Irenaeus

As for whether I will start to feel differently, that's pretty much the point of this whole endeavor. I'm trying to figure out if I think it's a realistic possibility that I'll ever want to go back. I do know that right now I'm leaning towards no. The people in the Church is a consideration. As I believe I previously mentioned, I have fond memories of my time in Mormonism, and this is mostly due to the wonderful people I met during that time. There were bad apples as well, but that's true with any group. The thing is, there are wonderful people in Catholic, Baptist, and Episcopal churches as well, to say nothing of the other 40,000+ denominations. The difference is, if I go to a local Baptist church, I don't have to worry about them showing up every month for the forseeable future if I decide to go with another denomination. With Mormonism that is a concern. The only way to guarantee they leave me alone at that point is name-removal, which is why I don't want to establish contact unless I decide to either rejoin or break it off all-together.

Different translations have their advantages. Older old-English type translations like the KJV and Douey-Rheims tent to have more poetic language, but can be tougher to follow. Contemporary versions like the NAB or NIV tend to be easier to follow but lack in poetry. I tend to gravitate toward middle ground translations like the RSV, though opting for that feels a bit like cheating on this question since RSV stands for "Revised Standard Version," and the "Standard Version" being referenced is the KJV. I also like the RSV since I'm Catholic and it typically includes the deuterocanonical texts, and a bible just wouldn't feel whole without them :)

The question of where the divide between local and Church custom lies is one which has plagued Christianity since the beginning. Many in the very early Church believed that Greek was the appropriate language for all liturgical actions, and then the western Church moved to the more widely spoken Latin, it caused quite a stir. Its funny that later, then, Latin would become the western purist's language of choice. My point here I suppose it to point out that the issues you're facing in that regard are nothing new or out of the ordinary. As for the corruption that may exist in the South African hierarchy, that again is nothing new. How many of the original apostles in the Doctrine and Covenants fell away, at least for a time? Quite a few if I recall. In Catholicism, there's a famous story where Napoleon threatened a bishop by saying that he could destroy the Church. Napoleon responded by laughing and informing Napoleon that the Church's bishops had been trying to destroy the Church for two thousand years with little success. I'll close of with an excerpt from the letter Diognetus, which was written by an unknown Christian author in the early second century: "Christians are indistinguishable from other men either by nationality, language or customs. They do not inhabit separate cities of their own, or speak a strange dialect, or follow some outlandish way of life. Their teaching is not based upon reveries inspired by the curiosity of men. Unlike some other people, they champion no purely human doctrine. With regard to dress, food and manner of life in general, they follow the customs of whatever city they happen to be living in, whether it is Greek or foreign."

I'm actually specifically avoiding that. Bear in mind, the question is not whether I want to go back to being LDS (I don't). The question is whether or not I'm confident enough that Mormonism is wrong to take actions that would essentially eliminate the prospect of ever returning (I recognize that you can return after name-removal, but only after much effort). As it stands, the local ward appears to have either lost my contact information or simply has chosen not to use it, and I'm rather okay with the status quo on that one. I don't want to reestablish contact unless I make a decision to either return (highly unlikely at the moment) or all-together resign.

I would agree with the article in saying that the traits cited in the article likely to contribute to one's success as defined by the article. That being said, it should be noted that the article defines success in a very secular way. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think most people on these forums would agree that there's a sort of spiritual success that is of far greater importance. If, for example, Mormonism were shown to produce people who ended up in lower paying jobs, that statistic wouldn't necessarily bother me if I was confident that membership also had a higher rate of salvation. The trade off would be an infinitely favorable one. That being said, it is still an interesting read. On a practical level, I can't help but wonder how difficult it is to hold personal insecurities and group superiority in the proper balance necessary to prevent one from overshadowing the other. It would seem that excessive pride and self-loathing could both easily emerge, which would certainly hinder one's ability to succeed.

I had a similar experience where I moved to a new branch and simply never got added to the home teaching lists. I figured my home teachers were just slackers and didn't realize what had happened until I got called to be a counselor in the elder's quorum and had to work on the list myself. I didn't really want to have home teachers, so I may have neglected to fix that oversight... >:) Anyway, I would agree with the advice that's already been given. That is, talk to somebody in the elder's quorum and relief society presidencies to get home and visiting teachers assigned. I can't guarantee the people who are assigned to you will actually do their job, though typically converts get fairly reliable individuals assigned to them. Anyway, good luck!

