wildonrio

Once again, I didn't come here to try and tear down everyone's beliefs. I really didn't, I promise. This has quickly turned into a theological debate, with people wanting to know what I think. If it's okay with everyone, I am happy to share. I was an extremely strong believer in Mormonism for 28 years, but have recently left. I wasn't offended, I didn't have a desire to sin, or anything of the like. I simply really looked into the religion and found that it was not what it claimed to be. My reasons for leaving don't just include "anti-Mormon literature". The basis of my doubts are that I don't trust spiritual experiences to provide any sort of truth. The mere fact that Muslims, Jews, and Christians (including Mormons here) all pray to the same Abrahamic god but each group receives different "truths" shows me that such spiritual experiences shouldn't be trusted. If they're praying to the same god, than why is He giving so many contradictory "correct" answers? The question is not of the validity or realness of the experience itself, but rather whether it provides any verifiable evidence to support truth claims. That is, I don't doubt that all of you who have prayed to know the truth of the Book of Mormon had a real experience. It definitely was very powerful and real. What Mormons fail to see (and I was no exception) is that EVERYONE in EVERY Church has these powerful experiences to confirm conflicting "truths". A Muslim has a powerful spiritual experience about his beliefs, so he believes them with 100% certainty. Then the Hindu has a powerful spiritual experience, so he believes them with 100% certainty. Then a Mormon prays about the Book of Mormon and has a powerful spiritual experience, so he believes the Book of Mormon 100%. Here's the problem: these spiritual experiences are confirming conflicting doctrines. This, to me, shows that these feelings might feel special, but they are not to be trusted when it comes to confirming truths. In fact, it's incredibly dangerous to trust them. Yes, I know your experience was "undeniable" and you say that these other religions have some truth so that's why they feel the Spirit. Well, guess what? Their experience in their religion was also undeniable and they have their own particular belief as to why you think you're right. Everyone is 100% sure that they're right and everyone else is wrong. Isn't this just completely...silly? Learning a truth is very difficult, and there is really no way to be 100% sure about anything. The closest we can ever come to learning a truth is by the evidence available to support it. That is: tons of evidence=likely true little to no evidence=likely untrue That is how we learn truths. Not through feelings, but through evidence. If the Book of Mormon were true, and millions of people spoke Hebrew and Reformed Egyptian in ancient America, we would easily find tons of artifacts with Hebrew and Reformed Egyptian written on them. Instead we find none. Since feelings don't prove truths, and the Book of Mormon has no known evidence, it is likely untrue. (Many will argue with me about this. That's okay, I understand the reasoning to do that.) I wrote a paper on why I left the Church and it can be found here: [MODERATOR REMOVED LINK]. I wasn't planning on showcasing this in this forum, but if people are really interested in why I left, there gives the best summary.

I think that it's complete fiction. I'd love if it were true, though.

I had this same perspective as a member. While some anti-Mormon might be made up, a lot of history in pro-Mormon literature has been whitewashed. They are only showing you the things that make you feel good and leaving out anything that isn't faith-promoting, regardless if it's true. One of thousands of examples of this: Your "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young" makes it look like he was only married to one woman at a time. The Church chose one of his 50+ wives and acted like that was his only wife. When she dies in the story, they switch to another one of his wives and act like it's his second one. Most Mormons know that this is misleading since Young was definitely not a monogamist. I think the Church thinks it isn't lying when you skip over important details, as long as the details that you DO share are true. I find it deceptive, however. (Not to say there isn't deceptive anti-Mormon stuff out there too. You gotta be careful either way.) Going back to your original comment, that is a good representation of the general feel among Mormons towards anti-Mormon literature. A non- or ex-Mormon would probably say it more like "There is full history and there is history about an organization that has been whitewashed by that organization. The bulk of pro-Mormon literature falls into the second camp."

Let me preface this by saying that I didn't come here to have a theological argument with anyone. I consider this post self-defense mostly. Like I said in my original post, I came here because I was confused why he wasn't seeing things the same way I do, and I wanted to see if LDS members could help me see why. Thank you for helping me. You say that I can't apply a logic primer to spiritual confirmations. Why is the Spirit immune to logic? You say that it's "like challenging someone to explain the artistic concept of a painting by giving it's dimensions instead of describing what the picture is". I see what you're getting at I think, but you may be forgetting one VERY important difference between religion and a painting: if you feel good about a dreamscape painting, it doesn't lead you to believe that the dreamscape is real. Religious feelings DO make the feeler think that it's a reality. As I've said before, I don't see how feelings have any connection with proving truth, no matter how good it feels. Do you mean by doing research into what Mormons would call anti-Mormon literature (what the rest of the world calls History)? If so, then yes. Did you mean something else? You say that if Christianity is real, then Mormonism HAS to be the true Church because no other Christian denomination resembles what is written in the Bible. I can come up with at least two other possibilities. 1. Christianity was real, but fell into apostasy and was never restored. Joseph Smith read the Bible carefully and tried to create a new organization that mirrored the early Christian Church as closely as possible. He made it up, but it does in fact resemble what is written in the Bible more closely than any other current Christian sect. 2. Christianity itself is made up. To your credit, you DID say "IF Christianity is real" but that's quite a big if. Might I ask you how you have come to the conclusion that Christianity is real? Jeez, I'm sorry to hear that. Yes, there are plenty of that type, but I have found the vast majority to be very open-minded and level-headed, and absolutely not having left because of being offended. Have you been to [moderator removed website reference], for example? The biggest problem I found with apologetics is that their peer reviews were almost always done by other Mormons. The best kind of peer review is done by someone with similar expertise but a different motivation. You might say "Well of course they won't agree with an LDS apologetic, or else they'd be LDS themselves!" That is quite a problem, I agree. It doesn't help their credibility, though, if only people from their same religion peer review their work. (If you know of an exception, by all means let me know.) Please avoid the name calling. It really is the worst way to argue with someone. As for being a "hack who can't think for [my]self", I left the Church while in the middle of Provo, UT completely surrounded by true believing Mormons. I absolutely had to think for myself to get out of the Church in such a situation. I had no choice. Everyone around me was thinking completely differently. As for being accused of being a plagiarist, why do you think I am copying and pasting? I spent months on that essay. Of the 120 pages, I will admit that about 5 pages were copied with permission. There is a Truth section at the top where I get a lot of the wording from a friend, and I credit him at the beginning. The Great Accommodations section I copied from an Exmormon iPhone app, once again with explicit permission. In the rest of the essay, besides direct quotes, it was all written by me. I promise. Yes, you'll see lots of points made by other research in the same subject. The point of the essay was to find as many sources as possible, put them all in one place, and write in my own words how I interpret the sources. Once again, please avoid the name calling. It just creates needless contention.

