Thanks Ray, for the first time in awhile, we are in complete agreement!

Andrew, I’m really starting to like you man…:)

I think I said it once before…you don’t leave MM…you just have a period of time (that may end with your death) where you temporarily forget the URL

Re 70:

Thanks for the comments, Doug. Fortunately, my family is way cooler about things (but then again, I’m not the husband/father…I’m just the wayward son who appears to not be going so wayward except for that ideology thing). I think the goal is that, wherever you are, believer or not…do people see you as a good person? And I mean, there is a lot of fluff too with this. If someone thinks you aren’t a good person because you don’t have faith to move mountains, I don’t think the person is looking at the right thing (but on the converse, if someone who disagrees with the church thinks you can’t be a good person because you still put up with it, then they also aren’t looking at things well enough.) Regardless of position, you can know what’s compassionate and what’s decent behavior.

That should transfer to your sons, so it shouldn’t be so problematic if they know to look for that instead of oft-repeated seminary answers.

They make me want to take up drinking as I’m conflicted between liking both of them and at the same time repressing an urge to strangle them!

The first wouldn’t be a sin necessarily, if you no longer believe – but the second probably is no matter your current perspective, Doug.

Fwiw, I miss your comments here. I don’t agree with you very often, but I miss your participation. Usually, it’s just the fact that we each have reached different foundational conclusions and have no desire to alter them significantly enough to agree on the core basics, but this site is poorer when your view isn’t expressed here.

I mean that sincerely, Doug. You might be vinegar to my water, but a salad just isn’t the same with only vinegar or only water.

From Andrew in post #36
“After all, Doug’s prophecy has not come true for this thread, and I indeed have not been run out on a rail.”
Just to set the record straight, I didn’t say “Thus Saith the Lord” so this wouldn’t be considered prophecy… and not the first time I’ve been wrong…

I’ve enjoyed reading this thread and must admit my surprise in discovering how many of you “faithful doubters” are out there. As others have so well expressed, Mormonism is a “culture” that I’ve been part of for almost 50 years. My family is still deeply committed to it and therefore not something I can or should “just leave alone”. Three of my seven sons have served missions and one is presently out. I don’t doubt that the rest will serve as well. So how do a heretic’s sons still find a way to believe and serve? (I think their mother may as something to do with it…) I present these facts to show that I’m far better at not pushing my beliefs on others than I’m given credit for here.

Unfortunately there are many in the church that see people like me as a threat and secretly pray for a Stake President to get inspired enough to hold a disciplinary council. It could still be in my future… Now that type of affirmative action might have an effect on my wife and children!

I wish it were as easy as some posters make it sound to just walk away. I’ve got to believe that many are in my same boat. They discover, after some research, that Mormonism requires way too many “explanations” to make all the historical stuff work. Once your world view changes, you’re faced with the challenge of still fitting in with people who desperately want to believe and will perform amazing feats of mental gymnastics to remain. It’s a tough row to hoe and not for the weak of heart. My compliments too many of you who seemed to have found the happy medium.

Andrew S. Thanks for the thoughtful post and your very well written responses… I would have sworn you were a believer….

True, but originally “Mormonism” was defined very broadly. It seems MM transmogrified into just another faithful Bloggernacle blog after Dehlin took his ball and went home. I was actually featured on one of the Mormon Matters podcasts in the early days of this blog. Not something likely to happen now. Whatever happened to that John Hamer dude? He was cool. I dig that cat.

Peace.

I no longer believe in the only true and living church idea, but I continue to go to church because my wife and I want to go to a Christian church and all our friends are there. I hold no calling, do no home teaching. I’m not living a lie. I go there because I want to. For the most part, I no longer comment in the GD class I taught for 4 years because I don’t want to ruin things for others.

Priesthood is very hard to attend. In HP it is a very intimate setting (about 15). As to not having a “right to do or say anything” even though I choose to remain quiet, the gospel obviously is more inclusive than that.

Mormon Matters is a good place to discuss ideas, believing or not. I thank those who keep it going.

Nick, you’re right it goes both ways.

i leave for a day and the comments multiply.

Re 49:

DaveyMike, before I get checked for my subversiveness, I’d like to say I really liked what you had said:

There is enough in the basic, canonical Mormon Doctrine to engage LDS and those who are investigating the church. We don’t have to resort to “fringe” doctrines to show that the LDS Church is not “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth”

I guess this is my biggest problem with the rumors and anti- arguments…very often they try to go for “fringe” doctrines or discredited doctrines…and really, that’s just really bad for their part (is that the best they can do)?

(OK, to make this response more faith-friendly…)I think that, regardless of the position you take regarding the church, you can find if it’s worthwhile for you or not based on the plain and simple doctrines. For some, that’ll lead to them love the church and be helped by it, but for others, it’ll lead them to think there’s something amiss.

re 52:

Hawkgrrrl, yes, of course, I still take that kind of position and that seminary teacher didn’t really convince me otherwise — I think the point was that it just made me more conscious of the group in the church who still believes in those words (which is kinda unnerving…but I guess they also believe the words, “we had limited understanding…” and so presumably they’ve taken that into account). Kinda like how a liberal, believing mormon can still have faith, but must be conscious of more conservative interpretations.

