OtterPop

I thought that's what you were getting at, but I didn't want to assume. Tell me, how do you determine that one has been deceived, other than concluding that it must be so just because their experience doesn't match with your own testimony and experience?

I think this is true. I also think it is also human nature to justify decision we've made that have resulted in a large investment of our personal resources. in fact, research shows that people tend to do this.

Yes, I know, and on that point I don't disagree that this is what Mormonism teaches and -- as far as I'm aware -- has always taught. I'm not sure what your point in this current post is about, though.

It is a lot easier to cancel your membership than it used to be. That's largely because of the squawk raised by people who wanted to cease their association with the LDS church and the Church wouldn't cooperate. It actually took a couple of lawsuits. Greg Dodge hasn't been around for all that long. What makes you think you won't be baptized if you haven't read the Book of Mormon? What makes you think you have to agree to go to the temple, someday, in order to be baptized? You don't have to spend thousands of dollars just to get baptized. Indeed, sometimes all you have to do is turn 8. Incidentally, I didn't say the missionaries woke me up; they didn't. Nice way to try to trivialize, though. I have seen so many Mormons complain about being treated disrespectfully because of their religion. But what is it but disrespect when uninvited people stand knocking at your door for several minutes hoping for the opportunity to tell you that they know better about how you should live your life than you do? The charge was that I can't "leave the Church alone." Who exactly isn't leaving who alone in this scenario? I'm also careful to qualify most of my statements. I never said there was a "uniform assault." Nice straw man, though.

I think it's more a difference in our interpretation of what the war in heaven was about. I disagree that the Mormon church in general teaches that the war in heaven continues, or at least I disagree that this is how it was taught to me. I was taught that Christ won and that those who joined him kept their first estate, and that's why we're here on this earth, and that's why we'll receive salvation. I'm not suggesting that Mormonism doesn't teach that temptation doesn't continue.

I understand that you believe I rejected "the Lord's teachings." You and I disagree on that point, and you are not the authority on my spiritual experiences.

No offense taken on the "he" thing. Now, if you'd seen me in person and called me "he," I would have been a little hurt . . . I didn't leave the LDS church because of its teachings. I left for spiritual reasons. I didn't go looking for a church that I would agree with on every point. I am as sure that I have taken the right path for myself as you are that the LDS church is the one true church. I believe that you do have a testimony, that you have had a spiritual witness. I also have had a spiritual witness. The difference between us appears to be that you believe that your witness somehow applies to me, and that I would be wise to substitute your testimony for my own witness. I don't believe that my guidance applies to you, or to anyone but myself.

That's interesting, but not really in keeping with what Mormonism teaches. Feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong, but by Mormon teachings, I kept my first estate. I'm certainly not a daughter of perdition, as I never had a sure knowledge of the Mormon gospel. So, in the Mormon belief system, I will inherit the Telestial Kingdom and have salvation, though not exaltation. I didn't leave because of church history. I left because the power because the spirit led me to a path different from Mormonism. You likely do not believe that this is possible. I know that it is.

I looked at your profile when I got your welcome message (thanks!), and saw that you live in Sandy. I do, too. I just say "Salt Lake" because it's more recognizable to those not in Utah.

Being an ex-Mormon is a choice, just like being an active Mormon is. It takes action to be removed from the membership records. In my experience, very few people who are just "inactive" take the steps to have their name removed. People generally take action only if they have a reason to take action. Some people who reject the LDS church purposely don't have their names removed, because to them it's just paperwork and it just doesn't matter to them. Although it's kind of an old-fashioned term, I think the idea of a jack-Mormon is a useful one -- someone who has drifted away, doesn't live "Mormon standards," but still thinks the Church is true or at least may be true. I was inactive for a few years when I was at BYU (before they had the requirement to attend church), but I believed the Church was true then and I always intended to go back at some point. I really did not enjoy attending church at BYU. Student wards just didn't suit me. But I didn't quit living LDS standards because I was inactive. There's all kinds.

I'm happy to answer any questions asked honestly, and I think I would wonder this, too, if I were you. I like talking about Mormonism. Mormonism is part of my heritage (not in the pioneer sense, because my parents were converts). Mormonism also still affects my life day-to-day, because I live in Salt Lake. I work with Mormons, I have friends who are Mormons, I have family members who are Mormons. When it comes to grass-roots, ward-level Mormonism (and Mormons), I have a great affection. I have no regrets about being raised Mormon. (I do not have this same affection for the corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) I have enjoyed participating on some boards in the past. If you've been online for any length of time, you know that boards change in tone and activity. My previous boards have either disappeared or become dull. I liked the tenor of this one, so I signed up. I'll stay as long as it suits me. I am truly at peace about having left Mormonism, but growing up in Mormonism and practicing it is an intense experience. I see Mormonism as not just a religion but also as having many of the same characteristics as an ethic group. Imagine me as being like someone who comes from an Orthodox Jewish family, but who has chosen not to be an observer of the commandments. It doesn't mean I'm not Jewish, even though I have no intention of attending synagogue or taking part in any of the Jewish practices. (As I think about it, this is a good exploration of why some people can't "leave it alone.") Bottom line for me is that I do leave the LDS Church alone, but I don't need or want to abandon my "ethnic" Mormonism. I also don't want to alienate my Mormon family or friends or make them uncomfortable with conversations about my experience of being an ex-Mormon, so I'd rather talk about it online.

