The straw that broke the camel's back

[_Runtu]

Often I hear church members attempt to rescue us wayward souls by "resolving our issue" with the church. Many, it seems, believe that we unbelievers have one major issue that prevents us from believing, and if we can just resolve that single issue satisfactorily, we can be brought back into the fold. Of course, it goes without saying that most of them don't believe that our issues with the church are the "real reason" we left.

But the problem is that it's almost never one major issue. For most of us (and I'm going by purely anecdotal evidence from 12 years of interacting with exmormons), the one issue was just the last straw, the last thing that we clung to before the shelf of unresolved issues collapsed under the weight of reason and evidence. So, even if we were to resolve that one issue, we'd still have to deal with all the other evidence, and that's not an easy task. I've seen some apologists attack critics for a "shotgun" approach in which supposedly the critic throws out all the issues at once in hopes that the apologists can't resolve one of them. But the shotgun approach is probably the most honest approach because for most of us, there is indeed a broad and deep set of evidence that calls the church and its claims into question.

I think my own experience is not all that uncommon. I had known about a lot of the problematic parts of the church's claims, but I shelved them in favor of my testimony. I knew I couldn't make the Book of Abraham work, I accepted an "inspired allegory" reading of the Book of Mormon because it clearly wasn't ancient history, and I brushed aside historical nastiness such as the priesthood ban; and still I believed. And then one day a friend called in distress because he had learned about Joseph's practice of polygamy and polyandry and the coercion and lies involved. I suddenly realized that there was no justification for what Joseph did; I had given him a pass for behavior I would not have accepted from anyone else. In an instant it became clear why the Book of Abraham didn't work, why the Book of Mormon wasn't really ancient history, and why the priesthood ban was instituted. It was all man-made.

So, although the "single issue" for me was Joseph's behavior, if I were miraculously to work out a way to absolve Joseph of wrongdoing and accept his practice, I'd still have all the other issues. So, like it or not, only a shotgun approach that makes all of it work would suffice for me.

And don't tell me I just need to pray about it.

[_Yoda]

And don't tell me I just need to pray about it.

Poor Gaz. I'm sure you stole his thunder with that last line. LOL

;)

What bothers me is that what happens more times than not is that members put their judgmental hats on, and simply discount ex-Mormons as wanting to leave because they have some major sin they have either committed, or desperately WANT to commit. LOL

It doesn't occur to them that someone could actually leave based on the lack of logic of the doctrine.

When I came to the realization that the tenets of the Mormon Church...the very tenets which had bothered me for so long, were man-made, it was actually a very freeing experience.

For me to look at the Mormon Church the same way I look at other Christian religions has actually allowed me to find a measure of peace, and actually continue to stay active. It's helped put things in perspective for me.

I utilize the Church as a means to worship Christ. I still believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior. I strive to keep His commandments.

[_Inconceivable]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Gaz is weeping and wailing about that.

If I were to paint with somewhat of a broad brush, I see Mormons fall into just a few categories:

TBM's:

1) Those that only read from church authorized books and heed the warnings of their leaders to steer clear of "anti" literature. They have a few minor issues like poligamy & priesthood for blacks, but because they have swallowed the warnings they have little depth, if any, of understanding. I think most fall into this category - most in leadership positions (including stake presidents, bishops, regional reps, mission presidents) as well as the "less active". Even Gaz would fall into this category, because in spite of his membership in this board and being so close to the information, he will not check sources. He hasn't a flippen clue.

Disaffected:

2) Those that are dissaffected, like myself, Runto, Liz and others here that are dealing with the betrayal of trust in our various ways. Some remaining active with little faith in the leaders/church doctrine but with a belief in Christ, to the other end - discarding all spiritual truth and finding balance of life in atheism.

Apologists:

3) Those that "know" the actual recorded history from even unauthorized church sources (like the JOD etc, journals of faithful members etc.) and have determined that they will hold the Mormon party line in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They tend to be very academic in their approach (as there is an unspoken requirement that to be qualified you must also be "trained for the ministry". They speak little of Jesus' good news, but bundle it as a less significant portion of the whole. I get the impression that most are multigenerational Mormons that believe it is their sacred duty to protect the name of their ancestors inspite of their unrighteous walk.

[_Scottie]

I always said that any 1 issue, in a vaccum, I could probably overlook as just not understanding, or that it was taken out of context or whatever.

But when you have the mountain of evidence against the church, it just gets too hard to overlook everything.

[_Runtu]

I always said that any 1 issue, in a vaccum, I could probably overlook as just not understanding, or that it was taken out of context or whatever.

But when you have the mountain of evidence against the church, it just gets too hard to overlook everything.

I think that's why most apologists prefer to knock down the issues one at a time. Even when they aren't convincing (and, face it, they rarely are), they can say that it's been addressed and answered.

[_The Nehor]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Gaz is weeping and wailing about that.

