Why are you here?

[_Mad Viking]

If this has been previously brought up... please forgive me.

I think I have a pretty good grasp on why the various non-believers come to boards like this. But I can only venture a guess as to why a believer would come here. I know why I would have come to a board like this back in my believing days (engage in vigorous debates with the goal of proving my opponents wrong). So... Why do you believers come here?

EDIT: I originally intented to post this to the Terrestrial Board. I've copied it over there. Apologies.

[_subgenius]

.....engage in vigorous debates with the goal of proving my opponents wrong.....

on the contrary, it seems that most here (believing or not) come here to prove themselves "right"

[_UnicornMan]

I come here because of the abuse I feel I've suffered within the Church over the years. At least here I can express my opinions without ostracization. Also, the tight control on what we teach and learn about in the formal Church makes this a much more enlightening place to be.


By visiting this and other forums, I have learned about all kinds of books that I never knew existed, as well as Church history about which the official Church seems to have amnesia. So, I learned why Joseph Smith was incarcerated (not on a trumped up charge as Truth Restored would have us believe, but due to destroying a printing press). I learned about a book called Mormon America which gave a pretty fair view of the Church based on the naked facts. Rough Stone Rolling is on my list of books now. I learned about the Strengthening the Members committee, which I think was something I knew little about.

And it was online that I learned about the Mountain Meadows Massacre -- even after serving a mission and officially serving as a representative of the Church -- never did I learn about the facts of our history except through the sanitized filter of our correlation committee and other sanitizing agents in our religion.

Feelin' a might betrayed at this point...so, I come here to learn more, and to talk, and to get a more balanced view of our religion.

I also had three really nasty experiences in the Church which made me question if they really believe all the supernatural and eternal promises they make to us on Sunday. It seems as you get one step removed from the purely volunteer service they want from you, our hard core values don't seem to mean much anymore.

And have you figured out -- I've grown cynical of the Church after 27 years of it?

[_bcuzbcuz]

I come here to renew my sense of marvel. I marvel at my own gullibility in learning, following, preaching, and trying to live accordingly to the pile of horse manure I was fed from the Mormon church.

It is important to know where my own sense of morals and standards have their base. It is important to be able to step back and judge less harshly the trivial pursuits of religions knowing that at one time I truly thought I knew what truth was.

It is vital to my own sanity to come here and have a good laugh at what I once assumed was wisdom.

There is a sadness, too, in contemplating that I passed on to my children many of my misconceptions of what life and religion was all about. So far I have not learned to temper my self criticism to how readily I swallowed; hook, line and sinker, the string of lies and mis-truths I espoused to myself and others.

I was an apologist for Mormonism in my own head. Many things that rang untrue or that I even knew to be untrue were somehow glossed over, pushed to a back burner, in my thoughts. It took a long time before I was ready and able to confront those issues.

So I come here to marvel, to delight and rejoice in being free from bewildering doctrine and practices. There but for the grace of "Freemasonry Exposed" go I.

[_Blixa]

I wrote a lengthy response to this kind of question once, here.

[_moksha]

This board does not treat me in the same manner that Joseph Smith once noted a certain congregation of Methodists treated some old man. Apparently those particular Methodists all dog piled on the old man and then forced him out. Joseph would have none of that behavior repeated in his Church. Although I am LDS, the really straight lace Mormon discussion boards have forced me out of their congregations. So you might say I appreciate the kinder attitudes and acceptance that this board provides.

[_Smokestoomuch]

I am an ex-mormon but, more importantly, I'm also an avid truther. I was converted to the LDS Church when I was 20 and I never really bought it. That lasted about 6 months. For the past 15 years, the world has been an onion for me. Once I understand the Church to my satisfaction, I'll move on to something else.

Of course, the Church isn't going to come right out and tell you what it is, so you have to eliminate all the things you're sure it is not. Based on the Church's behavior, its primary function seems to be tithe expansion and retention. I have a hard time calling the Mormons Christian soley because the leaders are not charitable with the billions in tithe they collect annually.

And then there's my brother who's been an active Church member for the past 40+ years. He's narcissistic*, as many Church members are. Any organization that tells it's members they are "special", "chosen" and "better", breeds narcissism like mold on old cheese. I've come to believe the Church is also responsible for other mental health issues I see in my brother. At 60-years old, he finds it impossible to tell the truth... about anything. He's a compulsive liar. My guess is that this what sometimes happens when a person makes a decision to defend things he knows are not true... and he DOES know it's not true. My last conversation with him, he made the statement, "No church can withstand close scrutiny". Ergo, he knows. He knows the Church is BS and yet he stays. I really don't get it.

My brother supports every status quo lie on the map. He will go to great lengths to defend the most indefensible lies... lies that have nothing to do with religion. He either believes his support of corruption serves him currently or his support of corruption will serve him in the future. Either way, he's totally DELUSIONAL. He has biographies of LDS leaders strewn all about his house, so, in his mind, that's probably where he thinks he's headed. Anyway, I'm here to understand my goofy LDS brother a little better too.

