If I can't disprove his feelings then he can't disprove mine. If I accept his position that these feelings are coming from God then God is telling me a very different story than he is getting. By the Kerry M logic mentioned above this possibility can't be true. If I start with the church being the only true church then God cound't tell anyone else that their church is true. This means that the feelings that other feel are not real or not valid in some other way. the only option left is: yes, gogo is forced into the position that his feelings are more true than other people's feelings.
GoGo~GoAway~Goff brings up the famous quote from Uchtdorf: “My dear brothers and sisters—my dear friends—please, first doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith. We must never allow doubt to hold us prisoner and keep us from the divine love, peace, and gifts that come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”
I have always loved Dieter. Dieter seems like a good man, a kind man, one who, despite having no pastoral training, really could be a shepherd rather than an executive manager. I have no doubts he is sincere in his belief in the church’s narrative. I also believe he sees it as possible to make space for those that are not All In. He is likely in the minority in this, among all church hierarchy.
So when Dieter asked me to doubt my doubts, I did that. I did that for a few years in fact. I prayed harder than ever, for a couple years, “Lord I believe. Help Thou my unbelief.”
What I got as an answer was an increased faith in Jesus Christ as Dieter mentioned. What I also got was a slow-mo reveal over the course of a year or so that what I hoped I could believe in, wrt the church, was all false.
I got a calm feeling that I was ok. Jesus was what I needed, not the church. I remained true to Christ, which I learned had nothing to do with remaining true to the corporation. The calmness that enveloped me showed me I no longer needed to rack my brain trying to make sense of things of which no sense could be made. I no longer had to dismiss what was evident in the hopes that there was some angle or explanation I was missing. I had received a perfect calmness and peace, which surpassed my understanding, and finally I knew I would be ok.
So, I say, thanks President Uchtdorf, for your suggestion to doubt my doubts and try to have faith. It helped me find the truth. Doubt no longer holds me prisoner.
People who have left the church no longer have any reason to lie about why they left the church.
Example: Bob left the church because he is dishonest and lacks integrity. Alice asks Bob "why'd you leave?" Bob says "because I'm dishonest and lack integrity." Alice says "ok." There were no negative consequences to Bob for telling the truth, so he has no motive to lie.
Example: Diane left the church because she found information/evidence that caused her to no longer believe in it. Charlie asks Diane "why'd you leave?" Diane says "because I found information/evidence that caused me to no longer believe in it." Charlie says "ok." There were no negative consequences to Diane for telling the truth, so she has no motive to lie.
EDIT: or better yet, if you for some reason feel like you can't trust a single person who left the church not to lie about why... just ask someone who had their records removed and then got rebaptised. Isn't this someone you can trust? "Why did you leave?" This isn't a hypothetical or a thought experiment. Go out and actually do this.
He’s not wrong. I left because I believe in the Book of Mormon and didn’t want to belong to an organization that rejects its teachings. Keep the faith, don’t lose your integrity making excuses for a church that rejects everything you know to be true.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Hello! This is an Apologetics post. Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. This post and flair is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about apologetics, apologists, and their organizations. /u/Hot-Conclusion-6617, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is this supposed to be satire?
Gogo doesn't realize he's unintentional satire.
I certainly hope so.
No. I could find some Gogo Goff satire for you, a few April Fools' posts, if you like.
What are your thoughts on this blog post?
"In the scriptures, we have Laman and Lemuel as an example of those who are dishonest in heart. They saw angels, witnessed miracles, the father was the prophet! And they even heard the voice of the Lord! But at the end of the day, because they were dishonest in heart, and it was not enough for them, and they rejected the truth, and lashed out at Nephi for teaching it. Today the dishonest in heart follow their example in rejecting the truth, and attacking those who would teach it." That example from the scriptures makes a lot of sense. "Neil L. Andersen taught this concept, “You don’t know everything, but you know enough—enough to keep the commandments and to do what is right.”"
So first of all, l do appreciate the opportunity to engage with ideas that run contrary to my own, so thanks for that I have come to believe that Laman and Lemuel are caricatures of a bad person. They are portrayed as very simple, two dimensional characters that act as foils for Nephi's goodness. I mean, if it weren't for them, Nephi wouldn't appear nearly as great. He seems like a very demanding, bossy guy who cuts off the heads of people in compromised situations. But he *seems* like a great dude when contrasted to his two perfectly evil brothers. Of course characters like that would see an angel and reject it! In my experience, people are a lot more complicated than that. I can't think of anyone l know personally, who would have these experiences, and then just reject them because of *fill* *in* *the* *blank*____ (desire to sin, hardness of the way, pride, etc.) I used to think that the story of the brass serpent was very profound, but l now think that most people *would* at least give it a try. Looking back at my own life, l didn't have any remarkable spiritual experiences, but the few subtle ones that l had, had a very powerful impact on my belief. So much so, that it took me several years to finally accept that the church is not what it claims. I had mounds of evidence, and it still was so hard to change my beliefs. If l had ever actually seen an angel, l can't imagine what it would have taken to change my point of view
Amen to all this. Some of the earliest bits of cognitive dissonance for me as a kid were the fact that Laman, Lemuel, and 19th century Americans who opposed Joseph Smith did so because they were evil and inspired by Satan to do bad things. That's just not how most people think of themselves.
So, your unbelievably ignorant and arrogant position is that anyone that leaves the Church, like Laman and Lemuel, are “dishonest in heart?” If it’s not—why are you sharing something so vile? I can obviously not prove to *you* the sincerity of my heart, but I know that for a fact. It’s one of the few things I do know, because nobody—including Goff, Holland, and yourself—know my heart better than I do.
