DiscussMormonism.com

Currently, there is a MAD thread whereon Mormons are postulating the reasons some of us go down the "dark road to apostasy".

How I would love to make a reply there! But, I'm afraid I couldn't do it with appropriate civility, so I thought I'd make a few remarks here.

Mormon faithful cannot seem to accept the fact that some members leave the church simply because they no longer believe it to be true. They cannot seem to fathom that some of us were not guilty of unconfessed sin, that we didn't stop praying, that we were not offended by other members or that we didn't stop living all those commandments because we were just to damn lazy.

I can only speak for myself, but I never prayed more fervently or more often in my life than I did while desperately trying to rescue my dying testimony of Mormonism. I never studied my scriptures more diligently! But still, the only answer I got from heaven, if that is indeed from whence the answer came, was that Mormonism was not "true". It just wasn't. The doctrine wasn't correct. Joseph Smith lied. President Hinckley wasn't a prophet. And I couldn't spend even one more day pretending those things were true when they weren't. Those are the answers I got when I prayed and studied my scriptures and read the FARMS material provided by my Bishop.

I tried hard to believe, but for me, the road to apostasy wasn't dark. It was very well lit. And I was utterly compelled to take it.

Perhaps some folks leave the Mormon church because they were offended or lazy or critical of others or prideful, but I didn't. And I'd wager I'm not alone.

Those members who leave Mormonism because they lose their belief in God also do not qualify as sinful, lazy or otherwise fit the narrow-minded qualifications for apostasy outlined by the MAD Mormons.

The Mormon mantra that apostates are lazy, prideful, sinful, rebellious or otherwise faulty is growing tiresome.

KA

KimberlyAnn wrote:

The Mormon mantra that apostates are lazy, prideful, sinful, rebellious or otherwise faulty is growing tiresome.

KA

It seems logical to me that they must assume all the things you mentioned to keep them in their denial that there might be logical reasons we leave. To admit the possibility leaves their "testimony" vulnerable...a risky place to be!

KimberlyAnn wrote:Mormon faithful cannot seem to accept the fact that some members leave the church simply because they no longer believe it to be true. . . The Mormon mantra that apostates are lazy, prideful, sinful, rebellious or otherwise faulty is growing tiresome.

(Here I go again. . .)

Hey KA, have you read the short essay titled The Believer and the Apostate?

It's the single greatest answer to, and analysis of, that particular MA&D thread that's ever been written.

Dr. Shades wrote:

KimberlyAnn wrote:Mormon faithful cannot seem to accept the fact that some members leave the church simply because they no longer believe it to be true. . . The Mormon mantra that apostates are lazy, prideful, sinful, rebellious or otherwise faulty is growing tiresome.

(Here I go again. . .)

Hey KA, have you read the short essay titled The Believer and the Apostate?

It's the single greatest answer to, and analysis of, that particular MA&D thread that's ever been written.

Well, I've read it now, Shades! Thanks.

Who wrote that essay? I didn't see a named author.

KA

Dr. Shades wrote:

KimberlyAnn wrote:Mormon faithful cannot seem to accept the fact that some members leave the church simply because they no longer believe it to be true. . . The Mormon mantra that apostates are lazy, prideful, sinful, rebellious or otherwise faulty is growing tiresome.

(Here I go again. . .)

Hey KA, have you read the short essay titled The Believer and the Apostate?

It's the single greatest answer to, and analysis of, that particular MA&D thread that's ever been written.

Nice link! Yes, as the last line says, it will be interesting to see how this whole process unfolds in this age of information at our finger-tips!

KimberlyAnn wrote:Well, I've read it now, Shades! Thanks.

You read the whole thing in eight minutes (or less)? Damn!

Who wrote that essay? I didn't see a named author.

It was written by Curt van den Heuvel. He used to run a website called "The Hundredth Sheep (the one that got away)," but he hasn't been active on the Internet for years, so rpcman--of 2think.org and lds-mormon.com fame--hosts Curt's site on his own site (sort of like how he also hosts veilworker's old site on LDS temples and all the ordinances therein).

Curt van den Heuvel wrote:
There is quite possibly no greater threat to the believer than the existence of the apostate.

We believe in opposition in all things.

Curt van den Heuvel wrote:
However, the apostate at some point reached the conclusion that the system was intellectually bankrupt, and defected from the faith, either for another tradition, or for a system of freethought. Thus, the apostate cannot exist in the worldview of the believer. There is no place in their psychological makeup for someone who was fully appraised of all the dogma of the tradition, who accepted all its pronouncements implicitly, and yet who later rejected the system. The very existence of such a person poses a threat to the careful mental balancing act in which act believers are engaged.

LDS know that the first example of apostasy was in Heaven. Satan and his angels did not rebel because of greater enlightenment. They went apostate because of pride.

Curt van den Heuvel wrote:
Most religious traditions present two lines of defense. The first is to minimize the possibility of apostasy in the first place.

LDS are taught about apostasy all the time. The first apostasy in Heaven, the apostasy of the Christian church after the death of the apostles, apostates in the early history of the Church.
The second is to reduce the threat that the existence of an apostate poses to the believer’s belief-system.

Curt van den Heuvel wrote:
Over the centuries, many religious leaders have noted that exposure to ideas and arguments from outside a particular system will very often start the believer on the path to apostasy. This has unconsciously resulted in an inherent distrust of independent thought, and even of education in general.

LDS are more educated than any other religious group. And contrary to what is found in other religions, the more educated the LDSs are the higher their participation in the Church. In other religions the more educated the less active.

I will be glad to join in a thread on the examples form Christian literature of the proof vs faith issue. But that is too long for this thread.

Curt van den Heuvel wrote:
In the second line of defense, it is important to minimize the potential damage that can be done to the believer’s faith by the apostate. The first frequently employed strategy is also the most obvious – disassociation. Many religious systems will forbid all contact with the apostate. This tenet is usually strictly enforced, even to the point of threatening believers with excommunication if they knowingly consort with apostates.

LDS do not shun, etc. In fact, we are criticized for trying to bring the lost sheep back. They say they want to be left alone.

Another topic which deserves its own thread is the apostate = sinner idea.

Curt van den Heuvel wrote:
With all of the above in mind, it is quite significant to note that the number of inactive members, or outright apostates, seems to be directly related to the amount of information that is available to the believer.

I would like to see data on this. Remember, the more educated the stronger the member in LDS circles.

Curt van den Heuvel wrote:

The first world is now deeply immersed in an information explosion, due in large part to the exponential growth of the Internet and related information channels. The believer is now able to access information about his own or even competing faiths in mere minutes. He is also able to easily come into contact, and dialogue with adherents of other faiths, as well as former believers in his own tenets. It will be very interesting to see how traditional faith survives in this new era.

It will be interesting. LDS have been very good at utilizing technology.

I'd respond to this thread here but I don't think I can do so with any civility.

The Nehor wrote:I'd respond to this thread here but I don't think I can do so with any civility.

Then don't do it with civility.

As long as you don't use the "S" or the "F" words, you may respond at will.

LDS are more educated than any other religious group.

What do you base this on?

And contrary to what is found in other religions, the more educated the LDSs are the higher their participation in the Church.

What do you base this on?

In other religions the more educated the less active.

What do you base this on?

I'd like to see the study you referenced for the above statements. Please post it on this thread.