DiscussMormonism.com

I was (like asbestosman and many others here) BIC. My heritage is 5th generation Mormon at best and no less than 3rd generation Mormon through the shortest lineage. I was raised Mormon and steeped in Mormonism very thoroughly. Like a good Mormon boy, I headed off to BYU (the one in Provo). Though not my major nor my minor, I took 5 more religion classes than was necessary given my undergraduate tenure at BYU. I served a mission. I defended vigorously the truth claims of JSJr and the LDS Church. Some that knew me then, thought I was a fanatic (yet a few others thought I was too often the devil's advocate). In short, on questions pertaining to Mormonism I was most biased going into them.

Today, I am not only an ex-Mo, but I proudly wear the badge anti-Mormon as does Stak. I have long since shucked off the superstitious, Mormon beliefs that plagued my heritage for generations and my childhood and adolescence. Any important decision I make in life that is not for the express purpose of fulfilling an identified emotional need, I assess in a methodical fashion that includes identifying and discounting the emotional that creeps in. If it is a decision about fulfilling an emotional need, such as to have a life-long companion (my wife) or not, I stripped down what that emotional need is, to its core. Then I have looked to the most advantageous (least costly in other ways) method of fulfilling that need, and indulging no further than is necessary.

I do not make a habit of replowing the same ground. I trust myself, past and present, to rely on the decisions that I've previously made. However, since I rejected Mormonism in the early/mid-1980s, there have been many more facts come tumbling out of the closet. With each fact that is new to me (bad me, not to have known every facet of Mormon history that the Mormon Church worked to hide from us, at least that's the tired refrain from apologists), I add it to the Mormon kettle of my decision where along with other factors, those I've previously learned, I "stir" and see how the Mormon stew now looks. I do not each time a new fact is added, go through all of the steps to remake the decision anew. I trust my prior decisions, and add into account the new fact.

Since first examining Mormonism by putting the 'faith of my fathers' and the 'faith of my youth' (my personal investments in Mormonism) aside and taking a fresh look, examining the messy if not corrupt history and disgusting policies, I have not again felt the need to make a dispassionate examination, assessment and decision devoid of all prior decisions made by me on that topic. To the extent that I rely on my own prior decisions, I confess to the label of bias when taking another look at the Mormon stew, after each new factual ingredient is added.

But I am troubled by the assumption that many TBMs and other defenders make. It is the assumption that when I first made the decision about Mormonism that it is bunk, that I was then biased against Mormonism. I was in that process always cognizant of my pro-Mormon bias, but I did not let the pendulum swing the other way to introducing or resulting in that process an anti-Mormon bias. To the extent that there was bias in that process of making that pivotal decision, it was a pro-Mormon bias, not the anti-Mormon bias assumed by the critics. In fact, I would like to know what they assume that a faith-holding Mormon's anti-Mormon bias would be at the critical, pivotal decision point?

I appreciate the dismissal of my service for a quarter century plus as a dyed in the wool, obedient Mormon as I "never understood" or "really believed" Mormonism. If you are TBM and think that, then you must harbor suspicions about all the other people filling the pews with you on Sundays. There was a critical decision point when despite my pro-Mormon bias, I decided against it.

Try as you might, the desire-to-sin argument does not fit my situation. I did not have a beer or non-marital sex until 5 years after my apostasy. I did not drink a sip of coffee (which I now love and adore) until 11 years after my apostasy.

In sum, as much cognitive dissonance as it will no doubt cause many of you TBMs, I made an informed decision with a pro-Mormon if any bias. The anti-Mormon bias did not come until much later than that reasoned, fact-based decision was made. I did not do so for a lack of understanding. I had read and studied extensively about Mormonism. I did not apostatize in order to sin, which came much later. I apostatized because when I looked at the history and the facts, it did not--and it still does not--add up.

I do not enter into this effort for any other reason than somehow I like you for at least allowing me to amuse you these past few months. I too am anti-Mormon. For all the wrong reasons. I am anti-Mormon because I love the Restoration and know that the true gospel was realized anew for our times by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

I too am 5th generation BIC. But I never matured in my LDS faith before I was given the REAL gospel, the one that Jesus Christ refreshed the world with through Joseph Smith's experience and revelations. Because I was born again of fire and of the Holy Ghost at the age of 18 in 1970 there has never been a moment of second thought. Not even after ALL the LDS people I loved turned against me and sought every occasion to quash every fond expectation of fellowship, respect or even a fair consideration.