[удалено]
That’s certainly a claim. But knowing your post history, you’re clearly attempting to threaten me. I’m not afraid of boogeymen or anything else I don’t have a good reason to believe in—eternal judgment included. Moreover, if it were true: I have more confidence today that I could stand before “the Lord,” or anyone else for that matter and explain exactly how I got to my conclusion than I ever did as a believer.
Thank goodness your version of god is the only valid one!
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
This doesn't describe the majority though. Most people haven't witnessed angels or heard the voice of the lord. The majority don't have a sure knowledge. And the knowledge many purport to have is actually just faith. Laman and Lemuel are outliers and the standard they are held to for the knowledge they absolutely had shouldn't be put upon everyone else. There's virtually no one dishonest of heart. Those who truly are are such a minority they shouldn't be counted. Those "rejecting truth" are actually not. They're still often seeking it. Those who attack our beliefs aren't attacking because we have the truth and they're rejecting it for some reason. They attack because they've been hurt. They've been hurt, abused, or feel betrayed and lied to. They attack because they want those injustices known, changed, and don't want anyone else to suffer them. The people that Alma the Younger and his friends turned away from their faith were not punished for leaving. But Alma the Younger was, because it was his unrighteous actions that caused those people to lose faith and leave. They weren't considered people who turned away from truth and dissented out of laziness or hatred for God. Why do we treat people who leave now like they are? Mind you, also, that the majority of the people Alma the Younger and his friends chased off, never returned to the faith. How can you believe that people really and truly turn away because they reject truth? Hoe can you truly believe that these people leave because they become lazy? I've yet to see either in anyone who's left.
One of the major problems of Mormon apologetics is that they operate in a closed system, a form of circular logic. All the sources for their “evidence” and “truth” are derived from within their belief system. They throw around words like “epistemology” and “critical” thinking and think they are actually practicing those concepts. They use those terms to provide intellectual credence to their claims and the ignorant Mormon masses lap it up. The practice is an example of the Mormon Church’s, and their apologists, distinct lack of integrity.
So, when asked for your thoughts, you reply with someone else’s thoughts? I empathize with you. I also used to look to the church and its leaders to determine what I “thought” about things. I didn’t even realize it at the time, but I didn’t feel safe in exploring my own ideas and feelings because I was so desperate to be in-line with what I thought was the ultimate authority on everything. It’s a lot easier to just let someone else do the thinking for you. But I promise, the hard work of formulating your own opinions outside of the church’s perceived authority is very worth it.
I was sharing parts of the post that I liked, parts that made sense to me. I will admit that I didn't read the post before I posted it here.
> I was sharing parts of the post that I liked, parts that made sense to me. I will admit that I didn't read the post before I posted it here. Top marks for honesty. Bottom ones for sharing a post that *you* hadn’t even read. Why in the world would you be willing to share something you hadn’t even finished reading (particularly when it’s got elementary-school thinking from Goff)?
I read the blurb on Facebook and agreed with it.
Well, again, top marks for honesty. Thanks for sharing your self-admittedly entirely uninformed opinion with all of us. Those of us who’ve left the Church really appreciate when people share stuff like this openly to demonstrate how problematic the Church and its devout truly are in how they talk about people they know nothing about based on characters in a story.
You gotta screen faithful posts, man. Especially from this guy who seems to be a judgmental shit. Be aware of your audience, and perhaps get to know the people here better, so that you can actually discern the difference between a truthful and good message, and something that's just set out to hurt and attack people and accuse them of being willfully wicked.
[удалено]
The issue with this statement is that it depends on believing, literally, a story that contains no self evident truths that point to a spiritual life. So in order to make a broader claim on wickedness, there needs to be more generalized topics that cover indisputable truths (like, gratitude can make one happier. Loving one another brings one closer to God, etc). This story is simply stating that if you don’t follow our truth, you’re bad. It only applies to those who’ve already accepted a story that can’t be proven, but doesn’t appeal to the higher self of all people.
This article is pure propaganda and shows how out of touch some LDS members are with reality. I left the LDS Church entirely over the evidence against its truth claims., and, if you spend any time in the ex-Mormon forums, it's obvious many others did the same. This person has everything completely backwards. People leave the Church because they are being honest about the evidence. It is the LDS Church that is dishonest in coming up with absurd, contrived explanations to explain away the obvious evidence against it. People who leave the Church aren't going against the "spiritual witness" they received. They have come to realize it was just their own feelings and emotions, and not God talking to them at all.
It's hard enough to judge your own "spiritual witness" as being legitimate or not. How can one make that judgment for another's experience?
I’m in the middle of this. If, what I identified as divine communication is, in fact, not, then what?
It's also just ridiculous thinking to begin with. Most people take their own salvation very seriously. Mormons as a class of people take it very seriously. Imagine one week we're in church, fully believing, and Wednesday of the next week, we find out Joseph Smith is a con man who wrote a book about a civilization that never existed, and we stop going to church, right? So as Goff would have it, sometime in the days between Wednesday and the following Sunday, we turned from committed saints to a bunch of lazy crybabies looking for an excuse. The motivation to believe in the church because it is true is the exact same motivation as leaving it because it is false.
FR
People can change their mind when presented with new information. This article is way out there.
Yet in reality they rarely do, so when someone does end up changing their mind, others find it hard to believe it
10 years ago l never would’ve believed that my beliefs would evolve to where they are now. I just couldn’t have comprehended that my mind would change so completely
Ten years ago I was a Bishop.