There are different ways you could approach this question. On the one hand, the LDS church generally states that an individual if born into particular circumstances because those circumstances are the most advantageous for their salvation. Counter-intuitively, this could include being born in the great apostasy or some other period or location where the fullness of the Gospel is not available. Temple work resolves the issue of the individual born in such circumstances being barred from receiving the Gospel, so then the circumstances merely reflect the conditions that will most incline that particular soul to be able to receive the truth. It just so happened that there was a need for certain individuals to be in the Church while the barring of African-Americans was still in effect. On the other hand, I have read some accounts stating the Brigham Young was feeling threatened by an African-American man (who's name escapes me) who was gaining some measure of popularity within the church, and instituted the policy to curtail his assent to power. I guess what I'm saying is that if you are within the LDS church, you can justify the old position by pointing out that those souls simply needed to be born in those conditions established by the church itself. If you are not LDS, you will probably reject this explanation in favor of simply pointing out the fallen and broken nature of the men involved in the decision.

I'm by no means an expert in the hospitality industry, but when dealing with non-academic fields I've noticed that often having an accredited degree is substantially more important than where you got it from. I have definitely known people who have gone to very expensive schools and come out with very low paying jobs, so in my mind at least going to Cornell won't necessarily guarantee you a lucrative career. I will also say that my fondest memories from my LDS days come from the time I spent in a small branch vice the larger wards. What they lack in membership they typically make up for in being tightly knit. There is something to be said for the experience. As for dating, I remember going to YSA events when the were only four or five of us in the stake (which encompassed much of the state). Most managed to get married, either there or after they all magically moved to Provo after college. My point there is when you finish college, unless you take forever, you'll probably still be well below the magical 25 year old age and have time to move back to more heavily Mormon-populated areas to find a wife. I also personally would factor in cost, as student loan payments, particularly at expensive schools, can be pretty crippling for a very long time. Just my thoughts on the subject. Remember that whichever you choose, God still loves you!

Seeing as my intent to formally leave is the reason for my being here, I certainly have no objection to elaborating on the subject. I grew up an atheist and remained one until I was about 24. I was in the navy at the time, and I had the great privilege of working with many intelligent people who fell into both the Atheist and Christian camps. Because my Christian colleagues where quite intelligent, I couldn't contribute their faith to stupidity, so rather had to assume it was rooted in some underlying bias. To be fair, though, I had to admit that I was every bit as subject to such a bias as they were. Having come to that conclusion, I decided to seriously give religion a chance. I visited some local churches, and fell in love with the LDS congregation. I fully committed myself to the church, and was quite active for about a year and a half. I also dedicated myself to study of the faith, which ultimately sowed the seeds of my disillusionment. There were, to be frank, too many holes. For example, the Joseph Smith translation of the account in Exodus where Pharoah hardens his heart seems to contradict the exegesis of that same verse in Hebrews where God hardening Pharoah's heart is discussed. Another example would be in Church history where a secular scholar theoretically verified Joseph Smith's translation of the tablets, while not a single secular scholar I've found confirms his translation of the still extent Book of Abraham. Ultimately, I couldn't find any evidence for Mormonism having any more merit than any of the other 19th century Restorationist traditions. I concluded that the evidence was not compelling that the LDS church represented the one true Church on earth. As a consequence, I stopped attending and began to research where I thought the truth truly lied. Ultimately that inquiry lead me to Catholicism, but that is a subject for another post. :)

Hello everybody, It's nice to meet you all. I'm just your local neighborhood atheist turned Mormon turned Catholic roaming the interwebs. I've been contemplating making the final jump in officially resigning from the LDS church, having essentially left it about two years back, but figured I owed it to all the wonderful people I met during my Mormon days to give it at least one last look before making the plunge. Besides, I'm always looking for an excuse to have a good discussion about religion! :) I look forward to getting to know you all, and God bless!

I suppose I would say that the one common thread running through Christianity is that 2000 years ago Jesus lived, he taught something important for our salvation, and then he died in atonement for our sins. That being said, those things that he taught are both hotly contested and very important. In an ideal world, we would try to convert each other out of a legitimate desire for the salvation of the other, all the while recognizing our own limitations an keeping our minds open to they themselves espouse in the event that we ourselves are the ones who are wrong. For reasons known only to God, we do not live in an ideal world, and often our attempts to bring people to the truth can lose sight of the love with which we should bring others to the truth. Never-the-less, perhaps naively, I like to believe that at the center of even the most hate-filled rhetoric is a sincere desire for the good of the other. Christian unity is the ideal, but to achieve it we must first reach a consensus on what it means to be Christian. May God guide us in the endeavor.