The LDS have completely trashed the REAL gospel. And it does not matter a fig if Joseph Smith was trash or NOT. I believe he is getting a bum deal from historians who place NO value on the one thing Joseph Smith got exceedingly correct. The one thing that ALL his revelations establish and enhance. The one thing that matters. And that sure as hell ain't polygamy. This accomplishment is so extraordinary that it Trump's all other considerations of the Prophet's worth.

There is no possibility that this core value of Joseph Smith was weighed in the balance of your decision. Yeah, the LDS Church was hypocrite and I think any soul of anti-hypocrisy by nature would want out. But the way out is not taking down Joseph Smith. Blame is upon the wickedness in high places that do not sustain the core value of the Restoration and in fact set up every possible hindrance to block up the way and see to it that nobody gets close. These are tares that are choking every decent and honorable LDS person to spiritual doom.

The core value of the Restoration is the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost. You know already that this is the number one consideration of the Book of Mormon's spiritual message. It is also the most important consideration in the establishment of Zion and therefore, with that clarity, it is also the number one consideration of the entire Doctrine and Covenants. The Book of Moses treats it with the baptism of Adam. The JST is therefore serving the interest of this one primary core value of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. IT IS the gospel of Jesus Christ.

How does a Con Man discover correctly that core value and lace it into his deceptions? NOBODY in the early 1800s had the slightest clue about how to come unto Christ and the flat out meekness, where one BELIEVES that they merit NOTHING of God as they come unto him with full purpose of heart willing to suffer all, and die to all, to have some hope, by faith, in prayers and pleadings with a broken heart and contrite spirit, submitting to God this way acceptably. The pride of the world had for centuries remained so high minded assuming God's favors above this sort of meekness that the accomplishment of the gospel was/is impossible.

You must be born again to see this. Joseph saw it and taught it and revealed it better than any man before his time. That is a lot to boast of.

It it took a treasure hunter for God to get this back into the world, so what?
If it took a kid who liked to drink, I do not care.
I am one who does know his heart, for Got put the same heart in me. And everyone around him is much more suspect of foul play than he. I know that is how people react to true saints. They simply cannot help it.

Do I think he took advantage of little girls? NO. That is stupid.
He was virtuous all his days. He sealed lots of people to him for reasons we do not know and might have got carried away with the possibilities before he comprehended better what the ultimate doctrine was all about. He was only eighteen years into the Church before he was gone. That is no time at all. He was a work in progress and would have corrected all the sealing people to people nonsense if he had the time to come to the next conclusion about exaltation and the continuation of the seeds.

It was the very next step in the economy of God that exceeded his grasp. He would have caught it in time. But the people had rejected the core value of the Restoration already. It did not happen. So Satan got a huge advantage to steer the lost Gentile Mormon experience his way, serving himself proud.

Imagine the different world we would be living in IF the Gentiles had taken from Joseph Smith the core value of the Restoration to heart and become a real and true Zion with the power of God resting upon them day and night.
This was BEFORE the lying wonders of Satan, (the electro-mechanical age) had been much invented. Zion would have turned the entire world in a different direction. Satan would have been bound before all the filth of our modern world polluted the earth. Christ would have cut short his return for the righteousness of it all.

The woes of the Last Days lay at the feet of the Gentiles who sinned against the Gospel. That very truth the Prophet Joseph Smith restored by his own faith in calling it down upon himself. Praise to that man.

sock puppet wrote: I appreciate the dismissal of my service for a quarter century plus as a dyed in the wool, obedient Mormon as I "never understood" or "really believed" Mormonism. If you are TBM and think that, then you must harbor suspicions about all the other people filling the pews with you on Sundays. There was a critical decision point when despite my pro-Mormon bias, I decided against it.

...

I did not apostatize in order to sin, which came much later.

I realized years ago that those kinds of comments/beliefs on the part of LDS members say way more about members than they ever did about apostates.

Maintaining belief isn't just about bearing your testimony on a regular basis. It also involves a narrative about those who no longer believe. Neither the testimony nor the narrative has anything to do with reality and everything to do with proactive ignorance.

Some Schmo wrote:***

You just wanted to get my name off this huh?

Nightlion wrote:

Some Schmo wrote:***

You just wanted to get my name off this huh?

It's not all about you, man.

Besides, seeing you as the last poster often makes me open a thread I might not otherwise view. Why so hard on yourself?