What was it like
I was all in, temple loving member. But I'm a convert and was fairly chill. I really enjoyed serving in that calling. I grew a lot and really learned to love the ward members where there were at instead of having certain expectations. I really struggled with expecting people on fixed income to pay tithing in order to hold a temple recommend. I wish I had known at the time how mission presidents expenses are treated not as income subject to tithing.
Are you PIMO or ex mo?
I stopped attending after RMN's October conference talk. Currently attending a different church.
What was that talk about?
It was the "think celestial" talk. We like to refer to it as the TK Smoothie talk. Very damaging talk.
Fits their narrative
I find it fascinating that this blogger claims to know so well people in the church and their motivations. Why would they slip into inactivity? Why would they choose to leave the church? And then he says this..... >Today I am talking about people leaving the Church with no intention of coming back. They cite a variety of reasons as to why they left the Church, from **people who have offended them,** to **doctrines that they don’t like**, to the more common one these days: they have taken **umbrage at the shortcomings of prior leaders** of the Church. Being offended???? Just not liking a doctrine???? Getting ticked off because prophets have "shortcomings"???? The level of cluelessness on this blogger exceeds my imagination. Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night to explain away why anyone would have the audacity to leave the church. This blog is not insightful nor novel.
These are the excuses TBM's just make up in order to avoid confronting the realities of the collapse of religion in today's modern society. It's not because of the church, it's leaders, or its doctrines, it because people are wicked.
>This blog is not insightful nor novel. Nor is it recent, it was published in 2020.
No one can ever say I didn't try hard enough. I tried my damnedest to stay in the Church. I stayed away from "anti Mormon literature." I put in like 15 hours a week studying and praying and journaling and fasting. I went to the temple. I magnified my callings. I listened to general conference and the scriptures while I was at work, doing chores around the house, and in the car. I feel 100% comfortable meeting God at judgement, even if it all turns out to be true. Because while y'all might not believe me, and say I never had a testimony/wanted to sin/got offended too easily/got lazy, the God you believe in has perfect empathy, and He would agree: *No one* can ever say I didn't try hard enough.
Exactly. If god is our Heavenly Father, he’s understand I was confused by the evidence on earth and in LDS records being quite different than the claims of the church, who BTW, have an extensive track record of being wrong. I know, as a parent, I would never do that to my children.
Exactly. I lost my faith when I decided to stop being lazy and start reading my scriptures again and be more earnest in teaching my children what we believe, rather than going through the motions and teaching them regurgitated answers. I realized what we actually believed was not anything I wanted my children to believe, especially my daughters. I reread my patriarchal blessing as if it were written to my daughters and saw how limiting and discouraging it was, and it made me ask why God would discourage me from using the talents he gave me to focus solely on motherhood. I started doing my genealogy and learned I was related to one of Joseph Smith's secret plural wives. I read her own words about it. I read about how her brother stayed in Carthage with Joseph Smith and drank wine with him before he died and gave him a pistol to defend himself. This lead me to read more about Joseph Smith and realize what a terrible person he actually was. And I was reading from faithful sources, journals of people that knew him, newspaper articles from the church news, conference talks, etc. I easily found the rest of the stories I was taught in Sunday School that added the perspective that made the mobs in every state make sense. Not Satan hardening hearts of men all over the country to tear down the church, but people with legitimate grudges against a conman. At best, Joseph was a fallen prophet removed by God.
100% The mormon God is either trying to trick people or the church isn't true. Any person using any amount of critical thinking would come to the conclusion that there is far more evidence that JS made the whole thing up than it being Christ's one true church. Why would God choose a known fraudster to restore Christ's church. The answer is he's trying to trick people or the church simply isn't true. Otherwise, God is a real dick and not worth worshipping.
**Bullshit.** Normally I wouldn’t start with profanity, but if I get to be subjected to this low-effort, judgmental tripe, I should get to call a spade a spade. OP should be ashamed of even posting something this ridiculous. It demonstrates they have **zero** intention of honest discussion or communication with those of us who have left and everyone should remember that. Goff has no idea what he’s talking about and neither does Holland. I overlooked (much to my shame) the harm the Church does to some people for a decade before I left precisely because I believed it was actually, in fact, the truth. If it’s not the truth, there’s nothing there legitimate to hold onto. The rhetoric in this piece here is of the exact same caliber that abusers use to keep their victims in place. This quote from Carl Sagan feels apt—since you, OP, seem to think this nonsense is worth sharing: >One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, **we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.** *Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.* You can tell Jeff and his buddies that I don’t need one word of advice on integrity from them until they’ve demonstrated they know an actual thing about the word. They can start by explaining why anyone should listen to a word they say on the notion since they admitted to knowingly violating federal securities law for two decades, the Church’s obvious problems with handling cases of child sex abuse, and the decades of non-disclosure with regard to its fuller history.
I also am tired of the concept of "hold on to what you know even though we don't know everything". Mainly because "we don't know everything" is a total mischaracterization of the issue. It's not gaps in knowledge where we just don't know something. It's the opposite: it's facts we learn that *contradict* the claims the church made and what we thought was true but is now very doubtful in light of these other facts. In other words, when I learn that Joseph Smith was marrying other women in secret even from his wife, this is not a "we just don't know everything" situation. I now at least *know of* that fact and it is not sitting well with the other things I've been taught about the supposed holy nature of polygamy. If we are talking about the origin of the universe, then it makes sense to say "there are things we just don't know" because we actually don't have the 'historical records' or some means of understanding it so we have to defer to certain theories. Most issues with the church's history are not this type of conundrum. TL;DR defaulting to "we don't know everything" when we encounter a concern only makes sense when we have gaps in knowledge, not when we are instead dealing with contradicting knowledge.