I just would like to think, playing advocate for the faithful side, that being so discerning about what is inspired or standard work and what is not (especially with works of those very high up in the church) can get to a slippery slope. What if the Book of Mormon just becomes a nice collection of stories? Or what if it becomes a not-so-nice collection of stories? If its inspiration or standardization or “correctness” (within bounds) is questioned, that’s a cornerstone of the religion….

Re 54: Arthur,

Every time I think the things that make me happy would make others happy, I find out how wrong I am.

Amen.

No matter your perspective, I can guarantee that you will encounter beliefs which you do not respect, and nothing says you need to do so. Rather, we need to respect the person who happens to hold that respect, and treat the person with courtesy and kindness.

Amen, Nick. It couldn’t have been said better.

Would you accept that there are others who would find happiness on the path out of Mormonism?

Of course. I’ve said that in multiple posts and comments here.

Do you believe there are those with just as honest a heart as yours who would like to find and help those who would be happy leaving Mormonism?

Of course.

Those who leave must be vilified by the organization. Their motives cannot be tolerated as honest and sincere. They must sit down and shut up.

Hogwash. Many members feel that way about those who leave and vociferously call them mindless sheep and duped dunderheads and simplistic fools – but you react the exact same way to members saying those things about you. Right?

Fact is, most “respectful” former Mormons don’t catch a lot of ire from most practicing Mormons, just as most “respectful” Mormons don’t catch a lot of ire from most former Mormons. It’s the rude, in-your-face, name calling ones on each side who get the attention.

My bet is that most in the church don’t see it that way. Why? Because Mormonism is a religion, not a philosophy. Religions need believers. Philosophies don’t. Those who leave must be vilified by the organization. Their motives cannot be tolerated as honest and sincere. They must sit down and shut up.

Isn’t that the very premise of the missionary program? That Mormons ‘know’ what others really need to be happy?

In some people’s eyes, sure, but I look at it as trying to find every single, solitary, individual for whom the Church WILL bring unknown happiness. I don’t know if it will make any given person happy, but it’s made me happy – and since I don’t know who it will make happy, I answer anyone who is interested in asking and learning and deciding for herself.

My problem is when someone (Mormon or not) insists on shattering someone else’s happiness by trying to force that someone to see things the same way – even if that’s just not how the person sees things. Too many members do that, but the VAST majority don’t – and it ABSOLUTELY is not the way the Church trains its missionaries to act or teach. Lots of former members don’t do that, but a lot do.

Isn’t that the very premise of the missionary program? That Mormons ‘know’ what others really need to be happy? Of course I don’t ‘know’ any more then you do what another person needs to be happy. Yet the church sends out missionaries by the thousands with just that pretense. Why do you not allow ex-Mormons the same pretense?

And yes, it has been my experience that people are better able to find their own way to happiness when they free to define themselves without the framework of dogmatic religion.

Sounds like you’ve been hanging out with the wrong crowd (Mormons who don’t tolerate views from the other side). I get a buzz out of it. There’s so much good to be had…and the Mormonism I believe in says to follow the good wherever it goes.

So I would hope that no one does missionary work in the way you’re thinking of it. I would hope that both member and non-member alike can have a true desire for and knowledge of charity and love. If we do, then it will all turn out well enough in the end. This is the Mormonism I follow.

You probably meant this, Jeff, but I’d hasten to point out that it’s not about respecting “another’s beliefs.” Rather, it’s about respecting others. No matter your perspective, I can guarantee that you will encounter beliefs which you do not respect, and nothing says you need to do so. Rather, we need to respect the person who happens to hold that respect, and treat the person with courtesy and kindness.

#17:
Volunteering that “it might not be for you” is an issue, I suppose. But nonetheless, you are entitled to express it. It depends on whether you can be unbiased in your assessment of that.

Jeff, shouldn’t I be just as entitled to expect that those who support LDS-ism “are entitled to express it,” but “it depends on whether [they] can be unbiased” in their assessments of it? An expectation like yours can’t reasonably be one-sided.

“How can I simply leave ‘Mormonism’ alone when I have so many in my family and community who are still trapped in a mindset that devalues their humanity and lines them up like humble sheep to be sheered, and when I ‘know’ how much happier and better off they would be without religious dogma and indoctrination.”

You really think you ‘know’ what would make other people happy?

Every time I think the things that make me happy would make others happy, I find out how wrong I am. I’m not sure what kind of a personality it would take to really make those kinds of decisions for others. You’re a better man than I, sir.

While true and something that is discovered with even the most basic level of research, when you are a youth, your seminary teacher may seem like an apostle, based on the authoritative style of teaching and their position.

It took me a while, as a new member, to realize that “MoDoc” was not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but the Gospel according to Bruce R. McConkie. Still, IMO, very useful but not the last word of doctrine. The name, itself, is somewhat deceiving.