Ironically, some schmo, it is the defenders that ask for intellectual respect from the apostates who have embraced reason over mysticism. They ask for the intellectual 'latitude' to be accorded respect for having reasoned away doubts surrounding their decision to believe.

Yet many of those very defenders feel so threatened by the notion that someone could know as much as they about Mormon doctrine/teachings, examine them critically, and choose not to believe, that those defenders have to ascribe to the apostate either a purposeful apostasy to accommodate a desire to sin or relegate the apostate's knowledge of Mormon doctrine/teachings to be less than that held by the defender.

These defenders ask for intellectual respect concerning their decision to believe or continue to believe, but refuse that some intellectual respect to apostates. Of course, there are some defenders who do not bear this hypocrisy and can live either with the notion that their belief rests solely on faith and not reason, or can respect that the apostate made an informed decision against believing. However, I find that it is more common to find an internet defender who cries for intellectual respect for his decision to believe, but is certain that all apostates either never fully or correctly understood Mormonism or left in order to sin. I suppose that is just a by-product of the elitism that redemptive religions like Mormonism breed in many of their adherents.

Some Schmo wrote:It's not all about you, man.

Besides, seeing you as the last poster often makes me open a thread I might not otherwise view. Why so hard on yourself?

Sorry, I was just anxious for Sox to see it.

If not all about me how can I breathe when all breath has been taken from me?

sock puppet wrote:Ironically, some schmo, it is the defenders that ask for intellectual respect from the apostates who have embraced reason over mysticism. They ask for the intellectual 'latitude' to be accorded respect for having reasoned away doubts surrounding their decision to believe.

Yet many of those very defenders feel so threatened by the notion that someone could know as much as they about Mormon doctrine/teachings, examine them critically, and choose not to believe, that those defenders have to ascribe to the apostate either a purposeful apostasy to accommodate a desire to sin or relegate the apostate's knowledge of Mormon doctrine/teachings to be less than that held by the defender.

These defenders ask for intellectual respect concerning their decision to believe or continue to believe, but refuse that some intellectual respect to apostates. Of course, there are some defenders who do not bear this hypocrisy and can live either with the notion that their belief rests solely on faith and not reason, or can respect that the apostate made an informed decision against believing. However, I find that it is more common to find an internet defender who cries for intellectual respect for his decision to believe, but is certain that all apostates either never fully or correctly understood Mormonism or left in order to sin. I suppose that is just a by-product of the elitism that redemptive religions like Mormonism breed in many of their adherents.

Is this my answer or are you still getting around to it? This wont do.

sock puppet wrote:Ironically, some schmo, it is the defenders that ask for intellectual respect from the apostates who have embraced reason over mysticism. They ask for the intellectual 'latitude' to be accorded respect for having reasoned away doubts surrounding their decision to believe.

Yet many of those very defenders feel so threatened by the notion that someone could know as much as they about Mormon doctrine/teachings, examine them critically, and choose not to believe, that those defenders have to ascribe to the apostate either a purposeful apostasy to accommodate a desire to sin or relegate the apostate's knowledge of Mormon doctrine/teachings to be less than that held by the defender.

These defenders ask for intellectual respect concerning their decision to believe or continue to believe, but refuse that some intellectual respect to apostates. Of course, there are some defenders who do not bear this hypocrisy and can live either with the notion that their belief rests solely on faith and not reason, or can respect that the apostate made an informed decision against believing. However, I find that it is more common to find an internet defender who cries for intellectual respect for his decision to believe, but is certain that all apostates either never fully or correctly understood Mormonism or left in order to sin. I suppose that is just a by-product of the elitism that redemptive religions like Mormonism breed in many of their adherents.

Yes.

However, it's only ironic if you expect consistency from these guys. They are, after all, apologists, and tend to argue what's most convenient to their cause at any given moment.

Some Schmo wrote:

sock puppet wrote: I appreciate the dismissal of my service for a quarter century plus as a dyed in the wool, obedient Mormon as I "never understood" or "really believed" Mormonism. If you are TBM and think that, then you must harbor suspicions about all the other people filling the pews with you on Sundays. There was a critical decision point when despite my pro-Mormon bias, I decided against it.

...

I did not apostatize in order to sin, which came much later.

I realized years ago that those kinds of comments/beliefs on the part of LDS members say way more about members than they ever did about apostates.

Maintaining belief isn't just about bearing your testimony on a regular basis. It also involves a narrative about those who no longer believe. Neither the testimony nor the narrative has anything to do with reality and everything to do with proactive ignorance.

Quoted for truth.