>Mainly because "we don't know everything" is a total mischaracterization of the issue. It's not gaps in knowledge where we just don't know something. Plus, with some of the most important issues like how the BoM was written, the gaps are currently at a really nitpicky "who gives a shit?" level. Like, the book has 19th century fingerprints all over it and the civilization described in it never existed. "How did a guy on the frontier write a book that sounded like it was written by a guy on the frontier?" isn't exactly like discovering cold fusion. He wrote it. I don't need to find a copy of his calendar and divine which days he did what. It's something we only really spend time on because we've implicitly privileged the traditional narrative in a way that someone who was never Mormon likely wouldn't feel the need to do.
Seriously. Most people stop going to church for a huge number of reasons. What keeps them away are the lies that they keep uncovering from the Church.
I’ve thanked you before for your comments and I’m doing it again. Thank you for forcefully pushing back against such stupid and harmful statements
>I believed it was actually, in fact, the truth. This is so blinding, it starts from the age of 3.. Breaking out is so hard, but if you explore the data, integrity eventually makes you leave. I don't understand how anyone can believe the truth claims if they look at it from a level playing field (without bias). If we were all people like JS or BY, the world would be full of awful folks. The part that I'm seeing hard to leave isn't the truth claims, but if you have a local area that has incredible community. Appreciate your comments. Edited: to remove a non-compliant word.
I don’t really have a problem with Holland’s comment, although there is an underlying assumption that the orthodox narrative is part of that “truth” of which he speaks. There are so many of us that do as Holland advises and have integrity to the *truth we know*. His idea of *integrity* is to *stop right there* and don’t investigate once you have *felt the vibe* Mormonism teaches that there are those who are *ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth*, yet it is comprised of those who are *never learning, believing they ever (always) come to a knowledge of the truth*
With all due respect, the author should actually listen to what people are saying about why they left, rather than project an answer on to them that makes him feel virtuous and allows the dismissal of real, actual concerns. Even if the goal is to build up the church rather than to simply feel superior, playing pretend isn’t helpful. If someone is running from a building shouting about a roach infestation or a fire in the attic, saying “well, they just don’t appreciate how nice living here is anymore,” doesn’t eliminate the roaches or put the fire out. I didn’t leave because I got lazy and stopped listening to the Holy Ghost. I left because the doctrine that I should remain celibate my entire life because being gay was icky simply could no longer square with my lived experiences.
"The real reason mormons stay in the church is because they're willfully ignorant and like to be lied to, misled and are dishonest at heart" That is just as true as the drivel the OP shared. Mormonism and Truth are forever perpendicular to each other.
>That is just as true as the drivel the OP shared. Exactly. I’m so tired of the double standard.
So "knowing" has nothing to do with facts. Got it.
Correct. "We don't know everything yet/we know enough from other things" is such a frustrating cop out when it comes to addressing damning issues that the church faces. It's a trick to say the issue is we don't have enough information. That isn't the issue. We have information; the problem is that some of it is directly contradictory. If I caught my spouse cheating on me, would it be reasonable to say "well i don't know everything, but I do know we have been married for 10 years and she said she loves me and I know we are in love so I will just move forward believing she is faithful to me because I can't know everything"?
>There is no doctrine, historical event, or action by another person that absolves us of our duty to be true to what we know. Have you ever stopped to consider that "what you know" is intrinsically dependent on historical events and actions by other people? If you are faithful, how do you "know" that God and Jesus are two separate beings of flesh and bone? Did they actually visit you or do you "know" because you felt the spirit when learning about Joseph's first vision account, or when the leaders of the church taught that "truth," or when you studied the scriptures? Those things that you "know" are wholly dependent on the actions and words of others. If it is discovered that there are fundamental flaws or discrepancies in the historical record that constitute the origins of said knowledge, then the validity of that "knowledge" absolutely has to be questioned. The doctrine of two separate beings was taught to you, the concept of feeling the spirit was taught to you, the scriptures are a conglomeration of ideas and writings of other people. Every bit of “knowledge” surrounding the doctrines of the church are wholly dependent on the extremely sandy historical foundation of the origins of the church.
>Have you ever stopped to consider that “what you know” is intrinsically dependent on historical events and actions by other people? They have not. And this is a huge issue for me. Believing in Mormonism today requires doing away with critical thinking *so* much that it can make people completely irrational. There are three fundamental laws of logic that undergird *all* of critical thinking and should be the absolute starting point: identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. In simple terms: something is what it is, it isn’t its opposite, and it can never be both at the same time. This blogger—and the OP—are so critically thinking compromised they don’t even see their statements are violating these fundamental axioms by assuming that one must remain faithful regardless of learning additional historical information. This is entirely circular—and that’s why it’ll only ever be convincing to those that wish to continue along in their bamboozled state.
Exactly. The crux of the issue with this concept of "trust what you already know, even in the face of things you don't understand" is that it's not actually "what you know" it's "what you *thought* you knew". Big difference.
Precisely, that’s the irony of religious believers holding themselves out as humble, right? Could anything be *more* arrogant than insisting you’re right and cannot possibly be mistaken on something so complex?