You, of course, are free to "like" your theory better. But I would encourage you to consider how much Mormons complain about people outside the LDS church defining Mormon doctrine and Mormon experience. Use some restraint yourself in defining the experience of ex-Mormons. And your stereotypes of ex-Mormons notwithstanding, I have no intention of "exposing" anything. I assume that Mormons trust their own first-hand experience of their church, and anyone who wants an "expose" (sorry -- I don't know how to get the e character with the accent over it) of Mormonism can certainly find one. That's not a service I provide.

For a lot of reasons. The most common one that people have told me, and that I've read about, is that they are unable to resolve the tension between what they've been taught in church and what they conclude is true when they've delved more deeply into Mormon history and teachings. I'm not saying that everyone who delves deeply will experience this tension or come to these conclusions, only that some people do. For people who are true believers, this is a painful, gut-wrenching process. Many people take years to reach a decision to leave. Many people stay longer than they would want to, because Mormonism is the foundation of their family and their entire social structure. In my own case, I left the Church for spiritual reasons, gradually and gently by God. I was led to a richer belief and a richer life outside Mormonism. You could say I was "deconverted" after having been born into Mormonism. And Moroni 10 certainly had a lot to do with it. I appreciate your asking. And I'd like to add that shen I stopped attending church and knew I would never return, I was the Sunday School pianist and was temple-recommend worthy. Not that being the pianist is an advanced calling -- but it is one they don't give to someone who's not there every week.

I have to agree with the previous poster about you being rather abrasive. I said that your answer was simplistic, not that you're a simpleton. It's not my habit to call people names, and I don't think your sarcasm contributes to the dialogue. It's not "theory" that I intend to discuss in this thread; it's my experience of being an ex-Mormon.

The most obvious answer I've heard from ex-Mormons is that the Church doesn't leave them alone. Most members don't consider how true this can be. The Mormon Church is easy to get in to -- but can be hard to get out of completely. Cancelling your membership is easier now than it used to be. When I did it in 1997, I was told I had to write a letter to my bishop, which I did. He didn't respond. Three months later, I wrote another letter. He did respond to this letter -- by sending some home teachers over. It made me laugh, because no home teachers from that ward had ever contacted me before. Since withdrawing my membership, I have had teachers (the Aaronic priesthood kind) knock on my door and ask for fast offerings. Several years ago, I talked to missionaries who came to my door. When I told them I was no longer Mormon, they requested to discuss with me the reasons I had left the Church. I said OK, we set an appointment, and they didn't show up. About a month ago, some sister missionaries were tracting in my neighborhood. I told them I was no longer Mormon and was not interested in hearing about the Mormon Church. Last Sunday morning, our doorbell rang. We didn't answer because we weren't expecting anyone, and don't typically have people who "drop in." And we like our peaceful Sunday mornings. The doorbell rang again. Then a knock. Then another knock. Finally, my husband answered the door because we thought maybe something was wrong. No, it was just persistent missionaries. Although I enjoy discussing Mormonism and my own Mormon experience, I don't go knocking on doors to do it, and I don't tell Mormons they should leave their church or are wrong for having joined it. In my experience, people who truly believed in Mormonism rarely leave for the reasons so many Mormons assume that they do: (1) sin, (2) being offended by a member, or (3) never really believing in the first place. Mormons don't like being stereotyped or having their experience -- for example, their testimonies -- mocked or dismissed. Neither do ex-Mormons.

Well, that's the typical answer -- and a very simplistic one. And one that Mormons can feel really good about. I can tell you, though, that for many ex-Mormons and anti-Mormons it simply isn't true.

Have you ever asked yourself why that might be?

bytor, Defining what constitutes doctrine is one of the ongoing debates about Mormonism. The statements you present can be interpreted to be circular in nature: that is, Harold B. Lee telling members how to determine whether something is doctrine, but implicitly acknowledging that his own advice is not doctrinal. I know this is a little ridiculous, and I'm not trying to be difficult. But I do want to point out that the idea that Mormon doctrine shifts over time can be argued quite legitimately. When you have a prophet who preaches consistently over years' time some points that are currently rejected, it does raise the question of what it means to have a prophet. You say that the Journal of Discourses is not doctrine, and I agree with you. However, I know that Brigham Young taught at least three things consistently through the years that are key points, but are no longer taught: (1) the Adam-God theory, (2) the necessity of blood atonement for some sins, (3) that plural marriage is an essential part of Celestial glory. I'm not saying that one can't believe both that Brigham Young was a prophet and that he taught these things. I'm am saying that "anti" arguments concerning this point of what prophets have taught in the past is not quite so simplistic as presented by FAIR in the quote above.

bytor, Are you suggesting that the president of the LDS church cannot receive additional doctrine for the members? I was raised LDS, and was taught many times, and have seen it written in official LDS Church lesson manuals, that the conference issue of the Ensign stands beside the standard works in importance. If your prophet can't receive revelation about new doctrine, why have a prophet? Many mainstream Mormons disagree with your definition of doctrine and understanding of the role of current and past LDS Church leaders.