I believe intuition is based on your five senses picking up on things ever so slightly, enough to give you a feeling about something that might happen. More often than not, your senses were picking up correctly and you later call it your intuition. Just my belief, I've never studied that thoroughly. The one problem with religious intuition is that is separates people into totally different groups. My "intuition" or spiritual prompting leads me to think Joseph Smith found golden plates. A billion other people's spiritual prompting leads them to believe that Mohammed rode up to heaven on a flying horse. Mormons think the Mohammed story is ridiculous, while Muslims think the same of Joseph Smith's plates. Yet we both confirm our own beliefs based on these feelings that we just "know" prove our Church true. Now I know the LDS Church is fairly unique in that it actually tells its members to ask God and look for feelings, while other churches just generally look for feelings without specifically praying to have them. However you go about seeking these feelings, they seem quite identical among the churches. If God were sending these feelings, it would only make sense for him to use them to UNIFY churches, not separate them. Mormons say that God sends the Spirit to a Muslim when a Muslim prays about the Koran because the Koran has SOME truth in it, so God is really just confirming the partial truths that it has. Why would God do such a thing? He's making a confusing mess of people not being able to trust the Spirit. Going by that full truth / partial truth logic, since Muslims feel their Spirit just as strongly as Mormons, then who's to say that it's the Mormons who have the partial truth and the Muslims have the full? Maybe the Book of Mormon is false, but since it mentions being honest, that's a partial truth, so God confirms it? But really it's the KORAN that has the full truth. Do you see what I'm saying? The logic seems completely faulty to me.

As far as saying the feeling is undeniable, is that as far as you can take me? Can you explain to me why it is undeniably an external supernatural source communicating with you and definitely not a powerful chemical reaction within your body? If you could distinguish how you know the difference, I think it would be highly beneficial to my understanding your viewpoint.

I really feel like I have had identical feelings to what you both have felt. It was a strong feeling of happiness and a burning in the bosom. I felt very peaceful and confident. At the time I felt that I had had undeniable witness from the Holy Ghost that it all was true. My problem now is that I see the world religions and how they are all just as confident as you are in their religion, no doubt through the strong spiritual feelings that they feel. It seems like everyone is using these powerful feelings to verify the truthfulness of their religion. I don't deny how powerful these feelings are. But since they are leading everyone in different directions, isn't that a good reason to think that it might just be a powerful biological reaction within our own bodies? If it was from God, why does it divide people into separate religions?

Oh okay. When you say "I know its weird to place all hope in a feeling or several feelings but it works", what do you mean by "it works"? Are you saying that you can achieve full (or near full) confidence in the truthfulness of the LDS Church by trusting in your feelings? Please explain more.

Once again, I wasn't looking to have a theological conversation per se, but if you don't mind, then I don't. Can you explain to me how you are sure that the LDS Church has the whole truth while others only have the partial truth?

I was a Mormon was 28 years, so I have in fact sought out and discovered. I know what feeling you're talking about. I've prayed about the BOM, Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ, etc. and I felt very strong burning in the bosom. If you don't mind my asking, how do you "absolutely know [it] is the Holy Ghost confirming"?

Hi there, I'm not sure if this is the type of forum where we debate the truthfulness of Mormonism. That was definitely not my intent for posting here. I assume a lot of people come here to ruffle feathers and it probably gets old. I actually have a big problem with faith that I would love to discuss if appropriate. Am I allowed to discuss my doubts here?

Thank you for the recommendation!

No new church at this time.

Hi everyone, I want to just start out by stating that I used to be LDS, but I have since willingly decided to leave over doctrinal reasons. I however mean no malice towards anyone who is a member and find my LDS friends to be very intelligent and enjoyable. I am also open minded to the Church still being true if someone is able to come up with good reasons to still believe (after hearing and analyzing my doubts, of course). Recently I brought up with a friend on Facebook that Joseph Smith had different versions of his First Vision account which I felt had some contradictions. What ensues below is a conversation I had with an LDS member who I have never met; he is just a friend of a friend. I had the hardest time communicating my feelings to him. Everything seemed to go over his head, and I can't figure out why. Now I am wondering if there is anyone LDS who understands my side of the issue, or if there is something I am plainly not understanding. [mod deleted link - see site rule #1] Let me know what you think, and if there is someway I could help him see my viewpoints properly so we can have a more mutually understandable discussion.