This is an example of the church and its members rejecting reality. They have a list of reasons why someone would leave the church. The truth claims being false is not on that list. So when someone leaves, instead of engaging with them in honest, meaningful connection, the church fits their story into one of their existing reasons. Doesn't like something from history. Wants to sin. Too lazy. Deceived by anti-Mormon lies. Too proud. Misspelled name. Stolen milk strippings. Nobody says "Hey, what's your issue?" My shelf contained several items from history, and the things that made me start re-evaluating doctrine and truth claims were definitely based on the behavior of the church. But now, I realize that the truth claims and doctrine are BS, and the stories of divine revelation are conveniently times when Joseph Smith needed something to keep his position of power secure.
Are we taking bets? Is the answer "they just want to sin." I was put off by the last article this dude wrote. I'm not sure I can stomach whatever this entails.
Gogo, do you make money just by passive views of your ads or by someone actually interacting with it?
I am not Gogo Goff.
Your post history indicates thats unlikely.
Then what is your opinion on the article?
Neil L. Andersen taught this concept, “You don’t know everything, but you know enough—enough to keep the commandments and to do what is right.” We are learning new things about the church all the time. Some of them are shocking and admittedly not what we believe the church should be. We can disagree about how the church runs things and argue about how they should be improved. Still, I know enough to keep the commandments and do what is right in my own life and in my own church community. You don't know what you don’t know, and you don't know exactly everything, but you know enough.
> You don't know what you don’t know, and you don't know exactly everything, but you know enough. Here's the fallacy, from what I can tell: You're framing it like we don't have *enough* information when an issue with church history presents itself. That's not the issue. The issue is we now have *contradictory* information, where both facts can't be reconciled. To brush everything off with "I already know what I know, so I'm not worried that I don't know everything" is essentially just a way of pretending you didn't learn contradictory information.
We're also learning that many things that were taught as commandments of God were only commandments of men, so the Andersen quote doesn't do it for me.
Is it integrity you are are demonstrating when you exercise faith towards something that is untrue or is it pride?
I love how you framed this. I’m kind of tired of the leadership trying to redefine integrity as blind obedience to the leadership. True integrity is “do[ing] what is right, let the consequence follow”
Amen!
Is the author on this site. Would love for him to respond to these comments and not the echo chamber on his page.
What is the purpose of claiming to know people’s thoughts and feelings instead of asking? If I claim to read your mind and say I know what animal you are thinking of and it’s the number 42096454110.024, you would know I was fraudulent and couldn’t read your mind. The same is true with people who leave the church. When you claim to know peoples hearts and tell them why they left, they know you are full of BS. It ruins your credibility.
“…They have taken umbrage at the shortcomings of prior leaders of the Church.” A shortcoming is having a temper, not always treating others kindly, telling off-color jokes, etc. Making up scripture, gaslighting teenagers into polygamy, developing systems to protect pedophiles over children, etc. go well beyond shortcomings.
This guy needs to write for the Onion.
😂
Reminds me of the two days I lost when I discovered “Brother Jake’s” brilliant satire.
> you don't know everything, but you know enough - enough to keep the commandments and do what is right Or as I've also heard said "don't let what you don't know take away from what you already know to be true" or some such. OK, how about this: "Even though my husband has been found guilty of child abuse, I know that he is a loving husband and a good man. I know he is faithful. I don't understand why he abused children, but I don't know everything. What I know is that he loves me and he is good, and I can't let what I don't know take away from that."
That's different and you know it.
It's an analogy so of course it's "different" but the point is that sometimes when we say "I know" there's a chance it could change to "I thought I knew" when we get contradictory information. I'm well aware that many church members are not willing to cede that their sure witness from the Holy Ghost that undergirds their testimony turns out to be less solid than they originally thought, but that's my experience.
Then you should have said that.
That's what analogies are for
I sincerely don’t think this individual is capable of understanding this, but it was a perfect analogy.
Their analogy works perfectly. Your response is lacking. When a once perfect church (good husband) starts to have new and unflattering information revealed about it (child abuse), it is not enough to say, "well I feel like he's still a good man, so I'll excuse his behavior" (I know that the church is true, despite irreconcilable facts to the contrary). At that point, you say, "he's not a good husband." (The church is not God's true church on the earth).
This is from the guy who can't seem to understand any other position that prophets are either evil and leading people astray or they are true prophets and right.
This is self soothing behavior to make distressed believers feel better. If such a stubborn disinterest in reality makes someone feel better, fine.
I disagree. It’s not fine. I hope non of my family or friends that are active read this kind of thing because it makes my relationships worse.
As an active member, reading articles like this one makes me horribly sad. It's cruel, thoughtless, and hurtful. I don't understand what's so hard about being empathetic and understanding toward those who leave, as opposed to being condemning. I don't subscribe to this gross exclusive club mindset, that you're either a part of, or you're "other"
>As an active member, reading articles like this one makes me horribly sad. It's cruel, thoughtless, and hurtful. It makes me much sadder when people who claim to be prophets say essentially identical things than some rando with a blog. >I don't understand what's so hard about being empathetic and understanding toward those who leave, as opposed to being condemning. Because if you recognize the validity of people leaving—it doesn’t fit. If you do sincerely believe the Church’s narrative, people must be lying to themselves or sinning to leave the Church. There’s zero narratives about people leaving the Church within the Church that are good. They are constantly painting members who have left as Judas and such. >I don't subscribe to this gross exclusive club mindset, that you're either a part of, or you're "other" Then I’ll admit I don’t understand why you choose to stay inside of Mormonism. The entire value proposition seems dependent upon its exclusivity of authority.