If I were to paint with somewhat of a broad brush, I see Mormons fall into just a few categories:

TBM's:

1) Those that only read from church authorized books and heed the warnings of their leaders to steer clear of "anti" literature. They have a few minor issues like poligamy & priesthood for blacks, but because they have swallowed the warnings they have little depth, if any, of understanding. I think most fall into this category - most in leadership positions (including stake presidents, bishops, regional reps, mission presidents) as well as the "less active". Even Gaz would fall into this category, because in spite of his membership in this board and being so close to the information, he will not check sources. He hasn't a flippen clue.

Disaffected:

2) Those that are dissaffected, like myself, Runto, Liz and others here that are dealing with the betrayal of trust in our various ways. Some remaining active with little faith in the leaders/church doctrine but with a belief in Christ, to the other end - discarding all spiritual truth and finding balance of life in atheism.

Apologists:

3) Those that "know" the actual recorded history from even unauthorized church sources (like the JOD etc, journals of faithful members etc.) and have determined that they will hold the Mormon party line in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They tend to be very academic in their approach (as there is an unspoken requirement that to be qualified you must also be "trained for the ministry". They speak little of Jesus' good news, but bundle it as a less significant portion of the whole. I get the impression that most are multigenerational Mormons that believe it is their sacred duty to protect the name of their ancestors inspite of their unrighteous walk.

I don't fit in any of those.

[_Runtu]

I don't fit in any of those.

I'm not surprised. I do think there are people who know the history and the problems but nonetheless choose to believe. Most of these people, in my experience, believe because they have had some powerful spiritual experiences that they interpret as supporting belief in Mormonism. Unless I'm reading you wrong, that seems to be the case with you.

I can't begrudge someone's resting their belief on subjective testimony. If it works for you, go for it.

[_Scottie]

I always said that any 1 issue, in a vaccum, I could probably overlook as just not understanding, or that it was taken out of context or whatever.

But when you have the mountain of evidence against the church, it just gets too hard to overlook everything.

I think that's why most apologists prefer to knock down the issues one at a time. Even when they aren't convincing (and, face it, they rarely are), they can say that it's been addressed and answered.

This is also another point that sticks in my graw...

It is fair to say the criticisms have been addressed, but I HATE it when apologists say they have all been answered. Quite simply NOT true.

[_Runtu]

I always said that any 1 issue, in a vaccum, I could probably overlook as just not understanding, or that it was taken out of context or whatever.

But when you have the mountain of evidence against the church, it just gets too hard to overlook everything.

I think that's why most apologists prefer to knock down the issues one at a time. Even when they aren't convincing (and, face it, they rarely are), they can say that it's been addressed and answered.

This is also another point that sticks in my graw...

It is fair to say the criticisms have been addressed, but I HATE it when apologists say they have all been answered. Quite simply NOT true.

If they had been answered, they wouldn't keep coming up, would they? What they really mean is that they've been answered to the apologists' satisfaction, and they have a much lower threshold for satisfactory answers than others do.

[_Always Thinking]

Often I hear church members attempt to rescue us wayward souls by "resolving our issue" with the church. Many, it seems, believe that we unbelievers have one major issue that prevents us from believing, and if we can just resolve that single issue satisfactorily, we can be brought back into the fold. Of course, it goes without saying that most of them don't believe that our issues with the church are the "real reason" we left.

But the problem is that it's almost never one major issue. For most of us (and I'm going by purely anecdotal evidence from 12 years of interacting with exmormons), the one issue was just the last straw, the last thing that we clung to before the shelf of unresolved issues collapsed under the weight of reason and evidence. So, even if we were to resolve that one issue, we'd still have to deal with all the other evidence, and that's not an easy task. I've seen some apologists attack critics for a "shotgun" approach in which supposedly the critic throws out all the issues at once in hopes that the apologists can't resolve one of them. But the shotgun approach is probably the most honest approach because for most of us, there is indeed a broad and deep set of evidence that calls the church and its claims into question.

I think my own experience is not all that uncommon. I had known about a lot of the problematic parts of the church's claims, but I shelved them in favor of my testimony. I knew I couldn't make the Book of Abraham work, I accepted an "inspired allegory" reading of the Book of Mormon because it clearly wasn't ancient history, and I brushed aside historical nastiness such as the priesthood ban; and still I believed. And then one day a friend called in distress because he had learned about Joseph's practice of polygamy and polyandry and the coercion and lies involved. I suddenly realized that there was no justification for what Joseph did; I had given him a pass for behavior I would not have accepted from anyone else. In an instant it became clear why the Book of Abraham didn't work, why the Book of Mormon wasn't really ancient history, and why the priesthood ban was instituted. It was all man-made.

So, although the "single issue" for me was Joseph's behavior, if I were miraculously to work out a way to absolve Joseph of wrongdoing and accept his practice, I'd still have all the other issues. So, like it or not, only a shotgun approach that makes all of it work would suffice for me.

And don't tell me I just need to pray about it.

When faced with ALL the questions about the church, its history, etc., eventually I realized that there is only one simple answer that satisfies every single question about Mormonism (and every other religion out there)!!

That answer is simply that it isn't true.

Once that answer is given space inside your head, it takes hold and that's all there is to it.