*My brother is narcissistic at the least. Some might call him sociopathic or psychopathic. Anyway, he's somewhere on that continuum.

[_GR33N]

I come here because I am learning so much more about church history from the "other" side. :)

[_harmony]

I came here originally because my wounds were difficult to deal with and I could freely express myself here.

I stay here because I am a member of this community and I love this community just as a I love my ward.

[_canpakes]

I'm here because I am now married into a TBM family (although my s/o is definitely on the 'LDS lite' side of things) and attempts to discuss the LDS position or doctrine on any subject with relatives can be a dicey proposition.

To critically examine LDS positions seems to be interpreted by many LDS as an attack on their beliefs. I 'get' that rationale and I understand why someone who has grown up in the church would find it irritating to see that someone outside their belief system doesn't just ignore the warty things and doesn't just jump right into the belief that J. Smith was a True Prophet and that all of the explanations commonly offered within the contemporary 'acceptable' Mormon dialectic should be accepted at face value. But, I don't know how to operate under any other system than wanting to know the rationale behind why one should believe in 'x' versus 'y' - otherwise, it seems that anything presented must be believed at face value. To turn that concept back on to my LDS family, it would be like asking them to accept Islam without question as a 'true religion' and Mohammed as inerrant. I don't think that such a proposition would be any more attractive to them than it would be to me.

My in-laws are truly great folks and the last thing that I want to do is alienate them so my discussions with them usually result in my letting them say whatever they'd like with little or no challenge from me. I'm discovering, over time, that there seems to be a vast body of 'anything goes' within the LDS story that seems to have developed over the years as a result of those in positions of authority within the Church trying to 'explain' virtually everything connected to the their theological position (first derived from J. Smith, then by later leaders, then defended via constructing ever more complex scenarios and additional layers of story), with most of those explanations being accepted by the typical member, to be passed along and related as a matter of either 'folklore' or doctrine, with little to differentiate which category truly applies at any moment.

Discussions about any of these things might, at any moment, suddenly end when we get about a minute past the well-repeated talking points and try to examine the logic or crux of any of these positions, be they more esoteric or foundational to the LDS story. I freely admit to being more cynical about theological things than my relatives and am not convinced that the mere mention of something by someone in the position of 'Prophet, Seer and Revelator' guarantees any content from the Mind of God. It may be sound in content and it may mean well, but that does not necessarily give a divine pedigree that cannot be challenged if there are questionable elements.

An example of this was when a recent discussion of everyday events veered into mention of the pre-existence model, which was then expanded upon to include the concept of America as a pre-destined land to allow Freedom of Religion, therefore allowing the Book of Mormon to come forth, with Columbus in the pre-existence as a spirit promising to go forth and play his role in the flesh in discovering the Americas, provided, of course, that the rest of those awaiting their turn at a mortal body would follow and practice - in the flesh - those ordinances that the Church deems a requirement such as Baptism for the Dead but that had yet to be instituted, so that Columbus could finally be accepted into the CK, even though his spirit was presumably hanging around in a similar place prior to his assignment.

This is the sort of story that just begs further examination. It comes from somewhere, and I've heard it presented by more than a few faithful members not related to me, so it's being taught somewhere, although it presumably is not doctrine, yet it is so important a story as to be inextricable from the overall LDS belief system. Yet, when I hear this story, what I interpret is that this is a concept created to support key ideas (BotD) that may lack a good enough rationale or logic but which are now connected to requirements that ultimately benefit the existence of the Church in a corporate sense (to do baptisms, you must be a Temple Recommend holder, to obtain the latter you must pay your full tithe; so, look at the sacrifice of those in the Pre-Existence and don't abandon them - pay your tithe and go to the Temple). It seems that these stories are crafted, repeated, and layers are added as appropriate to reinforce the end result - a faithful body of members that will not critically examine those stories but will do what they must to be considered as living in Harmony with the Gospel which, coincidentally, financially supports the Church.

Yet, it isn't my place to express this opinion to my family members. As ldsfaqs pointed out in another thread, there is little to be gained for 'good' when one tears down what another finds uplifting, and I do not personally believe that invalidating the very system that is responsible for and is intertwined with virtually every aspect of my in-laws lives will make them 'happier' in any way. At the same time, though, I want to explore where the LDS rationale stems from and the history behind these positions because I ultimately find myself treading a middle ground that has the capacity to be uncomfortable for my in-laws and s/o on future occasions, and boundaries must be established.

So, I will restrict my questions about LDS theology and history, beyond the simplest, to this forum for now. No need to inflict them upon my extended family.

Besides, from what I've seen so far during my very short time here, most folks on MD seem to be quite well educated in their position and are entertaining to read. A forum filled with tough-skinned participants displaying wit and offering intellectual, engaging commentary is hard to ignore.