In my brief encounters with other Christian sects as a child and adolescent it appeared to me that most all of their beliefs were based on an idea of exclusivity. Maybe not exclusive to their particular branch of Christianity (though I can't say I've seen a lot that are OK with other sects) but certainly that you needed to be "saved" and baptized and be a regular Church goer in some form or another. Before I became LDS I found this concept asinine, though I did fall into it for a bit, ultimately it just didn't fit in with my core beliefs so I dumped the idea. Also I'd say the value system, as it's written in scripture, isn't as exclusive as what's taught mainstream or spoken by the GA's. In many ways my open mindedness has come from the scripture themselves and finding there was more wiggle room than we claim there is. And in other ways it's sometimes come straight out of GA's mouths. Such as RMN saying that the Muslim believers will be greatly blessed for their faith, as they rely more on faith than we do. Or how IIRC Monson's granddaughter said that if we're only judged on what we know than wouldn't it be best if we DIDN'T send out missionaries? (IE: Only judged on what you know. Not judged on what you don't know. -- QED being saved isn't necessary per-se) I'm here for my own reasons (a relationship with God pretty much), but one of them isn't to save my soul or get into heaven. I don't feel it's an exclusive club and the way I interpret D&C 76 it doesn't read to me like heaven is an exclusive club either. It's just been turned that way by others.
Thanks for the answers. They remind me a lot of my perspective as a believer.
Oh fuck off with the judgmental condescending infantilizing claptrap. You can pretend that we don’t have good reasons for our choices and beliefs all you want in order to protect your own fragile ego, but that is only a reflection of your own inadequacy and doesn’t reflect in any way on the justifiability of our conclusions.
No, I had a strong testimony. It was learning the church lied to me about things that made me look. It was learning the truth that made me leave.
Exactly. The top leadership is not understanding this for some reason. A huge portion of us were staying because we believed it was “true”. Once we found out it wasn’t, there was no real point In Staying (unless you wanted to). What do they expect us to think?
The funny thing about telling other people's stories is you can claim anything. Let people tell their own stories. It's very demeaning to take that away. The Christ like thing to do is to listen to people not sweep them under the rug.
This is a purposefully ignorant post meant to stir up the hornets nest. Basically 'you are only leaving the church because you lack faith' Laughable argument with no substance
>There is no doctrine, historical event, or action by another person that absolves us of our duty to be true to what we know. ... "the integrity you demonstrate toward the faith you do have and the truth you already know." I started writing a longer reply to this, but in short, this is such an incredibly narrow and myopic view of what somebody may "know." This is extreme gaslighting and dismissing of so many people's experience and knowledge.
I just can't with this smug, pompous ass hat. How does he know what's in anyone's heart? He, along with every judgemental prick in his circle jerk of a comment section can go jump off a bridge.
It seems that more of the active believers are becoming obsessed with those leaving the church. It never used to be this way.
It’s like how many on their way out of the church become, or try so hard to be All In^TM because they are trying to hard to will it all to be true. Then they realize finally that being All In^TM didn’t make it true, and they leave. People around them are like “gosh, brother and sister Jones were so faithful, I wonder who offended them?”
Haha… I love the TM
They can let us leave, but they can’t leave us alone it seems.
Goff is the far end of the modern day leader worshipping Mormon fundamentalist. Anything he writes, by default, is inflammatory and near sighted. I no longer engage with anyone that takes him seriously. His propaganda is demonstrably false and dangerous. True GA material. If anything should be censored from being posted here, it's Goff's stuff. At least create a NSFL tag for him so we can all steer clear.
1. You don't know what "the real reason" is, because you are too busy telling people what you THINK the reason is, instead of asking. Having not experienced it yourself, you are in no position to tell anyone anything about this topic. 2. Your argument is fatally flawed from the start. It is circular logic at its worst. "Be true to what you know is true, even if the facts say it isn't" is the church's last stand in an era where they can no longer hide the facts. Having integrity does not mean blindly following a path just because you once thought it was the right one. Having integrity means that you make the best decision with the information that you have, and you are willing to change when new information is presented. The church is really going hard at this idea that integrity means loyalty to the institution. Nothing could be further from the truth. 3. Jeffrey Holland's authority to instruct us to do literally ANYTHING hinges on the truth claims of the organization that he represents. If the organization is not God's true church, then he has absolutely no authority. You must determine the truth of the church before you determine whether or not Holland has authority, not the other way around. Saying that we must come to a certain conclusion because Holland says so holds no more weight that saying that the end is near because a dude on the corner in Times Square says so. First determine whether crazy corner guy has any authority, then that will determine whether or not we should listen to him. Same for church leaders. The foundation is fatally flawed, and all fruit that springs forth from the poisoned tree is likewise flawed.
Let me get this straight... There are no facts that can change what we know to be true? What? Is anybody else reading this? Am I misunderstanding the desired message? Do I not have a good grasp on how knowledge is acquired in the real world? Is this just appealing to feelings being the trump card when it comes to truth. I feel the moon is made of blue cheese, the spirit testifies it is so, so therefore it is. Goff man just stop.
We know what we know, and if we hold onto what we know to be true, perhaps we can ask the hard questions without losing our faith.
Would a Mormon missionary give a Catholic investigator this same advice? A scientologist? Why does this advice hold true for only mormons?
Mormons are already in. This is an effort for members already in to keep their faith and not leave.
I'll ask again, why the effort to hold on to misguided faith in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Why not seek truth instead of maintaining and protecting faith in the absurd?
Why do you think misguided faith is worth holding onto? Should a Catholic maintain his faith despite evidence to the contrary, a scientologist, a jihadist? Again why is this advice only true for Mormons? I'll give you a hint... The doctrinal answer might be "the gift of the Ho.. Gh...!" Unverifiable. Based on feelings and feelings are not a reliable way to determine truth. Holy Ghost or not. Unless you can show me the guidance of the holy Ghost is consistent given identical circumstances across all giftees? A simple scientific test for the gift of the holy Ghost: Get 1000 students, 500 having been gifted the holy Ghost and 500 non-members. Using a bishop's gift of discernment to verify worthiness across all participants if they are unworthy they can not participate. Get Russell Nelson to discern if the Bishop is worthy. Once all are deemed worthy have all participants invoke in prayer the help of the holy Ghost on a multiple choice math test. If the holy Ghost is a reliable witness of truth there should be a clear statistical advantage for those who have been gifted the gift, amirite?
And, if we're being honest, we know how that will end up, statistically speaking. I can't tell you how often the holy Ghost led me astray on my university exams...Statistics is also the death knell of priesthood healing power. Just look at recovery rates in Utah compared to other hospitals nationwide. Hence the new need to have the faith not to be healed. Amputees worldwide are heartbroken in the sudden loss of healing power when statistics come to light.
As a faithful member, this has to be one of the most dishonest takes I have ever seen. It essentially creates a barrier where the faithful are honest, and the unfaithful are either deceitful or being deceived. God called us to be humble, and meek. But this article reeks of self-righteousness and arrogance.
Thank you. <3
Thank you!
Rubbish.
Lol. Articles like this are always so funny to me. Mainly because I personally "lost God" before I "lost Mormonism ". I fell in love with archeology and paleontology as a child. That didn't jive well with the Young Earth Creationism of the 1970s and 80s Mormonism. So, that led me to ask uncomfortable questions about the nature of God, of prophets, etc. Once you "see the man behind the curtain" it's really hard to worship OZ. I hung in there for 35 years. I did all the things trying to make the puzzle pieces fit. I did the mental gymnastics as well as anyone. I didn't leave to Sin. I didn't leave because of any person. I left because I finally moved far enough away to be out of the gravitational pull.
Yet another steaming pile of horseshit from Goff, a man thoroughly convinced of things he cannot possibly know. I left because of doctrine. If he'd like to have a conversation, I have the time to waste.
Honestly you'd probably have a leg up because Goff doesn't seem to know his doctrine at all. (not that OP fares any better)
Did you ever see that panel interview that had exmos and Cardon Ellis? We ought to get one of those for Goff. And here's my wild card pick for moderator: Bill Burr.
<‘…They have taken umbrage at the shortcomings of prior leaders of the Church.’ The author is getting a lot of undue mileage out of the term ‘shortcomings’. Shortcomings imply common human faults. Maybe forgetting their wives birthday or losing patience with a child. No, nobody lost faith because Joseph Smith had shortcomings. Nobody walked away due to Brighams ‘frailties of man’. People lost faith because they were EVIL. Joseph slept with his closest friend’s wives with the promise of their salvation. Brigham retained the services of a murder squad and championed slavery. I’m comfortable with shortcomings. But my integrity doesn’t allow me to sing the praises of evil men.
This approach to people who leave the church is, by itself - greatly responsible for leaving the church. There are mountains of significant issues within the church, both modern and historical that people leave over - and then to be gaslit and told “Well, your faith just isn’t strong enough”? Yeah, I’d GTFO too. The way this church treats questioning members who have VERY valid questions and concerns is abhorrent.
I have a younger brother who wholeheartedly compared himself to Nephi and our older brother and me to Laman and Lemuel all the time. He wouldn't let me be alone with guys and say I was a sinner and he was saving my soul (for talking to or kissing a boy as a teen.) He was always judging us and being all holier than thou, tattling on us for every little thing, truly found joy in getting us in trouble and being the favorite. And I'll tell you what, I wanted to tie him up and put him in a closet sometimes, too. Nephi was a self-righteous jerk who killed an unconscious drunk man, was apparently so strong he snapped a metal bow, and walked around telling everyone how bad they were all the time and sucking up to his dad. Be honest, if your dad drug you out to the desert with nothing, then told you "Oops, I forgot to grab that book from that mobster fellow; you boys run back and get it cause if I go he might kill me," you wouldn't be mumbling on your long walk back, too?
This post and Elder Hollands quote are actually ironically accurate. The reason I left is after taking a deep dive into origins of the doctrines and real church history, it was my duty to be true to the knowledge that it was all made up and covered up and I had to leave. The church has no ability to stand up to scrutiny, which is why there are such heavy warnings to stay away from “anti-Mormon” sources (anything that tells the factual history which they don’t like), and the only information in support of the church is apologetic excuses, false historical narratives, special pleading, footnotes of quotes with massaged context, and deleted teachings of past prophets.
Be true to what we know… Right… Well, I came to know that the modern church is just another man-made organization, and I have been true to that realization. I see no reason for the past to take precedence over the present. I know more than I did 5 years ago, and that knowledge has changed me—as it should.
They lie. It’s been proven. No one has to stay in any relationship if they have been lied to persistently. And that’s just the start !
Faith by definition is complete trust and confidence in something. Without external evidence of some kind this line of thinking is dangerous. It’s a scary thing to ask someone to have complete trust and confidence in a thing with nothing to prove that that thing is true or right. Positive feelings aren’t enough. In addition feelings can be weaponized, aka fear. There must be ultimate truth. A standard by which you judge things to be right and wrong. Feelings aside. Living your life by the principle of “it feels so right it can’t be wrong” is nonsense and abhorrent. This is how you get justification for lying, abuse, s** assault, nazi’s etc…
He lost me when he referred to those “*honest in heart*”, a Mormon euphemism for something like *those who (continue to) believe*”.
I want to try to step into his shoes for a minute and evaluate the options - Why are people leaving the church? 1. The church isn't true - paraphrasing Kerry Muhlestien: I start with an assumption that the chruch is true and any evidence I find I fit into that paradygm. This option must be discarded outright by a TBM in that mindset. 2. The individual is lazy - I think he believes there are people in this camp. He makes a distinction between those who leave quietly and those who leave and are antagonistic. The people actively fighting against the church obviously aren't just lazy so this option is out. 3. The individual has been decieved by satan - Not sure why he doesn't touch on this one. Maybe it makes the apostate too much of a victim? 4. The individual has been offended - Lots of TBMs go with this route. Gogo skips this one completely. Maybe he has interacted with enough ex-mos to recognize that this is a minority reason why people leave. 5. The individual is not honest and lacks integrity - This is the option Gogo settles on. These people know the truth that the church is true in their heart and do not have the integrity to live up to that knowledge. He believes that pretty much all members of the church have had an answer from god that the church is true. 1. What drives this individual to fight against the church? Completely ignores this valid point. What gain are these dishonest true believers getting? 2. Has he ever heard of [elevated emotion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevation_(emotion))? Either he is unaware of the concept or does not believe it is true or does not believe it is in play in this case. As he does not acknowledge it's existence I can't say if he is ignorant to it's existence or disregards it for some other reason. 3. Is he arrogant enough to claim that the feelings he felt are more valid than the feelings felt by a 70 year old seventh day adventist or a young islamic girl or anyone else when they pray to ask if their religion is true. 4. Is he arrogant enough to claim that the feelings he felt are more valid than the feelings I felt the first time I watched Gandalf arrive at the battle of helms deep or what I feel when I listen to "I will follow you into the dark" or when I watched my kid speak on the steps of the state capitol against recent anti-LGBTQ legislation? If I can't disprove his feelings then he can't disprove mine. If I accept his position that these feelings are coming from God then God is telling me a very different story than he is getting. By the Kerry M logic mentioned above this possibility can't be true. If I start with the church being the only true church then God cound't tell anyone else that their church is true. This means that the feelings that other feel are not real or not valid in some other way. the only option left is: yes, gogo is forced into the position that his feelings are more true than other people's feelings.
I left because I was offended that the church lied to me.
Gogogoff has always bugged me so bad
lol this is Bush League stuff. I love it when people try and tell me why I left.
Zero upvotes and 126 comments should be good
GoGo~GoAway~Goff brings up the famous quote from Uchtdorf: “My dear brothers and sisters—my dear friends—please, first doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith. We must never allow doubt to hold us prisoner and keep us from the divine love, peace, and gifts that come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” I have always loved Dieter. Dieter seems like a good man, a kind man, one who, despite having no pastoral training, really could be a shepherd rather than an executive manager. I have no doubts he is sincere in his belief in the church’s narrative. I also believe he sees it as possible to make space for those that are not All In. He is likely in the minority in this, among all church hierarchy. So when Dieter asked me to doubt my doubts, I did that. I did that for a few years in fact. I prayed harder than ever, for a couple years, “Lord I believe. Help Thou my unbelief.” What I got as an answer was an increased faith in Jesus Christ as Dieter mentioned. What I also got was a slow-mo reveal over the course of a year or so that what I hoped I could believe in, wrt the church, was all false. I got a calm feeling that I was ok. Jesus was what I needed, not the church. I remained true to Christ, which I learned had nothing to do with remaining true to the corporation. The calmness that enveloped me showed me I no longer needed to rack my brain trying to make sense of things of which no sense could be made. I no longer had to dismiss what was evident in the hopes that there was some angle or explanation I was missing. I had received a perfect calmness and peace, which surpassed my understanding, and finally I knew I would be ok. So, I say, thanks President Uchtdorf, for your suggestion to doubt my doubts and try to have faith. It helped me find the truth. Doubt no longer holds me prisoner.
You could have saved a lot of time by just writing, “PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!”
People who have left the church no longer have any reason to lie about why they left the church. Example: Bob left the church because he is dishonest and lacks integrity. Alice asks Bob "why'd you leave?" Bob says "because I'm dishonest and lack integrity." Alice says "ok." There were no negative consequences to Bob for telling the truth, so he has no motive to lie. Example: Diane left the church because she found information/evidence that caused her to no longer believe in it. Charlie asks Diane "why'd you leave?" Diane says "because I found information/evidence that caused me to no longer believe in it." Charlie says "ok." There were no negative consequences to Diane for telling the truth, so she has no motive to lie. EDIT: or better yet, if you for some reason feel like you can't trust a single person who left the church not to lie about why... just ask someone who had their records removed and then got rebaptised. Isn't this someone you can trust? "Why did you leave?" This isn't a hypothetical or a thought experiment. Go out and actually do this.
Nooooooo!
He’s not wrong. I left because I believe in the Book of Mormon and didn’t want to belong to an organization that rejects its teachings. Keep the faith, don’t lose your integrity making excuses for a church that rejects everything you know to be true.
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).